What Darwin Posited; What Darwinism Has Become

You wrote:

You see what he has cleverly done here? He is equating Darwinism to something that he calls materialist philosophy". I'm not sure that Darwin ever thought that intelligence can only exist unless in evolved from mindless matter. Did he?

Do you see what you have just done? You've assumed that what "Darwinism" is today is necessarily the same as what Darwin intended back in the mid-1800's. I'm not a philosopher, but did not Nietzche latch onto the idea of "survival of the fittest" when he postulated his theory of the "superman?" Was not that then used for such things as eugenics, and Hitler's philosophy of a "master race?"

My point about the small toe, or the appendix, was to illustrate just how distorted Darwin's theory of natural selection has become. People routinely confuse willful adaptation with genetic mutation, and frequently ascribe a "purpose" to "nature's design" in evolution.

* * *
You wrote:

So I would say to the author not to be so anti-ad hominem arguments, as they are exactly what are required to be religious.

Does that necessarily imply that an hominem arguments are the only logical construct to be used when discussing religion?

* * *
You wrote:

At least scientists admit that they don't know it all.

Perhaps that sentence should have read:

At least some scientists admit they they don't know it all.

I don't believe it can be said that all scientists act with equal humility.

Similarly, some people of faith are more than happy to admit they don't know it all. I've read and listened to some of the best theological minds of the 20th and 21st century, and one thing I hear time and again is an admission that at the very center of the Christian faith there exists some profound mysteries.

Yes, there are many people who display a profound sense of arrogance with regard to the things of faith. I've written many times in this space that I have little regard for such people. Aside from doing great damage to the faith, they are displaying a fundamentally flawed response to the central premise of the faith. That's Cornerstone #6, by the way, if I ever get to it. :-)

* * *
As for the use of the term theory ... are you saying that natural selection is a proven fact? Can you cite one instance of proof of a trans-species mutation? Has there ever been an experiment where bacteria in a petri dish have responded to a change in their environment and mutated to a completely different species?

Note: I'll acknowledge that one difficulty here is the definition of the term "species." Some might argue that a bacteria that no longer dies from exposure to some antibiotic is a different species. I'm not so sure that's a proper use of the traditional meaning of the term.

Similarly, are you saying that the "Big Bang" is proven fact? What is scientific "fact?" Can "fact" be established absent a mechanism to provide repeatable and consistent demonstrations of the phenomenon?

* * *
With all due respect, scientists are humans, and humans are subject to many failings, including allowing their personal wishes and desires to enter their studies. This planet is littered with all manner of people who stake a claim for scientific neutrality, but display anything but. Here in the United States, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control published a study that claimed that obesity resulted in over 400,000 deaths per year. It has since been established that the methodology employed in the study is flawed, and that based on the raw numbers the extrapolated value should be closer to 25,000. Yet the CDC has not withdrawn the 400,000 number. Why not? I can only speculate, but here are two reasons: 1) pride, 2) money.

There can be little argument that governmental money chases after things perceived as the most critical to address. Do you think scientists are immune to the lure of grants for their research? Do you think they are immune to the temptation to hedge their findings a bit, perhaps paint a slightly different picture, all to make their particular project more critical than the next fellow's?

Non ad hominem

My you have been prolific on the blog old son!

I don't have the time right now (but will get back to you) to do full justice in responding to all of your points. I did read that article however and the author was poo-poo'ing the use of ad hominem arguments (those arguments that appeal to emotion rather than logic) whilst using them liberally.

I think we have to be careful about such things .. when you say:

"It was then that I sensed that there was another agenda at work -- secular materialism"

Is this sense from your intellect or from your emotional side? (Or were you using The Force again? :-)

Note: We've already concluded that intellect alone will not get one all the way to Jesus Christ. One needs faith, which I would contend is emotionally based (ad hom). So I would say to the author not to be so anti-ad hominem arguments, as they are exactly what are required to be religious.

I did enjoy the article to a degree, but my opinion of the author was dented early on when he wrote:

Darwinism, on the other hand, accepts only the first two causes, because, according to materialist philosophy, intelligence does not exist unless it evolves over time from mindless matter.

You see what he has cleverly done here? He is equating Darwinism to something that he calls "materialist philosophy". I'm not sure that Darwin ever thought that intelligence can only exist unless in evolved from mindless matter. Did he?

Darwin did have a problem, as I believe you and I do, with the Creation account as laid down in Genesis. He goes futher however, in his autobiography Darwin wrote:

"I had gradually come by this time, see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian."

I think this offends Christians so they dismiss what is in effect a very successful theory, the theory of natural selection.

I suspect that these days having a small toe or appendix (or not) is neither here or there in the stakes for breeding. As the Human Race moves forward in time I see a homogeneity of variance starting, a settling down, everyone becoming more similar. Necessity is the mother of invention - and necessity for change is reducing as the livestyle of the planet becomes more comfortable.

It's interesting that the author, and about religious folks in general, are always very happy to refer to the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution, with great joy that these are theories. But if a scientist ever referred to the Theory of An Omnipotent God and Jesus Christ, or Theory of Allah, this would be a great offence. At least scientists admit that they don't know it all.

You wrote:

Why would the state of things prior to the "Big Bang" exist in an apparently steady state and then suddenly change, if not for some outside influence?

Again, this is a dangerous argument for religious people. Discussing the state before the supposed Big Bang. If we do that we should discuss the state before God and what outside influence changed to allow a God. It's like asking "where does the surface of the Earth start?" We may put arbitrary points onto the surface if the Earth (like the poles), but it does not start anywhere.

Likewise God does not start. Likewise the Big Bang did not "start" in the sense that we understand time. Time did not exist before it. If the theory of the Big Bang is correct, and I have seen a whole lot of evidence to support it, then it just was. Talking about temporal events before the start of time is (again) a non-sequitur.

Current song: "Teenage Dirtbag" -- Wheatus

Intelligent Design

I came across this interesting article in defense of "Intelligent Design:"

http://www.techcentralstation.com/052605E.html

What I didn't realize until I got to the bottom of the article is that the author is from Turkey, and is a Muslim (according to the bio at the bottom), though likely a somewhat secular Muslim. But the point is he's not a fundamentalist Christian.

I also found it interesting because it tied in to the posts earlier today.

I do not believe in the purely materialistic view of creation -- never did, even prior to my coming to faith in Christ. I had a vague sense of theism, but nothing concrete. But the idea that everything around us is the result of pure random chance is something that never resonated with me. In college I recall a professor arguing for evolution, and I thought, "No, something is wrong with this argument." He was arguing for the eventual elimination of the appendix or small toe on humans, but such an argument fundamentally refutes the idea of random mutations leading to reproductive advantage. The presence or absence of a small toe on a person does not make them any more or less likely to be reproductively successful, particularly in an age where reproductive choice is not determined solely on survival factors. It was then that I sensed that there was another agenda at work -- secular materialism, but I didn't know it at the time -- and my radar went up, suspicious of what I was hearing.

Note: that's one of my big beefs with materialists -- they impute in evolution a sense of purpose. They'll deny it, but they're language gives them away. They often speak of some change "making sense" ... but of course, "sense" has no place in a world that is a product of pure chance, and has no place particuarly within a mechanism of pure chance.

Another aspect of the secular materialism I could not stomach was the notion that prior to the "Big Bang," all matter in the universe existed in a point of "singularity." That's abstract enough. But to think that such a thing would exist for some period of time and then suddenly -- through some apparent causal effect -- explode in a "Big Bang" without benefit of any outside force ... well, that was too much. Why would the state of things prior to the "Big Bang" exist in an apparently steady state and then suddenly change, if not for some outside influence? But of course, an influence outside the point of "singularity" was not possible; it refutes the idea of singularity.

To add fuel to the fire of those who read my earlier post and view me a heretic, I don't believe in the literal creation of the universe in six solar days. I don't refute the ability of a sovereign and omnipotent God to do that. Rather, I look about this planet and see ample evidence that time has existed for longer than the lineage of humans suggested in the Bible. For instance, the Grand Canyon clearly was not formed by natural erosion in ... what? ... 4,676 years? That means either the earth is older than 4,676 years, or God created the Grand Canyon (and other evidence of long-duration time effects) as they are for some reason unknown to us.

I'm in a philosophical mood ...

I honestly don't see the contradiction here. To assume a creator outside the realm of our natural universe does not, in my mind, refute science. If anything, it elevates my sense of the Holy in God that he could create such an extraordinarily intracate lace of natural laws and physics that would be as we see them today.

Hence my admiration for the article I posted the link to earlier. I see that as a perfectly sensible argument on behalf of "Intelligent Design," though absent any thundering theological condemnation.

Thoughts?

Intelligence and Wisdom

I'm in a bloggin' mood this morning. It's a holiday. I could be doing work-related things. But my brain is just turned off. :-)

Is it possible for a child to be smarter than the parent? I think so ... examples of child prodigies would support that, don't you think? I doubt I was smarter than my parents. They're both pretty smart, but in different ways. From what I understand, my mother tested out with an IQ of something like 160 or so. She had a flair for art, which I think provided her with terrific spatial reasoning capabilities. I have a bit of that ... not much, but a bit.

But that aside, there really is a difference between intelligence and wisdom, isn't there? So while some whiz-kid might know how to calculate 69-factorial in their head, they might be a tad short in the common sense department.

Note: Why 69-factorial? The better calculators of my high-school days allowed scientific notation, but had only two places for the value of the exponent. 69-factorial was the largest number that worked. 70-factorial resulted in an error because the exponent was three digits long. I once set out to hand-calculate 100 factorial to get the exact value. I gave up at about 20.

Note 2: Have you ever heard of the board game called "Diplomacy?" It has no dice, no spinners, no random chance. It consists of a pre-WWI map, tokens that represent armies and navies, and relies entirely on the ability of the players to negotiate alliances and skillfully stab people in the back. There's a whole sub-culture around that game. I used to play that back in high school. I did things like that rather than date girls. I was a pitiful example of a socially awkward geek. I wasn't smart enough to be a "true geek," so I wasn't considered one of the brainiacs. More than anything I was anonymous. I tried to stay that way.

Speaking of Logic ...

I part ways with many of my evangelical brethren on the idea of "proving" the validity of the Christian faith. I hold no such hope of "proving" it. Further, I would argue that the one of the foundational elements of the faith requires that it not be provable. In John 20:24-29, the account is retold of Thomas requiring "proof" of the resurrected Jesus being real. Jesus provides Thomas the opportunity to physically touch his wounds, thus providing proof. Only then does Thomas believe. Jesus then offers a mild rebuke:

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29, NIV, emphasis
added)

In other words, the very foundation of the Christian faith is based on the idea that we are to believe what we have not seen for ourselves; believe what we cannot "prove." I may argue for the validity of the supporting evidence, but the ultimate issue -- that Jesus was the Christ -- is a personal decision of faith.

I part ways with some evangelical Christians in my view of the Bible. I do believe that it is inerrant; the inspired and True Word of God. But I can't prove that ... I choose to believe it. What irritated me before I believed -- and still does, for that matter -- is when people try to "prove" the Bible by using verses from the Bible. I'm sure that's a logical fallacy, I'm just not sure the name of the fallacy. A more difficult test is to support the validity of the Bible without relying upon passages within the Bible.

Note: Here there is much scholarly work. I'm not an expert on it, but from what I gather, based on techniques used to validate other antique writings, there is as much reason to believe the authenticity of the written text (not necessarily the message, but the text itself) as there is reason to believe the authenticity of other ancient writings. The book of Luke, for instance, has proven to be an extraordinarily accurate report of events from that time.

I firmly believe that the placing of trust in the Bible as the inspired Word of God is ultimately an act of faith. Logical deduction can be used to take a person a good way in believing that the Bible is a credible ancient text, but that last step -- that the text is God's written word -- necessarily must be an act of faith. I have chosen to believe that the Bible is inherently True; therefore, based on that, I now believe X, Y and Z.

Some might brand me a heretic for writing this, but those who do aren't reading my words very carefully. I'm as strong a believer in the "Inerrancy of Scripture" as any Bible thumper. I'm not a literalist (I don't, for instance, believe Jesus is physically a door, 28" wide and 6'8" high). But I do believe that the Bible as structured represents God's True Word, in ways obvious and in ways obscured.

I just can't "prove" it ... and I don't think it's God's plan for it to be proved.

Belief and Trust ... that's what it's all about. Not proof and acceptance, but belief and trust.

Smart People, Bad Ideas

I enjoyed this line:

People worry about the wrong thing at the wrong time and apply their intelligence in ways that doesn’t serve the greater good of whatever they’re trying to achieve.

I've seen this a million times, especially in meetings of people. It's almost inevitable that in any group discussion the main point will be obscured by a flurry of side topics which, if pursued, end up taking the whole discussion down some side street. I want to scream, "No! The main point is back here!" But I'm rarely listened to. :-)

* * *
I'm not so sure C. S. Lewis made the argument that Christianity must be right because nobody has proven it wrong. I recall him very forcibly arguing that atheism is logically unsupportable. He used that as a springboard to argue for the existence of God. Of course, the existence or non-existence of God is something that will never be "proven."

But I would advise some caution in negating the argument, "Since it's not been disproven, then there's a chance it's correct" line of reasoning. That is what's used all the time in the scientific community. The "Big Bang" will never be "proven" ... the best it'll ever achieve is a growing weight of supporting evidence. But it will always remain a theory. And therefore, just because nobody has disproven it, it doesn't make it so.

Note: And please don't tell me that scientists keep "theory" and "fact" neatly separated in their minds -- they don't. Scientists are no different from other people in that they have various agendas (agendi?) they're chasing, and the line often blurs. The theory of evolution is a good example of this -- supporting that theory as fact very nicely serves the agenda of refuting religion and building a sort of secular faith.

That said, Scott Berkun's blog was very well done. Years ago, in college, I took a course in logical argumentation. Not debate, but the various logical constructs and fallacies that one can employ. It was rather eye-opening. Once I was learned about the various fallacies, I was able to see them employed in things like newspaper articles. I don't remember all the different fallacies now, but one I recall is the "false strawman" fallacy. In that fallacy a false hypothesis is posited and then vigorously refuted. Then, upon the negation of that false hypothesis, a second hypothesis is then introduced and assumed true, simply because the other one has been proven false.

• Consider "A"
• I argue that "A" is incorrect.
• Therefore, "B"

Of course, the negation of "A" does not necessarily allow the conclusion of "B." That's the fallacy.

It is tempting to think that someone like C. S. Lewis was employing this "false strawman" argument: "Consider atheism ... I argue atheism is unsupportable ... therefore Christianity." But I'd argue that he did not do that. I'd argue that his logic was more:

• Consider "A"
• I argue that "A" is incorrect.
• Now consider "B"
• Here are my arguments for "B"
• Therefore, "B" is correct

Of course, you may not agree with my assessment. But I know I'm right. I'm always right! :-)

Note: don't go dissin' my boy C. S. ... you know that gets me steamed. :-)

* * *
So the French have voted "non" to the E.U. Constitution. I understand that Holland has its vote this Wednesday. Speculation in the conservative press here is that the advocates of the E.U. will simply keep bringing the issue to a vote until they receive the "oui" vote they desire. Then it will never be subject to a vote again. How's the British press playing the referendum of Sunday?

"Well, at least I was right"

A highly enjoyable (for me) read at:

http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/essay40.htm

1. It has a connection to the current Star Wars theme of the Dark Side being the quick and easy way when the writer says:

"I chose speed and power over control, and I usually lost. So like pool, when it comes to defusing smart people who are defending bad ideas, you have to find ways to slow things down."

2. He refers indirectly to C.S. Lewis when saying:

"“My plan A is the best because no one has explained how it will fail” know that there is a logical gap in this argument. Simply because no one has described how it will fail, doesn’t necessarily make it the best plan. It’s possible than plans B, C, D and E all have the same quality ..."

3. He believes in "lead, follow, or get out of the way" (essay 42)

4. He left Microsoft after 10 years (essay 41) -- so cannot be all bad? :-)

So, I of course, selected to like his articles, and would be interested in your opinion. Props to Scott Berkun, keep going.

I wonder if, when we were kids, you and I were smarter than our parents? And so (by Scott's argument) turned out in such a fashion as to support "bad" ideas? Would this be consistent with God saying "do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil", thus bringing upon ourselves tsunamis and the like?

Genesis 2 (KJV)

17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

It's a holiday today!

Current song: "Everybody's Talking At Me" -- Harry Nilsson

PS. Looking forward to "Cinderella Man" - thanks for the tip.

"For Yoda So Love the World..." -- Jedi 3:16

No, it doesn't suprise me at all that there'd be 390,000 people who'd respond with "Jedi" as their religion. I'll bet there'd be similar numbers (perhaps greater numbers) here in the United States. What would be interesting is to ask them what that religion entails ... what exactly they believe in subscribing to "Jedi" as their religion. I doubt it would there's be much agreement from one follower of Jedi to the next. "The Force" might be a common theme, but then ask them what "The Force" is.

* * *
Allow me to rephrase my earlier statement -- either Jesus is God incarnate; crucified, dead, and now alive again; given full dominion and authority over all ... or he's a dead Jewish carpenter.

* * *
The movie buzz I'm hearing is that "Cinderella Man," a story of a depression-era yoeman boxer named Jim Braddock who defeated heavyweight champion Max Baer in 1935, is a terrific movie. It opens in a week, I think, but the pre-release buzz is strong. It's directed by Ron Howard (of "A Beautiful Mind" and "Apollo 13" fame) and stars Russell Crowe and Renee Zellweger. I like Russell Crowe's acting. For the longest time I thought Renee Zellweger was a lightweight, but she's impressed me of late. That's one I'll probably go see. I won't be seeing the Star Wars movie ... just have no interest at all.

In thinking about the time setting of "Cinderella Man," my mind went back to the original Star Trek series and the "City on the Edge of Forever" episode. That's the one when the Enterprise comes upon a sort of time portal (which ran WebSphere), through which went a drug-deranged Dr. McCoy. It's set in the depression era and starred Joan Collins as Edith Keeler. A quiet memorable episode.

"Assassins!" -- Dr. McCoy

"He knows, doctor. He knows." -- Mr. Spock.

The Force is strong with you

You ask:

Do you think there is an existence, a reality, that is beyond what can be explained by physical science?

Yes. I would call it an "existence" yes, but it might not be "a reality". The reality of something should be in this Universe. Anything outside of our Universe could be defined to be "unreal" could it not? After all, it cannot be measured. "Unreal" but not "imaginary" perhaps? I'm not sure where the boundary lies between those two words.

You wrote:

Either Jesus is "the way and the truth and the light" or he isn't.

Maybe. But one needs first to define "the way" and "the truth". If those terms are relative themselves then where does that lead us? With our limited brains your statement might be how it seems. But our limited brains believe lots of things.

At the end of the day, for me, as my life is all too finite I may as well believe in something and I choose to believe in Jesus. Had I an infinite amount of time I might look into the matter far more closely. Perhaps when individual humans live for millions of years they will choose to do so?

on:

Many fall victim to the loose, easy "spirituality" that is eschewed by the likes of Oprah Winfrey.

Lucas warns us about this in Star Wars 5: The Empire Strikes Back

LUKE "Is the dark side stronger?
YODA "No, no. Easier, quicker, more seductive."

You may laugh, but 390,000 people, when asked during the last UK (2001) census, put "Jedi" in the religion box. It's "true" see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2757067.stm

Current song: "Somebody" -- Depeche Mode

Reality Beyond Reality?

Your post brings up a fundamental question -- is there a reality beyond the physical reality of our universe? I'm not talking about parallel universes or anything of the sort ... I'm referring to the super-natural. Do you think there is an existence, a reality, that is beyond what can be explained by physical science?

• If the answer is "Yes," then perhaps we can muse on whether our soul exists in this different realm.
• If the answer is "No," then there's a fundamental problem we must face squarely. If we deny the supernatural, we deny God. By definition God is not of the natural, for he created the natural. If God were comprised of the natural, he could not have existed prior to himself in order to create himself.

For what it's worth, I believe our being (our "soul") is beyond the natural. It does not consist of photons, or energy waves, or quarks or dark matter, or whatever. It is something other than that; something God created, but something not accessbile to our measurement or understanding.

* * *

As for "spirituality," the danger lurks for people who are truly seeking God, but fall prey to the seduction of these other forms of "spirituality." I am intentionally setting aside the question of predestination of "the elect" and assuming for the moment that someone who has a stirring in their heart to seek that "something" beyond themselves is being called by God. Those who are so moved face a virtual cafeteria of options. Many fall victim to the loose, easy "spirituality" that is eschewed by the likes of Oprah Winfrey.

Again, I fall back to what I see is this inescapable logic -- if Christianity is true, then all other religions and ideas of spirituality are false; if any other religion is true, then Christianity is false. They are mutually exclusive. Either Jesus is "the way and the truth and the light" or he isn't.

On spirituality, the soul and self

I guess for non-believers in the Christian faith to be "spiritual" is not a bad thing. If they haven't been elected to follow Jesus at least they are recognizing that the human is more than just a physical body. I hope !

It's weird really, Christians and Spiritualists alike believe that we have a quality (let's call it "the soul"), and that this soul is somehow separate from our physical being. But this "soul" does not register on any scientific apparatus known to mankind. So what is it? It's not an electromagnetic phenemenon. Did we invent the soul for survival purposes?

We have not found the soul with instruments, but to me, as a scientist, the soul could only exist (in this Universe) in the small spaces that are excluded from our intruments. These are very small distances, but add up to the entire Universe. All these tiny bits of space that we cannot look inside of (uncertainty principle) add up to a Universe. So if we cannot see what the Universe is really made of, then could the soul perhaps live in those spaces?

Hypothetical question: if I could copy your physical body and the electronic state of your brain exactly (like resuming a PC from hibernate), would that copy be "BAGWELL"? Who is "BAGWELL"? Is "BAGWELL" defined by his soul? And can the soul be copied?

I've been musing on this problem lately and have been kind of losing "myself". It appears to me that the "self" doesn't really exist. If you think about it long enough you get lost (or at least I do) in the feeling that the whole Universe is one connected thing, and that none of us are "real".

But while thinking about it, and getting lost, ones attention wanders and you might get eaten by a lion. So natural selection has ensured that we don't think about such things. :-) (Or better, we don't think about such things because those of us that did died out and those of us that survived are a different breed).

Current song: "Groove is in the heart" -- Deee Lite

"Spirituality"

I was reading a piece by Mark Steyn, columnist found in many different newspapers. This paragraph caught my eye:

Motoring through Gloucestershire a couple of Sunday nights back, I caught a Radio Four programme called Something Understood, with Mark Tully, one of those kinda-sorta-religious shows which seem to be as far as the BBC’s so-called Religious Affairs Unit is prepared to go these days. Its theme that week was the great revival of religion and ‘spirituality’, terms which were used by Mr Tully pretty interchangeably. It’s true that at the moment the shine seems to be off atheism, and many folks find secular society vaguely insufficient. But religion — i.e., Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc. — isn’t quite the same as ‘spirituality’, a mostly bogus category created for people who want to feel good about themselves without having to get up early on Sunday or give up activities to which they’re partial but most Churches aren’t. ‘Spirituality’ is pretty thin gruel next to your average ‘organised religion’, and my bet is the organised guys will win in the end. But in the meantime we have to put up with a lot of narcissist cults designed to make unsatisfied secular Westerners feel good about themselves.

I don't know much about Radio Four's "Something Understood," nor much about the BBC in general. But I like Steyn's characterization of the use of the phrase "spirituality." I've always been suspicious of it because I've heard it used in so many ways, relating to so many thing -- from traditional Christianity all the way to crystals, aromatheraphy and yoga "spirituality." I don't like the word.

In fact, I don't much care for the term "religion" when speaking of Christinity either. The term "faith" is better, but not perfect. I'm struggling to come up with a word that best means "belief in an immutable Truth." But even that might not do it, because there's an element of trust in addition to belief, and the simple word trust doesn't convey the proper depth of commitment. Perhaps I'm just overthinking things. :-)

I'm in Phoenix right now, going home to Tucson later tonight.

Hope all is well with you!

I've Been There!

That aerial photo you referenced is a military aircraft outdoor storage facility. The air in Tucson is so dry that there's virtually no ability for things to rust. I took a tour of that facility once -- it was fascinating riding in the bus between row afer row of moth-balled aircraft. There's a similar facility for commercial aircraft -- row after row of variously logo'd commercial aircraft.

Tucson is a place where people from around the world come to train to fly various aircraft. Given the vast expanse of desert, there's little problem with risking civilian populations if a plane were to crash. Also, there are sufficient mountains so various wind and air conditions can be experienced.

There ... there's your Tucson Chamber of Commerce message for the day!

Team America: World Police

You live near Tucson right? Check this out !!

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tucson,+AZ&ll=32.155223,-110.828598&spn=0.009506,0.014098&t=k&hl=en

No song: In the office

Pre-Existence Existence

I saw the movie "Team America," and I laughed probably as much as you did. The movie skewered pretty much everybody -- on the left and the right. In that sense it's a lot like the cartoon called "South Park," which is in the United States but I don't know if it's seen anywhere else. They have no sacred cows. It's hilarious.

* * *
Interesting question ... since I did not ask to be created, does that mean I should not be held responsible for my actions after having been created? Extend the logic -- if the argument is one should not be held accountable in the afterlife for not believing in Jesus Christ, why then should one be held accountable in this life for committing a series of horrible murders? Honestly, what's the difference?

That's not a foolish question ... it gets back to the basic issue of morality: if God exists, and he is the omnipotent creator we believe him to be, then of course he has the right to establish what is right and wrong. If belief in Christ is his dictate, who are we to say it's unfair to hold us accountable just because we were created?

Note: actually, the issue is considerably more complex if one subscribes to the doctrine of the elect. If the decision as to who will believe and who will not is made prior to creation, and I was created as one of the non-elect, then why should I be punished for eternity for not believing in something I was not pre-determined to believe. See that dilemma? I don't have a clue how to answer that.

If, on the other hand there is no original creator, no surpreme being, no moral authority ... then how exactly are we to determine right from wrong? Logically there is absolutely no way one can say there is a notion of right or wrong if there isn't a level at which the issue is definitively resolved. I know most reject that logic, but it truly is inescapable.

* * *
I'm watching a show on TV about Alaskan King Crab fishing in the Barring Sea. Supposedly it's the most dangerous profession on earth. Pitching seas, frozen decks, frigid waters, and 500 pound crab cages slamming to and fro on the deck. The crew fishes frantically for 72 straight hours, and one false step could mean being pitched into the icy waters to almost certain death. All for crab. It's good, I'll admit. But I'd just as soon have a chip-butty. Hmmmmm ... good!

Young Americans

You wrote:

What's more terrifying: nothing at all, or a Holy God who will judge one's every act and every thought?

The latter is far far more terrifying. I believe that I know what it is like to not exist, I think that I did that for approximately 5,113,500,000,000 days during the existence of this universe - and it holds no terror for me.

You can see the problem with this:

“I didn’t ask to be born God, surely you should put me back into the state that I was in before you incarnated me? If I had asked to have been born then I guess it’s fair enough for you to judge me. But as I believe that I didn’t ask to be born, why send me to an eternity of pain, just because I did not believe in Jesus Christ?”

On:

What's the value of "American Values" if they're not God's values?

Huh? I'm sure that God believes that we all have the right to drink Pepsi.

But seriously, first of all, what are “American Values”? Is there such a generalized set of values? Does anybody know? If there are, are they the same as those espoused in the puppet-movie “Team America” (a film which I could not help laugh at)? In this movie American soldiers are defeating terrorists, they always get their man. At one point they destroy the majority of Paris, but it’s ok as they get their bearded terrorist. This is quite a satirical insight into how the rest of the world (outside of the coalition) sees American foreign policy.

But you’re absolutely right, the question is a non-sequitur, it is the wrong way around, it should be “Do American Values undermine those of God”?

Current song: “I'm afraid of Americans" - David Bowie

++++

I saw the Netscape 8 announce (thank you slashdot!) I even went to download it and the first thing I saw was a security alert on the new rendering engine so I think I will wait a while.

Fearing Loss?

Welcome back from vacation, good sir. I hope you enjoyed yourself and came back relaxed and refreshed.

I've not yet seen the Star Wars movie, and probably will not. I'm not much of a fan of that franchise, and generally not much of a fan of science fiction. As to what Yoda was supposed to mean when he said, "Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed, that is. Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose" ... I can't begin to guess. But it got me thinking ... is it fear of losing, or fear of realizing something that terrifies people?

I've always wondered about this question: if we could know -- with absolute certainty -- that upon death there truly is nothing at all, would people be more or less frightened of death? Put another way, are we afraid of death because of it's the end, or because it's a beginning? What's more terrifying: nothing at all, or a Holy God who will judge one's every act and every thought?

I've come to fear the latter more than the former, which leads me to appreciate gift of Grace through Christ. I'm no better at the "spiritual disciplines" as I was before (that is to say, awfully negligent), but there's something really pounding in my heart and head -- it's all about Christ. What I do with that realization I do not yet know.

* * *
I saw a blog today that posed this question: "Is Christianity undermining American values?" I thought about that a bit, then I thought -- that question completely misses the point, doesn't it? What's the value of "American Values" if they're not God's values? And if one makes the assumption that "American Values" are a subset of "God's Values" (which is not necessarily a given, obviously), then Christianity by definition can't undermine those value. Unless, of course, the term "Christianity" means something different; or the values being considered aren't God's values. If "American Values" are opposed to God's values, then the true Christian must strive to undermine those values. The tough question is this -- what means may a Christian employ to resist those things opposed to the Lord?

* * *
Netscape 8.0 is out ... it has a dual rendering engine -- Firefox and IE. Cool.

Sympathy for the devil?

Apologies for the delay my brother, I have been en vacance à Paris for the last few days. Paris is a beautiful city and I can recommend the open bus tour.

I append this from a window manager called "icewm" running on a Linux distribution named "Gentoo", and it is singularly the fastest desktop that I have ever used. I can boot and do work within 45 seconds compared to the 400+ seconds on my WinXP rig on the same hardware. But, I can do less work in the long run (no iTunes or some other key apps), and how often do I boot up these days anyway? Still, Linux improves.

I checked out the site, I will be very interested indeed in what you discover about Mr. Sprouls interpretation of the Christian Doctrine. It's a tricky one this "everything is going according to God's plan" vs. "humans do not act according to God's will". Logically one should suppose that our human will is not aligned with God's perfect plan, and that that is allowed, even with a perfect plan. Had the Sproul works at that site been free of charge I would have downloaded them myself. I am sure that he is being exploited by middle men :-)

Having seen Star Wars 3 today, George Lucas (in the guise of a small green Master Jedi called Yoda) said:

"Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed, that is. Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose."

This I found quite interesting. I guess Lucas was talking about the fear of loss of the things we enjoy in life? But in our lives, what do we really fear to lose? Perhaps we fear to lose our very "existence" and have a very hard time in letting go? Therefore we invent for ourselves an afterlife?

If the Bible is not "true" is that why the Bible is the way it is and so popular ?

The film was kind of tragic the way the story portrayed the decline into evil of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader as a result of his desire to hang onto those he loved dear. Good and Evil, are they absolute or relative terms?

I don't know, but I for one actively want an afterlife.

And now that you're living in such a hot place you're attracted to cold web sites I see!

Current song: "Bo Weevil Song" - Eddie Cochran

Cool Blog ...

Completely unrelated to this blog's topic thread, but the pictures on this site are about as cool -- pardon the pun -- as I've seen:

http://simonc.f2o.org/south/

A fellow Brit, down at some South Pole scientific station.

Further Study

I am of late enamored by the MP3 series of R.C. Sproul. After your latest set of questions -- and my inability to answer them -- I searched around on the site and found a series titled, "The Providence of God." The description reads:

In this series, R.C. brilliantly shows the wisdom and power of God's rule, clarifying how God can guide all events without initiating human wickedness or destroying human freedom. Six 30 Minute Episodes.

The direct link to the series is:

https://ecom.ligonier.org/ecom/products.asp
?idDept=M&idCategory=&idFamily=PRO01
&title=The%20Providence%20of%20God

I found the headings for each MP3 quite interesting:

• What is Providence?
• God Makes it Happen.
• God or Chance?
• Is God Responsible for Human Wickedness?
• What About Human Freedom?
• If God Knows Our Needs, Why Pray?

I purchased the series and am listening to the first. I'll let you know what I learn from this.

Quote: "The study of providence is one of the most fascinating, important and difficult areas of theology."

I'd agree with that! :-) He cited as an introduction the very things you and I were batting back and forth.

P.S. -- I think you'd like R.C. Sproul ... very logical, very smart.

Perfect Plans

Drats! I thought I could slip by this question, but you're too clever, deep.thought. Drats! :-)

The issue here is tied into the question of God's omniscience -- his all-knowing nature. Did God know that Satan would rebel prior to his creating the angels? Did God know that mankind would fall prior to his creating man? If God did know this would happen, can it be said that therefore it was part of his plan?

Somewhere in the Bible -- I sure wish I could find it -- I read that it was God's eternal plan to send Jesus his only Son to act as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind. If my recollection of that is true, then it suggests that God did indeed have foreknowledge of our fall, and planned well in advance for a mechanism to rectify it.

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you ... I just don't know how to answer this. If I grant that God doesn't know the events that are yet to unfold, then I deny his omniscience. If I grant that he does know, then it suggests (but not proves) that it was part of his plan. That opens up the thorny issue of explaining the existence of bad things within the realm of God's creative plan. It also draws into question the true nature of our free will in a context where God knows exactly what we'll do anyway. I don't like these discussions ... not just because I can't answer them (which is certainly part of my dislike), but because it distracts me so forcefully from the main point of the faith: Christ himself.

So I will defer answering this until I feel I am better equipped. Right now I am not -- either intellectually or spiritually.

Write Structured Field

You're not kidding are you? I found it at:

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/dzichelp/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.ims.doc.aptm_8.1.0/adc149.htm

x'F5C3' erases the 3270 buffer!! Never trust an ex-3270 datastream programmer.

You wrote:

So this world is not perfect by his divine will; it is corrupt by our freely chosen disobedience. The "mire," as I alluded to, is of our making, not his.

I agree. But you're not getting away just yet kind sir :-) Is this thing, of our making, part of God's Perfect Plan? And if so, do we have any right to denigrate it?

Current song: "Flawed to Perfection" - Thunder

Willing vs. Allowing

What we're struggling with here is this logic:

"God created all things. Sin exists. Therefore, God created Sin."

Somewhere deep in the explanation for this -- an explanation, incidentally, I won't try to really elaborate on too much -- is the question whether God allowing something to happen is the same thing as God causing it to happen.

When I consciously decide to sin against God, am I doing his will when I do that? I would argue not. If God truly is Holy as we're led to understand, then his willing me to do something that runs opposite his very nature is a contradiction. If we allow God the possibility of contradicting himself, then we diminish his Holy nature. He ceases to be God.

But if I allow that when I decide to sin against God I am doing it of my own free will, then God is not causing the sin, nor is he creating it. It is a violation of my own accord. God, being omnipotent, is certainly capable of stopping me from doing it. His not stopping me is an element of my free will (after all, if I were not permitted to do what I wished to do, I would not have free will). Therefore, God allows sin; God does not cause sin.

So this world is not perfect by his divine will; it is corrupt by our freely chosen disobedience. The "mire," as I alluded to, is of our making, not his.

Note: look, I'm as uncomfortable with that formulation as you probably are. I've never understood the Book of Job, from which this general formulation comes. To say that the earth's processes -- tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis -- are all a result of sin corrupting the natural order (as I've heard some preachers say) begs the question whether all of created matter is sinful, or just some of it. If only some of it, where's the dividing line and why? If all of it then we have a fundamental problem -- Jesus was made of matter, and if all matter is inherently evil (as the Gnostics believed) then Jesus himself was not perfect and therefore the atonement structure falls apart.

This is why, incidentally, I do not like discussing the issue of predestination vs. free will. I don't think 1 person out of a 1,000,000 can comprehend the tiny slice where it's not contradictory.

* * *
Will man still be around in 500,000,000 years? No. I think Zager and Evans in their classic song "Exordium & Terminus" ("In the Year 2525") sang:

In the year 9595 / I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive

Now, wonderin' is something short of certainty, therefore if the probability is less than 100% it might just be 0%. Let's assume the chances of 100% certainty implies "miracle," then what we see is that a "miracle" is equal to 9595 - 1969 (the year the song was written) = 7626. The number of times 500,000,000 can be divided by 7626 is 65,565 ... which is eerily close to the hex 'FF'. Hex 'FF' sounds a lot like x'F5C3' which is the 3270 "erase/write" command string. It's a prophecy! We're all just characters on a big green screen and we're about to be erased in favor of another byte stream!

Therefore, I think it can be concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that no, man will not be around in 500,000,000 years.

The logic is flawless.

Evolution

Interesting article on the headline at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/

Will humans be around for another 500 million years?

Is it possible for Humans to "evolve" (ok let's say "change" - become more, or become less complicated for example) in some way due to spontaneous mutation and natural selection?

Given that we were created by God as "human" should we be changing in this fashion?

++++

From your last post when you mention that we had been pulled from the mire ... I got to thinking that "the mire" is exactly how it should be. Everything that happens is part of God's perfect plan.

Including the mire :-) And our plucking from it.

As Christians are we not supposed to go around saying that everything is marvellous? If we say that something is less that marvellous are we not implying that we wish things were different? And if we want God's perfect plan to be different in some way then what does that say about us? Or indeed God's perfect plan?

Eve and Adam sinning was part of God's perfect plan, was it not? If it wasn't then the plan was (is) not perfect. If the original sin was part of God's perfect plan then is not all sin part of God's perfect plan? (as all sin is inherited from the original one). Is this argument logically constructed? Or am I doing a Spock again?

Current song: Revolution - The Beatles

Only Through The Power of the Spirit

You wrote:

I spent most of my life not believing, as I had no basis to even start my faith and trust in God. I then had an experience that allowed me to ignore logic and reason and have faith. I cannot reconcile the existence of God as described in The Bible with logic or reason at all. When Christians say that the Holy Spirit is necessary for a "conversion" that seems to have a ring of at least relative truth.

I agree with that statement so much, it almost feels as if I wrote it. One can read the Bible all they want ... it may enlighten them, but it'll never convert them on their own. It is only through the power of the Holy Spirit that one can come to saving faith in Christ.

What this does is open up some very challenging questions about faith, evangelism and predestination. Questions I just don't have the energy right now to pose, let alone attempt to tackle. But let us thank Him who chose us to believe! Two of the most unlikely candidates, plucked from the mire.

Plumb the Depths

I believe God could have created us incapable of sinning. We would be an earth full of automatons, moving about doing simply as we were programmed, offering to God our praise based on our firmware, receiving from God the bounty of his love without real appreciation for what it is or its value.

We should remember that in addition to creating us humans, God also created the angels. They too were given the ability to choose for themselves whether they would obey God. Some did not. But those that chose to obey God have apparently done so in a fashion that permits them to exist in the presence of the Holy God.

Is God capable of creating a being that is Holy, like himself? That's an interesting question ... I do not know the answer to that. Normally, warning bells go off in my head whenever I start to think there is something God can't do. But impression is that God's Holiness is unique in all existence. Is this a case where were God to create another who is equally Holy that it would invalidate his very nature? I don't really know.

Given that God also created the angels, and like us they were granted the opportunity to obey or not, it appears that "free will" -- however one wishes to view that phrase -- is part of his plan. I believe the reason for that is because it permits us to experience God's love in the most beneficial manner -- by freely choosing it. But I don't know if there's Biblical support for that reasoning.

Now, on to your main question [which you posted in bold italic, which you do not normally do, so I know it's really, really important :-) ] -- does God feel responsible for our sin? In the back of my mind this thought is floating around ... for God to "feel bad" about our behavior, or to regret it and feel some portion of responsibility, would suggest God admitting he had made a mistake. Given God's perfect and Holy nature, he is incapable of making a mistake. Also, our behavior is the object of his Holy wrath -- perfect and just wrath -- and that wouldn't make any sense for him to direct his wrath against behavior he himself feels responsible for creating. (Well, it would make sense if we diminished his Holy nature, but doing so causes the whole structure of faith to crumble.)

So I would answer, "no." He does not in any way feel responsible for our behavior. He created us with the free will to obey or not; we chose to disobey and in ever increasing measure. That God has provided a way for us to once again come back into his presence -- through the shed blood of his Son, Jesus the Christ -- shows the immense mercy and selfless love of God.

I am off to Minneapolis!

Responsibility

Were Adam and Eve the best beings He could create? (Sinless but imperfect, or at least not Holy).

I see now that God created Humans as imperfect, but sinless beings. I assume that He could have created perfect beings who got something out of having a relationship with Him?) The question I am pondering is why did He not create sinless perfect beings? (Thus avoiding all the sin)

Is the answer:

a) He did it for some unknown reason?

b) He created us imperfect in error, feels guilty about it, and that is why He lets us live on? He feels responsible in some way for our sins?

c) Some other reason, or without a reason?

Does God, our creator, in any way feel responsible for our behaviour?

I agree with you wholeheartedly when you talk about faith and trust. I spent most of my life not believing, as I had no basis to even start my faith and trust in God. I then had an experience that allowed me to ignore logic and reason and have faith. I cannot reconcile the existence of God as described in The Bible with logic or reason at all. When Christians say that the Holy Spirit is necessary for a "conversion" that seems to have a ring of at least relative truth.

For faith there is something greater than The Bible that is needed.

And is not one answer to the child .. "Satan could do so because God made him that way" ?

God bless you brother.

No song: same reason as yesterday!

Another Question Along the Same Lines

One of the most basic, fundamental objections people raise to the idea of an all-powerful creator God is this:

If God is all-loving, how come there is suffering in this world?

Note: Or, rephrased so it ties more closely to your most recent question: "If God is the creator of all things, then did he create suffering?"

There's a really problematic aspect to this:

• If one allows that God is all-powerful, then one must conclude that suffering falls under the control of God's omnipotence

However ...

• If one allows that God is unable to stop the suffering, then one denies the omnipotence of God.

In response to this dilemma, some have opted to craft a vision of God based on the second bullet. This is known as "Open View Theism," wherein God's powers are not limitless; that he is learning as he goes along; and that the suffering that occurs on this earth is because God is helpless to do anything about it.

Of the two choices facing me -- accepting the mystery of suffering in the presence of an omnipotent God, or defining God down to a limited deity -- I hold steadfastly to the former. In my mind I see absolutely no way to reconcile the "Open View" approach with a God capable of rendering all sin absolved through the death of himself incarnate in Christ. A God capable of merely saying "Let there be" and in an instant the heavens and the earth are created is a God who is the very definition of the word "omnipotent." On a far more basic level, the Open View proponents need to ask this question: "If God is limited in what he can do, why bother with any form of intercessory prayer?"

What's my point in all this? Just this: it is impossible to approach the Christian faith with the expectation of having every question answered, every dilemma worked out, every difficulty explained, every aspect fully understood. There is an element of faith in revealed things beyond our ability to comprehend. The Trinity is at its heart a mystery we'll never, ever understand completely while in this mortal world. What happened on the cross at the moment of atonement is a mystery that cannot be expressed with words as we know them. The extent of God's Holiness is beyond our minds' ability to imagine.

The Christian faith all comes down to an issue of trust. That does not mean an unthinking, "put your brain under the pew" approach. Christianity is a remarkably complex thing; it taxes my abilities to reason as these posts illustrate all too well. But ultimately, it boils down to a trust in the things the cornerstones have being discussing:

• A trust that God does exist and that he has revealed himself in nature and in written word
• A trust that God is Holy; perfect in his ways and therefore worthy of our trust
• A trust that I cannot overcome my sinful ways and that I must rely on God, not me
• A trust that God provided one and only one way to him, through Christ Jesus our Lord
• A trust that by surrending our lives to Jesus, the power of God's Holy Spirit will guide our lives in a manner pleasing to God
  

Logic cannot fully explain that. Which is why it is called faith.

Adam, meet Eve; Eve, Adam ...

I think there's a misunderstanding here, and it involves the use of the term "perfect" to be equal to the phrase "without sin." When I write that God is "perfect," I am using that term in an attempt to describe the indescribable -- the Holiness of God. But to say that Adam, initially without sin, was "perfect" and therefore equal to God is beyond what I was trying to convey. Adam was created with the ability to disobey God and therefore sin, but that does not mean that he was created sinful. I believe the decision to disobey God was entirely within the realm of Adam and Eve's free will. Had they resisted the serpent and trusted in God alone, they would have continued to be without sin. But in no way would they be "Holy," for there is only one who is "Holy," and that is God himself.

Note: I've heard some radio ministers suggest that the decision to sin was not Adam and Eve's to make, that in fact God willed them to sin to place mankind into a state of sin. I do not agree with that line of reasoning.

There is a mystery around the apparently competing doctrines of predistination and free will. I don't claim to understand it all, nor can I effectively communicate how the two can coexist. But here's what I will say, and I've made this point before: the doctrine of free will is an essential part of God's selfless gift to us. It's difficult to explain, but in my mind and in my heart I have this realization that God created us with the ability to obey or disobey so that in obedience we would then experience the greatest realization of his glory. I have had a fractional sense of this at times when I have truly "given up" and submitted to God; in those moments the peace and security of being in his hands is incredible. Had God created us without the ability to be disobedient, we would have no notion of that; we would never know the experience of freely-chosen obedience.

I really wish I could articulate this better ... in the middle of all this is the fundamental issue of why God created us. Many -- wrongly, I feel -- think God created us (and the angels) so God would have this throng of adoring creatures. But that, I feel, paints God in a very selfish light, as if he needs the adoration or craves it. It's hard to reconcile that picture with the idea of Holiness. But if the reason God created us was so that we could share in God's perfect love -- the flow of benefit is him to us, not us to him -- then it makes sense in my mind. And as I mentioned, the only way to fully realize the benefit is to freely choose the benefit. Hence our having been created with the ability to choose to obey God.

I've probably made a hash of that ... if so, I apologize and ask the Lord to forgive me. My desire is to somehow convey what I feel has been revealed to me: the incredible beauty of obedience freely chosen. I am, unfortunately, a terribly stubborn man and I don't live what I see right before me.

* * *
Here's a question to chew on ... this question was asked of a radio minister by a child; a simple question but unbelievably profound:

If Satan saw God face-to-face, and experience the full measure of God's Glory, why did he then choose to disobey God?

To be, or not to be perfect

You said:

"I think the answer to your basic question is that God did not create us imperfect; he created us with the ability to disobey if we so chose.”

But first of all, my 7/7/77 had little to do with the fairer sex! I was alluding to the fact that the number 7 is viewed as divine in certain parts of the world :-)

Now let’s look at your sentence above more closely …

“God did not create us imperfect; …”

I’m assuming from this that you would maintain that Adam and Eve (pre-fall) are “perfect” beings?

“… he created us with the ability to disobey if we so chose.”

And Adam and Eve certainly did chose to disobey. But do you see the problem here?

In an earlier post you mentioned that God was “perfect” but unbounded. So He could sin if He chose to, but being “perfect” He does not. If there were some slight flaw in his perfection (making Him an imperfect being) then maybe it would be possible for him to break His own Law and therefore commit a sin against Himself.

The logic is (to me) inescapable;

1. Perfect beings cannot sin.

2. Adam and Eve sinned so therefore could not have been created as “perfect” beings.

Note: By implication, if Adam and Eve had been perfect they would have taken their free will and chose to obey God

This begs the question: why did God, being perfect Himself, create imperfect beings in the first place?

No song: It’s late and my daughter is sleeping.

Can God Create Imperfection?

First, please do tell what the July 7, 1977 story is all about! My guess is it involved a girl. :-)

Secondly, what I'm relaying in these cornerstones is not original at all; I'm simply providing back a distillation of what I've come to understand from my studies. These are the "connections" I see in my mind when I think about things. Eventually I come to see the connections well enough to articulate them.

* * *
I think the answer to your basic question is that God did not create us imperfect; he created us with the ability to disobey if we so chose. The story goes that's what "we" chose, and having made that choice the "stain" of sin has carried down ever since.

Your ancillary question is the intriguing one ... did God intend for us to choose disobedience? Or, stated another way, did he know that we would choose to disobey? The answer to that appears to be "Yes," that in fact he did know ahead of time. The apostle Paul writes of God's plan for salvation through Christ being a plan in God's mind prior to the creation itself. I'll confess I have trouble working through the circular logic of all this.

Did God expect us to be perfect? From what I gather it looks as if he expected us to be perfectly obedient; to do his will rather than ours. To the extent we would then be perfect, we would simply be reflecting his perfection, not ours. That was the very nature of Jesus in his earthly form -- over and over again Jesus claimed that everything he did and said was commanded him by the Father. Jesus the man had the ability to be disobedient just like we have the ability to be disobedient ... but he didn't.

Even today, though our sin is so deeply rooted in us we can't overcome it on our own, we are still expected to practice the act of obedience. There is a very strong thread through the middle of the Christian faith having to do with discipline and daily devotion to obedience to God. This is where I stumble.

Note: there's a tension there -- between legalism and "antinomianism" (the belief that since salvation is through Christ's efforts alone, we are free to live entirely unconstrained by any rules whatsoever).

This is actually a good tie-in to the last conerstone -- our response. But that'll come later.

05 05 05

I have fond memories of that day in school when the date was the seventh of July in 1977. Heavenly :-)

Your last post was pretty amazing, you know that you're building a logical basis for Christianity from scratch. I trust that some theology students are taking note. I imagine your basis will be discovered at some point in the future and be used to start a new "Bagwellian" based religion. Perhaps by moon colonists who are hiding there after all life on Earth is wiped out by the Wormwood?

Now your last post also makes me think along these lines:

1. God created us (yes)
2. We are imperfect (yes)
3. How does a perfect being create imperfection?
4. Is God in any way responsible for our being less than perfect?

Clearly God is able to create imperfect beings ... the question is why did he do that, being perfect himself, why did he not create beings that had free will and were also perfect?

Ancilliary question:

Did God actually intend for us to be perfect? I guess not, otherwise we would have been.

Thoughts?

Current song: Watching The Wheels -- John Lennon

Cornerstone #5 - The Nature of Christ

As I mentioned in my last post, what I'm providing here is a logical framework. When I get to Cornerstone #6 I'll shift away from logic.

Let's walk down through the previous cornerstones:

• If one believes that God exists and has revealed something of himself in creation, and
• If one believes the Bible to be a special revelation, in which the true nature of God himself is revealed to us in a way that is believed to be true, and
  
• If one believes what the Bible tells us about God; namely that he is "Holy" -- different, set apart, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, and
• If one believes what the Bible tells us about ourselves; namely that we not perfect, that in fact we fall well short of God's Holy nature, that in fact the difference between ourselves and a Holy God is so wide, so enormous, that we can't possibly bridge the gap through our own feeble efforts ... then
• One starts to grasp the nature of the problem we face -- that is, we are alienated from a perfect God by our sinful nature, and that no matter how hard we strive we'll never be perfect. In short, since we can't reconcile ourselves to God, then it will be only through God's actions that we have any chance at all of ever being reconciled.
  

Our sin represents a grave injustice -- an affront to God's perfect and Holy nature. In a perfect setting, there would be no injustice ... there may be offense, but every offense would be met with a perfectly calibrated punishment such that justice will have been served.

Note: be careful not to confuse justice with mercy. One may choose to forego punishing someone for an offense committed. One may choose to do that for many reasons -- a forgiving heart, for one. When one chooses to not meet offense with justice, one is measuring out mercy. But mercy does not eliminate the offense, and an offense not answered is injustice.

God, being perfect and Holy -- including a perfect sense of justice -- cannot simply ignore offenses committed. Doing so would create a realm of injustice, and injustice would be a violation of God's perfect nature. One aspect of God's nature as revealed in the Bible is his inability to be something other than what he is -- that is, perfect and Holy. It is like asking if God has the power to lie ... yes, he has the power to do anything, but for him to lie would be for him to cease being perfect and Holy; in short, he would cease being God. Therefore, God is "incapable" of doing anything that contradicts who he is, including ignoring injustice. Therefore, our sin -- an offense to God -- requires that it be met so justice can be served.

Note: one should stop reading if one doesn't agree with that. If one believes God is capable of, and indeed does simply overlook sin, then there is no chance that the message of salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ will make any sense whatever.

What's the difference between perfect and imperfect? I argue that the difference is like that between 1,000,000 and infinity. Or between 1,000,000,000 and infinity. In other words, the difference between perfection and anything other than perfection is essentially infinity. Therefore, our transgressions -- our sins -- are an offense to God that is of limitless degree.

Now, if our offense before God is limitlessly large, then for justice to be served would require a limitless response. But what would be the nature of a just punishment when the crime is so complete and vast? A slap on the wrist certainly isn't it -- that would not serve the need for perfect justice. Even the killing of a handful -- or more -- of us would not provide the punishment needed to effect perfect justice.

No, the truth is that before a perfect and Holy God our sin requires nothing less than our complete and utter elimination. God has not yet done that because in additional to God's perfect justice, God is expansively -- but the Bible tells us not limitlessly -- merciful. His mercy is demonstrated by what he chose to do -- make another suffer the punishment in our place.

That was Christ on the cross.

Now if Jesus was just another man, then the punishment would have been completely insufficient for the offense. So Jesus had to be more than "just a man" ... Jesus had to be perfect himself so that his death would provide the perfect atonement for the enormity of our sins against God. If Jesus were just another mortal man, then he could not -- by definition -- be perfect (see Cornerstone #4 on the Nature of Man).

Which is why it is so critically important -- within the framework of the Christian doctrine -- for Jesus to be more than "just a good teacher." Jesus had to be perfect -- Jesus had to be God himself. And so he was -- Jesus was God incarnate. The perfect sacrifice to effect the perfect atonement.

Hence Cornerstone #5 -- the Nature of Christ -- perfect; God incarnate. Anything less than that makes the entire Christian doctrinal framework come apart.

Note: this is why the previous cornerstones are so critical. The idea of Christ as God incarnate makes little sense if any of the prior four cornerstones isn't in place. If God chose to remain hidden (denying cornerstones #1 and #2), then we'd have nothing on which to base any claim of Christ's deity. If God wasn't perfect (denying #3) then there'd be no need for a perfect sacrifice. If man weren't truly sinful (denying #4) then there'd be no need for justice to be served, or at least no need for a punishment as enormous as God humbling himself by becoming man for 33 years and then killing himself on our behalf.

That's it.

The final cornerstone has to do with our proper response to this. We then jump the rails of logic to what we ought to do. But not necessarily what logic dictates that we do.

Like Pieces of a Puzzle

First, thank you for your expressed gratitude for my navigating choppy waters related to my health. Thank you also for your prayers. It makes a difference.

Second, insanely spicey food is one of my life's little joys. I'm not convinced the onset of my symptoms is correlated with spicey foods. Fatty foods is a more likely candidate.

Third, you're a crafty one, Mr. Deep.Thought ... you think you can beguile me into #'s 5 and 6 so easily? Well ... perhaps. :-)

But not this post ... I need to think about things a bit more.

* * *
But I found this post of yours very interesting:

Thinking about it, one cannot believe in Jesus unless one believes in "sin" can one? Without "sin" there is no purpose for a Messiah. I just realized that.

Yes! If one never comes to the realization of their sinfulness, then the idea of needing atonement through the sacrifice of another will be just plain silly. Or worse, barbarian. Hence my #4 cornerstone on the sinfulness of man.

As I mentioned before, I'm really approaching this as a logical framework. You just touched on one of the linkages, or puzzle pieces. If man is not sinful -- or, more specifically, if I am not sinful -- then it is very unlikely I'll ever progress to the point of feeling a need for a saviour.

This also explains my cornerstone #3 -- the nature of God. One's "sinfulness" is really a matter of comparitive degree, isn't it? If I compare my degree of sinfulness to a convicted serial murderer, I come away feeling pretty good about myself. But when I compare myself against an utterly perfect -- an incomprehensibly glorious and perfect -- God, then by comparison I am awful wretch. But if I think of God as not much better than me, perhaps more powerful, but not immune to the same mistakes and missteps, then there's little chance I'll consider myself sinful, and therefore little chance I'll feel a need for salvation.

But how can I know that God is this "utterly perfect" God? Cornerstone #2 -- God's revelation in Scripture. The Bible makes it perfectly and undeniably clear that God is "Holy," or set apart from us.

Linkages -- one after another. Take one away and the house of cards falls down. You discovered one critical card in the construction -- the idea of sin and the relationship of that to the need for a Messiah.

"There is no one you can save that can't be saved"

Marvellous news for you this week my brother. Ok, you still need to get some things sorted, and cut down on the insanely hot burritos and asbestos melting chicken phaal curries, but all things being equal, not a bad result I would say. Thank you Lord.

Now you have two cornerstones to go young man, for completeness we need to see them, from an earlier post you said that #5 and #6 were:

God's Solution: Grace Through Jesus Christ
Our Response: Grateful Surrender

You can at least have a go at them can you not? I'm not telling the world that my bestest buddy quit in the home strait, that's like running the London Marathon, you're in sight of the finishing line and saying "I can't make it, I better go back"!

Thinking along the lines of these two last cornerstones of yours I am somehow reminded that belief in God gives our lives a purpose. Then I became slightly concerned that we may have invented God because we are immature. If you offer an immature schoolchild one bar of chocolate today, or two bars of chocolate tomorrow, the immature child will take the bar today. However the mature child will wait and reap the reward of two bars tomorrow. This is one of standard psychometric tests for maturity invented by people much smarter than I.

Now have we done the same with God? Science may (or may not) uncover why the Universe was created. But this scientific revelation may take a long time in coming. Probably millions of years, if ever and in any case most probably much longer than a human lifespan. As a result of this, have we grabbed today's reward?

I always come back to "it doesn't really matter", as long as your belief gives you something, you don't need to justify it to anyone.

If God created us to have a loving relationship with him then that gives our lives a purpose, that is good enough for me. I can't yet logically reconcile Jesus Christ into the equation (I see a reason for God) but I know that He exists, so I will Believe in Him, pray to him and talk to him.

Thinking about it, one cannot believe in Jesus unless one believes in "sin" can one? Without "sin" there is no purpose for a Messiah. I just realized that.

Right now I have a miserable temperature, sore throat, big time runs! I'm in bed, not eating as it won't stay down and quite annoyed as I had planned to do other things this weekend, tomorrow (Monday) is a UK national holiday. Oh well, the garden weeds will wait. As John Lennon said there is "no where you can be that isn't where you're meant to be".

Current song: "All you need is love" -- The Beatles