Gladio Mentis - The Sword Of The Mind

Never enough...

2010-12-24T12:00:00.001-05:00

Until it's too much...

Commenter Michael responded to my post about sola scriptura by suggesting that the lack of details in the Bible made it inferior to Catholic sources, such as decrees, writings, and the apocrypha. And, that "Protestants" (his word, not mine) say the Bible has answers to "everything". Rather than give a brief response, I thought his points were worth bringing up in some detail, because they're common objections that others might encounter.

Part of the point of the original post was that works such as the apocrypha are cited specifically because they support preferred (or common practice) beliefs that pop up. The sinless-ness of Mary, which mutated from nonexistent to superstition to a Papal decree in 1854 (not a typo, that's a good 18 centuries after her death) is a perfect example. Below, you can find Michael's quoted comment and a response.

The comment (copied from the original post) is quoted here. Note, interestingly, that he calls people like me "Bible Christians". Outside of the present context, I'd take that as a compliment. One has to wonder if the irony of using that phrase in the negative is lost on people who deny sola scriptura.

Michael:

Where is the Reference? Bible Christians, believers in Sola Scriptura, teach that the Bible is complete and that it is all that is needed. They teach that all answers are given by Scripture.

I wish to refute that thinking by showing that there are a lot of questions brought up in Scripture that are not answered therein. So where do we go to find those answers so that we have the fullness of truth and not just some of it?

Matthew 11:21, "Woe to thee, Corozain...For if in Tyre and Sidon had been worked the miracles that have been worked in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." What are these miracles in Corozain? Where is the reference?

Matthew 23:2, "The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses." Where is this 'chair of Moses' referenced in Scripture?

Acts 20:35, "In all things I have shown you that by so toiling you ought to help the weak and REMEMBER the Word of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"Show me the verse where Jesus said these words.

Matthew 2:23, "And He went and settled in a town called Nazareth; that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." In what verse did the prophets say this?

James 4:5, "Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit which dwells in you covets unto jealousy."" Where does Scripture reference this?

2Timothy 3:8, "Just as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so these men also resist the truth..." Who are Jannes and Jambres? Where is the reference? If you know, by what means did you find it?

Hebrews 11:35, "Women had their dead restored to them by resurrection. Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." Who are these 'others', the ones searching for a better resurrection? Where is the Bible reference?

Jude 1:9, "Yet when Michael the Archangel was fiercely disputing with the devil about the body of Moses..." Where can this 'dispute' be found in Holy Scripture?

Jude 1:14, "Now of these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, 'Behold, the Lord has come with thousands of His holy ones.'" Where is this prophecy in Scripture? Where is the reference?

Since non-Catholics are bound to Scripture and Scripture only (Sola Scriptura), the purpose of this file is to show that everything is not in the Bible. Answers to some of the questions asked here can be found through Tradition, and others through the seven books that non-Catholics do not have in their Bibles. Some can be found in the multitude of apocryphal writings, and in the very large library of writings by the Church Fathers.

Others simply cannot be found anywhere but have been lost forever for various reasons. It is thought that about 400,000 priceless historical writings alone were lost due to the great fire in the library of Alexandria Egypt in 48 B.C. (the actual date is debatable). Others have been lost simply by the deterioration of the scroll media used by the various authors of antiquity.

Catholics have the fullness of truth since they can draw on so many resources outside of Scripture as mentioned above. Protestantism has many pieces missing to their puzzle of GOD's salvation history unless they are willing to search the Catholic sources listed.

As long as they cling to the false doctrine of sola scriptura, they will never see the full picture. They will never have the fullness of truth.

Michael made one of the classic mistakes in trying to deny sola scriptura – making a silly caricature of the concept instead of dealing with the real issue.

Neither I, nor others who subscribe to and understand sola scriptura, are saying that the Bible contains “answers to everything.” It has all the answers and information we need to understand God’s will and His plan for salvation. It also gives us a framework for judging doctrine and practice. The Bible doesn’t tell us what color Peter’s eyes were, or what John’s favorite food was. We don’t know for sure the names of the thieves executed with Jesus. Are any of these important for salvation? For our spiritual life? No. The Bible tells us what we need to know.

Consider John 21:25 and Job chapter 38. Both remind us that we don’t need to know absolutely every single tiny detail to understand God’s will, or to trust in His plan.

“Traditional” beliefs that fill in some of these details are fine, so long as we keep them in perspective. Just because “tradition” has some details that the Bible does not doesn’t mean those details are accurate. It certainly doesn’t mean that they’re just as authoritative as inspired scripture. God-inspired words can be spoken and written today, of course, but the reason God gave us His written word is so we have a foundation of truth to compare them to.

The argument that some of God’s truths were lost is contrary to the Bible itself. The (real) Bible says “The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the Word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word which was preached to you (1 Peter 1:24-25).” Michael suggests that God’s truths – necessary, important truths – can be lost, so we need to be open to additional sources, like the apocrypha and other writings. Never mind that the books Catholicism added to the Bible were certified specifically because they support concepts that Catholics couldn’t justify using scripture.

The point here is that scripture – the real, inspired Word – is the ultimate and only valid authority for doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura says that anything which contradicts the Bible should be rejected. Non-Biblical sources should be interpreted in light of the Bible. Catholicism says that later writings, Papal decrees, and even popular opinion can change the meaning and interpretation of the Bible.

Sola scriptura is not a claim that every single thing a believer might ever want to know is contained in the Bible, which is more or less what Michael seems to expect. In fact he teeters on suggesting that just because a source provides “an answer”, it’s automatically better than one with “no answers”, regardless of the importance of the question, or the inspiration of the source.

So, when asking about Chorazin, Jannes and Jambres, the dispute in Jude, and so forth, what’s the point? That any source which explains these fully should be treated as equal with the Bible? In each case, we get enough information to get the gist of the point being made. It might be nice to know more, but are we going to contradict Job 38 by saying we can’t believe them unless we get 100% of the details?

Looking at it from another perspective, I've written dramatic material for my home church's Passion Play ministry. In doing so, I've given names and back-stories to characters that the Bible didn't flesh out to that extent. I've written conversations and interactions that support the message of the Bible, but obviously don't actually come from first-hand knowledge or divine inspiration, at least not the kind that generated holy scripture. I'd be horrified to find my scripts being quoted 500 years from now by someone trying to prove that the adulterous woman and Peter argued over the meaning of the crucifixion. These details have some teaching value, but they're not "real" details.

Regarding Acts 20:35, the reference is…Acts 20:35. Does it have to be in two places in order to be believed? Once again, we have John 21:25. It’s recorded in a book inspired by the Holy Spirit, written by Luke. Does Catholicism claim to have a complete list of every word spoken by Jesus from birth to death? This is a perfect example of how denying sola scriptura on the basis of “we need more info” can get a little silly.

Regarding the Chair of Moses, it should be clear that Jesus is speaking symbolically –the Pharisees assumed the position of Moses as God’s appointed lawgiver. He’s not talking about furniture. Remember, Jesus was criticizing them for adding their own rules and traditions on to God’s actual Word to suit their own preferences, then acting as though it was all of the same authority. Just like the Catholic Church. He’s not talking about furniture.

In regards to the prophecies mentioned, recall what was said above about not all valid prophetic statements being recorded (or needing to be recorded) in scripture.

Specifically:

Looking at Matthew 2:23, Isaiah 11:1 calls Messiah a “branch” (Hebrew neser) of Jesse. There’s a phonetic similarity between the words that’s being invoked. Nazareth was also a place of Roman garrisons, and of little religious importance; this fits with Messiah’s prophesied low status during life and lack of contemporary appreciation. There were likely other prophetic statements being briefly summed up in this verse.

The same is true for Jude 1:14. He’s using different wording than the apocryphal book of Enoch, so it’s not a quote. What’s most likely is that the actual prophecy was also mentioned in Enoch, and Jude is endorsing the truth of that particular prophecy. That the book contains a truth does not make it inspired. There are many truths written on this blog; that (certainly, absolutely, unquestionably) doesn’t make it divinely inspired.

James 4:5 has been seen as notoriously hard to translate for millennia. One ultra-literal translation says this: “Or think you that vainly the Scripture says to envy yearns the spirit which was made to dwell in you, but He gives great grace.” Another, “The spirit which He has made to dwell in us lusts with envy.” The most sensible assessment is that James is speaking of the general message of scripture, especially when you read the next verse, James 4:6.

What we need to know, we will always have access to in inspired scripture. There’s a reason God gave us the written Word, and a good reason Jesus so often referred to it. There’s a reason He made such an overt point of criticizing the Pharisees’ addition of tradition on top of God’s actual commandments. And there’s a reason Catholicism will always be at the mercy of superstition and pop culture – God’s word does not change, because God does not change. Catholic doctrine does nothing but change, because it’s not anchored to the Word of God.

Here We Go Again

2010-12-18T11:00:00.001-05:00

Been there, seen this...

I saw this story about a professor suing for religious discrimination and was appalled by the specific language being used. In reviewing him for a position, though his credentials are impeccable, he was derided as “something close to a creationist" and "potentially evangelical." Never mind the fact that his scientific opinions are well in line with his peers, or that the minutiae of his opinions on evolution should be somewhat irrelevant, since he’s an astronomer.

Whether any actual discrimination took place, time will hopefully tell. He may have ultimately been passed over for legitimate reasons – but the fact remains that his faith became a part of the discussion. And, far worse, it was seen as a major problem, regardless of his actual scientific positions. Not an uncommon problem, unfortunately.

I’ve discussed the difference between dislike, discrimination, and actual persecution here before. This is another example of anti-religious sentiment that some, if not most, of the New Atheists will try to defend. As I said in a prior post:

“De facto” (in practice) discrimination has a bad habit of becoming “de jure” (by law) discrimination. When New Atheists spew out rhetoric about religion being “private”, or having no place in government, or having no place in science, or equating it with child abuse, they take a step down a very dark road….A legitimately “secular” society is interested in maintaining freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, not freedom of one religion, not freedom in spite of religion, and not freedom against religion. It’s certainly not in the best interests of America to have some, any, or all religious worldview(s) declared unacceptable for public expression.

Americans should easily recognize that we’re nowhere near this level of religious persecution, for any creed of any kind. Atheists aren’t being rounded up and jailed for rejecting belief in God. Buddhists aren’t being ticketed for discussing their views with non-Buddhists. Christians are not being forced to worship in homes rather than in churches. All the same, there is a growing attitude of intolerance – yes, I said intolerance – being levied against religious viewpoints.

When Sam Harris reviewed the book “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, he spoke straight from his bigoted heart. Harris declared first and foremost that Collins was obviously not possessed of a scientific mind…because he believed in God, and never mind his titanic achievements. That was the theme, substance, and foundation of every other embarrassingly snide remark made in his assessment. Richard Dawkins has placed religious upbringing lower in his personal moral gauge than pedophilia. This is the man titled by Oxford as the chair for “The Public Understanding of Science”, by the way. The books, articles, and lectures roll on, accompanied by suggestions, both overt and covert, that religion is a burden people ought to be freed from – one way or another…

…Here’s the warning for the religious critic so giddy about the prospect of expunging foolish superstition from polite society: what happens when the “Secular” state changes its mind? Once only one worldview is permitted, in practice, there is little to stop it from being enshrined into law. Once the establishment gets the right to decide what metaphysical, religious, or worldview ideas are or are not acceptable, what are you going to do when those in power start drifting away from your opinion? Complain about discrimination? When they tell you to either keep your fool ideas at home or spend a night in jail, or find another career, are you going to argue that even unpopular ideas have the right to be freely aired at all levels of society?

Of course, some will argue that the professor is free to say or believe whatever he wants; he just can't expect to get a job in a university if he does so. I'm 100% sure that type of argument would never be accepted by a New Atheist if a professor was turned down for being "something like an atheist" or "potentially anti-religious". Opinions and beliefs have consequences, but it's the responsibility of a free society to disallow discrimination where those beliefs don't impede or damage the job in question.

Sola Scriptura

2010-12-11T11:00:00.002-05:00

Yes, it's in there

Sola scriptura is the concept that inspired scripture should be the ultimate authority for all matters of faith and practice. According to this approach, anything not compatible with scripture is not compatible with legitimate Christianity. It doesn't view the Bible as the only valid source for knowledge or practice, but as the only legitimate authority on spiritual matters.

I was recently questioned on the concept of sola scriptura by someone concerned over some content of the Got Questions website. Their concern was twofold: 1) If sola scriptura isn't actually taught explicitly in the Bible, is it a valid doctrine; and 2) how does that place sola scriptura in relation to quasi-biblical ideas such as infant baptism. Plus, there was some unease over Luther's theological quirks. Actual question and my response below.

The article the questioner is referring to is published at Got Questions.org.

...First of all, [the article] says: “Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While *this is true*, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. ... So, while *the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura*, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message.”

How can the leading doctrine of our Reformation not be explicitly taught in Scripture? And how can we believe in a doctrine that isn’t explicitly taught in Scripture anymore than Infant Baptism is? It makes me shudder to the core.

And the article says “infant baptism” is a Roman Catholic invention, yet Methodists, Anglicans, Reformed, and Lutherans believe and defend this teaching. The article says Luther stood by Sola Scriptura, yet he rabidly defended infant baptism all his life and hated Baptists. How can this be?

I don’t know how I can be Protestant after hearing this answer. It scares me to think we broke apart the Church for a doctrine that we admit is not clearly taught in the Bible. Help?

Luther and the other Reformers recognized that the teachings of the Bible – words actually recorded under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – did not support many concepts being taught by the Catholic Church. They also recognized Jesus’ own teachings on the subject (see below). When confronted with this contradiction, Catholic leadership responded by appeals to “tradition”.

It’s true that sola scriptura isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible; this doesn’t mean that it’s not mentioned at all. Jesus clearly stated that God’s people ought to rely on His Word for doctrine, not human habits or preferences. Refer to Mark 7:5-13. Here, Jesus is speaking with the Pharisees, who added their own traditions onto God’s Word (the scriptures of what we now call the Old Testament). Eventually, those traditions became dominant to the point of blatant contradiction. Jesus even gives an example of how this worked itself out in the lives of the Pharisees.

Take special note of Mark 7:6-9:

[Jesus] replied, ‘Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.” You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.’ And [Jesus] continued, ‘You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!’

That is a clear summary of sola scriptura. According to Christ, the Pharisees’ error was “letting go the commands of God”, meaning scripture, in favor of “human rules.” He is stating that doctrine ought to rely on God’s Word, not human tradition. In particular, traditions that defy or dilute the message of the Gospel have no place in a believer’s life. Combining this with the Bible’s encouragement to use scripture for learning and doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16; Acts 17:11), we see sola scriptura being taught without being explicitly referenced.

Popularity does not mean accuracy. Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, even Baptists are free to believe whatever they want, but that doesn’t make it correct. That’s precisely what bad traditions are: habits that mutate into religious laws. It’s also true that an in-depth study of Luther’s life shows him to be an unpleasant and often cruel person. His theology was far from perfect. That makes no difference whatsoever about the truth of sola scriptura.

God used Luther in a powerful way, despite his shortcomings, just as He does with each of us. Jonah was a spiteful, disobedient, heartless man. When the people of Nineveh repented, and were spared, Jonah responded with anger (Jonah 3:10-4:3). One can only imagine what sorts of things Jonah said or did that aren’t recorded in the Bible. Samson was a womanizer. David was a murderer, as was Moses. None of those change the fact that God used these people to accomplish a purpose. That Luther wasn’t a perfect person, or a perfect theologian, shouldn’t discourage a person from belief in the truth.

Infant baptism, prayers to saints, prayers to Mary, purgatory, and so forth, are contradictory to the Bible. In response to the Reformers’ claim that scripture did not support those practices, the Catholic Church attempted to “certify” texts that had never been considered part of the canon before, at the Council of Trent. The same council continued the practice of equating tradition with Biblical commandments in terms of authority.

This mindset, not sola scriptura, should be blamed for “breaking apart the church”. In truth, the true church is the body of believers, which cannot be broken. A more accurate view would be that those who rejected the Bible in favor of human tradition abandoned the (true) church.

Kick the Tires and Light the Fires

2010-12-11T10:51:00.007-05:00

Well, sort of...

After being practically unable to even look at Gladio Mentis since October of 2009, I'm finally back in position to add some content. I don't plan on resuming a routine posting schedule, but I'll toss up whatever seems relevant or interesting. Still taking requests, as always.

In a nutshell, I took a job last year that demanded nearly 90 hours a week for the first several months, and bizarre hours thereafter. Surprise! What time was left after work and sleep was mostly spent on things more critical than blogging (like my son). I'm glad to be back in business (so to speak), and to see what's shaking since I've been gone.

I'd put the comments into moderation to prevent anything unsavory from popping up while I wasn't looking. I plan to keep the moderation on, so please don't be surprised if comments take a day or so to post once you submit them.

Still Here...

2009-10-18T18:48:00.003-04:00

But short on time...

It's been slow (to say the least) here for quite a while, in no small part because of not-internet reality. Work and such are taking a heavy toll on my time right now, so things might stay a bit quiet at Gladio Mentis for a while. both the site and yours truly are still in commission, however, and posts will pop up every so often 'till things get back up to speed. since I can't watch the site as much as I'd like, I'll be turning on comment moderation. New comments will post, but they may not pop up right away.

Todd Friel, Adjust Your Antenna

2009-08-10T12:00:00.004-04:00

You're coming in loud, but fuzzy...

I was recently referred to a website containing an article by Todd Friel, a Christian radio host associated with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort’s “Way of the Master”. The person referencing it was concerned because it made them doubt their salvation.

Frankly, the article is not full of bad theology so much as bad writing. I’m sure that in a face-to-face conversation, what Friel believes about salvation is not really different that what is actually being taught in most Bible-believing churches. Unfortunately, you have to read between the lines to see that. Most of the confusion is the fault of Friel’s awful, awful presentation of whatever it is he’s actually trying to say.

The big confusion here is in terminology. The vast majority of evangelical Christians will see the phrase “ask Jesus into your heart” and understand it the way it’s presented in most Bible-based churches. They will assume it means, “repent of sin, trust in Christ, and ask Him to save you.” That’s not what Friel means when he uses the phrase, though. He uses that phrase to mean, “just say some words in a prayer without repenting or having any faith.” In this way, unfortunately, he's being as uncharitably obtuse as some atheistic critics of religion like Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens.

Friel’s basic contention is that merely “asking Jesus into your heart” is not enough for a person to be saved. That’s true, given how he uses the phrase (see above). He indicates that a person must repent of sin and trust in Christ, because merely saying a prayer is not enough. That’s also true. Friel goes further, though, in implying that “asking Jesus into your heart” is necessarily (i.e. always) different than repenting and trusting. That’s where the real problem is. Friel is creating a straw man. When he speaks of churches or people using this phrase, he creates a false impression that anyone who uses that idea in any way is “doing it wrong”.

Friel also makes an early, and important theological error, regarding backsliding. He claims that backsliding is not possible for one truly saved. He cites 2 Corinthians 5:17, but seems to forget about Peter, Noah, Moses, David, and all of the other men who undoubtedly demonstrated saving faith, but who undoubtedly sinned afterwards. He doesn’t mention Romans 7, 1 John 1:8, or Romans 3:23, all of which remind us that even saved believers cannot live sinless lives. It would be interesting to ask Todd Friel if he has lived a perfectly sinless life ever since he trusted in Christ.

Consider these other flaws in his ten points:

Bible-believing churches don’t teach that “The Sinner’s Prayer” saves you. They teach that a sinner’s prayer is what a person says when they repent and choose to trust in Christ. There's a difference there that should be as obvious as it is important. If Friel wanted to emphasize that some so-called-Christian leaders don’t properly explain salvation, he ought to have said so directly. Instead, he ends up implying that every church using the phrases “ask Jesus into your heart” or “sinners prayer” is leading people to Hell. Not true.
By asking silly questions like “which ventricle of the heart is Jesus coming into”, Friel again sounds just as pathetically snide as atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. He seems to forget, also, that if a child has trouble understanding “ask Jesus into your heart”, they’re going to have even more trouble with concepts like submissive repentance, justification, and so forth. It’s a meaningless point.
and...
Here, Friel assumes that those who call others to “ask Jesus into their hearts” never mention either repentance or faith. That’s not just a stretch, but it borders on dishonesty. This is where the “straw man” comes in. To take this article seriously, one has to assume that it refers to evangelism efforts which never mention repentance or trust, but merely blurt out that people should “ask Jesus into their hearts”. And, that this represents a large proportion of evangelical churches.
Friel borders on a theological problem here, as well, when he says that those “who sincerely, but wrongly, asked Jesus into their hearts think they are saved but [they are not]”. That sounds like a Pharisee talking to me. It is true that a person who is not repentant and trusting when they “ask Jesus” won’t be saved. But once again, that’s essentially a straw man argument. Those who sincerely “ask Jesus” - in repentance and faith - cannot “do it wrong” as Friel, possibly accidentally, implies. Jesus isn’t going to reject the truly repentant sinner who prays, “Jesus, come into my heart”.
Same straw man as above.
Friel claims that “asking Jesus into your heart” makes God a “beggar” and “robs Him of His sovereignty”. He gives no explanation for how, nor for how his method avoids the same.
and...
Friel again repeats the assertion that “real” Christians don’t sin (“Born again believers…don’t get divorced.”) Todd Friel needs to read 1 Corinthians 10:12 very, very carefully. He should probably read about what David did to Bathsheba’s husband (2 Samuel 11) and decide if he wants to argue that David was never really a believer before then. He claims that false conversions contribute to the ridicule of Christ, which is true. And yet, so does the claim that “real” believers don’t sin – that hands atheism the valid argument that there are apparently no “real” Christians at all.
When you understand how Friel is using the phrase, “ask Jesus into your heart”, this makes sense. But since Friel doesn’t make that clear, his assertion that “People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment,” teeters on the edge of vulgarity.

There is no “right” or “wrong” way to evangelize, assuming that what is done is consistent with the commandments and teachings of Christ. Part of the problem with the Way of the Master and its associates (including Friel) is the melodramatic way they claim that all other approaches leave people unsaved and hell-bound. That’s simply not true. Articles such as the one linked above put Todd Friel at the forefront of well-meaning but poorly-equipped believers reaching well beyond their qualifications.

The Gay Jesus Movie (BF)

2009-07-25T22:00:00.002-04:00

Rated "F" for fake...

Fire and brimestone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria! Why? They're making a major motion picture - "Corpus Christi" - where Jesus is gay! or are they?

There's not much else to say about this one except: no, they are not. Not that there aren't enough frothing anti-Christians in the entertainment industry who'd probably do it out of spite. Still, no such movie exists. What does exist is a half-baked stage play, in which Jesus and his disciples are homosexuals. It's performed for more or less the same reasons it was written: to make Christians angry. And yet, it's neither well known nor popular. It's just an oddity of the age. The chain emails which inspire so much anger and reaction are sent for the same reasons: to make Christians angry, and see what we do without thinking. Let's break that chain, shall we?

One Hoax of a Hell (BF)

2009-07-20T22:00:00.000-04:00

Drilling for truth...

I routinely get questions, forwards, and tips regarding "the sounds of Hell". Supposedly, a team of scientists drilled dozens of miles deep into Siberia and then(for some reason) decided to drop in a microphone and a thermometer. They allegedly discovered a massive open space, outrageously hot, and filled with screams and other eerie noises. Apparently, they dug so deep they hit Hell. This must be true, because the internet said so.

Scripturally, there is no information about exactly “where” Hell is. Scriptural passages that describe Hell as being “down” or “below” should be understood in their literary context. Heavenly, good, or righteous things are spoken of as being “higher”, while evil and wicked things are spoken of as being “lower”. This does not mean that they are literally below our feet or over our heads. The same relationship works for God’s reaction to certain people or actions. Those who are rewarded or helped are being “lifted up”, those who are being punished are being “cast down”. The terms are symbolic more than literal.

With that in mind, we cannot say for sure where Hell is, or even if it is a place in this physical universe. Both Heaven and Hell might be in a different dimension, for all we know. Since the Bible does not specify, what we do know is that the actual location of Hell is not nearly so important as knowing how to avoid it! (Romans 8:1)

What is certain is that man would not be able to get into our out of hell just by drilling into it. The story about voices from underground is an ‘urban legend’, or a modern fable. In 1984, a geographic survey team in Siberia drilled about 7 miles deep. They found unusually high temperatures and strange rock formations, but little else. For some reason, descriptions of this drilling started to gain details as it was passed around, as many legends do. At one point, someone even put together an audio recording that was supposedly made by the scientists, complete with tormented screaming. In reality, none of this actually happened, and the story is just a tall tale.

There are a few things about Hell that we can be sure of: it exists (Revelation 21:8), it is eternal (Mark 9:44), and it is avoidable (Mark 16:16). We don’t know exactly where it is, or if people now living have seen it. Since the Bible doesn’t choose to focus on those details, we can be sure that they aren’t ultimately important to our relationship with God. We can focus on Christ without worrying too much about the rest.

New Series - Backwards Forwards (BF)

2009-07-15T12:00:00.000-04:00

Hit the books before you hit "send"...

As many people do, I get a lot of forwarded email. Most of what I get is the usual jokes, chain letters, and so forth. I also get a fair number of tips, from people asking me to check out a particular website or news item. And, also like most people, I get a large number of urban legends, myths, and panicky calls to action that have little to no basis in reality. That’s frustrating enough when the emails are “secular”, or come from “secular” folks. It’s even more frustrating when they come from fellow Christians and pass along superstitious or exaggerated stories about spiritual topics.

Hence, the new series: Backwards Forwards. The name plays on emails, but any persistent rumor, myth, or urban legend moving like a case of the flu through Christian circles is fair game. Posts in this series will be (relatively) short explanations of the most common religiously-connected myths I’ve been getting. As others pop up, we’ll throw those on the bonfire as well, marked with the BF tag.

2008-2009 Year In Review

2009-06-23T12:00:00.002-04:00

The Sword of the Mind turns 2!

The second blogiversary of Gladio Mentis passed without much notice, even by myself! As the reduced number of posts would suggest, I’ve been occupied elsewhere, and not able to blog as much as I’d like. It’s not that there isn’t plenty to talk about. I just don’t like “casual” postings, at least not here. When I don’t have the time to put something relatively well developed together, I just don’t. Better a compact and quality resource than one overflowing with fluff.

My intention with the blog is still the same: to provide useful resources for believers and seekers. What I was able to accomplish this year added to that ongoing effort.

Some highlights from the past year:

Continuing Series

No new series “officially” added this year, but I have one debuting soon that’s been brewing for a little while. Other series continue as usual. The Dangerous Ducks series continues to be popular for internet searches, mostly because of the number of people who arrive here looking for information about Arnold Murray.

Best Posts

Of the posts I was able to publish during this year, I consider these to be among the best:

Immunosurveillance (also featured on Fish and Cans)
Firmly By The Blade
Newsweek’s Blunder
Bats Aren’t Birds
Crispy Crunchy Locust Legs (and part 2)
O, Sole Fide (and part 2)

The posts on “faith alone” generated some worthwhile responses, from fellow believers. Those conversations are worth reading, if for no other reason than to remind the blogosphere that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

Talking Points

I engaged in some very educational discussions at Atheism is Dead, Thinking Christian, and the atheist website mentioned in Crispy Crunchy Locust Legs, part 2. The AiD and Locust conversations were somewhat predictable, in that atheists who aren’t used to defending their ideas with any vigor get cranky when someone expects them to do more than pay lip service to logic. One of the lessons I’ve chosen to learn from this past year of apologetics is to take Proverbs 26:4 a little more to heart than Proverbs 26:5. I’ve passed on numerous opportunities to dialogue with persons fairly described as “fools”, and taken a pass. Hopefully, I’ll learn to do so more often.

As always, Tom Gilson’s Thinking Christian blog was the host to productive and interesting conversations. The ever-present hard heads persist, of course, but again this is nothing new. One, a (supposedly resigned) blogger known as Barefoot Bum, provided a classic case of an atheist totally lacking in integrity. While complaining about being unkindly spoken to on Tom’s blog, he proclaimed his own moral superiority on such topics…which was, and is, a complete and utter lie. More ducking, dodging, evasion, and other delay tactics sidetracked some other discussions on Evidence and the Euthyphro Dillema, spilling over into other posts.

Medicine Man

Well, this year’s been more than a bit rough. The company I work(ed) for went from new ownership to “layoffs for everyone” within a year. I’m an engineer with manufacturing experience living on Ohio…so looking for similar work is about as easy as selling corded telephones. Health issues have likewise been tough, but improving a bit in the last few weeks. Ministry opportunities at my home church continue to arise, however, and my work with GotQuestions.org has been as interesting as ever. I was very pleased to present Got Questions to my home church during our annual missions conference.

As I did last year, I hope to use the passing of the blog’s birthday as another chance to renew my commitment to pursuing rational, legitimate reasons for belief, not to mention rational, legitimate beliefs themselves! Last year, I quoted C.S. Lewis’ explanation of why every tough question needs to be answered rigorously. This year, I’ll take a more whimsical approach and present Lewis’ explanation of why some (Proverbs 26:4) need not be answered at all:

Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. – C.S. Lewis

O, Sola Fide (Part 2)

2009-06-15T08:00:00.002-04:00

O, give me a break...

In part one, I explained how faith and works are related in the Bible, and showed why salvation cannot be dependent on our performance of any particular actions. Works are “symptoms” of salvation, not the cause of it. The fact that good works area always produced in the truly saved is what allows Christians to (with great care) distinguish between the saved and unsaved, at least in a general sense. It also provides a great self-check, which explains why New Testament passages describing the plight of the wicked aren’t indications of works-required salvation, but reminders that true saving faith produces genuine fruits of the spirit.

Here in part two are the original questions, along with my responses. The information contained in part one was originally included in my answer to this questioner.

1. Did Martin Luther ridicule the book of James?
2. Why didn't Paul use the specific phrase `faith alone` anywhere in his New Testament writings?
3.Why does James say that a man is not justified by faith alone?
4.Why did Martin Luther want to throw out the book of James from his version of the Bible?

I have been raised Catholic my entire life and have started to ask questions about justification and how it's obtained. I have researched Catholic and Protestant explanations on how one is justified and I have to admit, there are compelling arguments from both sides. I ask that you please view these links; the authors are Catholics who have an impressive knowledge of the Bible and who seem to be able to back up aspects of Catholic teaching with sacred scripture. All I want is an educated Protestant interpretation of these Catholic arguments. I understand that this is not the kind of thing you are used to, but I feel that Jesus wants me to seek answers, and perhaps your interpretation will be some of those answers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR4dc6dh-0k&feature=related

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_7.htm

Actually, I am very used to this kind of question. Likewise, I am also used to seeing these kinds of objections raised by Catholic apologists. I don’t know everything about the credentials of the two sources you noted, but I would disagree with calling their knowledge “impressive”. This is especially true in regards to the video series, which was more “long winded” than informative.

With that in mind, let’s consider your questions and your cited sources:

1) Did Martin Luther ridicule the book of James? Not “ridicule” so much as “deride”, or “express exasperation with”. Luther was frustrated by the Catholic tendency to take a few less-clear verses from James, and ignore the more abundant, clear verses regarding works in the rest of the New Testament. As a former Catholic scholar, he was ingrained into the idea that James taught salvation by works, which a more distanced and comprehensive reading of the text does not indicate. Catholicism is dependent on “tradition” (meaning the writings and pronouncements of various church leaders), but Christians in general are not obligated to accept everything some particular person says. That Luther was overly dismissive of James does not mean that he was wrong about everything. That Luther was instrumental in formalizing the Reformation does not mean that non-Catholic Christians must accept everything he ever said.

At this point, it’s also important to note that Luther was not the first person to challenge Catholic teachings. The idea that no one had considered any of these theological ideas until Luther arrived is historically false. Not every group dissenting from Catholicism had the same ideas, but there were many believers who broke away to pursue more scripturally based teachings. Among these were the Donatists and Novatians of the 4th and 5th centuries, the Waldensians of the late 12th century, and the Lollards of the mid 14th century. All of these groups broke away from Catholicism decades or centuries before the Reformation, on the basis of theological disagreements. Some groups, like the Waldensians, held beliefs similar to modern evangelical or fundamentalist Christians.

2) Why did Martin Luther want to throw out the book of James from his version of the Bible? He didn’t, at least not to the extent that he made any actual effort to do so. Despite the quote often parroted by Catholic apologists (including your video citation), Luther didn’t remove James. He was frustrated by it, because of the way Catholic teachers abused it to defend their positions. He certainly didn’t care much for it. Yet it was still a part of his German translation of the texts.

3)Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings? Why did he have to? The word “trinity” appears nowhere in the entire Bible – not even as a translated term. This does not mean that the Bible does not describe God as triune. Looking at scripture as a whole, and interpreting less clear passages in light of those which are more clear, the idea that faith alone saves is a foundational part of Paul’s writings. Romans 3:28, for example, is Paul’s statement that justification before God is by faith, apart from works. Verse 30 then emphasizes and clarifies this by noting that both the circumcised (Jews) and un-circumcised (non-Jews) would be justified by faith. There are also verses such as Ephesians 2:8-9, where the phrase “through faith…not of works” is awfully close.

Alternatively, one could ask, if Paul intended to mean that faith, rituals, sacraments, and works were all required for salvation, why did he not say so clearly? Or at least suggest it? Why didn’t Paul tell the jailer to repent, be baptized, confess, and be confirmed, etc? Why didn’t Peter tell the crowd at Pentecost to do the same? Why did God take Philip away from the Ethiopian (who required help to understand salvation) immediately after his baptism, instead of letting him explain or administer communion, confession, prayers to dead saints, and so forth? For the Catholic to suggest that faith-alone salvation is not clearly represented in Paul’s writings begs one to notice that salvation on the basis of faith plus works plus rituals is not merely unclear, but totally absent. This is even more the case for other foundational teachings of Catholicism.

4)Why does James say that a man is not justified by faith alone? Because James and Paul are talking about two different kinds of justification (and, actually, two different kinds of faith) in their respective writings. Paul is talking about justification before God, James is partly talking about justification before men. Just as Paul described the fruits of the spirit (Galatians 5:22), James discusses how works are a natural result of saving faith. In other words, both James and Paul are stating that those truly saved will exhibit good works. Neither one is saying that those works produce salvation.

The Greek word translated “faith” (as with the English word) can have different meanings. In this case, James’ use of the term refers to intellectual assent (or mental knowledge without spiritual trust). Such ‘faith’ is dead, because merely “believing” in the coldest sense is not sufficient for salvation. Keeping this in mind, and reading James 2:19-20, one can see how James’ description of the relationship between faith and works is consistent with that given by Paul.

In regards to the website, note one gigantic side-step made by the author, here:

“In saying this, let it be clear to the reader we are not saying St. Paul teaches in Rom. 2 that a man can "earn," (in the strict, legal sense of the word), the reward of eternal life... it is presumed that those who "persist in doing good" and who "seek glory, honor, and incorruption" are doing so under the advocacy of God’s grace and mercy.”

In other words, truly good works are only the product of a saving faith, not a prerequisite for it (Hebrews 11:6). That’s a sensible interpretation, but neither the website author nor other Catholic apologists apply this thought to their work-faith approach in general. The website author has noted, almost by accident, that salvation is something that happens before good works are done, because works cannot earn saving grace. They require it. Paul made that as explicitly clear as can be (Romans 11:6). This idea leaves no room for an attack on the “protestant” view that works are not a part of salvation.

I watched the entire first part of the video series, and the early part of the second. Unfortunately, as you can see, some questions are short in the asking and long in the answering. The entire video series was 10 sections, and I saw enough in the first part to make sensible criticism of it. I’m unfortunately not in a position to watch, analyze, and comprehensively cover 100 minutes of more of the same. The flaws are clear right off the bat.

In a nutshell, the video is lacking in theological, biblical, and philosophical depth. Here are a few comments:

The video mentions mortal and venial sins. These are never separated in the Bible. In fact, one of the sins that the video author calls “venial”, unjustified anger, was likened to murder by Jesus himself (Matthew 5:21-26), in the same passage where He indicated that sins of the mind are as much sins as those of the flesh.

Overall, the major flaw of the video is the behind-the-scenes idea that “protestants” teach that you can behave any way you want and still go to heaven. This is the implication made when the narrator mentions how Luther’s “1000 murders” quote would have been popular with the people. It’s the reason that the narrator thinks that listing verses where good deeds are rewarded or commended somehow refutes faith-only salvation. As shown above, this is not the Biblical teaching, nor is it even a vaguely fair representation of what is taught in Protestant churches. The implication made in the video is not only untrue, but it borders on outright dishonesty.

This assumption is behind the extensive listing of times where the Bible references those who participate in certain sins being barred from heaven, or punished, or good deeds being rewarded, or judged, and so forth. Remember, according to the Bible, good works only come from the saved. From that perspective, indicating that good works are rewarded, or that those who do evil will be condemned, is simply a statement of the results of salvation (or its lack).

For those reasons, the juvenile way in which the video claims that each verse “totally refutes Protestantism” demonstrates a severe lack of understanding.

The narrator says this: “So, the Catholic teaching is that what a person does (works) is a part of whether or not they have justification.” That’s a very slippery way of phrasing it. If the question is whether or not the person “has” justification, then there is no argument. No good works means they have not obtained justification (salvation). However, Catholicism is not presenting works as a sign of salvation, but as a requirement for it.

The narrator mentions confession, and says that it requires a “validly ordained priest”. Question: if a priest is not validly ordained (i.e. he lied, deceived, or somehow violated his position), and a person confesses to him, is that a valid confession? If a Catholic answers, “yes”, then they are admitting that the presence of a human-approved priest is not what makes true confession, but rather the intentions of the confessing sinner. If they say, “no”, then they are teaching that God will eternally punish a person for something they did not do, did not know, and cannot control, despite their sincere and submissive faith, which is antithetical to the entire message of Christ.

The truth or falsehood of Catholic teachings rests on the character and intellect of the scholars making the pronouncements. This is why they claim that the Pope is infallible when making doctrinal statements, to cover themselves against the reverse of this very problem. However, Christians are not obligated to agree with Luther, but only with those things he says or teaches that are spiritually, factually valid. Luther was wrong in some ways about the book of James. That is not a problem for believers, and suggesting otherwise, as the video does, shows the lack of theological / philosophical depth this person has.

Note also, in the James quote by Luther, there is the phrase, “for the Papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest.” Luther was noting that the rest of scripture pointed in a direction contrary to works-required-salvation, and that the traditional Catholic teaching on the subject was prioritizing a minority of less clear scriptures rather than a majority of clear ones. Nothing in the video or the website lessens the reality of this serious error in interpretation.

Then the narrator claims that protestants are “explaining away” the “clear words of this book (James)”. That statement itself is an apologetic for proof-texting. As shown above, the problem here is the Catholic tendency to put tradition-inspired single verses ahead of objective reading of the Bible as a whole.

The narrator disagrees that a man can be “externally” justified by faith (saved) but still non-sanctified within. The Bible suggests that sanctification is a process that will only be competed in heaven, where we are finally perfected. Sanctification is different than justification (salvation). The video, on the other hand, claims that one must be purely sanctified all the way, or not at all. Where, then, does sin come from? If a person was 100% purely sanctified, they would not sin, because they would be like Christ – tempted, but never failing. By that argument, the narrator would also have to claim that one is either capable of living a sinless life, or they are damned…but this even contradicts the notion of venial sins.

It’s ironic that the narrator emphasizes that “we’re going to take an honest look at what the Bible teaches”. What is presented is textbook proof-texting (interpreting without context to force your view into the verse), and is the reason individual verses are each claimed to be the final word on the subject. Keep this in mind: the narrator is coming from an interpretation colored not by Biblical context, but Catholic traditional context. Catholic teaching does not consider the Bible sufficient as a source of spiritual authority, and Catholic interpretations of many passages depend on non-Biblical writings to defend. That this is not mentioned in the video also borders on deception.

The narrator claims that Matthew 5:29-30 only makes sense if works are required for salvation. Not true – recall the idea of fruits of the spirit. Many people resist salvation because they know they’ll have to give up their pet sins. Once saved, they all note how easy it was to give them up. That Jesus would warn people that you cannot be too zealous in ridding yourself of sin, even giving up what seems precious or valuable, does not somehow mean good deeds are required to be saved. The narrator goes so far as to say, “By depriving yourself of these things, you will save your soul.” That’s putting words in Jesus’ mouth, and ignoring His overall message.

In regards to Matthew 6:14, this again comes back to the idea of fruits of the spirit. The narrator continues to pervert the spiritual order. He’s claiming that works precede salvation. The Bible teaches the opposite. A person who has truly been saved will have a forgiving and humble heart. Those who do not forgive are not in a state of forgiven-ness. As with James, we see that how a person behaves tells us something about the state of their soul.

Matthew 7:21-23 is essentially the same thing that James says; that true faith produces works, not that works produce salvation. It’s interesting that the narrator brought this passage up, since Jesus is explicitly saying, “I never knew you” in response to a litany of deeds! Once again, we see that faith precedes salvation, while works merely proceed from it. The narrator is attempting to split Christ’s parable into two parts; there is only one. The video makes an ad hoc division between, “only those who do…(therefore works are required)” and “on that day…” This is a false dissection.

Matthew 7:24-27 has little to do with this issue. Jesus is not only speaking of the wisdom of following His teachings on salvation, but also of his commandments in daily life.

Matthew 10:22 has more to do with a disagreement over eternal security than faith. The narrator is now conflating the two. Technically, they are two separate beliefs. This again shows the lack of theological sophistication in the video.

Matthew 12:36 says that every idle word will be accounted for in the day of judgment. Yes, because sin is still sin. Once again, this attack only makes sense if you pretend that the “protestant” view is that saved and unsaved people act exactly alike. Every person will be judged on the basis of their deeds, but those who have been saved will have their sins forgiven.

In fact, this point should be hit a little harder. Let’s use the same approach as the video, but directed towards Catholicism: If every idle word is accounted for, and everything we say or do will be used to judge us, and our works determine our salvation (not our faith), then we’re all condemned, including Catholics. After all, the narrator says that Matthew 12:36 “completely contradicts the idea that works are not a part of justification.” According to the Bible, we all fail that part miserably (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10; 1 John 1:10).

Keeping with the narrator’s style of attack, where does this passage say that faith justifies at all? If we’re going to interpret it the way we have to for his criticism to make sense, then we have to say that Matthew 12:37 implies that works (what we say, specifically) alone are all that matter. We’ll be judged on our words (works), period. If the narrator disagrees, and thinks that we need to look at other scriptures to understand this passage, then perhaps he should do the same with all of his other attacks. This shows an inability to keep his own interpretive method consistent.

The narrator also continually says that each of these verses “totally refutes Protestantism”. This is the hallmark of one who understands the issue far less than they think they do. He’s demonstrating the very problem that causes him to believe in Catholic teachings on works in the first place. That is, that one can approach the Bible with a pre-conceived notion, and jam that contrived idea into every verse. Each verse can then be “interpreted” totally by itself, devoid of the context of other verses, in any way one wants.

As I said, I’ve offered some thoughts and notes on the first part of the video. I scanned through the other nine parts, but this particular venue doesn’t allow me the time to do a thorough analysis of 100-plus minutes of the same basic thing. Hopefully, you can see that the approach being offered is very flawed, both scripturally and philosophically.

The doctrine of faith alone is supported by objective, contextual scholarship in the same way the that doctrine of the Trinity is, though it is much clearer and easier to see. Beyond that, the idea of Catholic scholars criticizing “sola fide” for being unclear is laughable. The Bible makes not the slightest mention of Mary’s sinlessness. One cannot claim that it clearly teaches the seven sacraments, the infallibility of the papacy, that we ought to pray to the dead, and so forth. This is a can of worms that Catholic apologists ought not open up.

O, Sola Fide (Part 1)

2009-06-11T22:00:00.004-04:00

Faith alone, or faith bemoaned?

Earlier this week, I received a series of questions on the issue of justification by faith alone (“sola fide”). The questioner pointed me towards two online sources: a website and a series of YouTube videos. This is an issue that comes up often, and most Catholic responses are based on a few major flaws. The first, and worst, is an assumption that “no works” is identical to “easy believe-ism”; that is, that teaching people that works don’t save you turns them into raging hedonists. The second is a misunderstanding of the relationship between works and faith as described in the Bible. Both of these flaws are then applied, with a healthy does of proof-texting and references to catechisms and councils, in order to defend the idea that you have to do good to be saved.

Part one will feature my general response to the question of sola fide, or “faith alone”.

Salvation by faith versus faith plus works is usually a contention that arises between Catholic and non-Catholic sources. The primary problem with most Catholic responses to this question is a misunderstanding of what the “sola fide” doctrine means. Most who disagree with sola fide seem to think that (or least argue as if) Protestants^[1] believe a person who murders, rapes, pillages, blasphemes, and otherwise lives like the Devil will go to heaven as long as they believe in Jesus. This is simply not the truth.

If a person approaches the Bible with a prejudice, such as preferring some doctrine over another, they can probably find some verse which, taken out of context, seems to agree with them. They can then claim that their position is “biblical”, and when they come across other verses that seem to contradict them, they can simply point to their one favorite verse and find some twisted re-interpretation. This was the source of Luther’s frustration over Catholic abuse of the book of James. Most of the New Testament, read objectively, indicates that works are not a part of salvation, and that faith alone is required to be saved. This should cause a person who reads the book of James to pause before rushing to claim that it teaches that works are required in order to be saved.

In fact, James says the same thing that the rest of the New Testament does, but he examines it from the perspective of fellow believers. Paul, James, and the other New Testament writers all take the same position on works: Those who are saved will naturally participate in good works, since these are the fruits of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23; John 14:15). Those who don’t exhibit good works don’t have the spirit and are not saved (Galatians 5:19-21; James 2:26; Hebrews 11:6). This provides a means for other believers to better know who is or is not really saved…with considerable caution (James 2:1-4).

Every time a Catholic apologist references a passage where (they claim) works are mandated for salvation, note this idea: The Bible clearly states that good works are the fruits of a saving relationship with Christ, and that those who are saved will show it in their works. So, to say that only those who do X, Y, or Z will be saved is not to say that doing X, Y, or Z were necessary to their salvation. This applies to most, if not all, of the “works” verses noted in the video.

Consider this analogy: when you have a head cold, you will sneeze. Only those with head colds can stay home from work. Only those who have head colds will really sneeze. So, your doctor can truthfully say all of the following: “all those who sneeze may stay home,” “only those with head colds may stay home,” “it only takes a head cold to keep you at home,” and “sneezing is not required to stay at home.” Naturally, those who really have head colds will sneeze, but it’s not the sneezing that’s important – it’s the head cold. Those who try to “fake” the sneezes will be found out by the doctor and made to go to work. Sneezing does not earn you a day at home – the head cold does. Sneezing is just a sign.

Works and salvation are described in the Bible more or less the same way as sneezing and head colds above. Works are a “symptom” of salvation, not the “condition” that causes it. Faith is required for salvation – and only faith. Once saved, a person will naturally exhibit good works. Those who exhibit truly good works will enter heaven, but not because of the works. The works are a sign of salvation, not the cause of it. Salvation came before the works. When the Bible says that “those who do ABC will not enter” or “those who do DEF will enter”, that has to be considered in scriptural context. That context indicates that good works come from salvation, they do not purchase, earn, buy, or serve as prerequisites for it.

Catholicism, however, teaches that works precede the salvation; that a person cannot be saved without performing those works. Further, Catholicism teaches that to be saved a person must not only perform “good works”, but must participate in very specific rituals (confession, communion, baptism, etc.) administered by a very specific person in order to be saved. That must be considered when interpreting what the Bible has to say about works, as well as any Catholic responses to it. Simply asking the question, “what about all of the rituals and sacraments” diffuses most Catholic objections to faith-alone interpretations of the Bible.

Objections that “faith alone” is not stated clearly enough to suit the preferences of the critic can be met with a similar crack about the trinity. Sola Fide comes out of the text much more simply than the trinity does, and with less philosophizing. That to be expected, of course, since one is actually much more important than the other. The point is that simply because one must actually consider scripture to see a doctrine fully expressed doesn’t mean it’s not expressed at all.

The whole of scripture, viewed in a way that is sensible and objective, points towards faith as the sole requisite for salvation. That faith must be repentant, submissive, and genuine, or course, but it has nothing to do with good deeds or acts of ritual. Good works flow naturally from such faith, and as such are “expected” or even “required” in the sense that those who don’t exhibit them are not saved. But one cannot make up the difference between where they are and where they need to be through good works. You either have saving faith, or you don’t.

Part two will relate the original questions that inspired this post, as well as the resources I was asked to examine.

[1] – I use the term for the sake of consistency, not because I fully endorse the technical meaning of the term. In general use, it means “non-Catholic Christian”, which is fine enough, and not worth climbing over in this context.

Crispy Crunchy Locust Legs (Part 2)

2009-05-15T23:30:00.006-04:00

Hypothesize…experiment…analyze…publish.

The “four legs” problem (dissected in part one) is not particularly difficult to solve, and this is why it serves as a “red flag” for irrationality. Those who express confidence in this being an “error” are simultaneously expressing some combination of ignorance, prejudice, and a lack of critical thinking. When confronted with the reality of this “error”, it’s not uncommon for truly rational skeptics, or those who are simply repeating the “error” they heard from someone else, to admit that it’s not a mistake. I recently took an opportunity to send up this particular test balloon, to see if those advocating “critical thinking” could actually do as they advised others to.

The experiment happened on a fairly typical anti-Christianity site where non-believers get together to make fun of believers and pat each other on the back. These are not sites conducive to deep discussion – no one there is interested in having their lack of belief challenged. In truth, that’s perfectly fine. Not every site on the internet needs to be an open invitation to argument. I had no intentions of challenging the non-belief of the website’s participants. That would have been pointless, particularly given the style of…“conversation”… being engaged in (or perpetrated) there.

At any rate, one of the non-believers on the site was challenged (pointlessly) to prove something in the Bible wrong. In response, they mentioned the “four legs” canard and went so far as to call it an “easy” mistake, chiding the questioner to use critical thinking. I figured that was a good enough opportunity to see how such critic(s) would respond to some actual critical thinking regarding the issue. The “four legs” issue should be trivial to an atheist or other non-believer. That the Bible is correct on such an obvious and minor detail isn’t the slightest bit threatening to the views of a person who rejects the Bible.

My idea was to start by mentioning the most obvious flaw in the attack: is it really sensible to suggest that a person who ate these insects didn’t know how many legs they had? That alone puts all of the burden of proof on the one making the attack: unless they can prove beyond any doubt that the passage can only be interpreted as in error, then it is unreasonable to call it one.

If needed, I was prepared to drill down into the language, context, and so forth to see if or when this type of skeptic would finally say, “okay, fine. It’s not wrong. This does nothing for my unbelief, but I guess that’s not actually an error.” In theory, a truly rational non-believer ought to be able to look at the evidence, examine the passage, and comfortably admit that it’s not a mistake. Needless to say, this is not what happened.^[1]

The first, and most frequent, responder to my challenge went through quite a metamorphosis during the conversation. He started off with typical derision, making strained attempts to force his preferred implication on the English text. In the process, he spilled gallons of ink creating elaborate faux-Christian responses, attempting to be witty, and typing the words LEGS and FEET in all-caps as though net-shouting was going to turn bad arguments into good.

When I noted that there were two separate Hebrew words used, with different anatomical implications, he went for the haymaker, tripped, and fell flat on his face:

Now let us re-examine what Medicineman said about the Hebrew word Ke'ra

MM: "The word translated “leg” is ke’ra which can be a more literal “insect-type-leg”.

I see so do you tell me now that the FLOCK [in Leviticus 1:9, also using the word kera’] refers to a FLOCK of LOCUSTS or animals with SEGMENTED LEGS?

We go deeper and deeper into the surreal world of Christian apologetics.

The solution offered just creates more problems. As I said the simplest solution is that the authors of the Bible in their rush to write a work purportedly with God make fallible mistakes in their observations, language and simple logic.

But lets not try to blame too much..... teh modern christian apologist is adamant that since they made such a simple mistake, they couldn't be making a mistake and hence DISTORTS reason, logic as well as language.

I indicated that the definition of the word kera’ could include both the shank bone and the insect leg. He called me a liar. After I confronted him about making such an accusation, he apologized. Then he switched gears.

His new strategy was twofold. On one hand, he would continue to claim that the verse clearly meant a total of four legs, because that’s what his bias-inserted version of the English said.

On the other hand, he tried to suggest that the verse merely stated that these feet were attached to jointed legs. He neglected to explain what purpose there would be in including such a detail. Nor did he recall that the description of the two “jumping” legs is what separated the clean from unclean animals. If this was merely a reminder that bugs have legs attached to their feet, it would have been useless as a means to separate good from bad. Why would it have been written at all?

I noted his arguments’ repeated failures and made the point that it was unwise to treat those who disagree with you as stupid or brainwashed, especially when the one making such accusations is plainly unknowledgeable about the topic. At that point, he passed into the “grumpy” phase where he accused me of attempting to “score points” for daring to judge his approach on the basis of his own words, including comments such as these:

Xtianity = stupidity is rewarded by praise

In fact, he accused me of pursuing a “personal vendetta”. This, after I acknowledged his apology and reminded him of my problems with his approach, not his person.

The person who originally brought up the “error” had little else to say, other than calling me a troll for sticking to the evidence. She was content to chip in terms like “buybullnuts” (Bible nuts), claim that she was talking about God, not the person who wrote the passage (huh?) and breathlessly ask the primary commenter when he was going to write a book. That’s not satirical. She actually asked for an autographed copy.

Another “contributor” to the conversation could be fairly described as Sammy Skeptic going through his late-teenage angst period. Armed with a grand total of eight or nine shiny, well-worn pet phrases, a fetish for verbal abuse, and an incredibly fragile ego, he not only laid on the derision, but wanted to expand the topic of conversation to include pretty much the entire known universe. A quick scan through his recent comments uncovered gems like these from some of his other conversations:

So now that you get my point, f**k off, you language nazi. And if you don't like it get the f**k out of dodge, you stupid motherf**ker.

[you are] another mental midget Christian…

Characteristically speaking, all you can offer -- being a christian -- is silly superstitions, massive delusion and morbid ignorance.

Now that’s a person ready for an intelligent debate!

I wish I could say that this type of commenter is always a non-believer. Unfortunately, I run into people of all versions of faith or non-faith who act exactly this way. Verbally abusive, preoccupied with mindless caricatures, and absolutely brimming with insecurity.

They open the conversation by packing more irrelevant straw-men into one sentence than some can fit in a paragraph. When their target declines to participate, they declare victory and pile on some more self-stroking insults. They assume beforehand that you can’t possibly have anything worthwhile to say. They simultaneously complain about being disagreed with, and yet demand that you to do so.

It’s nothing more complicated than overcompensation. This kind of person lacks the knowledge or ability to actually discuss that which they so angrily disagree with. So, they work to make actual conversation impossible. Then, they convince themselves that they won, and repeat with the next person. Needless to say, I was content to let this person spin their wheels alone. Why not? Argue with an idiot and it gets hard to tell which is which.

Predictably, this was interpreted as surrender. Several times over, in fact, complete with ostentatious net-laughter (who’s protesting too much, again?) Hey, whatever it takes to protect that eggshell ego, right?

One particular commenter noted the ultimate irrelevancy of the point at hand, and encouraged me to look more deeply into my faith. He warned me that intelligence used to uphold a lie is ultimately wasted. (When I agreed with his assessment, but stated that I obviously disagreed on what “the lie” was, another contributor jumped in with some paranoid, defensive comments as though my agreement was some kind of character slur.)

Strangely, he also suggested that maybe I was really trying to convince myself, rather than others. It was odd, in his mind, to discuss such a trivial point at such great length. I would have thought he’d see that going both ways. In fact, given the gymnastics the other commenters went through, he would have been better off directing that sentiment towards them.

That, after all, was my ultimate question to this group. Why defend such an overtly silly, clearly impotent, and ultimately trivial attack on the Bible? Doesn’t that make them look irrational, prejudiced, and closed-minded? Why take the attitude that every single word, letter, and phrase in the Bible must be wrong? That’s not rational, or sensible. It’s just bigoted.

It’s exactly the same thing I hate about partisan politics. If the “other party” says the sky is blue, then there’s a fight to the death to say it is green. If “they” say that this bill is good, it msut be opposed. Or, in this case, if the Bible says it, it must be wrong. If the Bible says something correct, then it’s still wrong, because it must be wrong. Four legs gooood…six legs baaaad!

Some people see images of Mary in their toast, and their trees, and their carpet. Some see a UFO in every midnight sky. Some see ghosts in every bump or creak of the house. And, unfortunately, some skeptics see errors in every verse, every line, every letter of the Bible.

The most eye-rolling, predictably inane absurdities came in response to my non-participation in further discussion. I had no chance of convincing anyone, and I had no reason to believe that open-mindedness would ensue – they couldn’t even let go of a trivial point, why expect reason on something with more weight?

And yet, I knew that a polite “no thanks” to debates on deeper issues would be spun as “yeah – we won!” by the kind of insecure posters active on these sites. And, as soon as it was clear I was no longer participating, there was a general sense of high-fiving, patting on the back, juvenile bad-mouthing, and assorted declarations of victory. Shrug.

As of this writing, not a single person commenting on the site had yet admitted that the “four legs” passage is not a mistake. Perhaps they’ve decided as much in their own minds, and won’t use it again…but I doubt it.

The point of what happened seems totally lost on them: they could not engage me rationally on a trivial point; they changed the subject, delivered insults and accusations, and dodged the need to drop the “four legs” question repeatedly. Therefore, I declined to discuss more substantial issues. That’s just common sense. Yet, they seemed unwilling to believe that that my motivations for declining their challenges might be motivated by exactly what I said they were: indifference. Incredibly, those banding together to dodge a simple point of rationality, from the safety of numbers and home-field advantage on a skeptical website, accused me of fearing their scrutiny of my beliefs.

Hence, the practical value of the “red flag” issues. At the least, they can help separate the unaware from the unwilling.

[1] - As usual, I'm not in the habit of posting direct links to hostile sites. Also as usual, I saved a transcript of the conversation [as of 5-14-09 @11:14 PM] so that there's no doubt as to what was said when and by whom. If you'd like to see the madness unfold for yourself, you can copy this URL into your browser: http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-be.html#disqus_thread and search for the phrase, "The buybull says insects have four legs."

Crispy Crunchy Locust Legs (Part 1)

2009-05-08T00:30:00.004-04:00

Id' rather count 'em than eat 'em...

I recently encountered of one of the “red flag” criticisms used by some detractors of Christianity. By “red flag”, I mean one of those attacks on the Bible that’s particularly badly reasoned, obviously flawed, and trivial. Using such a claim “red flags” the attacker as someone less than informed at best, unreasonably prejudiced, in all likelihood, and willingly irrational at worst. This particular “red flag” is the claim that the Bible incorrectly notes the number of legs on an insect.

The claim is that Leviticus 11:21, combined with Leviticus 11:23, indicate that insects have four legs. Since insects have six legs, not four, this is supposedly an error. There are two responses, one of which is purely meant to affect the approach to resolution, the second of which shows that there is, in fact, no error.

A super-short answer: the actual Hebrew words describe two different kind of legs: one used more or less for walking/crawling, the other more or less for leaping. The Bible correctly notes that the insects in question have four of the former and two of the latter. When it uses the number “four” it uses the word referring to the crawling legs. The Hebrews simply thought of the crawling legs and the jumping legs as different enough to warrant different terms, much as we might see a difference between a finger and a thumb. Even before, that, it’s silly to think someone who ate locusts wouldn’t know how many legs they had.

First of all, common sense says that a person (Moses, the writer of Leviticus, in this case) who lived around, among, and under threat of these insects on a daily basis, and especially one who ate them on a regular basis, would actually know how many legs those insects had. The idea that a person who ate locusts didn’t realize that they had six legs, not four, strains credulity. This places all of the burden of proof on the one making the attack; it is unreasonable to assume that anyone living in that culture would have made such an overt mistake.

As an analogy, imagine meeting a doctor from some foreign nation. You hold up both hands, and ask him how many fingers he sees. He looks at them and says, “eight”. Do you assume he’s ignorant, blind, or stupid? Or do you assume that his definition of “fingers” does not include “thumbs”? He has plenty of knowledge of what fingers and thumbs are, he can see, and (assuming you aren’t missing something) you’re not a unique example.

If you challenge him, he’ll probably respond like this: “No, you have eight fingers. Each hand has four fingers and one thumb. You have ten digits, but only eight fingers.”

Now, this might be confusing to someone who speaks English. But it’s not wrong. There is no factual disagreement, only a terminology difference. “Fingers” and “thumbs” are two separate things to this doctor, though there is a word that includes fingers AND thumbs (digits). This is an important point (demonstrated later).

Secondly, and most importantly, the verses do not say what skeptics claim they do. This is definitely one place in the Bible where translation issues become comprehension issues. Some words are very difficult to translate into other languages, especially when those languages have very different ways of organizing, arranging, or analyzing what is being discussed. In translated English, the verses look like this:

KJV: (v.21) Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth…(v.23) But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

NASB: (v.21)Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth...(v.23) But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.

There is one phrase, and two relevant words to note. The phrase “go on all four(s)” reads, both in English, and in Hebrew, as a figure of speech. It’s far more literal in Hebrew, which the other two words will clarify. The implication of a crawling movement is there, not a literal indication of four limbs.

The Hebrew word kera’ has two meanings: an insect leg or the shank (shin) bone of a sacrifical animal. Those seem like very different things, but they are somewhat related. Consider that words in English, such as “cleave”, are so context-dependent that they can mean opposite things: “cleave to your wife in marriage, then cleave this log with an axe.” Kera’ sticks to legs, at least.

The Hebrew word regel has a greater number of meanings, but a narrower focus. It generally means a foot, ankle, big toe, or “the extensions from the trunk of the body that touch the ground.” In the specific context given, it means the crawling legs of the insect.

Finally, you can see the difference in phrasing between the KJV and the NASB regarding jointed feet. The NASB uses linguistic context to create a more easily understood phrasing. The KJV makes it less clear what the leaping legs are.

The following re-inserts the Hebrew words, includes quotation marks around the figurative phrase, and makes the jointed feet references braced to show how they are intended to be read:

KJV [notations mine]: (v.21) Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that “goeth upon all four”, which have regels above their {kera’s to leap withal upon the earth}…(v.23) But all other flying creeping things, which have four regels, shall be an abomination unto you.

NASB [notations mine]: (v.21)Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which “walk on all fours”: those which have above their regels {kera’s with which to jump on the earth}...(v.23) But all other winged insects which are four-regeled are detestable to you.

The passage is now much easier to understand. The insects have leaping legs, different from their (four) walking legs, as defined by the Hebrews. The English word “legs” covers both regels and kera’s, like “digits” covers both fingers and thumbs. Saying that these insects have four regels and also kera’ is no different than saying that humans have eight fingers and also thumbs.

Some complain that this is confusing for the modern reader. Well, that’s why “the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things”. This was a ceremonial law given to Old Covenant Israel, fulfilled and no longer applicable for Christians. It had to make sense to the people who actually needed to follow it. It would have been absurd for God to phrase the law in a way confusing to those who needed it, for the sake of future generations who would not. And, of course, for anyone who really wants to know, it can be sensibly understood.

No error, no problem. That doesn’t stop some people from using the “four legs” attack, and going to embarrassing lengths to defend it, as part two will show.

Centralized Links: My Christian Blogs

2009-05-01T00:01:00.000-04:00

One-stop browsing for good Christian blogs...

There's a good place to get quick links to Christian blogs, recently begun at My Christian Blogs. Check it out.

Thinking Christian: Evidence (VO)

2009-04-29T20:00:00.002-04:00

From subjectivism to a bonfire-class hypocrite...

This post at Tom Gilson’s blog was originally on the concept of evidences, and what counts as such to Christians. It also touched on subjective morality. Most notably, however, this thread shifted gears to hypocritical whining on the part of the loyal opposition. Apparently, they are not being spoken to in sufficiently reverent tones (hence this post appearing with a "Vaunted Opposition" tag).

One commenter in particular, calling himself “The Barefoot Bum”, was so offended at the strident tone of a Christian commenter that he berated Tom for allowing “bullying”. Note that nothing said to Barefoot was offensive, or even insulting. It was strident and probably impolite. Tom made note of this, and the poster in question eased up a bit. Not that that stopped The Barefoot Bum from crying like a pouting child. He insisted that he would never allow such things to be done to a Christian on his blog.

Unfortunately for The Barefoot Bum, I am one of the sizeable number of Christians who follow the spirit as well as the letter of Acts 17:11 and 1 John 4:1. He made a strong claim, so I checked it out. I scanned through his blog, and…

Oops.

As it turns out, The Barefoot Bum’s website^[1] is pretty much just a philosophical cesspit. He’s not the most abusive or profane blogger I’ve encountered, but he’s no saint either. In particular, he both instigates and allows a prolific level of insults, ad hominems, and other offensive speech. You can find my summary of his rap sheet using this link (here).

So, claiming that Tom was doing something he would actually be true. Tom Gilson would never allow anyone on his blog to be as insulting, vulgar, or obscene as Barefoot Bum himself routinely is to those who post on his page. He's criticizing another blog owner for allowing aggressive rebuttals, while he himself lewdly insults visitors to his own site.

When I confronted Barefoot with these facts, he lied again, stating that he only insulted ideas, not people. I guess telling someone they are a “f***ing idiot”, or that “my cat is smarter than you” [those are among the more tame phrasings available] slipped his mind. He then admitted that he’s not interested in dialogue with Christians, because he finds it fruitless.

No wonder.

The Barefoot Bum represents a sad subset of modern atheism. Undeniably intelligent, demonstrably perceptive…and a flaming, raging, hypocritical bigot. He insults Christians in the strongest possible terms, wholesale, lies about it, and then pouts when they dare question his opinions. No wonder he’s never gotten far in dialogues with us…he doesn’t want to.

Aggravating, yes, but also sad. Sad, but true. True, but not my problem. As of this posting, he hasn’t yet approved a comment I left on his blog where he continued to complain about Gilson’s handling of the situation. Nor has he responded further to my incontrovertible evidence of his participation in abusive speech, his instigation of it, and his lying about it.

I presume he’s crawled back into his outhouse so that he can throw feces in peace. Good riddance.

[1] - I have a personal preference not to link directly to hostile sites, let alone ones as vapidly obscene as his. If you want to find the site, it's not hard to Google.

Thinking Christian: The Atheist Ethicist

2009-04-29T19:55:00.001-04:00

Plus Euthyphro, definitions, and diversions...

I participated in a recent discussion at Tom Gilson’s Thinking Christian. This began as a response to Alonzo Fyfe, the self-titled Atheist Ethicist, and his incredibly self-serving definition of the word “faith”. From there, the topic drifted to the Euthyphro Dilemma and how Christians define the concept of “good”.

The discussion regarding how to define faith was both important and interesting. Once it moved to other topics, it was still interesting, but a lot more obscure.

One of the more interesting commenters was “faithlessgod”, who seems quite sensitive to having his own ideas laid out in applied form. Every time I gave him an example of how his views could cause problems, I was accused of using rhetoric. Tom noted the same problem…for a person who (elsewhere) claims such credentials in philosophy, he’s got a convenient habit of misunderstanding arguments he doesn’t agree with (which you can see in the comments).

The Euthyphro topic is one deserving of more than a summary from me, though you can get a rough flavor for it just scanning the linked thread. I’d like to present a more thorough look at it, and plan to do so soon.

Evidence of the Exodus

2009-04-22T21:00:00.001-04:00

Synchronize sundials in 3...2...1...

I’ve been asked more than once recently about a supposed lack of archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus. Specifically, that Egyptian records and artifacts don't seem to support the presence and evacuation of such a large number of people, or such dire circumstances. For some, this is a major stumbling block. For others it’s more of a puzzle. In any event, there actually is archeological evidence supporting what Exodus says, but there is a (resolvable) problem with dates. With all of the archaeological evidence supporting much of the Old and New Testaments, a person should be willing to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt in places where the evidence is harder to find. Even if they don’t, this is not an issue that should pose a major concern. Still, this is a problem with a definite solution.

At times, people have asked for “proof” that the Exodus really happened. As far as physical “proof” goes, I always respond that we have to be careful with terms. “Historical proof” is sort of an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrimp”, or “open secret”. You can’t “prove” historical events the way you can physical laws or mathematical equations, of course. You also can’t escape the necessity of interpretation and the fog of time. So, we have to take the right historical approach. The best we can reasonably expect is evidence that supports the Biblical account.

The number one problem in regards to this issue is how to align Egyptian histories with those of other cultures. There is good reason to believe that traditional history uses the wrong dating system when aligning the Bible with Egyptian chronology, a kind of mistake which has happened before. Ancient Egyptians were chaotic in their approach to dating events, and some rulers who actually ruled simultaneously are recorded as ruling in succession (one after the other). Hebrew history and Assyrian history, however, line up very well and can be used to make better sense of Egyptian histories. When this is done, the placement of Hebrews moves to a different dynasty – and in that dynasty, there is ample evidence to support Exodus.

In a nutshell, this would be like saying, “there are no Native American histories saying Lewis and Clark explored in 1803.” Of course, if there are Native American records saying they explored in 1823, then it’s just a question of which historical timeline is better “aligned”. That’s more or less the case with Egyptian history and the Exodus. There actually are records supporting it, but we probably have to correct our understanding of the Egyptian timeline to make it chronologically fit the records of other cultures.

Traditional placement of Exodus would anchor it the 18th dynasty. Lining up recorded events in Egypt with external, harmonized sources actually places Hebrews in Egypt in the 12th dynasty. Archaeologists such as Rosalie David and Flinders Petrie have uncovered ample evidence that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt during that time.

That specific details about the Exodus are not directly mentioned in Egyptian histories shouldn’t be surprising. Modern history has an emphasis on objectivity and the recording of minute details. Ancient history, especially when it was related to the legacy of a ruling family, was not necessarily so objective. In other words, we can’t expect to find direct mention of an episode that so clearly showed the weakness of Egyptian religion and the limited power of the Pharaoh. What we can expect to find, and do find, are pieces of secondary evidence.

With a little care, we can see that this evidence is substantial, and it supports the presence of a large Hebrew workforce, concurrent with plagues, which left in a hurry and whose Pharaoh was succeeded by his brother, not his son. This evidence is in the form of discovered artifacts, inscriptions, and other pieces of physical evidence. Comparing these to the Bible gives good reasons to believe that, once again, what the scriptures say happened actually happened.

Evidence from that time includes the following:

Skeletons of infants of three months old and younger, usually several in one box, buried under homes in a slave town called Kahun (Exodus 1:16). This is evidence of Pharaoh’s slaughter of Hebrew infants.
Pyramids built of mud-and-straw bricks (Exodus 5:7-8). This, along with other evidence that Asiatic people were enslaved in Egypt during this time, supports the presence of Israel in Egypt.
*Rods used by court advisors which look like snakes (Exodus 7:10-12). This supports the sleight-of-hand done by Pharaoh’s advisors.
A papyrus scroll describing plagues: “Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … Nay, but the river is blood… gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire…the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized … The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt … Nay, but corn has perished everywhere…”
The reigning Pharaoh, Neferhotep, was not succeeded by his son, Wahneferhotep, but by his brother Sobkhotpe IV (Exodus 11:45). This supports the Passover story including the death of Pharaoh’s firstborn.
Large numbers of houses abandoned in Kahun (the slave town), with substantial evidence that they had been left in a hurry (Exodus 12:33). This lines up with OT accounts of the Hebrew’s hasty exit.
A lack of a mummy of Neferhotep himself (Exodus 14:28). He probably was with the army wiped out at the Red Sea.

It should also be noted that, over the last fifteen or so decades, the Bible has proven to be one of the most accurate historical documents ever written. If the evidence supporting Exodus isn’t sufficient for someone to accept now, chances are that more will be found before long. If not, then there is still the support given everything else in the OT to give good reasons to trust what the Bible says.

This kind of issue is a good example of why the Bible should be given the benefit of the doubt in regards to archaeology. Every time someone has claimed the Bible to be historically flawed, it has eventually been proven correct. With such an outstanding track record for accuracy, we have good reasons to trust the Bible when other evidence has not yet been found. As it turns out, the story of the Exodus needs no such assumptions.

The Life Recession

2009-03-25T07:30:00.004-04:00

Cutting the budget for human rights...

Most pro-choice arguments are nonsensical when they’re set along side arguments in favor of general human rights. Partial-birth abortion is a perfect example: the organism inside the womb is, it seems, just an expendable parasite. The exact same organism, just outside the womb, is a precious life that must be defended. Arbitrary criteria like that are disturbing enough. Even more macabre is the attitude that one can pick and choose when to treat a person like a person, changing the ruling when it suits you. Unfortunately, the current economic crisis is creating a tragic number of examples of exactly how this thinking gets applied to daily life.

I saw this story about families turning to more abortions as the economy sours. The leading anecdote in the article particularly caught my eye:

Her boyfriend had lost his job, she told her doctor in Oakland, Calif., and now — fearing harder times for her family — she wanted to abort what would have been her fourth child.

"This was a desired pregnancy — she'd been getting prenatal care — but they re-evaluated expenses and decided not to continue," said Dr. Pratima Gupta.

I understand that these decisions are often emotionally traumatic. Actually, I think it’s an obscenely under-considered harm of abortion, one that some doctors are willing to ignore when they decide that an abortion is in a woman’s best interests. I don’t want to “pile on” people who are experiencing emotional and economic hardship. Still, we have to consider the implications of how we’re handling these issues. I can sympathize with a person’s struggle without endorsing their response to it carte blanche.

Consider the example from the article above. If her boyfriend had kept his job, she would have kept the baby. If she’d lost the baby before the job loss, she would have mourned the loss. If a person had deliberately poisoned her, or hit her in the stomach, and the baby had been lost, she probably would have considered that an act of murder. As long as she wanted the baby, ending its life was unacceptable. Once she decided that she didn’t want it any more, killing it became morally acceptable. And this was based solely on economic considerations. Not health, not deformity, not rape or any other pseudo-moral objection that some people use to justify abortions. Just money.

This is as clear an example of the perversity of pro-choice philosophy as one could ask for. When governments fail to spend money on dams, and people die, we scream for reform. When the military cuts corners on troop supplies, and soldiers die, we scream for accountability. When a company sells an unsafe, but more profitable, product, and someone dies, we scream for oversight. When people choose to kill their children to balance the checkbook…we scream about “choice”!

Every time someone chooses money over human life, we experience an immediate moral response: that’s wrong! And yet, we don’t seem to think the same thing about abortion. If the woman wants the baby, we give prenatal care and mourn miscarriages and punish incompetent doctors who harm the unborn. And then – presto! – the woman decides that the baby isn’t a good financial decision, so suddenly the exact same human being is relegated to the incinerator.

This isn’t just a chilling attitude, but it’s a dangerous one. The worth of a person, more and more, is being tied to their dollar value to some other person or persons. When economics are given priority over life, you can be absolutely sure that people will be clamoring to apply the same criteria to the disabled, elderly, or inconvenient. The kind of logic that leads a woman to abort an unborn child for purely financial reasons, someday, is going to lead women to euthanize newborns for purely financial reasons. It’s already leading people to “pull the plug” or discuss the option of euthanizing the elderly for financial reasons.

“Sorry, Billy (or Grandma, or cousin Jim), but Mommy and Daddy are having a tough time paying the mortgage, so we’re going to have to chop you into pieces and throw you in the trash. Once you became too expensive, we decided not to continue (you).” That’s not paranoia on my part, either. Psychopaths disguised as philosophers, such as Peter Singer, are already arguing that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” Note that the quote says, “newborn”, not fetus. The utilitarian ideal, where the “greater good” has no sense of the intrinsic value of human life, is all but guaranteed to lead to this kind of absurdity before long.

I don’t know which is more disturbing: that a woman would never feel enough maternal love for her child to avoid aborting it, or that she’d let her checkbook change her vote from “protect” to “kill”.

What I do know is that, once again, we’re heaping the fallout from our own mistakes on future generations. As I said in my last post on abortion, I’m starting to wonder if there’s going to be a future generation left to clean this up at all. Europe is already experiencing stagnant, if not falling, population numbers, leading to economic consequences. Aborting babies to save money is like quitting your $20.00 per hour job to save $5.00 per day on gas. What are you sacrificing to gain those few dollars? No one endorsing the “budget abortion” seems to be talking about the titanic economic impact that population reduction is going to have.

Then again, that would require some level of concern for the generations who’ll be affected – and a culture willing to murder the innocent in the name of the almighty dollar can’t be expected to care much about those that survive the “pocketbook purge”.

Animal Rights

2009-03-23T08:00:00.001-04:00

Love critters? So does the Creator...

I recently answered some objections to the Christian view of animals posed by a vegetarian. In a nutshell, his complaint was that Christianity does not treat animals as well as other belief systems such as Buddhism. He pointed to Jesus’ willingness to eat fish and the sacrifice of animals as evidence to support this view. He also objected to the presence of predatory death in the animal world (animals killing other animals). My response to him centered around two important facts: First, only the Bible gives us coherent, objective reasons to care for the natural world. Second, only Christianity gives us a supportive foundation to say that the world is not how it ought to be, and needs to be changed.

Here is a condensed version of the question that was asked:

My problem with Christianity is that it seems to treat the animal world in a completely cavalier fashion. Unlike in, say, the Buddhist faith, animal welfare counts for nothing compared with strictly human needs; animals are simply a source of food and a means of offering sacrifice to the Almighty. Witness even Jesus`s instructions to the leper who was cleansed, and his willingness to catch and eat fish from the Sea of Galilee…Also, whilst I can blame human sin for so many of the things that are obviously wrong in the world today, one of the things that`s wrong is the treatment of flesh-eating animals towards their prey…the fact that a pack of wolves, for instance, will tear a reindeer to shreds at the first opportunity? Or indeed for the sheer joy my cat derives from catching a mouse and torturing it slowly to death on the front lawn? Is this part of God`s plan? Or is it simply evolution showing nature to be red in tooth and claw, as Darwin said it was, independent of any loving God? For all the ethical soundness of Christianity in the matter of human treatment of humans, this is one HUGE stumbling block to any thought that I might embrace the Christian faith as the one faith I would choose to live my life by and entrust my soul to in any afterlife…

Reading the Bible carefully and thoroughly, we see that it does not describe an approach to nature that could be described as “cavalier”. In reality, only Biblical Christianity gives a coherent, objective, altruistic reason to care for and respect the natural world. Many, if not all, of the objections to Biblical treatment of animals are internally inconsistent (they don’t make sense according to their own premises). There are also ample reasons to believe that the Bible is true, which makes it worth while to consider that we might be in error, not the Bible.

God uses the Bible to describe a “steward” position for mankind over the earth. A “steward” is someone who cares for something that does not belong to them, and seeks to improve or increase it before it is returned to the rightful owner. Those who abuse the natural world in the name of human benefits are not following Biblical principles. God commanded a respectful, nurturing approach to nature (Leviticus 19:25, 25:2-5 for instance), and overtly punished people (Habakkuk 2:8, 2:17) who were “violent” towards His creations. Christianity teaches that nature, including animals, has value independent of humanity – unlike any other philosophical or religious system (see below).

That, however, does not mean that people and animals are on equal footing, because only humans are made in the image of God. Human needs do take precedence over animal needs. Many vegetarians or animal-rights activists would disagree with this, in theory, but in practice every person recognizes this to some extent. The head of PETA once said, “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”, but it’s hard to believe that she would let her husband and child die in a fire to save three rats. Animal rights are important, but sensible lines have to be drawn (see below).

Respect for animals – including vegetarianism – is fine, so long as it does not mutate into the attitude that animals have “the same rights” as people do. That approach has absolutely always led to tragic consequences for humans! Consider India, where Hindus treat many animals as “sacred”. In fact, while cows consume a fifth of Indian crops, they are not used for food in return, though many Hindus are starving. Rats and mice are not killed in an effort to avoid karmic consequences, while diseases run rampant.

Buddhism is a poor choice to hold up as a bastion of animal respect. In Christianity, the need to treat animals with “stewardship” is rooted in an objective, authoritative God and His moral character. It is not subject to our interpretations or whims. Treating animals well is something done in response to the moral reality of a holy God. Christians are instructed to respect animals because animals have value. In Buddhism, animals are not “treated well” because they have value, but because of a Buddhist goal to shed desires and reduce physical needs. In other words, Buddhists treat animals purely as a means to an end: human enlightenment. This treatment is not out of love or a sense of intrinsic value. The fundamental reason behind Buddhist philosophies on animals is self-interest, which is always in danger of being overridden by a whim.

This same attitude, incidentally, colors Buddhistic approaches to many other issues. There is an unfortunate detachment that can create apathy, rather than sympathy, in Buddhism as G.K. Chesterton said: “The Christian pities men because they are dying, and the Buddhist pities them because they are living. The Christian is sorry for what damages the life of a man; but the Buddhist is sorry for him because he is alive.”

Christianity, on the other hand, provides objective and external reasons to care for animals, plants, and nature. A Buddhist treats animals well because it makes him more “enlightened”. A Christian actually cares about animals because they are the creations of God. This is done in the context of prioritizing human needs, certainly, but the care extended for non-human life is not based in self-interest. It has a legitimate moral grounding.

The vegetarian asking this question believes that that the existence of violence and death in the world is a bad thing. This means that he and God have at least one thing in common. They both think the world is not how it should be. That perception of “wrong-ness” in the world is a good step towards acknowledgeing the truth about God’s relationship to the world. In that respect, this person agrees with Christianity, that this world is not “right”, and needs to be fixed. This is not the way God intended the world to operate. Only in Christianity is there a belief that there is such a thing as “wrong” in nature, and that it will be made “right” someday.

Atheism gives no reason to think that anything is “wrong” at all – nature is just nature; atheism would see moral objections to eating meat, or animals killing animals, as nonsensical. If nature is really just “red in tooth and claw”, then any discomfort with animal violence is not only pointless, but meaningless. Buddhism and Hinduism see no end to the cycle of death, just a permanent cycle that we are trapped in.

In other words, Christianity is the only possible foundation for the following statement: “There is something wrong with the way living things kill each other. We should treat animals with respect, and look forward to a time when all of this wrong will be made right.” Any other system in the world would consider at least part of that assessment to be either impossible or meaningless.

A last point to consider is the flawed approaches that are often used in examining this issue. The vegetarian asked a very good question: “Can I believe that I’m far more compassionate in this matter than the Savior of the World was?” If we’re going to look at this honestly, then we have to be willing to acknowledge that we’re not perfect, and that it’s possible that our preferences are not always right. If God exists, then his question should lead to a convicting answer: “No, God is far more compassionate than I could ever be, so there must be more to consider than what I’ve thought of so far.”

Consider a related example: Imagine that you wrote out a mathematical proof, and your answer contradicted a long-established principle of geometry. Your first thought is, “is it possible that I’ve come up with something that history’s great mathematical geniuses haven’t?” When it comes to math, that’s theoretically possible, but what’s far more likely is that you’ve made a mistake. The sensible approach would be to see if and where your approach might be wrong. The same is true when we think that our moral judgments are superior to God’s.

As a vegetarian, this person has already decided to draw lines – to make moral judgments – between certain kinds of life. Plants grow, reproduce, make provisions for their offspring, and respond to their environments. So do bacteria and viruses. So do lesser animals like flies, fleas, and tapeworms. Any person who says that God is being arbitrary for drawing lines between humans and non-humans has to realize that their own lines between animals and plants, or between dogs and spiders, could be considered arbitrary as well. That is, if you choose to criticize or reject Biblical statements on certain grounds, be sure that your own rejections aren’t susceptible to the exact same criticism.

Overall, there are many, many reasons to believe that the God of the Bible is real, and that the Bible is His word. With so many strong reasons to believe in the Christian concept of God, it makes sense to trust God on the 1% of things we don’t understand. The Biblical message on topics such as nature should be taken seriously. If a person is really interested in the welfare of the natural world, they’ll find that only the Bible gives a truly objective, altruistic, and morally supportable framework for responsible, sensible animal rights.

Sin Nature Conversation

2009-02-25T12:00:00.005-05:00

Lean theology makes for thin arguments…

I frequently discuss topics of theology or philosophy via email. Some of these are with seekers, some with believers, some with critics. I’d like to say that all of the shaky theology is on the part of critics, but that’s not the case. I recently had a conversation with a person who stated that saved believers no longer have a sin nature. I don’t normally share these email conversations, but the unique circumstances that led to this brief exchange make me comfortable sharing it, devoid of names.

The person making this claim had originally emailed the senior pastor of my home church, stating his position that believers have no sin nature. Our pastor attempted to discuss this with him, but found him evasive and quickly decided it wasn’t worth his time. Later, the same person presented the pastor with the same argument. So, I was given the opportunity to explore the topic with the questioner.

So far as I can tell, he’s engaged quite a few pastors on this issue, so I don’t think there’s any betrayal in making this conversation public. At the same time, I’ve removed his name and some possible identifying details to avoid any indignation. Other than that, what’s below is an unedited, relatively brief example of what a typical email exchange between myself and a critic looks like. Questioner’s emails are in blockquotes. Those interested only in a basic response to the question can look for sections in bold text.

Do Christians have a sinful nature?

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. If I still have the sinful nature, I’m not born again, I will not enter into this place where there will be no more death, no sorrow, no crying, and no more pain As I was reading this scripture I could not help but remember what is being taught in about ninety nine percent or more in protestant churches today. It is being taught a born again person will have the sinful nature as long as he lives. Romans chapter 5 verse 12 says, Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, but do we have to continue to sin? A born again Spirit filled person will no longer have a sinful nature. Jesus said , except a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. It’s impossible to be born again and still possess a sinful nature, If that was true then we would be a born again sinner, does such a creature exist? If we still have the sin nature, what’s the purpose of the second birth? We must be born again because of the sinful nature we were born with. We are called to be saints, not sinners. My first birth I was born with a sinful nature, if I had not been born with a sinful nature it only took a short while to get one. My first birth from the womb of my mother I was born with a sinful nature which I had nothing to do with. The second birth there will be no sin because I’m a new creature in Christ as we read in 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. Is not the sinful nature an old thing, which Christ died for? If the sinful nature is not an old thing, please, I might even beg you, explain to me why the sinful nature is not an old thing. How can I be a new creature in Christ and still posses the sinful nature I was born with? If I say I’m born again or you say you’re born again and still possess a sinful nature we’re only fooling ourselves, certainly not God. By the grace of God I’m going to see this new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, but if I have sin in my life I won’t see it. Jesus said we must be born again. Are you born again? Are you a new creature in Christ?

-XXXX from Ohio

Pastor Powers indicated that this is a question (copied below for reference) you have asked very often; perhaps suggesting an unwillingness to really discuss it. Since I haven’t been involved in any of those communications, I’d prefer to assume that you really do want an answer and are willing to consider one. If you’re interested in a biblically-supported answer to the question of “sin nature”, please consider the following. If you’re not interested in what the Bible has to say, you should strongly question your spiritual condition. You may disagree with this assessment, of course, but that disagreement is one of two things, by definition: Biblically based (and therefore true) or false.

I can shorten any debate over the existence of sin nature in a saved believer by asking two simple questions, the answers to which are automatic for persons knowledgeable about scripture. A person honestly answering these questions will find that the idea of post-salvation sin nature is not only Biblically supported, but impossible to deny without jettisoning faith itself.

First: is it possible for a saved believer to commit a sin? Be very, very careful about how you answer this question. It is simple, but powerful in its implications. The only Biblically-supported answer is, “yes.” In 1 John 1, The Bible clearly states that believers still sin (1 John 1:8). The context of the passage leaves no doubt that the “we” John uses includes himself and his fellow believers, after the fact of their salvation. Paul, in Romans 7, describes his struggle with sin. The lingual context strongly suggests this to be a post-salvation, present-tense dilemma. Paul’s letters to the churches also detail various spiritual problems – sins – which don’t stop Paul from referring to them as “saints” and fellow believers.

There are also ample Biblical examples of sin in the lives of believers. “Old Testament” believers were saved in exactly the same way as “New Testament” believers – by faith. Romans 4 clearly states that it was Abraham’s faith that saved him, not his actions. The same is true for David, Noah, and Moses. Yet, all of these men committed sins long after they had professed, and demonstrated, saving faith. In the same way, Peter was confronted by Paul about sinful actions on his part (Galatians 2). The suggestion that these men were not actually saved at the time they sinned is absurd, and scripturally indefensible.

Also important, especially for this issue, is that a person who claims to be sinless is committing a sin just by making such a suggestion. There is a difference between being lost and being sinful. The Bible has stern warnings for those who arrogantly claim to be perfect. Anyone claiming that they have no sin in their life needs to carefully consider if they never, ever do what they ought not, and always do exactly what they should, every second of every day. Only the dishonest person can say, “yes, I never, ever sin, either by commission or omission.”

Even further, we have Jesus own words. In His model prayer (Luke 11:2-4), He instructed His disciples to pray for forgiveness from sins, as well as relief from temptation. If a saved person could not sin, what purpose would there be in asking God for forgiveness and avoidance of temptation? The story of the prodigal son makes no sense unless understood as a metaphor for the backsliding (sinning) believer returning to fellowship with God. So, we are left with only one possible answer: yes, saved believers can sin.

All of this is intended to add weight to the second question: why do saved people sin? If a person who has been saved can sin, where does the impetus for sin come from? Again, how you answer this is crucial. Remember that we have established beyond doubt that saved persons can, and do, still sin. If you claim that God totally removes the sin nature from a saved person, then you’re suggesting that the “new nature” God imparts to us is the source of sinful temptations. There is no way around this: believers still sin. All sins are sins of choice (1 Corinthians 10:13), because merely being tempted is not sin (Hebrews 4:15). It’s our sin nature, which Paul described, which never leaves us, that causes us to sin even though we’re saved. If the sin nature is gone, then the only thing left to blame sin on is God.

That is not to say that there is no difference between the life of a saved believer and a lost person. Scripture is equally clear that there are signs of grace in the life of a believer (Galatians 5:22-23; James 2:26), but sin is still sin (James 2:10). The source of that sin is our sin nature. Claiming any other source is Biblically indefensible at best, and blasphemy at worst.

It may be that your concern with the concept of a sin nature is just one of definitions, not whether or not a saved believer still possesses one. “Sin nature” does not imply a condition that contradicts salvation by grace. Nor does it imply that a saved person has not been changed. Sin nature is not removed at salvation, though it is overcome through the influence of the Holy Spirit. Not every aspect of our nature is changed at the moment of salvation, otherwise verses such as 2 Corinthians 5:17 would imply that every old thing – including our personalities, desires, memories, and so forth would be “passed away.” Obviously, they are not, so Christ’s redemptive work acts to cover our sin nature and counteract it, but does not remove it.

In short, the saved person will still sin in some ways, and therefore still has a sin nature. The person who claims to be without sin is self-delusional. That is not my statement, but God’s: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.” That sin is the product of a sin nature, something from which we have victory and relief in Christ, but which will never leave us.

I would be interested in your response to this idea, provided that you actually read and reply to what has been presented here. I have taken your objections and answered them, using God’s word as the sole and ultimate authority. The burden is on you to demonstrate how this analysis is flawed, using a similarly Bible-based methodology. You may not agree – but I won’t waste time better spent if your disagreement is not scripturally based.

-MedicineMan

I want to thank you very much for your response to my email. I don't believe in arguing about the bible, it will lead to nowhere. You asked is it possible for a saved believer to commit a sin. Good question. I will have to give you scriptural answer to that question. Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. If someone cannot discern the Spiritual things of God and the natural things, they will not understand what Paul is telling us here. You asked if a believer can commit a sin. Christ was crucified physically on the cross and he died a physical death. We must also die, but our crucifixion is on a Spiritual cross, nevertheless we must die. If I have been crucified, (Spiritually) not physically, I am dead, how can a dead man continue to sin? Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. Colossians 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. How am I dead, just go back and read Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified, I no longer live. Paul said your life is hid in Christ in God. what did Paul mean when he said, your life is hid in Christ in God? The answer to that question is very simple. Was not your life and my life a sinful life? If your sinful life is not hid in Christ my friend, you’re still in your first birth, in the flesh. Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Did you know the carnal min is enmity against God? Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. How can you be in Christ with a carnal mind or sin nature, you can't

I can't help but laugh when people quote this scripture. They think I don't know it's in the bible. When people reads this scripture they think it gives them a license to sin. 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. First of all notice this scripture does not say when or if we commit sin, it says if we say we (have) no sin. When we read this scripture we have to keep it in context with John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If you say you have no sin to be cleansed from you are deceived and the truth is not in you. Paul in Romans chapter seven was still under the law. Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Sin had dominion over Paul, does not that prove Paul was still inder the law? Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Notice the carnal mind is enmity against God and Paul was in a carnal state at that time, but he was set free from sin as we can see in chapter eight, which I won't get into at this time.
I Will conclude this email by saying a Christian cannot have the sin nature and be born again. . Thanks again

-XXXX

I don’t believe in “arguing about the Bible” either. I believe in honestly examining what it says in depth, detail, and context. I also believe in honestly examining my own beliefs; this is a feeling I do not believe that you share. I say this because you did not answer any of my questions, all you did was cite some scriptures. The Bible cannot contradict itself, so you need to do more than quote the scriptures that don’t disagree with you. You have to explain the parts of the Bible that seem to contradict you, and you have not.

If your contention was that a saved person could sin, but that saved people had no sin nature, then this wouldn’t be important enough to discuss. It would just be a difference of opinion over how we define certain terms. However, you’re claiming to be sinless. Your reply indicated that you think you have no sin; that you never, ever fall short of perfection in any way. That makes your opinion not just wrong, but dangerously so.

You did not deal with the question of the sins of Noah, Moses, David, or Peter. I understand why – those are living proofs that saved believers can, and do, still sin. Salvation through Christ does not make us perfect, it makes us forgiven, and gives us the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to break the control sin has over our lives. Unless you think the Bible contradicts itself, the verses you quoted cannot be interpreted to mean that salvation in this life also means moral perfection in this life.

Please consider the following:

“I will have to give you scriptural answer to that question.”

Indeed, you ought to, but you have not. There is a difference between “a scriptural answer” and “an answer with scripture verses in it.” You gave me the latter. In fact, your answer seems to be a “stock answer”, or a rebuttal someone else came up with and which you are mimicking. As we’ll see below, you didn’t really answer me, you just regurgitated a pre-arranged response. Also, both your theology and your scriptural study are sorely lacking with respect to these verses.

The verses you quoted (Galatians 2:20, Romans 6:7, Colossians 3:3, Romans 8:6-9, and Romans 6:14), like all verses of scripture, have to be interpreted in the light of other scriptures. You didn’t deal with my argument, you just listed some verses. If you can’t explain these in the light of the examples I gave, then you have no justification for your belief that believers cannot sin. These all refer to the relationship between lost-ness and salvation, righteousness and iniquity, or rebellion and submission, but none of them prove or even imply that a saved person is sinless. In fact, that contradicts the whole notion of grace – if we don’t need the Holy Spirit to counter our sin nature after we’re saved, why be indwelt at all?

“I can't help but laugh when people quote (1 John 1:8). They think I don't know it's in the bible.”

Whether you know it’s in there or not is not the point: you’re not interpreting the Bible with objectivity and consistency.

“When people reads this scripture they think it gives them a license to sin.”

No one is suggesting that we have excuses for sin. There is a massive difference between the “falling short” and occasional sins of a redeemed believer and the “willful wickedness” or occupational sins of the unbeliever.

In 1 John 1:8, the Greek words making up the phrase “we say | we have | no sin” are lego, echo, and hamartia, respectively. Lego is in the second aorist, subjunctive, active mode. Echo is in the present, indicative, active tense. In other words, interpreting this verse to mean, “if we say we had no sin before we were saved…” is completely and totally wrong. The language simply cannot be taken to mean that. In fact, the specific language used implies the interpretation I was using: “if we say at any time that we have (presently have or experience) no sin in us…”. This is not a question of theology or philosophy, it’s a matter of objective linguistics, and your interpretation is indefensible.

A similar argument is in place for Paul’s statements in Romans 7. The language is very specific, and Paul is not using past tense verbs. He’s clearly stating that Paul, a saved believer, still feels the temptations of sin, and the only thing that gives him the strength to win the victory over sin is the Holy Spirit. Again, your disagreement is factually wrong.

“Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Sin had dominion over Paul, does not that prove Paul was still inder the law?”

No, it proves exactly what it says, that believers “are” not under the law. How could you possibly interpret the statement, “you are not under the law”, spoken to fellow believers, to mean Paul, a believer, was under the law? That’s not just wrong, it’s nonsensical.

“Notice the carnal mind is enmity against God and Paul was in a carnal state at that time, but he was set free from sin as we can see in chapter eight, which I won't get into at this time.”

Paul was in a carnal state when he wrote Romans? Are you implying that he converted in the middle of writing the epistle? I don’t blame you for not “getting into it,” because that can only get worse from here. Paul was writing about how he and his fellow believers should be different from non-believers. I think you need to actually read the Bible, instead of posting the verses that other people tell you support certain teachings. Your quotations and commentary read exactly like those of a person who scans the concordance looking for certain words, rather than reading the Bible itself.

“I Will conclude this email by saying a Christian cannot have the sin nature and be born again.”

And I will conclude mine by saying that a person who cannot answer the questions that are asked of him is not treating God’s word with respect. I will repeat the questions that you have not answered, and I expect you to respond to them. If you don’t, or can’t, then you should either change your stance on this issue or stop pretending to be a student of God’s word.

The Bible clearly spells out sins committed by David, Moses, Noah, and Peter. All of these sins happened after they had demonstrated and professed saving faith in God. How can you suggest that a saved person cannot sin? Are you implying that the Bible contradicts itself?
Why did Jesus instruct his disciples to pray for forgiveness? Why did He instruct them to pray for relief from temptation? If a person cannot sin after they are saved, what purpose is there in such a prayer? Are you claiming that Jesus was wrong, or misleading His followers?
Why does the Bible warn people explicitly referred to as saved believers to avoid sin? Why were there spiritual problems in the churches Paul wrote to in his epistles – problems even in persons Paul called “saints”? Was Paul, and therefore the Bible, wrong?
Are you claiming to be sinless? Are you willing to claim, before God, that you absolutely never, ever do anything that you should not? That you always do everything exactly the way Christ would? That you absolutely never fail to do exactly what you should? Be careful – that’s a bold claim, and I wonder if those who know you personally would agree with you.
Since there is no way to argue that anyone – saved or otherwise – is without sin, where does that sin come from? If the sin nature is gone, and we still sin sometimes, are you blaming God for it?

If you cannot give Biblically supported answers that consider that points made above, then you have absolutely no grounds to persist in your falsehood. Quoting scripture is not the same as reading it, studying it, and learning it. Copying Bible verses is not the same as making a scripturally-based argument.

If you can’t or won’t answer these, then you’re exactly the kind of person described in Proverbs 26:4 and 1 Timothy 6:20-21, and I won’t take time away from legitimate seekers of truth to watch you ignore the Bible. My hope is that you’ll submit to the truths of God’s word rather than to the nonsense you’re repeating.

- MedicineMan

Maybe I didn't answer all your questions, but the ones I did answer was not to your liking and you accuse me of not answering all of yours, It would be hard for me to do that because I do not type that well. Where did you get the idea when I said a saved person could sin? Did you ever hear me say( I ) was sinless? Did you ever hear me say ( I ) was perfect. You still don't understand, it's Christ perfecting his life in us. The sins of Noah, Moses, and David. Don't you realize they were living under the old testament? Hebrews 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. Oops I shouldn't have mentioned the word perfect because I know you do not like to hear that word mentioned.You have no problem saying Noah, Moses, David and Peter sinned, even if I explained it I don't believe you would believe me.You are trying every way you know how to prove a Christian will sin as long as he lives. If you want to make enemies just mention sinless perfection and your friends will say bye, bye. If you want to live in sin for the rest of your life, go for it. A sinning saint, huh.I would hate to think of myself a sinning son of God. Remember I told you I never call anyone a sinner, I let them do that.My heart goes out to people who say they are born again but can't stop sinning. Don't feel lonsome, you're not the only one that says we will have the sin nature as long as we live, that's a very very popular teaching today in every denomination I know of. Jesus told the Pharisse's, if you have sin in your life you cannot be where I'm at. One thing for sure, I don't think anyone could offend me by what they say about me. If everybody thought well of me I would be concerned. I wonder if everybody loved Jesus when he walked on this earth? His own people loved him so much they said crucify him, let his blood be on us and on our children, they didn't know who they were crucifying or they would not have done it. I've been called quite a few names for what I believe the bible teaches, that just makes me stronger. You're probably getting tired reading what I have written so I'll come to a close. May God bless. Thanks again for your email.

-XXXX

This is a matter of simple logic. If you claim to be saved, and claim that a saved person cannot sin, then you are also claiming that you yourself are sinless. If this is not your claim, then that’s great! However, it means you really, really need to adjust the way you approach the “no sin nature” issue, because defending it implies exactly that (sinlessness on your part).

And yet, you are claiming to be sinless, and you did it again here: “I would hate to think of myself a sinning son of God.” There are only two types of people in this world, XXXX. Lost sinners and saved sinners.

As I said, a person whose life is no less sinful than an unsaved person is not saved. Scripture makes that clear, so don’t try to play the “oh, so you think sin is no big deal” game. What I am saying is that for a person to claim that they have no sin at all is arrogant, blasphemous, and spiritually unacceptable. It is quite true for a person to say, “I am saved, sin does not control my life, I don’t live in sin.” It’s false for a person to say, “I’m saved, so I never, ever sin at all any more.” That’s the important point behind 1 John 1.

Noah, Moses, and David were under the OT, but their salvation was exactly the same: by faith. This is demonstrated explicitly in Romans 4. Part of the point of the OT Mosaic Law was to demonstrate how impossible it was for people to “work” for salvation – it has always been faith that saved.

Are you suggesting that Paul’s reference to Peter’s sin was an error? Peter was wrong, he had a spiritually flawed attitude, which is sinful. Either that, or Paul sinned by unjustly accusing Peter. Either way, we have an inarguably saved person committing a sin. There is also the question of Jesus including sin and temptation in the Lord’s prayer, Paul’s Romans 7, and so forth.

If you’re not claiming to be sinless, but admitting that saved people can and do still sin in some ways, then you still have to answer my question about “why”. Without a “sin nature”, where does sin come from? Are you blaming it on God? By the way, the pastor at this website (link removed)^[1] seems to disagree with you. I mention this only because I assume that the “XXXX” associated with that site is the same “XXXX” I am writing this to. Near the end, he says “But when we come in genuine repentance to God desiring to be forgiven of all our sins we committed against God, he will definitely forgive us, but this being forgiven did not cleanse us from the power and influence of sin that yet resides in our total being…” In other words, we should constantly see less and less sin, but being saved does not totally remove it. And why? Because there is still a “sin nature” there that we must contend with. As Paul says, we only have hope of overcoming sin by the power of an indwelling Holy Spirit.

XXXX, the only reason I so strongly oppose this position that “we have no sin nature” is that it creates so many problems. For one, you either have to claim to never sin once you are saved, or you have to claim that removal of the sin nature does not remove sin – so where does it come from? Can a person possessed only of a godly nature still sin? Such teachings produce either arrogance, despair, or confusion in believers. It is not Biblically supportable to say that sin nature is dissolved or removed when we are saved, period.

I am not asking you to type well. I communicate over the internet with people who barely speak English, others who don’t know exegesis from stand-up comedy. It’s the thought, the meaning behind what you say that counts. What you’re showing me is that you cannot defend this “no sin nature” doctrine. I’m not judging your grammar, I’m judging your theology, and your theology on this point is very, very poor. That’s why I don’t like your responses. If you have something more sturdy to present, please do. I’m more than able to work through “bad typing”, but I have no reason to be tolerant of bad Biblical scholarship. I’m asking you to apply Acts 17:11 to what you’re being taught and/or teaching.

It’s quite possible that 99.99% of what you believe about the Bible is absolutely true. This “sin nature” business could well be the only point on which you’re not in accord with scripture – so be willing to consider that you might be wrong! Don’t hide behind the “I’m used to people giving me a hard time” line. Even worse, don’t decide to hold to a belief even more strongly because a believer like me shows you how flawed it is. The least faithful thing we can do is refuse to consider that our interpretation of the Bible might be wrong. That makes us gods in our own minds. We need to be ready to admit that we can be wrong and constantly look for ways to grow closer to God, not stubbornly hold beliefs which we can’t justify using His Word.

I’m not advocating that you consider these things so that I’ll approve of you, I’m agreeing that you ought to care about what God thinks and really examine my points accordingly.

-MedicineMan

[1] – I found the questioner’s name and some similar statements listed on a religious web page, and browsed through it to get a feel for what his beliefs might be. The quoted text is from the ostensible pastor of the ministry behind that web address. Obviously, what this pastor had to say contradicted this questioner’s position.

Red Envelopes for Life

2009-02-14T12:00:00.001-05:00

Worth the time and effort...

Tom Gilson's Thinking Christian had a post regarding a novel pro-life campaign. I'm not the type to get into "gimmick" movements, generally speaking. In most cases, I think they distract from the actual issue and make participants look more like bored troublemakers than concerned minds. This, on the other hand, is simple and the "gimmick" doesn't overshadow the message. You can find details at Red Envelopes For Life. I'm planning on participating, and I hope you will as well.

Naturally, it seems to have generated some (typically thoughtless) outrage from the pro-choice camp, but that's to be expected. You can see some of the thoughts - deep or otherwise - being engaged at Tom's blog through the link above.

Shocking, not Surprising

2009-02-07T12:00:00.002-05:00

Modern irrationality in practice...

I’ve read a few stories about a particular atrocity revolving around abortion. A girl late in her pregnancy decided to have an abortion, was given drugs, but a delay on the part of the aborting “doctor” caused her to go into labor and deliver a live girl. An attendant (allegedly) cut the umbilical cord without clamping it, stuffed the child in a garbage bag, and threw her in a trash can. I can’t say that I’m surprised at how callous and barbaric the action was, unfortunately. What really surprised me was the reaction of self-professed “pro-choice” folks.

My lack of surprise at the event itself comes from my interactions with hard-line abortion supporters. Once you convince yourself that a doctor, or mother, has the right to draw the line between “person” and “expendable”, you’ve set the stage for exactly this kind of tragedy. Why be surprised that the baby was murdered so violently – what do you think they would have done if the doctor had been on time? Murder was always on the schedule, all that really changed was when it happened.

I’ve heard a surprising number agree that the attendant, and possibly the clinic owner, ought to be prosecuted for murder. The hypocrisy of such a statement, coming from anyone claiming to be “pro-choice”, especially those who support late-term abortions, is astounding. The same people who’d argue that this girl should have had the right to suck the brains right out of the baby’s skull at 10:00 AM seem to think it’s murder when someone throws the same baby out like a chunk of meat at 3:00 PM.

For instance:

"It really disturbed me," said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. "I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics."

This is one of those cases that should give every abortion supporter a huge attack of self-doubt. It’s a natural and morally expected reaction to hear about this and say, “that’s awful! That’s wrong!” When someone takes a living infant and slaughters it, they deserve to be called a murderer. But what could have possibly changed about this child in the few hours from when the mother arrived at the clinic and when the deed was done? It makes no sense to say, and cannot be rationally argued, that something happened in those few minutes that magically transformed a meaningless, unimportant, non-person meat wad into a person deserving of life.

If ‘murder’ fairly describes this girl’s death, then the same word fairly applies to every deliberate termination of a child of that level of development. No matter what your stance on abortion, there is no rational way to argue otherwise. How does moving a few inches from womb to room impart the right to life? How does the mother’s intent prevent the right to life from applying? If you’re willing to justify ripping the baby’s head apart, so long as the top of the head is still inside the mother, what possible reason could you have for not justifying what happened in this case?

It’s this exact scenario, whether it even happened or not, that demonstrates how morally, philosophically, and spiritually bankrupt it is to defend partial-birth abortion, late-term abortions, and so forth. I can convince myself that there’s some rational thought going on in the mind of a person who wants to allow early terminations but not later-term abortions. It’s still nonsensical in the end, but I can see how the pieces fit into some semblance of order for some folks. Those who defend, even in the tiniest degree, the “right” of anyone to kill an unborn child in the above stage is thoughtless at best and morally bankrupt at worst.

What happened in that clinic was (or, depending on what really happened, would be) indefensible. However, for anyone who agrees with that statement, the same applies to the thousands of events that differ only by timing, not in effect. The gruesome murder of a child should make everyone’s skin crawl – and it shouldn’t make a lick of difference to a sensible person if that murder happens inside or outside of a womb.

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children,” said Bonhoeffer. How true, but I’d also agree with Zacharias that “The ultimate test of any civilization is what we do with our children.”

God help us, then, because if there are any children left once we get done making excuses for murder, we won’t have left them much of a world at all.

Joel Osteen (DD)

2009-01-24T12:00:00.004-05:00

Spiritual junk food at its worst...

Imagine how you’d react if you opened a package of M&M’s, and found out that every piece was just a hollow shell. No chocolate, no peanuts, just a thin veneer of colored sugar. A ball of air that looks like a piece of candy. That wouldn’t do much to soothe a sweet tooth, let alone take the edge off of your hunger. Even worse, imagine what would happen if you tried to depend on those hollow M&M’s to sustain you during some crisis, like a shipwreck or being stranded in a car. Not only do they lack nutritional value, but they can’t even give you a boost when you need it the most.

Sound strange? Well, one of America’s most popular spiritual gurus is an extremely successful peddler of hollow M&M’s – Joel Osteen. The message he delivers is pretty, sweet, and attractive. It’s also weak, hollow, and devoid of any real value. It makes him look good when he hands it out, but anyone who depends on it is going to find themselves chewing on nothing but air and a tiny hint of colored sugar.

What makes Osteen’s theology so bad? For the most part, it’s that he has so little of it to offer in the first place. The only thing that really separates Joel Osteen’s rhetoric from a secular motivational speaker is the way he throws in some “God” terms every now and then. In a nutshell – or a candy shell, I suppose – Osteen isn’t preaching the gospel. He’s wiped out everything of substance that Jesus tried to tell the world, and replaced it with exactly the opposite. The Gospel According to Joel Osteen tells you that everyone is basically fine, they just need to think more positively, and God will give them whatever they want.

Gone is any mention of sin. Osteen wants to reach more people than just “church people”, so he lays off of the idea that mankind might not be all sugar and sunshine. Gone is any mention of redemption. He’s more concerned with the material surroundings than the relationship with God. Gone (for all intents and purposes) is any message of Jesus’ unique role as savior. Salvation is an idea Osteen gives a mere moment of consideration, if at all.

In fact, Osteen couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge Jesus as the only way to heaven on national television. When Larry King questioned Osteen on whether or not a non-believer could go to heaven, Osteen hemmed and hawed. His answer was somewhat similar to Barack Obama’s “above my pay grade” cop-out in front of Rick Warren. That is, he tried to brush it off as though it really wasn’t relevant to him. King wasn’t going to let the question go so easily, so he pressed it again immediately (emphasis mine).

KING: What if you’re Jewish or Muslim, you don’t accept Christ at all?

OSTEEN: You know, I’m very careful about saying who would and wouldn’t go to heaven. I don’t know …

KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They’re wrong, aren’t they?

OSTEEN: Well, I don’t know if I believe they’re wrong. I believe here’s what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God will judge a person’s heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don’t know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don’t know. I’ve seen their sincerity. So I don’t know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

Of course, once the resulting uproar was in full effect, Osteen “clarified” himself, but that’s not supposed to be a tough question. This isn’t a young child or a new convert – this is the leader of one of the biggest churches on the planet. And yet, he couldn’t bring himself to support a fundamental doctrine of the faith he claims to be preaching. Osteen has stated that he chooses not to dwell on certain topics because he doesn’t want to limit the appeal of his message. That’s a slippery way of saying that certain aspects of Christianity don’t help sell books, so he won’t teach them.

Osteen’s entire ministry reeks of the “cult of personality”. It’s that lack of theology that made me wonder if he was worth mentioning in a “Dangerous Ducks” post. After all, it’s not like he has much to say about the Bible in the first place. Then again, Osteen’s positioning himself as a man of God, and his message as God’s message. Shoveling prosperity theology at people is bad enough, but the real problem with his hollow, fragile approach to God is the effect it has on the spiritual health of those who listen to him.

For saved believers, Joel Osteen’s message is just empty calories. There’s nothing there to improve one’s relationship with God, tackle the problem of sin, or strengthen one’s character. There’s nothing wrong with simplicity – Billy Graham preached some of the least complex messages you will ever hear. But Graham’s sermons were simple like a steak is simple. Osteen’s messages are simple like a drink napkin – they’re good for appearances, but they don’t do anything about meeting your real needs. At best, he’s contributing to spiritual stagnation. At worst, for the saved believer, he’s encouraging them to treat God like a vending machine. For the skeptic, he’s fodder for the kind of inane absurdity heard from people like Marshall Brain.

For the unsaved, Osteen’s ministry isn’t just a problem, it’s a flat-out obscenity. I have no doubt that some people are being saved through the fleeting messages about salvation that Osteen manages to dredge up. I have no doubt that his church has done some positive things for many people. I also have no doubt that, for the spiritually thirsty, getting any relief through Osteen’s ministry is as hard as getting water out of a rock. Osteen makes passing remarks about a “relationship” with Christ, but he never details what that means, how to obtain that relationship, or how to grow in it. There’s nothing more perverse, in my view, than a person who abuses the name of God for the sake of prosperity and doesn’t even bother with the idea of salvation.

Let’s cut to the chase: nothing Joel Osteen says is going to lead a person with legitimate questions about faith to the Lord. Nor is it going to sustain the faith of a follower who suddenly realizes that God isn’t going to prop up their 401k because they thought happy thoughts. He’s leaving the lost right where they are, with a big bag of candy instead of a road map to redemption. Rather than taking God seriously, he turns Christianity into a cosmetic self-help scheme that doesn’t get any deeper than the checkbook. Sincere or not, honest or not, well intended or not, Joel Osteen is not preaching the Gospel, and he should not be supported or encouraged by those with a real love for spiritual truth.

Universal Salvation?

2009-01-05T08:00:00.001-05:00

Universally available, not availed of...

Some believe that everyone will be “saved”, eventually. By that, I mean that they think that every person who ever lived will be redeemed and receive God’s forgiveness. That’s a nice thought, in some ways, although it makes justice, free will, and repentance meaningless. More importantly, it’s in no way what the Bible teaches. Those holding this view have (as usual) an armload of scriptures to support their view, but it doesn’t take much to see that they’re putting words in God’s mouth.

Here are some of the passages cited to support “universal” salvation:

John 12:32, 3:17
Romans 5:19
1 Corinthians 3:15, 15:22
2 Corinthians 5:18-19
Philippians 2:10-11
1 Timothy 2:4-6, 4:10-11
1 John 2:2

The Bible certainly does teach that Jesus is the savior of all men, but it also teaches that not all men will be saved. Biblical salvation is based on a person’s repentant, submissive faith in Christ. The opportunity for salvation is offered to all (John 6:37), but God will not interfere in free will. Some will choose to reject God and be lost. Scriptures which mention Christ as the savior of all the world, or all mankind, refer to this universal offer of salvation. However, only the offer itself is universal. Salvation is only obtained by those who accept it.

Looking at the total context of the scriptures quoted above:

Isaiah 46:10-11 indicates that God will accomplish His will. 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 also indicate that God desires all men to be saved. However, Jesus Himself indicates that not all people will obtain salvation (Matthew 7:22; Matthew 35:41, 46; John 3:16, John 3:36). Note that, while John 3:17 indicates that Jesus was sent to offer salvation to the entire world, John 3:16 includes a qualifier: only those who believe will be saved.

So, verses such as John 12:32, Romans 5:19, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, 1 Timothy 4:10, John 3:17, 1 John 2:2, and 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 all indicate that Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross is open for anyone to benefit from. At the same time, the Bible is clear that not all will be saved. Philippians 2:10-11 refers to the time when everything has been accomplished, and Christ has returned at the very end. At that point, everyone will admit that Christ is Lord, but for some it will be too late. These verses also mention those in heaven, on earth, and below earth, so this passage is describing all of creation, including Satan, the angels, and demons. 1 Corinthians 15:22 specifies “in Christ”, again implying that those who are not in Christ are not made alive. 1 Corinthians 3:15 refers to the ‘testing’ of our work ‘with fire’, not the process or particulars of salvation.

God’s will can be thought of in two ways: general and specific. God’s own word says that He “desires” all men to be saved. It also indicates that not all men will be. This tells us that God’s “specific” will can be thwarted. Simply put, this is just free will. God will not force us to do anything – so, it is possible for us to sin. Every sin is a violation of God’s “specific” will. However, the Bible also indicates that God’s “general” will cannot be thwarted. He can, and does, use every action, good or bad, to bring about His overall will (Romans 8:28). We may not always do what God wants us to, but everything will work out exactly the way God planned them to.

So, the phrasing “savior of all men” is accurate, though it has to be understood in its Biblical context. We do, and should, teach that Christ is the savior of all men. There is no such thing as a human being whom God is not willing to save. God offers salvation to all, and wants us to accept it, though He will not force it on those who do not want it.

Bats Aren't Birds!

2008-12-29T08:00:00.003-05:00

A Calvin-esque error...

Every so often, I hear someone claiming that Leviticus 11:13, 19-20 contains some serious errors in it’s description of animals. Namely, that “bats aren’t birds” and “insects have six legs, not four”. Depending on the skeptic who mentions it, there’s a varying amount of glee and condescension that comes along for the ride. That kind of criticism reminds me of a story from one of my all-time favorite comic strips, “Calvin and Hobbes”, dealing with a vaguely similar issue:

(Images from "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip, Bill Watterson, October and November of 1989)

As it turns out, the critic making the “error” claim is actually playing the part of Calvin. How? Bad scholarship! The verses in question are understandable when you keep in mind the language and perspective from which they were written. Science uses unique language elements as much as cultures, religions, or philosophies do. In this case, we have to remember that the words “insect”, “bird”, and so forth have modern scientific meanings that were not necessarily used in those ways four thousand years ago. Animals were grouped differently then than they were now. And, of course, we have to remember that the Israelites knew perfectly well what kinds of animals they were interacting with. Suggesting otherwise is just silly.

First, understand that “grouping” words, like any others, have to be translated from one language to another. The word “bird” is a grouping word. In modern language, it refers to a type of animal with feathers, two legs, and two wings. The word “insect”, in modern language, means a type of animal with six legs and an exoskeleton, and so forth. Four thousand years ago, people simply “grouped” animals differently. Usually, this was done by how the animal moved. The same grouping would still be used, for example, by Greek philosophers centuries later.

This is why, to an ancient Hebrew, bats and robins would be part of the same general group. Leviticus 11:13 uses the word “owph”, which literally means, “a winged creature that can fly”. That’s not exactly the same thing as “birds” in the modern sense, and the difference shows why the inclusion of “bats” as ‘owph’s that are unclean is in no way an error. This is not scientifically wrong; it’s just a matter of terminology. Translating those ancient grouping words into modern language creates some problems, such as we see in Leviticus 11:20.

The phrase translated “fowls” in the KJV is translated as “winged insects” in the NASB, and “flying insects” in the NIV and NKJV. The phrase is a tricky construction, using the word “seres” that’s most literally understood as “swarming things with wings”. It can refer to both “birds”, or “insects”, as understood in the modern sense, but here it seems to mostly apply to “insects”, given the context. This means that “birds” are not part of this description. Note that the verses right after this list only “insects”, not “birds”. So, the claim that the Bible is now mixing up the biology of birds with insects is ridiculous.

The number of “legs” is also a matter of terminology. Anyone claiming that the ancient Israelites didn’t know how many limbs a locust had is just being foolish. Modern people mostly see insects in pest control commercials and reality TV shows. Ancient peoples worked with them, lived with them, and frequently ate them! They knew what these bugs looked like. If an experienced doctor from a foreign country told you that healthy people “have four fingers on each hand,” would you assume he’s ignorant of anatomy, or that there’s a terminology difference? The most sensible explanation is that, in the terminology he is using, “thumbs” are not “fingers”.

In the case of Leviticus and the number of “legs” on an insect, the most reasonable explanation is that they only considered four of the limbs as “legs”. This is a view supported by other sources in ancient literature. The other two were not "legs", in the terminology of that time. Again, this is just a terminology issue, not a scientific one. It is simply ridiculous for anyone to argue that the person who wrote this verse didn’t know what a locust or cricket looked like.

Understanding this verse takes some thought, and a perspective that’s not obvious at first. Still, it should be clear that there is no rational way for anyone to argue that the Bible is in error here.

Toviah Singer (VO)

2008-12-23T08:00:00.000-05:00

Denials in denial...

Some time ago, I was asked about some information related to the "Outreach Judaism" website, which is the work of a man named Tovia Singer. Singer is primarily concerned with refuting claims that Jesus is the Messiah, under the assumption that Christians are misinterpreting the Old Testament. It is worth noting that Singer’s argumentation is thin, and his credentials leave a lot to be desired. Degrees are never a requirement for knowledge, and they do not settle arguments. That being said, the fact that Singer’s only actual degree is in social work should be considered when comparing his analysis to that of more qualified scriptural scholars.

The so-called refutations that this person was wondering about demonstrate the kind of questionable scholarship that should earn Singer a lot of skepticism. The challenges the questioner asked were phrased like this:

First error - virgin birth. This `messianic` believes that Jesus is G-d and that G-d became flesh - that G-d became 100% human. TORAH TEACHES OTHERWISE.

Numbers 23:19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? | Malachi 3:6 For I the Lord do not change.

Second Error: Atoning Death This `messianic` believes that 1) the anointed one - the Messiah`s role is to `die for the sins of man` and 2) that the only way to atone for death is by blood.

The anointed one - the moshiach`s `role` is NOT to come and `die` for the sins of others as TORAH teaches:

Ezekiel 18:20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. | Ezekiel 18:21: But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. | Ezekiel 33:14: Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;

THIS above refutes this `messianics` belief that `salvation` is not by works, deeds, or efforts.

Ezekiel, the prophet was teaching his people a fundamental biblical principle: A righteous person cannot die vicariously for the sins of the wicked. This notion was identified as thoroughly pagan and was to be avoided by the Jewish people at all costs, and is taught emphatically throughout the 18th chapter of Ezekiel. In verses 20-23 the prophet declares that repentance alone provides full forgiveness of sin. Never are blood-sacrifices or the veneration of a crucified messiah mentioned throughout Ezekiel`s thorough and inspiring discourse on sin and atonement.

Ezekiel`s teaching was not new. The Jewish people were warned throughout the Torah never to offer human sacrifices. When Moses offered to have his name removed from the Torah in exchange for the sin that the Jewish people had committed with the golden calf, the Almighty abruptly refused Moses` offer. Moses, who was righteous with regard to the golden calf, could not suffer vicariously for the sin of the nation. Rather, only the soul that sinned would endure judgment.

Zechariah 8:23 Thus said the Lord of Hosts: In those days ten men from the Nations of every tongue will take hold - they will take hold of the robe of every Jew saying, `Take us with you, for we have heard that God is with you.`

Let's look at these in the order presented:

First Error – Virgin Birth:

The quote of Numbers 23:19 does not say that God would not, could not, or should not become a man. It says that God will not, and cannot lie. The phrase “Son of Man” is used by Daniel as a reference to the Messiah, and is subtly different in its use than “a son of man.” In the context above, this is not the “Son of man” Daniel was referring to. It’s continuing the idea that God is not subject to human flaws. Christianity does not teach that Jesus was merely 100% man – but that He was also 100% God. That may seem like a trite difference, but it is an important one.

In response, one would have to ask what to make of all of the other prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Jesus? If God is not a liar, and will do what He said He would, then what do we make of prophecies not fulfilled? More to the point, what of those that can no longer be fulfilled (such as those predicting the time and place of Messiah's birth)?

Malachi 3:6 also has nothing to do with Jesus. The incarnation of Christ was not a change that God experienced. Singer is letting monistic (non-Trinitarian) presumptions bleed into what he's criticizing.

Second Error – Atoning Death:

Regarding point 1, this is simply a standard disagreement between traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations. The disciples, as well as others, had similar expectations of a military/political, rather than sacrificial/spiritual, Messiah. Regarding point two, this argument has some serious conflicts with the Old Testament itself.

The three passages cited from Ezekiel have nothing to do with Jesus. Note that they all refer to the wicked, or the sinner turning from sin to avoid punishment. Jesus was not a sinner. He was not suffering for His Father’s sins. These passages are telling the people to turn from sin to avoid earthly punishment; to seek God to avoid eternal punishment. These are not references to, or opposed to, the idea of a sacrificial messiah. Passages such as Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 53 speak of the suffering Christ.

The above arguments claim that these quotes show that salvation is of works. If that is true, then why were sacrifices demanded? If a person could be good enough to earn salvation, why the sacrifice? There was a clear understanding by the ancient Hebrews that the sacrifices were payment for the penalties of sin. The 18th chapter of Ezekiel should be considered in context with books such as Ecclesiastes, where the author notes that the wicked often prosper in life. Therefore, it makes more sense to interpret Ezekiel 18 as a warning about eternal consequences, as much as earthly ones. Also, Psalm 14:2-3 and Psalm 53:2-3 remind the reader that no one is entirely free from sin. Ezekiel 33:13 clearly states that no amount of good works can atone for sin. If a person could just be good enough to earn redemption, sacrifices would not be necessary.

If salvation was purely by works, why celebrate Passover? Those were blood sacrifices required for salvation from death, and symbolic of the saving faith in Christ.

The fact that Israel was never to offer human sacrifice is irrelevant – Israel did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice. That sacrifice was made by God Himself. Moses’ offer to be removed from “the book” is more likely a reference to the book of life, or the census of the Israelite people. God simply says, “whoever has sinned against me” will be blotted out. Obviously, the Israelites, Pharaoh, and the various foreign nations, all of whom sinned quite a bit, are still in the Torah, so that can’t be what either Moses of God meant by “the book.” This gets back to the need for a sacrifice – Moses sinned, so how was he saved?

All souls sin, as the Old Testament itself says. Jesus was the culmination of the sacrificial system, set up by God, in order to provide for the salvation of the people. It’s amazing to think that a person could claim to be a knowledgeable interpreter of the Hebrew scriptures and dismiss the idea that sacrifices were a necessary part of God’s system.

The reference to Zechariah is interesting, but I don’t really see how it applies to the topic at hand.

Hopefully, that gave the questioner all they needed to know about Singer's challenges to Jesus' role as Messiah. I haven't had extensive interactions with Tovia Singer, or his approach to scripture, but from what I've seen, his theology isn't particularly rigorous. Hopefully, he's one of the fringe types that few people really take seriously. Should I run in to more of his material, I'll look in to that as well.

Cryonics

2008-12-20T08:00:00.001-05:00

Corpsicles or coma patients?

Is cryonics a scripturally-supportable practice? Cryonics is the process of storing human bodies at ultra-low temperatures in an effort to preserve them for long periods of time. Supposedly, this is done to keep the body intact until medicine has progressed enough to both cure and restore the person. Costs for this procedure are astronomical, far more than major organ transplants, because of the yearly costs to keep the stored body sufficiently cold. The process of cooling the body without destroying it is also difficult. Legally, the process may not be performed on a body until the person is “clinically dead”, the state where the heart and brain cease functioning. This is because, by current medical standards, the process of cryogenic freezing renders a body permanently incapable of sustaining life.

Groups such as the Alcor Life Extension Foundation have gone to great lengths to justify the practice of cryonics with Christian belief. The arguments made by cryonics supporters usually mention the historically changing definition of death, the miraculous resurrections of the Bible, and scriptural instances where life is chosen over death, even when death sends a person to heaven. They downplay any ideas that persons undergoing cryonics are seeking immortality, and cite some scientific reasons why clinical death might not be “absolute death”. In many ways, these are valid arguments that have some level of scriptural and factual support. God does prefer life to death, even for believers. Medicine has advanced enough that some persons who would be considered dead two hundred years ago can be healed today. There are some legitimate theological questions about when a person is “really dead”, as opposed to just “clinically dead”.

At the same time, most arguments made by cryonics supporters lack the “ring of truth.” They just don’t pass the “smell test”, and for good reasons. The hope of restoration through cryonics seems distracting to the hope of ultimate restoration with God, and raises questions about attempts to seek immortality. Analogies to the miracles of Jesus miss the concept of what miracles are all about. The costs associated with a totally unproven (in fact, impossible by modern standards) procedure are significant. Assumptions behind the process of cryonics also creep towards very non-Biblical attitudes about the relationship between the mind and the body. Strictly speaking, there are no Christian principles being explicitly broken by cryonics, making it an issue that each believer has to settle in their own minds.

There is no promise of restoration in cryonics, since we don’t know that science will ever allow us to restore a body that’s been deep frozen. While there’s nothing wrong with attempting long-odds cures, this is in a totally different league. The process of cryonic storage renders the body totally incapable of supporting life, so far as modern medical science is concerned. In fact, there are no known technologies even on the horizon which would un-freeze a body without destroying it. That makes support for cryonics more than just a long shot, it makes it into blind faith. For that reason, the assumptions underlying cryonics become even more important.

Some of these assumptions involve exactly what death is and how it is defined. The Bible clearly defines physical “death” as a condition where the soul has left the body (James 2:26, 2 Corinthians 5:8). However, exactly when that happens is very unclear. Deliberately or not, cryonics makes a flawed assumption about the relationship between the mind and body that brings its spiritual validity into question. In essence, those who support cryonics must believe that the only requirement for human life is a functioning body. Once the body is thawed, repaired, and “jump-started”, the person will be just as alive as they were before they were frozen. That seems to assume, even subconsciously, that life and personality are purely physical; this is related to the concept of information-theoretic death.

God has intervened to miraculously heal the sick, and even raise the dead, but only to underscore a specific message. God has never done such amazing things for random reasons. Those claiming ethical or moral justification for cryonics because God can heal miss the concept of miracles entirely. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with seeking advancements in medical technology. However, a supernatural miracle and a medical advance are two different things; just because God has done it does not mean man can design a technology to do it.

The extravagant costs to achieve cryonic suspension raise questions about financial priorities. Given that death must come to each of us, the tremendous expense of cryonics seems inappropriate given the many other financial needs of humanity. Then again, one has to wonder if those who criticize the expenses of cryonics take as much time to examine the expenditures of their own church. Wasteful spending is wasteful spending.

The real motivation behind some cryonics support, even subconsciously, is a desire for immortality. Fundamentally speaking, cryonics is an effort to stave off death. That can be good, or bad, depending on what extent it’s taken to. It’s very true that modern medical techniques have rescued persons who would have been buried just a few decades ago. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with making every effort to save a life. Yet, cryonics supporters are not merely seeking relief from fatal injuries or diseases. From a certain perspective, they’re trying to replace God’s eternity with man’s eternity. Instead of healing by God and eternal life in Him, cryonics tempts man with the idea of healing by science and eternal life in cryogenic storage.

When all is said and done, there is nothing about cryonics itself that is indisputably unbiblical. Some of the basic assumptions behind it, however, seem at odds with fundamental Christian beliefs. It’s possible that a person of sincere faith might support cryonics for good reasons, and in fact some do. In the end, cryogenic storage of humans is probably a distracting waste of time, emotion, and money. And yet, there are too many issues more important than cryonics for Christians to make too much of it.

Round and Round We Go

2008-12-17T12:00:00.003-05:00

But critics still fall flat (earth)...

Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat? Not at all, but that doesn’t stop skeptics and critics from claiming that it does. Part of this claim comes from reading English translations of the Bible with unnecessary literalness, forgetting that the original text was written in Greek or Hebrew. Even in English, the symbolism of many of these passages is easy to see, and when examined in their original languages, it becomes obvious. In other cases, skeptics use descriptions devoid of their context, which reveals the statements to be from dreams and visions. These are presented clearly as symbols, not literal scientific facts. In general, those who aggressively make this charge are guilty of incredible hypocrisy; they are willing to see the symbolism in non-scientific phrases used in modern speech, but act as though the same thing is impossible in the Bible.

A key point to realize is that ancient Hebrew has no unique word for the geometric shape we call a “sphere”. This is nothing unusual; English has only one word for “love”, while Greek has four different words for four different types of love. Hebrews fully understood what a “sphere” was – they threw rocks, had eye-balls, and ate fruit – but they didn’t have a word to specifically describe that shape. Words approximating “circle” or “circular” would have been used in most cases. This, almost by itself, makes the Bible more than accurate even when casually mentioning the earth, since the “circle” concept is often used. (note: Isaiah 22:18 is sometimes translated as “ball”, but the same Hebrew word (duwr) is used in Isaiah 29:3 to mean “around”. Duwr means a circular pattern, not a geometric sphere.)

A second point is in regards to common, though technically incorrect, phrases. Modern society still uses words like “sunrise” and “sunset”, even though we now that the sun does no such thing. We say “it’s pouring rain”, even though there is no “pouring” out of anything occurring. We also say that we love someone with “all of our heart”, even when they “get under our skin”. The point is that colorful phrasings like these don’t confuse us – we understand the meaning. The same is true with most of the Bible passages that skeptics try to attack in regards to the shape of the earth. They are generally poetic, and they can’t be criticized by someone who doesn’t mind the weather forecast including words like “sunrise”.

Below are examinations of some texts often cited as “proof” that the Bible teaches a flat earth:

In the Old Testament, Job 38:13-14 uses the phrases “take hold of the ends of the earth” and “..like clay under the seal”. Critics claim that these imply a flat earth. However, the entire verse(s) make it clear that the context is symbolic. Verse 13 is a rhetorical question about “the dawn” taking hold of the earth and shaking the wicked off of it. Verse 14 makes a relation between the surface of natural terrain and the ridges of a pressed seal. The Hebrew word ‘eres is used here, and has connotations more complex than simply “earth”. It can mean nation, land, or ground. Not only is this passage not specifically referring to the shape of the earth, but its symbolic nature means that it’s not one to be taken with absolute literalism.

Daniel 4:10-11 describes a dream that Daniel is having, where a tree is so tall that the whole world can see it. The fact that this is from a dream means that no further analysis is needed. A good test for rational thinking in skeptics is a verse like this. If they claim it’s a contradiction, then they just aren’t applying good logic. I’ve seen skeptics flatly say that “the author of Daniel was a flat-earther” on the basis of this verse. Daniel specifically says that the image is from a dream, and what we see in dreams is not always consistent with reality. Daniel was seeing a symbolic message, not an astronomical schematic.

Isaiah 11:12 is frequently cited because of the phrase “corners of the earth.” There are three key words here: kanap, meaning “corners”, areba, meaning “four”, and ‘eres meaning “earth”. Kanap can mean “extremity” or “edges”, but is also used to mean “wings” or “quarters”, as in the quarters of a compass. The combination of these makes the phrase a common expression meaning, “the furthest parts of”. In one sense, you could somewhat translate this verse as “…And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the [North, South, East, and West]. There is no implication of a flat earth here.

In Matthew 4:8, Satan is tempting Jesus with worldy power. Critics claim that this implies a flat earth, in that Jesus was shown all of the nations of the world from this tall mountain. However, the writer of this Gospel was an educated person, who would have known that any mountain high enough to see the whole earth would have been visible from anywhere on earth. Since no such mountain exists, Matthew was not likely to have included such a blatant falsehood. More important are the social, lingual and scriptural context of the verse. The trip to the mountain was pure showmanship, like taking a client to the top of a skyscraper to make a sales pitch. Jesus didn’t have to “see” the nations as if through a telescope – he probably was shown images. Other prophets saw things without physically traveling to the locations they saw. A parallel verse, Luke 4:5, uses the word “instant” to describe the viewing of these nations – supporting the idea that they were shown as visions. Finally, the Greek word kosmos is here translated “world”, which can have a figurative use meaning “tremendous amount.”

Revelation 7:1 is also brought up by the critic, for many of the same reasons as Isaiah 11:12. Not only is the explanation the same, in that the “four corners” is an easily understood phrase, but the entire book of Revelation is highly symbolic. The descriptions of multi-headed beasts and such are prophetic symbols of the events that will occur in the end times. Any attempt to take the more colorful parts of Revelation too literally is risky at best.

In general, there are plenty of places where a critic can claim that the Bible teaches the “flat earth” idea. There have even been believers who have done the same, using these passages to deny the actual shape of the planet. All the same, the Bible does not imply, teach, or suggest that the earth is flat. Anyone saying otherwise is simply mistaken at best, and deliberately dishonest at worst.

New Look...

2008-12-16T12:00:00.003-05:00

...same blog!

I've implemented some significant changes to the look and feel of Gladio Mentis; some of these will take time to finish. Until then, everything that was here before is here now!

Newsweek's Blunder (VO)

2008-12-10T12:00:00.004-05:00

Better to remain silent, indeed...

I previously mentioned Newsweek’s atrocious article on the Biblical view of homosexual marriage. Once I started jotting down my first-impression notes, I realized that I could easily spend 5,000 or so words countering all of the inane nonsense that Lisa Miller managed to cram into less than 2,800. There’s a lot of bad information, and a whole slew of overtly false statements about the Bible. I was pleased to note that, far from being the only one bothered by this outrageously bad writing, there seems to be a general sense in the blogosphere that Miller’s work was terrible on almost all counts.

With that in mind, I decided to just put up some basic, simplified comments about how and where this article went so awfully wrong. Some of the ignorant assertions made by Newsweek are common enough to warrant posts of their own…and I might as well do so, at some point in the future.

Overall, the biggest problem leaping off the page is Miller’s inability to decide where to stand in making her argument. At times, she’s arguing that the Bible ought not be taken “’literally”, whatever that means to her. But then she expects issues like ‘love’ and ‘acceptance’ to be taken to an extreme. Sometimes, she says the Bible has negative things to say about homosexuality. At other times, she’s claiming that the Bible supports gay unions. At the same time that she claims some rules in the Bible ought to be followed, she claims others ought to be ignored, for reasons unclear. She thinks that the Bible’s age prohibits it from being morally relevant, yet also states that it’s a “living document” that can change as we change.

It’s this juvenile inability to pick a position and stick with it that surprises me the most about the Newsweek piece. I’m not shocked that people think some of the silly things Lisa Miller seems to, nor am I surprised that they’re so willfully ignorant about the Bible. What I would not have expected is for Newsweek to publish such a mangled mess of philosophical self-contradiction. This is bad, period. Whether you agree of disagree about gay marriage, this article stinks to high heaven (no pun intended), and Newsweek ought to be embarrassed that it was even considered for publication.

At best, this is a lapse in judgment by Newsweek. At worst, it’s the sign of a publication so bent on supporting a particular political cause that it’s willing to sacrifice the quality of its journalism to do it. Newsweek’s response to the firestorm Miller has started will probably demonstrate which is the case.

Some notes I took last night on Miller’s irrational train-wreck:

She dismisses the relevance of Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality, because, in her words, “at least half of the Christians in America disregard” his view of divorce. Rather than absorbing Paul’s remarks as a strong scriptural argument against same-sex marriages, she proceeds to pretend as though this very condemnation does not exist…or is irrelevant, or is not really a condemnation, depending on where you are in the article.

Miller displays one of the hallmarks of careless and shallow criticism: a repeated inability to distinguish between “description” and “prescription”. Over and over again, Miller insinuates that, because the Bible describes someone doing something, that that action is necessarily meant to be the Biblical ideal. Oddly enough, she never applies such thinking to passages such as Acts 17:11, for example.

She mentions polygamy in the Old Testament without noting that it always caused problems. She blithely rattles off a list of patriarchs with multiple wives. She neglects to mention the millennia-long strife caused by Abraham’s relationship with his servant. Nor does she explain how David’s raging hormones cost him his peace, his family, and nearly his kingdom. Jesus’ emphasis on heterosexual monogamy is glibly dismissed, since he “never mentions homosexuality”. One has to wonder if she’ll question scriptural teachings on rape and bestiality on the same basis.

The article mischaracterizes two positions on marriage to a degree that’s obscene: those of Paul and Jesus. She claims that Paul derided marriage as a “last resort”, apparently never having actually read his letters (1 Corinthians 7:6-7; 28). She also claims that Jesus taught detachment from one’s family, a ridiculous twisting of Matthew 10:37.

Miller notes that “All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.” Not that she ever quotes their analysis, weighs their arguments, or takes them seriously. Rather, in the later part of the article, she simply dismisses them as hopeless homophobes who aren’t really reading the Bible, but just feel “icky” about gay people. This, amongst some handy quotes from some “progressive” scholars.

Miller notes that the Bible never “explicitly” defines marriage as heterosexual. I’m not sure that there are any laws “explicitly” stating that a convicted murderer and a platypus cannot together run for co-Governor, but I’m pretty sure that there are a few separate laws making that an easy call. The Bible condemns the act of homosexuality, OT and NT, and endorses only heterosexual monogamy.

Miller essentially argues that the reason one cannot use the Bible to condemn homosexual unions is that the Bible is a “living document” and it changes as we change. What a bunch of post-modernist nonsense. In one fell swoop, Miller is obliterating any justification for taking anything a written work says seriously, and at the same time trying to use it to prop up her own position. What Miller really means is that she’s determined to interpret scriptures however she good and well wants to – and whatever she can’t twist up, she’ll throw out.

In lieu of rigorous defense of its theology, the article cites a ridiculous caricature in a quote from Alan Segal:

“…if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world.”

How enlightening. If you pre-determine that God had nothing to do with the Bible, you can ignore what you want. This helps to explain why Miller takes such a careless approach to the scriptures. Once again, one has to wonder if Miller’s arguing for reasons to listen to the Bible, or ignore it, or if she even knows what she’s arguing herself.

Hot on the heels of lauding the “living” nature of the Bible, and its ability to speak to us “as we change”, the article sneers about how “Ozzie and Harriet” are nowhere to be found. That is, since we can’t find a modern stereotype of marriage laid out in detail, we can’t really take anything from the Bible about marriage at all.

Next, more evidence that Miller has no inclination to read or understand the text she’s trying to interpret. She makes the claim that “nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women”, meaning she’s never read Romans 1:26-27. She dismisses Old Testament condemnations of homosexuality, with the glib “no one obeys all those laws anyway” shtick. All that proves, of course, is that Miller is totally clueless on the difference between ceremonial, civil, and moral aspects of the Old Covenant.

Miller cites “progressive scholars” to support her view that Paul’s strong words on homosexuality weren’t really about homosexuality at all. In this case, given the shabby philosophizing Miller has put in so far, I’d have to assume that she defines a “progressive scholar” as “a scholar who’s as prejudiced and careless about the Bible as I am.”

Miller then throws every shred of scriptural consideration out the window and declares that:

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument).

Well, that settles it. Lisa Miller says that opponents of gay marriage take that position because they feel “icky” about gays. It can’t be the Bible – Lisa Miller and her cadre of “progressive” thinkers have declared it thus. I have to wonder why she keeps bringing up Biblical concepts like love and brotherhood and inclusion…and then I remember that “progressive” also seems to mean “use what you like and throw the rest out.” In fact, to do otherwise is “immature”, to her:

“A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.”

Beyond the repeated question of what “literalism” means in Miller’s parallel universe, we have yet another backflip on the question of scriptural authority. Are we supposed to take the Bible as authoritative, or not? Do any rules or guidelines in scripture apply, or not? Does the Bible condemn homosexuality, or doesn’t it? Should we expect to see exact replicas of modern life in scripture, or should we interpret it with a view towards ancient culture?

But wait, because later she says:

We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs.

That’s cute. “Loving pairs”. That’s as good an example of self-serving misinterpretation as this entire article can provide. Once again, Lisa Miller asks us to ignore everything in the Bible that she disagrees with, yet cling fast to the warped mumbo jumbo she thinks is worth treating as “universal”.

Worse, that comment is just a transparent attempt to head off the "slippery slope" from homosexual unions to polygamy itself. Hang on, now, Lisa. Jesus didn't "explicitly" mention polygamy, either. We're tossing out scriptural objections to homosexuality, why not jettison what it says about monogamy? Miller can't defend "loving pairs" in exclusion of "loving triads" or "loving octets" because her own arguments won't let her. This is even sillier given that so much of Miller's criticism of the Bible seems to presume a rejection of polygamy - a rejection she can't justify on her own terms.

The article tries to imply that David and Jonathan were gay. In short, persons making such an argument need a little cultural awareness. Watch CNN for two hours, and you’re almost sure to see Eastern men wailing, clutching, and weeping on each others shoulders in response to some tragedy. Does that make them gay? Western culture is far less expressive in emotions, and attempts to paint David’s friendship as erotic are driven by arrogant ignorance, not scholarly analysis.

Miller then tries to argue that the Bible’s wide diversity of described marriages, including interracial and such, are evidence that the Bible’s really all about inclusion. Of course, she must have set aside the opinion that it’s an irrelevant and outdated text…or maybe she’s thinking of it as “living” again. I can’t keep track any more.

In wrapping up the article, Miller starts rolling out the “acceptance for all” shtick, referencing Jesus’ willingness to engage society’s outcasts. You’ll be shocked – shocked! – to hear that she neglects to mention that Jesus also delivered some piercing words about sin and immorality. He “accepted” people as human beings – He did not “accept” everything they did. In fact, He did the opposite, by encouraging them to reject their sinful ways.

Miller also attempts to paint Psalm 139:14 as a celebration of human flaws, rather than an expression of awe at God’s creation. Good thing the Bible is a “living document”…but those stretch marks are gonna last, I think.

Ironically, the very last statement Miller makes is one I agree with as worded, but not in the way she intended it:

…if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.”

Quite true, Lisa. But Jesus didn’t want the woman at the well (John 4:17-18) or the adulterous woman (John 8:10-11) to be lonely, either. Yet, He clearly told them that their actions were sinful, and should be stopped. Jesus did not confuse acceptance with moral blindness, or love with permissiveness. Sin produces a lot of sadness and loneliness, and we don’t show real love by pretending that everything someone wants is something good.

Jesus took God’s sense of morality seriously, which is far more than I can say for Lisa Miller’s approach to scripture.

Are you kidding me? (VO)

2008-12-08T21:00:00.002-05:00

Newsweek falls on its face...

Newsweek recently published an article on the Biblical view of homosexual marriage. Setting aside what any person might think of that issue, the analysis in this piece was pathetic. A perfect example of know-nothing, shallow and self-contradictory philosophical baloney. I emailed the editor (like he cares, but what can it hurt) to tell him what I thought (text below).

Dear Sir:

The recent Newsweek article on homosexual marriage was an embarrassment to journalism. The authors made comments which suggest that they have never really read the Bible, let alone applied any serious study to it.

For example, while stating that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women", they seem to have missed rather obvious passages such as Romans 1:26-27. That's the kind of mistake that a person can resolve in less than two minutes with a basic search engine.

Unfortunately, the authors were more interested in citing a narrow band of supportive sources, ignoring the substantial scholarship opposing their view. The philosophical and theological approach to this issue was profoundly flawed, and tarnished the reputation of your publication. The article reads like a second-rate community-college-paper op-ed, not a national voice such as Newsweek.

The icing on the cake was the editorial comment suggesting that attempting to glean any truths at all from the Bible is "intellectually bankrupt". While the honesty is noteworthy, the arrogantly dismissive approach that Newsweek took to this issue is insulting. Judging by this piece, Newsweek neither knows nor cares much about serious scriptural study, and prefers the kind of sophomoric nonsense the piece demonstrated.

While it would be reasonable to expect Newsweek to allow equal time and space for competent Biblical analysis, I have no real confidence that such even-handedness is forthcoming. Newsweek has chosen sides in the war between ignorant political correctness and rational scholarship, and reason has been left standing in the rain.

If and when I get the chance, I might take a closer look at the absurdities Newsweek printed in this train wreck of an article.

Cultural Relativism Article

2008-11-25T12:00:00.001-05:00

Up now at All About Philosophy...

I wrote an article about cultural relativism for the All About Philosophy vortals, which you can find here (link).

Positive A-Think-Ism (VO)

2008-11-23T21:30:00.005-05:00

An attack not 'awl' it's cracked up to be...

I’ve often noted that some of the most vocal critics of religion are also some of the least educated on the subject. They don’t exert the slightest bit of effort in understanding the faith (or faiths) they try to attack. In particular, they don’t usually bother to read the Bible. Oh, they claim to. And I’m sure that their eyes have scanned the pages. But there’s a difference between skimming a text looking for emotionally charged words that can be easily misunderstood, and “reading” it with the intent of understanding it. I was recently handed a perfect illustration of that very flaw in anti-religious thinking, courtesy of Cliff Walker at “Positive Atheism”.

Atheism is Dead will be tackling this in more detail in the future, and I don’t want to jump ahead of their info. However, this particular tidbit was too obvious to pass up. Walker has posted a sophomoric poster detailing a few anti-religious quotes, and some “shocking” Bible verses. One factoid jumped out, telling you all you need to know about how much effort Mr. Walker bothers to put into his analysis of scripture:

Filed under the heading “slavery endorsed”, and the sub-heading “how to mark your property”, the poster lists Deuteronomy 15:17, which says the following:

”…then you shall take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your servant forever…”

Apparently, Mr. Walker hasn’t read the entire passage. If he has, then he’s either not nearly so smart as he thinks he is, or he’s being deliberately deceptive. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he never read this in the first place, and he just copied it from someone else’s list of “Twenty Trillion Eval Versis in teh Babble”. Why am I so sure? Here’s the context of the little piece Walker quoted, starting at Deuteronomy 15:12 (NASB):

”If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free.

When you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

It shall come about if he says to you, 'I will not go out from you,' because he loves you and your household, since he fares well with you; then you shall take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your servant forever.”

Oh, what a terrible practice that is. This passage describes someone who has freed a servant after their legally-limited term, at which time they give them livestock and other goods. However, the servant wants to remain a servant because their master has treated them so well. In that case, a visible sign is given to let others know of his choice – a pierced ear. I’m sure at this very moment Mr. Walker is rushing to stop this same untold horror from being perpetrated on young children in malls across the United States – voluntary holes in their ears.

If Walker was looking for something to condemn Biblical stances on slavery, he picked a really bad place to go. The differences between “Civil-War-style” chattel slavery and the servitude system of the Bible are legion. The word “slavery” conjures up some powerful and emotive ideas, but that’s not what scripture entails. The person being described is not treated, in scripture, as "property" - the concept of trading or selling the 'contracts' of obligated workers is part of many modern industries (like pro sports, for crying out loud). I brought up this issue, in brief, when discussing a similarly “Brain”-drained effort to attack the Bible previously.

As you can see, the critics at Positive Atheism are too busy playing copy-paste to bother reading what they’re criticizing. They just assume everyone else who reads their poster will do the same. There’s plenty of other silliness in the poster, but I’ll give AiD a shot at most of it before I tackle any more.

GotQuestions.org and Missions

2008-11-09T15:30:00.012-05:00

A ministry at the heart of missions...

I had the opportunity to present GotQuestions.org, with which I have been involved since 2004, at my home church's annual missions conference. The Pastor graciously offered me some time during Sunday morning to introduce this ministry to a large crowd, many of whom had never heard of it before.

Audio of the presentation, as well as simplified versions of the slides can be seen by clicking "read more" below.

I wish that I could say that the southern baritone you hear at the start of the clip is me, but the first voice is that of Pastor Richard Powers. This presentation is a very brief introduction to Got Questions in particular, and internet missions in general. Presented November 9th, 2008.

Christian Carnival on Chasing the Wind

2008-10-02T12:00:00.003-04:00

Worth a peek...

The post on Occam's Razor is part of Christian Carnival CCXLIV, now up at Chasing the Wind. Check it out.

Also, the same post has been the topic of quite a bit of discussion at Atheism Is Dead, check out the comments posted there for more.

Firmly By The Blade

2008-09-26T07:00:00.002-04:00

Atheism and Occam's Razor

One of the most misunderstood and misused concepts in philosophy is Occam’s Razor. Note that the previous sentence says “in philosophy”, not “in logic.” This idea is most coherently phrased as, “Plurality ought never be posited without necessity.” The vast majority of misapplications occur when this idea is treated as a regulation, rather than a rule of thumb. Occam’s Razor (O.R.) is a philosophical guideline, and its application is therefore highly subject to interpretation. The “razor” moniker is particularly appropriate to this idea, given the way it is often applied. Razors meant to shave hair away from skin can be misused to slice through skin as well. The fact that a modern razor can be physically used in this way doesn’t automatically make that use appropriate or necessary – and the same idea applies philosophically. Just because someone can slice up an idea using Occam’s Razor doesn’t mean that they’ve done something constructive.

Humans are fallible, and so the fewer assumptions we make, the more likely we are to arrive at a solution that corresponds with reality. For that reason (and despite the circular logic that’s inevitable when trying to prove such a thing), O.R. is a helpful tool for decision making. However, O.R. cannot be placed on the same shelf as even the most obscure logical rules, since there is nothing binding about it. At the risk of being overly repetitive, let it be emphasized once again that Occam’s Razor is a useful philosophical guideline, not a cosmic absolute. When a person says something like, “Occam’s Razor demands...” or “Occam’s Razor proves…”, or “parsimony requires,” they’re misinterpreting the purpose of the principle. O.R. demands nothing, proves nothing, requires nothing. It only suggests.

No group is as guilty of misusing Occam’s Razor as atheists when applying it to the existence of God. In fact, in the face of the last century of scientific discovery, once would expect atheists to be downplaying the importance of O.R., rather than harping on it. Given all we’ve learned about the history of the universe, the arrangement of the cosmos, and the sophistication of matter, it would seem that whatever grasp atheism has on O.R. certainly isn’t on the handle. Taking God completely out of the picture requires the postulation of everything from fantastic coincidences to multiple universes to unobservable, one-time alterations in the laws of physics, and so forth. That’s all well and good, but that kind of unproven, un-testable conjecture smacks of the “faith” that atheists are so dismissive of. Old habits die hard, though, and O.R. is still a popular line of attack from critics of religion. It’s also worth mentioning that Occam wouldn’t have supported an atheistic interpretation of his own philosophy. He was a theist – actually, a Franciscan friar.

The general application of O.R. by atheism is to say, “we can craft an explanation for such-and-such without mentioning God, therefore disbelief is more appropriate, as per Occam’s Razor.” However, this is not in keeping with the purpose of the principle. Remember, the guideline does not say, “fewer beings is better,” or, “any explanation without a God is better.” It says, “Plurality ought never be posited without necessity”. It’s the “necessity” part where interpretation comes into play. Just because I can explain how something happened without postulating a certain being’s involvement doesn’t make my explanation more likely by default. This is especially true when removing said entity from every explanation requires a mind-boggling number of assumed replacements. It’s inescapably true when the removal of said entity makes the end result impossible.

For example, I’ve seen rain combine with dirt and rocks to make something that looks a lot like concrete. I’ve seen rocks of all different shapes and sizes and colors. I’ve seen wind and mudslides move a lot of matter into some strange shapes. Looking now at a brick house, I can craft an explanation for how that house got there without mentioning humans. Rain and mud and gravel can make mortar, wind and earthquakes can move rocks, and it’s theoretically possible for thousands of perfectly rectangular rocks and naturally-made mortar to be formed into a two-story building with doors and windows by the actions of weather, isn’t it? Well, then, according to the atheistic misinterpretation of Occam’s Razor, that is the more correct belief, since humans are now unnecessary, and the “addition” of humans to the picture raises a lot of questions.

Obviously, that’s not what O.R. is intended for. It’s clear that the above example adds a lot of “plurality” – because the “plurality” that O.R. speaks of is that of causes and conditions, not just sentient entities. Assuming that these disparate parts all combined in a highly specific way without deliberate interaction adds a great number of assumptions about coincidences, outrageous improbabilities, and events of questionable possibility, not to mention the underlying problems of contrary evidence. I don’t even know if there was ever a time in history when the requisite conditions to create this “nature house” even existed – that’s yet another addition to the pluralities of the situation. Clearly, the explanation with the fewest “pluralities” is that it was deliberately built by a human being or beings. Questions about their character, intentions, motivations, and qualities are irrelevant.

That last concept is one of the areas where atheism really trips up on the question of God and Occam’s Razor. God may be a simple idea (depending on who you ask), but belief in God brings some accompanying questions, many of which are highly complex. That has nothing to do with the likelihood of His involvement in the creation or arrangement of the universe. Questions about the contractor’s personality may be interesting, and they may even influence how he built the house. It makes the sum total of details about everything related to the house more complicated, so to speak. Yet, the fact that some people think the contractor is weird or mysterious doesn’t make it more likely that the house was built by a freakish confluence of natural disasters. As it pertains to the formation of the house, a contractor is the most plausible solution. Mysteries of his preferences and opinions are secondary to the question of whether or not his involvement in building the house is more likely that not.

That’s not even an extreme example. If the above situation seems unlikely, consider some of the atheistic explanations for the arrangement of the cosmos, the intricacies of physics, the seeming impossibility of abiogenesis, and so forth. Every one adds a lot of “plurality”, in the form of unsubstantiated assumptions, outlandish probabilities, and ad hoc theories. These are all good examples of how Occam’s Razor, applied correctly, actually suggests the reality of God. Atheists are free to disagree of course, and there are some instances where God’s influence is rightly questioned by that same rule of thumb.

One cannot escape the fact that “simplicity” is not more truthful that complexity in and of itself. Politics thrives on over-simplifying things to the point of dishonesty, and we cannot make the same mistake in philosophy. “Necessity” does not refer to grammar, so an entity or idea is not “unnecessary” simply because we can construct a sentence without it. “It just is; it’s just there; it just happens…” may be the “simplest” answers, removing all possible questions and complications, but that doesn’t make them the most accurate solutions.

It’s critical to realize two things. First, that O.R. can never be appropriately considered “proof” of any theory, atheistic or theistic. Secondly, even the limited suggestions that O.R. makes about recent scientific discoveries are highly inconsistent with atheistic assumptions. The combination of those two ideas makes O.R. a more persuasive tool for theism than for atheism.

The concept of what is or is not “necessary” is first and foremost a product of your own presuppositions. In that regard, O.R. is really a dead-end road when discussing religion with most people. It’s especially not going to have much influence on a person with an established opinion about the existence of God. Using it as it was intended, though, doesn’t do much to support atheism’s preferred interpretations of what we see in nature. The atheist who picks up Occam’s Razor intending to slash at God will find himself holding it by the blade.

[Also posted at Atheism Is Dead]

Christian Carnival on 'Ancient Hebrew Poetry'

2008-09-20T11:00:00.003-04:00

Check it out

Gladio Mentis gets a nod in Christian Carnival CCXLII, now up at Ancient Hebrew Poetry". This one includes a link to the recent post about the Large Hadron Collider. Check it out!

The Superstition Collider (STM)

2008-09-15T12:00:00.004-04:00

Don't sweat the subatomic stuff...

I’ve been fielding a lot of questions lately about the Large Hadron Collider, which is currently operational in Europe. Beyond asking about what the LHC does, how it works, and so forth, there have been a lot of people expressing fear. I’ve been surprised at how often black holes, antimatter, continent-sized explosions, and so forth come up. Some people are actually worried that the LHC is going to destroy the planet! I’ve also spoken to those who are angry about the LHC, as though it were some evil contraption that humanity had no business building. It’s normal for people to have some concerns about large-scale physics experiments, but it’s time to stop the madness. There simply are no reasons, theological or scientific, to fear or oppose this kind of research. In fact, there are two extremely good reasons not to.

Science Says There's No Danger

First of all, there is no scientific reason to be afraid of the LHC. Most of those I talk to have no idea how a particle collider works. Inside the LHC, particles will be accelerated in two streams at very near the speed of light, moving in opposite directions. Then, the beams will be crossed so that the moving particles strike each other. These high-energy impacts tend to smash the particles into their components, and these components should leave detectable signs that can be analyzed. The stronger the collider, the faster you can make the particles move, and the more “stuff” you can smash out of them. It’s the LHC’s enormous power which is hoped to answer questions about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle” that gives matter mass), and other concepts related to fundamental properties of matter.

What even fewer people understand is that what happens inside a supercollider is not unusual. Not from a cosmic perspective, anyway. Subatomic particles are whipping around the entire universe every second, every minute, everywhere. Impacts much like those happening underground in Europe are happening on the surface of Earth’s atmosphere all the time. They happen on and around other planets in our solar system, and every star in the universe.

If these collisions were prone to generating black holes, the entire universe would be choked with them. If they were particularly destructive, the universe would be a smoking ruin. The fact that these types of collisions don’t destroy other stars or planets is proof positive that they won’t destroy ours.

Black holes are more complex than the science fiction versions seen in movies, or the ones discussed on TV. When most people hear “black hole”, they think of an unstoppable cosmic sinkhole a million miles wide. Theoretically, some think that the LHC might generate black holes...but they’re talking about ones so tiny and weak that they’d pass right through the earth with almost no effect. Again, remember that whatever happens in the LHC has been happening on earth for thousands and thousands of years.

Antimatter is only a topic of discussion because of a book written by everyone’s favorite ignoramus savant, Dan Brown (of “DaVinci Code” fame). He doesn’t know any more about physics than he does about religion. His book “Angels and Demons” has antimatter, stolen from a particle lab, being used as a super-bomb to blow up the Vatican. Yes, people actually publish this stuff. It's gotten some more attention lately thanks to the activation of the LHC. I won’t get into the technical details here, but suffice it to say that accumulating enough antimatter to blow anything up would take untold millennia with modern technology – and stealing it in a portable form would take technology that hasn’t even been invented yet. On the plus side, I now have something in common with a particle physics consortium: I noticed that CERN, who runs the LHC, is publishing responses to many of the absurd assertions made in a fictional novel by Mr. Brown.

The Bible Says There's No Harm

Secondly, and of primary importance to Christians, is theological: God is in control. There is no puny human machine that’s going to be turned on which is going to catch Him by surprise. I’m truly amazed at how many Christians are worried that the LHC will destroy earth. That demonstrates an unfortunate lack of faith! Will the LHC have some role to play in the “end times”? I don’t know (and I don’t care, either…lifeboat!), but I do know that God created everything and nothing is beyond His control. A person who truly believes that God has a plan and purpose for the world shouldn’t be fretting over gigantic magnets buried under France.

The same reason – theology – is why we shouldn’t look at the LHC as some evil device, either. God is the God of Truth (Psalm 31:5; 2 Samuel 7:28). God is the Creator (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3). There is nothing to fear from honest scientific investigation. Of course, some people involved with the LHC will do everything they can to erase God from the picture. That’s nothing new, either, and nothing to be feared. Every time some atheist tries to explain away God, they uncover more reasons to believe in Him! Every discovery that mankind has made about the universe is a footnote to Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Whatever we learn from the Large Hadron Collider, it should add to our wonder over God’s amazingly intricate creation.

As believers, we should celebrate this achievement as an opportunity. Through these experiments, we can better understand the universe that God has created, and more fully appreciate His awesome creation. Fear and superstition should have no place in our view of anything, let alone the advance of science.

Ready or Not

2008-09-03T07:00:00.005-04:00

An example of how NOT to be ready...

My sister recently spent a good forty-five minutes talking to two people about religion in a fast food restaurant. She didn’t instigate the conversation, and the emphasis of the couple she talked to seemed to be on getting her to attend a “bible study” related to the topics they discussed with her. Unfortunately, this couple was a little skewed in their perception of the Bible, and they were not prepared for evangelism. Afterward, my sister said that the experience was a revelation in two ways. First, that we don’t always get advance notice of when we’ll need to defend the truth. Second, she realized that believers who don’t know much about their own beliefs sound absurd when they try to talk about their faith.

Here are some excerpts from her account of the story (reproduced with her permission, of course):

I was on my way to see a movie and stopped into a Subway restaurant to get a quick sandwich...the man sitting next to me said "Excuse me." I thought he was going to ask me the time or ask for directions. Instead he said "Sorry, to bother you, but have you ever head of 'The Water of Life?" I looked at him. "You mean, like, Jesus?" He pulled out his Bible. "Do you mind if I show you?" I smiled and said "Sure, why not?" So, he scooted over to my table, and a girl (I don't know if it was his sister or girlfriend, or what) sat down next to us.

...

He asked me how many images God created. I was confused. If he meant how many images as in male and female, I guess the answer was 2. If he meant images as in mankind, then the answer (to me) was one. They argued that females were made in the image of a female because there is a female "Mother Jerusalem," or, Mother God.

Right away, you can see the “surprise” factor. My sister wasn’t given several days notice and a list of debate questions before this exchange began. In ten seconds she went from eating a sandwich to discussing Christian theology with perfect strangers. Not only that, she was talking to people with a bizarre pseudo-Christian theology (which can be the toughest to deal with). She didn’t have notes, she didn’t have friends, she didn’t have access to essays and textbooks. All she had was her own internalized understanding of the Bible. Opportunities to present, or defend, the gospel don’t always wait until we’ve got an arsenal of references on hand.

Now, of course, she could have politely declined the offer to talk. Thankfully, while my sister doesn’t share my eagerness (or aggressiveness) towards debate, she does know that 1 Peter 3:15 applies to all believers. It doesn’t matter whether you’re “in to” apologetics, theology, or whatever else. If you claim to believe in Christ, then you have a responsibility to answer people when they approach you about that faith. And that means you have a responsibility to learn both what you believe, why you believe it, and how to relate that to someone else.

This leads us to the second lesson we can learn from this encounter. If you don’t know your own faith well enough to explain it, you’re going to sound silly when you try. Spouting theological phrases isn’t a substitute for understanding. Referring everything back to some other person’s knowledge makes you look like a cult member, not an evangelist:

He skipped ahead to Rev. 22:17. "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let them that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Here is where things were getting confusing for me. The thing in Genesis, I chalked up to a matter of interpretation. This was too metaphoric for me to really get a grasp on.

They tried telling me that when John saw the holy city of Jerusalem, it was actually the bride of God. Because earthly beings cannot see spiritual things, she (I guess) took the form of a beautiful city so that John could see her. They tried to relate this to the fact that Jesus spoke in parables to teach his followers. I said that yes, while that was true, he used the parables as a tool to help us understand his message. Not everything was presented in a mystic, cryptic way. There were plenty of times when Jesus came right out and said. "I'm the way. Period."

We also talked about whether or not humans used to be angels in Heaven who come to earth and then go back when we die. We talked about how "Mother Jerusalem" would fit into the whole "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" trinity, we talked about all sorts of things that you could go on about all day and never really answer.

Essentially, this pair made a lot of hay over “Mother Jerusalem” and angels and "the water of life", and the supposed importance of these ideas. Yet, they couldn't say what those beliefs were supposed to mean, how to use scripture to defend them, or how they fit together. They mostly offered invitation to a Bible study that would supposedly explain everything. The specifics of their theology might be fodder for a later post, but they’re not important to the point at hand. What is important is how they responded when my sister challenged them (at least indirectly) to give her reasons why she should believe them – either scriptural, or practical:

My biggest frustration was that they were so focused on convincing me that this "Mother Jerusalem" exists, that they had no idea what to say when I asked them what I was supposed to do with that information. Ok. Let's say she exists. Am I supposed to pray to her? Am I supposed to pray FOR her? Am I supposed to ask her for forgiveness like I did with Jesus? They didn't really give me a clear answer and just said "Those are perfect questions! You should come to our Bible study and we can talk about all of these answers."

...

Whenever I asked questions they couldn't answer, they pointed to the Bible and said all of the answers were right there. The Bible was truth. The Bible had all the answers. I was sitting there saying, "Yeah, I know. I agree. It's the truth. It's our guidebook. But why did you bring this whole thing up if you can't either answer my questions right now or show me where the answers are?"

...

I also didn't like that they made me read the verses out loud. And then they would try to reiterate their points but having me finish their sentences. "So when you have a family, there is a father, and children, annnnnd...?" A mother. Or, "So, if we want the water of life, I have to get it from Father God annnnnnd?" Mother Jerusalem. I get it. I'm not 10.

...

I brought up the point that there are some topics that are more important than others. First on the list must be having a relationship with Christ. But, there are some questions that we will never know the answers to until we die. While it's interesting to think "I wonder if Jesus played baseball with the disciples?" it doesn't make a lick of difference either way. Same with "Mother Jerusalem." Because they couldn't tell me if that information was important or not, or what it meant to my personal relationship with Christ, it seems to me like something that would be interesting to think about, but in the long run, I really don't care.

The real epiphany for my sister was realizing that even theologically accurate believers can sound like goofy crackpots when they don’t know what they’re talking about:

If anything, it made me really understand how it feels for people who might not know Christ when they ask questions about Him to someone who doesn't know how to answer them. I kept asking questions about things that didn't make sense and instead of getting answers that I could either agree or disagree with, I didn't get anything at all except frustration.

There you have it. Even a well-meaning believer is going to find it hard to reach the unsaved when they’re mostly armed with catch-phrases and vague ideas. Know what you believe, know why, and know how to talk about it. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know” to deeper questions. There’s a lot wrong with saying, “I don’t know” to fundamental questions. We want the world to take our message seriously. To do that, we have to take the message seriously enough to give it careful study.

Oops...An Upside-Down Analysis

2008-08-12T11:00:00.002-04:00

Accidental insights worth reading...

A commenter from my first post mentioned an article from “Edge”, discussing the arguably growing world population of “disbelievers” (link here). The commenter was disputing my contentions that atheism, lived as fully as possible, has disastrous effects, rather than positive ones, and that consistent atheism is not compatible with human experience. That was a subtle contention of the linked article’s authors, but the more noteworthy point they made was accidental. In the midst of all the pseudo-intellectual psychobabble, Paul and Zuckerman manage to demonstrate just how unnatural irreligion – atheism in particular – really is to the human experience.

The article doesn’t do much to dispel the notion that “hard” atheism is detrimental to society. That’s not their intent, though they repeatedly imply that progress and security are owed to secularization - a suggestion which is historically backwards. What the article does attempt to do is to show how freer, more prosperous societies tend to have lower rates of belief than less secure societies. The gradual spread of prosperity is followed by a general decline in religiosity.

Depending on your own views, this may or not may be controversial, but it’s an idea that Christianity, at least, has been well aware of for millennia. Jesus’ challenge to the rich young man, and His subsequent lament over the problem of wealth (Mark 10:21-23), demonstrates this idea clearly. Those with full stomachs and fat wallets tend (though not unavoidably) to falter into materialism of one stripe or another.

The article’s authors seem to miss the implications of their own data, though. The facts of history force a chronology into their assertion: a decline in religiosity follows an establishment of prosperity and security. They couldn’t rightly say that the decline comes first, since it doesn’t. This doesn’t say much about the societal value of overt irreligion. The article actually notes, quite blatantly, that non-belief struggles without a heavily supportive, pre-existing social structure:

“…secularism and disbelief do best in nations that are the most democratic, educated and prosperous…”

Note, please, that in the course of this article the authors surreptitiously define “democratic, educated, and prosperous” nations, ad hoc, as those with near total social welfare systems and a strong endorsement of evolution. The sophomoric equating of “belief in evolution” with “disbelief in religion”, as though the two were mutually exclusive strains of thought, is indicative of a shallow grasp of the topic at hand. The rest of the analysis does not disappoint.

Question: if secularism in general, and atheism in particular, have something positive to offer humanity, if they have something resonant to add to the human condition, why then do they thrive only in times of ease, and wither in times of hardship? The authors continually note that only nations with expansive social welfare have pronounced levels of non-belief, and then make hysterically dense statements such as:

“So much for the common belief that supernatural-based religiosity is the default mode inherent to the human condition.”

So, either we are to believe that the “default” condition of humanity is extensive state-run safety nets, or that Paul and Zuckerman need to pay more attention to their own line of thinking. Intentionally or not, they went to great lengths arguing that societies with more social “safety nets” are less spiritual, then suggest that this is a condition inherent to humanity.

Ironically, one of the major counter-points is the United States, still the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth, as well as one of the most religious. Of course, this fact doesn’t fit with the authors’ preconception that truly modern, educated people don’t believe in God. So, they do some silly rhetorical gymnastics to paint the US as an insecure, not-quite-so-free, not-quite-so-prosperous place. One of their complaints, apparently is that the barbaric Americans allow people to lose their jobs. All this really does, though, is highlight this notable flaw with secularism: it only survives where people feel their every need will ultimately be met by the state. Paul and Zuckerman seem to be saying, inadvertently, that a nation featuring anything less than total guarantees of material security won’t be particularly irreligious.

Atheism should feel a particular sting from this article’s analysis. The authors make a lot of mention of “irreligion”, or “nonreligion”, and relatively little of atheism proper. They note that atheists’ numbers are expanding, but their proportions are actually decreasing. Even in the most heralded “secular” European nations, sizable majorities still believe in some level of spirituality or religion. This should also be considered in light of the other means by which atheism spreads: naked force. Much of Europe is less than a generation removed from government-enforced irreligion, a phenomenon that requires time to heal.

The danger with this aspect of the relationship between social structures and irreligion is exactly in line with my contention about the dangers of atheism. Irreligion is only going to be common in places where the state exerts greater control over the lives of the citizens, one way or the other. Either the state provides for practically all material needs, so people follow the common inclination to brush aside a God they feel no need for; or, the state throttles religion out of the people with the heel of its boot.

As I’ve often noted, people tend to act out the fullness of their beliefs when faced with extreme hardship, and extreme authority. In either of the above cases, once God is truly rejected by moving from irreligion to actual atheism, the state moves from the ultimate civil authority to the ultimate authority, period. If that coincides with some real or imagined crisis…enter Stalin, Mao, and on and on and on.

So, if you haven’t already, read the complete article to get a useful, if accidental, perspective on just how disconnected atheism (and irreligion in general) actually are from natural human experience. If irreligion can’t survive without social security, and faith can exist both in prosperity and hardship, perhaps it’s not religion, but secularism, which is really on “life support”.

[also posted at AtheismIsDead]

Christian Right, or Wrong? (STM)

2008-08-03T12:00:00.006-04:00

The quandary for Christian voters...

I’m a person who takes Christianity seriously. I believe that there are such things as reality, truth, and reason. So, I don’t “compartmentalize” my beliefs. That is, I don’t act as though certain areas of my life have totally separate rules for what is or is not true. That puts me, and others like me, into a serious quandary when it comes to American politics. Being a born-again Christian does not come with a pre-approved registration for the Republican party, despite popular claims to the contrary. Unfortunately, options for serious-minded Christian voters are severely limited. This has resulted in some hard-core pandering, and, ironically, an emasculation of the influence of legitimate Christian beliefs in the U.S.

My sister recently pointed me towards a pair of articles addressed to the current Presidential candidates which bring these problems into the forefront. These are by Mark Joseph, addressed to Barack Obama and John McCain, discussing the importance of handling the “Christian” (note the quotations, please) vote in the 2008 election.

I have three major problems with the current interaction between politics and Christianity in the US. First, most self-identified “Christians” don’t really have much interest in – or understanding of – the faith. Second, those who do are considered a small enough minority to be ignored by most candidates and with respect to most issues, which leads to pandering. Third, the popular perception of this situation is almost totally reversed, so that religious critics talk about “the Christian right” as though biblical Christianity was a dominant force in politics.

As Joseph noted, most Americans identify themselves as “Christians”, but a large proportion of those are such in name only. Research by groups like Barna and Gallup have shown that as few as 1 in 5 Americans attends church regularly, and very few believe in traditionally important doctrines. The smallest group, by far, are those who actually apply their beliefs to their lives, rather than the other way around:

Then there is the smaller category of "world view Christians," around 7 percent of the population — think Mike Huckabee or Pat Robertson — because their faith comes with an accompanying worldview…

Note the word “accompanying.” That’s critical, because everyone has a worldview. It’s not like a birthmark, or a tattoo, or a toupee. It’s like an eye color – everyone’s eyes are some color, and everyone has some collection of opinions about how the world works that shape their decision making. That’s called a “worldview”, and it’s a sad truth that only a small percentage of Americans have a worldview that “accompanies” their Christian faith. The rest have a worldview contradictory to their faith.

This is a problem in politics because those who take their faith seriously can be brushed off as a fringe minority. Even worse, the fact that most people claiming to be Christians don’t let their faith lead their decision making lends fuel to the fires of the critics. Those who say they believe, but don’t act like it, are generally the favorite targets of those with an axe to grind against Christianity. Ironically, instead of calling for a more faithful application of Christian values, they blame the Bible for actions it prohibits.

Since the dominant slice of the Christian pie, from a political perspective, is those who aren’t all that attached to it, politicians can pander instead of actually upholding Christian ideals. Consider a few excerpts from Joseph that emphasize this:

If you [Obama] handle it right, you should be able to get 50 percent of [non-“worldview” Evangelicals]. With this group you should have no need to explain your votes on social issues. Just tell them abortion is a horrible thing, but you want it to be safe, legal and rare. You would never want your wife or daughters to have an abortion, but you don’t believe in imposing morality and the choice should be between a woman and her doctor. Talk about the intrinsic value of the unborn child. Empathize with pro-lifers as you did in the chapter on abortion in The Audacity of Hope. Don’t get into debates about whether a fetus deserves life. Just focus on who decides, not what is decided, and remind them how much you understand and respect the pro-life position.”

Not only is this pandering, but it’s nonsensical. How can you claim to uphold someone’s intrinsic value, while supporting the legal framework which sanctions their murder? If you don’t believe in imposing morality, then why uphold laws about speeding, tax evasion, theft, bestiality, or hate crimes? Every law has some moral precept behind it! This kind of mushy sentimentality only works when your commitment to truth is mostly based on emotions, not reason. Of course, Joseph realizes this all to well, noting that profound-sounding, but otherwise meaningless catch-phrases are

…[Obama’s] key to winning over millions of Evangelicals who don’t pay attention to ratings by the National Journal, but will perceive, from your mannerisms and words, that you are a centrist.

And, of course, Jospeh notes that the nominal believer is subject to swallowing anything, contradictory to the Bible or not:

“...if you (Obama) pull it off you will have done it by getting them to agree with you and not the other way around.”

"They don’t have a comprehensive worldview, but rather one that is shaped by perceptions and gut feelings. And when they are guided by principles, it’s often a hodgepodge of right and left. Remember — they listen to Dr. Dobson, but they also listen to Oprah, and they often see no conflict in those two radically different views of the world."

Radically different, indeed. The fact so many self-professed believers can listen to Oprah and still call her a Christian is proof-positive that discipleship is in terrible shape in the U.S.

Joseph’s admonitions to John McCain are no less frustrating for a person like myself. His advice? More pandering:

“In their gut [Evangelicals] know you're not quite with them, and that you probably believe in evolution, but they'll still vote for you if you don't shove it in their face. Just say you leave that stuff to your pastor and that your focus is on being President, but that you'll have an open door to their leaders. It's enough that you're with them on abortion and are unembarrassed to use the word "unborn." That's your secret password with them.”

In other words, play the whole, "I don't let my X intefere with my Y" routine. In my experience, that means exactly the same thing as "I don't really care about X nearly so much as Y." If X is faith and Y is politics, then anyone using the above line is really just admitting to a shallow, pointless faith. The evolution crack is particularly galling, though the condescending nature of a “secret password” really takes the cake.

I’m not angry at Mark Jospeh, by a long shot. After all, if I know that these issues are there, and he knows they’re there, Lord knows that politicians are writing entire battle manuals based on them. What Joseph is saying will work, sadly, because so few self-labeled Christians actually put their money where their mouths are, spiritually speaking. He’s not saying anything to these men that they don’t already know, one way or another, he’s just letting the rest of us get a peek into how politicians really think about Christianity.

This brings me to the last concern I have about religion and American politics. There is a perception that a huge block of voters are deeply committed Christians who won’t compromise their beliefs – and so politicians are being forced to align themselves with scriptural ideas in order to remain viable. Nothing could be further from the truth. Religious critics squawking about a theocracy are living in fantasy land – as Joseph seems to indicate, genuine Christian belief has comparatively little influence on the American voter. The pseudo-Christian attitudes that are, in fact, influential, are more cultural than scriptural. As such, they can be molded easily by pretty faces and soothing words.

I don’t like the idea of one particular party being too closely identified with Christianity. That raises concerns of theocracy (or it would, if it was real Christianity in control), and I don’t want to pave a theocratic road for some anti-Christian dictator later on. Nor do I want the Bible to be blamed for the mistakes of some idiot legislator. I despise the pandering attitude of the Republican party: I care about many, many more things than gay marriage and abortion, important though they are. As a believer, I have real concerns for poverty, racism, humanitarian work, and so forth. Unfortunately, my choice to actually connect my faith to my daily life puts me in the category of “dismissible fringe” to most politicians.

And yet, the quandary. The alternative, in terms of major parties, is one that has chosen to officially endorse ideas that cannot be reconciled with the Bible. (Oh, and like him or hate him, James Dobson was right for calling Barack Obama’s warped theology for what it is. Note that Joseph, in his message to Obama, gives a nod to the idea that Barack’s not really connecting his scriptural dots, per se.) Any candidate who bucks the party line on marriage and abortion isn’t likely to get much support, if any. Putting that (D) after your name immediately raises questions about your stance on important moral issues – issues that cannot be ignored.

Third party candidates raise issues of their own, let alone the question of electability. Does my responsibility to uphold Christian values mean casting votes defensively? That is, should I vote to prevent a patently non-Christian result, when I can’t support a solidly pro-Christian one? Or cast a vote for a candidate who fits my faith, but will have no noticeable impact on this or any other election?

Democrats pander by dismissing legitimate scriptural understanding and downplaying important moral issues. Republicans pander by quoting the Bible with respect to abortion and homosexuality, and ignoring it with respect to the poor. I resent condescension, pandering, and double-talk, whichever side of the aisle it comes from. However, the options open don’t seem to leave me many meaningful ways to buck those trends. The best answer might be the same as it’s always been: leading by example, and working to call “nominal” Christians to a deeper and fuller walk with Christ. Preferably, one that actually makes a difference in their votes.

The Betty Crocker Defense

2008-07-16T12:00:00.002-04:00

Who's at fault: the cookbook, or the cook?

A group of restaurant cooks open a recipe book and prepare to make a meal. In this book are detailed instructions on how to prepare various dishes. Some sections give directions for preparation of meats, how to perform various kitchen techniques, and so forth. As they begin to construct their meals, the cooks find that the cookbook is not exactly written according to their preferences. Some ingredients are expensive. Some instructions are difficult, or require a great deal of effort. So, they change the proportions of spices, the temperature of the ovens, the preparation techniques and the order of ingredients as they go. In some cases, they just go by their best guess of what the cookbook might say, rather than reading it. Unfortunately, their food is met with disgust and anger by the restaurant patrons. The restaurant owner storms into the kitchen and demands answers.

“What happened? Why is this food so terrible? Weren’t you using the cookbook?”

“Well,” comes the reply, “we were using it, of course! If you don’t like the food, then it’s obviously the fault of the cookbook. In fact, we might have gotten better results if we’d just thrown it out!”

“Hold on,” says the owner. “You said you used the cookbook. Did you actually follow it, or just do something similar to what it says? Did you pick and choose, make some changes, stretch here and there, or ignore what you didn’t like? Or did you make the food the way the cookbook intended you to?”

“Uhhh…” The cooks are at a loss for words.

“I see. So, you’re trying to blame bad food on the directions that you aren’t even following. You’re all fired.”

I’ve worked in the kitchens of three different restaurants, making three different styles of food. I was the “household cook” in college, and continue to be as a married father. If there is anything I’ve learned about cooking, it’s this: change the recipe at your own risk. I’ve ruined my fair share of meals, and the vast majority of those culinary disasters were caused by my failure to follow the instructions. This was usually accidental, occasionally deliberate, but always my own fault. I never once blamed the cookbook, or its author, for bad food resulting from my unwillingness to follow the directions.

Critics of Christianity seem to take the opposite approach. The Crusades? Blame it on the Bible, they say. The Inquisition? Christian religion is at fault, of course. Televangelists bilking the masses? Same old story. The list goes on. Any “bad” action that’s committed by someone who’s even vaguely connected to Christianity is used as an argument against God. The problem with this approach should be as obvious as the problem with the cook’s response to the owner: you can’t blame a system for what happens when people violate it! You can, and should, hold the person who ignored those directions responsible.

Christians and critics alike should recognize that I’m not advocating a “blameless” approach. I’m just stating what should be obvious: that there is a difference between a Christian (the individual), Christianity (the belief), and Christendom (the collective body of believers). Biblical Christianity is incompatible with the atrocities of history and the vices of the present day; it’s nonsensical to blame a book that says, “do not murder” for murderous actions. Christians, who collectively make up Christendom, can and should be blamed for their actions.

In that sense, it’s to be expected that a critic of Christianity might point to the Inquisition and say, “Christendom has to be held accountable for this.” That’s at least a rational statement. On the other hand, saying, “Christianity has to be held accountable for this,” is not reasonable, because the Bible prohibits the very actions that made the Inquisition immoral. The crusaders might have done some awful things – but you won’t find approval for any of them in the Bible.

Attempting to blame Christianity for everything bad that supposed Christians have done is absurdly common. This problem is equal parts ignorance and bigotry. It’s an ignorant practice, because scholarly analysis of the Bible doesn’t support the acts that inspire the criticism. It’s bigoted, because of the automatic assumption that every bad thing a “so-called-Christian” does must be a command straight from that nasty book.

In defending the faith, we should remind critics that calling certain actions immoral actually strengthens the Bible’s claim to moral perfection, because it calls those actions immoral as well. Those who commit heinous acts do so in violation of Biblical morality, and Christianity cannot rationally be blamed for their crimes. We should also be ready to accept the idea that Christians, both individually and collectively, are not infallible and bear the responsibility for falling short of Biblical standards. Trying to foist the blame for our sins on the moral code that prohibits them is just as irrational for the believer as for the skeptic.

And, to those same critics, we must naturally pose the rational question: “my worldview absolutely condemns those actions, does yours?” A person’s ability to rationalize certain actions with the Christian worldview is limited by the Bible’s imperative commands, both positive and negative. Other worldviews, such as atheism, have neither – so they have less impediment to justify wrongs, and less impetus to do what is “morally” right.

Two fronts...whew!

2008-07-09T16:00:00.002-04:00

Knee-deep in dead ideas...

I've been busy defending my ideas both here (link1 and link 2) at Gladio Mentis, and at Atheism is Dead (link). The Atheism is Dead conversation is just my first post there. I didn't realize that forcing people to think critically about atheism was so controversial.

Things are getting a little chippy in both circumstances. I've only got so much patience for dishonesty and delay tactics. Some interesting ideas, all the same. I do have some material in the works for both sites, hopefully to post soon. Check out the links for the remnants of my recent/ongoing battles.

Christian Carnival on Fish and Cans

2008-07-02T15:00:00.001-04:00

Gladio Mentis gets a nod!

The latest Christian Carnival is up, including a link to yesterday's post on Immunosurveillance. Check it out at Fish and Cans!

Immunosurveillance

2008-07-01T12:00:00.004-04:00

Biological AND philosophical...

"Immunosurveillance" refers to the theory that cancerous cells frequently arise within the body. The immune system routinely recognizes these dangerous cells and eliminates them before they cause greater harm. This theory means that dangerous cancers are really the fault of the immune system, which failed to identify and destroy the problem when it was small.

A properly-functioning immune system treats the destruction of cancer cells as routine. When the immune system misses, ignores, or is helpless against a particular cancer outbreak, disaster is sure to follow. Apologetics is much the same. False philosophies are everywhere. Bad ideas are not unusual. Apologetics acts much like the immune system of philosophy, tackling errors and mistakes, and tearing apart the most dangerous arguments before they become catastrophes.

Without reading too much into scripture, there are some passages that provide a parallel to this analogy. Paul refers to the community of believers as a “body”, with each person acting as a different part of that body (Romans 12:4-5). We are called to give an answer in defense of our beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), but also to destroy false arguments against it (2 Corinthians 10:5). That proactive attitude sounds a lot like “immunosurveillance”. However, the convicting thing about this parallel is exactly what I stated above: major ‘cancers’ are caused by an immune system that is either inattentive or inadequate.

Some of the ideas being peddled in the marketplace of philosophy are just silly, but others are downright scary. Atheists are denying that human life has meaning or purpose. Utilitarianists are suggesting that not all human beings are people – and non-persons don’t have the same rights as persons. Postmodernists don’t think that anything can really be called “right” or “wrong”.

These various errors represent a scary conflux of ideas, which are still small and limited for now, but which could grow into colossal tragedies if we don’t, or can’t intervene. For example, one tumor lurking on the horizon is blatant persecution of religious parents. The groundwork is being laid, in small ideas and tiny steps:

Ethicists are debating whether or not parents actually have any “rights” over their children.
In fact, some are calling for mandatory parenting licenses. Those who don’t meet the requirements would have their children forcibly removed.
Richard Dawkins has compared religious upbringing to child abuse, with no public outcry, and no denunciations from fellow atheists.
The state of Texas recently wrested hundreds of children from a polygamist sect – including children for whom they had neither evidence nor reasonable suspicion of abuse, without due process.
This even extended taking a child born in custody to a mother whom the state had reasons to think was of legal age.
Sister nations to the US are outlawing corporal punishment...
...and denying the right of a parent to discipline their own children.
There’s a growing perception of freedom “from” religion, not freedom “of” religion, which in part implies that parents should be punished for teaching their children religious ideas.

Any of these, occurring purely on their own, should be enough to make a person of faith nervous and outraged. The knowledge that all of them are real, and are happening today, should snap a believer’s head around. Parenting is not the only issue where, as Lewis said, “bad philosophy” must be countered. This is just the tip of the iceberg. For now, all of these ideas are separate cancer cells, which have to be dealt with. Leaving them alone gives them the opportunity to metastasize – to spread and infect other parts of the body.

Just as we are supposed to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-14), we should also be antibodies and “natural killer cells”. Even those who aren’t apt for apologetics have an obligation to support those who are (Romans 12:4-8). We’re called to demolish these dangerous ideas, not displace them, not mask them and certainly not sit back and watch them fester. Overused as Edmund Burke’s quote may be, it’s still true that, “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Germany sat back through the 1920’s and -30’s, watching as the cancers of anti-semitism, fascism, and nihilism grew. The results speak for themselves.

Not only do believers have no reason for complacency, we have no right to it. An immune system that helplessly watches the cancer spread is worthless. The immune system doesn’t just grumble about the constant influx of tiny cancers, it obliterates them. Philosophically, intellectually, and culturally, we ought to be waging war on cancerous ideas, while they’re manageable. To do otherwise invites catastrophe.

2007-2008 Year In Review

2008-06-23T12:00:00.007-04:00

The Sword of the Mind turns 1!

Today marks one year since I first posted to Gladio Mentis! This blog has seen some changes since then, both in content and intent. A few of the ideas raised here have generated considerable feedback, which has been particularly satisfying for me. This is not my sole venture in theology/evangelism/apologetics, but it has become one of the more constructive expressions of my Christian ministry efforts. The only thing worse than nostalgia is amnesia, so I decided to put together a quick rundown of the “blog year”. These are my personal reflections on where the blog has gone, where my own apologetics journey has taken me, and what the future (might) hold.

I think my approach to blogging on apologetics has changed considerably since I first began. I’ve become more convinced that growing Gladio Mentis into a comprehensive catch-all for apologetics isn’t reasonable, unless I somehow manage to do this for a living. There are plenty of resources available for believers on the basics, so I’ve tended to focus more on ideas that I don’t think are as well represented. I don’t see that changing any time soon. I have a tendency not to post brief, news-type posts, which I also don’t think will be changing. I prefer to consider an issue before I talk about it; again, there are plenty of other places to find current-events Christian discussions. For the time being, it’s a better use of my time to point believers towards information that’s already available, and use Gladio Mentis to fill in what’s not.

A few notable highlights from the year past:

Continuing Series

The “Stop The Madness”, “Dangerous Ducks”, “The Whole Story”, and “The Vaunted Opposition” series have been well-received. Unfortunately, "Vaunted Opposition" has been mostly involved with responding to Marshall Brain, but I plan to remedy that shortly. “Stop the Madness”, as expected, has set the teeth of some fellow Christians on edge, but that was somewhat the point anyway. “The Whole Story” collection has probably been more appreciated by fellow Christians than any other posts, to my great satisfaction. The “Core Apologetic” series, on the other hand, hasn’t developed as well as I wanted it to, probably because I aimed a bit high. The scope of the original outline is/was too broad, so I’m planning a re-vamp to condense it into a less daunting form.

Best Posts

Of the posts I was able to publish during this year, I consider these to be among the best:

Curing Worldly Word Curling
Fatherhood – The Ultimate Apologetic
The Rules of the Game
Unnecessary Necessities (part 1)
Unnecessary Necessities (part 2)
Scopes This Out
Galileo’s Gaffe
...and, the three-part discussion found in Odds Are, They Don’t Get It, Predestination Plinko, and Hopeless Hypotheses.

The "hopeless hypotheses" idea has generated a lot of discussion, and it's proven to be very effective when discussing spiritual and religious issues with those critical of Christianity.

Talking Points

The last three posts linked to above generated some animated discussions here, which, in hindsight, had little chance of being productive from the get-go. Ron and I had conversed at great length via email over many of these topics before, and he was never as interested in examining his own beliefs as rolling his eyes at mine. When I say great length, that’s no exaggeration. Those conversations (literally) added up to more words than the first Harry Potter book! Sadly, when I tried to force Ron to actually answer for his beliefs and remain on-topic, he chose to disappear. With any luck, he may appear again, but if not, I can at least hold some small hope that he’s learned something about what the Christian faith actually teaches, and where atheism runs into trouble.

Tom Gilson’s blog, Thinking Christian, was the site of some more productive conversations. No surprise there, as TK has a significantly more readers and active participants than Gladio Mentis. These threads (Hopeless Hypotheses and Atheism Required for Science?) were instigated by posts here at GM, while these (The Myth of Galileo, Recognizing the One True Religion, Unconditional Love, The Skeptical Inquirer, David Heddle: Science and Religion, and The Sense of God were discussions that I jumped into which proved very enlightening.

The Arnold Murray Saga

I never expected my critique of Murray to generate as much buzz as it has. In the last four months or so, almost half of the visitors to Gladio Mentis have viewed this page and its related follow-ups (A Challenge, Serpent Seed Part 1 and Part 2). I’m encouraged to know that so many of Murray’s disciples are reading this information, but also a bit discouraged that so many take a cultish-ly defensive attitude; most of his supporters aren’t defending his theology, they’re accusing me of being afraid of the truth.

Blog Synergy

I found out yesterday that the blog Atheism is Dead (as indicated in the last post) would like me to contribute posts and articles. This is a good opportunity for more intellectual interaction, and greater exposure for the ideas being put forward on Gladio Mentis.

MedicineMan

From a personal standpoint, it’s been an interesting year, for sure. My wife and I welcomed our first child, both my father and mother retired, and the company I work for moved to new ownership. I've found myself dealing with some unsettling health issues, which will hopefully be resolved soon. I’m still working with GotQuestions.org, handling mostly questions related to apologetics. The theatre ministry that I co-founded at our local Church, Spotlight, has recently taken over our annual passion play, with yours truly handling writing and direction responsibilities. All in all, it’s been a busy, fully stocked twelve months. The next twelve promise to be just as hectic!

I’m also feeling more and more of a call towards apologetics. I’d love to get an actual degree in something relevant, Lord willing. Apologetics and philosophy programs tailored to non-traditional students do exist, but some are better than others. The first thing I need to do is decide where and how to get started. With work, family, and financial responsibilities, that might take some time. Still, I’m not going to refuse what I’m convinced is the Lord’s calling for me. I’m just going to take my time and act on opportunities as they arise.

Going forward, I’d like to continue to defend and emphasize the rational, legitimate nature of Christian belief. That, more so than inerrancy or specific doctrinal defenses, seems to have been the most common area of questioning, and the most socially relevant topic. I have often been tired, frustrated, and disinterested in this pursuit, but once God puts a stamp on your heart, there’s nothing you can do to get away from it! Despite the complications, apologetics is, and always will be (I think), the primary focus of my ministry life. I’ll take my pep-talk inspiration from none other than C.S. Lewis, who, as usual, put it quite well (emphasis mine):

“To be ignorant and simple now—not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground—would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether...A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village; the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract if nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age.” – C.S. Lewis, “Learning in Wartime”

One year down, who knows what to come...bring it on!

Atheism is Dead

2008-06-23T08:00:00.001-04:00

Synergy in the blogosphere...

The blog Atheism is Dead has included me as a contributor. This should give me an opportunity to reach a wider audience with discussion topics specifically relating to atheism. I don't intend to divert my attention from Gladio Mentis, but posts which have more to do with atheism or particular atheists will probably be posted there, and linked to from here.

I'm excited for the chance to contribute to a discussion forum that is already generating a great deal of response. The so-called "New Atheism" (since it's not really all that new) is one of the more dangerous movements in the world today. It's worth opposing, and this new synergy is a way to do that while contending for the cause of Christ at the same time.

Insidious Idolatry (Part 2) (STM)

2008-06-19T12:00:00.003-04:00

Statues are the least of our worries...

(Part 1 began by looking at the “positive” things that threaten to steal our reverence from God. Part 2 continues by examining the “negative” side of this problem.)

There’s also a negative aspect to this “insidious idolatry”, one which is well-summarized as follows:

"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice." – G.K. Chesterton

Part of the problem with the negative version of idolatry is the tendency for believers to define themselves by what they stand against, rather than what they stand for. All of these are worth taking a stand on, but the danger is in taking them up as causes to the extent that they overshadow the Gospel message. Sometimes, it’s as simple as treating a lifeless, mindless object, substance, or idea as though it were a living, breathing, thinking enemy. Here are some things which are, of course, worthy of concern or outright condemnation, but which some believers are guilty of giving “excessive reverence” to in a backwards kind of way:

Alcohol. There are plenty of rational, biological, and scriptural reasons to consider alcohol off-limits for Christians. There’s no cause to treat it like a living thing, as many believers seem to do. Like steel, gunpowder, morphine, or bacon, it’s a non-moral thing. It’s not “evil” any more than a baseball bat is evil. Using a bat to play a game is good, using it to break an arm is not. The substance itself is not inherently evil, and believers need to stop acting as though it’s the distilled blood of Satan himself.
Tattoos, dyed hair, movies, modern music, dancing, etc. Again, everything a Christian does should be consistent with a commitment to Godly values. Lets not forget that a believer who wears suits and a buzz-cut to church and sings “Amazing Grace” would get more than odd looks in a medieval setting. There’s as much personal attention-seeking being done by people in ties and pant suits as those in ripped blue jeans and mohawks. There are scriptural guidelines and arguments to be made about all of these, but opposition to them is not the core component of the Gospel. Let’s focus on preaching about a saving faith in Christ to the lost, rather than berating them for not fitting the mold of your particular pew.
Abortion, Homosexuality, Politics, etc. Important? Of course. Clear-cut scriptural guidelines? Undoubtedly, for the first two at least. Of primary importance to a believer? No, no, three hundred times no! We cannot expect those who are not believers to act like believers, so just opposing ‘sins of choice’ like these is not our calling. We can, and should, speak against sinful practices. Still, our first calling is to evangelize the lost, not take a stand against a particular moral sin. Demonstrate to a person that Christ is Lord, and everything else falls into place. If a church, a believer, or a group exerts more effort denouncing some practice than they do announcing the Kingdom, then they’re guilty of “excessive reverence” of that sin!

It may be simplistic, but the answer to all of this is to “keep the main thing the main thing.” Even apologetics can be a form of idolatry, if we are (read: I am) not careful. Our ultimate reverence and worship should be directed towards God. We should be anchoring everything we do in Him, and recognizing that everything is secondary to Him.

“Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God or takes away your relish for spiritual things – in short, if anything increases the authority and the power of the flesh over the spirit – that to you becomes sin, however good it is in itself.” – Susannah Wesley (mother of John Wesley)

There is nothing – no matter how good, important, evil, or trivial – that is immune from this lure of insidious idolatry.

Insidious Idolatry (Part 1) (STM)

2008-06-16T12:00:00.004-04:00

Statues are the least of our worries...

Idolatry has two definitions, according to a normal dictionary. One is, of course, the worship of idols. The other is excessive reverence or devotion. A simpler definition is taking the respect due to God and giving it to something or someone else. That can happen in degrees, of course. Diverting a little bit of what’s due to God is still idolatry! Christians are quite alert to some forms of idolatry, such as other religions, cults, and so forth. We even take the initiative to note that sports, music, celebrities, drugs, and money can become idols. However, there are other things that can have an idolatrous effect on our faith that we don’t seem quite so worried about. Recall the above mention of “excessive reverence”? That goes both ways: positive and negative. Going too far in either direction is a subtle form of idolatry that undermines our emphasis on God.

There’s a “positive” side to insidious idolatry. There are plenty of things which may be quite good in and of themselves, but become idolatrous when we apply too much reverence towards them. Most believers don’t think it’s controversial to make that point about cars or golf, but what about more spiritually-charged ideas? Here are a few that are sure to unsettle some Christians who read them, but stick with me and see the points I’m making.

Particular versions of the Bible. The Bible is inerrant. What God inspired the human ‘authors’ to write is His message to humanity, and we have no right to change it. Let’s not forget, though, that Jesus didn’t speak English. We have no cause to act as though any one English translation of the Bible is a specially endorsed version of that message. Of course, there are good translations, and bad ones. The King James is a very, very good translation, but it’s not the ultimate translation. There’s nothing wrong with preferring the KJV, relying on the KJV, or sticking exclusively to the KJV. There’s a lot wrong with treating it as though it is a specially inspired work. Beyond the indefensible nature of such a claim, it rings an eerily similar bell to the Muslim claim that only those reading the Koran in Arabic are “really” reading it.
Religious leaders. I’m not going to pretend that I’ve spent any great length of time in a large number of churches. I’ve been to a good number, and talked to people from a good number more. There is a real tendency towards cults of personality in modern American churches, so far as I can tell. What I mean by that is that the “likeability” of the pastor isn’t just one of the things that brings people to church, it’s a dominant factor. Losing or changing pastors is always tough – but it shouldn’t divide our churches the way it does. Church members shouldn’t be skipping services when they know the regular pastor won’t be speaking. The same goes for any Christian leader. We can’t be so starry-eyed about our leaders that we hold them up to expectations they could never meet, that’s not fair to them. Nor is it fair to God to hinge our church habits on anything other than love and worship of Him. Another manifestation of this is the pseudo-cult leader, like Arnold Murray. When a congregation claims that their pastor is the only purveyor of truth, they might as well direct their prayers straight to him.
The Bible itself. I can imagine a great number of people gasping, squinting, or just leaving after reading that one. Hear me out, because this really is important. The Bible is the infallible word of God, but the Bible itself is not God. Jesus is the Word, but that does not mean in any sense that He is the Bible. The Bible is a message from God, not God Himself. It is the instruction manual to human life. The instruction manual to a car tells us everything we need to know about using and maintaining it properly. Ignoring the manual is no different than ignoring the one who made the car. There are a lot of well-meaning believers defer back to the Bible as proof of their beliefs. This is a subtle mistake – the Bible is the only ultimate source of doctrine, but it is not the proof of it, per se. We know that God is God, not because the Bible says so, but because of the work of the Holy Spirit, and witnesses to miracles, and evidence, and so forth. Those all support the Bible’s claims, but we can’t invert that relationship. Plenty of books claim to be divine – the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and so forth. What the Bible says is not true just because the Bible says so. It’s true – and the fact that the Bible speaks truths makes it a “true” book. Our faith is not faith in the Bible, our faith is described by and codified in the Bible. Treating it any differently puts us on precarious philosophical ground. Don’t get it backwards: we can’t say we know that Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible says so. We should say that we know the Bible is true because Jesus rose from the dead!
Denominational identity. It’s frustrating to even have to mention this, but there are some aspects of church government, hierarchy, interaction, and doctrine that are not explicitly spelled out in the Bible. The fundamentals are, and so they’re important. The less-clear ones are not worth disparaging others over. There’s a big difference between a church that denies the Resurrection and one that holds communion during every service. Being a totally independent church is not necessary in order to serve God and save souls. Submitting to a bureaucracy is not a requirement to be considered a “real” church. Jingoistic declarations about the particulars that make a congregation “Baptist”, “Methodist”, “Apostolic”, “Pentecostal”, and so forth are guilty of “excessive reverence” unless they’re genuinely relevant to the fundamentals of Christian belief.
End-times prophecy. I’ve brought this up before, but it fits here just as well. Well-meaning believers have been wrong in their assessment of just how imminent “the end” really is. Let’s take a practical approach, though: the end is quite near, and may come quite suddenly, for all of us. A man killed by a swerving car is going to face God very suddenly and unexpectedly. Tim Russert was snatched out of this life without any appreciable warning. Even the longest-lived of us have only so much time before the judgment. It makes very little difference what one’s opinion on eschatology is; time is short, period. Expounding on the minute details of the tribulation isn’t productive for winning souls. It has value, don’t get me wrong. It just shouldn’t take a primary role in our interaction with the saved OR unsaved world.

(Part 2 will continue by looking at the “negative” side of insidious idolatry.)

Ten Questions...Answered (Part 2) (VO)

2008-06-09T12:00:00.004-04:00

Not as tough as some might think...

(Part 1 began looking at the YouTube video, “Ten Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer”. Here are the rest of my first-impression notes.)

At this point, the video starts to rush a bit. The reason is plain to see: these questions are much less sophisticated, and there are more easily found answers. Marshall Brain is not going to face a solid response, because attacking caricatures is easier.

Question #6: Why to bad things happen to good people?

Short answer: Because, in almost all cases, other people did those bad things. Sometimes the person does it to themselves. Free will means the chance for bad things to happen.

There’s a subtle irrationality in this question. Consider the alternative: bad things never happen to good people. Well, now, how does the skeptic draw the line between “good” people and “bad” people? No matter where they draw it, can’t someone complain about it? And what does that do to free will? We can’t really choose anything, then, because we’re restricted from harming ourselves and others.

Note also that, if God does not exist, then this question becomes even harder to answer. It would mean that there is no such thing as good or bad, and all the “bad” that happens is totally meaningless.

Question 7: Why didn’t Jesus’ miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?

Short answer: They left as much evidence as could be expected, including thousands of eye-witnesses, written descriptions, and so forth. What evidence could possibly have been left that a skeptic couldn’t choose to ignore?

Evidence of miracles? Witnesses – check. Written documentation – check. Undeniable evidence that persons close to Jesus absolutely believed in those miracles – check. This whole “there is no evidence” canard is getting really, really old. Rejecting evidence does not render it non-existent. If evidence obtained in a warrant-less search absolutely proved someone guilty, the fact that the judge threw the evidence out (because of the illegal search) does not negate the evidence. You’d be a fool to say that “there’s no evidence” that so-and-so didn’t commit the crime!

Question #8: How do you explain the fact that Jesus never appeared to you?

Short answer: How do we explain people who say that He did? And why does He have to “appear”, when He’s already communicating with me via the Bible and the Holy Spirit?

From what I understand, the conversion experience for Muslims in the Middle East is so commonly attached to a “vision” of Christ, that converts typically ask others about their “vision”, rather than their “testimony”. The Bible doesn’t say that God will appear visibly to me, so there’s no reason for me to expect it.

There are a lot of people that I have communicated with whom I have never seen, and whose voices I have never heard., thanks to the internet. I have no doubt, however, that they exist.

The desperation of adding a question this silly makes me wonder why this wasn’t just cut down to “six questions,” or “four questions.”

Now, though, the video returns to more detailed criticism. And why? Because we once again have some easy, trivial points to counter. Don’t worry, though, the video still ignores the more rigorous answers.

Question 9: Why would Jesus want you to eat His body and drink His blood?

Short answer: He doesn’t, and the doctrine of “transubstantiation” is not scriptural. Metaphors aren’t all that hard to grasp, and the question itself suggests a deep ignorance about different interpretations of scripture found between Catholicism and other denominations.

The whole argument here is moral outrage, and some personal incredulity.

Question 10: Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

Short answer: You’ll have to be more specific, first of all, since that phrasing is very vague. Christians are not immune from sin. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is. And human failings are not proof that God isn’t real.

This is really not answerable, as it’s presented. Is the critic defining “Christians” as people who check that box on a census form? If so, that includes an awful lot of people who don’t have anything to do with church other than Christmas and Easter, if that. What “rate” are we comparing? Divorces per capita per year? Percent of first-time marriages ending in divorce? Total divorces v. total weddings? The assertion is so vague that it’s not worth arguing with until more specifics are given.

The video then wraps up with some more condescending sneers at the believer:

“In order to believe in God you have to create all sorts of strange rationalizations and excuses.” Yes, I have use strange methods like reading in context, avoiding caricatures, and admitting that things which I do not like can still be true. I have to examine history, language, and logic, and weigh all of the evidence together as a whole. How strange.

“If you are an intelligent, college-educated person, all of these excuses and rationalizations probably make you uncomfortable.” Note the condescension – if you’re not college-educated, Brain seems to say, then you’re too stupid to care one way or the other. Scholarly examination of the Bible makes me more confident in my faith. I’d be fascinated to know how this attitude is “rationalized” when this skeptic reads about people like Francis Collins, Isaac Newton, or Blaise Pascal.

On the other hand, I am actually feeling some discomfort while watching this…the same that I feel watching a bad audition on American Idol. It’s a combination of sympathy-embarrassment, and irritation that this is what passes for solid argumentation in atheistic circles these days. I’m actually embarrassed for this guy.

Then, the video answers each of the ten questions with the assessment, “God isn’t real, which makes more sense of this than if He was real.”

Some quick notes on this non-answer:

For question 1, the statement is made, “every answered prayer is a coincidence”. I thought that there was absolutely no evidence of any answered prayers at all? That’s a pretty convenient ad hoc “excuse”, “rationalization”, etc, is it not?
Earlier, the video mentioned that ¾ doctors think medical miracles are happening. Is Brain going to dismiss them as deluded, as well?
The Bible is dismissed as the work of “primitive” men. I guess they were so primitive that they created a moral system that still sets the gold standard today, noted the finite age of the universe four thousands years before atheists finally admitted it, inspired some of mankind’s greatest social, artistic, and musical achievements, and helped lay the foundations of modern science.

“Do you see what has happened here?” Yes, you’ve asked some tough questions, and some very soft ones, and then ignored anything resembling a rational answer.

“But if we assume that God is imaginary, then our world makes complete sense…our world only makes sense when we understand that God is imaginary.” So, a moral drive that makes human beings sacrifice to help others makes more sense as a biological oddity than the product of a compassionate God? A world where we deliberately self-delude, pretending that there is freedom, meaning, and goodness when they aren’t actually real, this makes more sense? That a universe of finite age, in which matter cannot be created or destroyed, came into existence in one instant, perfectly tuned for life as we know it, and that makes more sense without God? The logic behind this is not only weak, but self-serving and artificially narrow.

“This is how intelligent, rational people know that God is imaginary.” I guess that John Polkinghorne is neither intelligent, not rational. Neither is Francis Collins. Neither were the others mentioned in my list of Christian scientists. This is the kind of self-stroking megalomania that sets my teeth on edge.

The following is so ironic, it’s galling:

“When you use your brain, and when you think logically about your religious faith, you can only reach one possible conclusion… The ‘god’ that you have heard about since you were an infant is completely imaginary.” Maybe the God you stopped learning about when you were an infant, but not my God. And lest I sound like a broken record, there is simply too much historical evidence contrary to this charge to call it anything other than what it is: stupid.

“It matters because people who believe in imaginary beings are delusional.” What about those who believe in things which they themselves say are imaginary, like free will? Like “right” and “wrong”, which are purely abstract constructs, and not actually absolute?

“Your religious beliefs hurt you personally and hurt us as a species because they are delusional.” I guess the influence of religion on music has been bad. Handel’s Messiah hurt the species. The sculptures of Michelangelo hurt the species. Modern science, born in a womb of theism and nurtured by religiously-founded schools hurts the species. Believing that I am obligated to help my fellow man, and love them as I would love myself, and doing so free from anxiety about death hurts the species.

On the other hand, I guess nothing bad has ever come of accepting the idea that man is the ultimate authority, and that man is whatever you make him out to be. No one has ever imposed totalitarian rule over a people, exterminated them like rats, murdered them in the interests of ideology, or waged war through a philosophy of atheism. At least, not in the history books that Marshall Brain is reading.

I suppose it’s better to embrace the idea that, in the end, there is no free will, no right or wrong, and whatever I can get away with before I die is all the better for me – since I won’t care when I’m dead anyway! Does that make more sense?

Those are some brief thoughts on the video. I think a more direct rebuttal is in order, though. I’m going to fight fire with fire, and work up a list of ten questions for atheists. I think I’ll leave off all of the smarmy condescension and shallow posturing, though.

Ten Questions...Answered (Part 1) (VO)

2008-06-06T12:00:00.003-04:00

Not as tough as some might think...

There’s a YouTube video associated with the websites “God Is Imaginary” and “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees”, titled “Ten Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer”. The websites are the work of Marshall Brain, and the video condenses the broad scope of eye-rolling foolishness that he brings to discussions of religion. The questions are tough, but not as tough as the video makes them out to be. Asked honestly, they’d open some good lines of discussion; Brain isn’t interested in genuine analysis, just shallow complaining. The video features the usual condescending attitude, wafer-thin critical thinking, and straw men galore. In fact, it goes to great lengths to head off some bad answers, but it makes an equally strong effort to avoid the good answers. It’s all wrapped in the smug assertion that no intelligent person could possibly have considered these questions and rationally retain belief. I beg to differ.

Analysis and “answers” given in the video are presented in typical Marshall Brain fashion: find a particularly weak answer that can be easily refuted, and then act as though it’s the only possible response. When no such easy targets exist, say very little, or just blow off the good answers as “excuses” or “rationalizations.” The video constantly suggests that believers don’t think beyond these shallow replies because it would make them uncomfortable. The irony of that can’t be overstated – this video only challenges bad answers, and skips them completely when there are no easy points to be scored. There are some very solid answers to these questions that make atheists uncomfortable, but not much time is spent thinking about those in this video.

I’ve already reviewed Brain’s other shabby attempts to chip away at the Bible, “God Is Imaginary” and “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees”. Most of the criticisms applicable to those sites are valid complaints about this video. For that reason, what’s posted below is pretty casual. This is really just a collection of first impressions that I jotted down while I watched the movie. I’d be willing to give more in-depth comments to those interested, but this video is juvenile enough that it’s not worth a huge investment of my time.

So, let’s go through these in order, looking at some valid responses to these questions. Keep in mind the video’s major premise: there are no good answers to these questions, except the answer, “because there is no God.” Anything that starts to look like a good answer is "just an excuse".

Question 1: Why won’t God heal amputees?

Short answer: Supernatural miracles are not part of God’s normal interaction with mankind, so there is no scriptural reason to expect them.

Rather than fight the same battles over and over, I’ll just refer to my previous analysis of this very question, linked above. I’ll also note that the video starts off right away accusing believers of “making rationalizations”, or “making excuses.” I guess sensible answers, including some real thought, count only as “rationalizations” to this type of skeptic. I can just hear this in the courtroom: “your honor, the defense is just trying to rationalize by trying to submit all of this evidence. This attempt to fully explain the events in question is just an attempt to make excuses for the defendant!”

Question 2: Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Short answer: Almost all human suffering is directly caused by human sin. If people followed Biblical commands to care for each other, almost all poverty and hunger would disappear.

The military rulers of Myanmar made it almost impossible for outside help to reach those affected by the cyclone that struck earlier this year. Blame for the prolonged suffering of those people can be laid directly at the feet of those leaders. Warlords in Africa hoard food that’s being shipped in for children. North Korea spends money on missiles while people go hungry. The examples can go on and on and on. Most suffering is human-caused. God can’t circumvent free will, so there will always be opportunities for human beings to hurt themselves and each other by ignoring Him.

Other notes:

“Why would God be worried about you getting a raise, while at the same time ignoring the prayers of these desperate, innocent little children?” This is a valid criticism of prosperity theology, but has nothing to do with the existence of God.
“…it absolutely does not fit with your view of a loving, caring God.” Actually, it does fit with a loving, caring God who told us how to do right, but gives us the freedom to do wrong.

Question 3: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

Short answer: Capital punishment is not the same as killing the innocent, and the very examples given demonstrate that God is not whimsically murdering anybody. Law-breakers are not innocent.

The video mentions several Bible verses, and then gives caricatured, non-contextual interpretations of them. This is typical for Brain – he’s not up to tackling the real deal, so he makes up an easier version to knock over.

Other notes:

"God demands we kill disobedient teenagers.” No, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 doesn’t describe a pouty pre-teen, it’s describing an antisocial, out-of-control menace to a fragile society.
Most of the complaints in this section involve punishments for actions that broke the Law. The critic needs to explain whether or not they think there should be any enforced laws at all. If the answer is yes, then the problem here is just one of distaste.
“Why would a loving God want us to murder our fellow human beings over such trivial matters?” First of all, He is not only loving, but just, so sin must be dealt with. Capital punishment is not “murder”. And the situations mentioned are definitely not trivial in a society that was under perpetual threat of collapse.
“So, you create some kind of rationalization to explain these verses.” Once again, any intelligent response can be brushed aside as “rationalization,” making this type of skeptic impossible to reason with.

Question 4: “Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?”

Short answer: It contains no such thing, and only the fool says otherwise. History does not support the assertion that the Bible and science are incompatible. In fact, the Bible relays some information about the universe that secular science only recently admitted to.

I’ve dealt with this issue rather extensively, so I’ll again refer the reader to other posts at Gladio Mentis along those lines.

Other notes:

Brain mentions some interpretations that are easier to criticize, but doesn’t mention that there are interpretations of the same verses that don’t conflict with accepted scientific data. Why? Because he’s an intellectual coward who likes to posture, rather than ponder.
The concept of “miracles”, in this question, is also assumed a priori to be invalid. This is odd, since Question #1 tries to make a lot of hay out of the “commonness” the Bible supposedly invests in miracles, but this question suggests the opposite.

Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?

Short answer: He’s no more a “proponent” of slavery than the U.S. government is a “proponent” of divorce. It’s better to have rules limiting the damage of an unavoidable practice than to let it run amok. Also, the indentured servitude of the Bible is nothing like the chattel slavery of 1800’s America.

This is one of the more irritating arguments posed by critics. In order to make it, they have to willfully ignore both the context of the Bible, and history. Indentured servitude was a common way of life in a day with no infrastructure, social security, welfare, and so on. The rules about slavery in the Bible ensure rights and limitations of service – classic indentured servitude. The only thing Biblical about Civil-War-style slavery was its similarity to the bondage of Israel in Egypt. I think God’s opinion of that arrangement was made pretty clear.

Other notes:

Now the video is to the point of calling answers to this question “weird.” Historical and linguistic analysis may be “weird” to this kind of skeptic, but that doesn’t invalidate them.

(Part 2 will continue looking at some solid answers to the question posed in this video.)

Polkinghorne on NPR

2008-06-02T12:00:00.002-04:00

Science and faith, hand in hand...

I was surprised to hear a great interview yesterday: John Polkinghorne on NPR. Polkinghorne is one of those living examples of how Christian faith and brilliant science coexist. You can read the transcript and find links to a podcast here.

Persecution - The Hard Truth

2008-05-29T12:00:00.004-04:00

America ain't seen nothin'...yet?

According to Open Doors USA, Iran is intensifying its persecution of Christians. Let’s be perfectly clear about terms, here: this is not harassment, discrimination, or ridicule. This is not the inconvenience of non-affirmation. This “persecution” is the real deal. Believers are being thrown in jail, killed, and openly discriminated against. This is not the only country where your faith can get you maimed or killed. Christians living in America need to take a good look at what happens in countries like Iran before they start throwing the term “persecution” around. But hold the phone, oh ye of little faith, because movements like the New Atheists should find something uncomfortable in these stories as well. Those worrying aloud about anti-religious rhetoric metastasizing into actual law can point to legitimate examples of how such things can actually happen.

Even though it doesn’t hold a candle to the mangling of “faith”, “belief”, or “reason”, the term “persecution” is high on the list of most-misused words. Anytime that someone disagrees with a group, and makes efforts to counter their desires, you can bet that someone is going to cry about being “persecuted” for whatever reason. It’s just as often, if not more so, put in the mouths of believers by religious critics, who act as though any effort to defend faith is due to a persecution complex. There is a difference between a system that doesn’t do you any favors and a system that’s out to get you. The faithful and the faithless both need to keep that in mind.

Both the religious and non religious, devout and apathetic, faithful and skeptical need to recognize three very important things about the kind of acts being perpetrated in Iran and other countries:

Real persecution exists. Iran’s government has decided that a particular form of belief has no place in public life, and for one reason: it disagrees with the preferred belief of those in power. On that basis, they justify imprisonment, discrimination, and even murder of those who violate the orthodoxy. It wouldn’t change things if that orthodoxy was Christian, Hindu, or Atheistic – it’s inherently wrong.
America is not immune from degenerating into this kind of “real” persecution. Intelligence, education, money, and security have never prevented a society from committing acts of brutality and hatred. Some of the most terrible things ever done were perpetrated by nations with healthy bank accounts, full stomachs, and advanced educations. The person who says, “That could never happen here,” needs to be jostled into awareness.
This is a danger that all Americans need to consider. “De facto” (in practice) discrimination has a bad habit of becoming “de jure” (by law) discrimination. When New Atheists spew out rhetoric about religion being “private”, or having no place in government, or having no place in science, or equating it with child abuse, they take a step down a very dark road. It wouldn’t matter if the tables were turned – “anti-theocracy” is as bad an idea as theocracy itself. It’s fifteen country miles from where American anti-religious murmurings are to where Iran is, but there’s a definite danger in taking that step. A legitimately “secular” society is interested in maintaining freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, not freedom of one religion, not freedom in spite of religion, and not freedom against religion. It’s certainly not in the best interests of America to have some, any, or all religious worldview(s) declared unacceptable for public expression.

Americans should easily recognize that we’re nowhere near this level of religious persecution, for any creed of any kind. Atheists aren’t being rounded up and jailed for rejecting belief in God. Buddhists aren’t being ticketed for discussing their views with non-Buddhists. Christians are not being forced to worship in homes rather than in churches. All the same, there is a growing attitude of intolerance – yes, I said intolerance – being levied against religious viewpoints.

When Sam Harris reviewed the book “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, he spoke straight from his bigoted heart. Harris declared first and foremost that Collins was obviously not possessed of a scientific mind…because he believed in God, and never mind his titanic achievements. That was the theme, substance, and foundation of every other embarrassingly snide remark made in his assessment. Richard Dawkins has placed religious upbringing lower in his personal moral gauge than pedophilia. This is the man titled by Oxford as the chair for “The Public Understanding of Science”, by the way. The books, articles, and lectures roll on, accompanied by suggestions, both overt and covert, that religion is a burden people ought to be freed from – one way or another.

We must recognize that the extreme ideas seen in other places germinate from less extreme ones, some of which we can see here. Once it’s accepted that religion has no part in government, the state isn’t just secular, it becomes “Secular” with a capital “S”. That’s not equality, that’s state-enforced atheism. Once it’s accepted that religion has no part in education, then schools aren’t just secular, they’re capital-“S”-secular. Once it’s accepted that expressing your religious beliefs can be criminally prosecuted if it insults someone, that’s “Secular” and don’t forget the proper noun, please.

Here’s the warning for the religious critic so giddy about the prospect of expunging foolish superstition from polite society: what happens when the “Secular” state changes its mind? Once only one worldview is permitted, in practice, there is little to stop it from being enshrined into law. Once the establishment gets the right to decide what metaphysical, religious, or worldview ideas are or are not acceptable, what are you going to do when those in power start drifting away from your opinion? Complain about discrimination? When they tell you to either keep your fool ideas at home or spend a night in jail, or find another career, are you going to argue that even unpopular ideas have the right to be freely aired at all levels of society?

Fellow Christians living in the US, thank God every chance you get that we’re not experiencing anything remotely resembling persecution…yet. Pray for your brothers and sisters who cherish what we take for granted.

Critics, skeptics, New Atheists, and so forth: be careful what you wish for. You might just drive your rivals from the field, only to find you’ve wandered in front of your own cannons.

"Starlight, Time, and the New Physics" (Review)

2008-05-26T12:00:00.004-04:00

A new answer to an old question...

John Hartnett is a research professor at the University of Western Australia, and a young-earth creationist. His book, “Starlight, Time and the New Physics” is his answer to a long-standing question posed to the young-earth position. Namely, why are we seeing light from stars which are millions of light-years away if Creation is only a few thousand years old? In response, Hartnett offers a different perspective on large-scale physics, one which he feels answers this objection. He also makes reference to some other observations about the universe that strongly encourage a theistic or creationist viewpoint. Overall, it’s an interesting read, but it gets a little heavy for those less inclined towards abstract reasoning. With that in mind, I’ve tried to present a brief synopsis of his arguments, as well as a review of the book in general.

Hartnett isn’t a slouch when it comes to credentials. His work has been featured in well over 100 peer-reviewed publications, and his current research deals with applications such as ultra-low-noise radar and microwave oscillators. He also deals with more fundamental aspects of physics, such as Relativity and cosmology. All the same, I’m not sold on Hartnett’s particular answer to the question of starlight. His reasoning seems to provide an answer for how an old universe and a young earth can be reconciled; however, this doesn’t do much to counter the evidence in Earth itself which suggests that its age is much more than a few thousand years. I took the time to scan through the book’s extensive technical appendices, but I’m not qualified to comment one way or the other on their correctness. As a former engineering graduate student, I get the gist of what he presents, but not in enough depth to critique it.

Right or wrong, I think Hartnett’s approach raises some valid points that fly in the face of skeptical attacks on the accuracy of the Bible. He refers to recent astronomical observations which point a clearer and clearer finger towards the idea of a Creator. He also discusses the resulting struggles of anti-religionists in trying to cope with them. These are valuable and thought-provoking in and of themselves. This, along with the crucial question which encapsulates his answer to the dilemma of starlight, is useful for all readers, regardless of their technical aptitude.

According to Hartnett, the first response to pronouncements about the age of any object in the universe has to be: “according to which clocks?” Relativity clearly demonstrates that time does not pass at the same rate for everything in the universe at any given moment. For example, fast-moving objects experience time more “slowly” than slower-moving objects. Imagine a stopwatch placed on an ultra-high-speed rocket, with an identical stopwatch on the launch pad. After the rocket performs its flight and returns, you’ll find that the rocket’s stopwatch has recorded less elapsed time than the launching pad stopwatch. This is important, because it forces any observer to consider the idea that a gap in apparent age between two objects does not necessarily imply that they were created / formed at different times.

So, the idea that some parts of the universe can literally be “older” than others, even though they were created at the same moment, it is not only possible, but almost certain. This single fact of relativity makes a plausible bridge between an old-looking universe and a young earth. As I said before, this doesn’t do anything to explain why Earth itself looks old; then again, that’s not the point of the book. Hartnett is responding to a particular charge leveled against young-earth creationism.

That charge, first mentioned above is this: “How can earth only be six thousand years old if it takes light billions of years to get here from stars we see?” The best answers start with the afore-mentioned reply, “old according to which clocks?” Hartnett presents a few different kinds of answers that have been posed, along with his analysis of them. There are five that he discusses, and he rejects all but one of them. These replies are:

1) Stars were created billions of years before the moment of Genesis 1:4, such that the light arrived to be “seen” to appear on earth at that moment. Hartnett rejects this on the basis of scientific observations, which don’t fit this answer well, as well as its questionable alignment with scripture. (p. 24)^[1]
2 Time ran faster for clocks away from earth than for clocks on earth (p.25). Hartnett rejects this for two reasons. One, this would create a situation where gaps in starlight would pop up as time equalized between different areas. Also, this would have left a noticeable shift in the wavelength of the incoming light, one which is not observed. (p.26) In fact, we see it shifted in the opposite direction from what this answer would predict.
3) Clocks on earth ran slower during Creation Week than the rest of the cosmos (p.26). This is not the same thing as option #2, and the effects on what we would expect to see are different. In this model, light from distant stars experiences a several-billion-year journey, while Earth only experiences a few days. Hartnett accepts this view, since it fits with our observations about starlight.
4) The speed of light was much, much faster in the past, and eventually slowed down; this is known as “c-decay”. Hartnett again rejects this on the basis of observational evidence.
5) God created/creates the light en-route to earth. Hartnett indicates that this would satisfy all of our observations (p.29), but it also creates a problem by making God a trickster. Think of fireworks or lightning – both the sound and the light are kinds of information which travel from the event to the observer. If you were to see a far-off lightning strike, and hear a “boom” at the exact same instant (or before the flash), you’d have to wonder if what you heard had anything to do with the lightning at all. In the same way, light arriving without the appropriate delay can’t be connected to an actual event. If the light was created en-route, then nothing we are observing has actually happened. On the other hand, if it is happening, and God is miraculously transporting the light into our vicinity, then the same problem arises. What we see would be purely fictional. Hartnett also rejects this idea because it is un-testable (it cannot be confirmed or denied on the basis of observations).

What Hartnett does from this point on is explain how his conception of physics answers the juxtaposition of an apparently-old-universe with a 6,000-year-old earth. He starts with the work of Moshe Carmeli, a physicist who proposed a different perspective from which to view both astronomy and the theory of relativity. There’s no really clean way to condense all of this into a small summary, so let this do for now: Hartnett endeavors to show how his applications of Carmeli’s ideas remove many of the admitted inaccuracies and “fudge-factors” in the current model, resulting in a more precise and cleaner representation of what we see happening around us. This, according to Hartnett, also has the side-effect of creating a means by which clocks on Earth might have run much slower than clocks placed elsewhere. The result is a theoretical framework allowing for Earth to experience a tremendously smaller passage of time since Creation than the rest of the universe.

In a nutshell, Hartnett argues that earth experienced a much slower progression of time than the stars we see. From the perspective of a distant star, light has been racing towards earth for billions of years. From the perspective of earth, only a tiny fraction of that time has passed. This allows a young earth to see light from old stars with exactly the kinds of observations that we see.

Hartnett helps to deflect criticism about the fact that his model overturns some of the entrenched assumptions about physics. Einstein’s relativity, for example, overturned many of the assumptions based in Newtonian physics. Prior to Einstein, those inaccuracies were explained away with appeals to unseen planets and other un-observable effects. Einstein’s model more accurately described observations, without needing the untestable insertions, and that spelled victory for relativity. Hartnett argues that his ideas, applied to Carmeli’s, might just do the same: give a more accurate explanation for what we actually see, without resorting to unprovable assumptions.

That’s the gist of the technical argument being made in “Starlight, Time, and the New Physics.” Beyond that, some of the more enlightening information comes in Hartnett’s description of astronomical properties that point a clear finger towards the idea of God. A particularly interesting fact is the apparent location of earth in relation to observable space. All observations indicate that we are at the center of the universe! This has some serious implications, as some quotes from Edwin Hubble demonstrate (Hubble discovered the wavelength-shifting that first suggested this central position):

“Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe…such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable.

…

“…to escape the horror of a unique position [compensations must be made].”

Using this reasoning, Hubble and other physicists theorized a curved or self-folding universe, one with no center or edges at all. Note that Hubble is not rejecting the central position of the universe on the basis of evidence – he’s rejecting it purely because he dislikes the idea that Earth might be “special.” The theories that remove this central position are not observationally based, but philosophically based. That is, they’re making sure that they theory points where they want it to. These “tweaks” to the model of the universe were added purely to avoid this cosmic distinction – not on the basis of any observations whatsoever. Hartnett then quotes Richard Feynman, giving a succinct explanation for why this reaction occurs:

“It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary…to avoid embarrassment, we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity.”

This is an important observation, as well as important point. Much of what happens in cosmology depends on assumptions that cannot be absolutely proven. In the case of the position of earth in the universe, there are no observations which suggest anything other than what Hartnett describes: we occupy a very particular, unique, and notable location in the cosmos. While there’s nothing strictly incorrect about the theoretical additions that counter this, they are purely philosophical, not scientific. They exist because of a pre-commitment to the idea that Earth is non-important and insignificant.

Hammering the point home, Hartnett then references the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. In brief, these projects essentially discovered that the observable galaxy is arranged in concentric rings/shells around Earth. This is an important point, so allow me to rephrase it for emphasis: Observations of the universe not only indicate that Earth is at the center of everything, but that everything is arranged in a noticeable pattern around it. Combining this with our understanding of a finite universe, the fine-tuning of physics, and so forth, Hartnett persuasively argues that modern astronomy does a lot more to strengthen belief in God than to dilute it.

Overall, “Starlight, Time, and the New Physics” is an interesting read. As I said before, I don’t think that Hartnett has a made a convincing case that Earth is only a few thousand years old. I do think that he’s made at least a worthwhile suggestion that science can rationally reconcile an old universe with a young earth. For those with an interest in space or physics, it’s an educational work. For believer and skeptic alike, its also another reminder that science, religion, faith, and reason are intimately compatible.

[1] - All page references are from Hartnett, "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics", 2007, Creation Ministries International, ISBN 978-0-949906-68-7

"The Tiniest Survivor"

2008-05-22T16:30:00.001-04:00

A living challenge to abortion...

I came across an article about a severely premature baby who survived. Her story is amazing, and anyone who supports abortion should have their conceptions about it challenged. Her story is a living example of how arguing for abortions "only" after a certain gestational time is not only irrational, but doomed to fall before the advancements of science. Keep in mind that children like this are, frequently, either deliberately killed or left to die. As a matter of fact, the mother had to lie about the unborn child's age just to prevent them from abandoning her to death. Is anyone really willing to argue that this child didn't have enough humanity to deserve the chance to live? How I wish that was just a rhetorical question.

I'm working on some discussions of how the modern world views death. This is a good starting point, and one I'll definitely be referring to later.

Serpent Seed (Part 2)

2008-05-22T12:00:00.006-04:00

False teachings slither in...

(Part 1 began an examination of a fringe falsehood taught by imposters like Arnold Murray. Here, we continue looking at why serpent seed doctrine is simply false.)

Genesis 4:1 is a pretty clear statement of Cain’s origins: “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” Serpent seed adherents claim that Cain actually came from the Devil, and that this initial union of Adam and Eve actually produced Abel. Again, this begs the question: why then is the Bible being so clouded about something that would be so important if it were true? The context of the original Hebrew doesn’t give any suggestion that the description of Adam’s “knowing” Eve is meant to be separated from her bearing Cain.

Genesis 4:2 gives serpent seed no help, either. Some claim that this verse proves that Cain and Abel were from different fathers, since it doesn’t mention Adam “knowing” Eve again, but it says she “again bare” Abel. What this amounts to is a biological phenomenon called “heteropaternal superfecundation”. While it’s technically possible for a woman to conceive two children separately from two different fathers, this is vanishingly rare, and something that no one would assume off-hand. It’s very hard to believe that the Bible wouldn’t have been more specific if this in fact was what had happened.

More to the point, the original Hebrew doesn’t support this interpretation, in that it doesn’t provide any clues that the births of Cain and Abel were simultaneous. Nor does it use terminology any different than it does in cases where “two-daddy” events are clearly not implied.

Serpent seed adherents note that Eve’s punishment given in Genesis 3:16 is mostly about childbirth, which they say suggests that Eve’s sin was sexual. To that, one can merely to point to 3:17, where Adam’s punishment is mostly about food, suggesting with far less “stretch” that his sin involved eating something he wasn’t allowed to eat. There is also no reason to feel that God has to link the style of punishment to the style of the crime to such a close degree – and especially not for one and not the other.

More to the point, the punishments they were given do relate to their sins. Eve helped tempt her husband, and as a result her judgment was subjugated to his. Adam failed to protect and lead his wife, and rejected God’s provisions to so. As a result, he was charged with providing for both of them through his own efforts.

Matthew 13:37-39 is a big one. This supposedly shows Jesus clearly stating Serpent Seed doctrine in his explanation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. The problems with this interpretation are immense. For one, Jesus refers to the Son of Man as the one who sows the “good seeds” and the devil as the one who sows the tares. If we assume this implies serpent seed, and therefore the devil is the biological father of Cain and his descendents, we have to assume that Jesus is the biological father of Abel and his descendents. Jesus is teaching that there are wicked and false people, but he is not implying that they are the literal sons of the devil.

The symbolic nature of what Jesus was saying should be plain, especially in light of Matthew 23:15, where Jesus says that the Pharisees can make someone “twice” as much a son of hell. Jesus is using the “seed” concept, with respect to God or the Devil, figuratively. To say otherwise would be to suggest that “seed” in reference to the children of God is always figurative, but “seed” in terms of the devil is always literal, despite their occurring in proximity so many times in scriptures. This begins to beg the question of why the Bible makes so many other truths plain, but would choose to disguise this one so consistently.

This entire doctrine also throws scriptural salvation into question. If a person is saved (or damned) by their genetics, then not only does racism suddenly have a scriptural basis, but there is no longer a gospel of grace. If a person can be saved, even if they’re a descendent of Cain, then what’s the point of the serpent seed doctrine in the first place? If anyone can respond to the Holy Spirit and be saved, then what’s the sense of all of this fuss over Kenites and serpent seed?

The racist overtones to serpent seed doctrine are inescapable, even if it’s proponents aren’t overtly racist themselves. Racist doctrines such as Christian Identity and White Supremacy reference serpent seed in order to give their hatred an illusion of scriptural support. Once you accept serpent seed, this is hard to argue against – after all, if the devil’s line is actually being passed down genetically, then don’t you have to be racially / genetically discriminatory?

Those who espouse serpent seed are also led to irrationally deny other teachings of the Bible. Denial of a global flood is a strong example. Whether or not a person believes in a global flood is ultimately irrelevant, but the reasons why are telling. Just as atheists are forced to believe in abiogenesis, despite a lack of evidence, serpent seed adherents are forced to deny a global flood. After all, if the flood, global or not, wiped out all of mankind except for Noah’s family, how could there be any of Cain’s descendents left? The only answer possible for a serpent seed believer is that the flood wasn’t global – and there we see how belief in a false doctrine influences their faith in other parts of the Bible.

A final thought is this: the idea that the Bible’s use of the term “Kenite” doesn’t jive with the serpent seed’s interpretation of them as naturally wicked sons of Cain. In fact, they were praised by Saul and David for their kindness towards Israel in 1 Samuel 15:6 and 30:29. Moreover, it’s not a requirement that “Kenite” has anything to do with Eve’s Cain at all – there were many people with that name, just as there were many people with the name “Judas”. The OT leader Joshua shares his name with Jesus – “Yeshua.” Whether the “Kenites” were descended from someone named Cain (not the first Cain, since all of his descendants died in the flood), or someone named Kenan is hard to say.

So, all in all, there simply is no rational basis for the serpent seed doctrine. In order to justify it, one has to look for ways to cram it into scripture. You cannot take the Bible, as written, in context, and see any evidence that the serpent sexually interacted with Eve, that Adam was not Cain’s father, or that Jesus taught that there were literal biological sons of the devil stalking faithful believers. It’s a false teaching, plain and simple. Like so many false doctrines, it has great potential for harm, and distracts from the Gospel’s message of salvation by grace through faith.

Serpent Seed (Part 1)

2008-05-19T12:00:00.005-04:00

Trampling on the Bible, legs or not...

Scriptural misinterpretations are like smudges on a clean shirt. They can be big or small, obvious or hidden, easy to clean or deeply ingrained. The toughest stains are the ones that get so deep into the fabric that you’d almost have to cut the shirt apart to separate the stains from the good cloth. Just like a nagging stain distracts attention from the form and function of the garment, some scriptural errors make a mess of the Gospel. One of the more set-in theological stains I run into is the “Serpent Seed” doctrine. It’s ground in, set-in, and baked into the minds of its supporters. It’s also self-supporting, and self-defending – if you disagree with it, you can be dismissed as one of the “serpent seed.” It depends on circular logic, poor scholarship, and lends itself to a host of highly un-Christian opinions.

In a nutshell, serpent seed holds that the “original sin” was Eve having sexual relations with the devil, which produced Cain. These biological descendents of Cain survived the flood, and exist today, working against faithful believers, so says the serpent seed believer. This doctrine is a favorite of racially charged movements such as white supremacists, the Identity movement, and so forth. While majority in no way guarantees accuracy, it has to be said that the vast majority of Bible scholars reject serpent seed doctrine as a scripturally supportable concept.

When you find a doctrine that seems antithetical to the message of Christ, you can be sure someone’s not giving the Bible its due, and that’s certainly true here. Major proponents of serpent seed, like Arnold Murray, give lip service to the authority of the Bible when preaching this doctrine, but don’t actually apply it. To make this absurd theory seem plausible, you have to start by believing it, cram it into a few verses, and then interpret all of those verses using your original belief. That is, the only way you can justify serpent seed through the verses its supporters use is by reading into the Bible, not out of it. Keep this in mind when considering the verses below used to defend this aberrant doctrine. There is a circular scriptural argument being used, though Biblical context wouldn’t have supported any of their interpretations.

Unfortunately, like a bad stain, this is not something that can be cleaned out quickly. There are falsehoods piled on falsehoods, and I’ve been as brief as I think I can without leaving some room for doubt about what the Bible actually says. I think that the serpent seed doctrine can be cast into doubt effectively without an exhaustive examination of every verse of the Bible. Below are some passages that are particularly relevant to this error:

Genesis 2:9 is sometimes interpreted as figurative by serpent seed proponents, in that the “trees” of the ground are actual trees, but the “trees” of the garden are people. This, supposedly, lends weight to the idea that the sin of Eve was sexual. How? By implying that “eating of the tree of knowledge” is a euphemism for sex. This interpretation runs into a glut of problems, though.

First is chronology. The planting of the tree of knowledge precedes the creation of Eve. It’s completely irrational to say that the tree refers to Eve, since she hadn’t been created yet. If the tree of knowledge is Adam, then how could Adam have eaten of himself when he sinned? And who is the tree of life? If it’s Jesus, then why would God post an angel to prevent Man from “eating” (having sex?) with Jesus? Consider Genesis 2:15-17, where God tells Adam he can eat of any tree, except the Tree of Knowledge. The very next verse shows God stating His intention to create Eve – so it’s absolutely clear that neither Tree in the garden can be a person, sex, or anything other than a tree. This is also supported by the verses below.

Second, neither context nor terminology in the original Hebrew suggest a figurative interpretation. This is one of those verses that demonstrates how much tearing and stretching of scripture is necessary for a person to justify this false doctrine.

Genesis 3:2,3 contains Eve’s rephrasing of God’s command. Her words don’t make sense unless she’s talking about eating a physical fruit. Consider Satan’s question – “did God say not to eat from any tree in the garden?” Her answer, if you believe the serpent seed doctrine, was, “Yes, God said we can eat from any tree, but we can’t have sex with you.” There is nothing in the context or terminology suggesting a non-literal meaning here.

On top of that, we have…Genesis 3:6, where serpent seed hits a brick wall. First of all, while the Bible sometimes uses figurative language, it’s not in the habit of obscuring its intended meaning by doing do. If Eve’s sin was sexual, there’s no rational reason why Genesis wouldn’t have just said so. Don’t forget that in just a few verses, the Bible says that Adam “knew” his wife – why would scripture suddenly be so direct about sex after being so obscure? Again, the original Hebrew gives no support for the idea that this is a reference to sexual intercourse.

The other major problem here is the immediate reference to Adam. As I mentioned, the Bible is about to refer to sex between Adam and Eve using “knew” – why not use it here? Also, the idea that this is a symbolic implication of sex breaks down. Is this implying that Adam did just what Eve did – he had sex with the devil? Or that they had sex with each other? Trying to cram serpent seed interpretations into this verse creates chaos. The intended meaning of the verses is much more sensible – Eve disobeyed God (that was the original sin) by eating what she was told not too, and Adam followed suit.

Genesis 3:13 and 2 Corinthians 11:3 say something very similar about Eve’s sin. In the King James version, Eve says that “The serpent beguiled me…”. In Genesis, Paul says that “the serpent beguiled Eve”. These verses serve as perfect examples of how serpent seed proponents either ignore or selectively apply original languages when discussing this doctrine. The word translated “beguiled” in Genesis 3:13 is na’sa’, which means to deceive, delude, trick, or “cause someone to depart from correct behavior by craft and trickery”. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, it is exapatao also meaning deceive or beguile. Arnold Murray notably claims that the NT reference really means “wholly deceived”, and therefore implies sexual seduction. He bases this claim, in part, on the idea that the Old English word “beguiled” was often used as a synonym for seduction.

Unfortunately, the original languages disagree. There is no aspect of sexuality in either of the words presented above. This has to be considered in the context of the neighboring passages, where sexual activity is mentioned in much more direct terms. Why would the Bible go to such great lengths to disguise such an important truth? Also, the fact that an Old English word can mean “seduced” has nothing to do with interpreting this passage. The Greek and Hebrew words don’t imply sexual seduction, and even the KJV translators didn’t use terminology referencing sex!

Interpreting the word “exapatao” sexually also brings up problems in other passages written by Paul, with similar context. 1 Corinthians 3:18 uses the same word in a similar context – can a person seduce themselves? Romans 16:18 also uses the same word in context with the word “kardia”, meaning “inner self” – is this implying some kind of sexuality? The attempt to force this pro-serpent-seed meaning into 2 Corinthians and Genesis makes no more sense than it would in these two passages.

(Part 2 will continue to examine the errors associated with serpent seed doctrine).

Fatherhood - The Ultimate Apologetic

2008-05-16T18:30:00.011-04:00

Connecting the head to the heart...

Today is my son’s first birthday. That statement drives home a truth that I always knew in my head, but which I now truly know in my heart: “they grow up so fast…” It drives home a lot of truths found in the Bible, too. Being a father provides opportunities to understand the Gospel with a depth that was impossible before my son was born. In these first twelve months, I’ve been jolted into realizations about exactly why God chooses so often to call himself “Father”. I’ve been humbled by the difference between how He responds to His children, and the way I respond to my boy. Most of all, I’ve been made achingly aware of how desperately mankind needs a savior.

There’s no sophisticated logical path behind the things I’ve learned in this first year. All the same, there’s a profound depth to the relationship between a father and son that explains in crystal clarity why “Father” is the Lord’s preferred metaphor for Himself. Some of these revelations are minor, some are obvious, and others just seem to reach out and grab you when you’re not really looking for them. Here are a few things that my son has taught me about God that I never could have learned through scholarship:

God’s love for us is indescribably deep. Before my son was born, I could say – glibly – that a good father would be willing to die for his children. Now that I actually have a son, all glibness is gone. Like any human being, I’m often unnecessarily frustrated, irritated, annoyed, or just plain fed up with my child. But there’s never been a moment where the thought of an agonizing death isn’t preferable to the idea of something tragic happening to him. The idea that Jesus was willing to suffer and die, for the very people who mocked and denied Him, is still an awe-inspiring thought. But now I understand why. I can say with complete honesty, and without a shred of shame, that I’d suffer that same agony a hundred times over if it meant protecting my son from harm. I’m reminded of Matthew 7:11, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!”

God’s will isn’t always plain, but it’s always good. When my son had his first vaccinations, he spent an uncomfortable few minutes squirming on the exam table before the nurse came in. When it was time to bring out the needle, there was just no getting around the hurt it was going to cause him. I winced as the woman in scrubs and tennis shoes poked that chubby little leg. He jumped in my arms, tears bursting into his tiny eyes, and gave me a look so plain he may as well have said it out loud: “why did you do that, Daddy?” Like a slap in the face, it struck me how many times I’d asked that question of God. And without even thinking, I held my son close, and said, “I know…I know, sweetheart. You don’t understand, but someday you will. Daddy’s doing this for a good reason…”

When I had to take the bandage off later that night, I felt the same thing – only now I knew full well that it was my own hands causing him pain. And, just like at the doctor’s office, he didn’t hesitate to cling to me. Even as his eyes overflowed, he curled himself into my chest, knowing somehow that I could make things better. How often do we turn away from God in our pain, rather than turning to Him? Even more than that, the monumental sacrifice that God made in sending Christ to die became real for me like never before. It was hard for me to give my son a momentary pinch - how much love for mankind must it have taken for God to offer up His Son to an executioner?

I’ve also become thoroughly convinced that sin isn’t something our children learn. It’s something they’re born with. For the last three months, my son likes to reach for electrical plugs and outlets, no matter how many times he’s scolded with stern words or briskly pulled away. On the contrary, he almost always looks back at me, with a little half smile, mouth open, one hand just so far from the forbidden spot, knowing exactly what’s going to happen, but doing it anyway. I didn’t teach him to do that – and I know he doesn’t like the scolding, the sterness, or the sudden relocations. He knows he’s not supposed to do that, but he does it anyway, because it’s a part of his nature.

After the fifth such cycle in a row, I’m on the verge of duct-taping his arms to his sides and strapping him in the high chair. Just fifty-two weeks into fatherhood, I’m painfully aware of how much more frustrated the Lord must be with me. Don’t do that, Jeff. Don’t say that, Jeff. Again, and again, and again. If I have the power to take away what my son wants as punishment for disobedience, how much more power does God have, if He wanted to, to take away everything that I have? Thank God that He’s so much more patient with me than I am with my own.

One of the greatest days of my life was the day my son fell asleep in my arms – until he answered my words with tiny noises from the crib. That became the greatest day of my life, until he reached for me from the bouncer seat. Until he crawled towards me at the end of a long working day. Until he saw me walk in the room and said, “Da-Da!” Until he stood up from the floor and toddled over to me in absolute glee. Nothing makes a man feel validated like the love and admiration if His family – and especially that of his children. I don’t begrudge my son a single penny spent, a single second of sleep lost, or a single hour exhausted playing with the same tired toy. Those expressions of love, childish and simple as they are, are worth more to me than anything I could have built with my own hands or bought with all the money in the world.

What I do in apologetics has new meaning to me now. I want my son to learn the truth, and to be more secure in that truth than I was as a child. I want the world he grows up in to be one of peace, righteousness, and beauty. I’d be a brazen liar if I said that anything I’ve written, debated, or studied in the last twelve months wasn’t motivated, in at least some way, by this bone-deep drive to stand between my child and the darkness. This isn’t about “mankind” in some abstract way anymore, it’s about my child, my son, my everything, first, last, and most of all.

I will probably never understand love, self-sacrifice, mercy, and sorrow one ten-thousandth as well as God would like me to. But I feel these things ten thousand times as much as I did before this child came into my life. I am so grateful that God is a better father than I am. I am so glad that every failing, every flaw and every sin that my son has had to bear from me, isn’t one I’ve had to bear from my heavenly Father. On the contrary, He’s actually borne mine for me. I’m humbled and thankful that God has entrusted me not only with this life that rambles around my house in diapers and bibs, but also with the knowledge that’s imparted in a special way only to those privileged to call themselves “Daddy.”

There are so many other moments. There are freeze-frames and snapshots by the dozens, each one a moment where God used this tiny, helpless little creature to teach me something in three seconds that the greatest scholars on earth couldn’t have made me believe in three years. How desperately a father wants his child to do right, and how much it hurts to have to punish a child so that they’ll learn right from wrong. How much a father wants to take the pain of sickness, sorrow, or scrapes on to himself, if he only could. How monumental the role he has been given really is. And most of all, how utterly and totally unworthy, unqualified, and undeserving a person can feel when they realize that someone they love is depending utterly on them for guidance, love, and support.

All of this together is why the words of Kathleen Wheeler have gone from merely pleasant to sacred for me since May of last year:

He came to my desk with quivering lip--
The lesson was done.
"Dear Teacher I want a new leaf," he said,
"I have spoiled this one."
I took the old leaf, stained and blotted,
And gave him a new one all unspotted,
And into his sad eyes smiled,
"Do better now, my child."
I went to the throne with a quivering soul--
The old year was done.
"Dear Father, hast Thou a new leaf for me?
I have spoiled this one."
He took the old leaf, stained and blotted,
And gave me a new one all unspotted,
And into my sad heart smiled,
"Do better now, My child."

-- Kathleen Wheeler

Being a Dad is the highest calling I could hope for. It’s become my all, my everything, and my purpose. Here at the throne, with a quivering soul, I’m asking God to grant me the wisdom to be a better father next year than I was this year, and better the year after that, and after that.

Fatherhood is the ultimate apologetic. I can’t wait to see what my boy is going to teach me about the Lord in the next twelve months. I love you, son. Like everything I have, and everything that I am, this is for you. Happy birthday.

Arnold Murray - A Challenge (DD)

2008-05-12T12:00:00.004-04:00

Checking the nest for rotten eggs...

I’ve noticed that my post on Arnold Murray and Shepherd’s Chapel has generated a growing level of interest. For the last month or so, it’s been the most read post on Gladio Mentis. Some of those reading it have posted comments supportive of Murray. For that reason, I think it’s worthwhile to take a closer look at some of the red flags that he raises. Poor Biblical scholarship is one thing – but even if he was teaching accurately from the Bible, there are some serious concerns about his attitude and methods that have to be addressed. So, consider the following a challenge both to Arnold Murray and his supporters. I’ve laid out some of the major reasons why I think he needs to be viewed skeptically, and I’m sincerely interested in a response.

Please note that I’m looking for real responses to these issues. If Arnold Murray has given you a greater appreciation for the Gospel, then that’s a good thing. If studying under him has led you to a closer walk with God, that’s good, too. However, neither of those explains his aggression or false teachings. Anyone who claims to be student of Murray needs to explain the following problems in some kind of rational way. No matter how good you may think he is, or how convinced you are that he is a great teacher, you have to be able to defend him with more than personal approval.

The non-doctrinal problems with Murray are summed up nicely in 1 Timothy 3:2-6:

“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity…and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.”

Hiding your credentials puts you under suspicion, not above reproach. Murray’s reputation for callous condemnation of those who disagree with him doesn’t support the “peaceable” requirement. Threatening a heckler with a gun is a great example of being “pugnacious”. The warning about new converts and conceit imparts an important lesson: those who are not qualified for their positions have a tendency to get full of themselves, and be led away from the Truth. Deception about a supposed doctorate and a refusal to defend his beliefs leaves this as an open question in regards to Arnold Murray.

Briefly, here are the problems that Shepherd’s Chapel supporters need to have an answer to:

Problem 1: The Mystery Doctorate

If a surgeon didn’t want to tell you where he got his medical degree, because he “didn’t want to be judged by association”, would you let him operate on you? You don’t have to go to college to be a good auto mechanic, but would you trust someone to fix your car that won’t give you an honest answer about where they learned to fix them? Why trust someone who claims to have a PhD, and disagrees with most Christian scholars on important doctrines, but won’t say where his degree is from?

Jesus wasn’t afraid of being “judged by association” for hanging out with prostitutes and sinners. He wasn’t afraid of being “judged by association” for being a carpenter, rather than a formally trained rabbi. He was open and honest about who He was and where He came from.

Murray wants the prestige and authority that a PhD implies, but he doesn’t want the scrutiny of saying where he got it. In my experience, only con artists and frauds are this tight-lipped about their background. I’ve never known or heard of a reputable person in any field who deliberately hides their credentials. Murray should either divulge where he got his degree from, or stop referring to himself as “Dr.” He’s right that an advanced degree isn’t absolutely necessary to be a preacher – but hiding your past isn’t a sign of a confident, honest person. He doesn’t seem worried about people denouncing his doctrines, why worry about them denouncing his degree?

Murray is also reluctant to openly discuss his teachings with his critics. If he really knows the Bible as well as he claims to, he should be able to explain his beliefs to a hostile audience. I fully understand that there are some critics not worth responding to; however, we are called on to defend our faith (1 Peter 3:15-16). Since so much of what Murray teaches contradicts the bulk of Christian scholarship, he should be ready to directly defend what he preaches.

Problem 2: Arrogant Hostility

It’s not possible for Arnold Murray to deny that this (link) happened. He made threatening remarks to someone heckling him. Maybe the heckler was wrong, maybe they deserved to be thrown out. I don’t know. What I do know is that Murray’s reaction was totally inappropriate and disturbing. It’s one thing to start yelling at someone, and a totally different thing to make references to a gun. I’m well aware that no one is perfect, but this wasn’t a minor slip-up. This was a glimpse into a violent and reactionary spirit. I’m not aware of any apology or defense that Murray has given for this incident, but I’d be interested in knowing about one if it exists.

Murray is also known for being very condescending to those who do not agree with him. I’ve notice the same kind of attitude in his supporters, unfortunately. If you don’t support him, then you’re a kenite, or you’ve been misled. That kind of attitude is downright cultish, because it supposes that Arnold Murray alone knows the truth, and anyone who differs from his teachings is the enemy. That’s not in keeping with 1 Peter 3:16, or the verses above.

Note that neither Problem 1 nor Problem 2 have anything to do with what Murray teaches. That being said, his supporters do have to answer for…

Problem 3: Non-Biblical Teachings.

Murray claims to teach the Bible in-depth. His “verse by verse, chapter by chapter and Book by Book” method sounds good – until you see what he’s actually teaching. What Murray does to the Bible is no different than what Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Joseph Smith (Mormons), or William Miller (Seventh-Day Adventists) did. They came to the Bible with their own ideas, and forced those ideas into the scriptures. What Murray is really doing is a form of “proof-texting”. Essentially, he looks at a single verse, alone, out of context, and declares what it means. Then, he applies that meaning everywhere in the Bible. This is how he justifies doctrines like serpent seed, for example.

What he should be doing is examining everything the Bible has to say about a topic before deciding on what the Bible says. Once he picks a verse that he can cram into his philosophy, he can keep pointing back to that (misinterpreted) verse. The fact that Murray won’t defend what he believes to those who disagree, his secrecy about his education, and his faulty method of teaching all pile together into a mountain of suspicion.

Looking at these things, I think that those who follow Arnold Murray – and even more so, Murray himself – have a lot of explaining to do. I’m all ears.

(Note: In the near future, I’ll look at the false “serpent seed” doctrine that Murray teaches, and show how the Bible does not support his interpretation. Depending on response to this post, I may explain some of his other heresies.)

Unnecessary Necessities at Thinking Christian

2008-05-09T16:13:00.006-04:00

Links to Gladio Mentis...

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian linked to the prior two posts on Atheism and Science here. Check it out!

Unnecessary Necessities (Part 2)

2008-05-08T12:00:00.006-04:00

Does scientific progress require Darwinian evolution?

Part 1 began a discussion of major scientific accomplishments credited to Christian believers. The facts of history stand against the idea that religion has to be jettisoned for real science to proceed. A related contention is that Darwinian evolution is the foundation on which all modern science is built. Some skeptics will emphasize this claim more than others, but there are a lot of ways in which the suggestion is put forward. ‘All progress is dependent on acceptance of this fact,’ so they say, ‘and to deny naturalistic evolution is to put a halt to all scientific progress!’

Here, in Part 2, we continue to look at accomplished religious scientists. Please note that Darwin published his theory of evolution in 1859. All of the scientists listed below were contemporary to or after that publication. Skeptics often beg the question by saying that the brilliant minds of the past would have accepted Darwin’s theories, given the chance. History begs to differ. In fact, it clearly speaks against the idea that real scientists have to accept either atheism or naturalistic evolution in order to advance science.

James Young Simpson (1811-1870) was a pioneer in anesthesia and gynecology, and also a devout Presbyterian. He once told a reporter that his greatest discovery was “When I learned Jesus Christ had died for my sins.”

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was not only a father of modern germ theory, but he also put the experimental nail in the coffin of spontaneous generation. His work in medicine included development of a rabies vaccine, methods for preventing food spoilage (hence ‘Pasteurization’), and discoveries in crystals. He was the consummate experimentalist; as a result he was highly critical of Darwin’s theories of evolution, noting that they could not be confirmed or disproved in a laboratory setting. His autobiographical works indicate his staunch belief in God: “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1824-1907) developed the absolute temperature scale still named for him. His contributions to thermodynamics, physics, telegraphy, navigation, and geology are immense. Thomson was a life-long, committed Christian. As a sort of “old-earth-Creationist”, he was particularly critical of Darwin’s theory of evolution, noting that the time between Earth’s habitability and the modern day was not long enough to allow for gradual evolution to occur.

Joseph Lister (1827-1912) had limited choices in education, as many schools in his day did not admit Quakers. Fortunately for science, the University of London was not one of them. Lister noted that research regarding sanitization was largely ignored by the medical community. He took Pasteur’s work to heart and began implementing sterilization procedures in his hospital work. He continued his research into sterilization, and is credited with founding the concept of a sterile medical environment. Lister was also instrumental in advancing several other forms of surgery, including brain operations and mastectomies. He eventually abandoned the Quakers, becoming an Episcopalian, and never wavered in his belief that God was directing Him.

James Maxwell (1831-1879) was a devout Christian who helped lay the foundations of modern science through his discoveries in electromagnetism, light, and gases. His work was crucial in the development of Einstein’s special relativity and quantum mechanics. Maxwell is often mentioned among the most influential scientists in history, along with Newton and Einstein.

Max Planck (1858-1947) was the Nobel Prize-winning physicist whose work laid the foundations of quantum theory. He was a tolerant, but staunch, Christian believer. Planck considered atheism to be an obsession, rather than a valid worldview. His work was important to the developments made by Einstein, and Planck himself helped to expand the theory of relativity.

Ernst Chain (1906-1979) was a theistic and highly orthodox Jew. Chain shared in a Nobel Prize for his work on penicillin, and went to great lengths to be sure that his children’s education included religious training. He defended his religious beliefs publicly. As an ironic side-note, Chain is mentioned in the “God Is Imaginary” site just a few paragraphs after making the absurd quote given in the introduction to part 1. He was pointedly critical of naturalistic evolution: “To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconciliable with the facts." He also said, “a very feeble attempt [naturalistic evolution] is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory,” and “I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.”

Wernher von Braun (1912-1977) is considered the founder of modern rocketry, and the father of the United States space program. His religious beliefs and scientific knowledge were never at odds: “My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?.” It has been said that the United States would have taken decades longer to reach the moon – if they reached it at all – without von Braun’s leadership. Von Braun attributed his decision to work for the US after World War II to a desire to see his rocketry used for less tyrannical purposes than Hitler had: “we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured." Von Braun would not be amused over skeptical claims of Hitler’s Christianity: “he was wholly without scruples, a godless man who thought himself the only god, the only authority he needed.”

God-believers are involved in modern science even today, despite the animosity leveled at their beliefs. Consider some quotes from Nobel-winning scientists, as well as some of the many accomplishments of Christians in modern science:

Charles Townes: “I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge.”

Robert Millikan: “Let me, then, henceforth use the word God to describe that which is behind the mystery of existence and that which gives meaning to it. I think you will not misunderstand me, then, when I say that I have never known a thinking man who did not believe in God.” And, “To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.”

William Philips: “I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible. …I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.”

Arno Penzias: “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

Joseph Murray: “We’re just working with the tools God gave us. ...There’s no reason that science and religion have to operate in an adversarial relationship. Both come from the same source, the only source of truth - the Creator.”

Raymond Damadian patented the MRI, and worked to develop its clinical use. When the Nobel Committee finally recognized this achievement, he was left out. Many observers, both secular and religious, have suspected that this snub was a result of his outspoken religious views: Damadian is a “literal-six-day-young-earth-creationist”.

Graeme Clark, who developed the cochlear implant, is noted to be religious. This has been noted in interviews, and he has been asked if he sees a contradiction between religion and science. His response: “No, I don't. Some of the greatest scientists early on were Christian, and did so because of their faith. And today there are many.”

John Polkinghorne is considered one of the world’s great quantum physicists, and helped to discover the quark. His credentials and abilities are undeniable, even to the most irrational of atheists. Richard Dawkins himself has indicated both his respect for Polkinghorne’s scientific ability as well as consternation over his belief in God.

Alister McGrath represents another challenge to critics like Dawkins, as a theologian with a background in molecular biophysics.

The list could go on, but the point should be clear. Many of mankind’s greatest achievements, which have added considerably to our understanding of the universe and to our quality of life, were made by men of faith. They didn’t set God aside when they put on their lab coats. They didn’t set their brains aside when they put on their church clothes. Science and faith don’t contradict! Furthermore, rejection of naturalistic evolution does not make one an unfit scientist. Naturalistic evolution isn’t a requirement for understanding most aspects of modern biology, let alone fields like physics, chemistry, or aviation. Those who claim otherwise are ignoring history in favor of an ideological straw man.