Cornerstone # 4 - The Nature of Man

First, let me recap my first three cornerstones:

1. God's revelation in nature and in our conscience -- the key point here is that God is not a hidden God. He has chosen to reveal himself to us in a general sense. But this revelation does not take us to Christ, so more in needed.
2. God's special revelation in Scripture -- because God's general revelation is insufficient for an understanding of God's nature and his desire for us his creation, God chose to reveal himself in our written word. You and I have argued over whether Scripture is inerrant. I will admit freely that believing the Bible to be inerrant is an act of faith. I believe that because I am not certain how one can establish a foundation of faith in Jesus Christ in the face of no confidence in the Bible being true.
3. The nature of God: Holy, different, set apart -- the key here is that while we may have been created "in God's image" (that is, possessing qualities similar in nature to him), it would be a mistake to assume we are "like God." The chasm that separates God from us is enormous; He is utterly perfect and beyond our comprehension; we are by comparison nothing. Having a sense of God's Holy nature helps us develop a sense of reverence for him. Absent reverence, I'm not sure a trusting faith in Christ is possible.

That leads me to the 4th Cornerstone:

The Nature of Man - Inherently Sinful

This is not a popular topic with contemporary society. We wish to hold that while we may do bad things on occasion, we are, overall, not that bad.

The problem with this thinking is that it allows us to hold out the glimmer of hope that we might have salvation despite our shortcomings, as if God will look upon us and say, "Oh, that's okay. I'll give you a pass just because I know you tried." Many people believe this. But the Bible doesn't teach that, and the Christian faith is definitely not based on that.

And that's why this is a cornerstone: only by finally coming to understand that we are inherently sinful -- sinful beyond our ability to fix -- do we come to a point where we give up trying and fall upon God's mercy, offered through Christ crucified and resurrected.

That's the definition of a "Christian" -- one who trusts in Jesus Christ's atoning work for our salvation, without hope in any other method of gaining God's forgiving Grace, and thus trusting in Christ as our savior we bow in obedience to his Lordship over us.

But is it true? Are we really that bad? The answer is yes, but we can only really grasp that when we compare ourselves to our best comprehension of God's Holiness. If God's true Holy nature is properly understood, we will see ourselves by comparison to be vastly inferior to him. How do we know that God is Holy? Because the Bible tells us this. How can we trust the Bible? Because we believe it to be God's written revelation. How do we know God wishes to reveal himself to us? Because we see evidence of his revelation in nature and in our consciences.

Those are my four cornerstones so far:

• God's general revelation -- suggesting he wishes to reveal himself
• God's special revelation -- in Scripture
• God's nature -- Holy, as revealed in Scripture
• Our nature -- inherently sinful, evident when we consider God's Holiness

Two more cornerstones to go.

Free Will and Foreknowledge

You see, this is where I struggle mightily with the concept of "Free Will." I understand perfectly well the importance of believing we have free will -- it keeps us from being robots. And as I wrote before, the value of this is really ours, not God's. The value to us is that only by having the option to disobey God does the act of freely obeying him provide us a real sense of his love.

No, the problem I have is purely one of grasping the notion of living within a timeline versus existing outside that timeline. God is outside the timeline and therefore presumably sees everything in the timeline -- past, present and future. If God is able to see that I'll order a ham and swiss sandwich for lunch tomorrow, when tomorrow comes (for me) will my actually ordering that type of sandwich be a free will choice, or a predestined choice? Would I have the opportunity, at the very last moment, to say, "Oh! I'd rather have a chicken salad! Ha! Fooled ya, God ... you didn't see that one coming?" That can't possibly be true, otherwise God isn't truly omniscient (all knowing). Further, if God can't see into our future, then he couldn't possible direct prophecy, since he wouldn't know what was going to happen.

I do not believe God is so limited. I believe he is omniscient -- including events in the future.

Therefore, I'm back to my dilemma -- will my free choices tomorrow truly be free?

As I think about this, two things strike me:

1. They will certainly appear free to me, as at the moment I make the decision I won't (likely) feel an irrestistable force directing me to make that choice.
2. If God doesn't direct the choice, but merely knows what my choice will be, then the decision is mine.

So maybe I just answered my own question. :-)

My answer, then, is this: God did not force Judas to betray Jesus. Judas was faced the opportunity, and God, knowing Judas perfectly, knew that he would make the choice he did.

My brain hurts. Stop talking about free will and predestination!!

This reminds me of the Star Trek episodes where the Enterprise hurtles back in time by sling-shotting around the sun. The "Gary Seven" episode is one of my favorites, mostly because the young Terri Garr in those 60's miniskirts was wonderful. I also found it funny that when they zoomed around the sun and came rocketing back -- at Warp 11 or something like that -- it took about six paragraphs of dialog to go from Venus to the Earth, when in reality at Warp 11 it would take a microsecond.

Was "Warp Speed" a linear scale or logarithmic?

Free Willy

Yes this blog editor is not the best, especially for block quotes as you mentioned, but I haven't been into the html to fix them as you can tell by my poorly formatted responses!

A “grass” in this context is someone who informs the authorities about the criminal activities of an individual. “I was grassed up to the police by him” is a common term in the UK criminal fraternity, allegedly. The East End of London shares a special affinity with the use of the word grass in this fashion. I was at a wedding on Sunday where 50% of the guests came from the East End of London so I think something rubbed off on me perhaps?

You said:

How we should treat those pawns in the Eternal Plan that unfolded in Jerusalem I'm at a loss to really say

That leads me to a few questions, firstly was Judas acting out of his Free Will or was he really a pawn?

The second thing that occurred to me was when humans acted in a way to fulfil a prophecy were they acting out of their own Free Will? Or were they forced to act in a certain way? For example:

These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

John 19:36-37 (NIV)

Was there any other way in which the men who did this could have acted? (I assume not otherwise divine scripture would not have been fulfilled) And if not, did they really have Free Will at this time?

I have my daughter with me for the second night in a row which is an unexpected bonus that I am very thankful to The Lord for :-)

Current Song: "Stop crying your heart out" -- Oasis

PS. I have my entire CD collection ripped to mp3, at 160 kbps variable bit rate. I don't have that many songs, I have 21 days worth of continuous play, about 6500 songs which occupy 35gb or so, which is less that a biggish iPod. I use iTunes. Steve Jobs really does understand "desirability" from a physical possessions standpoint - but I think that Google are the ones to watch for new cool software.

"Nobody Likes a Grass?"

Okay, I give up ... is that some kind of British colloquialism? I can understand "Nobody likes grass" -- it requires mowing, fertilizing, etc. But "Nobody likes a grass?" Help me.

* * *
I do my best thinking in the car. Unfortunately, I soon forget it all the moment I pull the car over and park.

* * *
Do you find the "compose" function of Blogger to be somewhat maddening? More than once I've gone into the "Edit HTML" function to fix things. I find this to be particularly necessary at the transition points between "block quotes" and regular text.

* * *
How's that for some heavy thinking, huh?

Final Thoughts on Belief

You wrote:

Interestingly, my experience (as above) tells me that the only way that I (and therefore anyone else) can truly believe is to be touched by Him in some way, some direct intervention.

I think there's something to this. I don't think on our own we would ever seek God in any earnest manner. It is only through His power that we seek and hopefully find. And maybe there's an element of free will in this as well -- some choose to believe and others choose not to. This may explain why many preachers I've heard urge people to never pass up the opportunity to commit to Christ if they find their heart so inclined at a particularl moment ... there may never be another such moment. I honestly just don't know.

I choose to believe that they are connected in the way that it says so in The Bible.

That is precisely where I am as well.

Perhaps the best prayer that we can ever make is that this blessing is given to those whom we love?

Amen. I am quickly coming to the understanding and belief that I should never, ever try to argue on behalf of the Bible. I'm simply no good at debating things. So if there's another I wish to help, my first course of action should be prayer on their behalf. And patience. And watchfulness, waiting for a door to open where I might help the person a little more. But going for the "slam-dunk" conversion is, I think, just foolish and wrong.

Note: the other petitionary prayer I've often thought seemed reasonable was a prayer for help seeking a deeper understanding and relationship with Christ. But then again, who am I to say what's reasonable and what's not? I'm having a crisis of conviction here, brother -- not conviction in Christ, but conviction in my sense of my understanding. Perhaps I've become to arrogant and proud, which I probably have.

* * *
From two posts ago you wrote (and I missed):

... why is Judas hated and vilified by everyone? His betrayal of Christ led to the Crucifixion and the saving of all mankind after all.

That question is akin to my wondering why some people lament that Jesus should never have been crucified. I want to ask them, "What? You'd have preferred that he grow old and die some other way? Who would be your saviour then?" It's a fine line, isn't it? On the one hand we ought be grateful for the result of Christ's death, but saddened for the need for it. How we should treat those pawns in the Eternal Plan that unfolded in Jerusalem I'm at a loss to really say. Clearly not with adulation. But also not with hatred and codemnation. Pity?

* * *
Do you have all your CDs ripped to MP3 and on some massive jukebox? How exactly do you have so many different songs going?

Nobody likes a grass

I’ve had many solitary hours to think on the nature of belief whilst driving up and down motorways and have come to the following ...

My reason tells me that:

1. An omnipotent creator made this Universe
2. Truth is relative to that omnipotent creator

My experience tells me that:

There is a name “Jesus Christ” that I can pray to, and as a result “Jesus Christ” will make changes in my life

I can see no logical reason why the two should be connected, so it comes down to belief – I choose to believe that they are connected in the way that it says so in The Bible. I’m trying to come to terms with the rest of that tome, but it’s difficult -- to my eyes in has the agendas of men all over it.

Interestingly, my experience (as above) tells me that the only way that I (and therefore anyone else) can truly believe is to be touched by Him in some way, some direct intervention. We need to be involved in some way (back to Confucius). So yes, I agree that there is a selection policy, a conference (as in the act of conferring) of a blessing, as you noted in a previous append.

Perhaps the best prayer that we can ever make is that this blessing is given to those whom we love?

Also, any religion can follow my reasoning but not my experience.

- - -

Newspaper articles and (dare I say it!) Bagwellian White Papers are not held up to be inerrant. For some reason there is some odd class of folk that hold The Bible to be so :-)

- - -

I hadn't appreciated that Gibson had recut that movie, but I am glad! Thanks.

- - -

Maybe Judas is not thanked because of the title of this append?

Current Song: "Happy Place" -- The Jesus & Mary Chain

"What is Truth?" - John 18:38

This is the question from Pilate in respone to Jesus, who had just said, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

We are not told how Pilate asked this question. Sincerely, or sarcastically. We are told that Pilate utters this question, and then departs Jesus. Whether this was because Jesus left the impression no answer was forthcoming, or because Pilate wasn't really interested in an answer, we just don't know.

But I think this offers a good place to leave our discussion of Truth. We'll probably never adequately define it, and we'll darn sure never prove it. The only thing I would hope is that we can both agree on one basic, fundamental thing: God Himself is the ultimate unchangeable Truth. If even that premise is up for debate, then I'm not sure on what basis any discussion on Truth can proceed.

* * *
I admire your admission that science operates on theory, and that the objective is to craft a theory that best explains past events and predicts future events. That's an honest appraisal. It is unfortunate that many wish instead to offer science as irrefutable fact, and use that assertion to ram home various agendas. It gives a bad name to both science and ideology.

* * *
How best to reconcile Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 I just don't know. I'll simply provide what one commentator provides (www.carm.org, under the "Bible Difficulties" section):

There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. In fact, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.

Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.

That the Bible doesn't spell out all the details of every event doesn't necessarily make the Bible fallible. The writer of the above justification more or less makes that point: the two accounts don't contradict one another. It's just that the full details are not provided. If the standard by which descriptive text is to be judged is that -- every conceivable detail must be present -- well, then pretty much every document ever written fails. Certainly every single one of my white papers fails. Every newspaper story fails. Every court proceeding fails.

When I hold that the Bible is inerrant, what I am holding to is that the Bible contains an underlying truth, as provided by God. That we may not immediately see the truth that's buried there is, I believe, by design. Had God simply provided a straight-forward, unambiguous set of truths, two things would happen: we would quickly grow bored of considering them, and we would just as quickly ignore them. The Ten Commandments are pretty unambiguous (please, no commentary on what "kill" vs. "murder" means), and they're almost universally ignored, then as well as now.

* * *
You wrote:

The savage beating he portrays Christ receiving seems too savage to me, are people really capable of behaving (with such relish) like this?

Absolutely. Recently here in the United States we had a news item related to a Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the death penalty for people who commit their crimes under the age of 18. The case involved a young man who at the age of 16 I think decided it would be "fun" to kill someone. He picked a victim and bound and gagged the woman. Then he drove the woman to a bridge over a river and threw the woman -- bound and gagged -- into the river, where she drowned. All for "fun." Yes, people really are capable of behaving with such relish.

That said, it's my personal opinion that Mel Gibson played up the relish enjoyed by the Roman soldiers a bit much. I think the violence in the movie was more than was needed, and in fact detracted somewhat from the message (which is why, incidentally, Gibson has just released another cut of the movie with about 6 minutes of the more gruesome depictions removed).

An Ordinary Day

God’s Good Earth is beautiful indeed. I hope that you both are enjoying your new abode.

You said:

“And it is my guess that despite all the scientific jargon that they -- and no
doubt you …”

Yes I agree that scientists do far too much of this, which is a shame because the concepts of The Theories of General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechancis (QM) are really very simple. But the lay person gets put off by high-falutin (often Latin) terminology. The mathematics are tough, but one doesn’t need to reveal the mathematics to explain what is going on. It’s a crying shame that professionals (medical, legal, computing … whatever) invent this world that they feels sets them apart – perhaps it makes them feel safe?

On “Lighties” – they sound like delightful creatures and indeed may be “The Absolute Truth”. The first point to remember is that good scientific theories predict phenomena. The capricious whim of a “lighty” turning his handle bar is not a good theory, for instance, what is to stop the “lighty” turning it the other way? However, a “lighty” travelling in a straight line (no turning of handlebars required) through four dimensional spacetime will give the observed bend in three special dimensions. The “lighty” does not have to do anything at all except do what he was doing before, ie. travelling in a straight line. This is one of the reasons why Einstein’s GR is better than the “Lighty Theory”.

You said:

“Two objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate absent the
effect of wind resistance?”

Yes, but I prefer to think of them carrying on as they were, moving at a uniform velocity in a straight line between two points in curved spacetime. This translates to accelerating in 3d space of course. When you think of it like this how could they possibly accelerate at different rates?

You said:

“Ever seen a quark? Ever held a neutrino in your hand and determined that it in
fact had no mass whatever? Then how do you -- deep.thought -- know that it is
true?”

I don’t know that subatomic particles such as those given the name “quark” or “neutrino” are “true” because I don’t believe that science can give us the Absolute Truth. I hold the probability of such things existing as quite high, because they help to explain how particles can have different quantum mechanical spins, and the QM spins (a theory) evidence themselves in physical properties (a fact?) of certain media. I also believe there are large chambers of water that mankind buried deep in the Earth that contain photoelectrical measuring cells that have physically measured the after effects of neutrino bursts from the sun.

Again: science does not deal with the Absolute Truth. Science deals with theories – and these theories are (and will be) modified over time.

Note 1: There are many abstract theories of science (like multiverses) which have no basis in physical evidence at all: these I do not subscribe to as science, they are more like Philosophy, and when held up as science I have a very low regard for them. But they make good reading nonetheless, just as Philosophy does.

Note 2: I studied Physics and our curriculum contained many laboratory experiments, so I have some knowledge of how scientific theory (not truth!) relates to the real world, but my direct knowledge gained through experiment is somewhat limited I agree.

You asked:

How can something be morally acceptable based on the intentional lack of
knowledge?

Well to me it could not be. But unless we agree on our morals we cannot all answer that question with the same answer can we? The question of abortion is one that will run and run for I guess as long as women (and men) decide that they want to have babies. I mentioned earlier that I believe creatures displaying moral characteristics want to preserve life, regardless of its sexual orientation. I am not judging whether being “moral” or “amoral” is good here, as I think this is something that needs looked at on a case by case basis rather than making a blanket law.

***

I watched the Passion of The Christ again on Saturday evening, I was expecting the violence this time – so I managed to look past my emotions (at times!) as to what Gibson was doing. The savage beating he portrays Christ receiving seems too savage to me, are people really capable of behaving (with such relish) like this?

The other thing I considered was Judas Iscariot. A have a couple of questions … firstly, just why is Judas hated and vilified by everyone? His betrayal of Christ led to the Crucifixion and the saving of all mankind after all.

Secondly, for the Biblical inerrant you :-) … what actually did happen to Judas after he betrayed Christ? How did he die?

Was it (as Gibson portrayed in the movie):

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Matthew 27:5 (NIV)

Or:

With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell
headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled
out.

Acts 1:18 (NIV)

Is this a simple case of a) Matthew forgetting (or not bothering) to mention that Judas went back into the temple to get the money he had thrown into it, left and then bought a field b) Acts not bothering to mention that Judas hanged himself and c) assuming both accounts are correct, they both neglected to mention that the rope broke. It’s stuff like this that Biblical inneracists come up with to shoe horn the Bible into – I just can’t accept it. Your view is appreciated!

Your Cornerstone #4, Sir?

Current Song: “The Whole of the Moon" -- The Waterboys

Easter Morning ...

... has dawned bright and glorious here in Tucson. It is a striking reminder of the brightness of glory that is the Risen Christ. All glory and praise to Him, our Lord and our Savior!

"Lighties"

After reading your post I recalled something that occurred years ago. It was when I was in the 9th grade or so. My brother -- a year old than me -- and who is quite brilliant technically, was then a fierce believer in scientific theory, analysis and proof. One day he was explaining the nature of light to me, and just to be a pest I conjured up an alternative theory. His explanation was based on what was taught in the schools back in the mid-70's -- light is a wave that exihibits particle-like properties. My theory was quite radical, and was designed wholly to frustrate him. Light, it turns out, is really made up of small creatures who drove tiny motorcycles and were called "Lighties."

You see, when a person looks out and sees an object -- a tree, for instance -- they really aren't "seeing" anything. What is happening is that thousands of lighties swarm over to the tree, take Polaroid pictures of the tree (after all, the Polaroid picture was the bees-knees of advanced instant photography back then), then ride their motorcycles like the wind back to the person viewing the tree. They'd zoom into the person's eyes and then hold up their little Polaroids, thus forming the image in the viewer's mind.

My brother nearly went batty trying to knock down my theory by offering up scientific difficulties my theory of light would have to explain. What he didn't seem to realize was that I was completely unfettered in my explanation -- I could make just about anything up to get around whatever objection he floated up. The effect of gravity on light? No problem -- the Lighties simply make a slight turn in their motorcycle handlebars and they "bend" around the sun. Mass going to infinity when matter achieves speed of light? Nah ... special motorcycle suits prevent that. It was all great fun ... for me.

I'm not going to argue with you about the value of repeatable, provable scientific experimentation. Two objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate absent the effect of wind resistance? Clearly demonstrable and irrefutable.

Note: watch, you're going to come back and point out that some recent discovery has determined that in fact they drop at a differential rate, based on some guy name Heisenburger (or whatever) and his cat! :-)

Ever seen a quark? Ever held a neutrino in your hand and determined that it in fact had no mass whatever? Then how do you -- deep.thought -- know that it is true? You rely on what others have proposed. Do you then go out and recreate their experiments so you can personally experience the proof they propose?

And it is my guess that despite all the scientific jargon that they -- and no doubt you -- can and will put on the table, at bottom I'll bet there's no more "proof" there then there is that God is Triune in nature. When science pokes around the sub-atomic level, they are constructing theories based on other theories and are extrapolating out to a conclusion that may not hold up in ten years. Cosmology toys with "fact" in the same way ... infinite numbers of universes, etc. Can any of that be experimentally proven? No.

Neither can things like whether a person has a final chance for redemption after death. Or whether God is truly "three-in-one." Or what the meaning of Ezekial 25:17 really is. ("The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of evil men..." -- Pulp Fiction.)

What's my point? I don't know ... I lost it. :-)

No, my point is that there is some degree of faith in some of the more abstract theories of science as there is in the doctrines and theology of God. Also, the scientific realm is not immune from the injection of agenda and ideology. It is not based on pure reason, just as theology is also subject to the infusion of desired outcome.

Note: One need look no further than environmental "science" to see examples of this.

One of the things I have striven (strived? stroved?) to do was always offer what I write here as simply my understanding based on what I've come to believe. If I've come across as dogmatic, then I apologize, for I do not wish to be that way.

* * *
You wrote of a "gay gene." There was recently a bill introduced in Maine here in the United States that would have made aborting a fetus found with a yet-undiscovered "gay gene" to be a criminal act. This is a moral quandry that is hurtling down the path at us. Let me pose a hypothetical to you and ask you a question:

Hypothetical: a gay gene is discovered and a test is developed to discern the existence or absence of that gene in a yet unborn child. Gay activists clamor to make it a crime to abort the fetus based on the presence of this gene. Pro-abortion activists clamor to keep abortion an available option for woman.

Question: if aborting a fetus based on a known condition (gay, female, color of skin) is morally wrong, how is aborting the fetus based on ignorance of that condition not also morally wrong? In other words, imagine the case where a fetus is tested and determined to be gay. Abortion prohibited. Now, turn back time -- no test is conducted on the fetus, so knowledge is not held of the existence or absence of the gene (but of course that doesn't change the fact of the existence of the gay gene in that particular fetus). Abortion now permitted.

How can something be morally acceptable based on the intentional lack of knowledge?

Easter Felicitations

It is comforting to think that one might be allowed into Heaven if one sees Jesus after death and repents. If this were possible then it would remove my suspicion that Christianity is a time dependent test. If this were not possible then (to me) Christianity is a time dependent test of the individual; the “time” being the length of the individual life. I believe that my belief here is logical (ie. the argument is consistent within its own assertions) and that any other belief is illogical. . However, God is not limited by logic so there is always a chance.

Also, in a relative-truth world one can cast some doubts on “logic” itself.

I never used to be a person who held truth to be relative (to God). I used to believe that Absolute Truth was discernable; it was only through coming to Christ that I realised that I could not hold absolute truths. I saw Christian theologians twist the absolute truth to iron out the inconsistencies in The Bible and the Christian Doctrine. I had “three” choices: 1) Reject the Christian Doctrine as not containing any truth 2) Become a relative-truth follower and accept the fact that Christianity contains many relative truths or 3) do something else.

Many rational and logical people would have taken path 1 (or path 3), I took path 2 because I feel that I have had (and have) direct intervention in my life from Jesus Christ. I could be fooling myself but my belief helps me to live my life.

I like to keep abreast of the latest scientific theories and advancements. Good scientific theories have something in common; they predict the outcome of physical events. Newton says that the Moon will be at such-and-such a point in space at a certain time and it is (“Thank you Isaac!” shouts Neil Armstrong). Newton’s Theory of Gravitation does not account for the observed orbit of Mercury however. So, along comes a patent clerk who says that Mercury will be at such-and-such a point in space at a certain time and it is (and so much more, Einstein is a relativitists hero!) I hold science special in my heart, I give the scientific method a very high relative truth, because it can be used by Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews et al to successfully predict and measure phenomena.

I like reading about Philosophical ideas also. But the Aristotelian world has been supplanted by the scientific one. There have been many philosophically inspired views that have fallen by the wayside and that we don’t even talk about anymore (heliocentric universe, Ptolemaic circles etc) – we’ve had the Enlightenment and the Renaissance to thank for some of that. In my view, things that cannot be directly measured and agreed upon (by the different independent groups mentioned above for example) are wonderful “reading books”. They have their place, they can be entertaining and thought provoking, but I hold them lower down on the scale of relative truths.

Now I come to theology and the four authors (Lewis/Stott/Begg/Sproul) you mention who are on your current bestseller list. I would put these works into the latter non-scientific camp. I don’t believe that such works can uncover any absolute truths (and neither can scientific texts, but the latter do not claim to), and I don’t believe that the same conclusions these authors make can be reached by such a large and generalized set of mankind as the scientific ones, so I hold the relative truths of theologists in lower regard to scientific relative truths. Which is why I spend more time reading science books than theology books perhaps?

This is not to say that the works of these authors are not entertaining of course; but in a world where the results to which they allude to cannot be accurately and reproducibly measured, I prefer to carry out the thought experiment myself.

On the morality of Dolphins you said:

“Do they really know the difference between right and wrong and intentionally
choose right? Or are they simply obeying what their DNA tells them to do?”

This opens up a can of worms doesn’t it? Imagine if there were genes that led to homosexual behaviour for example :-)

I guess that when talking about morality, ethics and conscience we should first agree upon what these terms mean. I’m reluctant to use terms such as “right” and “wrong” because they are too relative (even for me). I would assert that any creature displaying the following two characteristics has morals :

1. They demonstrate that life should be preserved
2. They treat others as they wish to be treated (the Golden Rule)

So by my definition, the dolphin who saved the diver from sharks was acting morally. The actual mechanism of what caused the dolphin to do so (the moral gene? a dolphin’s soul?) is unknown to me. But who is to say that it is not the same mechanism that causes a Saint to be saintly? I know, you’re going to tell me that God says so somewhere!

Note: there are documented instances of animals helping individuals of other species, too. There is film footage of a hippopotamus who rescued an impala caught by Nile crocodiles. The hippo carried it some distance from the water and guarded it from further attack.

We humans have clearly had much more of an impact on our planet than dolphins, and we can kill and eat them, and they cannot do so to us. So by our own standards we are chosen and they are not. We are better than dolphins?

I’m going to watch The Passion tonight, I saw it at the cinema and wanted to leave so I am not looking forward to it. It’s Easter though and I need to remind myself of how barbaric we humans can be, and to see what Jesus went through again, for us. In the morning I will rise again (hopefully!) and go to a wedding (civil service) and pray that the marriage of this couple will be blessed.

Peace and grace be with you brother.

Current Song: “Eye Know” – De La Soul

Dolphins Have Morals?

Really? Says who? They might exhibit behavior that on the surface strikes us as selfless, but is that the same thing as morals? Do they really know the difference between right and wrong and intentionally choose right? Or are they simply obeying what their DNA tells them to do?

Gosh ... I almost hate to uncork this line of inquiry. :-)

Difficult Things

First, I think it's important that I admit and confess that I am by no means a trained theologian or Biblical scholar. Goodness, I'm wrestling with this every bit as much (and perhaps more) than you. So what's the basis for some of the assertions I make in this 'blog? Mostly not my own. Or, more precisely, not originally my own. I hold them now, but I did not come up with them out of nothing.

As I sat here and prepared to answer the questions in your last two posts, I started thinking about who has influenced me the most when it comes to doctrinal things. The question of who has inspired me the most from the perspective of genuine Christian humility as lived out in their daily lives is a quite separate question. I'll provide a short bullet list for the first question; I'm still thinking about the second.

Here's who has shaped my Christian worldview the most:

• C. S. Lewis -- early on, in particular. It was reading him that helped me realize that the Christian faith was not an un-thinking belief.
• John R. W. Stott -- particularly his book "Basic Christianity," which is by no means a basic text. That was the first book I'd read that made no promises that the Christian faith was either easy or one-sided. The chapter on "Counting the Cost" was particularly direct.
• Alistair Begg -- the pastor at a church in Cleveland, Ohio, his radio ministry caught my ear one day and I've purchased several of his tape series. Scottish by birth and conviction, he is unapologetic about the "all-or-nothing" nature of Christianity.
• R.C. Sproul -- his book "The Essential Truths of the Christian Faith" laid out for the first time for me a systematic structure for Christian doctrine and theology. Much of what is written there I'd heard elsewhere, but this put it into one place. I am now quite enamoured with Sproul's tape messages. His work on "The Holiness of God" was strikingly compelling to me.

So, as I've written, my thoughts shared here are based in large measure on influence had from these gentleman. And no doubt they built their worldview on people before them. (For C. S. Lewis that would be George MacDonald, and to a lesser degree, G.K. Chesterton, both by his own admission.)

* * *
Your initial post -- "Are We There Yet?" -- hovered around some very basic (but definitely not simple) questions of the Christian faith:

• Does God choose us or do we choose God?
• Is there a limit on the number of people who are saved?
• Is there a point beyond which we no longer have an opportunity to be saved?
• Is it possible that everyone is ultimately saved?

I am extraordinarily reluctant to go into these in any real depth. I am reluctant for two reasons: one, as I cited earlier, I am no expert and these are very thorny issues. And two, these are contentious issues and I by no means wish to spark an argument or unsettle any seeking person who may be reading this. I'll try not to approach this dogmatically.

Choose or Be Chosen

At the center of this discussion lies the doctrine of Grace. Our salvation is based on a forgiveness rooted in Grace. As I have come to understand it, Grace is defined as "unmerited favor." That we are in God's favor when we are granted eternal life is a given; that the favor that's granted us by God is entirely undeserved by us and God was under no obligation whatever to grant it often causes people some difficulty. The undeserved nature of God's forgiveness is based on our nature, which is inherently sinful. In the economy of God's perfect justice, what we deserve is eternal damnation. What we receive is his mercy.

Note: in R.C. Spoul's tape message on the "Holiness of God," he drew a distinction between justice and mercy. The two are not the same thing. Sproul said, "When you say your prayers at night, never, ever ask for God's justice. You might just get it." I've come to understand what Sproul was getting at.

When we come to trust in Christ, the Grace we receive is not "earned" because of our profession or our baptism. There is no fundamental transaction that occurs, whereby an effort on my part obligates God to reciprocate with Grace. To hold that belief would be to strip God of his sovereign place in this existence.

So we are faced with a logical dilemma: if we hold that by our acts we secure for ourselves God's Grace, we reduce God by determining at least one thing for which he is not sovereign. Yet if we grant God his rightful sovereignty, we then must answer the questions: who has God chosen? How many are there?

I do not have answers for those questions. This is why the "Doctrine of the Elect" is so difficult to grapple with -- there is a fundamental tension between this doctrine and the doctrine of Free Will. I am led to understand it is not an irreconcilable tension. But the explanation is one I am incapable of articulating.

The Atheist Who Sees Jesus After Death

You posed the hypothetical about the atheist who never trusts Christ in this lifetime, but stands before him on the day of judgment. The atheist at that time chooses to place his trust in Jesus. Does he get into heaven?

When I hear this line of inquiry I often hear a reference to this:

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 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, Philippians 2:9-11, a ref: Isaiah 45:23)

And the argument is that we will all be given one last chance at the day of judgment to see Christ for who he is and to claim his as our Lord.

I'm not so sure. I say that simply because such a belief seems to run counter to the rest of the Biblical teaching about spreading the Gospel message and coming to faith in Christ in this life. I have also never heard a pastor or Bible teacher even hint that come the day of judgment people will be given one last chance. My reading of that verse is that come the day of judgment, all people -- including those who have rejected Christ as Lord -- will come to realize the Truth and see Christ in all his Glory. But if they had heard the Gospel and rejected Christ in this life, then their time for choosing has passed.

Note: this is where many choose to paint Christianity with a broad of brush of exclusivity, a "we're in and you're out" form of discriminatory association. Again, some "Christians" certainly behave as if they believe this. But the Bible teaches us to pray for everyone that they might come to faith in Jesus and be saved. The door is there, and it's open. Let us then pray that those who have not yet seen the door recognize it and go and embrace Christ as their saviour.

Is Everyone Saved?

If the granting of Grace is God's sovereign choice, is it possible that he has chosen to save everyone? Some hold to that belief. They're called "Universalists." The Bible doesn't teach that, but that's what the Universalists believe.

Genesis 1:26

The "Let us..." in that is frequently considered a reference to the Triune nature of God -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I've read other accounts that claim that ascribing that meaning to it grants too much to the sentence. Bruce Milne's "Know the Truth" suggests that it is one of many references to the Trinity throughout the Bible. I can't think of any other explanation for it ... can you?

As for the "in our image" language, I think you are right to use that to hold out hope that your understanding of God might increase based on this. Mankind is clearly different from the animal world in our ability to create things of beauty for beauty's sake; to exhibit selfless acts, even sacrificially; to have the ability to know God and to love him on a personal level. We should be careful never to think that we hold these attributes to the same degree of perfection as does God. You write of experiencing certain emotions, and wonder if God too experiences them. The Bible suggests that he does. But whereas your exercise of those emotions is tainted with sinful undertones, God's is not. That is why God's wrath is Holy -- different, above, set apart -- our notion and practice of anger.

* * *
It is Good Friday, my brother. On this day some 2000+ years ago the hands and feet of Jesus Christ were nailed to a cross. On this day some 2000+ years ago God gave his only Son so that we -- you and me -- may have eternal life through our trust that what Christ did on the cross was complete. We have nothing more to add. All we must do is trust.

Sunday is Easter, the day our Lord rose again. Praise be to God Almighty.

Dolphins have morals too you know

On your cornerstone #3 you wrote

So, there is cornerstone #3 -- the nature of God as "Holy" -- beyond measure
different from us, utterly perfect in every way

Ok I will agree with that my brother. But I also have to remember that:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our
likeness,

Genesis 1:26 (NIV)

This gives me hope. With this I have the tiniest hint of understanding of how God could be angry or sorrowful. Because I have felt those emotions.

It's interesting the "Let us" .. who is God talking to? This is the first time he goes into the group "us, our". That's interesting, does that mean that we had a hand in our own creation?

Are we there yet?

I’m sitting in a bar at Newark International Airport drinking Stella (you’ve got to love France if not the French) Artois larger. I’m rather sober though, as I undertook the (possibly ghoulish) service of visiting Ground Zero for the first time this afternoon. It’s a big hole, with a half built skyscraper in it. The thing that got me were the scars on all of the surrounding buildings. One can see the trajectories -- right in the walls -- of the “micrometeorites” that showered down at great velocity They're now embedded into the brickwork of adjacent buildings. My prayer was short “God please let these souls find their way to you”.

That single act of destruction has changed us, seemingly permanently, but nothing lasts for ever (does it?)

Incidentally -- a six buck toll to come in down the Lincoln tunnel but free going out on the Holland? What is that all about? (And fer goodness sake's what on Earth is a "Ped X'ing"? - some kind of People's Republic of China official?)

You wrote:

Our being "born again" is a sovereign act of God himself; Grace bestowed
upon the truly repentent (sic. sp? – ed.) who comes to realize the utter hopelessness of their own efforts and turn in complete trust (not just belief) in the saving work of Jesus Christ.

The Bible teaches that one's eternal salvation is based on this singular act of regeneration, bestowed by God.

Question: who does good choose to bestow this blessing upon? Is it anything that the individual does that qualifies them for this blessing? If it’s not, then that’s pretty bad luck for those that don’t get picked, they have to spend an eternity in agony. That’s just not fair. Wouldn’t you agree?

Also this “chosen by God” doesn’t strike me as very probable – someone born in a Muslim country is far less likely to have this blessing of being chosen bestowed upon them. Or, does God choose them to be born in a Muslim country thus causing them to have very little chance of salvation? (Again grossly unfair to my REASONing … but if I suspend reason then all is “ok” again).

Ok I have a further question for your good self on this – and it is related to my assertion that Christianity is a time-dependent test.

Take the following scenario if you please:

1. Atheist lives a non-believing non-Christian non-regenerated life
2. Atheist dies and all becomes clear – Jesus Christ exists – He is “the way” and the atheist converts on the spot. The Atheist is truly repentent.
3. Does the atheist now go to Heaven and if not why not?

NCAA on the TV, Washington vs. West Virginia .. your old stamping ground buddy!

Current Song: Someone in the bar is humming a Britney Spears song … “One more time” or something.

Salvation, Testing and Growth

You laid out the scenario whereby a serial killer repents, is "in Christ" for ten years, then backslides and resumes his killing spree. He dies without repenting again. You asked, "Does the killer go to heaven?"

I'll ask the question a different way: Was the killer ever truly born again?

Simply saying, "I believe in Jesus" does not necessarily make one born again. Nor does responding to an alter call, or filling out a membership card, or going to church regularly, or even doing good things in this world. Our being "born again" is a sovereign act of God himself; Grace bestowed upon the truly repentent who comes to realize the utter hopelessness of their own efforts and turn in complete trust (not just belief) in the saving work of Jesus Christ.

The Bible teaches that one's eternal salvation is based on this singular act of regeneration, bestowed by God. The Bible further teaches that salvation, once granted, is never taken away.

So, for the serial killer, it is altogether possible (and probable) that his ten year span of being "in Christ" wasn't that at all; that he had not really been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Here's the key -- the fact that he resumed his sinful ways, without apparent concern for doing so, suggests that he was never truly born again to begin with. The truly regenerated person takes on a different view of sin and God and feels the conviction of sin more strongly than before. This is the thrust of the book of James -- one's faith is not based on one's works, but one's faith is demonstrated by one's works. A person who claims to be "in Christ" yet is an awful, hateful, sinful person is not demonstrating that faith.

Note: one must be careful here to draw a reasonable distinction between "permanent backsliding" and everyday struggles and temptations. A regenerate person is not perfect; they will continue to sin. It is the attitude towards that sin that is telling. If a person sins and seeks help from God to avoid the sin, then that's a telling sign of regeneration. If a person sins and doesn't care if they sin, does so boldly (as is the case with a serial killer), then that tells a different story, doesn't it?

This is where the distinction between belief and trust becomes so critical. The classic analogy is this: I can believe that a bottle of antibiotics will take care of my life-threatening illness. But until I actually consume the pills that belief does not save my life. It is only when I truly trust that the pills will do what they claim that I receive the benefit. So too with Jesus -- I may believe that Jesus existed; I may believe that Jesus was crucified; I may even believe that he "died for my sins" and was resurrected. But until I come to completely trust in Jesus' saving Grace and honestly and sincerely ask Him to take control of my life, that belief is just intellectual assent. It is akin to me sitting at the kitchen table, eyeing the bottle of antibiotics.

I doubt Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al believed Jesus was God incarnate and died for their sins. I am fairly certain they didn't place their whole trust in Christ as their savior.

If salvation, once granted, is not removed, then what's with all the testing in the Bible? Testing is a way of promoting strength and maturity in the believer. God uses tests -- small and big -- to provide a way for a new believer to grow stronger in the faith.

Note: here in Arizona there's something called the "Biosphere," an experiment conducted ten or so years ago whereby a completely contained ecosystem was developed to experiment with self-sustaining environments. The trees that were planted in that bubble endured no wind. They grew to a certain height and toppled over. They discovered that the trunks of the trees did not have certain strength-enhancing structures that their counterparts in nature had. It was because there was no wind; the trees never had to develop strength. They later installed fans to simulate wind.

So it is with us. We need tests to develop a deeper trust in Christ, to seek His help rather than ours, to see Him as our sovereign Lord. That is what Isaiah 48:10 is about; Job endured severe tests as a way of deepening his faith; Jonah as well; Paul, Peter and John too.

* * *
No, Satan will not go to Heaven. Demons are fallen angels, and the Bible speaks of their having made their decision. They get no opportunity for redemption. We do, through Christ.

Will Satan go to Heaven?

Broadband here is so fast as compared to the UK. Here I can send a 4mb file via email in less than 5 seconds. The hotel 4mb free service makes my 512K at home seem crummy - I feel like the UK is in the dark ages!

In “The Beautiful Simplicity of the Gospel” you wrote that Christianity is not a test. I started mulling on the problem of whether or not Christianity was a test in August 2003 and I came to the conclusion some time in the summer of 2004 that indeed it was a test. I know that such a view is not the generally acceptable view held by Christians. There are hints to my conclusion in the Bible too, in fact you quote from Romans 8 “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”.

The key phrase I’d like to focus on here is “those who are in Christ Jesus”.

What does being in “Christ Jesus” mean to you?

To me it means “those who pass the daily tests to remain in Christ Jesus”. I believe it to be time dependent.

Take the following scenario if you would kind sir:

1. Serial killer kills serially
2. Serial killer repents, believes, and is now in “Christ Jesus”
3. Serial killer spends 10 years in “Christ Jesus”
4. Serial killer then resumes killing spree
5. Serial killer dies before repenting again

Does the killer go to Heaven? In addition, what if someone who is currently in "Christ Jesus" commits the unforgiveable sin (which you and I both know, but would not tempt anyone else to commit it by pointing it out). When dealing with Biblical inerrancy one has to be dogmatic. Which is one of the reasons I am not an “inneracist” as that allows me to avoid being dogmatic. Dogmatism does not fit with the relativity of truth to God.

Just to believe in Christ is not enough. Satan and Hitler both believe(d) in Christ. I assume that after the events in Revelation Satan does not go to Heaven. I don't know about Hitler.

One of my favourite quotes from The Bible is from Isaiah:

See, I have refined you, though not as silver; I have tested you in the
furnace of affliction.

Isaiah 48:10 (New International Version)

Just search for the word “test” or “tested” in The Bible my good friend.

The other thing I must make clear is that I am not attacking your cornerstones in any way (I could not and would not), to believe is a beautiful thing – I just love to debate with you.

More on your #3 later !

Current Song: “Born to Run” – Bruce Springsteen (it's allowed, I am in the USA).

Cornerstone #3 - Nature of God: Holy

Having proposed my first two "cornerstones" and elaborated on them -- whether or not to your satisfaction I'll allow you to determine -- allow me now to establish my third. It has to do with the nature of God himself. That's a daunting area of exploration, given that almost by definition he is unknowable to us, there being such a wide gulf between his nature and ours. But that's why my second cornerstone, the Bible as God's special revelation, is so critical. Because if we are to hold to cornerstone #2 as true, then we can discern some things about God's nature.

That nature is, in a word, "Holy." That word has little meaning to us today, as it's not used much except in this context, and the meaning is for most people something along the lines of "righteous."

But I have come to understand that the meaning of the word "Holy" has a more fundamental meaning, and that meaning is "Set Apart" or "Different." And that's something we as contemporary humans suffer from, I think -- a mistaken understanding that God is somehow "like us," or "comparable to us." When in fact, he is not. He is quite different. Staggeringly different.

This is what the Bible tells us ... over and over again. Moses, a man who the Bible portrays as perhaps the most righteous man in God's eyes ever, is prohibited from seeing God's face (in other words, his full glory). Moses is permitted to see only God from behind, and even then Moses' face radiates the glory he witnessed, so much so that the Israelites cried out and demanded Moses place a veil over his face. Isaiah, in a vision, sees something of the glory of God and cries out, '"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty."' (Isaiah 6:5, NIV)

In all cases those in the Bible who are given the opportunity to see something of God's glory immediately see the striking contrast with themselves. The glorious perfection of God Almighty compared to the lowliness of our condition.

When the Bible speaks of "fearing" the Lord, this is what it refers to -- not that we must live in fear of some capricious and arbitrary harm, but that we must understand that mighty glory of Him and the pitiful nothingness of us by comparison.

Unfortunately, we no longer do that much, do we? We view God as some amiable grandfather type, welcoming everyone to come or go in God's presence as they please, treating God with regard or contempt ... it doesn't matter because God will chuckle and forgive, like a good grandfather always does to his preciocious grandchildren.

We have, in effect, lowered God to our level. Worse, we have elevated ourselves above God.

I assert that the Christian faith makes little sense absent a view of God as utterly above us, beyond our comprehension of goodness, perfection and glory. If God were little more than a mallable grandfather type, little different from ourselves, willing to forgive and forget nearly every transgression, why then would someone have to die on our behalf? That makes no sense.

I firmly believe that the more one comes to comprehend the vast gulf between themselves and God, the more they will come to appreciate what was done on their behalf by God incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ. Only then will our sins be seen as what they are -- requiring a just response from a perfect God.

How truly amazing it is when one grasps on the one hand the Glory of God, and on the other God's willingness to humble himself in the form of man, to be ridiculed and abused and nailed to a cross, all on our behalf, so that through the sacrifice of Christ our sins will be atoned for, forgiven not through our efforts but through Christ's and Christ's alone.

So, there is cornerstone #3 -- the nature of God as "Holy" -- beyond measure different from us, utterly perfect in every way. By comparison, we are nothing ... which takes me to my next cornerstone -- very much related to this -- which will be in a separate post.

The Beautiful Simplicity of the Gospel

There were many, many aspects of your most recent post that caught my attention and piqued my desire to respond. But one in particular I simply can't let slip by. You wrote:

Our souls are constantly being tested for suitability for Heaven, if we fail the test, we don’t to Heaven, we go to Hell. If things are not a test then we could live any which way without concern for the consequences could we not?

No, dear brother, no. I love you dearly, but no.

It is here we come to the very heart of the Gospel, which means "Good News." Life is not a series of tests that each determine whether we go to heaven or not. That would be a form of daily legalism that would haunt us to our grave. That is what Paul wrote of in that painful lament in Romans 7:21-24:

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? (Romans 7:21-24, NIV)

In other words, Paul is saying in effect, "I try -- honestly I do -- to do what's right, but I keep failing, time and again. I can't ever seem to scale this mountain; it is too high. Whatever shall I do? The more I strive, the more I realize what a wicked sinner I am. Oh, dear God ... who will save me? Who?"

Paul answers his own question in what many consider the very peak of the mountaintop of the Christian faith:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4, NIV, emphasis added)

I'll paraphrase, in my words:

At the moment Christ died on the cross, the accumulated sins of man were laid on him and Christ -- God's eternal Son -- bore the full weight of God's wrath for the sins of man. Those who know they cannot earn their way to heaven due to the heavy weight of their sins may trust that Christ has done all the work, and that we only need believe that is the case -- that Christ did the work and that we cannot. And by trusting in him we not only gain forgiveness for our sins, but gain the full righteousness of Christ. At that moment we are "born again," becoming true children of God, and are looked upon by God as completely righteous as Jesus Christ himself. And it is by the power of the Holy Spirit, who comes into our hearts and takes up permament residence, that I we might walk the journey of the Christian faith, if we are to just place our full trust and faith in Jesus Christ.

I can't type further without giving thanks to God my Father for so rich a blessing as this. All glory to Him who is our creator, our sustainer, our redeemer and our Lord.

So there are no daily tests. Once we are granted God's "Grace" -- his forgiveness, offered to us not because we earned it but because we simply gave up trying and placed our trust at Jesus' feet -- we are forever His, never to be lost.

This is supernatural stuff, to be sure. This soars well above the reach of any logical constructions or scientific inquiry. This is the Gospel -- the beautiful, glorious, unmatched gift from God our Father through his Son Jesus Christ. Amen!

What stops us from thereafter living simply a life of debauchery, knowing as we apparently do that our salvation is assured? The true believer -- the one who really understands the magnitude of God's mercy in pardoning us and granting us eternal life -- will strive to live their lives in grateful submission to Christ's will. He or she will do so by surrending to the Spirit who lives within them, allowing He who is the Spirit of God to guide our lives. Sure, backsliding and tripping up will occur, but the truly born-again will forever keep their eye on Jesus and strive to get back on "The Way" and walk again with Christ our Lord.

You also write:

Christians expect to go to Heaven, and for others not to go to Heaven.

Perhaps, but the true Christian -- the one who knows what Grace is all about -- will pray fervently for all people to come to Christ and gain eternal life. Christianity is not an exclusive club, though many who call themselves "Christians" treat it as such. The offer of God's Grace through Christ Jesus is available to all who truly turn from their sins and accept Christ as their saviour. That means they give up -- they stop trying to "earn" their salvation -- and simply turn to Christ and say, "I cannot do it. You have done it. Please come into my life and take possession of me, dear Lord."

That is the Gospel -- there is nothing like it in all of history, in all the world. No other religion in the world has the concept of Grace -- unmerited forgiveness granted to those who believe that Christ bore their sins and truly trust in the saving Grace of Jesus Christ.

* * *
I am reminded of a story I once heard, about a small boy who comes upon an old-time revival group packing up their gear. The boy rushes up the minister, who is busy folding tents, and asks, "Pastor, what must I do to gain eternal life?"

The pastor answered, "You're too late."

The boy was crestfallen. "Because the revival is over?" He asked.

"No." The pastor replied. "You're too late because someone already did everything that was necessary for you to gain eternal life. That someone was Jesus Christ."

Thanks be to God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ!

Amen!

Skydiving

Hey the Poughkeepsie Marriott has free broadband now, I haven’t been here since the year 2000, now that is progress !

Thank you so much for sharing your Cornerstone #2 with me.

You said:

"The Christian faith cannot be properly grounded without a belief that the Bible contains fundamental truths as revealed by God himself."

Your choice of the term “properly grounded” here -- the word “proper” -- is interesting. For such a fundamental cornerstone is there an absolute definition of “proper”? Isn’t "proper" relative?

“… then why would God point to Scripture as Truth when it was in fact corrupt, something He would certainly know was the case?”

My response to that is – fundamentally -- Christians expect to go to Heaven, and for others not to go to Heaven. There are so many aspects of the doctrine that reveal it to be a test of some sorts. Our souls are constantly being tested for suitability for Heaven, if we fail the test, we don’t to Heaven, we go to Hell. If things are not a test then we could live any which way without concern for the consequences could we not?

Maybe God knows exactly what is going on. Consider this:
God allows his word to be corrupted God allows it to be seen that his word has been corrupted (to me this is obvious!) God tests his faithful followers like this:

“Can you see that my original word has been corrupted? Can you see that I would never want you to kill eachother? Can you see that I would never command that? Can you see that I do not want you to fear me?”
If the answer comes back as “No Lord, The Bible is 100% Absolute Unadulterated Truth”. Then the Lord says:

“Sorry, I can’t have you in Heaven, only people who can think (as well as worship) are allowed in. You failed the test."

Unfortunately I read somewhere when I was a kid “Never follow a leader without asking your own questions”.

And anyway, isn't it pointless to ask "Why would God ... ?", because then we're applying human reason to Him?

Or let's say Bill believes Jesus spoke to him yesterday and said "X." John also believes Jesus spoke to him yesterday, but Jesus said "Y," and "X" and "Y" are mutually exclusive. Is one right, one wrong? Or are both right? Or perhaps both wrong?

All of the above! I love it! This is great. This is the other way to believe in Jesus, and for me the somewhere of where I ground my faith.

And this is how the Bible was written also. Various authors had things revealed to them, some contradictory, as the atheist text “101 Contradictions In The Bible” points out (more like 30 contradictions I think). The answer to all of the contradictions is: God moves in mysterious ways of course.

Current song: “Live Like You Were Dying” – Tom McGraw (I heard this for the first time on Interstate 287 yesterday)

He said I was in my early forties with a lot of life before me
When a moment came that stopped me on a dime,
and I spent most of the next days looking at the x-rays, talking bout the options
And talking bout sweet time
I asked him when it sank in
That this might really be the real end how's it hit you when you get that kinda news?
Man what'd you do?

And he said I went sky diving
I went Rocky Mountain climbing I went 2.7 seconds on a bull named FuManchu
And I loved deeper and I spoke sweeter
And I gave forgiveness I'd been denying
And I watched an eagle as it was flying
And he said someday I hope you get the chance
To live like you were dying.

He said I was finally the husband
That most the time I wasn't
And I became a friend a friend would like to have
And all the sudden going fishing
Wasn't such an imposition
And I went three times that year I lost my dad
Well I finally read the good book
And I took a good long hard look
At what I'd do if I could do it all again
Like tomorrow was a gift and you got eternity to think about
What'd you do with it what did you do with it
What did I do with it
What would I do with it'
To live like you were dying

Cornerstone #2 - God's Special Revelation: The Bible

Let me start this by making a bold assertion:

The Christian faith cannot be properly grounded without a belief that the Bible contains fundamental truths as revealed by God himself.

My personal belief goes further still:

The Bible is the ultimate and final authority for an understanding of God's will, his purpose and his character. The Bible is entirely sufficient for this purpose; no other written text is needed.

Further ...

There is an element of faith in the basic assertion that the Bible is the Word of God, that it is correct and true, and that its present format is what God intended it to be. Though there is ample evidence to suggest that the Bible is archeologically accurate and that the manuscript copies have been remarkably preserved, none of that serves as proof that the Bible is "the true Word of God." One must ultimately believe it to be the case.

I fully expect these assertions to be met with some consternation. The objections regarding the Bible usually fall into four areas:

• Objections to the structure of the canon
• Objections to the idea of divine inspiration
  
• Objections about the veracity of the original translations
• Objections about what things are literal and what things are merely allegorical
  

What I won't do in this posting is lay out a defense of the Bible along those four areas. I'm not an expert in those things, and I suspect I'd make a hash of it. Instead, I'll refer back to something you had in your last post. You finished that post with:

Everything appears to have the potential to be relative, including my last comment. Relative "to what" is the interesting question.

How very true, good friend. Some time ago, in some distant post, I argued that ultimately there must be an ultimate capital-T Truth somewhere; a final authority to which things are ultimately fixed or rooted. This goes to your "Relative 'to what' is the interesting question" comment. I think you and I are in agreement that ultimately that Truth is God himself.

I asked a question in an earlier post:

If God himself is Absolute Truth, is what God says also Absolutely Truth?

If the answer to that is "yes," then with regard to the Bible we now have two basic questions:

1. Did God choose to reveal Himself in the form of the written Word?
2. If so, does God have the power to create and preserve a written revelation from Him?
   

The first question is critically fundamental. If one's answer to this is "no," then any further discussion regarding the veracity of the Bible itself is pointless. If God did not choose to reveal Himself in the written Word, then by definition the Bible is not from Him. We may then launch into a discussion of the value of the Bible absent any intrinsically divine qualities. The Bible then becomes just another book, perhaps worthy of discussion and analysis, but on no higher level than any other highly regarded book from the pen of man.

But if the answer to the first question is "yes," that God did choose to reveal Himself in the form of the written Word, then we have to presume that what God chose to do, God achieved initially.

Note: I offer that last italicized "initially" to hold off dismissal of that statement based on the objection of corruption of text over time. The fundamental point here is that there would be terrific theological consequences if we were to say that God could not accomplish something he set out to do. "Hmmm ... I think I'll create a written revelation today. Darn, something's blocking me. Oh well, I guess I can't do that." :-)

If we establish that He accomplished initially what He set out to do, then the question becomes what I stated before:

If God desired that His written revelation be preserved over time, does He have the power to insure that He accomplish that desire?

Here again, the answer to that must be a "yes," otherwise we're in a quandry: God has the sovereign power to create but not to preserve? So the question really boils down to this:

Did God desire to preserve his initial written revelation?

We can only surmise the answer to that question, and hence that's where the element of faith comes into the picture. It cannot be proven that He did desire to preserve; it cannot be proven that He did not. Clearly there is ample reason to believe mankind has within his fallen nature the ability and perhaps desire to corrupt what God has created. Theologically, that corruption occurs because God permits it, not because God can't do anything about it. But there is ample reason to believe God did desire to preserve His written revelation; Jesus himself made reference to Scripture as Truth. If Jesus was God (which I believe is the case), then why would God point to Scripture as Truth when it was in fact corrupt, something He would certainly know was the case?

Therefore, I choose to believe that God desired to preserve His written revelation, and that He accomplished that desire. It is an element to faith, I freely admit.

Now, why do I feel it is a fundamental cornerstone? Because without this written revelation we have nothing on which to base a belief structure and faith in Jesus Christ. Christ's death on the cross was an atoning sacrifice for all mankind's sins? Says who? Let's say you believe that and I don't ... what's to arbitrate the difference? Or let's say Bill believes Jesus spoke to him yesterday and said "X." John also believes Jesus spoke to him yesterday, but Jesus said "Y," and "X" and "Y" are mutually exclusive. Is one right, one wrong? Or are both right? Or perhaps both wrong?

Any belief structure must have a stake in the ground somewhere. The entire Christian faith is based upon what's written in the Bible. Without that as a cornerstone, the whole thing crumbles.

So I cycle back to my original assertion: "The Christian faith cannot be properly grounded without a belief that the Bible contains fundamental truths as revealed by God himself."

Note: Now notice that I'm not saying that, for instance, you must believe that Jonah really spent three days in the belly of a fish; or that the Genesis account of creation was a literal 7-solar-day event. I'm saying that one must have a foundational faith that the Bible carries God's Truth. To believe that the Bible is not a carrier of God's Truth means one's Christian faith is simply untethered.

Belief and Faith

I had crafted a luminous append but had a failure during the posting of it! As a precuation I will copy & paste future texts to ensure that such a thing does not occur again. Highly annoying.

My Star Trek stuff about “worshipping the Son”, witty erudite bohemian intuitive insightful quips -- all gone! Ah well, such is the nature of our world :-)

But, as John Lennon said, "there is no place you can be that isn't where you're meant to be".

You said:

Belief in almost all things is a sliding scale of certainty/uncertainty,
wouldn't you say?

Yes I would agree. I was trying to put a number on the slippery vernier scale and have yet to come up with better than >50% = belief and < 50% = disbeliefs. What happens at exactly 50% I do not know, but as the Uncertainty Principle excludes such exactness from the physical world (the Euclidean "point" does not exist in the physical world) I'm not worried. Your intuitive non-mathematical treatise of it reminds me of the old Chinese proverb:

Tell me, I forget
Show me, I remember
Involve me, I understand

You said:

... is belief in God the same as faith in God?

If I rephrase to:

... is belief in X the same as faith in X?

Are the two questions the same? If so then consider the example of X being “the sexual fidelity of our wives” (ok ok, theoretical for me as I’m not married):

1. We might believe that she has always been faithful to us

2. We might have faith that she is and will always be faithful to us

3. We might believe that she is having an affair

4. We would not have faith that she is having an affair

We only have faith in things that we want to be absolutely true. And shame on your philosopher, were he worth his salt he would have advised his student to take his advice with a pinch of it. Everything appears to have the potential to be relative, including my last comment. Relative "to what" is the interesting question.

Current Song: "Scoff" -- Nirvana

Different Types of "Belief"

You wrote:

Or is belief a binary thing, you either 100% believe in something or 0% (don't believe in it)?

I would think there are few things we as humans are 100% certain of. I'm reminded of a Star Trek episode titled, "Specter of the Gun." The episode was set in the "wild west" of the United States at the time of the famed "Gunfight at the OK Corral." (Which took place, incidentally, at a place not far from where I now live.) The crew of the Enterprise must face Wyatt Earp and his henchman in a gunfight. But everything is an illusion, yet so real the humans can't quite believe that it's all fake. Only Spock, mastering his human half, can convince himself it's all an illusion. A 1% doubt makes the bullet real, which will result in injury and death.

Conclusion? All things in life have been represented in a Star Trek episode. :-)

Belief in almost all things is a sliding scale of certainty/uncertainty, wouldn't you say? Belief in some things, such as the continued rotation of the earth and the rising of the sun tomorrow enjoy a near complete certainty. Belief in other things, such as the certainty of your favorite football team winning the match, are less.

So it goes with the Christian faith as well. I have heard too many well-respected pastors and ministers preach on the subject of doubts and fears, and place themselves in the middle of it by confessing their own plague of doubts at time. Doubts are, I suspect, a quite natural aspect of the Christian faith, which is why the Bible urges us to soldier on ... exercising the spiritual disciplines of prayer and fellowship despite doubts.

Note: our Star Trek crew got out of the jam by having Spock do his "Vulcan Mind Meld" on them, convincing them beyond doubt that all at the gunfight was an illusion.

* * *
You wrote:

There I go again, thinking that I live in a Universe that has an omnipotent creator always leads me back to the logical conclusion that there really is only one Absolute Truth: that omnipotent creator Himself.

I'll second that assertion, but I'll ask a follow-up question: if God himself is Absolute Truth, is what God says also Absolutely Truth?

Note: what I reject categorically is the assertion that there is no absolute truth. For one, that denies God his rightful role as sovereign. But also, it doesn't make any sense. "There is no absolutes!" Says a philosopher. "Are you sure?" Asks a student. "Absolutely!" Bellows the philosopher. :-)

* * *
This topic also brings to mind someting else. The thoughts aren't solidified in my head, so rather than make an assertion, I'll pose it as a question.

Is there a range or scale used by humans when learning about and coming to believe something? Is it strictly numerical, or is there a difference in the manner of belief?

What I have in mind is a scale that looks something like this:

• Ignorance -- complete lack of knowledge, or a willful maintenance of non-knowledge (me and all topics relating to security or performance)
  
• Unknowing Acceptance -- an acceptance of an assertion based on the authority of the person making the assertion, but little more (me and quantum physics)
  
• Understanding -- knowledge of that which comprises an assertion and an acknowledgement of the good possibility of it being true (me and the idea that there's another in this world who looks just like me)
  
• Intellectual Assent -- beyond understanding, this is willing the mind to accept as true the assertion (me and the reality of your daughter, me having never met her, but me granting intellectual assent based on your authority and other evidence)
  
• Trust -- beyond mere assent, this is the wagering of that which is valuable to us on the proposition that it is in fact true.

This will ultimately tie into one of the cornerstones on Christ and the issue of faith. From what I can gather -- from all the sermons I've heard preached on the subject -- there is a good many people who believe Jesus existed and even believe he was who he said he was. But that belief is really intellectual assent and not a "trusting faith." Perhaps I fall into this camp, though I pray I do not.

So I'm wondering ... is belief in God the same as faith in God?

A belief versus a fact

Thanks for expounding on your cornerstone 1, where you said:

It can't be "proven" in the normal sense of the word. Rather, we as humans come to a point where we must choose to believe this.

I have to agree with you. But first can we agree on what "belief" means?

I'll have a stab at it:

If you understand that a phenomenon has a 50% chance or more of being a fact then you can be said to believe in that phenomemon.

Any good?

For instance, we cannot prove that God exists 100% for sure, but we have a greater than 50% understanding that He does exist, so we are said to believe in Him. If we only believed 20% then that would leave us with an 80% disbelief so on balance we would be unbelievers. Or is belief a binary thing, you either 100% believe in something or 0% (don't believe in it)?

Facts, like 1 + 1 = 2 (relative to the axioms of mathematics ) are 100% for sure. In saying that I have of course assumed God doesn't change the "fact" that 1+1=2 relative to the axioms of mathematics!

There I go again, thinking that I live in a Universe that has an omnipotent creator always leads me back to the logical conclusion that there really is only one Absolute Truth: that omnipotent creator Himself. But then again He could change logic, and thus my conclusion. My brain hurts.

Current song: "Numbers" -- Kraftwerk

Harry Potter

I've never understood the mortification some have over the "Harry Potter" books. Sure, there's the notion of witchcraft and sorcery. But as you point out, the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy has that as well. Perhaps the fear is that in "Harry Potter," the sorcery aspect is played up as a tool of good when in the right hands (the three main kids). It would seem better to watch the movies with the kids and then talk to them about how the Bible warns against sorcery. But then again, I'm not a parent. :-)

But ... I'm not really sure ... I watched the first Harry Potter movie and thought it rather boring. But then again, I found the three "Lord of the Rings" movies just as boring. I'm not a fan of those kinds of movies. No particular philosophical argument, I just don't care for them.

Cornerstone # 1 - God's Revelation

This first cornerstone seems somewhat mundane. It's a simple question, really, but our view of its answer is fundamentally important to the Christian faith. The question is:

Has God revealed himself to us, or is he unknowable?

If God has decided to shroud himself from us, then any discussion about God, his nature and attributes, belief, faith and heaven are then just pure speculation. I doubt many people hold to a view of God being completely unrevealed. Atheists hold that God doesn't exist, so the question of revelation is moot. Theists may not be clear on the nature of revelation, but I suspect they hold that some degree of revelation has occurred.

The Bible tells us that God has revealed himself in four ways:

1. Through creation
2. In our hearts and on our consciences
3. In the written word: Scripture
   
4. In the person of Jesus Christ
   

Note: and of course the Bible has references to other less common forms of revelation, for example Moses and the burning bush; Paul and the road to Damascus.

Paul used the first two as the basis of an argument that all men stand convicted before God because through the revelation made evident in creation and their consciences, they can not claim ignorance of what God demands of them.

Note: That's an argument that won't win many converts down at the pub, I suspect. :-)

Still, it is interesting that almost all people experience on occasion some form of awe when gazing upon the vastness or grandeur of creation. Similarly, there are things universally accepted as "right" and "wrong" (though the idea is being eroded by post-modernist notions of relativism, and individuals may choose to ignore or violate them). These are the things written on our consciences.

Note: I found the book, "The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man" by J. Budziszewski a fascinating study in what happens when we try to replace God's law written on our hearts with our own. Budziszewsky (pronounced Bud-a-shev-ski) argues that our God-programmed concsciences will not be, over time, denied. When supressed for too long will exact its revenge in other ways. I couldn't follow all the philosophy, but I found the book interesting.

We could go round-and-round on the validity and nature of the first two revelations, but I'm not sure it's really the main thrust of this. In my mind those two go to the question of God's basic existence and a very, very basic guidance of how we live. But the Christian faith is not built directly on those two, but rather the third form of revelation (Scripture) and the fourth (Jesus Christ).

As I sit back and ponder this, one question keeps coming up in my mind: Why? Why has God chosen to reveal himself to us? The answer to this, I feel, is tied up in why God chose to create us in the first place: so that we may experience the blessing of seeking him, drawing close to him, and sharing his perfect love with us.

So we start these six cornerstones with a very basic assertion: God exists, he created us, and he has chosen to reveal himself to us. Take away any of those three things and the Christian faith falls apart:

• If God doesn't exist, then clearly the Christian faith is a fabrication
• If God didn't create us, then it the Christian story of reconciliation to our creator God through the sacrifice of his Son seems odd. (I'll admit this argument is not as strong as the first)
• If God has not revealed himself to us, then even if he does exist, and even if he did create us, we could not know anything about him and any religious construction would be, as I said earlier, complete speculation.

As there will be in all six of my cornerstones, there is an element of faith -- or trust -- that this is true. It can't be "proven" in the normal sense of the word. Rather, we as humans come to a point where we must choose to believe this.

My point in this post is simply this: the journey towards Christian faith relies upon this first cornerstone. The Christian faith cannot be supported if this first assertion -- that God exists, he created us, and has chosen to reveal himself to us -- is not true.

Next: a closer look at God's written revelation through Scripture.

“Lord, what fools these mortals be!”

Spot the Shakespearean reference?

I have to pick up on a point you made about living forever, I know you meant "living on the Earth" but I've heard it used a few times by people as a reason against being a Christian, they also say:

"Personally, I find the notion of living forever quite dismal. "

Now couple yours and their statement to what we find in the Gospel of St. John and you'll see where they are coming from:

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

We've discussed what we would be doing in Heaven in earlier posts, I think we agreed upon "a lot of worshipping", and then I went into "we're not natural worshippers" etc, I don't think we ever came to a crisp agreement on the nature of Heaven. Hey I've just had a thought, maybe that passage from John means .. "Whosoever believes in the scientist will get the benefits of the technology that allows one to live forever, and thus have eternal life?" :-)

Coincidentally (?) one day after the Revelation of deep.thought the Sunday Times have today published this article (dated March 13th):

"I'm going to live forever

Some scientists predict that today's children will be able to live for more than 1,000 years. Is immortality just around the corner? Bryan Appleyard peers into a hair-raising future without death". Read the full text at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1522606,00.html

But in case you don't have time to read it, I have pulled this passage from it:

"Death has always defined us. The first creatures to laugh, said Vladimir Nabokov, were also the first creatures that knew they were to die. Self-awareness means, above all, awareness of one’s own ultimate extinction. But, as La Rochefoucauld pointed out in the 17th century, looking directly at death is like staring at the sun. It cannot be done"

Yes, the emotional changes brought on by living forever will cause an immense paradigm shift of our collective psyche I believe.

"Wormwood" occurs nine times in eight passages of The Bible, it's a herb, more commonly known as absinthe? (sp). I think it was used in potions. Even Professor Snape mentions it in Harry Potter #1.

Sidebar: I've often wondered why that book/film is called different things in the US and UK. "Harry Potter and The Sorceror's Stone" in the US, and "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" in the UK. The correct and historical object is "The Philosopher's Stone". Don't you have Philosophers in the US?

Sidebar#2: I know two Christians who refuse to let their children watch Harry Potter because of the dark magic and he who must not be named. Funnily these are the same Christians who are totally in favour of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, they love Lewis and his buddy Tolkien. In fact, the mother went to a fancy dress party recently dressed as "Arwen" the elf played by Liv Tyler. Don't tell her about Sauron. This makes me smile :-)

Sidebar#3: According to the Times Rich List, Joanna Rowling is the richest woman in Britain at some £435M (GBP), Madonna (and Guy Ritchie) second at £215M.

Yes I know of Rod Serling, we were broadcast re-runs of the Twilight Zone here, didn't he have some connection to "The Planet of the Apes" also?

Bring on your cornerstones!

Current song: "Not Fade Away" -- The Rolling Stones

Living Forever and Wormwood

Oh, the thoughts are just swirling through my head! First, a tip of my hat to you and the reference to "wormwood" in Revelation. I had always thought that the character of "Wormwood" in C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" was a fabrication of his imagination. It may have been. But I suspect he read that in Revelation, thought it a brilliant name, and used it.

Living Forever

I recall a television show from the my youth called "The Twilight Zone." Do you know of that show? It was hosted by Rod Serling, and it had 1/2 hour vignettes that centered on tales of mystery and the semi-supernatural. It was definitely not occult, but rather it explored the edges of our reality.

One episode's theme had to do with a man who wished (or perhaps prayed) for immortality. As the show opened the man was sick in the hospital, then upon receiving this "gift" of immortality he sets out to live life without concern or regard for death. The details of the show fade from my memory at this point, but I do recall that eventually the man grew tired of experimenting with things that would otherwise kill him, and drifted into a kind of near-insanity at the realization that he was truly immortal.

Other shows and movies have played on a similar theme. I'll admit that many explored the notion of a singular immortality in a population of mortals; that is, what it would be like to live forever when friends and family die off over time. (This is the theme of the "Highlander" movie. I find this notion of living through endless cycles of relationships quite sad and lonely. )

I'm a bit more skeptical than are you on the topic of science unraveling the mystery of aging and being able to stop or reverse its process. But we'll see. Or, I should say, let's hope we don't see, but if we do, then let us ponder the consequences.

Do you feel that science will also provide a solution to the emotional side of this? Assume that we are able to live to 120, 200, or beyond. Aside from the societal consequences of this -- which would be dramatic -- is there a point in time where one might simply grow weary of the existence? Particularly if that existence is not the stuff of Hollywood movies, where life's every wish and whim was just a finger-snap away? I think there is ... I think that our human emotional capacity to exist, year after year, decade after decade, has a limit. I could be wrong. But that's what I think.

To your question about how such a development might affect our thoughts of heaven and hell, of God and the devil ... I think it would most certainly further erode what little regard we pay it now. But here's the essential question: does our attendance to consideration of God change the reality of God? An atheist would say, I suppose, that it would simply confirm that God never existed in the first place. And we're back to the fundamental issue of "proving" (or disproving) the existence of God, which is impossible.

Let's turn the question over and ask it a different way -- assume that we humans never developed an awareness of our mortality. We live with no understanding or expectation of death, and then die. We see others die, but make no connection in our minds whatever. Were that the case, would we humans have developed religion? In other words, is a necessarily precursor to religious belief an understanding of the inevitability of death?

Then, consider this: might our awareness of our own mortality be one element of God's revelation to Himself to us? This is a thread I might pick up when I start expanding on my "Cornerstones" of faith and belief.

* * *

Personally, I find the notion of living forever quite dismal. A more powerful emotion is the fear of the actual process of dying, which is why were I to face the choice at this age of choosing death or choosing life I would opt for the latter. But at the ripe old age of 45 I can start to see some of what I believe people of advanced age feel.

Note: to that one might logical reply, "Ah, but those of advanced age who grow weary of life do so because of physical imfirmities. Were they healthy and vigorous, they would not look upon life in the same way." Perhaps. But I'm not so sure. The key here is that life absent disease does not necessarily imply life without unhappiness. And unhappiness can hang heavy on a man's soul, eventually taking all desire for life with it.

A thought just crossed my mind. God gave us intelligence and an inquisitive nature. It serves us well in many areas (food production, health care) and is our plague in others (nuclear weapons, bio-terrorism). Science might very well provide an answer to aging. Might it be yet another exercise in Free Will, one not desired by God but permitted nevertheless?

Wormwood and the End of Our Planet

Underlying your discussion of asteroids and the eventual nova of our sun is the assumption that God won't first bring about the destruction of all this in the Second Coming of our Lord. I suppose it's possible that God might use those natural mechanisms to actually bring about the destruction of all this.

To be honest, I have trouble looking out 600 years -- a mere trifle in time -- and find it entirely impossible to consider existence millions or billions of years from now. Perhaps its just fatalism. Or perhaps it's wishful thinking -- the thought of the destruction of the earth by an asteroid removes all the choices and uncertainties about life, living and death from our shoulders, doesn't it? There is some comfort in the inevitable.

My thinking on all this is starting to jump the rails of rational thought and settle more on thoughts of God's control of all things. I can't prove anything, and I can't really defend my conclusions. But they are what they are.

I have lived 45 years on this planet ... some of those in complete denial of such things, some of those in complete dread, and now there is dawning in my mind and heart an awareness of God's Glory extending over it all. I have a sense of the numinous, and from that I do not wish to turn.

Grace and peace, brother.