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

Gimme Shelter

No, there's no relationship between that title and what I'm about to say write here. I'm just playing off your previous post's title, and I like the Rolling Stones song by that name. It is not necessarily my favorite Rolling Stones song ... which would be is not clear in my mind, but here are some of my more preferred:

• Sympathy for the Devil (Ironic, isn't it? I love the bass line.)
• Monkey Man
• You Can't Always Get What You Want
  

* * *
I never took your opposition to Biblical Inerrancy personally. So don't worry about that. I was just struck by the apparent force of your disagreement with it. I wondered if there was a personal experience from the past that put such a cast on it.

Further, I'll be honest with you ... for the most part, I don't much care for the way most people carry the "Biblical Inerrancy" thing. That's not to say I disagree with the idea of the inerrancy of the Bible. Rather, I think most people get it wrong -- myself included, to my shame -- when they take on an arrogant tone. As if they have a share in the inerrancy.

* * *
As I approach this week's further medical tests, I grow apprehensive about the possibility of it being really bad news. The odds are low, I know ... but what if? This has forced me to look at myself in the mirror, and do so critically. And what I see I do not like. I see a person who seeks out Christ only in times of trouble, yet pushes him aside in other times. I see a person who at times takes on an arrogant tone, boastful words and a puffed-out chest. In short, when it comes to loving Christ with all I have, I am a fraud; a miserable cheat who does so only on my terms.

That's why the cornerstones end ... I will not complete #'s 5 and 6.

The Lord does not want me to be an apologist. I am not well suited for that role. I will leave that to others who have a better handle on their pride. My pride is a slippery beast, ready to pop up at a moment's notice.

* * *
A week ago today a man came to our church in Tucson and gave a little talk about a ministry of the local Salvation Army that serves to help rehabilitate adult men who have fallen into bad habits and destructive lifestyles -- drugs, alcohol, etc. One of the things about the Salvation Army I admire is they are not ashamed of Jesus Christ, and they weave the Gospel into the works they do for these. The man proceeded with his short talk, but his voice broke and he had trouble proceeding when he tried to speak of how these men -- completely broken men who know little of the love of their neighbors -- see the love of Christ and come to Him in humble gratitude.

I couldn't help but be moved myself by the tenderness in the speaker as he recounted this.

In my mind I see this as the human face of Christ I seek to find and emulate -- humble, grateful, gentle and kind. Not arrogant and boastful. Not false piety. Not sugary talk and showy gestures. Just the face of a man who has come to understand that at the foot of the cross none of us are better or worse than the other. At the feet of Christ we are all sinners beyond redemption, yet he loves us still and worked to give us a door through which to enter into Grace.

Grace and peace, brother.

Gimme some truth

What do you say to someone who says to you, "But I've never had him speak to me.

I believe that there is something in the trite answer of "yes you have heard him speak to you ....". I think that most people in the western world have been touched in some way by Christ. Most people use the word "Jesus" for instance - just why is that?

What other acts of reason can one employ to be assured of Christ's existence if one has not received the benefit of a direct and irrefutable sign?

This is so dependent on who you are and what you think you know isn't it? I have seen and read of very intelligent people who reason for the existence of our Christ, and to a one, (unfortunately) I have not yet heard any reason that I find consistent, compelling, or even believable. This is due to my background in science, especially astronomy. I really wish I could offer something for reason here, the root of the problem I have with reason is to do with the vast timescales we are considering. If everything happened in the space of a few thousand years (Creation, the days of the Earth, Revelation) then The Bible becomes a lot more reasonable. If the Universe has been around for nigh on 15 billion US years we are more than arrogant to think that the creator of it visited us a mere 2000 of them ago don't you think? That appears to be a selection effect run riot. The only reason that I can offer is not for Christ, but for an intelligent creator. The constants of the Universe are too finely tuned for any other explanation (to my mind). You see I never signed up for the anthropic principle.

May I ask you a question? Have you had some particularly bad experiences with people who wear the label "Christian?"

Some. I have had Christians say that non-Christians (non-believers, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs etc) are in some way less than Christian folk. I find this arrogant and the most anti-Christian way of living.

I am quite struck by the force of your disdain for people who seek to hold that the Bible may be itself a "Truth."

My apologies, I've made the papal error of attacking your basic beliefs with impunity. This is certainly not my intent. I hold relative truth to be self-evident, I see inconsistencies between verses of The Bible, I see wars caused by peoples use of it, I see minorities vilified, for these reasons I hold The Bible to be in error. I do not wish anyone who holds The Bible to be inerrant to share my view. No sir, no way. Forgive me?

Current Song: Gimme Some Truth -- John Lennon

I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrits
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

I’ve had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

:-)

Shared Experiences

You wrote:

Go the route of reason, in which case look for evidence that Jesus Christ exists. He spoke to me so I know he exists, He works in my life so I know He exists..

What do you say to someone who says to you, "But I've never had him speak to me. Is that how I can know he exists so I can believe in him?" That's a serious question ... not everyone will be so blessed as to have so direct and obvious a sign of Christ's existence. For many -- myself included -- it will require an act of faith. What other acts of reason can one employ to be assured of Christ's existence if one has not received the benefit of a direct and irrefutable sign?

* * *
May I ask you a question? Have you had some particularly bad experiences with people who wear the label "Christian?" I am quite struck by the force of your disdain for people who seek to hold that the Bible may be itself a "Truth." Please don't answer that with any references to how the Bible may have been corrupted over time by human agendas. What I seek is an answer to your personal experiences with people who hold that the Bible is inerrant.

Grace and peace.

Let's all make believe

My position is and has been that Christianity and the notion of relativism are
mutually exclusive: if Christ is who he claimed to be, then all other religions
are false; if Christ is not who he claimed to be, then discard all of
Christianity and keep looking.

This position is fine assuming an inerrant Bible. How does one hold this view if one believes that The Bible has been manufactured in places, and Jesus’ word corrupted? If The Bible is not inerrant then there is at least a third option “Jesus lived and could do miraculous things. Raise the dead, feed the 5000, resurrect Himself. Man made up all this stuff about Him being the Son of an omnipotent creator”. Why would man do this? You could answer that question in many ways and I leave that as an exercise for the reader :-)

There are things God can't do because he is limited

Yes, many Christians have the widely held belief that God cannot sin. Is God limited in this fashion? Can he in fact sin but chooses not to?

Everyone knows there really isn't an absolute truth

My experience tells me that this is not relatively or absolutely true. I usually get people wanting to start a fight when I propose to them that “Truth is relative”. It’s ingrained in our nature to fight against this .. “relative to what??” they say … “relative to God” I retort. People so very much do not want truth to be relative, ask any child.

Note: In my experience you are potentially onto something good when everyone poo-poo’s it. Like using an orbiter to circle the moon while you land on it in a lunar module. “What??” said everyone in 1960 “Are you mad?? Of course you just drive a rocket to the moon, land it and then drive it back again. Don’t overcomplicate things.” Turns out the maths for the fuel consumption needs a command/lunar module split to make the mission a possibility in the 60’s. You’re either onto something good or the proposal is a complete non-starter :-)

So when I hear tell that this new Pope holds firm to fundamental
principles of the Faith, I am heartened. I understand full well what he is
concerned about.

Yes but then he goes on to say that The Church of England is not a “real church” and that unless you subscribe to his particular brand of Christianity (Catholicism) you are not a real Christian.

I guess he never heard the saying: "No one will allow their basic beliefs to be attacked with impunity".

How does a committed Christian hold firm to basic Truths about Jesus yet still
demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit in the face of unrelenting attacks against
those Truths? I honestly don't know the answer to this.

I don't know, but I believe that one has at least two options

1) Just say it’s a matter of faith, suspend your reason and Believe. Many people will think that this is a cop out and that you’re just being lazy and refusing to think. My answer to that is in that song “It’s no big thing, it’s a small thing, what people think.”

2) Go the route of reason, in which case look for evidence that Jesus Christ exists. He spoke to me so I know he exists, He works in my life so I know He exists.

People are upset with God and Christ, because they believe that they are betraying someone who they have never even seen.

Can one argue back in a loving and Christ-like way?

Yes. But not if you are a Biblically Inerrant Brigadier -- in that case you have to make homosexuals feel like they are sinning and you have to get your stick out to beat up Pharisees in your Church. Or choose something else? :-)

Does Christ expect us to deny him or remain silent when others around us smear
his name?

Only the individual can answer that, I don’t think He wants us bashing Bibles. I think he wants us to live happy loving lives, smiling when we can, rarely judging. We’re all sinners of course so we are incapable of doing any such thing all of the time.

How does one stand strong yet do so in a humble manner?

You told me the answer to that, by living a good life so that people may see it. And by SMILING. Pull a big one, right now, go on, try it :-)

Love and Peace.

Current Song: “Do you believe in magic?” – The Lovin’ Spoonful

PS. A new book turned up unannounced and for no reason as far as I can tell in the post this morning, from Amazon.co.uk; “Dawkins’ God” by Alister McGrath. I guess I’m supposed to read it?

Christianity Without Christ

There's much chatter on the web today about the election of Josef Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI. The primary storyline being offered by most of the mainstream media is that he will be a "hardline" Pope, "dogmatic" and "uncompromising." Much has been made about Ratzinger's homily offered at the opening of the conclave, in which he used the phrase "dictatorship of relativism" to suggest that -- relativism; the belief that there is no absolute truth -- is the greatest threat to the Church.

The "cornerstones" I've been offering -- and yes, I know I owe another two -- have essentially been a argument against relativism. My position is and has been that Christianity and the notion of relativism are mutually exclusive: if Christ is who he claimed to be, then all other religions are false; if Christ is not who he claimed to be, then discard all of Christianity and keep looking.

These are not popular words or sentiments in today's world. I have seen, firsthand, the effect of relativistic thinking on the heart of a church. The church I attended in Virginia was staffed by a wonderful man, an able teacher, but an ineffectual leader. Others in the church body -- and more than just a few -- held and professed beliefs such as:

• Judiasm, Islam and Christianity are all the same since they all come from Abraham
• There are things God can't do because he is limited
• People have the capacity to be without sin if they try
• "My God" would not do the things spelled out in the Old Testament
• Everyone knows there really isn't an absolute truth

It was an interesting lesson in how to quickly gauge the depth of a church: listen carefully to the words people use. If they cite the name "God" frequently but rarely if ever mention the name of Jesus Christ, beware. The chances are good that the church is adrift without any real understanding of the Christian faith. If they do use the name "Jesus Christ," more often than not it's in the past tense. There is frequently no notion of Christ in the present. Only "God" ... and usually a god that is quite unlike the one revealed in the Bible.

Note: I will grant that at least some of this is due to a lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, and, shy about that lack of knowledge people opt for "God" rather than run the risk of being exposed as not knowing. I have fallen into that category and still do on many occasions.

When I first started scouting out churches in Tucson, one of the things that drew me to St. Andrews Presbyterian was that the name of Jesus Christ was professed boldly, without reservation or shame. I thought to myself, "Now here's a church that understands that Christianity without Christ is pointless."

So when I hear tell that this new Pope holds firm to fundamental principles of the Faith, I am heartened. I understand full well what he is concerned about.

Here's the question I can't shake from my mind: How does a committed Christian hold firm to basic Truths about Jesus yet still demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit in the face of unrelenting attacks against those Truths? I honestly don't know the answer to this. Can one argue back in a loving and Christ-like way? Does Christ expect us to deny him or remain silent when others around us smear his name? How does one stand strong yet do so in a humble manner?

Sequoia

I just like the word, I don't think I've seen any of those trees in New York state yet but my stretch limo drove past a restaurant caled Sequoia on the way from Newark to Palisades.

This is a pretty well served location, it has clearly been designed for use by those at the top of the slippery pole, ie. executive types. One spends all ones life trying to earn a living and then one dies, one may as well enjoy it on the way?

Yes, we get around.

Your cornerstone #5 sir?


Current Song: "I Get Around" -- The Beach Boys

Airport Blogging

You write from Heathrow, soon I'll be in Tucson International. We lead a wandering life, my friend!

The "movements" I was referring to was the "charismatic" movement within the Christian faith. I'm not sure I have a good definition of it, but it's a movement that believes that the manifestation of the Spirit through outward gifts such as "speaking in tongues" is their preferred method of worship. The Pentecostal Church falls into this camp. There may be others. As I mentioned, this is clearly not me.

I have no proof that Ms. Jolie is truly under the influence of the devil ... my comment really stems from two things: some very weird behavior on her part when she was married to Billy Bob Thornton (exchanging viles of each others' blood, for instance) and this almost hypnotic charm she seems to have over men who fall prey to her wiles. It may just be a stronger sense of sexual confidence ... who knows?

Do genetics play a role in success? Your example of the 100 meter hurdles points to an obvious example ... I will never, never, ever run a 4-minute mile. It doesn't matter how much I train. I will never, never, ever be able to dunk a basketball on a 10-foot rim. (I used to be able to touch the rim, but not even that any more!) But it's not limited to physical activities -- not everyone can be a mathematical genius; not everyone can counter deep.thought's frickin' pawn gambit thing he does! :-)

What about business? There's a bit more gray there, don't you think? For instance, I think Bill Gates was as much "in the right place at the right time" as he was business savvy. If one could wipe from everyone's memory Bill Gates' success at Microsoft, could he repeat it today, not relying on his current name and reputation? Maybe. Maybe not.

London Heathrow

What was the "movement" from your last post? The hand-waving that one sees by some Christians at Church? Whatever floats their boat, but that is not something I am comfortable with doing, it appears to be a sign to others saying "look at me, I'm really into this, I'm a good Christian", I don't think it's done on purpose either, often the subconscious had a delicious way of making itself known I think.

"When I'm presenting I am "on stage," giving a portrayal that is not really me"

That's interesting, I think that is probably true for most folks, but perhaps it's more highly developed in your good self? If a Hollywood actress such as Ms. Jolie never learned to act then she wouldn't be in Hollywood I guess. There are some physical activities, like the 100 metres sprint that not everyone can be a world record holder in, due to the way that they are put together (their genes). It would seem that there can only be a handful of Bill Gates types too, monstrously successful businessmen, so I assume that their success is also due to their genetics, the way their brains are constructed? Or is Satan powering their success?

Current Song: Muzak from the TGIF's next to me

Charismatic People and Movements

Interesting post on charisma, deep.thought. I think it's clearly true that some people possess it and others do not. Why women are not generally considered to be "charismatic" while some men are is an intriguing thought. I suspect part of the reason for that is because our common understanding of "charisma" is more a male attribute -- strength, confidence, persuasive, energetic. I think that distinction is starting to blur as time goes by ... more and more women are assuming those qualities and not being shunned for doing so.

Note: One example that comes to mind is Madonna. I don't much care for her music or her viewpoint on things, but it would be hard for me to argue that she's a strong-willed, confident and at least from a public relations perspective, persuasive and energentic personality.

Another woman that comes to mind -- very much in the news of late -- is Angelina Jolie. She is, I think, "charismatic," but in a way that is uniquely feminine: she exudes a certain confident sexuality that in and of itself is strong, confident and persuasive. I'm not much taken by her charms simply because I think she's operating under the influence of some dark forces, but there's no denying lots of men in Hollywood seem unable to resist her allure. Brad Pitt, if the stories in the tabloids are true, is the latest.

Do I think Jesus had charisma? Yes, but not in a "snake-oil salesman" sort of way. If the Bible is true and we are to understand that Jesus was singularly without sin -- either of commission or omission; either of deeds or thoughts -- then it must have been a striking thing to witness him. Every act, every word, every thought, every deed -- all perfectly obedient to the will of the perfect Creator. I can imagine there must have been a confidence there that was without pride or boastfulness; humility without weakness; strength without malice. He was, I suspect, quite an arresting person when he was in human form on this earth.

There's little question that in today's world that people possessing charisma often achieve what they set out to achieve. The best salesmen are charismatic. Many of the larger churches in America are led by very charismatic pastors, sometimes ones who eventually stumble and fall due to the intoxication of their success -- Jim Bakker of the 1980's; Jimmy Swaggart, etc.

Of the two approaches you wrote of -- Jung's charismatic influence vs. Freud's methodical process -- I think I would trust Freud's more. I am suspicious of charismatic influence, though I am not immune to it. It's just that for the person who possesses it in large measure, it can be quite a narcotic. It takes a person with deep roots to use such natural charisma for good.

Interesting comment you made about my supposed charisma. Odd since I don't sense any such thing, but then again I witness myself from the inside, and I see a different picture. When I'm presenting I am "on stage," giving a portrayal that is not really me, but rather a projection I muster. That is why, I think, I am so exhausted after such times -- I spend considerable energy being someone I suspect I am not. The same holds for social gatherings -- I "put on a mask" and exhaust myself in the process.

I was thinking about this the other day when I was talking to a co-worker of mine about the Christian faith. He is not a believer, yet he is clearly seeking. He expressed some discomfort with the notion of being really demonstrative with one's faith -- holding up a Bible, closing one's eyes and waving one's hands in the air. I had to agree with him. Such is simply not something I will ever do. Which brings up this question: is that necessarily bad? Call it wishful thinking, but I would like believe that there is a place for quiet, introspective belief. If not, then I'm in for a difficult journey.

About Charisma

I must apologise for my lack of attention to this blog, I understand that you’ve also been busy this week (as always!) – on the west coast of the United States of America?

Taking that particular scene from Pulp Fiction a little further didn’t Jules then tell Vincent that a dog wasn’t a filthy animal, because a dog had personality, and personality goes a long way ..?

You mentioned Carl Gustav Jung, I don’t know a lot about him but have been reading some references to him on the web this past week. Did you know that when he first met Sigmund Freud they apparently had a non-stop 13 hour long conversation? Freud’s son is on record as saying that during dinner Jung spoke directly and exclusively to Freud, ignoring the very existence of the rest of Freud’s family!

Jung did subscribe to dualism as you mention, the idea of good and evil, the yin and yang, the two sided nature of everything. He (apparently) managed to reconcile dualism with monism in this work Mysterium Coniunctionis. I find no evidence for his belief if any in a triune nature from what I have read so far. There are some things that sparked in my mind as I was investigating Jung:

He was into the Philosopher’s Stone and Alchemy. We talked about this stone in previous appends, so I found this connection statistically uncalled for. Jung time and again pointed out the affinity and contrast between alchemical figures and those of Christianity, demonstrating a sort of mirror-like analogy not only between the stone of the philosophers and the image of Christ, but between alchemy and Christianity themselves. Alchemy, said Jung, stands in a compensatory relationship to mainstream Christianity, rather like a dream does to the conscious attitudes of the dreamer. The Stone of alchemy is in many respects the stone rejected by the builders of Christian culture, demanding recognition and reincorporation into the building itself. Maybe this has something to do with my Christian friends not letting their children watch Harry Potter?

Jung also believed in the charismatic healer. I’m talking psychoanalysis here. Freud believed in a “method” for treating “mentally ill” patients. These “poor unfortunates” could be helped through the application of psychoanalytical method, the treatment often involving hypnotherapy, where the “answer” would usually have something to do with the patient realising that his problems were of a sexual nature (and the repression thereof). Freud felt that healing could be garnered through fastidious attention to a detailed method whereas Jung on the other hand believed that the patient could only really be healed through the charismatic personality of the doctor administering the method. I found this interesting coupled with that scene from Pulp Fiction that you started off!

So then I started to think about charismatic people. While I do believe that there have been many charismatic women throughout history, the term is usually applied to men. As an insult you might hear the phrase “he has had a charisma bypass” but you rarely hear the insult “she has had a charisma bypass”. Either all women have natural charisma, or it is not expected of them? Furthermore, our very our Prince Charles is getting married today and I cannot think of a better example of an individual totally lacking in any sort of charisma whatsoever, if indeed there are different sorts.

Incidentally, UK parliament has now dissolved in advance of the general election which takes place on May 5th. The leader of the Conservative Party, the opposition to Tony Blair’s government (Michael Howard), has himself been described as someone who has had a “charisma bypass”!

Then there is you oh bagwell, singularly you have scored the highest feedback marks from the recipients of your presentations, and I believe that partly you do so through your charismatic delivery. Reading your posts to this blog one cannot fail to get a sense of your charismatic personality and good charm.

Do you believe that Jesus was a charismatic teacher and leader? I feel that he may well have been. Was it these personal characteristics that helped people to follow him, or was it predominantly the miracles?

I am going to the Palisades tomorrow and need to return to the UK on Thursday so I unfortunately will not see you on this trip my brother.

Current music: The Godfather Soundtrack (aka Italian dinner music)

PS. We have had our first comment from Elaine to my “Power of three” append! Thank you Elaine, I’m still going with Jesus as the ID because he had personality.

"Are You Jewish?"

From Pulp Fiction:

Vincent: "Want some bacon?"

Jules: "No, man. I don't eat bacon."

Vincent: "Are you Jewish?"

Jules: "No, I ain't Jewish ... I just don't dig on swine, that's all."

What does that have to do with Sigmund Freud and you question? Probably not a lot, except that Sigmund Freud was a non-practicing, almost atheist Jew. So I'm wondering how much of the doctrine of the Trinity he would have known about. The idea of God as "Three in One" as we have it is very foreign, and almost blasphemous to the Jewish mind.

Bottom line: "I dunno."

As to your question whether God created man, or the other way around ... I would guess that Freud -- in his later years in particular -- would have thought that God was simply a fabrication of our minds. That notion has been used to unfortunate effect by many since Freud's time to undermine the Kingdom of God. I'm not a fan of Freudian psychology, or any psychology for that matter, because I have little sense of its efficacy. But I could be shading reality with my own personal experiences there.

Wasn't it Jung that felt that man had a duality, not a triune nature?

I can't handle too much of that philosophical or psychological stuff ... too abstract. It's kinda like a Java Bean ... :-)

The power of three

Ok I know that two is company and three a crowd :-) I am at home with my two girls, the three of us are playing the Spongebob Squarepants movie PC game. It’s fun!

I was walking through Itchen Valley Country Park on Friday musing on the triune nature of man and God (among other things). I wondered if Freud was borrowing from the triune nature of God when he came up with the following for the structure of the human mind:

THE ID: (“It”): functions in the irrational and emotional part of the mind. At birth a baby’s mind is all Id - want want want. The Id is the primitive mind. It contains all the basic needs and feelings. It is the source for libido (psychic energy). And it has only one rule --> the “pleasure principle”: “I want it and I want it all now”. In transactional analysis, Id equates to "Child".
Id too strong = bound up in self-gratification and uncaring to others

THE EGO: (“I”): functions with the rational part of the mind. The Ego develops out of growing awareness that you can’t always get what you want. The Ego relates to the real world and operates via the “reality principle”. The Ego realises the need for compromise and negotiates between the Id and the Superego. The Ego's job is to get the Id's pleasures but to be reasonable and bear the long-term consequences in mind. The Ego denies both instant gratification and pious delaying of gratification. The term ego-strength is the term used to refer to how well the ego copes with these conflicting forces. To undertake its work of planning, thinking and controlling the Id, the Ego uses some of the Id's libidinal energy. In transactional analysis, Ego equates to "Adult".
Ego too strong = extremely rational and efficient, but cold, boring and distant

THE SUPEREGO: (“Over-I”): The Superego is the last part of the mind to develop. It might be called the moral part of the mind. The Superego becomes an embodiment of parental and societal values. It stores and enforces rules. It constantly strives for perfection, even though this perfection ideal may be quite far from reality or possibility. Its power to enforce rules comes from its ability to create anxiety.
The Superego has two subsystems: "Ego Ideal" and "Conscience". The Ego Ideal provides rules for good behaviour, and standards of excellence towards which the Ego must strive. The Ego ideal is basically what the child’s parents approve of or value. The Conscience is the rules about what constitutes bad behaviour. The Conscience is basically all those things that the child feels mum or dad will disapprove of or punish.
Superego too strong = feels guilty all the time, may even have an insufferably saintly personality
Couple this with:

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

Genesis 1:26 (NIV)

is there an obvious association between the triune nature of God and man? Do they map in this fashion?

The Father – The Superego
The Son – The Id
The Holy Spirit (Ghost) – The Ego

I've never seen this connection made, would the id and ego be reversed? What do you think?

This of course begs the question, "did God create man or did Man create god?" Or was Freud just having a laugh?

Current song: “The Magic Number” – De La Soul

Pope John Paul II

I always had a certain regard for Pope John Paul II, though I am not Catholic and find some of the Catholic Church's doctrine -- particularly the elevation of Mary -- to be troubling. But John Paul II always struck me as Disciple of Christ first and Catholic second, and to me that struck a chord. There is, I think, a lesson in there for all ... including me ... who seek to create division when what we should all do is fix our eyes on Jesus, first and foremost.

John Paul II now stands before the full Glory of Christ.

“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!’ (Matthew 25:21, NIV)

The Pope Is Dead

Long live The Pope.

RIP John Paul II

The Nature of Blogger

Me thinks the good folks at Blogger need to seriously analyze their infrastructure. I am experiencing more and more "socket timeouts" during posting. What they need, naturally, is a big hummer of a zSeries box. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Nature of Sin

I guess the ultimate point I was driving at was that "sin" is comprised of all things -- acts, thoughts, deeds, omissions -- that do not measure up to God's standard, which is perfection. Therefore, a definition of "sin" would be: failing to be as perfect as God himself.

"Nobody is perfect!" Is the common refrain. That would be correct -- mankind is inherently sinful, or inherently imperfect. But the underlying thinking (or wishful thinking) by most people when they say, "Nobody is perfect" is really: "God knows we're not perfect ... he takes that into account and overlooks our minor imperfections if we just work hard at avoiding the big ones."

That's a very common way of thinking. Major faith traditions -- Judiasm, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism -- are all based on the notion that our efforts in this world to minimize the degree of imperfection is what matters. There's where the radical departure with Christianity exists: the Christian faith is built upon the idea that no matter how hard we try, no matter how good we think we're being, we're still far, far short of the perfect standard demanded by a Holy God.

From a purely logical point of view, if the "One True God" exists and what I've suggested about his Holy nature is correct, then sin has nothing to do with behavior relative to what the person believes. It has everything to do with what God expects. An atheist who doesn't believe in God doesn't change the fact of God, and therefore the atheist is sinful even if they don't recognize or acknowledge it. They stand in judgment for their imperfect nature, even if they don't believe in God or sin.

Note: this gets back to our "Ultimate Truth" discussion. If God exists and he is the Ultimate Truth, then that Truth is unchanging, regardless of our acceptance or rejection of the premise itself.

Most people recoil at that. But it truly is one of the most fundamental aspects of Christian doctrine:

We cannot by our effort reconcile ourselves to God, therefore we need someone else to do it. That "someone else" is Jesus Christ. By trusting in Christ and not ourselves, we gain the forgiveness for all our sins, and in God's eyes gain the full righteousness of Christ himself.

This is Grace. This is what John 3:16 is all about. This is what the song Amazing Grace was written to extol. This is the Gospel.

I list the "Inherent Sinful Nature of Man" as a cornerstone because, as I mentioned, failure to grasp the reality of this prevents many people -- perhaps even myself -- from truly embracing Christ as their saviour. We instead "go through the motions" -- speak the languange, perhaps, and attend the rituals -- but in reality are trusting in ourselves rather than in Christ.

Note: Sometimes I really think I fall into the latter camp. I feel like a man standing outside the department store window, looking through the glass at the beautiful item in the display window. But I hesitate going in. The price tag says "Free," but I know the commitment to be high. It is easier to stand outside the window and preen about my supposed knowledge of what's inside the window. I am in many ways heartily ashamed of myself. I have been blessed with many things, not the least of which is a pretty good understanding of what the Christian faith is all about, and yet I stand there continuing to analyze it like some geometric proof on a blackboard. I can't shake a voice in my heart saying, "Now go, and do."

May the Lord continue to show me Mercy and Guidance.

Is sinning letting God and ourselves down?

You said:

“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.”

This is kind of interesting, the word “sin” is just a word -- and it is different in Russian, Turkish etc -- earlier we defined “sin” as a transgression of God’s law. Now you have extended “sin” into covering “bad things” (a highly relative term).

If “sin” only covers the former case of trangressing God’s Law then I guess atheists are a bit like Bobby Fischer, they do not recognize the law that is being handed down, so they don’t believe that they are transgressing anything. For instance, a Christian might say that a Muslim is committing a sin by worshipping Allah (a false idol), but a Muslim believes that he is doing the opposite to committing a sin by worshipping Allah. The Muslim does not recognize the sin, as he does not recognize the law that is being handed down.

The obvious conclusion is that to “sin” you have to believe that there is one True God and that He handed down those laws.

If it’s the latter case, where sin covers “bad things” then we need to define what these “bad things” are. Are “bad things” only those things that trangress God’s Law? If so, then the two cases are identical. If “bad things” are a superset of the trangression of God’s Law then what are they?

You later go on to say:

"Oh, that's okay. I'll give you a pass just because I know you tried."

But you meant that that really would not happen. Do you mean that God would not give you that pass unless you do something more than “try”? Or that that pass does not in fact exist (for anybody)?

I kind of agree with your #4, I think that it is in our nature to satisfy our pleasures rather than treat others as we would wish to be treated. We will satisfy our pleasures, massage our ids, even at the expense of treating others in a fashion that we would not wish to be treated ourselves.

I believe this to be true of any person in any religion.

Current song: “Don’t Let Me Down” – The Beatles

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?