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