- The Who's "Can't Explain" is their song I once read contains an excellent illustration of why Keith Moon's drumming really was the heart of their sound. At the end of the third verse there's a line that goes, "I know what it means, but ..." and then there's one beat where the instruments hang in suspense. Then out of nowhere comes Moon, with two triplets in rapid succession, like "rifle shots" was the description I'd read. There was nothing predictable about Moon's drumming. It was, as someone I know once explained, one long sustained drum solo.
- Dogs are wonderful. I would like another dog, but like you, I want to wait until I am better able to care for them.
- You wrote: "The Earth is not at the physical centre of the Universe and everything does not go around it." I'm not sure the Bible makes that claim. Are you thinking of a particular passage that seems to suggest that?
- You wrote: "Human beings have been around a long time, mitochondrial DNA has reliably and reproducibly shown us that the first human woman lived at least 250,000 years ago, in Africa." My response: "Okay." This is only troubling if one assumes the Bible claims the earth to be much younger than that. I'm not sure it does. By the way, there's considerable debate among very scholarly Bible authorities over the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1. For example, a careful reading of Genesis 1 yields many things that would argue against it being a literal 24-hour period. Here's one: in Genesis 1:5 the term "day" and "night" is introduced. It's not until Genesis 1:16 -- the fourth "day" -- that God creates the Sun and the Moon and the stars.
- You wrote: "Why would the Son of the Creator appear so recently in historical time? (It is much more believable that he appeared halfway from now since time began, as given in the Creationist view)" Ah, now for this I've heard an explanation, and one that seems quite plausible to me. The timing of the arrival of Jesus coincided exactly with two other key developments that would facilitate the spreading of the Gospel: 1) a language used as "common denominator" among different peoples at that time -- Greek. In that sense, it was very much like English is today. And 2), a series of Roman roads that enabled the more rapid transport of travelers from place to place. Had Christ appeared at the time of Abraham, for instance, it's quite possible the Gospel would vanished. Now the interesting question is: why not later? Why not 2005, where jet aircraft and the Internet would have facilitated an even more rapid dispersal? My heart tells me we're way, way, way too jaded today. If Christ appeared in downtown Seattle today, he'd be ignored.
- Regarding the "Jesus Effect" and the speed of light. You're assuming there are other life forms in the universe, and you're assuming God created them "in his image" in the same manner. There's lots of life right here on earth that the message of Christ is not intended for -- my late dog, for example. It's also possible that we are in fact a unique little habitable dot in the universe. The odds may appear low that that is true ... then again, if the argument is to be believed that the odds are pretty low that even Earth exists, then maybe we are unique.
- You wrote: "Why bother creating a Universe that God knew would develop this thing 'sin' that he found abhorrent?" That is, admittedly, a mystery. The doctrine of Omniscience indicates God knew man would choose sin and create a fallen world. When then go forward? I just don't know.
- You wrote: "And why does he not perfect his Creation?" The Bible promises He will, after the second coming of Christ.
- You wrote: "Given the state of philosophy and science 2000 years ago The Bible becomes much more believable." Why? Because they were a superstitious lot, unaware of things like DNA and quantum mechanics? What particular Christian "miracle" do you think is explainable today that wasn't then? The empty tomb? The many witnesses to Christ's resurrected body? Plus, from what I can gather, scientists are quickly coming to a point where the more they discover, the more they're left unable to really explain things.
- You wrote: "If God is Abba then he is one who can bear to see his children cast into the lake of fire." He longs for every one of his created beings to be saved through the atoning work of his son Jesus. What I think you're suggesting is that if he was a truly loving God, he would grant a blanket pardon over everyone. That's the position taken by Universalists, who believe that everyone shall ultimately be saved. That's one way to look at it, though not the Bible's way to look at it. Let me ask you ... if you had a child who mercilessly abused you -- beat you, stole from you, maimed and killed others, had zero regard for you as a parent or person, and further expressed or exhibited absolutely no remorse or regret for his evil ways -- would you think, "Aw ... he's so cute, I love him so much. I think I'll deed my house to him?" Or would the sins he committed require some restitution -- a payment for the sins committed -- and some sign of remorse on his part?
Now, as to your "Lewisism" ...
First, see ... ya' gotta be careful bashing on my bro' C.S., 'cuz he's from my 'hood.
Second, your argument about DNA conjures up a ton of counter arguments. First and foremost, it is absolutely imperative it be established where in the world that "programming" of DNA came from. Because all other arguments spill out from that:
- If our DNA -- indeed, our entire existence -- is the product of pure materialist chance -- then our DNA would have no such notion of "struggling to survive" or the possibility of the sun burning up in 6 billion years. This is one of my pet-peeves against proponents of Darwinian evolution: they ascribe to the process some kind of intent, or a goal towards which evolution is working. If we are the product of pure chance -- with no higher designer -- than an "intent" at the molecular level of DNA is not possible.
- If our DNA is the product of God's programming, then it might very well be programmed for survival, and for some reason only He knows. Of course, that would then beg the question why our survival instincts lead us to do things otherwise categorized as "sinful." Another explanation is that originally our DNA was perfect, and that our instincts weren't quite so brutish. But then we experienced our fall into sinfulness, and the rest is what we observe -- awful behavior, cancer, sickness, etc.
You wrote: "That's what Lewis did, he argued from a standpoint that assumed the reader believed in such things as God and Sin." In a sense, yes -- he used the first chapter of "Mere Christianity" to establish that premise, and then used that to argue the remainder of his points. Now I'll readily admit that to someone who honestly believes that there is absolutely no God (a pure atheist) the idea of Grace and Sin are meaningless. But to be quite frank, I don't believe there really is such a person. I think there are a lot of people who claim to be atheists, but I doubt deep in their hearts their conviction is quite so certain. But I can't know that. It's just my guess.
What I was getting at with my statement about Christianity was that it, more than any other philosophy or outlook, best explains the basic questions we all struggle with:
- Where did I come from?
- Why am I here?
- Is there a purpose to my life?
- What happens after I die?
I'll readily admit that to someone seeking incontrovertible evidence -- something they can touch, feel, see and know for certain -- then Christianity isn't going to do it. As I stated before, there comes a point where an extension of faith (defined quickly as belief and trust) is required. We do that all the time for all manner of things ... I do not see why the extension of faith to believe in Christ is any different.
Well, there is one difference ... sometimes I wonder if there is such a reluctance to have faith in God for fear what He may ask of us in return. I will confess that is a stumbling block for me. There is much I want to control and not be held accountable for. Unfortunately, Christ's offer of salvation comes with a demand: that we surrender to him as our Lord as well. And that, dear friend, is a bitter pill for some of us (me) to swallow.
Grace and peace
No comments:
Post a Comment