Completely Worthless ... or Infinitely Important

I'm going to approach Pascal's Gambit two ways: one is by assessing the logical argument made, leaving aside issues of faith and theology; the other is to consider its merits as a mechanism by which to draw people to Jesus Christ.

As A Logical Argument

I'm left somewhat unpersuaded by the line of reasoning. First of all, I'm not sure the initial premise is supportable. I'm no expert in comparative religions, but to say that no other faith tradition offers offers a version of a blissful afterlife doesn't quite ring true.

Second, if the probability of the existence of the Christian God is unknown, that necessarily means it ranges from 0% to 100%. That's important because choosing something based on an expected return is dependent upon as assessment -- if not the certainty -- of the probable outcome.

Third, this argument leaves out the detrimental effects in this lifetime of being a follower of Jesus. The Bible is very clear that there will be a cost in this life. Sometimes it takes the form of considerable sacrifice; sometimes it takes the form of persecution. At a minimum, following Christ involves surrending one's freedom to freely do as one chooses. This is critical because what people are weighing in their minds is the certainty of cost now versus the unknown probability of reward later. It's my belief that very thing prevents more people from coming to Christ than any other. We are a selfish lot, deep.thought, with a real taste for near-term gratification.

Bullets four and five are really suggesting a calculation in one's mind of the expected outcome. Implicit in the argument, I think, is that the assessment of the probability of the Christian God's existence is something greater than 0%. The higher the number goes, the greater weight of the argument. However, bullet two states that the probability is unknown. Therefore, it's equally as likely to be 0% -- or very low -- as it is anything else. And if zero, and if given the cost of professing allegiance to this Christian God whose existence is of probability unknown, then the tradeoff favors rejecting the Christian God.

The line of reasoning leaves out what is perhaps the single most common choice people make -- to neither embrace or reject, but rather to ignore. It is not logical, but it is prevalent. The reasoning being, I suppose, is that some clemency will be granted those who profess ignorance later.

As for the last bullet, I believe it requires at a minimum an intentional act of will to come to faith in Christ. I think what the last point is getting at is whether one can rationally arrive at a point of belief. I think the answer is "Almost, but not entirely." I do not believe true faith in Christ is completely rational. First, it involves at least some degree of belief in the unknowable. I suppose that could be defined as "irrational." Second, and more important, true faith in Christ is a gift from God, not something we can achieve on our own, apart from God's initial act of calling us.

Note: you want a Bible topic that'll stir up more debate and emotion than even the Book of Job? Talk about predestination and the doctrine of the elect. The notion that God has from before time chosen who he will save and who he will not is a troubling one to embrace.

As A Mechanism To Draw People to Christ

Within this context I am not a fan of "Pascal's Gambit." It's not that I reject the idea of rational analysis of the authenticity or sufficiency of the Bible, or of the critical evaluation of the claims of Christ. Rather, I do not favor the punative flavor of the argument. It puts people on the defensive.

I much prefer a form of Christian witness where our comportment, our demeanor, our actions and our deeds suggest something strikingly different and compelling from the surrounding society. Personally, I think there are few more compelling displays (to unbelieving men) than an intelligent man, displaying strength of conviction in Jesus, and doing so with a demonstrably humble heart. That'll make a man who is seeking sit up and take notice.

And then the rational analysis of the Christian claim can be pursued.

There's a close cousin of "Pascal's Gambit" in something C.S. Lewis once wrote. Essentially his formulation was this: when considering Jesus, one must not avoid the stark claims Jesus made about himself. Because if Jesus was not who he claimed to be -- that is, the Son of God, God incarnate, the promised Messiah -- then we can rightly dismiss Jesus as a fraud, or worse, a mad man. On the other hand, if Jesus was who he claimed to be ... then the matter becomes of infinite importance. Because if true, then what we have is the very Creator of the Universe, incarnate and on this earth, instructing us on how to achieve eternal salvation.

That formulation doesn't attempt to logically argue to any given conclusion. Rather, it seems to simply set the alternatives in stark detail. That is, in my mind, a critically important thing because, as I mentioned earlier, for many people a third option is one they strive for -- complete avoidance of the issue. Unfortunately, Jesus didn't really leave that option open. Ultimately -- perhaps not in this lifetime -- we must face the stark choice -- Jesus is God, or Jesus was a nutcase.

Note: at this point many people say, "Why can't we just consider Jesus a good teacher, or another prophet?" Because good teachers or good prophets do not claim that, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) Or "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I AM!'" (John 8:58, making reference to Exodus 3:14).

That's my take ... for what it's worth.

* * *
With regard to the individual on ICU ... it is a true shame when someone carries the name of Jesus Christ on his lips, yet does not show the face of Christ in his actions and deeds. Such people do more damage to the Kingdom than those who are simply evil. It is a shame.

Pascal's Wager

You made a beautiful last post my friend :-) Stay that Christian and never become like the racist who goes by the name of "KingJehu" with whom I have just had the dubious pleasure of talking to on IRC. One should not be concerned if a Muslim is killed apparently. Grrrr. I know you will.

Yes, the times I have ignored my conscience have usually not worked out well and I have regretted them.

Changing tact:

Pascal's wager is posed to someone trying to choose between belief in the Christian God and belief in no god. It makes the following assumptions:

• The probability of the existence of other gods who offer infinite happiness is zero
• The probability of the existence of a Christian God is unknown
• If the Christian God exists, then unbelievers are excluded from infinite happiness
• Infinite happiness is better than any other outcome
• It is necessarily rational to choose the best outcome
• A rational act of will can lead to faith

Thoughts?

Current song: Once in a lifetime - Talking Heads

The Complicating Effect of Sovereignty

I think I'm getting a better sense of where the thrust of your argument is. It appears to be rooted in the doctrine of God's complete sovereignty, or perhaps more precisely, his perfect self-sufficiency. God needs nothing. Nothing can affect, influence, change, impact, or disuade God.

That is a good doctrine, and a good doctrine to hold tight to.

But it yields a valid conclusion, one I think you've reached: God is not affected by our sin. Granting that he is affected by our sin diminishes his sovereignty, and affords us a small sliver of our own. And that can't be, provided one holds to the original doctrine of complete sovereignty of God.

For my part, I'm willing to concede that God is not affected by our sin. I'm not ready to concede that he's not concerned. "Worried" is not the word I was reaching for when I selected "concerned." What I was trying to convey was that the Bible clearly directs us to seek God and avoid sin. There must be a reason why God has chosen to communicate so clearly the consuming nature of sin avoidance in our lives.

Example: "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (NIV, Matthew 5:29-30). Very likely not meant to be taken literally, this passage provides a graphic and powerful image of the measures we must consider to avoid sin in our lives.

* * *
As for the "Thou Shalt not Kill" vs. "Thou Shalt not Murder" debate, it is useful to go to blueletterbible.org and see the original Hebrew, which was "ratsach" (Strong's 07523). By my reading of it, it appears that's a primitive root. And the usage of the root in other parts of the Bible suggest that "murder" is the more common meaning. There appears to be a suggestion of intent with the purpose of revenge. So I do not believe the original Hebrew of the commandment broadly prohibited the taking of life.

* * *
Now, on to the ending question, which I paraphrase here: "Why did God create us -- for his benefit or ours?"

Here I must speculate, for I can't know the mind of God. But I am of the belief that the act was purely altruistic. And, interestingly enough, my thinking on this subject starts with the Trinity.

Note: I recall speaking once with a pastor of a church, and we were talking about those elements of the Christian doctrine we felt were the critical cornerstones. This pastor commented that as he matures in the faith, he is coming to understand the true importance of the Trinity. It's a complex and mysterious doctrine, but it is fundamental to Christianity.

For all eternity, God has existed as three distinct "persons" within a single "Godhead." One God, one essence, three personalities ... deep mystery. We are to understand that there is and always has been a deep, personal communion -- a love -- that exists between the members of the Trinity. Given that God is perfect, that love is perfect.

Note: "Perfect" is a difficult word to really grasp, isn't it? Imagine love as we know it, improved to infinity.

I believe the angels were created so they could experience the joy and glory that is the love that exists between the members of the Trinity. In that sense, God created the angels so he could share -- or give -- that love to others.

In the same way I believe we were created so we could experience and enjoy the joy and glory that is the love of God.

An act of pure and perfect altruism ... just like Christ on the Cross was a pure and perfect altruistic act, done out of his perfect love without regard to any benefit he himself might derive.

This might be why God has commanded us not to sin ... or not to disobey him. For one of the things sin does -- and I know this from personal experience -- is that it separates us from God. It's not that he leaves us; it's that by sinning we ourselves can't draw close to him.

Honestly ... think about the times you've engaged in willful disobedience of what you know to be God's commandment to you. In that state of sinfulness, do you feel close to God? Do you have a clear conscience? Do you feel motivated to go to him with an open heart? I know for me the answer is a clear "no." When I willfully win, a dark cloud descends on my relationship with God. It's awful. It's only when I come to truly reject the sin that I have a sense of return to him.

However, when I am able to avoid the more egregious willful sinning that plagues me, and I start to draw nearer to him, there is a profound sense of his presence about me. I'm certain that God is unchanged by my presence or absence; but I am clearly changed. I clearly benefit.

So I think the answer to the question about why we were created is just this -- God wished others to share in the Glory that is the love that exists between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

This is what I think is meant when God says that he is a "jealous" God -- not jealousy in the flawed human sense of the word. He is not himself jealous. He is jealous for us. He so wants his creation to benefit from his love and presence that he "yearns" (not literally) that we obey him so we can draw near to him.

Could he just "force" us to draw near? (The equivalent of invalidating free will.) Sure. But that would be akin to forcing a hug upon your daughter when she did not seek it. There's some value in it, but not nearly as much as when she comes to you with an open heart and clear conscience, when no dark cloud of disobedience hangs over your relationship. When she seeks you in love as her father, and you are there to give her the love she seeks, the experience for her must be near bliss. How much more the experience must be when we do the same with our heavenly Father.

God's impulse

Remember, I don't know anything about the Absolute Truth of the situation, I am just applying my errant flavour of logic and rationaility to the Christian Doctrine and God:

If God is not offended by our sin, nor angered by our sin, is it possible he's also not concerned about our sin?

Perhaps not. "Concern" suggests a worry about how something might affect us, or how things might turn out. This involves being in the timeline along with the rest of us and I am not prepared to admit that God is limited in this fashion.

Why would sin be bad for us?

I think that sin leads to loss of happiness, to pain, to war and death. I consider these things bad for us.

Does it follow that anything that is bad for us is therefore a sin?

Probably not. Depends how you define "bad". Some children may think that it's bad to learn mathematics. Attempting to do so causes them a loss of happiness. I don't think learning mathematics is a transgression of God's law (actually, I'm not 100% sure of that, I believe that there is a passage in the Bible somewhere where God warns man not to look closely at how he made the Universe -- and the Universe runs on numbers ...) so not a sin by the following definition ...

What exactly is sin?

We covered this in an earlier post and I think we agreed that it was a trangression of God's law. If one doesn't believe in God then one does not believe in sin. The question as you so rightly point out is the next one.

If the Bible is not to be believed, how do we know what things are sins and what things are not?

I believe the answer to this is that if you do not believe The Bible then it would be a good idea to avoid things that I believe God considers a "sin" by "treating others as you wish to be treated". A "sin" could be defined to an atheist in this fashion. "Hey Mr/Mrs. Atheist -- if you find that you are treating others in a manner that you yourself would not wish to be treated then you are sinning".

Note: this only works for 99% of humans. Masochists are one of the dead ends of natural selection. After all, there have been quite a few Darwin awards given out for these types.

As you know, I believe The Bible contains some fundamental truths, but I believe that it has been corrupted by men. Which is why I don't accept it 100% on faith. A simple example in the area we are discussing here; I believe God originally said:

"Thou shalt not kill"

And I believe that man changed this to:

"Thou shalt not murder"

I believe that man did this to suit his sinful nature, to allow war.

The interesting (to me) question that I am struggling with is:

"Assuming a God that sees the timeline in one go, that knows everything that is going to happen, and that doesn't need anything -- did He create us to benefit Him in any way? Or were we created entirely altruistically? Was it all done solely for us? Is there anything in it for Him?" I'd be interested in your opinion as always !

No song, the kids really don't like my music! It's half term (semester?) here in the UK and I have Wednesday and Friday off fulfilling my parental responsibilities role!

Does God Possess Emotion At All?

This is a fascinating thread ... let me ask you a few things:

• If God is not offended by our sin, nor angered by our sin, is it possible he's also not concerned about our sin?
• Why would sin be bad for us?
• Does it follow that anything that is bad for us is therefore a sin?
• What exactly is sin?
• If the Bible is not to be believed, how do we know what things are sins and what things are not?

* * *
I disagree with your assessment that God made sin. That's a contradiction. How can bad come from a perfect good? God created Satan, to be sure, but God did not mandate that Satan exercise his free will to oppose God. Here we fall into the "God permits, but does not cause bad things to happen" argument.

* * *
For the record, I believe the definition of sin is simply "disobeying God's will." What is God's will? That we be perfectly obedient to him. Why would a creature possessing free will volunteer that free will back to God? Because if God is indeed perfectly good and perfectly holy and perfectly loving, then being obedient to him will be what's perfectly best for us. I believe it is only through our ability to reject God that we learn what a blessing it is to accept God. I feel that's the key to why God gave us free will. Not so that he could enjoy the benefit of our allegiance, but rather that we could enjoy the benefit of our allegiance. Were we created robots, we would never understand it.

Sin is bad indeed

When I wrote:

I don't think it is an offence to Him. I can't believe that God would say "I'm so offended by the thing that I created".

I hope you didn't think that I meant that sin was ok. It's bad for us, God knows this which is why he tells us not to do it. I believe it cannot hurt or offend him however, that's all.

Choose

Do you honestly believe that rationality and religion don't mix? By that, do you believe that one must completely suspend one's critical faculties to accept even the first piece of the faith puzzle?

I think so, I used to think that it is irrational to think that we were not architected. Rationally speaking, I am not so sure. It could be a failure of nerve or imagination.

Absent a rational framework of belief, what is left to believe in? The purely subjective?

One thing is for sure, we cannot trust our senses. We choose something to believe and settle upon it. Why do we have to believe that something to be rational? We have a number of religions to chose from, if we were born in Iraq we most probably would have chosen Islam.

Our beliefs are strong enough to survive any attack, like Job :-)

The omnipotence/free will/sin conundrum

If sin is a fact in our world, and our world is a result of God's perfect plan, does that mean that God created sin?

Of course. God created Satan too, knowing how Satan would turn out. Why he did that is up for grabs.

Or, put another way, what role does our free will play in the introduction of sin into our world. If God knew ahead of time that we would employ our free will to disobey, does that mean that we don't really have free will?

Our will is free from our own perspective yes. From God's perspective our will is not free because he knows what we are going to do, that is a quality of His omnipotence. I don't have a problem with this, my will is free to me, God just knows of the myriad of possibilities, which one I am going to pick before I pick it. In fact "before" is not really a word you can apply to God. That's what you get when you see all of time in one go.

Does the fact that an omniscient God would know ahead of time about our disobedience, does that make it any less an offense? If it does, then by extrapolating out to perfection does the offense go away?

I don't think it is an offence to Him. I can't believe that God would say "I'm so offended by the thing that I created". I suspect that someone wants us to think that He is. I really don't know.

No current song as the girls are here, but that Chilli sounds scrumptious. I get your point.

Believe What?

You wrote:

"This is a rational discourse, rationality and religion don't mix. One doesn't need to bother re-drawing Ptolemys circles to make The Bible fit, one only needs to believe."

Two questions:

1. Do you honestly believe that rationality and religion don't mix? By that, do you believe that one must completely suspend one's critical faculties to accept even the first piece of the faith puzzle?
2. Absent a rational framework of belief, what is left to believe in? The purely subjective?

Current song: None ... but I can hear the pot of chili bubbling on the stove. I have a chili recipe that seems to go over well with all who partake of it. The key is not so much in the ingredients, which are fairly standard, but in the process. The more I learn about cooking, the more I come to understand that the sequence and process is every bit as important as the things that go into it.

Really a Perfect Plan?

Let me ask some even more fundamental questions:

• If sin is a fact in our world, and our world is a result of God's perfect plan, does that mean that God created sin?
• Or, put another way, what role does our free will play in the introduction of sin into our world. If God knew ahead of time that we would employ our free will to disobey, does that mean that we don't really have free will?
• Does the fact that an omniscient God would know ahead of time about our disobedience, does that make it any less an offense? If it does, then by extrapolating out to perfection does the offense go away?

A perfect vase?

We're getting somewhere with this ...

I maintain that God cannot be angry or sad with us because He knows (and has always known) what we are going to do anyway, and the things we do are part of His Perfect Plan. Now The Bible, as you quite rightly pointed out, says differently. So I am left with the following options:

1. I am wrong -- quite possibly
2. I am right and The Bible is innacurate -- quite possibly (IMHO)
3. I am right and The Bible is accurately reporting mans interpretation of God's "emotion" -- also possible
4. Something else -- most likely

Option 3 is interesting. And quite possibly resolves how a perfect God who knows all things can get seemingly emotional about things he already knows and that are part of His Perfect Plan. I think point 3 could be split down further:

1. Man misinterpreted God and then wrote about it
2. God wanted man to believe that He was angry, presumably this is for mans benefit
3. Something else

This is my rational analysis of a being that gets angry about his own Perfect Plan: it's not possible.

So in my rational view God does not get angry about sin or Tsunamis -- how could He be perfectly sad about His own perfect plan?

Unless we want to accept that His Plan is not Perfect of course? Which is not acceptable to me.

A Christian Church elder once explained to me that the Universe was like a perfect vase that unfortunately got cracked (that crack being the entrance of sin). I can't see how that is Absolutely True, if the vase were perfect then how could it get cracked? Perfect vases are uncrackable by definition.

Maybe people did write about a happier Jesus (there were over 100 Gospels written after all). Why do I have this horrible suspicion that the power brokers behind the canon went for the stick rather than the carrot? Either Jesus didn't laugh much or they chose the best option they felt to gain power over the people, or God decided on the four Gospels -- or something else. Your mileage may vary.

This is a rational discourse, rationality and religion don't mix. One doesn't need to bother re-drawing Ptolemys circles to make The Bible fit, one only needs to believe.

Current song: "Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam" - The Vaselines

Is God "Joyfull and Happy" About Sin?

Once again we cycle back to whether the cornerstone is properly set: is the Bible a faithful revelation of God's truth?

• If not, then it's hard for me to understand exactly what one would base one's concept of God upon, other then their own personal wishes and desires, projections and selections.
  
• If yes, then it's hard for me to understand how the idea of God's holy wrath -- mentioned hundreds of times throughout the Bible -- can be simply dismissed.

The problem most have -- and you yourself did this in your last post -- is they project our experience with human anger back on God. Unfortunately, our anger springs from a sinful base. I become angry at my wife for reasons having to do with my selfish desires rather than any true and just assessment of her actions.

In your post you wrote, "My suspicion is that God is in an unimaginable state of constant ecstatic joy and happiness." Was God ecstatic and happy when his chosen people abandoned him and worshipped false idols? Is God ecstatic and happy when people commit acts of evil in his name? Was God ecastic and happy when the tsunami swept over a hundred thousand people? On the day of judgment, will God be ecstatic and happy as he casts multitudes into eternal damnation?

Based on your reasoning, God must therefore not possess another emotion: sadness.

Did you realize the Bible makes no reference to Jesus ever laughing? Yet it does make reference to him sad, disappointed and angry. I don't think that proves he never laughed, but I do think it's significant there's no recording of him having done so.

Another question: how are we to understand the concept of God's mercy in the context of God never being anything but happy and joyful? dictionary.com defines "Mercy" as "Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency." (emphasis mine) Clemency from what?

The Bible tells us that God sacrificed his Son Jesus as a way to atone for our sins. Why would God do that if he had no sense of meting out punishment for sins committed? The beauty of Grace is found in the magnitude of what it provides: forgiveness of our sins; avoidance of eternal damnation. And the source of that damnation can be none other than God himself.

Sobering thoughts, to be sure.

No one I think is in my tree

I appreciate your extensive insights on the Christian Doctrine, Sir. I would like to pick up on a few of your points:

"One aspect of his perfection is his perfect sense of justice. A perfect sense of justice would not -- could not -- simply allow an offense to go unpunished."

Your logical treatise was based on this initial premise. Unfortunately I believe that this statement reflects the world of men projecting it’s emotions onto God. “A perfect sense of justice” for God just doesn’t make sense to me. God, according to The Bible, is also a jealous God, so in that case does he have “A perfect sense of jealousy”?

I don’t believe that God has these emotions. Take anger for example, which by your argument, God has a perfect sense of.

Why do you (or I) get angry? Think of the last time you got really angry, as far as us humans can get – your best shot at a perfect anger.

Then try to understand how you would have felt if you had known in advance that the thing that made you angry was going to happen. Would you have been so angry about it if you’d already known about it and mulled on it for an eternity?

It depends how one defines a “perfect being”. The Bible defines a perfect being as one who is capable of anger, jealousy and feelings of righteous justice. My suspicion is that God is in an unimaginable state of constant ecstatic joy and happiness. The entire timeline is known, and indeed created by Him.

I think the prawn joke has been doing the circuit for a few years now but it hit my inbox yesterday so I thought that I would share. I guess my motivation behind it was that there is too much dourness and ritual in whiteys Church. I much prefer Reverend James Brown singing about the Old Landmark. God and Jesus laugh a lot (rather than get angry) methinks.

Oh and I think your logic is sound, but logic is not facts. Facts are judged by utility or fidelity, neither of which is quite the same as Absolute Truth, and very difficult to establish in the case of the events depicted in the Bible. Which is why reason fails and we need faith.

Current song: "Strawberry Fields Forever"

John was sharply insightful in this song with:

Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me

But then again he also said "I am the egg man goo goo ga choob". :-)

Shark Tales Redux

By the way, that was cute. Is that original? If so, it's darn clever.

What Did Jesus Really Suffer?

This is another question you've posed recently, and I'm going to springboard off a line from my previous post. In my post I make mention of the "wrath" of God. The idea of God possessing anger or "wrath" is not popular in this day and age. Yet the Bible is pretty clear that God does indeed possess a sense of righteous anger.

The key to this, it seems to me, is to understand that his anger is perfectly righteous. That means it's never arbitrary, never capricious, never without perfect justice. But anger he is capable of, and angry he does become. The Bible speaks frequently of "fearing" God. In one sense, I think, that means to have a healthy regard for God's righteous anger.

Note: This is another block in the wall of Christian doctrine. The Christian faith makes little sense if God is without a sense of righteous anger, and is incapable of holy wrath. If the God one desires is a kind of "peace and love" permissive god, then what I am about to express will make no sense whatever.

In some ways, the movie "Passion of the Christ" did a disservice. It focused, I think, too heavily on the physical suffering of Jesus during his flogging and crucifixion. I don't think that Christ's agitation in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37-38) was due entirely to the anticipation of the physical pain to be endured. Some, to be sure, but not entirely.

It is noteworthy, I feel, that during the entire flogging and crucifixion, the Bible never recounts Jesus crying out to God. He does not do that until the very moment prior to death, when he cries out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46, NIV)

My understanding of this is that at that moment, God placed the accumulated weight of mankind's sin on Jesus, and at that moment Jesus bore the full wrath and fury of God the Father; wrath that would have been ours were it not for Grace.

I have read that at that moment Jesus suffered separation from God his Father for the first time in all of eternity. An eternity of perfect love and communion shattered by Christ's bearing our sin so the righteous wrath of God could serve his perfect justice.

I have read that at that moment God sent Christ to hell. Imagine that ... God sending his eternal son to hell because of our sins. That is either incredibly foolish, or incredibly gracious.

That, to my understanding, is what Jesus suffered. That is the cup he asked be taken from him. That explains the cry, "Why have you forsaken me?" That is why we should be on our knees, grateful for his saving work on our behalf.

* * *
I do not fully grasp the depth and breadth of this. But I did once for a split second. At a moment when I was wrestling with trying to understand the magnitude of it all, my mind "opened up" and I "saw" the depth and breadth. For only a moment, then it was gone. The memory lingers in my mind. God provided me with a moment of revelation to fuel my path to Christ; he has left me with a faint memory of what I experienced. Like your experiences, deep.thought, I can't explain this. But it was real. That I know.

* * *
Thank you, Jesus.

Why Require the Sacrifice of Jesus?

I've given considerable background thought to this question. I've read more than a few things on this subject, and I think I could do a fair job summarizing the essential points of the doctrine (see below). But as I pondered this, I kept coming 'round to a more basic question:

Coming from a perfect God, is the answer "Just because" sufficient?

Our understanding of God, as recorded in the Bible and built upon by two thousand years of doctrinal development, still admits to grand mysteries that will never be understood. One of those mysteries is the true nature of the Trinity. Another is exactly what transpired at that moment when Christ bore our sins and served as an atoning sacrifice.

One of the things I have discovered about myself -- or one of the things God is trying to get me to listen to -- is that I do not and will not make a good Christian apologist. I do not relish a debate ... particularly on this general topic. Because ultimately it is a subject that cannot be argued conclusively. Ultimately the logical basis for the entire Christian faith is rooted in the Bible. All one need do is reject the basic premise of the Bible's authority on the subject and any further attempt to argue for the Faith is, truth be told, essentially futile.

Note: or, more precisely, it would require that the apologist cycle back, time and again, to the question of God's revelation -- general as seen in nature (though even that is frequently rejected by those wishing to deny a creator God); specific as found in Scripture. The basic point here is that the Christian argument cannot be moved forward without settling on this basic premise. It is like me trying to construct a geometric proof when we can't even agree on what "parallel" means ... and by that I mean in the Euclidean sense, not some weirdo black-hole, gravity-warped, time-compressed, string-theory, King's-pawn-gambit world where parallel lines do in fact cross multiple times. :-)

* * *
Now, all that said, here's what I believe is the common explanation for the necessity of atoning sacrifice:

• Mankind has committed -- and continues to commit -- a tremendous offense to God. Mankind's sinfulness is not measured in degrees from God's perspective. We are all equally abhorent to God. Absent Christ's righteousness, Mother Theresa was no better than you or me. (I am quite certain she would have agreed with that. What else explains her remarkable humility?)
  
• God is a perfect, as you point out. One aspect of his perfection is his perfect sense of justice. A perfect sense of justice would not -- could not -- simply allow an offense to go unpunished. It would be akin to us watching a hoodlum rough-up a helpless old lady, and then watch as police stand around, laugh and do nothing about it. Our sense of the injustice in that would ignite tremendous fury within us. Magnify that sense of injustice an infinite number of times to approximate God's perfect sense on the matter.
  
• God has ordained that the shedding of blood is what shall make an atonement for the offense committed. (Leviticus 17:11, NIV: "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.")
• To achieve reconcilation to a perfect God would require a perfect sacrifice. A goat would not achieve lasting atonement -- and indeed it did not; in the Old Testament the day of atonement was an annual event. The sacrifice of a mere man would not for the same reason. It would take the sacrifice of a perfect man. That perfect man is Jesus of Nazareth.
• Hence Jesus as the incarnate God -- God among us; the Word become flesh -- perfect in his obedience to God, utterly sinless, a spotless atoning sacrifice.
  

Notes:

• This does not explain how Christ's sacrifice was an atonement for our sins. That's a mystery.
• This logic is not unassailable. Again, it is constructed upon a critical cornerstone; that is, the authority of the Bible's recounting of this.
  
• This logic is meaningless to anyone who does not accept or comprehend the idea of a perfect God.
• This logic is meaningless to anyone who rejects the notion of our inherent sinfulness.
• This logic is meaningless to anyone who thinks of Jesus as simply a "great teacher."
  
• This logic is meaningless to anyone who rejects the notion of God possessing anger or wrath.
• This logic is meaningless to anyone who longs for a God who simply turns a blind eye and allows us to be captains of our own destiny; to continue in our chosen ways; to demand nothing of us but grant us our every wish.

* * *
May the Lord forgive me if I've done a disservice to His Sovereign Truth. The Bible says (somewhere ... drats! I wish I had more patience to look these things up) that a particular responsibility will fall upon the shoulders of teachers of God's Truth. I do not think I have contradicted Scripture here; but I do not think I've offered a particuarly compelling recounting of it.

The Extent of God's Self-Sufficiency

You posted a line of reasoning that is deliciously compelling:

• Yahweh is indeed perfect so has no requirement for us to ask for his forgiveness. Yet he still wants us to.
• He also has no requirement for a compensating transaction – a sacrifice; he has no requirements for anything.
• However, we need to accept that a sacrifice (Jesus) and His forgiveness are necessary.
• Therefore there must be something of benefit to us (not God) in recognizing that we need His forgiveness for our transgressions and that we need to accept Grace from Him.
• God wants us to benefit from this "something" so places a requirement upon us to recognize this and comply.

Beautiful! You've placed your finger upon a tension within the Christian faith -- on the one hand, God is self-sufficient and self-sustaining, requiring absolutely nothing from anyone. And yet he has imposed a requirement for forgiveness -- a sacrifice (Jesus).

Why?

To answer this is to give a summation of pretty much the sweep of Christian theology as I understand it. (And admittedly, my understanding is limited ... very limited.) As I drink another (several) cups of coffee, let me ponder a proper response.

The answer may be "42." We'll see. :-)

Annoyance

You wrote:

A scientist will tell you that taking a personal interest in an indifferent phenomenon is his (or her) life’s work. They’ll also go on to tell you that if you’re only interested in a God that is interested in you then you are applying a selection effect.

I would suggest that the difference is akin to studying love as a clinical third-person observer versus experiencing love with another. The former may be clinical and scientific and require no response from the subject; the latter is only really possible when the interest and care is deeply reciprocal.

There's another example, and it's more pertinent to the Christian faith: university theologians. Many of the theologians at the big-name universities like Harvard and Princeton (and probably Oxford and Cambridge as well) are quite knowledgeable about the theology that has developed over time regarding God, but do not know him at all. In fact many are admitted atheists. Their study of God appears to be indifferently scientific ... based on the available scholarship and archeology.

Note: I'm not dismissing the scientific approach. It is suited to many things. But not all things.

You wrote:

“I would be interested in God if He were an impersonal being; however it really appears to me that He is not. Quite annoying really” :-)

I think you've touched upon something quite significant here. One of the attractive features of the non-Christian belief systems is that they often do not require anything truly significant of the follower. Most of those traditions -- or, I should say, the present day manifestations of those traditions, after having been reshaped -- are really all about serving the follower, not the other way around. Sure, there are elements of commitment to the higher being, but usually in the form of legalistic practices and rituals, and often they are not really that demanding.

Note: in fairness, a large portion of today's Christianity is also this way. It has become in some circles little more than a self-help program. "Be a Christian and be happy." Or, "Send money and enjoy God's bountiful riches in return." Mankind can take anything and turn it around to be a tool of selfish pursuits.

This is where the God of the Bible is utterly different. He is, as you write with regard to whether he is impersonal: "it appears to me that He is not." And your rejoinder is perfect: "Quite annoying, really." I suspect the personal nature of the True God is something that is enormously annoying to many. I suspect that is why many respond to the subject of Jesus Christ with anything between mild antipathy to violent opposition.

Several years ago, when I was still seeking, I read a book by John R. W. Stott called "Basic Christianity." The title is a misnomer -- the book is anything but a "...for Dummies" book. The book had an enormous impact on me. One of the chapters was titled, "Counting the Costs," and had to do with the depth of the commitment involved with being a follower of Christ. One sentence stays with me and will forever: "Jesus never hid the fact that the offer came with a demand, and the demand was a complete as the offer was free."

Annoying ... very annoying indeed. :-)

Brilliant point, deep.thought. Perfect word. Spot on.

Shark Tales

Far away in the tropical waters of the Caribbean, two prawns were swimming around in the sea - one called Justin and the other called Christian. The prawns were constantly being harassed by sharks.

Finally Justin said to Christian, "I'm fed up with being a prawn, I wish I was a shark, then I wouldn't have any worries about being eaten."

A large, mysterious cod appeared and said, "Your wish is granted", and lo and behold, Justin turned into a shark. Horrified, Christian immediately swam away, afraid of being eaten by his old mate.

Time passed. Justin found life as a shark boring and lonely. All his old mates simply swam away whenever he came close to them.

While swimming alone one day he saw the mysterious cod again and he begged to be changed back. It happened! What a miraculous thing! With tears of joy in his tiny little prawn-eyes, Justin swam back to his friends. But looking around the reef couldn't see his old pal.

"Where's Christian?" he asked.

"He's at home, still distraught that his best friend changed sides to the enemy and became a shark," came the reply.

Eager to put things right again, Justin set off to Christian's abode. As he opened the coral gate, memories came flooding back.

He banged on the door and shouted, "It's me, Justin, your old friend! Come out and see me again!"

Christian replied, "No way man, you'll eat me. You're now a shark, the enemy, and I'll not be tricked into being your dinner."

Justin cried back, "No, I'm not. That was the old me. I've changed... I've found Cod! I'm a prawn again, Christian".

Your own personal Jesus

A non-personal force or energy may be "out there," but if it has no personal interest in me, then why I would take an interest in it isn't clear.

I think you’re absolutely spot on there... but the way you’ve phrased that little gem causes scientists (at least) a problem. A scientist will tell you that taking a personal interest in an indifferent phenomenon is his (or her) life’s work. They’ll also go on to tell you that if you’re only interested in a God that is interested in you then you are applying a selection effect.

I would rephrase as something like:

“I would be interested in God if He were an impersonal being; however it really appears to me that He is not. Quite annoying really” :-)

In my opinion, the most attractive thing about Christianity is the "personal" aspect.

And you asked about my motivation behind #3 “Accept that the omnipotent Yahweh wants us to recognize that we need his forgiveness for that transgression." I wrote this as an afterthought to 1 & 2.

My thoughts were:

1. Yahweh is indeed perfect so has no requirement for us to ask for his forgiveness. Yet he still wants us to.

2. He also has no requirement for a compensating transaction – a sacrifice; he has no requirements for anything.

3. However, we need to accept that a sacrifice (Jesus) and His forgiveness are necessary.

4. Therefore there must be something of benefit to us (not God) in recognizing that we need His forgiveness for our transgressions and that we need to accept Grace from Him.

5. God wants us to benefit from this "something" so places a requirement upon us to recognize this and comply.

Something like that – anything that happens (including The Fall and Tsunamis) must somehow be for our benefit rather than God’s, if that were not the case then God would not be perfect.

Current song: "Personal Jesus" -- Depeche Mode

An Existent God; A Holy God; A Personal God

In your last post you set out three pre-conditions that must exist in the mind of a person before the idea of "Grace" -- let alone the acceptance of Grace -- may become a reality. I've been pondering that ever since; even after I'd posted one response. Let me suggest that the whole of the Christian Faith may be difficult if not impossible to grasp without three key foundation blocks in place:

1. God exists
2. God is "Holy"
3. God is personal

God's Existence

It would seem this goes without saying. Certainly if one holds to a purely atheistic worldview, then any discussion of forgiveness, sacrifice and Grace will seem foolish. If God does not exist, then there is no God to offend with my "sin."

However, there's a gray area between faith in no God and faith in the God, isn't there? Many people reside there: "God" is out there ... somewhere ... I think ... I guess. Both you and I fell into this category just a few short years ago.

If one's understanding and belief in God never progresses beyond this, what hope is there of a real understanding of our hopeless standing before God, his selfless sacrifice, his gracious forgiveness? Little, I would suppose.

God's Holiness

And by this I mean that everything about him is unimaginably beyond our standards -- he is powerful beyond our ability to comprehend; he is perfectly righteous; he is unchanging, not needing to change because his every way is flawless; his sense of justice and mercy is perfect.

That's a very difficult thing to imagine. Our minds, I think, stop well short of being able to fully apprehend it.

And yet understanding this -- however dimly -- is, I think, a pre-requisite to saving faith. The idea of us falling short -- even the truly saintly among us -- before this perfect God is what moves to understand a need for a savior. The idea of a need to make restitution for the offense committed before this perfect God would seem folly if we felt that God himself was capable of an occasional mistake or error in judgment.

God's Personal Nature

Finally, if the "perfect God" was utterly indifferent towards the world, then any notion of his taking special effort to provide a means of salvation to us would seem ridiculous. This is where the idea of God being a "life force" or "universal energy" falls short. There is no concept of the personal in a "force" or an "energy." A non-personal force or energy may be "out there," but if it has no personal interest in me, then why I would take an interest in it isn't clear.

But once one starts to grasp the idea of the existent God -- the Holy God -- taking a real and personal interest in each of us ... well, then the dynamic of things changes quite a bit.

Please ... do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that a person must fully and comprehensively grasp all three to be in a position to have saving faith. I believe I have little more than a tenuous grip on all three. But your comment about talking to someone about "Grace" prior to establishing the pre-conditions you outlined really got me thinking. You're absolutely right ... there must be some "up front" beliefs before the Christian story makes much sense. The point I'm making in this post is that the three points I've outlined here is what "sets the stage" for a subsequent discussion of sinfulness, sacrifice, atonement, justification, salvation and ... Grace.

Note: an analogy -- I can hardly teach someone about derivatives or integrals before first teaching them about numbers and fractions ... or at least determining if they already know about those prerequisite skills.

I am still pondering your other questions:

• Why God would require a sacrifice?
• What exactly did God suffer or sacrifice during the crucifixion of Jesus?
  

Three Conditions

You wrote:

The acceptance of "Grace from God" assumes at least three things on the part of the person accepting. That person must also:

1. Accept the existence of an omnipotent and perfect Yahweh
2. Accept that we (humanity) did something wrong, something to upset Yahweh (who incidentally knew we were going to do this wrong thing anyway)
3. Accept that the omnipotent Yahweh wants us to recognize that we need his forgiveness for that transgression

I think it's 1, 2 & 3 above rather than the "Grace from God" that many people have difficulty in accepting. If you believe in 1, 2 & 3 then you may as well accept the fact that you need to accept Grace from God. "We did wrong, we need to be forgiven."

Valid points, all. In fact, I suspect that one of the difficulties the Christian faith has in advancing itself in today's world is with your #1 and #2. To many, the idea of an omnipotent and perfect God is either a distant, vaporous notion in their minds -- not utterly ruled out, but not directly dealt with -- or to the extent it is believed, that God is rather limited. God is a either a faceless "force" of some kind, or God is a benevolent grandfather type, willing to overlook and forget about transgressions. And the notion of our having done something wrong and in need of forgiveness is perhaps the single most imposing impediment. The book from the 70's, "I'm Okay, You're Okay" pretty well sums up the issue.

What I'm fascinated with is your #3 -- "Accept that the omnipotent Yahweh wants us to recognize that we need his forgiveness for that transgression." I'll grant that the point you make is a necessary pre-condition to any true understanding of Grace as it's Biblically expressed. It also strikes me that the three points you make are necessarily sequential -- #2 follows #1, and #3 follows the first two. What I'm fascinated with was the thinking you had in your mind when you considered the third point and typed it into the computer. Care to elaborate?

* * *
Is all life built on left-handed proteins? All animals, all plants, all lichen, all bacteria, all spongiforms ... everything? Interesting. You mention that one thing we all have in common is an inability to digest right-handed proteins. I wonder ... from an intelligent design point of view, that makes perfect sense: we're all eligible as food sources for one another.

* * *
Dolphins -- yes, they appear to be smart. There is clearly a gradation of intelligence among the life forms, and even within a given category of life form. We're smarter than a dolphin; the dolphin is smarter than the dog; the dog moreso than the earthworm. The Border Collie is smarter than the Irish Setter.

Note: of course, we could get into quite a row over how one determines that an earthworm isn't "smart." :-)

The dolphin case you cite suggests they were aware of the threat the sharks posed to the humans. The motivation they possessed to protect the humans is an open question; one we'll I guess never know.

Here's the question: do you suppose dolphins swim around and think, "Hmmm ... I'm a dolphin. Where did I come from? What's my purpose in this ocean? What happens when I die?"

I'm skeptical ... but I'm not clear in my mind if that's not human chauvinism at work.

As I mentioned, the chapter on man's self-awareness from "Case for a Creator" left me unpersuaded. Too, too abstract.

* * *
You wrote: " ... did God really sacrifice his only Son? What did God lose?"

Oh my ... this ties back to a question you posed earlier, but I have not yet come to address ... why would an omnipotent God require any kind of sacrifice as a prerequisite to forgiving us our sins. To the best of my undestanding, the doctrine explains it by first establishing God's holiness. Which is your #1 from before.

That'll be my next post. For now, other things call.

Thank you for the energy to continue this 'Blog. It is rather interesting and challenging.

Grace, sacrifice and dolphins

"But when it comes to Grace from God, there seems to be a fundamental stumbling block -- we (or, I should say, many) find it very difficult to simply accept."

The acceptance of "Grace from God" assumes at least three things on the part of the person accepting. That person must also:

1. Accept the existence of an omnipotent and perfect Yahweh
2. Accept that we (humanity) did something wrong, something to upset Yahweh (who incidentally knew we were going to do this wrong thing anyway)
3. Accept that the omnipotent Yahweh wants us to recognize that we need his forgiveness for that transgression

I think it's 1, 2 & 3 above rather than the "Grace from God" that many people have difficulty in accepting. If you believe in 1, 2 & 3 then you may as well accept the fact that you need to accept Grace from God. "We did wrong, we need to be forgiven."

On the subject of sacrifice and Christ's "passion" - we've had this debate before but did God really sacrifice his only Son? What did God lose? And God is at liberty to change past events anyway.

About intelligence and the ponderance of one's own existence -- I recently read that a school of dolphins had saved some divers from sharks. The divers were diving and unbeknownst to them, sharks were on the way -- presumably to dine out on the human contingent.

Dolphins surrounded the divers in an effort to protect them from the (as yet unseen) sharks. One of the divers got spooked by dolphins behaving in such a manner and tried to swim away but one of the dolphins rounded him up and brought him back to the group of humans. The divers were protected from attack and they all survived to tell the tale.

I don't know how smart dolphins are, but in this case they were more aware (at least) than the human diver who tried to swim off. They also had an attitude of care which strikes me as quite enlightened. There are an estimated 10,000,000 unique species on the Earth of which perhaps 80% have yet to be classified. We seem to be the dominant species, but that may turn out not to be the case.

There is a connection between all life catalogued so far on Earth. We're all built on left handed proteins, this suggests a common root. We, and the rest of our lefty comrades, are not able to digest food constructed of right hand proteins.

The fact that the human species appears so advanced compared to most other life on Earth but at the same time so intrinsically connected to the rest of the biosphere suggests (to me) that we received special treatment at some point. But again this could be a failure of imagination, or nerve. Clarke's TMA-1 monolith springs to mind again.

Glad to hear that you are settling in down there Mr. Diy and I trust that your new Church is providing you with what you need.

Sunday Morning in Tucson

There's a whole discussion thread waiting to happen based on your last post. Was Descartes on to something? Does our ability to ponder our own existence imply something beyond the thinking other creatures may do?

The book "Case for a Creator" made much of "self-awareness," and how that was yet another brick in the wall of evidence for our having been created. I was something less than persuaded by that chapter. But that's probably because the thinking in this realm is somewhat abstract, and that's not my strong suit. But it does strike me that our ability to think about our thinking is somehow significant.

* * *
I spent much of yesterday unpacking boxes and putting together various things my wife had purchased that required assembly. The simple shelving systems were easy -- a few screws and it was done. The office chair was a different matter -- portions of that assembly were quite difficult. And the two-drawer filing cabinet was positively challenging, made doubly-so by instructions that were not well written. I'm amazed that Office Depot sells those things in an unassembled state ... I doubt the average consumer would be able to navigate the process. I didn't notice or ask, but I would imagine Office Depot sells "assembly services" to have the things put together.

Thank goodness the products our company produces require no special skill to assemble, configure or use, huh? :-)

* * *
You wrote:

Should I be doing something other than repenting?

That's a very interesting (and complex) question. The Bible seems clear that repentance is a necessary first step to salvation, but it also makes clear (but less directly) that repentance is not the only response.

One of the challenges comes from really understanding what repentance is. This is where I struggle ... I'm aware of my sins, I even feel remorse or sorrow over having comitted them, but do I have a true change of heart so that the very thought of committing the sins again is anathema? Sadly, no ... or, to be more precise, not in an enduring way.

Sidenote: Interesting ... dictionary.com has the following exposition on the word "repentance." This is taken from "Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary."

Evangelical repentance consists of (1) a true sense of one's own guilt and sinfulness; (2) an apprehension of God's mercy in Christ; (3) an actual hatred of sin (Ps. 119:128; Job 42:5, 6; 2 Cor. 7:10) and turning from it to God; and (4) a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments. The true penitent is conscious of guilt (Ps. 51:4, 9), of pollution (51:5, 7, 10), and of helplessness (51:11; 109:21, 22). Thus he apprehends himself to be just what God has always seen him to be and declares him to be. But repentance comprehends not only such a sense of sin, but also an apprehension of mercy, without which there can be no true repentance (Ps. 51:1;130:4).

That's interesting for two reasons: 1) that dictionary.com would have such an overtly Christian exposition on their site; and 2) that a dictionary from 1897 would be chosen to provide the material.

So I'm wondering ... maybe the question isn't "Should I do something other than repent?" But rather: "Have I truly repented?"

I can only speak for myself ... sometimes I have my doubts.

* * *
Let's assume true repentance has occurred ... then what? Go back to Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary: "... a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments."

All manner of things pour out of this:

• "persistent endeavour" -- daily, hourly ... constantly
• "holy life" -- without sin, to the extent we are humanly possible
• "in the way of his commandments" -- as provided where? The Bible.

Please ... do not think I am preaching at this point ... this stuff is no less challenging to me than to anyone else. I see what the author of that sentence was trying to convey. I do not pretend to fully comprehend it or practice it.

But still, there's an interesting thing here -- in the Christian faith the "persistent endeavour" is a response, not a solution. In other words, one strives to "be holy" not because it itself brings salvation; rather, one strives to "be holy" as a loving response to He who has granted unearned forgiveness.

I'm always struck by our -- humankind's -- tendency toward legalism. I wonder what it is in our makeup that induces an attempt to work towards and earn things on our own? In a larger sense I suppose that's a very good thing -- absent that basic tendency, we would all sit around looking for others to support us, right? But when it comes to Grace from God, there seems to be a fundamental stumbling block -- we (or, I should say, many) find it very difficult to simply accept.

Again, I write all this not from a high horse, but from the position of a many who faces the same struggles.

And on that note, we depart for church.

We attend the 8:30am service ... that's worth 20 points towards our daily salvation quota; the 10:00am service is only 10 points. :-)

Cogito Ergo Sum

René Descartes walks into a bar ... bartender says "Can I get you a drink?", René says "I think not" ... and promptly vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Oh well, the old ones are still the ... old ones. Google maps (in beta) are great .. http://maps.google.com I can see that Park near your new house. It's late :-)

Current song: "Seven Nation Army" -- The White Stripes

An Interim Response

Well, deep.thought -- you sure are a gifted one when it comes to thinking up challenging questions. Phew!

Let me provide an interim post here ... a "placeholder" if you will until this weekend, when I can think about how to respond to you more fully.

The preacher who said, "Don't worry about the things you don't undertand; worry about the things you do understand," did not mean that we are to cease the pursuit of deeper understanding. What I know he meant -- and I know this because that quote was part of a larger taped message where he expanded on what he had just said -- was this: in his role as a pastor of a church with some 4,000 members, he weekly fields calls from parishioners who are stymied by some passage or another in the Bible. He said he finds these people will get themselves all tied in knots; so much so that they lose sight of the bigger picture.

His message is, I think, a good one: (paraphrased) "Look, you have a lifetime and beyond to delve into those mysteries of the Bible. Before you dedicate your full energy to those pursuits, make certain you have the basics locked down. " And by that I'm sure he meant very fundamental issues of our being aware of our hopelessness absent God's saving Grace, and pathway to Grace God has granted us; namely through faith in the saving works of his Son, Jesus the Christ.

Notes: two, actually:

• Heard a pretty good analogy of the difference between Grace and Faith today: imagine you're in the third-floor window of a burning building. Below you is a circle of firemen, holding a stout net. They are encouraging you to jump; to throw yourself out to be saved. The firemen and the net is what saves you. That is Grace. Your having trusted that the firemen and the net would indeed save you is what enabled you to jump. That trust is faith. Faith doesn't itself save (other people have jumped, trusting in things other than strong firemen and a stout net ... and they died); Grace (God's forgiveness of your sins) is what saves. But absent trust that Grace does indeed save, we would never exercise the jump.
• I have picked up a trend in the various sermons and radio programs I listen to, and the trend seems to be this: there seems to be a renewed emphasis on an understanding of Grace. I think that's because there's a "works-righteousness" creeping into the Christian faith -- that is, that salvation is something we earn by good works. That would lead a good many seeking people to stop short of a true, trusting faith in Christ and try -- desperately, and ultimately unsuccessfully -- to rely on themselves through their acts of kindness and humility for their salvation. I undertand the temptation, but the Christian faith is fundamentally unique in that we can't earn our way; that salvation is entirely enabled through Grace, and Grace alone.

Let me ponder the other questions and post this weekend!

Grace and peace, brother!

So what is the "proper" response?

"Don't worry about the things you don't understand; worry about the things you do understand." In other words, our sinful nature, Christ's atoning work, and our proper response to the forgiveness given us through Grace.

You can get into all interesting things here.

"Don't worry about the things you don't understand"

But that's what I do! In fact, that might be the definition of me!

"our sinful nature"

Are we to understand this? Here is my "proper" response "I'm a sinner, forgive me, I am really trying not to sin". Or is that the proper response? Should I be doing something other than repenting?

"Christ's atoning work"

Are we to understand this? Before the sacrificial "lamb of God" animals were sacrificed to appease God. Why do we need to sacrifice anything to an omnipotent being? Two wrongs don't make a right do they?

"proper response to the forgiveness given us through Grace"

Are we to understand this? How long is a piece of string? Some people pray for four hours a day ... two in the morning and two at night. Is this really what an omnipotent being wants from his creation? Open up your bank account God and we'll deposit some love for you?

I think the "proper" response is to laugh and have a good day, spread good cheer and not to be too high and mighty. Life has some very good times and some very bad times but mostly we're just getting along -- trying to get through it. Know that your creator is there and is a personal God, know that the plan is good (despite Tsunamis) and that one day it will all be clear. I guess it's called a positive outlook because there is no point to having a negative one. But that's my response, not the "proper" response. One man's meat is another man's gravy.

Yes I know what you mean about Job stirring up strong opinions/emotions. I'm not sure why that particular book has to be in the Bible, on the one hand it gives strength to us in times of adversity, teaches us the benefits of the positive outlook. On the other it casts suspicion on a God that would give an earthly life over to Satan -- for a bet. A bet which God (being omnipotent) knew the outcome of anyway.

Remember the $1 bet made in the old 80's Eddy Murphy and Dan Ackroyd movie "Trading Places"?

Current song: "In the club" -- 50 Cent

Wealth and Gender

Wealth

I found this comment from your post very interesting:

"On the other hand I have met rich Christians who believe that it is actually quite easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle! The "eye of the needle" to them in this case not being a reference to a sewing needle but being a gate into the Holy City of Jerusalem."

I'd love to talk to someone who holds that position. I'm not sure how changing the meaning of "eye of the needle" from an actual sewing needle to the gates of Jerusalem lends any comfort to the rich Christian. Jesus still says "Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." (Luke 18.25) In either case, it appears the meaning is that the camel has the advantage over the rich man.

In thinking about, I remembered something from Luke 12:16-21:

And he told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.'

"Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry."'

"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'

"This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God."

The problem here, to my eye, seems to be not that the man was successful. After all, it is God himself that ultimately provides the success.

Note: yes, the inverse is also true -- God's hand is involved in failures, perhaps as a trial by which he tests someone to strengthen and grows them. The idea of tests and trials is, of course, a challenging topic. Conduct a Bible study of the Book of Job and watch the emotions come up.

The problem was -- again, in my opinion -- that the man, after having achieved success, turned his attention away from God and to himself. In effect, "I've got it made. I'm going to sit back and take it easy. It's all about me now." It doesn't take much imagination to see that the Bible is on to something here ... the whole marketing message of the retirement investment industry is exactly that: "Store up tons of money so you can take it easy later." Unfortunately, it's a bad strategy -- how many people do you know who worked hard to accumulate enough to retire on, only to die weeks or months after retiring? It happens quite frequently. Where does that leave the person who spent their life accumulating wealth? Without life, without wealth, and potentially without salvation.

I circle back to our initial posts -- "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength." That really is one of the primary themes of the Bible: God first, and from that other things will follow.

Now, notice the last sentence of the parable I provided earlier: "This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God." (Luke 12:21) If there was a full-stop at "This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself," then we might rightly conclude that it's a call to monastacism. But there isn't a full stop: "... but is not rich towards God." So the key is not to avoid wealth, but to consider wealth as a blessing from God and one to be returned in some way to Him.

One final passage, to reinforce the notion that wealth itself is not a bad thing:

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment." (NIV, 1 Timothy 6:17)

"Put their hope in God" -- that's the message that runs throughout the Bible.

Note: As to your comment about whether scripture was modified by men to encourage tithing and giving so the "priestly class" could enjoy being members of the service class and avoid having to go out and dig ditches. There is no question that men are selfish and greedy, and that many who call themselves followers of God do things contrary to God to extract money from other believers. But the notion of tithing is ancient; going back to Genesis. But more fundamentally, if the very sayings of Jesus in Scripture are fabrications of men, then the entire Christian faith crumbles, and we are not to believe anything it is written Jesus said. Honestly, this is one of those "lines in the sand" moments.

Gender

I'm no expert on this, but it strikes me that God himself has no gender -- in his Spirit form God is neither male nor female. The use of the male gender in referring to God -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- might be culturally influenced. (That is, a product of a patriarchal society.) I prefer to think that there is something timeless and universal about the relationship between a father and his children, distinctly different from a mother and her children. Plus, I am extremely skeptical of those who use the female gender for God -- my suspicion is they're imposing every bit as much an agenda as might have been applied in a patriarchal society centuries ago. This is one of those things that I think can quickly become a distraction. Better, I think, to simply accept the "Father" aspect of God and focus on the more important things. As one preacher I heard once said, "Don't worry about the things you don't understand; worry about the things you do understand." In other words, our sinful nature, Christ's atoning work, and our proper response to the forgiveness given us through Grace.

God's Gender

Thank you for your interpretation of the camel verses. I've met (usually) financially poor Christians who are clear that those passages mean that rich people will find it extremely diffuclt to get into Heaven, and from this they obtain some comfort. On the other hand I have met rich Christians who believe that it is actually quite easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle! The "eye of the needle" to them in this case not being a reference to a sewing needle but being a gate into the Holy City of Jerusalem. Both of these represent a selection effect I believe -- an imprinting of a meaning that suits ones circumstances and prejudices.

I sometimes wonder if those phrases were not said by Jesus but carefully crafted by men. The cynical me sees The Church making an encouragement to the rich for their tithe. Back then the services industry was in it's infancy -- indeed the clergy may have been the pioneers of it. They needed to get their fees (still do) otherwise to eat they would have needed to plough the field or something. Personally I'd much rather work in the services industry than be digging a ditch. Perhaps the fact that so many of us these days do work in the services industry rather than dig ditches could be why Christianity is declining? Hang on -- I'm not sure Christianity is in decline, your Seattle Church was and morals are going out of the window it would seem but that could be a selection effect on my part.

Anyway -- all is not lost Bill Gates III.

Moving on, why does God need a gender? He is a He is He not? For that matter the Holy Spirit is often referred to in the masculine and Jesus was a man. I can understand God being a man in human form, but why would omnipotence have a gender? Is there a Mrs. God?

May God give us Grace on this fine Friday.

Current song: "God Put A Smile On Your Face" -- Coldplay

The Astonishing Attributes of Camels

I think the point being made in those passages is that camels, unlike any other creatures, are unusually adept at passing through small holes. I really don't think too much more has to be read into it. :-)

The context of those passages was with respect to the "Rich Ruler," and it's interesting to note that this is not a parable. The Bible presents this as a historical reading of the events as they happened. The rich man asks how he can be assured of eternal life. Jesus clicks off five of the ten commandments.

Note: Why not all ten? Why not the all important 1st Commandment? I don't know. :-)

The rich man says he's done all of those since he was a young man. Now we know from other passages that Jesus read these commandments with a broader interpretation. (Murder -- not just the physical act of killing, but even being angry with one's brother [Matthew 5:22]; Adultery -- not just the physical act of sex outside marriage, but even looking at another woman with lust in the heart [Matthew 5:28].) So it's likely the claim by the rich man to have fully abided by the commandments was received with some skepticism on Jesus's part.

The line about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God is intended, I think, to drive home a critical point about the way we view our relationship with God. The Bible is fairly clear -- and this passage reinforces the point -- that we are utterly dependent upon God for all things, most critically our salvation. There is a real temptation to believe that we are self-sufficient in many areas of our lives. This is particularly true when we are affluent, and the necessities of life -- food, clothing, shelter -- come easily based on our wealth. But to come to a point of true repentance, and in turn an acceptance of Christ's atoning work as the only way to achieve eternal life, requires a humbling of oneself. A difficult thing for any person; very difficult for someone of wealth, means, power and status.

That's my reading of this passage -- not that wealth is itself an inhibitor to eternal salvation, but that wealth is something that hinders our ability to truly be humble and submit ourselves to the Lordship of Christ. I write this from personal experience. Not that I am a man of great means, but I clearly do not worry about my daily bread. Do I really think that I am utterly dependent upon God? No. Shamefully, no.

The other side of this issue is that wealth tends to become a person's idol -- their false god. How many relatively well-off people do you know that strive to acquire even more? "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." (Matthew 16:13)

So what should one do who is relatively wealthy? Give it all away and become poor as a means to achieve salvation? I don't personally think the Bible is making that claim. Perhaps if money truly is causing one to sin, then getting rid of the money might be called for. But if one is able to see money as blessing from God, to be enjoyed humbly and shared with others, then there's nothing wrong with it. But when it serves to block one's understanding of their own hopeless inability to be justified before God, then it's a problem. And the love and devotion of money is a difficult thing to overcome. Indeed, it's easier for a camel ...

How rich is rich?

I'm sorry I have been remiss in talking to you though the medium of this blog bagwell, I shall try to do better!

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

I don't recall a reference to this in John, but if 75% of the Good News mentions something then I assume that something must be important. How do you interpret these passages?

I have more sounds to check out with Atkins & Knopfler don't I? (Neck & Neck is making it's way through the ether to me right now!) I listened to as much of Tennessee's song as was available - very impressive, and very Christian I imagine? (Or was he singing to Allah?)

I've always loved the Summer Wind, perhaps because of having lost at least one wife to it ! And "Something Stupid". Men and women.

Current song: "Money" -- Pink Floyd

Dire Straits

I'm giving short shrift to Dire Straits, who may be my favorite band of all time:

• Portobello Belle - "Communique" CD
  
• Your Latest Trick - "Brothers in Arms" CD
  
• Romeo and Juliet - "Making Movies" CD

Mark Knopfler did a duet CD with Chet Atkins called "Neck and Neck." Some really good guitar work on this album, as you'd expect from Atkins - a giant among guitar players - and Knopfler, no slouch himself. What was striking to me was the way that Atkins humbly took a background role on the CD and allowed Knopfler's more aggressive style to step forward.

End Times So Very, Very Near

I think the explanation for Paul's commentary on marriage -- and how he could think he could expand the church through procreation by advocating celibacy -- is that he honestly thought the second coming of Christ was right around the corner. Given that, then the objective was not so much to create more people but to save those already in existence and then stand ready for day of Judgment.

Clearly his timing was off. The natural skeptic in me asks, "If wrong on that, what else might you have been wrong about?" But I don't feel the energy to go down that path.

* * *
Thanks for the sample of the "And Your Bird Can Sing." It sounds like that particular take was a goofy free-for-all in the studio -- everyone having way too much fun. You're right ... I can picture George Martin sitting there thinking, "I'll let 'em play for a bit, then I'm going to have to get serious with them and clean this up for release."

* * *
I don't have a sample of Precious Lord, Take My Hand by Tennessee Ernie Ford with me right now. I'll have to remember to do that when I get access to the files. You can listen to a clip on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00000DMGT/qid=1107872419/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6154988-1247252?v=glance&s=music&n=507846

Click on the "See all 20 tracks" link for the second disc, then go to the second to the last song on the second disk.

Note: bear in mind, that was recorded in the 1960's ... there's a bit of period flavor to the arranging.

For now, here are the lyrics to the song:

Precious Lord, take my hand,
Lead me on, let me stand,
I am tired, I am weak, I am worn;
Through the storm, through the night,
Lead me on to the light:

Take my hand, precious Lord,
Lead me home.

When my way grows drear,
Precious Lord, linger near,
When my life is almost gone,
Hear my cry, hear my call,
Hold my hand lest I fall:

Take my hand, precious Lord,
Lead me home.

When the darkness appears
And the night draws near,
And the day is past and gone,
At the river I stand,
Guide my feet, hold my hand:

Take my hand, precious Lord,
Lead me home.

Music aside ... that's a beautiful poem.

* * *
One of the things I find particularly appealing about a song -- whatever song -- is the tempo. I like songs of all tempos, but there's a certain tempo I find particularly appealing. (If that's the proper term; I suspect it's not just the raw timing of a song, but the way the song "moves" or "flows.")

As I was thinking about favorite songs last night, I remember thinking that'd I'd forgotten to add one song to the list. It's a Frank Sinatra song, but not one of the common standards like "New York, New York" or "My Way." Those are fine songs, but to my ear they don't compare to:

• The Summer Wind -- Frank Sinatra

Lyrics:

The summer wind, came blowin’ in - from across the sea
It lingered there, so warm and fair - to walk with me
All summer long, we sang a song - and strolled on golden sand
Two sweethearts, and the summer wind

Like painted kites, those days and nights - went flyin’ by
The world was new, beneath a blue - umbrella sky
Then softer than, a piper man - one day it called to you
And I lost you, to the summer wind

The autumn wind, and the winter wind - have come and gone
And still the days, those lonely days - go on and on
And guess who sighs his lullabies - through nights that never end
My fickle friend, the summer wind

This song "moves" (or "flows") as beautifully word-to-word as any I've ever heard.

* * *
In a bid to contradict what I just said about tempo and my draw to songs of a slower tempo, let me add a final comment about what I think is one of the better "covers" of all time ... Mrs. Robinson by the Lemonheads (circa 1991, I think). They took that song and put a real knife's edge on it. Love it.

Though speaking of great covers ... the best of all time (in my humble opinion): All Along the Watchtower by Jimi Hendrix. Sorry, Dylan ... Jimi owns that song now. (I think even Bob Dylan agrees with that, if memory serves. He commented once how Hendrix's version was brilliant.)

Speaking of Jimi Hendrix ... did you know that he was a wicked blues guitar man?

Celibacy

I had a quick look at eHarmony.com, it doesn't appear to be overtly Christian, although if it did that would probably be illegal. I was making a joke when I suggested that you open such a dating agency as I believe that Paul's position was something like "The best thing to be, is to be celebate, but, ok, if you really HAVE to, then get married -- to avoid fornication". How he thought that celebate behaviour would grow the Christian population of the Earth I have no idea.

The Beatles song, dropping from a major E to a major D doesn't change the mood (major to major), but the Anthology 2 version is played very differently (from the Revolver release), it's all jangly like a Byrds song. It's been my #1 for about 5 years now but I haven't told anyone -- people should state their favourite songs somewhere in their blog don't you think? I sent you the song.

Your list is awesome, you'll have to send me that Tennessee Ernie Ford song, I can see a version of "Take me home country road" he did (sic) but not "Take my hand, precious Lord".

I'm very glad that your workshop is going well -- in my opinion, they are the most stressful things that we deliver.

Current song: "I Am A Rock" Simon & Garfunkel

Favorite Songs

I'm struggling to recall the melody of And Your Bird Can Sing. I can't go to iTunes to listen to it because none of the Beatles songs are out there, or anywhere else, near as I can figure. Musical question for you ... what is it about the song being played in "D rather than capo'd-to-E" that makes a difference? Does it affect the "mood" of the song, like minor keys suggest sadness?

I don't know that I have a "favorite song," but there are some I find I can listen to over and over again:

• Sultans of Swing - Dire Straits
• Snowblind Friend - Steppenwolf
• Graceland - Paul Simon
• Hello Darlin' - Conway Twitty
  
• Take My Hand, Precious Lord - Tennessee Ernie Ford

The last one is a bit of an oddity, isn't it? About two years ago I went ahead and purchased a 2-CD compilation of favorite hymns as sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford. For those not from the U.S., the name "Tennessee Ernie Ford" might not evoke recognition. Over here he's best known for a pop (for its time) ditty called "16 Tons." But in truth, the man had a beautiful bass voice, and that particular song has such a gorgeous tempo and melody. A man of deep faith, he lent his faith to the songs, and I just find them wonderful.

* * *
The "Christian Dating Service" thing has already been done. eHarmony.com is largely -- though not exclusively -- a Christian dating service. Pretty darn successful, too.

* * *
I have no other meaningful insights tonight ... I have completed one day of a technical workshop and they always leave me drained. It is going well, however, and for that I am grateful.

More tomorrow, I'm sure.

And Your Bird Can Sing

"You tell me that you’ve got ev’rything you want
And your bird can sing
But you don’t get me
You don’t get me.

You say you’ve seen seven wonders
And your bird is green
But you can’t see me
You can’t see me.

When your prized possessions
Start to wear you down
Look in my direction
I’ll be round, I’ll be round.

You tell me that you’ve heard ev’ry sound there is
And your bird can swing
But you can’t hear me
You can’t hear me.

When your bike is broken
Will it bring you down?
You may be awoken
I’ll be round, I’ll be round.

You tell me that you’ve got ev’rything you want
And your bird can sing
But you don’t get me
You don’t get me

Lennon/McCartney"

For me, the Anthology 2 version of this song, the one in D rather than the capo'd-to-E version on Revolver is the best song ever written. I challenge anyone to listen to it and not smile along with John Lennon who just cannot contain his joy (admittedly perhaps drug induced). I could listen to it all day.

The reason I raise it here is that I believe if Jesus were into writing pop songs then he would have written something like And Your Bird Can Sing. And the Beatles have in the past been referred to as "God's House Band" of course.

The lady who stays with the babies - that is it isn't it? I shed a tear -- doubly so as I know that when you think you're about to check out -- any human contact -- even if it is with a nurse you just met, is wholly welcome and somehow fills you with this world rather than the unknown and potentially dark next one. Human contact makes things better.

So this is why you're talking to sad old lonely me then -- you're being nudged by Him to do so? Your perfect job may be to start the worlds first Christian dating agency? :-)

Current song: "And Your Bird Can Sing" -- The Beatles