"Logical. Flawlessly logical." -- Spock

That quote is from one of my favorite original Star Trek episodes, "Amok Time." That's the episode where Mr. Spock goes into his 7-year mating cycle and must return to Vulcan to join with T'Pring, his chosen one. It is a time of intense emotion; emotion, of course, contrary to Vulcan pride. Rather than marrying Spock, T'Pring invokes kalifee (the challenge) -- Spock must fight for T'Pring, and she gets to choose the challenger. Her preferred mate is Stonn, a cold-faced brute. She chooses Captain Kirk to challenge Spock. It is a fight to the death.

The fight sequence was typical Star Trek -- incredible blows to the face and nobody with so much as a bloody lip. Spock "wins," but it is a mirage -- McCoy had injected Kirk to simulate death. The battle scene is backed up by Khatchaturian's Sabre Dance.

Note: want to plumb the depths of a real miracle? Explain how McCoy always had exactly what he needed, even thought his medical kit was the size of a Palm Pilot.

Devastated by the belief he's killed not only his captain but his friend, Spock queries T'Pring about her decision choose Kirk as the kalifee.

Note: The query? select reason, explanation from T'Pring where logic_rating='100';

Her response was that by choosing Kirk, she wins regardless:

• If Kirk won, he would not want her, and she would have Stonn.
• If Spock won, there was a good probability he would no longer desire T'Pring given his killing Kirk. He would leave to face Star Fleet justice and she would get Stonn.
  
• If Spock won and still desired T'Pring, she would get Spocks name, he would return to Star Fleet, she would still have Stonn.

Spock looks at T'Pring and replies, "Logical. Flawlessly logical."

And that's the tie to this post -- I'm not sure I see T'Pring's logic as "flawless." There are several holes in it:

• Kirk might have wanted her. She was a hottie and he was a man with few moral inhibitors.
• If Spock still wanted her but then returned to Star Fleet, she would "have Stonn," but in an adulterous fashion. Given the rigid ritual of the mating ceremony, my guess is Vulcans also had a strict sense of morality regarding adultery. Plus, I have a theory: Spock was really a Eunich. Four season of Nurse Chapel throwing herself at him and not once so much as a raised eyebrow of curiosity.

Similarly, I'm not sure I see your logic as "flawless." Allow me now to elaborate.

* * *
You wrote: "The Earth should be the centre of the Universe in a Biblical world. Why would it exist out on the dull arm of some non-descript spiral galaxy structure? I don't think the Bible claims the Earth is at the centre of the Universe. Reading the text though, it would appear to me that the assumption is that the Earth is at the centre and that the Earth is a flat circular object (reference in Isaiah)."

So much to respond to here ...

• My original line of inquiry focused around whether you were diminishing the Bible's authority based on a belief it claimed the earth was the center of the universe. A reply that the Earth should be the center is a whole different thing, and leaves the authority of the Bible unchallenged.
• "Why would it exist out on the dull arm of some non-descript galaxy stucture?" The book "Case for a Creator" touches on this subject. The theory is that this is actually an ideal place to support life, and to observe the rest of the universe. If we were closer to the center of the Milky Way, various radiation effects and super novas would make supporting life on this earth untenable. And we are in a relatively sparse arm of the Milky Way, a vantage point from which we are able to view considerable portions of the universe; the theory being that God intended us to explore His creation.
• "... it would appear to me that the assumption is that the Earth is at the centre and that the Earth is a flat circular object." At the time of the writing of Isaiah it was fairly well known by scholars that the earth was a sphere. I'm not sure which passage in Isaiah you're referring to, but I suspect whatever it is, it does not explicitely state the earth is flat. This is probably another case of allegorical reference.

* * *
You wrote: "In which case when exactly will Christ come back to fix the creation?"

Answer: I don't know. Be very suspicious of anyone who claims to know. Jesus himself said that the Father did not reveal the time even to him. It is one of the few unequivocal statements in the Bible, yet it is one of the things some fundamentalist cling to in a deperate attempt to determine the time.

You wrote: "This smells suspiciously like a selection effect."

My response: Say what? Help me with that one.

* * *
You wrote: "If there are not other life forms in the Universe then it is an amazing waste of space. We're arrogant enough to think we're the only ones?"

I'm not sure I'm stated without doubt that we're the only ones. I'm simply saying that it's equally unclear that there definitely is other life. Who really knows? As for it being an amazing waste of space ... well, take that up with God. There's an enormous waste of space just within our solar system.

* * *
On miracles ... there's a set of basic questions that needs to be asked:

Do you believe there is there such a thing as the supernatural invading our natural space? If not, why not? Or are all things natural events, some simply unexplainable at the present time? If so, do you believe there is a "supernatural?"

There are fundamentally important questions because it establishes the starting point of the discussion. It would be an interesting discussion.

* * *
You wrote: "And your example does not cover the pacifist buddhist who does much good in his life but still goes to hell for not believing on the Christ."

That assumes the pacifist buddhist who "does much good" is justified in God's sight by his works and deeds, but that God, bound by his rules, must cast him into eternal fire. What about the possibility that the pacifist buddhist is by his very nature as a man woefully sinful compared to God's Holy nature. Maybe Isaiah 64:6 is onto something: "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away." (NIV, emphasis added)

With this point we're smack at the center of Christian theology. The doctrine of inherent sinfulness is a lynchpin around which the Christian faith revolves. There are two elements that have to be considered:

1. The Holy nature of God. I suspect many of us diminish the glory of this, and think that we as humans are not that far removed from God's glory. The Bible teaches that in fact we are vastly inferior.
2. If mankind was capable of doing well enough to be without sin for a few moments, or perhaps hours, or even perhaps days, a question arises: has the person attained perfection and total sinlessness across the entire span of his existence? If not, then how to deal with the fact he has sinned and in the face of God's perfect Holiness how should that sin be dealt with?

At its very core, that's the Gospel message: we are sinful. Our attempts at righteousness fall far short of the perfect standard set by God. We are incapable of achieving perfection. God, in his mercy and love, addressed the problem by becoming incarnate in the form of Jesus; a man perfectly sinless, and sacrificed himself as a blanket payment for the sins of mankind. All we need do is believe that it is so and trust in Christ's saving work.

That's the Christian faith at its core. To believe that man is capable of earning his way to salvation through acts of righteousness is at basic odds with this. The two are mutually exclusive. In fact, the Christian faith is mutually exclusive with all other faiths:

• Either Christianity is True and all other faiths are wrong, or
  
• Christianity is False and one of the other faiths is right, or
• All faiths are wrong and we haven't figured out what is True

But it is not possible for Christianity and some other faith tradition to be true at the same time. The Christian doctrine does not provide this.

That is the choice people face. Christ left us with no middle ground.

Some might say that that's arrogant and intolerant. But that's fuzzy thinking ... there are lots of things in this life that are mutually exclusive -- one can be right by not both. I am up-front stating that one "state" of the "finite state machine" (geek!) is that Christianity is false. That's where "faith" comes in -- believing that is in fact True. But to believe Christianity is True necessarily implies believing the others are false. (And the challenge as a Christian is to believe the others are false and not be a boorish, arrogant fool about it; but rather loving and gracious -- salt and light by Christ's words.)

* * *
You wrote: "This leaves us with a problem with the Christian view of man 'falling' does it not? How did the pre-fall perfect DNA get into the "sinful" state without genetic engineering? I've not even considered this before."

To respond to this necessarily means I need to venture hip-deep in the lake of speculation. Who really knows, other than God himself? But let me build a case based on Genesis (for that is all we have to go on with regard to God's plan "in the beginning.")

• Initially Adam and Eve did not face the prospect of death. Had they not chosen to sin, they presumably would still be living in God's perfectly created world.
• The "fall" is itself somewhat of a mystery. How a decision by Adam could introduce inherent sinfulness to all subsequent generations. But that's the doctrine. Choose to dismiss it if one wishes, but that's what the Christian faith is built upon.
  
• In one sense it appears that the "fall" involved the suspension of God's sustaining influence to maintain perfection. Here's where we get into a deep mystery ... the introduction of corrosive forces -- "non-perfection," if you will -- was that a creative act by God, or was that a case where God simply permitted Satan room to roam? Genesis leads us to understand that Satan was already in his fallen state at the time of Adam and Eve. The other parts of the Bible lead us to believe that the earth is Satan's princely domain ... until the second coming of Christ, that is.
  
• I suppose it is possible that the explanation for the corrupt DNA is this: upon Adam's decision to sin (to "fall from Grace" -- or to step outside God's protective umbrella), Adam ventured from God's world to Satan's world. God still has sovereignty over all things, but permits Satan to do certain things (this is what makes the Book of Job so challenging).
  
• Part of Satans work might have been to introduce molecular mutations at the DNA level.
• If you chart the life expectancy of the OT characters, the graph line trends downward from the 900-year range for Adam, Noah, etc. to 120 for Moses to "three score and ten" by the time the Psalms were written. The cummulative effect of corrosive mutation on God's originally perfect DNA?

And there I'll step out of the pool of wild speculation and return to some firmer footing.

Bottom line:

• I know that no matter how hard I try, I never achieve perfection.
• I sense that God is more Holy than even I can imagine.
• I have a strong sense I can't approach God's holiness in my present state.
• I have a strong sense that if I were to approach God, it would be only by his doing.
• I choose to believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Bible to reveal God to me.
• The Bible tells me God provided a way to him through Christ.
• I choose to believe that is the Truth
  
• What I am left with is a struggle to understand what those two choices mean in terms of application within my life.
  

And on that note, may you have a blessed Lord's day brother!