Specifically, Yoder argues for a “messianic ethic” of non-violence from the New Testament – first, by interpreting Jesus’ ministry in the context of the “Jubilee Year” principle that pervaded Jesus’ teachings and self-understanding, and second, by addressing the challenges that orthodox theology surrounding Pauline writings poses to such a stance. Lastly, Yoder rounds out his apology with a discussion of John’s apocalyptic visions, and how they too might be understood within the non-violent ethic.

In discussing the relevance of Jesus to ethics, Yoder first addresses the causes of the existing gap between modern ethics and life and ideas of Jesus, explaining that the gap has been created by three main mistakes – the arguments that Jesus is irrelevant, that the bridge from theology to ethics is thin and not much can be brought across, and that ethics can and should be built on common principles, not revealed ones. In addition, Yoder addresses the objections to the use of Pauline doctrine to ethics, citing the usual arguments against Paul, including his teachings on slavery, female submission, and his emphasis on grace over works. Other possible sources for ethical norms and their respective weaknesses are reviewed, individually refuted and dismissed by Yoder.

Reviewing Jesus’ historical context, Yoder outlines the influential Jewish political movements of the day, chief of which were the Zealots, who looked to overthrow Roman rule by rebellion and uprising. Yoder exegetes scripture to show how the temptation towards such political action was one of Jesus’ main struggles throughout his public ministry. Yoder then moves into the meat of his argument, which is to demonstrate that Jesus’ instructions and actions specifically repudiated such rebellion, but rather than eschewing political action and retreating into quietism, supported radical non-violent action to confront the principalities and powers, both Jewish and Roman.

Jesus’ deeds, Yoder argues, took the form of preaching the Kingdom of God, understood in terms of the Jubilee year principles.  The author deduces this from Jesus’s teachings, especially his declarations of self-understanding at the announcement of his ministry (Luke 4), and in his response to John’s disciples (Luke 7). In the former announcement, Jesus’ refers to “the acceptable year of the LORD”, which Yoder interprets as the Jubilee year.  In the latter, Jesus repeats his aims of healing, and ministering to the poor, which are again to the forgiveness and restoration of the traditional Jewish practice of Jubilee.

Yoder then translates Jesus’ self-understanding and his other teachings into a Christian ethic which compels Christians to persuade society to change through the practices of forgiveness, non-discriminate love, service, subordination, non-complaining suffering, and even death if loving others puts us in harm’s way.

Along the way, Yoder addresses the problematic passages that are typically explained in support of retributive justice, and re-interprets them in light of what he argues is a more logical hermeneutic. These difficult passages include the warring of Israel in the Old Testament, Jesus’ driving out the moneychangers from the temple and his instructions to the disciples to take along swords, as well as the Pauline passages typically used to support capital punishment and just war.

Within Paul’s framework of submission to government and justice in Romans 13, Yoder attempts to demonstrate that Paul’s teaching on radical submission to government is nearly absolute, in large part because there is no perfect government, that submission is not based on the existence of such a government, and we are given little Biblical instruction on the limits of imperfect government anyway. On the individual level, Yoder additionally argues that Christians may participate in justice as enforced by police, but this cannot be extended to support the idea of just war – these two types of forceful action, he contends, are different in character and substance, and participation in the military, therefore, is verboten.

Yoder wraps up his argument by examining the impact of our modern, highly individualized view of the gospel, and how a more corporate view, that of joining Jew and Gentile, or reconciling people groups to one another, may be a more appropriate approach to understanding the gospel, and in so doing, creating a meaningful, non-violent, global Christian ethic.

In the end, he has argued for the Biblical moral imperative a non-violent Christian in a non-violent church that uncomplainingly serves, loves, and accepts that the means to the ends of God are those of submission, suffering, and loving witness.  Or as he summarizes:

A social style characterized by the creation of a new community and the rejection of violence of any kind is the them of New Testament proclamation from beginning to end, from right to left. The cross of Christ is the model of Christian social efficacy, the power of God for those who believe (POJ, 242).

 ANALYSIS

Yoder’s explanation and re-interpretation of some of the problematic passages of scripture are both interesting and compelling, especially Jesus’ instruction to the disciples to take only two swords with them. Like Stassen and Gushee (Kingdom Ethics), Yoder argues for delivering justice rather than punitive justice as the primary understanding of Biblical injunctions to act justly, and in addition, invokes the Jubilee Year framework for Jesus’ life and teachings.

I found his reasoning forceful until he reached his explication of Romans 13, at which point it seemed to me that his exegesis and arguments became a series of unjustifiably complex examinations and re-interpretations of the Greek verb tenses, and strained logic in which he attempted to extrapolate a perfectly defensible individual or ecclesial ethic of nonviolence to a civil ethic.

Especially unconvincing was his contention that “the doctrine of the just war is an effort to extend into the realm of war the logic of police authority – but not a very successful one.” His attempt at defining a clear delineation between the nature of the limits of control of police versus the armed forces is, in my opinion, exactly a “matter of degree” (POJ,204), and not a clear chasm, and his overtures to the comparably adequate controls on policing seem naive at best. He would have done better to argue that Christians ought not to be involved in police or armies, rather than trying to justify a clear distinction between them. He continues on to argue that Christians should not be involved in the punitive arms of civil justice at all (POJ, 198) which, while a logical extension of his ethic, doesn’t seem justified by the scriptures, and a clear position to the contrary can be made which works in amenable concert with the non-violence position, so I found this overreach unnecessary.

Another claim I found egregiously weak was his globalizing of the radical subordination teaching of Paul, rather than taking it balance with the rest of the New Testament passages discussing the interaction of the individual and government. One good example of this is Walter Pilgrim’s Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament, in which he argues for three distinct views, applicable to different levels of governmental moral quality (for a brief overview, see my short review).

Additionally, one primary justification for his opposition to the “normative” view of subordination was the inability to define the limits of Christian tolerance for bad government, or even what “good” or “bad” government is. “Who is to judge how bad a government can be and still be good?” (POJ 200) This panicky hand waving about unknowable thresholds is perhaps most easily answered by John Stott in his peerless exposition on Romans, Romans: God’s Good News for the World (1994), in which he answers this question quite simply:

How then can it be shown that Paul’s demand for submission is not absolute? Granted that the authority of rulers is derived from God, what happens if they abuse it, if they reverse their God-given duty, commending those who do evil and punishing those who do good? Does the requirement to submit still stand in such a morally perverse situation? No. The principle is clear. We are to submit right up to the point where obedience to the state would entail disobedience to God. (p. 392, emphasis added).

However, in Yoder’s defense, at this late point in the book, he may have been as tired of his arguments and belabored sentence structures as I was, and perhaps that forced him into the merciful brevity of his reasoning in the final chapters.  His stumbling conclusion to a book filled with marvelous, if not revelatory insights into Jesus’ life and teachings, obfuscated by his abuse of parenthetical ideas and sometimes unclear stances (e.g. I am still unclear, after many re-readings, if he is for or against the dichotomies of the Systematic Tradition he describes starting on p. 103), make this volume one of significant but limited value, probably only to the academic who is willing to winnow the truths from it.

Last Update: 03.20.2012

1. AddThis Social Bookmarking Widget – Help your visitor promote your site! The AddThis Social Bookmarking Widget allows any visitor to bookmark your site easily with many popular services.
2. All in One Favicon – All in one Favicon management. Easily add a Favicon to your site and the WordPress admin pages. Complete with upload functionality. Supports all three Favicon types (ico,png,gif)
3. Broken Link Checker – Checks your blog for broken links and missing images and notifies you on the dashboard if any are found.
4. Compression WP – Allows you to compress your webpages to save bandwidth and make your blog load faster!
5. Configurable Tag Cloud – A tag cloud plugin for WordPress to give you more flexibility with the styling of your tag cloud.
6. Contextual Related Posts – provides a configurable list of related posts based on title and content, which is much more precise than just using categories or tags.
7. Disable Trackbacks – Globally disables trackbacks to cut down on spam. Very, very few people legitimately use trackbacks and spammers love them, so it’s worthy tradeoff.
8. Drop Caps – Creates drop caps for your posts.
9. Enhanced Meta Widget – Replaces the meta sidebar included with WordPress, and displays various links based upon user roles – and you don’t have to call it “Meta” :D
10. Google Analytics Dashboard – Google Analytics graph integration.
11. Google XML Sitemaps – This plugin will generate a special XML sitemap which will help search engines like Google, Yahoo, Bing and Ask.com to better index your blog.
12. Improved Simpler CSS – Simplifies custom CSS on WordPress.
13. IntenseDebate – Comments enhance and encourage conversation on your blog or website. Full comment and account data sync between IntenseDebate and WordPress ensures that you will always have your comments. Custom integration with your WordPress admin panel makes moderation a piece of cake. Comment threading, reply-by-email, user accounts and reputations, comment voting, along with Twitter and friendfeed integrations enrich your readers’ experience and make more of the internet aware of your blog and comments which drives traffic to you!
14. Lightbox 2 – Used to overlay images on the current page.
15. ManageWP Worker – Manage all your blogs from one dashboard. Visit ManageWP.com to sign up.
16. RefTagger – Transform Bible references into links to the full text of the verse.
17. Reposter Reloaded – Reposter Reloaded recycles your posts on a schedule of your choosing. Reposter Reloaded will find the oldest post in a specific category, and re-date it with the current date and time. It does this on the schedule of your own choosing or randomly, which can be as frequently as every 6 hours or as spread out as 21 days.
18. Search & Replace – A simple search for find strings in your database and replace the string.
19. Share Buttons by Lockerz / AddToAny – Help people share, bookmark, and email your posts & pages using any service, such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, StumbleUpon, Digg and many more.
20. Twitter Tools – A complete integration between your WordPress blog and Twitter. Bring your tweets into your blog and pass your blog posts to Twitter. Show your tweets in your sidebar, and post tweets from your WordPress admin.
21. WordPress Mobile Pack – The WordPress Mobile Pack is a complete toolkit to help mobilize your WordPress site and blog. It includes a mobile switcher, filtered widgets, and content adaptation for mobile device characteristics. Activating this plugin will also install a selection of mobile themes by ribot, a top UK mobile design team.
22. WP Minify – This plugin uses the Minify engine to combine and compress JS and CSS files to improve page load time.

Now get to work!

Last Update: 03.26.12

• Added decide.com, metacritic.com, slice.com

1. Product research

• Amazon – the best place to look up products and read consumer reviews.
• Consumer Reports – great product comparisons, but not free, you have to be a subscriber.
• Consumer Search – like a free consumer reports, with less detail, but can tell you the top products in lots of product categories.
• Metacritic – aggregates reviews on many of your favorite products. Very Web 2.0 :D
• The Tracktor – this site (also FF/chrome extension) adds a price history graph to Amazon product pages. Awesome.

You can also find specialty sites that review specific types of products – often a great source of detailed reviews.

• Autos - edmunds.com, tflcar.com
• Cell phones, long distance plans – phonescoop, saveonphone, signalmap
• Computers and Electronics reviews – cnet, computershopper, pcmagazine, pcworld, tom’s hardware (awesome)
• Digital cameras – digitalcamerareview.com, dpreview.com

2. Finding current bargains

Before you use any of the deal sites, including those below, you really should NOT go to these sites directly (though you can).  Instead, add their RSS feeds to your feed reader (if you don’t have one, I recommend Google Reader).  Then, you can search against them all at once.  NOTE: there are lots of great bargain sites, these are just my time tested favorites.

• Absurdly Cool Freebie Finder – ok, the stuff here gets old, but they list lots of freebies daily.
• Amazon Discount Finder – great way to find bargains on Amazon
• bensbargains.net – my first go-to deal site.  What i love is the user participation in discussing each deal – many times, if you read the discussion, you can find out if the deal you are considering is really worth it or not.
• dealcatcher.com – DC is great because it covers a lot more than electronics.  Also, it has specific RSS feeds for deals at such places as Old Navy, Overstock.com, and Target.
• dealnews.com – not only does this site list more than just electronics (like home items), each item has a nice description discussing the current pricing patterns for the item (e.g. ‘lowest we’ve seen in 8 months for this item’)
• slickdeals.net – I prefer this feed because it is easier to keep up with – only about 30-100 new  posts a day, as compared to 1000 for others. High quality deals.
• tanga.com – good deals, plus great t-shirts at low prices
• techbargains.com – kind of redundant with bensbargains, but if you want duplication just to make sure you didn’t miss anything, add techbargains.
• woot.com – one item for sale a day, some great bargains.  Fun!   See yugster also, an inferior but still good clone of woot.

3. Extreme Amazon Deal Finding

If you really want to geek out and find deals on Amazon, here’s some cool methods.  Beginners can skip this section, and leap to item #4.

A. Search by NODE

Search by node for deals greater than 75% off by using this formula:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/?node=172282&pct-off=75

Just replace the node number with the category you want to search (the above is for electronics).  Other nodes include:

• Apparel & Accessories 1036592
• Automotive 15684181
• Baby 540744
• Beauty 3760911
• Books 283155
• Cameras 502394
• Car Toys 10963061
• Cell Phones 301185
• Computer & Video Games 468642
• DVDs and Video Tapes 139452
• Electronics 172282
• Gourmet Food 3370831
• Health & Personal Care 3760901
• Home & Garden 1055398
• Home Improvement 228013
• Home Office 764512
• Industrial and Scientific 16310091
• Jewelry 3367581
• Kindle eBooks 133141011
• Magazine Subscriptions 599858
• Music 5174
• Musical Instruments 11091801
• Office Products 1064954
• Outdoor Living 289962
• Software 229534
• Sports & Outdoor 3375251
• Sunday Paper Specials 546272
• Toys 171280
• Toys and Games 165793011

And if you want to drill down in any of these major categories, you can get those node numbers at browsenodes.com.

B. Search by node AND limit to Amazon free-shipped only

Only want to see stuff that qualifies for free amazon shipping?  Add this to your URL (also, sorted by lowest price first)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/?node=1055398&pct-off=75&emi=ATVPDKIKX0DER&sort=price

C. Finding free-shipping ‘filler’ items

Need just a little more in your cart to get free shipping, but don’t know what costs 2.99?  Just go to filleritem.com and enter your price and choose your product category, and voila!  You have a product you can add at just the exact price you need.  The results even show the amazon rating for each product.  Sweet.

4. Product agents

• Decide.com - I LOVE THIS SITE, because it does more than just alert me to price changes – it does so on all sites it monitors, not just one, and based on trending, can tell me if I should buy, wait, or look at a different model.
• ebay – on ebay, you can set up a standing search for an item, and it can notify you by email when that item shows up.
• pricegrabber.com – they will notify you, based on a price that select, if a particular item meets your price from any vendors

5. Finding the cheapest price for specific items

You don’t have to do much work comparison shopping if you have these tools nearby:

• Boo.ly Shopping – this browser extension works on many sites, awesome price comparison tool!
• Decide.com - I LOVE THIS SITE, because it does more than just alert me to price changes – it does so on all sites it monitors, not just one, and based on trending, can tell me if I should buy, wait, or look at a different model.
• PriceAdvance – this Firefox/Chrome extension works only on certain vendor sites (like Amazon, walmart, target, etc.), but when you are on a specific product page, it will show you prices from the other vendors.  Nice.
• pricegrabber – one of the best price comparison engines.  Also has nice price notification feature (see #3 above)
• pricewatch – mainly for PC components and electronics, great way to keep up on prices for various items like graphics cards and cpus.  Just don’t trust their vendor ratings (see #8 below)

6. Finding coupons

There are tons of great coupon sites, but my favorite by far is RetailMeNot – not only can you search their site, but they have an awesome Firefox plugin which basically removes the work for you.

• freeshipping.org – finds free shipping coupons for various online merchants – often has coupon codes missed by retailmenot.
• retailmenot – this Firefox extension runs in the background.  When you visit a site that it knows there are coupons for, it will pop up an unobtrusive taskbar up top telling you “40 coupons for amazon.com” – you can click through to see them.  Nice.

7. Finding used stuff

• amazon – Amazon.com not only sells new items, but has tons of vendors that sell used versions of the items you are looking for.  Great place to find bargains.
• craigslist – if you have a local craigslist, use it!  It’s free, and you’ll be surprised how much stuff there is for cheap in your area – the best free classifieds ever.  NOTE:  once you search, you can add an RSS for that search to your feed reader, and just check for current results from there next time.  Awesome.
• pennysaverusa – you might have one in your county/metro area – classifieds with a clumsy but workable search engine.

8. Best times to buy

• Airline tickets – Airline tickets tend to be least expensive on Wednesday mornings because that’s when airlines try to fill unsold seats on flights for the following week to 10 days.  Also, about 8 weeks before your travel may be the best time to buy, price wise.
• Consumer reports sales calendar – all kinds of different items are on sale during different months of the year.

9. Checking vendor reliability

• Reseller Ratings – Reseller ratings is THE best place to check for obscure online vendors that you have not heard of, especially bad ones.  You might also check at Bizrate or the Better Business Bureau, but only as a second tier search.

10. Safe methods of payment

• Pay by credit card, google checkout, or paypal.   DO NOT pay with a debit card ever.
• Paypal – great if vendor accepts it. Ebay, of course, does.
• Secure Online Account Numbers – many credit cards, like Discover, allow you to generate a one-time use number for an online purchase.  Once used, it can not be used again.  Nice.

11. Tracking price drops

• BuyLater – Firefox extension, allows you to tag amazon items, and will notify of price drops via email.  Pricepinx (below) does this a little better, and more than just amazon, but it is not a firefox plugin.
• Decide.com - I LOVE THIS SITE, because it does more than just alert me to price changes – it does so on all sites it monitors, not just one, and based on trending, can tell me if I should buy, wait, or look at a different model.
• Pricepinx – this web-based service works very well – when you are on a product page, highlight the price and click the Pinx bookmark that you’ve set up.  BAM!  Now it will track and notify you of price drops.
• priceprotectr.com – After you make a purchase, you usually have a 30 day price guarantee.  But who goes back to check?  Now, priceprotectr will email you if the price changes.  Especially useful with amazon, who change their prices often.
• yapta – this Firefox plugin is useful, not only for finding cheap tickets, but for notifying you of price drops after you’ve purchased.  Sometimes, the airlines will credit you (I’m not sure of the rules), so you should watch for this.

12. Tracking rebates

• rebate-tracker.com – forget if you got that rebate or not?  Tired of tracking in a spreadsheet (or am I the only one that does that?).  Rebate Tracker is a great free service.

13. Tracking Shipments

If you know of any other great shopping tools, pls. let me know.  Thanks.

Q: what is it about the writing of genesis that leads you to think it was ever meant to be an actual historic account?

I was very impressed by the interview and book by Joel Heck, which I briefly discussed in Is Genesis Metaphorical or Historical? As I wrote there:

I was impressed with his answers, and learned some new reasons why Genesis should be interpreted as history, not metaphor, and that Chapter 2 should be seen, not as a recapitulation, but as a detailed examination of the 6th day (the creation of man). His explanation of why the verbs in Chapter 2 should be interpreted as past tense (God ‘had planted’, not God ‘planted’) easily clears up the ‘problems’ with chronologies.

Here’s an overview of why I believe it to be literal (though it may contain short passages of poetry, like 1:27, in which you can see some obvious parallelism, but that’s not to say that the story is mythological):

1. Ps 38:4-7 *is* a poetic description of Creation (so is Job 38), contrast against Genesis, you’ll see a vast difference – Genesis is *not* in the typical Judaic poetic form.
2. Note that “these are the generations of” is used to introduce genealogies, which joins the earlier sections to the current. So which of the genealogies are mythological?
3. Luke tracks Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam – so where does it cross into myth?
4. The new testament always seem to refer to creation as a literal event, taking Genesis literally. See the following passages and decide for yourself – a metaphoric reading might work, but it seems more of a strain than the natural reading of Genesis: John 1:1-5, Romans 1:20, 5:12-21, 2 Cor 4:6, Eph 5:31, 1 Tim 2:11-14, Heb 4:4, 6:7-8, 11:3.
5. Jesus seems to refer to the Genesis story, including Adam and Eve, as historic: Mt 19:4-8, Mark 13:19, Luke 11:50-51, Mark 10:6.

Let me ask you a couple questions from the other direction:

1. What indicates to you that these passages are NOT historical?

2. When does Genesis turn into history? At Adam? Noah? Abraham? Moses? And why?

Adam might be your best bet, since you could claim that only the creation up till that point was metaphoric.

If Noah is your last ‘mythological’ character, what about his sons and the tons of details it mentions, including names, places, the table of nations coming from them, etc? Where is the shift from legend/myth to history?

3. Do you take this position primarily because you think that science has proven an old universe and evolution?

I would contend that anyone who takes the metaphoric approach will also be an evolutionary believer, and by extension, a believer in an old universe since long epochs are required to overcome the statistical impossibility of evolution (and secondarily that they have looked at the science dating the universe).

This correlation might not always be causation, at least consciously, but I’d bet it’s more influential in peoples’ minds than they can see or admit.

But what if you don’t want a child-sized screen on your phone, and have an Android phone? And what if you run iTunes on a PC, and maybe have an Apple TV? Well, then your ecosystem is broken. Here’s how to cobble something together for free.

THE SETUP

Here’s my current setup:

• Phone: Android (Gingerbread)
• OS: Win7 64
• Media Manager: iTunes
• Photo Manager: Picasa
• Media Extender: Apple TV (first gen)

THE GOALS

1. Get my videos and pictures automatically and wirelessly synced to my computer AND have those movies instantly watchable on Apple TV.
2. Have my photos added to a folder monitored by Picasa.
3. Do all of this for FREE.

THE PROBLEMS

1. Movie Format: The default movie format on Android phones is .3gp, while the format required for Apple TV is .mp4. (iTunes will play .3gp files, but Apple TV won’t).
2. File Transfer: How do you automatically transfer files off of your phone to your PC? Via a cloud account? Which one?
3. File Moving/Import: Even if I get the files I want onto my PC, how do I get them into the correct folders for iTunes and Picasa auto-import?

MY SOLUTION

First, let me say that my solution will work whether you only want to transfer files over WiFi (if you have capped data on your phone) or over the airwaves if, like me, you are lucky enough to have an unlimited data plan.

Install and configure the following:

1. Install LgCamera – first, you need a new camera app for your Android phone, one that records videos in .mp4 format. LgCamera is an AWESOME camera/camcorder replacement, and comes in FREE and $2 flavors, and as far as I can tell, the FREE version is fully functional, and without ads. I bought the $2 version just to thank the developer and get a prettier icon. And the Dev is very responsive to questions.
   .
   Be sure to change the Video Resolution up to your desired max. (BONUS – you can set a hard button for taking pictures, like DOWN VOLUME)
2. Install DropBox – there are lots of cloud services out there, but Dropbox is best known, and free. Box.net offers more free space, but autosync down to your computer requires a paid account, so FAIL. You need to
   - establish an account (dropbox.com)
   - download the app onto your phone and sign in
   - download the app onto your desktop and sign in
3. Configure Dropbox – just add a new folder for you phone media. If your household has more than one phone, create one folder for each phone.
4. Install FolderSync Lite – In order to automatically get files INTO your dropbox folder, rather than moving them by hand, you need FileSync or some similar program.  The full FolderSync($2.40) software lets you sync to many cloud services, including DropBox, Box, SkyDrive, AmazonS3, and many more. The Lite version only lets you sync to one cloud service, but that is good enough.
   .
   So set it up to upload the contents of your Video/Photo folder (which are the same folder if you are using LgCamera, and you can view/select LgCamera’s save location in its settings) to your specific DropBox folder (note: you are not moving your files into the dropbox folder on your phone, but directly up to your cloud account).
   .
   Set the sync period to once per day or some long period, esp. if you are MOVING rather than copying your files – otherwise, 30 minutes after you take a picture, it won’t be on your phone anymore :D.
5. Install Download Mover- At this point, your files will automatically copy or move to DropBox and down onto your home PC. But to move them OUT of dropbox, you need Download Mover. Note that the Mac has a native program that does this, but I’m not sure of the name.
   .
   For videos, ask download mover to move mp4 files (don’t use the . when setting up) to this iTunes folder, which already automatically exists:
   …/Music/Automatically Add to iTunes/
   .
   For pictures, I recommend creating a folder in your main Photo folder, one that Picasa (or your photo manager) scans. DONE!

FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS

1. Auto-assign ID3 tags – I would love to have all my movies tagged with the genre Family Videos.
2. Combine DropBox/FileSync/Download Mover – I would love it if all three of these services were part of one app. I’m not sure if one of the other sync services, like SugarSync, can do that. Please chime in if you know.

————————————————–

Reflect on how attending Fuller Theological Seminary would complement your present Christian experience and/or help you to achieve your future professional and vocational goals.

Although I am an avid self-educator through seminars, reading, and podcast listening, I am often acutely aware that University training has benefits which are hard, if not impossible to get otherwise. These benefits include
(a) regular, interactive contact and friendship with scholars and thinkers,
(b) access to thoughtfully designed curricula that are modern, holistic, and complete in their coverage of basic pastoral knowledge and skills, and
(c) the provision of an external impetus to complete projects, something which even the most self-motivated person can require periodically.

As I surveyed the various top evangelical schools I could attend, Fuller stuck out to me for all of the right reasons. While aiming at the traditional and honored goals of the spiritual formation of students and basic Biblical literacy, Fuller appears to also focus on and value intellectual excellence, theological praxis that considers modernity, and holding to a generous respect for other traditions and perspectives without abandoning Christian distinctives.

I was especially won over by the nuanced yet Orthodox discussion of inerrancy on the ‘What we believe and teach’ page – an important perspective which I agree with, and that needs to be openly discussed and affirmed – and a conclusion to which I myself had to wrestle my way to with some difficulty. I am often dismayed that this doctrine, among a handful of others, has driven away some of the most devoted thinkers due to its overreach regarding the nature and plenary accuracy of Scripture.

I desire to be well informed in the intellectual matters of philosophy, ethics, history, and doctrine, the practical matters of leading and running an organization and people, as well as in the spiritual disciplines of private devotion, spiritual formation, mission, and service.

I intend to become a local pastor, and hope to influence an even wider sphere through writing, speaking, and evangelism.

I apprehend that Fuller Theological Seminary, which is located near to my home, also shares these priorities, and I am very excited to attend and sharpen my skills for service to Jesus and His Church.

————————————————-

Reflect on your past Christian experience, including the most significant spiritual event/influence in your life, the role of Christ in your religious experience, the effect your faith has on your worldview, your involvement in Christian service, your perceived gifts/calling for ministry, and your reason(s) for attending your church. (minimum 250 words; maximum 500 words).

One of the most influential experiences of my spiritual journey was my initial involvement with a spiritually abusive Christian college ministry.

I was raised in an agnostic home in which we looked down upon religious people as mentally weak or acculturated into a mythological system that we did not want or need. However, during my senior year of college, I converted to Christianity. Unfortunately, the legalism of the high-vision, Arminian, evangelistic ministry I joined eventually led me to abandon my faith after 8 years of dedicated surrender of my soul to God and the organization.

Subsequently, in my late 20’s, I went on an Abrahamic journey in which I had to let go of my faith in order to rebuild the foundations of my convictions. This process was both harrowing and liberating. I explored and benefited from psychology and counseling, as well as both Buddhist and yoga traditions.

My return to Christianity was cemented during the last days of a 10 day silent Buddhist retreat, in which we were practicing meditation with the view that there is no personal, transcendent God. Not only did I find the practice of ignoring the personal God unnatural and perhaps ignoring God’s reality, I reflected upon the competing world views, and how they translated into, among other things, public policy and social well-being.

Rather than my faith affecting my world view, I found that the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and benefits of the Christian world view, as compared to others, was so impressive I would be foolish not to return and live under its umbrella, and that realization has since buttressed my faith.

My exodus from unhealthy faith, through unbelief and other faith traditions, and back to healthy Christian faith has shaped my goals and informed my mind with principles that I employ in my current position as Associate Teaching Pastor in my local AOG church.

My goal, plainly put, is to feed God’s sheep. I plan to do so by:

(a) Rethinking church structures and emphases. Like a good trellis, such structures serve the life of church participants, enabling them to become aware of and equipped to fulfill God’s individual and corporate call on their lives.

(b) Focusing on preaching balanced, complete, and timeless Biblical truths, with emphases on practical solutions for modern social, intellectual, and personal challenges.

My primary gifts and profound interests in analysis, preaching, teaching, writing, and mentoring/discipleship can serve these ends.

My wife and I attend our current church for a few important reasons. First, the Senior Pastor creates an atmosphere of transparency and reality in Christian living, and is not afraid to talk about his and our human foibles in the spiritual quest. Second, we felt both the internal call and external witnesses to that call with regard to this church. Lastly, for the past four years, I have had the generous opportunity and privilege to preach one or more Sundays per month, and without an M. Div., something I might be hard pressed to find elsewhere.

Now, my three kids are in school and my wife is at home and not working, so I am starting up my education again. This time, however, I am applying to Fuller Theological Seminary – slightly more liberal than GC, but I really dig their statement of faith, which includes a really great discussion of inerrancy which I wholeheartedly agree with:

At times, some Christians have become unduly attached to the precise wordings of doctrine-whether of events in the last days, the meaning of baptism, or the use of a catch phrase like “the inerrancy of Scripture.” But it is well to remember that all our formulations of Christian truth must ultimately conform not to some preset statement but to the Scriptures, all parts of which are divinely inspired. Thus, sloganeering can never be a substitute for the careful, patient analysis of what God’s Word teaches, including what it teaches about itself.

Also, as it turns out, every M. Div. program usually comes with a choice of five or so emphases that you must choose from, and they differ somewhat. For example, here’s Gordon Conwell’s choices:

• Educational Ministries
• Youth Ministries
• World Missions
• Urban Ministries
• Anglican Studies

Here are FTS’s choices:

• Christian Ethics
• Worship, Theology, and the Arts
• Youth, Family, and Culture
• Recovery Ministry
• Children at Risk
• International Development and Urban Studies
• Islamic Studies

First, which seems more up to date and less antiquated? The FTS list is certainly more descriptive, and appeals more to me.  Second, despite the liberal use of the word ‘peace’ in the description, I found the classes for the Christian Ethics emphases surprisingly interesting:

• ET 501 – Christian Ethics
• ET 533 – Christian Discipleship in a Secular Society
• ET 525 – Christian Ethics of Bonhoeffer
• ET 520 – Biblical and Practical Peacemaking
• ET 535 – Ethics of Life and Death
• PH 514 – Topics of Philosophy of Religion
• PH 543 – Philosophical Issues in Theology and Science
• MC 500 – Church in Mission
• MP 520 – Transforming Contemporary Cultures

I mean, I could not refuse such a great list. Comments?

Last Update: 04.24.12

Changes: Added a bunch of games

App Management

1. * AppShopper – best way to keep a wishlist of apps you would buy if the price changed – it notifies you. Also, good way to see on a daily basis what is hot, what is discounted (many apps go on sale for FREE for a day only). There are others like HotApDeals, AppAdvice ($2), but you might not need them.
2. AppStart – this has a nice list of Best of Apps for you.
3. Discovr Apps ($2) – great way to find apps related to ones you already know about.

Autos

1. Car Factor – browse new car specs and pictures, latest year(s) only
2. * CarZen – browse new car specs and pictures, latest year(s) only

Bible Apps

1. * Bible (YouVersion) – best all around multi-version bible reader, and FREE. Has many pre-configured reading plans you can follow. No commentary links, though. It’s usually the first one that comes up when you search for Bible, but look for the one made by LifeChurch.tv
2. Bible + – has decent topical index, small Reading Plans, but other really nice features, including Game Center integration for achievements! Coolness factor.
3. Bible IS – has audio with text, pretty sweet for free.
4. Blue Letter Bible – for all of you Bible studiers, this is a great piece of software that mimics the extensive information on the blueletterbible.com site.
5. Four Spiritual Laws – The well known presentation of what it means to be a Christian. Know it, live it, share it.
6. Logos – for those of you who have the Logos Bible Software on your desktop, this is their iPad software. Not a great experience, but you do have access to your Library.

Book Readers

None of these readers have all the features you would want, esp. social sharing. But here you go.

1. * Amazon Kindle - the industry leader.
2. CBD Reader – if you get eBooks from ChristianBook.com (must set up account online first)
3. Google Books – not a great option yet, but it could be
4. * iBooks – one of the best readers for PDFs, built in intergration with Safari
5. Stanza – great reader for .mobi and other free books

Browsers

1. * Atomic Web ($1) – there are lots of alternate browsers out there.  Atomic is king. Adds great features like tabs, share to Facebook, Readability integration, gestures, skins, and much much more.
2. Readability – making strides into the read it later / reformatting / browsing arena.

Entertainment

1. IMDB – you did say you were a movie fan, right? All the info at your fingertips.
2. * Movies (Flixter) – See trailers, movie times – I like better than Fandango, which is also good.
3. Netflix - If you have Netflix, just get this for streaming, queue management, etc.

Games

I like free games mostly, but there are a few worthy of purchase. I’ve tried many, and am only listing those I think are really replayable over a long period.

Action

1. Battle of Midway Pro HD ($1) – Single player or multiplayer BattleShip. Decent animations and sound.
2. Infinity Blade ($6) – a fun First Person adventure game, stellar Unreal graphics.
3. N.O.V.A. 2 (0-$7) – A great FPS, better than ID’s Rage HD ($2).
4. Overkill – a great FREE FPS
5. Robokill LITE – if you love it like I do, you can buy the paid version ($2).
6. Robokill 2 ($2) – wow, they made it harder and better.

Geek Games

1. Hack Run – hack your way through.
2. The Hacker – fun old school almost text adventure

Jewel Games

1. 4 Elements HD ($5) – get it on sale, fun jewel game, but more!
2. * The Treasures of Montezuma HD ($2-5) – the best Jewels-type game around, regularly goes on sale. If you’re not sure, try the FREE version first.
3. The Treasures of Montezeuma 3 ($2) – Don’t buy #2, just skip to this one, it’s good. Or try the free one first.

Kids Games

1. Angry Birds Seasons ($2) – well, I don’t love it AB, but this version is enough for me, and is cheaper than the regular app (free versions)
2. * Diversion HD ($1) – fun 3D side scroller where you jump to avoid death and collect jewels. There is a free zombie version – my kids spend MORE time on this than any game, all ages!
3. Feed that Dragon – nice physics game.
4. * iStunt 2 – Snowboard ($1) – great sound track, easy physics, kids love
5. NinJump HD – simple but fun.
6. Lego 4+ – simple fun for ages 3 and 4
7. Lego – Ninjago: Rise of the Snakes – those who have boys understand why this mediocre game is a must have.
8. Lego – Ninjago: Spinjutzu Scavenger Hunt – also decent.
9. * Plantsv. Zombies – just buy it. Best game on iPad. Ever.
10. Stupid Zombies ($1) – better than Angry Birds, LOVE this game. The free version has lots of levels, but why not spring for the full version, it’s cheap and awesome.
11. * Temple Run – just get it.
12. Victory March HD – simple platformer, increases in speed as you go. Not too many levels, though.

Racing Games

1. Drag Racing – lots of fun for a free game. Compete against others, build up your car.
2. * Draw Race 2 ($3)  – great for kids, you draw the path your car will take, then watch the race (free version)
3. Ion Racer – space flier, nice
4. * Lane Splitter ($1) – ride your motorcycle through traffic.
5. Light Bike 2 – Tron light cycles, cool!
6. Moto X Mayhem ($1) – a nice side-scroller motorcycle game (free version).
7. Reckless Racing ($5) – Single or multiplayer 3rd person redneck racing. FUN! Sometimes goes on sale.
8. Sonic Racing – your favorite Sega character, just like the console game.
9. Warp Rush – nice spaceship – not really racing, but picking up stuff.

Tower Defense Games

1. Anomaly Warzone Earth HD ($4) – a cool twist on Tower Defense – instead of the enemies moving towards your stationary towers, you move through their towers and apply powerups to protect your convoy and destroy their towers.
2. Devils at the Gate: Total Resistance HD ($2) – a great children’s version of tower defense, you actually place individual, cartoonish fighters, not machines. Nice.
3. Epic War TD Pro ($3) – my 5 yo boy’s favorite TD game, has nice tower functions, nice giblets.
4. Monster Trouble HD ($6) – Nice pan/zoom on this ogre v. humans, 3D view defense game.
5. * Sentinel 3 ($2) – the most fantastic graphics, but hard to beat the enemies! Think you got skillz? Try Sentinel.
6. * Spice Bandits – fun, tough!
7. * Starfall HD  ($5) – a great space station TD game – pricey, but worth it for hardcore TD fans.
8. Tower Defense: Lost Earth HD – another more cartoon-like, traditional tower defense game.

Word Games

1. * Bookworm ($3) – if you are a word person, this game is without peer.
2. Draw Something – not really a word game, but it belongs here with the other Zynga games.
3. * Hanging with Friends – still only a scaled up iPhone app, but it is fun, look forward to HD version.
4. Moxie 2 ($2) – fun, not frantic, and tough!
5. * Scramble with Friends – No HD version yet, but don’t wait. Get this now.
6. * Words with Friends HD ($0-3) – The free version is good enough, but you may want to spring for the ad-free version if you are a scrabble fanatic. And I didn’t tell you this, but there’s also a good free word helper.
7. Word Slam – fun way to play live against another person.

Google Tools

1. Analytics – nice free way to access the basics of your Google Analytics. Can upgrade ($7) for adv. features.
2. GoTasks – a simpler, easy to use Google Tasks program. Likee.
3. Google Books – not a great option yet, but it could be
4. Google Apps Browser ($1) – access to seven Google apps plus Facebook, twitter, myspace, all in one tabbed app. The free version has less apps, but is worth a look.
5. * Google Univeral App – all the google stuff in one official Google app.
6. * Gmail – the official Gmail app.
7. MultiG – allows multiple users to access their email accounts on one device. Not perfect, but FREE. Also, one click to your email if you are not using the default mail client on your iPad.

Music

1. Discover Music ($2) – great way to discover and explore artists similar to the ones you already like.

News Readers

1. Currents – Google’s entry into this space, pretty good but still has flaws that kill it for me.
2. Engadget – this just lets you see all your favorite Engadget content, including video, in an easy to use interface.
3. Feedly – Magazine style, nice way to browse your G-reader feed, but has other hooks to internet content.
   
4. * Flipboard - Newspaper layout, great way to read the Twitter content of your favorite sites in a magazine style. Get this! You may prefer Pulse, which has a different layout.
5. Hitpad – nice graphics, but not my favorite UI. Try it.
6. I Can Has Cheezburger – just an iPhone app scaled up, but the only one I can find for getting a daily LOLcat fix.
7. Pulse – Thumbnail layout, popular if you like this layout (I don’t). Try it!
8. * Pocket – List layout – if you see an article while browsing on one of your devices, you can save it to your RIL account, and view it in an easier to read format on any other device. There is a free version.  The other big player here is InstaPaper ($5!). Which you prefer is kind of a Coke/Pepsi thing.
9. * YourVersion HD – List layout – browse the internet based on keywords you enter. Awesome.
10. Zinio – Magazine layout – subscribe to your favorite magazines for a fraction of the cost (sometimes). Limited selection, but growing.
11. * Zite - Newspaper layout, very similar to Flipboard, but with a twist. You don’t choose the feeds you want to read in magazine style, you choose or add the topics, and as you give it feedback on individual articles or sites, it learns and finds you similar stuff to read. I’ve found some really great content using this.

Photo Tools

1. Hope Poster Photo Filter – allows you to make one of those Obama-like hope photos out of your own photos.
2. * Luminance ($1)  – nice set of tools, allows upload to Facebook.
3. Photoshop Express – not only does this allow you to modify photos, but to upload to the web.

Real Estate

1. * Realtor.com – the big boys are out there now. Has search alerts, nice.
2. Zillow – the best known, but data is a little behind actual.
3. * ZipRealty – more up to date than Zillow.

Reference

1. * WikiPanion – best Wikipedia search app. Love it.

Remote File Access

1. PC Files – Wirelessly transfer fiels to and from computers
2. * Splashtop Remote - access your computer remotely, even supports multiple monitors.
3. SugarSync – sync files between your PC and your iPad.
4. ZumoDrive – Stream your music, iTunes playlists, get your files from your home PC.

Shopping

1. * Amazon.com – just get it
2. Amazon Windowshop – interesting way to browse for stuff, but not sure how useful for real shopping.
3. Apple Store – kinda lame, scaled up iPhone app. But it is easier to use than the Apple site!
4. * Craigsphone – best FREE Craigslist app. There are some better paid ones, like CraigsEZList Pro ($2).
5. Deal Drop - alerts you to customizable list of deal sites.
6. * Ebay – official app from ebay, not bad.

Social

1. Boxcar – alerts you to all of your incoming messages. I don’t love it, but some swear by it.
2. * Facebook - yes, finally they have an iPad app, and it’s decent.
3. FriendCaster – the best Android Facebook app comes to iOS. No twitter support, and no ad free version yet – and based on the price of the Ad-free version on Android ($5), probably pricey here too.
4. Friendly for Facebook – used to be the best Facebook app out there, but has gotten cluttered over time.  The FREE version has ads, but they are easy to dismiss once each time you open the app, and are not persistent like in some readers.
5. Google Apps Browser ($1) – access to seven Google apps plus facebook, twitter, myspace, all in one tabbed app. The free version has less apps, but is worth a look.
6. Imo Instant Messenger – to log into all your chat accounts
7. * MyPad – one of the better Facebook/Twitter clients, clean layout. I bought the upgrade.
8. Twitterific - Does it simply and gets out of your way. Hootsuite is also worthy, with a more advanced feature set.

Utilities

1. * Activity Monitor Touch – Really nice UI.
2. * Speedtest X HD – test your connection speed.
3. System Info – simple presentation of stuff you might want to know.
4. Timelock – allows you to limit usage on your iPad

1. Theodicies are NOT arguments FOR a good God.

In the EGC, Law is not debating any of the traditional philosophic arguments FOR the existence of God (though he does argue against the Moral Argument elsewhere).

Instead, he takes the theodicies created to defend Christianity against the Problem of Evil and flips them to show that in many instances, they show an equal possibility of an evil God. The problem here is that these arguments are not meant to show that a good God’s existence is probable, only that it is logically possible that an all good God and evil could logically exist.

In fact, theodicies aren’t even an argument FOR a good God, they are a defense AGAINST the argument that it is logically impossible, which most philosophers now agree is bogus – that is, most agree that the arguments of Alvin Plantinga and others have definitively proven the logical possibility of an omni-God and evil co-existing.

2. Good and Evil are not equal and opposite

In his argument against the Moral Argument for God, Law questions the first premise, and states that the premise is still debated and not settled among philosophers, citing that even Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne takes issue with it.  To review, the Moral Argument is:

1. If objective morals exist, God must exist.
2. Objective morals do exist
3. Therefore, God exists.

If read in the light of Law’s EGC, Law’s version of the Moral Argument might better read:

1. If objective morals exist, they could exist due to a God who is all good, or all evil (or morally neutral, but let’s hold that till later).
2. Since a good God is not required for objective morals to exist, it is just as likely that an evil god exists.
3. Therefore, it is not necessary that a good God exists.

Evil Can Not Create

But here’s the problem – it is assumed that an evil God could create both good and evil to further his purposes. But by classic definition, evil can not CREATE, it can only destroy, so an evil god could NOT create good, nor positive moral duties and punishments.

Let me clarify with an example. While light is a real substance that can be quantified, darkness is not – darkness is not a thing, it is the ABSENCE of a thing, namely light.

You don’t create darkness to replace light, you can only remove light. It is the same with good and evil, by classic definition. When Christians say that God is all good and created only good, the classic Evidential Problem of Evil responds “well then where did evil come from if God created everything?”

The answer is thus – evil is not created, it is the removal of good through the willfulness of the created creatures that brings evil into existence.

So it does not make sense to say that positive objective morals can be created by an evil God, because evil is just a lack, not a positive created thing.

The Euthyphro Dilemma Revisited

Further, let’s remind ourselves of the Euthyphro dilemma (a false dilemma), which states that

1. Either goodness is good because God commands it (no matter what is really is), or goodness is good independent of God.
2. The first is irrational if objective morals exist, and the second obviates God
3. Therefore, God is not necessary for goodness or knowing what is right.

William Craig’s answer to this is simple and profound – good is not so just because God declares it (though he sometimes does declare it because we get confused and darkened by sin), nor is it good independent of God – it is an expression of His nature, that is, it is grounded in and comes from God.

With this in mind, if we examine Law’s evil god, such a god does not have goodness in his nature in order to ground, create, declare, or enforce good, so he could ONLY declare such things if the good God actually existed – which is a logical contradiction.

Again, the reason that evil can exist with the presence of a good God is that evil does not emanate from God, but exists in the REMOVAL of God’s goodness, either by sin or, as a result of sin, in God’s justice and judgement (the latter of which is another discussion).

The Ontological Argument Revisited

As I wrote in The Evil God Challenge – Flipping Arguments, I once challenged William Craig with the question “why can’t the OA be used to support the existence of an omnipotent EVIL god just as well as an omnipotent GOOD god?”

His response was also based on the nature and differences between good and evil. Evil is not a created thing, but merely an absence (that’ s my interpretation of what he said, he might or might not have meant that). He stated that, by definition, a maximally great being would be GOOD, not EVIL, because by definition, good is greater than evil.

I’m sure we could spend hours debating that premise, but leave it to say that, like the theodicies and Moral Argument above, the Ontological Argument can not simply be flipped because good and evil are not equal and opposite. The former is created, the latter is an absence.

3. Failing to address Natural Theological arguments means the EGC is weak.

If my objections to Law’s EGC hold water, then we’re back to the standard and powerfully reasonable and persuasive arguments for God’s existence – Cosmological, Ontological, Moral, and Teleological.  That is, Law’s attempt to focus on the weaknesses in the arguments for a good god, at least as he sees them defended in theodicies (which of course, they are not aimed at), is a mere trick that can be, as I’ve attempted, dispensed with by revealing his bad assumptions.

Now, I’m sure Law may argue against the standard arguments of Natural Theology, as well as arguments from the Evidential Problem of Evil, but the EGC certainly does not address them.

CONCLUSION

The Evil God Challenge is an interesting but unfruitful ruse – based on some bad assumptions about the purpose of theodicies and the nature of good and evil, it draws some poor conclusions – namely that the existence of an evil God is just as likely as that of a good God, and therefore, both must be dismissed.

Now, the argument for a neutral God might have merit (from the atheist point of view), but I haven’t seen Law make such an argument. He does take issue with the Moral Argument, which I will address in a future post. Cheers.

One new emphasis that came from the seemingly exhausted subject of God’s existence was what atheist and philosophy professor Stephen Law calls “the evil god challenge.” He discusses it at length in this episode of the Unbelievable Podcast (worth listening to).

As I understand it, the Evil God Challenge is not a challenge to the existence of God, per se, but to the arguments supporting a GOOD God. That is, Stephen feels that, for this argument, you don’t have to defeat the arguments for theism, but only for the Christian version of a Good God.

Specifically, Stephen argues that if the arguments for an omnipotent evil god are as a likely as those for a good god, then both arguments can be dismissed as spurious, since accepting one or the other would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction – or at least, you would have no real reason to say that a good God is more likely.

Flipping Theodicies

Note that Stephen is not arguing against any of the main philosophic arguments for the existence of God (Cosmologic, Ontologic, Moral, Teliologic), but instead, is attacking Christian answers to the Problem of Evil (i.e. theodicies). As we shall see in my next post, this is one of the main weaknesses of his approach.

Stephen’s method is based on flipping the normal theodicies for explaining the Problem of Evil to show that most of them can also make sense in defending the existence of an all powerful EVIL God who allows good in order to maximize suffering (as opposed to the Good God who allows evil for a host of supposedly noble or mysterious reasons).

Here’s some more detail on my understanding of his argument. The syllogism goes like this:

1. Most theodicies that explain why God is all powerful and good can be flipped to explain why god is all powerful and evil.
2. Since both lines of argument are so similar, you must either accept them both as equally plausible (and in doing so, break the law of non-contradiction), or dismiss both as spurious.
3. Ergo, we must logically dismiss both as spurious.

Flipping the Ontological Argument

Stephen hasn’t added this yet, but he might as well. Recently, I wanted to present the classic philosophic arguments for the existence of God, but at the time, decided not to present the Ontological argument because I thought that flipping it seemed to be the same argument.

The Ontological Argument is one of the toughest to understand, and is really just an exercise in philosophic reasoning, and not typically understood by most people. However, once understood, it becomes a relatively strong argument if you are logically minded.

Here’s the syllogism, as I understand it, mixing God’s existence and his goodness into one argument:

1. A maximally great Being would have at least these two attributes – He must be Good, because Good is, by definition, greater than Evil, and he must be Necessarily Existent in all possible worlds, since this is greater than existing Contingently (i.e. depending on something or someone else to bring you into being).
2. Since it is POSSIBLE that this Necessary being exists, then it follows that He MUST exist.
3. Therefore, an omni-benevolent, self-existing God exists.

Naturally, Premise 2 is hotly debated, but I was interested in Premise 1 – why is a maximally good god better or more ‘maxi’ than an evil one. I posed that question to William Lane Craig during a question and answer period, and his response forms my response.

Weaknesses in the Moral Argument for God

Law also attacks the moral argument in a related but different argument, which I think should be included here. His argument is this:

1. The Moral Argument for God rests on the Propositions that (a) Absolute morals can not exist without an external law giver, and (b) objective morals do exist.
2. Proposition one is debated by philosophers, and other claims to grounding objective morals exist, so it is not a sure thing.
3. Evolution could explain the moral sense and imperative in humans – that is, this sense is NOT good enough evidence for objective morals, since it could just be a biological survival mechanism. No other direct evidence for objective morality exists
4. Therefore, the claim that there is a good God defining or grounding objective good is inconclusive at best, spurious at worst.

In my next post, I will attempt to debunk Law’s arguments, as well as the Ontological one I supplied for him above.

1. All world views have weaknesses

Can Christianity satisfactorily answer all ultimate questions? I don’t think so. There are many issues which apologists and theologians have wrestled with over the centuries, and many of these are still disputed, having no absolute or complete answers.

Sure, we can come up with some logically consistent theodicy for the problem of evil, or some nuanced explanation of inerrancy of scripture that attempts to account for the missing originals, or for how Noah fit all the animals on the Ark, or for how the conquest of Canaan was somehow morally justified.

But the existence of answers does not mean we have successfully or completely nullified these objections.  Especially if we realize that ALL world views have lists of similar weaknesses.

The challenge is to (a) realize that our pet worldview has inconsistencies or gaps, and (b) determine how to choose the BEST POSSIBLE world view in light of ubiquitous imperfections among them.

2. Atheism IS and IS NOT a worldview

Atheists can be just as blind to the weaknesses of their position as any religious convert who, for emotional security, NEEDS their position to be unassailable and true. One common defense I have heard from atheists when real limitations to atheism are brought up is ‘that’s because atheism isn’t a full orbed world view, it’s simply a declaration of unbelief in God, nothing more.‘

I think retreating to this half truth is really a dodge on their part – realizing the limits of the explanatory power of atheism, this pose still fails to answer the questions that challenge atheism.

Joining atheism with congruent ideologies such as secular humanism, or naturalism, or scientism may make atheism a fuller view, and perhaps from that perspective an atheist might make a rational response to challenges. But do THOSE combinations answer the questions any better, or supply the foundational assumptions missing in simple atheism? The answer is typically ‘NO.’

This dodge is intellectually dishonest for a couple of reasons.

First, it fails to acknowledge that even an atheism/secularism/Darwinism/naturalism cocktail will most probably still lack answers to the same issues, and that fact needs to be faced rather than evaded.

Second, it fails to acknowledge the world view implications of an atheist stance – it pretends there are no implications at all except with regard to personal belief.

3. Atheism has significant weaknesses as as world view that hardliners ignore

Darrin the ex-atheist mentions just a few of the most significant shortcomings in atheism’s ability to answer important questions. Here they are, with my commentary:

a. The existence of the universe

This is a reference to the Cosmological argument for God, and it certainly challenges the atheistic naturalist view of origins, i.e.  the idea that there is no Creator, but rather, the universe just came into being from non-being or ‘nothing’.

In the past, this presumption led scientists to believe that the universe was of infinite age, and had no beginning, because a beginning demanded a first cause that was (a) fairly recent (compared to infinity), (b) outside of time and space, and (c) all powerful, and perhaps even (d) a conscious mind.

These conclusions grow out of the following syllogism, as nicely stated by Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;

   Therefore:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God;

   Therefore:

5. God exists.

Many atheists and scientists used to agree with this syllogism, but they doubted Premise 2. But since the advent of the big bang theory, and the conclusive subsequent support for it by empirical data, atheists have had to admit that their guess about the age of the universe, based on their assumptions that there is no God (not to mention evolution), was wrong.

Of course, some have tried to switch to doubting Premise 1  or Premise 4 by claiming that the universe CAN come from nothing, but that we just don’t know the mechanism yet.

This argument from ignorance is not a bad one, in that they give room for science to explain this enigma in the future. Their only weakness here is that on the theist side, the intelligent design position posits an intelligent cause, not from a “God in the gaps” argument, but from direct inferences of what we DO observe – that is, a positive case, not just insertion of God into our ignorance, nor a ‘we don’t know yet,’ which is their current stance.

The point is, naturalistic atheism has NO explanation for the beginning of the Cosmos. But on the other side, when you couple this beginning point for the Universe with our observations that all things have a cause, that the creation of the universe would have a cause with attributes we often attribute to God, and with the arguments from design, atheism is now in a position of having less explanatory power than the theistic view.

This is not to say that the theistic view is proven, just that it is, at this time, a better argument. And atheists ought to admit this.

b. Moral values and duties

This point, typically called the Moral Argument for God, is very simple – if there is no external and greater standard giver for objective moral truth, then such truth must be subjective, that is, declared or discovered by mankind.  In the end, it means that whatever our human consensus or opinions are, those determine morality.

Not only that, to whom do we have a duty to be moral? Who enforces this morality? If I can get away with rape, and my genes are passed on, who says I have a moral duty to do otherwise? Perhaps that IS my moral duty.

Here, I think that atheists often resort to obfuscating the idea of objective morality and the inability of atheism to ground it by using one of more of the following tactics.

The first tactic is admitting that there is objective morality (which I agree with), but that it can be known without God (which I agree with, though I think their use of the Euthyphro Dilemma is a red herring – not only is this a false dilemma nicely split by Wm. Craig), and therefore, objective morality and atheism are compatible.

Their mistake is, as Craig would say, confusing moral epistemology (how we discover or know what is moral, which can be done using our conscience, and to some extent, without the scriptures or God) with moral ontology (that is, how you logically root the existence of morality – in what authority is it rooted?).

Even Paul the apostle admits that we can know right and wrong without the law (moral epistemology), but this fact does not mean that atheists have answered the problem of moral ontology:

[The Gentiles] demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. ~ Romans 2:15

A second tactic to try to explain the existence of objective morality without God is to propose many other ways of grounding objective morality.  They have attempted many methods, but none seem to truly ground morality outside of human consensus, desire, or some appeal to the greater good over time (which, in truth, is really not possible to know, esp. on an individual basis). I am not up on all the latest atheist philosophic attempts to ground morality in something other than God, but you might try these:

• Desirism
• Ethical Naturalism

However, in the end analysis, none of these attempts can come up with any kind of specific, central set of moral principles that truly grounds morality outside of human subjective opinion – even if the theistic model has it’s challenges, these models have arguably more. Even worse, some of these methods rely on our ability to see the future consequences of events, or the grander ‘butterfly effect‘ – things we can’t predict well at all.

A third tactic is to agree that the non-existence of God leads to the conclusion that morals are subjective, and any intuition to the contrary is illogical and wrong. “But,” they argue, “what’s wrong with moral relativism? If it’s true, then that’s enough for me.”

The problems with subjective morality, however, are obvious in history, including:

1. Eugenics – those in power resort to the next logical moral imperative – human survival and thriving. The problem is, when social utilitarianism replaces the objective morality of individual worth (i.e. we should do what’s best for society), it almost always devolves to eugenics.
2. Might makes right – when the majority define what is ‘right,’ the fallen human heart always ends up justifying horrors for the common good.
3. Killling off the weak – including the sick, elderly, and unborn or children.

A fourth tactic is to accuse theism as being subjective, even though theists are claiming an external authority in God.  In the end, they claim, humans wrote the bible (and of course, atheists deny inspiration in the writing of scripture), and humans have to interpret and apply it, so it’s still subjective. That’s not a bad argument, but it’s not a good one either.

To conclude, while attempts to explain the existence of objective morals have been made by atheists, the arguments are not strong enough to overcome the moral argument  for the existence of God – at the very least, to many the moral argument appears more viable, and this is enough reason to claim that atheism does not have a conclusive or even adequate answer.

Again, Christianity has some inadequate answers, but those objections made here to atheism are significant and should be admitted.

c. Objective human worth

Atheism in itself declares nothing about human worth, but its common bedfellows, Darwinism and humanism, do make claims or have implications regarding human worth. However, they have the same problem of subjectivity as in the moral argument – when the humanist tries to define why humans are of more worth than animals, the Darwinist (or anyone else) can respond “who says so?”

Interestingly, humanists may use some of the same attributes that Christians would use in describing human exceptionalism, such as cognitive function, ability to conceive of self, ability to know one is in pain rather than just experience it, having a concept of the passage of time, etc. However, though these attributes may describe our differences from other animals, this does not mean that we are of more worth – that ends up being a subjective value decision.

Christianity declares our worth based solely on the authority of God, and these attributes merely confirm it – they can’t ground it.

Worse are the ethics that spring out of Darwinism – that we are merely animals, and we are of worth only because we survive and dominate. This ethic gave rise in the past to scientific support for racism, eugenics, and even the genocides of Hitler (as argued elsewhere in such worthy books as From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany or Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress.

Again, in conclusion, while atheists attempt to ground human worth in some attributes, or in the Darwinian case, deny our worth, they really don’t have a good answer. This weakness is real and not to be poo pooed – especially when Christianity does have answers that are arguably better.

But even if you don’t buy the Christian answers, if you buy the atheistic ones as sufficient, I think you are kidding yourself.

d. Consciousness and will

If materialistic atheism (the idea that only the material world exists, and not God or human souls/spirits) is true, then we have no self apart from our brain chemistry.

What this would mean is that you don’t really make decisions of will, your choices are all biologically determined. This then leads to such logical conclusions as – you don’t really believe or disbelieve because you’ve chosen to think about it, it’s all decided by your chemistry and your experiences.

Not only that, but you are not responsible for your choices, you just react chemically to your environment. There is no ‘you’ apart from your body at all.

This flies in the face of some modern science and meaningful ethics, as well as our experience. I call this the ‘evidential problem of free will (a humorous, if not cynical reference to the evidential problem of evil, used to discredit theism).

Atheism leads naturally to the conclusion that we have no free will – but experience, (which could be wrong – but probably is not in this case), seems to overwhelmingly support free will.

For you Calvinists, this does not conflict with our need for prevenient grace in the process of salvation, it merely states the obvious – that in many moral and ethical decisions, we are both able and responsible to choose our actions.

In conclusion, atheism’s logical conclusion is that we don’t have free wills or a soul. Some atheists deny this is a logical conclusion to atheism, others affirm it and have no problem with saying that we are merely machines. Experience, science, and philosophy make strong arguments against this position, and that is why this is another strong weakness in atheism.

4. The affects of overreaching in our arguments in either direction

This caught my attention in Darrin’s article:

The months of study rolled on to years, and eventually I found an increasing comfort around my God-believing enemies and a growing discontent and even anger at my atheist friends’ inability to kill off these fleas in debate and in writing, an anger that gave birth to my first feeling of separateness from skepticism after reading comments related to a definitively refuted version of the Christ Myth theory, the idea that Jesus Christ never even existed as a person at all.

Line after line after line of people hating Christianity and laughing at its “lie,” when solid scholarship refuting their idea was ignored completely. It showed that the motive of bashing and hating Christianity for some skeptics wasn’t based in reason and “free thinking” at all.

Darrin was disappointed to find that, in falling in with atheists, rather than becoming an objective, intellectual person, he had become a ‘Christ-hater,’ encouraged to buy into some criticisms of Christianity which were so ludicrous that they finally offended his sense of honesty.

Christians make this same mistake, and in doing so, also cause people to leave with bitterness. For example, calling all atheists or people of other religions immoral miscreants, or assuming that there is no wisdom outside of Christianity, or overstating our claims (including plenary inerrancy, which is one of my least favorite doctrines), are immature and dishonest attempts at shoring up doubt.

All world views, including atheism and Christianity, have weaknesses. The sooner we admit that and practice honesty in discussing these, the sooner we can come to respectful decisions for ourselves, and allow others the space to make their own decisions.  We can make decisions about God without ironclad, 100% answers for every issue. We must.

CONCLUSION

Blaise Pascal would tell us to choose the best bet. Darrin Raspberry has re-evaluated, and has chosen. Good for him.

Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists. ~ Blaise Pascal

• Why we avoid silence
• Scriptures on silence
• The Benefits of Silence

To download The Practice of Christian Silence, please subscribe to our podcast feed.

[powerpress]http://wholereason.com/wp-content/uploads/powerpress/ThePracticeofSilence.mp3[/powerpress]

Me, I doubled the life of my Thunderbolt battery (1400mA) by replacing the battery with the exact same size replacement battery for the HTC Rezound (1620mA) – from 3 to 7 hours of battery life, no rooting or conditioning required. But of course, I want MORE! So here’s the directions.

WHAT: Battery calibration is getting your phone to recognize the full capacity of the battery.

WHY: Lets say your battery is @ 80% actual capacity when your phone was set up at the factory, or when you flashed your new ROM. When it hits that 80%, it stops charging! You need to reset that stop point at the ACTUAL 100%.

HOW: To correct it you “bump” charge your phone back to 100% actual battery percentage and wipe your battery stats. Now you have set what the phone thinks is 100% to what IS actually 100%.

Battery Conditioning

A. Root your phone

B. Bump Charge your phone to get it to ACTUAL charged capacity

1. Charge your phone until fully charged while powered on.(IE. Green LED light.)
2. Unplug your phone from power, wait 5 seconds and plug it back it. Repeat this until your phone stays at/returns to 100% within a few seconds, then Turn of your phone.
3. Charge your phone until fully charged while powered off. (IE. Again, green LED light.)
4. Again, unplug your phone from power, wait 5 seconds and plug it back it. Repeat this until your phone stays at/returns to 100% within a few seconds.
5. Boot into recovery and wipe battery stats.
6. Reboot phone normally.

WARNING: You can brick your phone if you don’t do this exactly right. Do your homework and read the links at the bottom first, I am not an expert, just a guy who roots his own phone.

I am still experimenting with ROMs, so don’t have any recommendations.

Last Update: 11/28/2011

1. Install the necessary software on your phone

• ROM Manager on your phone
• Titanium Backup (optional)

2. Download a new ROM and put in in the root folder of your SD card.

• Thunderbird ROM List

WARNING: There are some caveats about not replacing your ‘radio’ for some odd reason. You may want to choose a ROM that does NOT replace the radio.

3. Back up your existing stock ROM (source)

• Go into ROM Manager and select “Flash ClockworkMod Recovery”
• Select the option “Reboot into Recovery”
• Select backup and restore>backup

You also have the additional option of backing up all your current setup, including apps, using Titanium Backup, but it’s not required. I’m not sure how to do it yet, since there is some warning about only backing up downloaded apps. There are TiBU tips here and here.

4. Root the phone

• Follow the quick 15 step root method at Thunderbolt Forums

WARNING:  You should also write down your Radio version in case that gets messed up. Instructions on how to do that will be added as soon as I figure that out!

5. Wipe the Cache (using ROM Manager)

You’ll have to Confirm each selection below on the confirmation screen – a Yes among many “No”s

• Select “Wipe data/factory reset”
• Select “Wipe cache partition”
• Select “Mounts and storage”>”format /system”
• Go back to the main menu. Select “Advanced”>”Wipe Dalvik Cache”
• Select “Wipe Battery Stats”

6. Flash the new ROM

• Go back to the main menu of Recovery and select “Install zip from sdcard”>”choose zip from sdcard”
• Choose the file you put in the root folder of the SD card

7. Add your apps and back up (Optional)

• You may want to back up your entire setup with Titanium. See #3 above.

8. Restore Stock ROM

• How Return to Stock from Revolutionary Root

MY MAIN SOURCES:

• REVOLUTIONARY-The 5 minutes or less ROOT without data loss!!! (Thunderbolt Forums)
• How to flash a ROM (Team BAMF)
• How Return to Stock from Revolutionary Root (Thunderbolt Forums)

It reminded me of when I was 20 and decided to take LSD (in my pre-Christian days). But what has spurred me to write is not to argue with any of his experience, but to explain what is missing from it – yea, and from ALL such explorations – the knowledge of God, and the understanding that such revelatory experiences are actually and often spiritual deceptions leading us towards death, or at least AWAY from eternal life.

For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
~ 1 Corinthians 11:14

My Course Towards LSD

In college, I pursued and attained a B.S. in Biochemistry, but I was also a man on a search for I didn’t know what. Leaving my unpleasant High School experience, I lived out my anger and rebellion in trying many personas – I was (sequentially) a punk with a Mohawk, a redneck who drank and dipped and listened to Bocephus, a regular recreational drug user and Bob Marley freak, and finally, I started listening to the Dead and tripping – right before God intervened and I became a born-again. And for good measure, I left Xianity after 10 years for a 6 year period to explore Yoga and Buddhism.

Having exhausted those avenues to my satisfaction, I have returned to Christianity to become a pastor – in my experience, convictions, and opinions, there is no truer or more reliable world view.

Should Anyone Condemn LSD?

As a Christian Pastor, I am expected to whole heartedly condemn recreational drug use, and report that my experience was all bad. Except, it wasn’t. I enjoyed most of the many drugs I tried, and took some of them regularly.

I still have some fond memories of, for example, cooking mac and cheese while getting high, knowing that the munchies were only 20 minutes away. Or jamming with Bob Marley and getting revelations of our mutual brotherhood and the beauty of nature.

Now, I’ve quit those things for many reasons, though mostly because they’re played out for me – their benefits are limited, and their detriments are many.

I am not libertarian – I think we should have some strong drug laws, but neither is keeping MJ out of the hands of college kids my biggest concern in life.

But LSD changed my life.

My Marijuana Gateway

It was a typical warm Carolina night, and I was in my third floor apartment with my three roommates, two women and one other guy. We had a party, and the stereo was blasting Bob Marley while we all sat around, very high. When I closed my eyes, I saw sheets of colored paper coming in from the distance, overlaying themselves to the beat of the music, with different colors and patterns.

“Wow,” I thought to myself, “this is cool. I wonder if this is what tripping is like.”

Soon after, I went to the library to research it – I mean, I’d heard scary things about it, and wanted to know more before I took it. I found and read Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use, which helped me plan a non-awful trip (can’t believe I can remember the name of that book 25 years later).

One of my earlier roommates was a construction worker, and he had drug connections, so he got me a couple hits of red dragon acid, which I put in my freezer for a few months while I prepared.

The Day of My LSD Trip

I went to the local park, put down a blanket, had a jam box and some water, and dropped a hit. It was a beautiful sunny Saturday morning, and I had nothing to do for the next 48 hours – more than enough time to enjoy this.

An hour later, or what seemed like an hour, nothing happened. So I took the other one. Within the next hour, I was on my way, tripping.

The first thing I experienced was that LSD, at least for me in this experience, was not primarily a visual experience, but a mental one. I had no experiences of tracking or of things morphing into strange shapes, or trees and animals talking to me. Nope.

I had perhaps four important revelations that day.

1. The Revelation of Self

The most intense and surprising experience I had taking LSD was that of taking stock of myself – it seemed to strip away my pretenses and forced me to look at myself like an inventory manager in a warehouse. I perceived my strengths and weaknesses, my emotional assets, and my liabilities.

I realized that I liked myself, and had some great potential. I also realized, though in retrospect, hardly enough, my own lack of kindness and concern for those around me.

Most of us never assess ourselves soberly (cf. Romans 12:3) and honestly, and to be ‘forced’ to do so by a drug that removes our mental defenses and amplifies our feelings about ourselves and others is intense, if not dangerous.

2. The Revelation of Interconnectedness

As I lay on my blanket and up at the tree leaves, I saw the incredible order of the leaves, an incredible math, a universal equation. “Life is like that,” I thought to myself, seeing an interconnecting design, not just within the tree, but the ecosystem.

I felt that the same equations that govern the gathering and separating of soap bubbles on the surface of water was at work in, for example, patterns of car movements on the highway, and was amazed at how it was all governed by similar principles.

I’m not sure that this revelation really changed my life morally, ethically, or in a meaningful way, but it did impress me that there was some universal order at work that I had formerly missed. I was amazed at how little I had seen before.

3. The Revelation of Lesser Considerations

As a scientist who also enjoyed writing poetry, I liked to frequent poetry reading events in bars. On one occasion, I met a guy who had taken a LOT of LSD over his lifetime, and I noticed this – it had fried his brain. His speech was halted, and he had a second or two gap between each word – it seemed he could barely eek the words out of his brain, and the words were not profound. Most of his ideas were now not readily available from his memory – and this relationship between present and stored memory is part of my ‘revelation’ of Lesser Considerations.

This guy showed me the type of memory frying that can occur if you trip too much. In fact, after I came down from this trip, I realized how dangerous it was, and decided to only do it maybe once a year.

But anyway, in my mind, ideas started gathering into categories, which for some reason, I though of as ‘lands.’ You know, the land of science, the land of government, etc. Profound, I know. But the land that really grabbed my attention was ‘The Land of Lesser Considerations.”

That was the place that ideas went when I was either not thinking about them, or could not remember them. It fascinated me that my brain could store and retrieve information – put it in the background somehow, then bring it to the foreground. And this storage area, this land of lesser considerations – i.e. stuff that was not in my thoughts NOW, was funny to me.

But my inebriated inability to remember information led me from an intellectual land of forgetfulness to a land without will – what I called The Land of F**k It.”

So I took down the big Coors label poster on my wall, turned it over, and wrote “Welcome to the Land of F**k It” on it (I did not use asterisks). Why is this important?

Well, not at all. But I was deeply impressed by this concept, enjoying my abrogation of ability to care about things. I guess it’s just fun to un-shoulder our responsibilities on occasion and enjoy a few hours not caring about our troubles.

The only down side is, with too much drugs, we end up living in that land of will-less incapacitation, and like the LSD poet mentioned above, the connections between what we know and can remember become seriously damaged.

4. The Revelation of Grooviness

About 6 hours into my trip (an hour after peaking), my girlfriend showed up, and good thing too – the park was gonna close in a few hours, and I hadn’t eaten all day, and I was in NO shape to drive. In fact, I could not even make simple decisions like should I sit up or lay down. Any decision making was pretty much impossible, and extremely stressful.

But I got a look at her hair in the sun and something strange happened in my brain – it just looked so AWESOME!  That moment, I decided to grow my hair long. It was just groovy and natural – like the grass and the trees, and I dug it. Other natural things that had the same easy, unforced beauty, like certain types of music, or organic designs, suddenly appealed to me.  I’m not sure why. They just did.

Perhaps I was awakening to both truth and beauty instead of being fooled by the pleasures, power, and possessions the world offers to satisfy us (see 1 John 2:16)

Secondary Shifts After Taking LSD

Again, looking back, the secondary shifts in my world and self views were really more important than the ‘revelations’ I had while tripping.

1. Drugs as a source of knowledge

I felt that I had some real breakthroughs from my trip. I felt that I had a better appreciation for and understanding of myself. I felt that I had gained a great appreciation of nature and the interconnectedness of all things.  I felt I had experienced a spiritual and emotional space that I had not previously – realizing an ‘expanded’ reality is really mind blowing. After years of thinking you know what the world is and what it’s like, then to be shown that there is so much more, well, it’s awesome.

2. Death as Beautiful

This is one of the strange secondary effects that I can not explain fully (to myself at least) with natural explanations. It’s more than an appreciation for the ‘circle of life,’ and how death is part of ongoing life.

Death seemed peaceful, almost beautiful – it was relaxing and easy, like the music of the Dead. I guess it was an extension of the Revelation of Grooviness, but it was something more – something I came to see later as possibly a spiritual deception. More on that later.

3. Pacifism and Non-Violence

Part of the credo of many hippies is a commitment to kindness, a dislike for conflict, and a desire for justice. Some of this, I am convinced, comes from the emotional shift towards wanting things to be more groovy, more low key, more enjoyable.

The mantra here could be ‘mean people suck,’ but I think what may be lost in that simple calculus is the love of truth – of the reality of evils like Nazism or Islam, the need for virtues like hard work, chastity, self-control, and just war.

I propose that the emotional openness and vulnerability of the LSD experience makes us want to avoid conflict and emotional danger, and so we thereafter gravitate away from even necessary conflicts.  Not that hippies don’t protest or address social issues, just that they do so in ways that align more with personal comfort, hedonism, and a disdain for traditional morality – and I mean ‘traditional’ not in the sense of outdated rules from bygone paternalistic eras, but in the sense of time tested principles and virtues that produce prosperity and freedom.

So What’s Wrong with LSD?

As someone who has experienced a few paths of enlightenment, and ended up back on the Jesus-following path. let me share a few ideas with those of you who wish to explore psychotropics in your search for – well, whatever you are searching for, or think you need to find.

1. All that I learned, and more, I could have learned directly from God

There is no doubt in my mind that LSD mellowed me out, and expanded my experience and understanding of the natural world, and of the value and brotherhood of all beings, especially other humans.

But did I really become more loving? Hardly. In fact, the arrogance I had groomed over years of insecurity was only heightened by my newfound ‘understanding.’ It hurts me even now to think of the selfish, arrogant things I did since that time.

What I am saying is that, not only did I hardly learn anything substantial, I had no deep character change.

But let me say that soon after, after a couple encounters that taught me the gospel message, I was personally transformed by asking the living God to enter my life. My experience of the presence of a God who loved me intimately broke down years of hurt in a matter of weeks, and many other powerful truths have since humiliated the paltry ‘truths’ I thought drugs had given me.

I could fill volumes (and hope to, I’ve got 8 books outlined already, see WhenYouReturn.com for my first steps) with the practical, transformational, insightful, and hope-giving revelations I’ve learned from Christ.

2. False perception of enlightenment

If you’ve ever gotten high, you may have had the experience of being able to see ‘into’ people more by looking at their expressions, or in their eyes. Somehow, you ‘see’ them better, more accurately, more deeply.

Now, this may be partly true since most of us have little experience or skills ‘reading’ people, but if we just pay a little more attention to their subtle body language and facial cues, we can see more than we do before doing so. Perhaps the amplification affect of drugs cause us to think we are somehow seeing more, and perhaps we are.

But in general, we are NOT becoming more insightful, we are just becoming more convinced in our own minds that we are.

Along with the few other real truths we learn, and perhaps even the experiences of profundity or of hearing a higher voice in our heads, we think we are on the path of enlightenment.

But my experience is that this is more perception than reality.  Want some real enlightenment? Try some Vipassana Meditation, or try asking Jesus into your heart. Drugs will soon seem like a fool’s gold. Heck, even Yoga will teach you much more.

3. Drugs are the path of death, not enlightenment

As I mentioned above, a second deception of drugs is that of making death beautiful. The Bible speaks of death as the great ENEMY to be overcome with eternal life:

The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
~ 1 Corinthians 15:26

What really happens as we take drugs is a progression like this:

a. We experience revelations and expanded awareness
b. We start experiencing diminishing returns, and start frying our brains
c. We end up dead.

That’s pretty much it. Even the “God” drug mentioned in the initial article above won’t actually make you meet God.

But I swear, you can meet God in your experience. I first understood the gospel through this simple presentation – The Four Spiritual Laws (non-flash version).  A few months later,  I tried it. I am alive.

4. Possible Spiritual Roots of Drugs’ Deceptions

As I quoted above, there is a spiritual principle regarding Satan – that he is not a huge angry goat-man in a red suit, but rather, a beautiful fallen angel, expert at deception (cf. Genesis 3:1-7, 14-15, Job 1:6-12, Job 2:1-7, Isaiah 14:12-15, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 6:11-18, 1 Peter 5:8-9, Revelation 12:9-10, Revelation 20:10), bent on destroying humanity.

He will give you as much truth as you can handle through alternate paths, as long as you miss the one truth that can save you from eternal death and damnation – the beauty and work of Jesus.

I’m not saying that God can’t lead us to Christ through whatever avenues are available to us – I mean, look at the Zoroastrian astrologers who found Jesus after his birth (a.k.a. the ‘Wise Men from the East.’) I’m not saying that, for example, Buddhism is demonic because it is devoid of the Christian gospel. It *is*, however, incomplete without it.

And drugs are different than a daily Buddhist meditation – they have real, detrimental short and long term physical effects, and limited revelatory potency, even if they have big emotional impact.

What I am saying is this – drugs are a path to death, and may be part of a spiritual deception masquerading as enlightenment. So watch yourself. The spiritual world is quite possibly real, as well as demons and other fearful things.

5. Alcohol, though dangerous in its own right, is a better alternative

Alcohol *is* significantly different from drugs, even MJ, even if they share similarities. Alcohol’s unique qualities include:

• No health problems from regular moderate use
• Actual health BENEFITS from regular moderate use
• Biblical sanction (with warnings, see my article 10 Biblical Points about Alcohol and Drinking)

Why do I mention this? Only to say that the Bible does acknowledge some value to at least one intoxicant – and describes this benefit as “making glad the heart of man.” Sometimes a drink can lubricate what has been a hard week. My summation of the Bible’s teaching on booze is “tipsy OK, drunk NO WAY.”

But it’s never mentioned as a revelatory tool – rather, as a mocker and deceiver if we look to it for light. Drugs are the same.

CONCLUSION

I think that the original article alarmed and maddened me – there are a lot of 20 somethings commenting on that thread, and many are seekers like I was. Seekers after experience, and truth, maybe even God.

I want to keep them from dying. And I want them to really live.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. ~ Jesus, John 14:6.

Last Updated: 11.09.11

————————————-

SOURCES

• Lightsource.com – a vcast site for Christian ministries (I don’t vcast much, but there you go)
• Oneplace.com – this site is a clearing house for podcasts for thousands of popular ministries.  Want to find your favorite radio preacher or show?  Try here.

ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN PODCASTS

• Albert Mohler – The Briefing (Daily, 15 Min | RSS) – Explores current events from a Christian world view. It’s how I start each weekday, along with NPR.
• Albert Mohler – Thinking in Public (Weekly, 60 min | RSS): An interview forum for intelligent conversation about frontline theological and cultural issues.
• Andy Stanley Leadership Podcast (Monthly, 30 min | RSS) – Andy Stanley is not only a great preacher (see North Point Ministries podcast below), he is one of the most knowledgeable and biblical man I have ever heard on organizational leadership.  His insights are life changing for leaders.
• Apologetics 315 (Varies | RSS) – This relative newcomer is now the best place to get the latest audio of debates and lectures defending the faith.  They don’t create any audio, they just list it from around the web.  Not only do they update often, but they have their now infamous Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page.
• Issues, Etc. (5 per day / 20 min | RSS) – though this podcast is frequent and labeled as ‘Lutheran’, it is really just evangelical, and has really great content.  One of my new favorites.
• Reasonable Faith (Bimonthly, 20 min | RSS) s a conversational program dealing with the most important apologetic questions of our day.  It features William Lane Craig, the foremost Christian Apologist, debater, and philosopher of our time.  Great for keeping up with current trends and arguments in apologetics.
• The Resurgence (Bimonthly, 60 min | RSS): If you are interested in church growth and cutting edge thought on our cultural relevance, spiritual depth, and call to missions both locally and globally, this podcast is informative.
• Unbelievable (Weekly, 90 min | RSS): This UK podcast has really great discussions with thought leaders, usually having a very civil discussion between a Christian and a non.  Well moderated.
• Veritas Forum (60 min, varies | RSS)- A University lecture series started at Harvard, now spread nationwide. Their stated goal is to create “university events that engage students and faculty in discussions about life’s hardest questions and the relevance of Jesus Christ to all of life.” Thoughtful, academic, awome.

ESSENTIAL NON-CHRISTIAN PODCASTS

• Freakonomics Radio (Weekly 60 min | RSS) – one of the most interesting and intellectually stimulating podcasts around – the counter-intuitive guide to reality.
• Point of Inquiry (Weekly, 30 min | RSS) – Explores pseudoscience, alternative medicine, religion, and secularism.  Interviews various scientists and thinkers. Great thought provoker. Not a Christian podcast.
• Shire Network News (Bi-monthly, 40 min | RSS): This satirical news commentary show is priceless, esp. if you are a conservative interested in ‘defending the anglosphere through satire.’  Wonderful conservative British wit, critiquing American politics and Isamofascism world wide. (WARNING:  May contain profanity, this is NOT a ‘Christian’ show).
• Stuff You Should Know (3x/wk, 30 min | RSS) – another interesting program about all kinds of subjects from HowStuffWorks.com. Awesome.
• The Thomas Jefferson Hour (Weekly, 60 min | RSS): Clay Jenkinson is a historian, and has for years impersonated, or incarnated, if you will, various historical figures.  Each show, he is intereviewed and answers as if he were Thomas Jefferson.  Fantastic thought-provoking and educational stuff, and way more interesting than dead history!  Awesome.
• University Channel Podcast (Multiple Daily, 60 min+ | RSS): This podcast from Princeton University has some of the most incredible speakers, all highly educated, sometimes boring, but the subject matter is usually relevant, thought provoking, informative, authoritative, and fantastic listening.

OTHER INTERESTING PODCASTS

• Acton Institute (Weekly, 20-90 min | RSS): This Catholic think tank has awesome, intellectual speakers – their tag line is “Integrating Judeo-Christian Truths with Free Market Principles.” They also have video archives.  Very world-view oriented and scholarly – faith and politics, economics, public morality, education, you name it.
• American Vision with Gary Demar (Weekly, 60 min | RSS):  Gary is a little off of mainstream, he’s in the homeschooling, Christian  ‘reconstructionist’, world view stream.  He sometimes has good guests on his broadcast.
• Bored-again Christian (Weekly, | RSS)- want to hear the latest in underground and cutting edge Christian music.  Try this.
• Christ the Center (Podcast RSS) (weekly, 60 min) – the Reformed Forum podcast is a bit academic, and they spend a lot of time reviewing new books.  If that sounds good to you, this is a good podcast.
• The Commonwealth Club (Biweekly, 60 min | RSS): This NPR show has some of the best public affairs lectures from high profile leaders and authors and other world leaders.
• Council on Foreign Relations (Weekly, 60 min | RSS) – This is one of my new, favorite academic think tank podcasts.  This independent (but somewhat libertarian) think tank produces the highly regarded Foreign Affairs periodical.  Amazing stuff, like the recent Religion and the Open Society Symposium, with full transcripts!
• The Critical Thinker (Monthly, 30-60 min, RSS) – A secularist podcast, has neat video and audio on critical thinking.
• Defender’s Podcast (Weekly, 50 min | RSS) – the Sunday school classes of William Lane Craig, foremost Christian debater, apologist, and philosopher of our age.  If you want to learn about doctrine and apologetics, this podcast is a
  mindful.  See his other podcast, Reasonable Faith,  below.
• The Dividing Line (Weekly, 60 min | RSS) – the talk show of apologist James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries),
  I like him because he is on the forefront of public debates with
  atheists, Mormons, Muslims, and guys like Bart Ehrman (you can see
  their upcoming debate in 01/09).  If you like to argue over the Greek behind the text, this guy is fun.
• Focus on the Family – (Daily, 30 min | RSS): Come on,  you know you love James Dobson.  Just give in. I actually don’t listen to most of these, but when something interesting comes up, his show can be exceptional.
• Grace to You (Daily, 30 min | RSS): Even if you dislike John MacArthur’s authoritative preaching style, he is still one of Christendom’s best preachers, and his study bible is one of the best.
• Homebrew Christianity (2x/week, 60 min | RSS) – a theological/philosophical geek discussion between two seminary students. It’s a bit theologically liberal (think Emergent and anti-Calvinist), but informative.
• K-LOVE Podcasts | RSS – the great KLOVE broadcast famlily has a few good podcasts, including the Closer Look podcast (Weekly, 15 min) and the Pastor’s Roundtable podcasts (Weekly, 5 min).
• John Ankerberg Show (Daily, 30 min | RSS): This apologist has a TV show, and most of his materials are well done, but pricey.  You can get his podcast for free.  Enjoy.
• Masters Seminary Faculty Lecture Series (Annual, 6 hour-long lectures | RSS) – John MacArthur started The Master’s Seminary, and each year, they have a short Faculty Lecture series on a specific topic (for example, this year it was  homosexuality).  Well worth a listen.
• North Point Ministries: Andy Stanley Podcast (Bimonthly, 40 min | RSS) The best of Andy Stanley’s sermons.  Andy is the son of well known expository preacher Charles Stanley, and is one of the best preachers from Generation X, or anywhere.
• Probe Ministries (Weekly, 13 min | RSS):  Produced as weekly radio spots, these are very good introductions to various world view and cultural issues.
• The Skeptical Christian (Podcast RSS) (40min, Monthly) – I’m still evaluating this one, but check it out.

OTHER LISTS OF PODCASTS

• Guide: Best Atheist / Secularist / Anti-theist Podcasts (tworothree.net)
• 15+ Podcasts Every Geek Should Listen To (makeuseof.com)
• 7 More Fantastic Podcasts for Geeks (makeuseof.com)
• Top 10 Christian Podcasts (about.com)
• Top Christian Podcasts (gotop100.com) – I’m not sure of the quality of this list, but you’ll find some offbeat podcasts here

What are your favorites, Christian or non?

Last Update: 01.18.2012

Changes:

• added Backup services

————————————————–

MY INSTALLATION PROCEDURE

1. Install the OS

• Install the Service Packs and updates using Windows Update utility
• Install .net framework (some programs, like Thinkvantage, won’t work without it: Version 3.5
• Power Toys from MS
  • XP:  Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP (I only do Tweak UI and Alt Tab)

2. Update your drivers

If you have a driver disk for any of the following, install them

• Peripherals (printers, scanners, webcams, card readers, etc.)
  • Logitech Harmony Software – I’ve got one of the older Harmony Universal Remotes (680), which I like (the new ones have too many soft buttons).
• Motherboard
• Graphics Card (don’t use the disks, find out if you have an NVidia or ATI card and download the latest drivers for your machine
• Thinkpad Config – if you have IBM Thinkpads like me, install the ThinkVantage System Updater

3. Browsers

• Google Chrome (if you want to use the betas, install and run the Google Chrome Channel Chooser or the Update Channel Selector Firefox Extension)
• Firefox (see http://www.wholereason.com/2010/05/guide-favorite-google-chrome-extensions.html)
• Internet Explorer (IE)
  • Adobe Acrobat Reader

4. Media Players

• Itunes – there is no better free music player out there (some like WinAmp or Songbird)
• Windows Media Player:  Install the latest version
• Install the missing media codecs so that WMP can play DVD’s (Choose the expert installation so that you can deselect the shopping comparison toolbar.)

5. MS Apps (MS Office, etc.)

• If you don’t want to pay for MS Office, try the free IBM Lotus Symphony, or OpenOffice
• Office Locator Pack (free) will allow you to convert, for example, xps to pdf files

6. Backup Software

If you don’t have a backup solution, either local or offsite, you are a fool! For $5/mo, you can have online backup. Do it now.

• Backblaze.com – $5/mo unlimited backup? My choice
• Carbonite – the industry leader in this space, for now.

7. Media Editing Apps

• Audacity – the best free tool for editing mp3 and other sound files (great for podcasters)
• Auto-stitch – great for putting panoramas together
• Gimp
• Picasa – the best free image manager, with some decent editing features too
• Snippy – great free app for capturing parts of your screen as an image

8. DVD Ripping

• WinX DVD Ripper Platinum – great one-step ripper, paid version also supports high def
• DVDFab HD Decrypter (version 5 – newer versions no longer support ripping) and Handbrake (great for converting to AppleTV format or whatever)
• NOTE:  The following were popular, but are now either not available, or are unable to rip modern DVDs with newer DRM.
  • DVDShrink – To rip DVD’s (or try DVDRipper)

9. Security

• Adaware – Not as good as Spybot, but used in tandem, they can catch most stuff.
• AVG Antivirus – the best free antivirus program out there – love it.
• K9 from Bluecoat
  Internet filtering to block various categories of sites, or individual sites – great for parents and those wanting to avoid porno.
• Spybot Search & Destroy – my favorite, does a good job of getting spyware that others can’t catch.

10. Cleanup Utils

• CleanMem – frees up system memory from open and closed apps, amazing!
• Crap Cleaner (cleans up unused DLLs and leftover install files, temp files, has registry repairer etc.).
• Defraggler – great defrag program from the makers of CCleaner
• Duplicate Cleaner – nice way to ID and delete dup files, esp. jpgs and mp3s.
• Recuva – file recovery program from the makers of CCleaner
• Revo Uninstaller (has a great feature that scans registry after uninstall to clean it)
• SlimCleaner – awesome! Similar to Crap Cleaner, but more tools.
• WinStep Start Menu Organizer – free tool that cleans up start menus (XP/Vista/Win7)
• WinUtilities 6.2 – has all the free cleanup utils you need, awesome

11. Instant Messengers

• Digsby – a great multi-client chat program, includes social sites (some people prefer Pidgln or Trillian)

12. Misc. Utilities

There are lots of free apps out there, these are just the ones I need/use.

• Autoplay Repair (Vista) – this app will help you add other apps to the autoplay prefs.  I used it to add Picasa as my importer for photos. Instructions here.
• Double Driver – great free driver backup utility
• Pure Text – converts whatever you copy to the clipboard to plain text.
• Sequioa View – great program for visualizing the files on your drives, and how much space they are taking up, and how much free space you have left (you can also try the more advanced but harder to use WinDirStat)
• Textpad – my favorite free Text Editor (there are many others)
• Ultimate Boot CD
• uTorrent
• Vista Drive Icon – makes the drives in XP’s My Computer have a little bar that shows how full

13. Some other optional apps that may come in handy

• 3D Mark – a very cool benchmarking app that tests your graphics card – cool to watch in action.
• iTunes Plugins – there are some decent id3 tag editors and such out there.
• PC Inspector File Recovery – nice app to recover erased files (you can also try GetDataBack)
• TestDisk – OMG, if you’ve ever had Windows mess up your file partition on a data drive, and all of a sudden show all or part of it as “Unallocated,” this simple procedure will save your data.

But today I got a money raising email from the Evangelical left publication Sojourners, which displayed to me the assumptions and logical mistakes of leftist logic regarding our economic woes and solutions for it. I have to discuss!

Here’s an excerpt of what they sent me:

The Occupy movement has given voice and space to the unspoken feelings of countless others that something has gone terribly wrong in our society.

We couldn’t agree more. Our economy is unfair, unsustainable, and unstable.

That’s why we’ve been hard at work this year, standing up to Congress and the President about the immorality of federal budget cuts to the most vulnerable.

1. Something has gone wrong in our society

Before going to their evaluation of what’s wrong, how do we know something is wrong?  Unemployment? Violence? Disrespect for law? Lack of justice? The murder of the unborn? Human trafficking? Nation building and foreign wars? I mean, what are the OWS folks really about?

2. It’s the unfair, unsustainable, and unstable economy?

Unfair – I think I can figure out what they mean here.

First, cronyism is rampant in our government, and legislators are making and breaking rules for the rich and powerful. I probably agree with that, though it is happening on both sides of the aisle. Of course, I don’t suspect that they are against this when it works towards their own political ends, like when it supports the power hungry and corrupt labor unions, but let’s stay on track here.

The second inference here is that, by ‘unfair,’ they mean that the rich aren’t paying their ‘fair’ share the tax burden, needed to pay for their unsustainable social welfare system. Granted, the rich are getting richer, as evidenced by the disparity between CEO salaries and those of the commoner.

But what exactly is the problem with being rich? Is it unfair that they have maneuvered themselves into the position of being rich (through hard work, or lying cheating and stealing), or is it unfair because they’ve broken civil laws, or ethical principles, or is it unfair because we need more money for social programs?

a. It is not unfair that the rich are rich

Someone once said that if we take all the money and distribute it evenly, in a year, the rich will be rich again, and the poor will be poor. Why? Well, because some people are smarter, stronger, and more able to handle money. Is that unfair? Not really. I mean, if they use their strength to steal and bully, yes.  But the point is, people who are wise (‘a fool and his money are soon parted’) get rich even when they do not lie, cheat, or steal, generally speaking.

Should we penalize people who through hard work and intelligence legally make money?  No.

b. What if they’ve broken laws?

Well, of course, if they’ve lied, cheated, stolen, gamed the system, they should be prosecuted.

 c. What if they’e broken ethical norms but not civil laws?

I think an outcry is still apt, although we may not agree on what the ethical norms are. In that case, we may call for an ethics investigation, but if we think that the incumbents are unethical, we just need to oust them in the elections instead of call for anarchy.

d. We need their money for social programs

This is my real beef with the social program whiners.  We fundamentally disagree on how to deal with a social safety net. While smart thinkers like Newt Gingrich introduced Welfare to Work, which essentially meant a hand UP, not a hand OUT, today’s liberals want an every increasing Byzantine social welfare program that sucks money like a Dyson.

You see, they see it as the DUTY of the rich to pay for these programs, and the DUTY of the government to take that money and waste redistribute it. While it may be their ethical duty, I don’t think the government is here to enforce every ethical duty.

In fact, I think liberals are making a classic mistake in thinking that all ethical norms must be enforced by government.  The problem with this thinking is, they’ve basically usurped the responsibility of the other social systems that have their own spheres of authority. For example, paying people undending unemployment with no strings attached, and without training them is just wasteful, if not idiotic.

Unsustainable – wait, are these the same people who want to INCREASE spending on social programs? See their next paragraph…

That’s why we’ve been hard at work this year, standing up to Congress and the President about the immorality of federal budget cuts to the most vulnerable.

And there’s the rub. They assume that the best, biblical model for helping the poor is through the government – forced compassion, as it were. And conservatives do not.

Unstable – Hmm, no mention of why we are unstable. Sure, greed is involved, but the point they miss is this – our outlandish national debt is the source of ongoing instability – not foreign wars, not low taxes, not the greedy rich, even if the latter played their part in the original crash.

3. Jesus loves the poor, and socialism too

Only time will tell which direction the Occupy movement will take, but we do know this: When they stand with the poor, they stand with Jesus. When they are peaceful, nonviolent, and love their neighbors, they are walking with Jesus.

Well, if the OWS doesn’t change direction, they sure won’t be peaceful, nonviolent, or loving. More like angry, inconsiderate, violent and dirty.

The real problem with this sentence is that they confuse ends with means. Sure, we all want to help the poor, but the ends of the social welfare Christians are misguided because (a) the bible does not teach such, but arguably teaches AGAINST government compassion v. individual responsibility and private charity, and (b) social welfare programs bankrupt the society by encouraging laziness and dependence.

It’s hard to pin them down on any one issue, not because of their sophomoric egalitarian approach to decision making, but because every liberal frustrated at losing the public arguments in the political arena is now joining in and acting out like juveniles in a gleeful rebellion against authority. Yeah, we all did that in college, then we grew up – well, some of us.

What’s even more shameful is the main stream media’s support for this foolishness, as well as the Administration’s. Pathetic.

Let’s catalog just a few of the less than fringe occupations at the occupations, as nicely discussed in IBD’s editorial ‘Occupy’ Protests Dump On America:

• Lawlessness
• Childishness
• Violence
• Arrests
• Anti-semitism
• Terrible Messes
• Drugs
• Rapes

Good luck with that.

The Real History of the Crusades

For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression – an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death.

Can Islam Live in Peace With Other Religions?

It’s history and current events flatly say “no.”

Islam’s religious intolerance starts from it’s inception, and continues to this day, not because of fanatics who pervert its teachings, but because its foundational teachings are violent, racist, and produce a culture of oppression and control through fear, not of God, but of mortal violence from other “believers.”

Why there may never be a vibrant moderate Islam

And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. The come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith.

There are no moderate Muslims

As I have written, it certainly can’t return to first principles (restoration), because it is in those that we find the blatant racism and violence. Their only moderating approach will be one of liberalism, which has a better descriptor than “moderate,’ which is nominal. Similar to “nominal Christians,” they don’t follow the teachings very closely, and merely look for a positive moral structure and humanistic ethic dressed in faith.

Three Types of Reformation

As I mentioned previously, Salman Rushdie has called for a reformation of Islam. But which of the three types is he calling for? It appears that he is calling for modernization and liberalization. He can not really call for restoration, because if one returns to the foundational teachings of the Koran, one gets jihad and murder in the name of God.

Rushdie Calls for Islamic ‘Reformation’

Rushdie calls for Islam to stop viewing the Koran as the infallible word of God, while the Christian reformation was a call BACK to authority of the scriptures. Why this difference?

Because the Xian scriptures, when taken literally, are a call to righteousness by faith, love, peace, and forgiveness. The Koran, when taken literally, is a call to Jihad, violence, righteousness by servile obedience to law, and justice with little mercy.

If Islam is evil, why are there nice Muslims?

So most Muslims are nice, not because Islam lacks violent and hateful tenets, but because their humanity causes them to want to avoid and ignore these things.

There are simple answers to why there are nice Muslims despite the violent and hateful teachings and life of Mohammed:

1. Mohammed copied in many positive morals from Judaism and Christianity – so to some extent, any good found in Islam may not have arisen with Mohammed. In fact, since it claims that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were prophets, this is to be expected.

2. Mohammed began with positive teachings, but digressed into hateful, murderous teaching as he was persecuted and as his power as a warlord grew. This mix of teaching allows Muslims to choose to ignore or hide his more hateful acts and teachings and convince themselves (and some others) that Islam is peaceful.

3. Here’s the main reason – people are born with a conscience, and their own humanity teaches them that certain acts and perspectives are evil. Most Muslims, like most humans, want to live in peace and in harmony with their neighbors, and anyone with a little maturity realizes that our perspectives change over time, and we want to give others the freedom to choose that we ourselves would want.

So most Muslims are nice, not because Islam lacks violent and hateful tenets, but because their humanity causes them to want to avoid and ignore these things.

The only way one can adopt the total perspective of Mohammed is to (a) give themselves over to hate and murder against their better judgment, or (b) convince themselves, as many Germans did under Nazism, that what they are doing, like killing Jews or non-Muslims, is good for society and mankind, or good because Allah commands it.

• Can we be good without God? Part I: Introduction
• Can we be good without God? Part II: Defining Good
• Can we be good without God? Part III: Theism
• Can we be good without God? Part IV: Atheism
• Can we be good without God? Part V: Conclusions

This past week as I was walking, thinking, and praying, I recalled how, in my 20′s, I enjoyed visiting the Union Cemetery in Hackettstown, NJ, learning from the gravestones. I particularly enjoyed the ones with advice for the living, and thought, I too would like to say something from the grave as well.

But what short proverb or riddle could sum up what I think is most important at this point in my life?  Here’s what I came up with.

Stop dear youth and understand my riddle:
Pursue passion, compassion, and the voice of God, and you will live.
Ignore any, and you will die.

Mk. 12:29-31 | Jn. 17:3 | Mt. 16:26 | Ec. 12:13-14

I thought that putting these verses up just as references would be (1) practical – you can’t have too many words on a headstone, and (2) would arouse the curiosity of the reader to go look them up and perhaps discover the richness of the scriptures for themselves.

What would you put on your gravestone?

DEFINITIONS

• elegy - a song or poem expressing sorrow or lamentation especially for one who is dead
• epitaph - an inscription on or at a tomb or a grave in memory of the one buried there
• eulogy - a commendatory oration or writing especially in honor of one decease

1. It is important to interpret literature according to its literary type

If I read, for instance, a parable or metaphor as historical fact, I will totally miss the point. When, for example, Jesus says “A sower went out into the field to sow,” he’s not talking about an actual person – he wants the listener to understand the metaphor, not try to figure out the importance of some specific person.

Conversely, if I read historical narrative only as metaphor (e.g. George Washington or Jesus didn’t really exist, but their lives are merely to be understood as positive metaphors), I again am missing something true and important, namely that these people were real and impacted human history.

2. If Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, then Christianity is a lie and useless.

Even Paul the Apostle said so – if the resurrection of both Christ and individuals is not literally true, then we are fools.

1 Corinthians 15:14-17
And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is worth nothing, and your faith is worth nothing. And also, we are guilty of lying about God, because we testified of him that he raised Christ from the dead. But if people are not raised from the dead, then God never raised Christ. If the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith has nothing to it; you are still guilty of your sins.

3. It would contradict internal biblical logic to metaphorize things which are considered historic.

For example, we believe that Jesus *literally* forgives sins, and *literally*, not just figuratively restores us to God.

And in the same way, we belive that all humans *literally* fell in Adam – it can’t be literal with Jesus and figurative with Adam.

Romans 5:18-19
So as one sin of Adam brought the punishment of death to all people, one good act that Christ did makes all people right with God. And that brings true life for all.19 One man disobeyed God, and many became sinners. In the same way, one man obeyed God, and many will be made right.

4. There is a danger of hyper-literalism

Along with interpreting according to literary type, we must also be aware of idioms – interpreting idioms or hyperboles literally is a mistake that some literalists make.

For example, in Deuteronomy 20 it says

“Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them”.

If you take this literally, you might conclude we’ve got a genocide going on. However, later in scripture we see that the Cannanites still existed as a people. Why? Paul Copan explains:

“This stereotypical ancient Near East language of ‘all’ people describes attacks on what turn out to be military forts or garrisons containing combatants – not a general population that includes women and children. We have no archaeological evidence of civilian populations at Jericho or Ai (6:21; 8:25).8 The word ‘city [‘ir]‘ during this time in Canaan was where the (military) king, the army, and the priesthood resided. So for Joshua, mentioning ‘women’ and ‘young and old’ turns out to be stock ancient Near East language that he could have used even if ‘women’ and ‘young and old’ were not living there. The language of ‘all’ (‘men and women’) at Jericho and Ai is a ‘stereotypical expression for the destruction of all human life in the fort, presumably composed entirely of combatants.’”

For more on that example, see How Could God Command Killing the Canaanites?

CONCLUSION

Literalism is called for when the text is historical narrative. But even then, we must understand the use of idioms or metaphor that are interspersed in a diverse work like the Bible.  Both hyper-literalism and hyper-metaphorism will lead us to misunderstand the text.

Today, as God often does when I’m not sure where I’m going, like the Cat in Alice in Wonderland, He asks me “what do you want?” (a variant of “Where are you going?”). I love that conversation, which goes something like this:

`Cheshire Puss,’….`Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’

`That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat.

`I don’t much care where–’ said Alice.

`Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’ said the Cat.

Jesus did something similar with the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-15), asking him what he wanted – not because it wasn’t clear, but because the paralytic needed to be aware and focused on it himself.

What do I want more than other things? It’s hard to know, but what seems to be King of the Hill of my heart for many years (though sometimes it gets knocked off by my desire to write books) is my desire to lead and be part of a different, better kind of Church. So God (or higher self ;) instructed me to write it down. What would that church look like? Here’s my outline. I guess each item could be a post in itself. We’ll see if I get that far.

Foci

• Community service – enjoying being a light where we live and learning practical service, not just Bible knowledge
• World evangelism – reaching those who sit in darkness
• Discipleship – real relationships in which we are encouraged and instructed in our spiritual walk
• Individual calling and maturity – focusing on bringing people to real spiritual and emotional maturity, not just Bible knowledge or attendance.

Structures

• Mission group leaders – dreaming, planning, growing together as leaders
• Mission groups – small groups focused on various inward and outward missions
• Sunday Church – just not too often ;)
• Retreats – to catalyze quantum leaps in growth, overcoming barriers
• Community outreach – outreach that is both regular and integral to church participation
• Glocal Partnerships – seeing past our local area and also participating in world Christianity

Distinctives

• Sunday Church – only 2x per month – less Sunday meetings means more time for small (mission) gr0ups
• Mission Groups – Christian Basics first – transformative
• Mission Groups – time delimited
• Mission Groups - One Sunday per month, not just weekly
• Outreach – one or two big ones each year
• Summers different format – maybe NO Sunday church, but planning together for one big church-wide event
• Academy – adult and/or children’s intensive short courses or camps

Having been both theologically and psychologically trained, I would like to outline some simple principles of dream interpretation from a Christian point of view. This post addresses the possible sources of dreams.

The Sources of Dreams

One primary assumption that will affect our dream interpretation is out theory of the sources of our dreams – where to they come from?

There are four possible sources, but from a Christian world view, only two of these sources are actual sources for dreams.

1. God

The bible is replete with stories of God speaking through dreams to both believers and unbelievers. The story of Mary and Joseph has two incidents:

After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.  But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. ~ Matthew 1:18-22 (NKJV)

Then, being divinely warned in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed for their own country another way. ~ Matthew 2:12 (NKJV)

Unbelievers usually have troubling dreams, because God is usually warning them in their ignorance of His will and ways.  For example, Pontious Pilate’s wife was warned in a dream that the crucifixion of Jesus was not something Pilate wanted to be on the wrong side of:

While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.‘ ~ Matthew 27:19 (NKJV)

In the Old Testament, two separate pagan rulers were warned in a dream, and the Hebrew of God’s choosing was there to properly interpret – here’s two passages, one regarding Daniel and King Nebuchadnezzar, and the second Joseph and the Pharaoh of Egypt:

One night during the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had such disturbing dreams that he couldn’t sleep….  [Daniel replied,] ‘While Your Majesty was sleeping, you dreamed about coming events. He who reveals secrets has shown you what is going to happen.  And it is not because I am wiser than anyone else that I know the secret of your dream, but because God wants you to understand what was in your heart.” ~ Daniel 2:1, 29

Two full years later, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing on the bank of the Nile River. In his dream he saw seven fat, healthy cows come up out of the river and begin grazing in the marsh grass. Then he saw seven more cows come up behind them from the Nile, but these were scrawny and thin. These cows stood beside the fat cows on the riverbank. Then the scrawny, thin cows ate the seven healthy, fat cows! At this point in the dream, Pharaoh woke up….The next morning Pharaoh was very disturbed by the dreams. So he called for all the magicians and wise men of Egypt. When Pharaoh told them his dreams, not one of them could tell him what they meant….Pharaoh sent for Joseph at once, and he was quickly brought from the prison…..Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I had a dream last night, and no one here can tell me what it means. But I have heard that when you hear about a dream you can interpret it.’ ‘It is beyond my power to do this,’ Joseph replied. ‘But God can tell you what it means and set you at ease.‘ ~ Genesis 41:1-28 (excerpts)

These examples show just a couple ways that God speaks through dreams, both as warnings, as directives, and as prognostications.

2. Self

Though there is not a lot of biblical support for the revelation of self through dreams, such a view is not antithetical to scripture. Scripture focuses primarily on methods of God-understanding, and only secondarily on self-understanding. This is one relative weakness of Christianity as compared to other systems that focus on self-knowledge, such as Buddhism and modern psychology. However, it is important to remember that these other systems are woefully inadequate, by comparison to Christianity, in their ability to reveal God to us.

The point is, when understanding self-realization as part of dream interpretation, we will be relying more on empirical understanding than Biblical. However, like the discipline of medicine, such things, while not described in scripture in detail, are still very helpful and true.

One additional clarification. While God-originated dreams seem to be more related to guidance, self-originated dreams primarily reveal our deeper self – the internal issues we need to work on.  In experience, we find that most of our dreams are self-originated, not God-originated dreams intended on conveying divine messages.

Such self-originated dreams are often reflections of our own subconscious desires and fears, and the fearful and negative emotions  reflect issues that we need to process properly in order to heal, mature, and progress in life. This may not be the type of information we are seeking for when interpreting dreams, but it is one of the most important.

3. Satan

There is little, if any Biblical support for dreams that find their origin in angels, either positive, or negative (remember, Biblically speaking, demons are fallen angels, as is Satan himself). However, there is plenty of evidence for angelic visitation within a dream. This clarification is important, in that it speaks to the limitations of angels and demons, including Satan himself – they are not ominpresent, omnipotent, or omniscient, like God.

This means that they can’t read minds, nor enter our souls to originate dreams – however, they can visit us, torment us, and for those who have surrendered themselves to evil enough to have lost their willpower and become possessed, demons may have more influence in their inner lives, including their dreams.

But the main point here is, for the average person, Satan can’t take over your dream life, though you may experience visitations of sorts, even in dreams from God.

What a demonic dream may look like

In fact, if you’ve ever had a dream in which you have faced a scary force that immobilized you, and made it even impossible to talk, you may have experienced a demonic visitation.

I once had a dream in which I was in a white room, and suddenly, an evil presence rushed into the room and picked me up off of the floor. I could not move, nor even speak. However, knowing that the name of Jesus was more powerful than any other declaration in spiritual warfare, I began to cry out from within myself “Put me down in Jesus name!” After a couple times, I could actually speak it, and the presence left the room.

Again, a second time, the presence rushed in and picked me up and began to spin me. Already knowing that physical and soulish strength were nothing, I began to call out with authority from my spirit using Jesus’ name, and sure enough, the presence left. I became elated and energized, and began to call out “come on, come back and try it again!” But it did not return.

What did I make of this dream? I believe God was teaching me about what real spiritual warfare is like. Without going into much detail, I learned:

1. Soulical and physical power are of no value in spiritual battle – there is a real difference between spirit and soul, and knowing the difference is critical.
2. God can allow demonic visitations for training, and that doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve done anything wrong.
3. There is a real difference between real faith and just reciting words you think have magical powers. As in this example in the NT:

Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.”  Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.  One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?”  Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding. ~ Acts 19:13-16 (NIV)

4. Other People

It should go without saying that other people can not originate dreams in your own soul. However, we may see people we know, living or dead, in our dreams. However, it is my opinion that such visits are not from those people, but just creations of our own memories. In the Bible, the dead never come back to visit the living, but instead, await judgment in either heaven or hell.

Naturally, there are biblical exceptions, like the visit of Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:1-3), but this is a rare exception, and in this case, for a very specific point – to show the Disciples that Jesus is supported by both the law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).

CONCLUSION

The main two sources for our dreams are God, and ourselves, and the majority of our dreams originate in our selves. We ought to be careful to not attribute many of our dreams to God, but rather, use them to understand our subconscious fears and desires better, and heal whatever wounds, or pursue whatever desires are disclosed.

Dreams from God often have a special character to them – either a presence of good, or a highly symbolic nature, or repetition – but these we will discuss in Part II, Principles of Christian Dream Interpretation.

Last Updated: 9.3.11

1. Private Channels

In addition to the official Channel List, there are many third party channels, called “private channels,” which you can add. Check out the pretty up to date lists below:

• Private Roku Channels List at AlmostAccurate
• Roku Channel Database (roku-channels.com)

2. Adding YouTube

As far as I can tell, there is no FREE way to stream YouTube on your ROKU.

• RateRix (free) – technically, a video link sharing service, it DOES allow you some youtube access, but only links you manually add through your browser.
• PlayOn TV ($5/mo, $40/yr, or $80 one time) – This nicely crafted software works, though it’s not a Youtube browser exactly – it lets you see your content, including your subscriptions – but I’m not willing to pay $5 a month to keep it. It also lets you stream your media from your pc, nice.

Here’s what does NOT work:

• Private Channel B8VVK – worked until Google cut them off in 2010

3. Streaming  iTunes

Here’s what finally worked:

• MyMedia (free) – at least I got this server product to stream from my computer to the Roku on my internal network. However, it’s interface is merely a clumsy folder browser, and can’t show iTunes playlists

Here’s the channels I tried out that did NOT work out (on my Win764 machine)

• MP3Tunes (free to 2GB) – This awful service requires you to upload your media in order to stream it, and they limit you to 2G free.
• roConnect (free) – help instructions did not match filenames downloaded, may only work on 32 bit, not sure.
• Chaneru ($11) – software costs $11, instructions not very clear after downloading server.

4. TV

• Nowhere TV (free)- nice selection and menus. A must have for TV surfing.
• Funny or Die (free) – also from NowhereMan
• Ustream (free) – live TV streams, from sports to news (add it as a private channel with the channel code IN4DN)

For even more info and help:

• 10 Tips for Getting the Most Out of Your Roku (Gigaom, Dec 2010)
• Yahoo Roku Group

He lays quite a historical foundation for why we should NOT omit religious world views as a foundation for morality and public policy, and that secular assumption are just as ‘religious’ in that they make philosophic and theological assumptions.

Additionally, having religious assumptions does NOT require that you have religious laws or a ‘theocracy’ unless you skip step 3 – defining the limits of governmental authority before legislating public policy. Here are the four steps he outlines in the second half of the lecture (starting at 40:21).

Politics and Religion: Moving Forward in a Pluralistic Society from The Veritas Forum.

1. Fundamental Assumptions

We all have fundamental assumptions about the nature of man, and what is moral or immoral. We should be explicit about these assumptions. Such things as the higher value of man because of the imago dei, or our responsibility as stewards of the earth, not owners, are two Christian fundamentals regarding what is valuable.

Secularists may assume that man is an animal, and no more important than animals, or that individual autonomy is foundational. Bertrand Russel sought foundation in the logos, or the logic of human reason.

2. Ethical Norms

We should next establish ethical norms that flow from our assumptions. How ought humanity ought to act given these first principles? We must infer proper behavior from the principles.

We may make mistakes in these inferences, and may need to change or refine them over time, even if we keep our foundational ideas about reality, man, values, and government.

But how are these specific ethical demands supposed to be enforced or encouraged? Should all ethical norms, like taking up arms, generosity, or sacrificial giving be legislated?  What about religious attendance? Or higher education? Or voting? What about punishing promiscuity, or divorce, or having more than one child, or criticizing political leaders, or Allah?

Step 3 decides these things.

3. Differentiating Authority

We must develop a social theory of government. Who should do what? This is where we may end up choosing a socialist, theocratic, conservative, or libertarian view, for instance. I think the founders of our own country had it right with the limits placed on government in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For example, government ought to be limited to:

• Establish Justice
• Insure domestic tranquility
• Provide for the common defense
• Promote the general Welfare
• Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

This step of circumscribing government responsibility and authority is very important. For a decent overview of Biblical views of God and government, see the following:

• The Five Spheres of Government
• Presenting A Thorough, Intellectually Appealing Biblical View Of Government
• The Five Functions of Civil Government

4. Public Policy

Now that we have limits to what government should do, and a list of ethical norms for human society, we can put them together and craft meaningful legislation. From here, I only add that government has a range of options to choose from, including:

• Promoting or rewarding positive behaviors – like charity or home ownership
• Protecting rights – of course, the Declaration outlines our basic rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and the Cosntitution details those rights in the Bill of Rights, including our rights of freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, and petition
• Prescribing necessary behaviors – like paying taxes or attending school
• Prescribing consumer labeling – like ratings for movies or food ingredients
• Controlling substances – like alcohol, tobacco, or firearms
• Punishing criminal behaviors – like theft, murder, slander, etc.

This model will not remove all disputes over what should be legislated, but what a great model for removing a lot of wasted energy over NOT following such a model.

Last Update: 06.13.11

—————————————-

ESSENTIAL ANTI-THEIST PODCASTS

• Point of Inquiry (Weekly, 30 min) – Explores pseudoscience, alternative medicine, religion, and secularism.  Interviews various scientists and thinkers. Great thought provoker.
• Secular Nation Podcast (Bimonthly, 40 min) – Good content, low noise, essays, often read by various authors.

DECENT SECULARIST/ANTI-THEIST PODCASTS

• Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot (Random schedule and duration) – podcast of one of the few atheist blogs I enjoy, Common Sense Atheism.  Focuses on Philosophy of Religion, features, interviews with the BEST in the field, both theist and anti-theist. Unfortunately, Luke may be moving on to other disciplines, but his archive is rich with fantastic interviews.
• The Critical Thinker (Monthly, 30-60 min, RSS) – A secularist podcast, has neat video and audio on critical thinking.

ANTI-THEIST PODCASTS I AM TRYING

• American Freethought (Weekly, 60 min) – Good luck finding the podcast link on their website, but I found it at Podcast Alley.
• Apologia (Weekly, 60 min) -  a friendly forum for both theists and non-theists to come together in search of some common understanding. Rather than a contentious debate format, Apologia provides a setting in which all participants can discuss without confrontation.
• Atheist News (Biweekly, 60 min, EXPLICIT) – Not sure what to expect, but it does bear the EXPLICIT tag – probably not intellectual fare.  However, seems thoughtful and less snarky.
• Atheist Talk (Bimonthly, 30-60 min) – From Minnesota Atheists, issues driven, interviews.  Good content, but poor audio quality (echoey).
• A Christian and an Atheist (Weekly, 60 min) – friendly dialogue, good natured.
• The Good Atheist (Weekly, 30 min, EXPLICIT) – definitely has some profanity, thoughtful, shows some healthy skepticism of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.  Kinda fun.
• The Infidel Guy (Weekly, 60 min) – Has high profile guests.

REJECTED ANTI-THEIST PODCASTS

• The Atheist Experience (Weekly, 90 min) – long, snarky, newsy, low content/noise ratio
• Chariots of Iron (Biweekly, 90+ min) – too conversational, light snark, low content/conversation ratio
• Digital Bits Skeptic (Weekly, 5-15 min) – Short single-subject reading of articles, most original by author.  Audio has a bit of an echo to it, not too professional. But, bite size.
• Dogma Free America (Weekly, 50-80 min) – long, snarky, newsy, low content/noise ratio
• Reasonable Doubts (Weekly, 60 min) – snarky, conversational, newsy
• Skepticality (Bimonthly, 60 min) – The official podcast of Skeptic Magazine.  Professional, conversational, but low content/conversation.  Not anti-religious.
• The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe (Weekly, 80 min) – not snarky, somewhat intelligent and good content, but a little too conversational.  Probably for those who like long informational talk shows.

NOTE: This post is part of a series – I am ‘reading the classics together’ at Challies.com, and blogging my way through J. Gresham Machen‘s Christianity and Liberalism (1923)

1. Machen employs a cool, evaluative, intellectual, dialectic approach

My first observation is that I love the cool intellectual style of the book – this is no mere name-calling polemic, this is an attempt at a logical explanation of the differences between orthodox, biblical Christianity and the more liberal form it can take.

The purpose of this book is not to decide the religious issue of the present day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible, in order that the reader may be aided in deciding it for himself.Read more at location …. Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding.

2. Christians cannot use the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem)

Machen observes that, in light of the rise of scientific method, many beliefs from antiquity have been challenged and rightly overthrown, and so Christianity, especially due to its specific historical claims, must face the challenges of science and reason head on. He mentions that some errantly believe that since many traditions or ideas from the past have been debunked, all of them will be. Of course, this denies that any ancient wisdom was actually true, which is ludicrous on its face.

It is obvious that every inheritance from the past must be subject to searching criticism; and as a matter of fact some convictions of the human race have crumbled to pieces in the test. Indeed, dependence of any institution upon the past is now sometimes even regarded as furnishing a presumption, not in favor of it, but against it. So many convictions have had to be abandoned that men have sometimes come to believe that all convictions must go.

However, Machen also reveals the opposite logical fallacy of many moderns, that of assuming that newer perspectives are always more accurate or true (argumentum ad novitatem).

The writers of the books in question were no doubt men of their own age, whose outlook upon the material world, judged by modern standards, must have been of the crudest and most elementary kind. Inevitably the question arises whether the opinions of such men can ever be normative for men of the present day; in other words, whether first-century religion can ever stand in company with twentieth-century science.

3. Christianity makes objective historic claims that can and should be tested by science.

Machen is setting us up here – while orthodox Christianity makes testable truth claims, liberal Christianity shies away from this, avoiding any interaction with science and reason, but instead, as we will see, contradicting them!

For, rightly or wrongly, religion during the centuries has as a matter of fact connected itself with a host of convictions, especially in the sphere of history, which may form the subject of scientific investigation; our simple Christian, whether rightly or wrongly, whether wisely or unwisely, has as a matter of fact connected his religion, in a way that to him seems indissoluble, with convictions about which science also has a right to speak.

4. Liberal Christianity is a very separate worldview, if not religion, from Biblical Christianity

Machen argues that liberal Christianity is an entirely different religion, not a mere variant.

The liberal theologian seeks to rescue certain of the general principles of religion, of which these particularities are thought  to be mere temporary symbols, and these general principles he  regards as constituting “the essence of Christianity”….what the  liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy  one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but  a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as  to belong in a distinct category.

Essentially, liberal Christianity is reductionist, in that it tries to reduce Christianity to a mere ethic, stripping it of it’s historic, miraculous, exclusivist, triumphalist, eschatalogical, and soteriological components.

The liberal attempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity, so that what remains is in essentials only that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came upon the scene.

5. Liberal Christianity is vulnerable on two fronts – it is both un-Christian as well as contrary to science.

Two lines of criticism, then, are possible with respect to the liberal attempt at reconciling science and Christianity. Modern liberalism may be criticized (1) on the ground that it is unchristian and (2) on the ground that it is unscientific.

Machen introduces us to his main thesis, which he will back up later in the book – that liberal Christianity backs away from the historical and literal claims of scripture *because* it thinks them incompatible with science. Rightly respecting science, but not reason, they try to hold on to scripture by demoting it to metaphor when it often is clearly not claiming to be such.

6. The danger of this flight from reason and rejection of tradition ends in socialist social engineering.

Machen makes a bit of a jump here, but he argues that in abandoning the moral and historic claims of Christianity, modern man and liberal Christianity retreat to a utilitarianism, which then justifies itself in socially engineering what it thinks is best, and in doing so, reducing human freedoms.

Like I say, it’s a bit of a jump, and I can’t even find a quote here in the intro where he makes the logical connection.

7. Modern liberalism results in educational hegemony

Machen uses the example of public education, and makes many authoritarian accusations that are easily seen in the liberal educational system of today.

When once the majority has determined that a certain regime is beneficial, that regime without further hesitation is forced ruthlessly upon the individual man. It never seems to occur to modern legislatures that although “welfare” is good, forced welfare may be bad.Read more at location ….

In other words, utilitarianism is being carried out to its logical conclusions; in the interests of physical well-being the great principles of liberty are being thrown ruthlessly to the winds….

The tendency is making itself felt especially in the sphere of education. The object of education, it is now assumed, is the production of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But the greatest happiness for the greatest number, it is assumed further, can be defined only by the will of the majority….

Idiosyncrasies in education, therefore, it is said, must be avoided, and the choice of schools must be taken away from the individual parent and placed in the hands of the state.

CONCLUSION

Machen concludes this section by implying that only orthodox Christianity can save us from the tyranny created by liberalism.

In setting forth the current liberalism, now almost dominant in the Church, over against Christianity, we are animated, therefore, by no merely negative or polemic purpose; on the contrary, by showing what Christianity is not we hope to be able to show what Christianity is, in order that men may be led to turn from the weak and beggarly elements and have recourse again to the grace of God.

If all of that sounds counter-intuitive and unsubstantiated to you, it does to me too. But we’ve got an entire, highly respected book, to evaluate.

bombastic
grandiose but with little meaning, ostentatiously lofty in style

grandiloquent
pompous or extravagant in language, style, or manner, esp. in a way that is intended to impress

fustian
pompous or pretentious speech or writing

hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia
fear of long words!

macroverbumsciolist
1) a person who is ignorant of large words
2) a person who pretends to know a word, then secretly refers to a dictionary

pleonasm
1)The use of more words than are required to express an idea; redundancy.
2) A superfluous word or phrase

sesquipedalian
given to using long words
Horace’s phrase was verba sesquipedalia which would mean “words a foot and a half long’ – like ‘sesquicentennial’ means the 150th anniversary.

turgid - (of language or style) tediously pompous or bombastic

A. Seven things to do before I die
B. Seven things I cannot do
C. Seven things that attracted me to [my spouse or significant other or best friend]
D. Seven things I say most often
E. Seven books (or series) I love
F. Seven movies I watch over and over again (or would watch over and over if I had the time)
G. Seven people I want to join in, too
—————————————–

A. Seven things to do before I die

• Publish a book
• Get my M. Div. and become a Pastor
• Become fluent in Spanish
• Do a complete family genealogy
• Learn to play jazz guitar
• Get a tattoo
• Maintain my ideal weight

B. Seven things I cannot do

• Run (bad knees)
• Watch sports on TV for more than 10 minutes
• Listen to Howard Stern
• Read every worthy book
• Get up early on a consistent basis
• Learn to ride a motorcyle (spousal prohibition)
• Sleep with the TV or radio on

C. Seven things that attracted me to spouse

• Her curvaceous figure
• Her beautiful singing voice
• Her gentle, feminine beauty
• Her unpretentious love for God
• Her ability to cause others to open up
• Her affection for me
• Her cute latina accent

D. Seven things I say most often

• There are at least three reasons why…
• What-E-ver
• Interesting
• I’m WORKing (don’t bother me)
• Hello?
• Yeeaaahhhh
• Dude, check this out

E. Seven books (or series) I love

• Further Along the Road Less Traveled (Peck)
• Ordering Your Private World (McDonald)
• First Things First (Covey)
• Becoming Adult, Becoming Christian
• The Holy Bible (ESV, TLB, GNT)
• You Can Heal Your Life (Hay)
• Serene Compasssion (Carmody)

F. Seven movies I watch over and over again (or would watch over and over if I had the time)

• The Princess Bride
• Back to the Future Trilogy
• Rocky III
• Beverly Hills Cop
• Blazing Saddles
• Men in Black
• Leap of Faith
• Office Space
• Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
• Demolition Man

G. Seven people I want to join in, too

• If you are reading this, consider yourself tagged.

I was impressed with his answers, and learned some new reasons why Genesis should be interpreted as history, not metaphor, and that Chapter 2 should be seen, not as a recapitulation, but as a detailed examination of the 6th day (the creation of man). His explanation of why the verbs in Chapter 2 should be interpreted as past tense (God “had planted”, not God “planted”) easily clears up the ‘problems’ with chronologies. Download the mp3 here.

“Here Rests
In Honored Glory
An American Soldier
Known But To God”

While everyone should be treated fairly, that does not mean that every student accused of bringing a weapon to school deserves to be punished equally.

Take a recent case in Georgia where two girls were suspended for 10 days because of a butter knife. The even more amazing thing is they didn’t even bring the butter knife to school.

The two girls, Ashley Pickens and Candace Grier, brought a cake to school to celebrate their impending graduation. Knowing that they could not bring a knife on campus, the two honor roll students decided to bring the cake without a knife and look for something to cut it with at school.

They found something similar to a butter knife in the school’s band room. After the cake was cut, the girls cleaned off the knife and went to put it back in the band room where they found it. The band room was locked so the girls had to put the knife in their backpack.

The news report said that teachers saw the two girls with the knife while they were waiting on a ride home. Hopefully, the teachers went and tackled these dangerous fugitives or at least called 911 to have the police come and handcuff them.

Unfortunately, this is a common occurance. At least once a year, we hear a case of good student who is expelled because of something similar.

A Pennsylvania editorial last month contains several cases of the lunacy that zero tolerance policies bring about.

In 1999, A 10-year-old student in California was expelled when she turned in the small cutting knife her mother had placed in her lunchbox to cut her apple.

In Louisiana, a second-grader was expelled for bringing her grandfather’s gold-plated pocket watch to school because the watch had a tiny knife attached.

And three years ago, an 18-year-old National Merit Scholar in Fort Myers, Fla., was suspended and charged with a felony count of possessing a weapon when a kitchen knife was found on the floor of her car while she was in class.

School officials should use the common sense God, well He’s not allowed either, but they can still use common sense to determine that a honor student with a butter knife found in the band room is not the same threat as a troublemaker bringing a loaded gun to school threatening people.

They are paid to make decisions like these, not to pawn them off on unfair abritrary rules.

In an editorial yesterday, the Times editors attempted to calm any doubts or fears about the creation of chimeras (animal-human hybrids).

There’s no problem they assured us. Researchers just want to try to find cures for all our diseases. Stem cell research using chimeras will solve every health problem we’ve ever had. All they want to do is implant human brain stem cells into mice and see how they react. That’s all. Who knows what would really be going on there, but don’t worry just let the scientist do their jobs.

Science with no guided ethics is no science at all. When we remove any ethics from the realm of science. We are not given ourselves more freedom for cures. We are giving ourselves more rope to hang ourselves with.

Do the editors at the New York Times honestly want to end up in a society where we experiment with human brain cells inside of animals?

This is not an anti-science tirade. I am all for legitimate science, but that has to be guided by some form of ethics and morality. All is not okay as long as it is in the name of science.

There is a reason that people who wanted to do these type of things used to be refered to as “mad scientists.” They were excluded from the normal science community because they insisted on operating outside the ethical norms of legitimate science.

In opening the door for chimera, we are creating a Pandora’s box of huge, diverse ethical questions.

You think the debate over life and personhood is intense now. What happens in the future with the chimera? When are they considered human or a person? Do we have different degrees of personhood? Is an functioning brain of a human all that is required for personhood? What about human bodies with different animal parts? What about human bodies with animal brains?

Yes, these all seem so futuristic and almost impossible. But they will become reality if we allow unfettered development in the field of chimeras. These type of questions need not be brought up if science remains responsible enough to operate within ethically boundaries.

Hat Tip: World Mag Blog

Here’s two really good resources, both podcasts.

First, in Evangelical Fervor and the Crisis of the Civil War: A Conversation with Historian David Goldfield, Albert Mohler interviews historian and award winning author David Goldfield on his new book America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation.

Goldfield covers the following topics:

• The absence of discussion of northern Evangelicals in abolition – usual focus is on southern Evangelicals and their pro-slavery theology
• The differences between the Evangelical emphases of northern and southern Evangelical theologies – northerners had a theology that included improving civic society, while southerners did not.
• The Second Great Awakening and the Civil War.
• The two great sins as per northern Evangelicalism – the increasing power of the Roman Catholic Church, and the great sin of slavery.
• The anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party, which merged with the abolitionist Republican Party, which united these ‘twin despotisms’ into one party and helped elect Abraham Lincoln.
• The dramatic politicization of these moral issues due to Evangelical involvement in politics, hastening the Civil War.
• And so much more!!!

Second, in another excellent, thoughtful weekly podcast, the Thomas Jefferson Hour’s Northwest Ordinance episode discusses how Jefferson’s abolition legislation efforts were influential in abolition as well as the start and end of the civil war.  Included is a fantastic discussion of many pieces of legislation:

• 1776 – The Declaration of Independence: The removal of abolition language from the Declaration  by southern delegates,  originally included by Jefferson, in order to keep the southern states in the new Union against Britain
• 1784 – The Western Territories Land Ordinance: Jefferson, a Congressman, tried to forbid slavery in all new states west of the Appalachians admitted to the Union. This legislation failed by one vote (there was one vote per state) – Jefferson’s own state of Virginia voted against him. He felt like this was our last chance to avoid future national calamity over slavery.  Jefferson said of this vote “Heaven was silent in this awful moment. Now millions of unborn Negros will be enslaved through no fault of their own to men they never offended for the lack of a single vote in the Congress of the United States.”
• 1787 – The Constitution: Jefferson was not in the country during the writing of the Constitution, but in order to keep the Union, American legislators included such heinous language as the 3/5ths compromise,  thereby continuing the racist slavery policies.
• 1787 – Northwest Ordinance: In this legislation, based on the 1784 bill which failed, Jefferson’s ideas succeeded in  forcing all northern states being admitted to the union to be non-slave states, but this set up the divide between north and south. However, this still could have prevented a civil war if more free states, which were generally more prosperous, were to join than slave states. This could have marginalized the slave states.
• 1800 – Suggesting that Negroes born after 1800 were Free: Jefferson actually suggested this, but his idea, meant to phase out slavery in America, was rejected by legislators.
  
• 1820 – The Missouri Compromise: This pretty much sealed the Civil War into place, ensuring that for every free state added, a slave-state would be added.

Both the Thinking in Public podcast (RSS) and The Thomas Jefferson Hour (RSS) podcast should be in the queue of every thinking person, certainly in the queue of every thinking Christian.

1. What does EARTHLY punishment accomplish?

a. Protecting the Innocent

If we either incarcerate or execute criminals, we remove them from being a threat to the general population.

b. The Deterrent Effect

Though the deterrent effect is hotly debated among experts even to this day, this defense of the penal system remains a mainstay. Punish some criminals, and others considering crime will be induced to not commit crime out of self interest.

c. Reform of the Prisoner

“Penitentiaries” are supposed to produce ‘penitence’ in the criminal – that is, a change of heart, a true sorrow, and a desire to both pay their debt and lead a positive life, contributing to society instead of hurting others.

Punishment (except for capital punishment) is part of helping the prisoner to repay his debt.

Not only does this remove any debt to society hanging over his head, it can help clear his conscience, which is part of what frees him to be a good citizen in the future. Many criminal justice theorists, as well as childhood development scientists, believe that the lack of a cleared conscience through penitence, payback (recompense), and forgiveness, leaves the guilty in constant emotional pain, which in turn causes them to act poorly out of their ongoing despair.

The clearest example of this I’ve ever seen comes from the movie The Mission, in which Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro) is driven into despair because he killed his own brother in a fit of rage. Also, this guilt is compounding his guilt over his career as a slave trader.

A local Jesuit leader, played by Jeremy Irons, has compassion on him and tells him that God can forgive him if he becomes a Jesuit monk and spends the rest of his life serving the local natives instead of enslaving them. But as part of his penitence, he has to carry their supplies up the treacherous climb to the mountainous home of the natives.

Because of the weight and bulk of the supplies, DeNiro often falls, hurts himself, and is weary. One of the Jesuit underlings (Liam Niesen) asks Irons “hasn’t he suffered enough? Shouldn’t we remove the pack from his back?” Irons replies, “When *he* thinks it is enough, it will be enough.”

This, along with the future forgiveness of the tribe whom he formerly kidnapped for slavery, is a perfect picture of the cleansing of the conscience, involving not just some word of Divine forgiveness, but punishment and recompense as part of clearing the conscience (for more on the function of the conscience, see The Tripartite Man (Part 3): Spirit – Conscience).

d. Establishing Justice

When the ‘scales of justice’ are not balanced, people take matters into their own hands. Establishing justice removes the need for people to have to be involved in vigilante justice, which is not dispassionate and logical like civil justice is supposed to be. It ends ongoing animosity (ideally).

2. Do these purposes apply to ETERNAL punishment?

a. Protecting the Innocent

In the Christian view of eternity, there won’t be any need to protect the innocent – they will all be safe in heaven, while the damned will be separated from them by a ‘great gulf’ (Luke 16:26). So, eternal damnation does not serve any protecting purpose.

b. The Deterrent Effect

In the Christian view of eternity, there is no more real possibility of choosing evil, since the converted have been perfected both through sanctification and the resurrection. So continuing punishment is not needed in eternity to deter anyone.

c. Reform of the Prisoner

Well, if punishment is eternal, then there is no hope for reform, and therefore no plan to push the damned to penitence, since that opportunity is past (Hebrews 9:27).

Of course, if you believe in the unBiblical doctrine of purgatory as some Catholics do and did, then you might think of punishment as restorative. Otherwise, if we are looking at the Bible, it seems that punishment can not reform anyone in eternity.

d. Establishing Justice

This last item most definitely DOES apply to eternity, and I think the Bible promotes this as the main reason for hell – JUSTICE.

Both love and holiness compel God to establish justice, and this alone may be justification enough for hell. It makes logical sense, but for many, this may not be reason enough for eternal punishment.

One of the questions the problem of eternal hell brings up is, “is eternal (infinite) punishment a just recompense for temporal (finite) sins?”

To my knowledge, there are three orthodox answers. I suspect these may all have names and have been discussed by famous theologians, but alas, I have not found them yet. Let me know if you know of good representatives of each view.

1. Sinners actually do sin infinitely in hell

Since the unconverted can not love God’s holiness, but are repelled by it and actually hate it, they curse God continually, driving themselves into deeper judgement for their ongoing sins.

2. Rejecting Christ is an infinitely sinful act

Punishment can be seen as having two quantitative attributes – duration, and intensity. Accordingly, a sin can be of infinite duration, or of infinite intensity, as can our punishment.

If we as sinners sin only of finite duration, is it possible that our sin is of infinite intensity?  If so, perhaps justice could be done if we either suffered a a punishment of infinite intensity or duration. And perhaps further, if we are NOT capable of suffering an infinite intensity, justice can only be done with a punishment of infinite duration.

This might also explain why Christ, who was God incarnate, was able to suffer on the cross for all the elect in a finite period – because he was able to suffer the infinite intensity of God’s wrath upon sin without being annihilated.

3. Eternal might refer to permanent, not of infinite duration

Sure, Annihilationism, as this is called, is not truly orthodox. However, many prominent Christians, including one of my favorite expositors, John Stott, have supported it’s possibility.

This position might satisfy the many people who find eternal punishment unfair or out of proportion to finite sins.

You can find the complete questions and context at the above link. I have shortened the questions for the sake of brevity.

1) How could an all-knowing God be all-loving, since He would create people that He knows for a fact would be damned?

The first thing we have to understand is that God does not “know” the future in terms that we can really understand. God exists outside of time (He created it), so there is no future to God only present. Secondly, there are two different ways to answer this question. Calvinists would use Romans 9 and say that God predestines people to heaven or hell. He is God and He can do that.

The flip side is that God does know (although he doesn’t establish) who will accept Him and who will not, but His will for them is that they come to know him (2 Peter 3:9). God has offered them a way to escape the punishment that lies ahead for them. They simply choose to take the punishment.

But to answer the question specifically, He created them the same reason He created humans in general. He wants companionship and fellowship. He wants to be worshiped and loved (He deserves it as well). But if He forced Himself on us or He only created those who would follow Him, He would be violating the free will of man. He would be removing us from the decision making process. How loving is that. Also, forced love and worship is no love and worship at all. For anything to be genuine it has to be chosen.

But looking at some human analogies can help us to understand even if they are not totally applicable. We choose to love people even though that means we will get hurt. We choose to have children even though they will disobey us and hurt us. Just like for us in those situations, God weighs the benefits versus the risks and finds that it is better to have “love and lost than to have never loved at all.”

2) What about all the people who have never heard about Jesus or haven’t heard anything beyond the existence of a religion called Chrisitianity? Why would God randomly (by virture of their birthplace and time) and cruelly deny people access to salvation? Or does he give them a “free pass’ undermining the requirement of Jesus?

The presupposition of this question is in direct contrast with the first question. The question assumes that God can do anything randomly. God knows who will seek Him and I am sure He places people accordingly. Matthew 7:7-8 and Jeremiah 29:13-14 tell us that God is found by those who seek Him.

Not only does not put people their randomly, condemning them by their birthplace, He allows those in areas not open to the Gospel to experience Him in supernatural ways. There have been many stories of Muslims who come to Christ through visions and dreams of Jesus. Missionaries go into supposedly unreached people groups to find them already worshiping Jesus. He has revealed Himself to them.

Also, Romans 1:18-20 says that people can see God if they only open their eyes and look. Even if God in God’s justice, He gives them a “free pass” that free pass does not undermine Jesus because the pass would be available only because of Jesus and His sacrifice.

In general as far as heaven and hell, love and judgment, God is love, but God is also holy and sinless. Sin cannot enter his presence. So what else could a holy, just God do but punish the sin? But what else could a loving God do but take the punishment Himself and offer people a way out?

Ultimately, we have to know that God is just and no one will be able to say that they were not treated fairly. God loves justice (Isaiah 30:18, 61:8), so He will treat everyone justly.

3) How was Lot more Godly than the homosexual men in Sodom and Gomorrah, when he offered up his virgin daughters to be raped?

This story is found in Genesis 19. There is a big misconception that simply because the Bible reports an action that it condones and approves that action. I don’t believe the action was a very Godly action. It merely showed his fear and reverence for people he say as being from God (something that the men of the city did not have).

Regardless of what televangelists say, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed strictly because of the homosexual nature of the people. The cities were destroyed because the people there had no fear of God and they were evil in every way.

4) How did two of the hundreds of thousands of species fit on the ark, not to mention all the food and supplies, especially when we know the size of the ark?

They didn’t and they couldn’t. In fact the Bible says that there were more than two of some of the animals (taking in to account Noah’s food). You can find this in Genesis 6 and 7. You subsituted your own word for the word that is in the Bible. Genesis does not say two or every species, it says two of every kind (which is similar to the current organizational term of genus). Instead of two horses, two zebras, two donkeys, you would have two from the equine kind. Instead of two dogs, two wolves, two coyotes, you would have two from the canine kind.

It has been calculated that Noah would have needed to take approximately 16,000 animals (not counting insects, since the Bible doesn’t say Noah must take them). If you calculated the volume of the ark it would be around 1.54 million cubic feet, the equivalent of 522 railroad cars. If the calculations of 16,000 are correct and you allowed for an average pen size of 4,800 cubic inches that would give you only 42,000 cubic feet or 14.4 railroad cars. Leaving plenty of room for Noah, his family, all the food and supplies and even the insects if they were on board.

5) How did all the animals get to Noah’s ark since they would have been thousands of miles away and seperated by large impassable oceans?

It would be virtually, if not actually, impossible for this to be accomplished today. But, many believe that the pre-flood earth contained one land mass (Genesis 1:9). This would have made it significantly easier. Also it becomes easier when you consider only having to bring two of each kind instead of two of each species. It gets even easier when you believe, as many do, that the climate for the earth was very even across much of the world, so most animals lived in every portion of the world.

6) Where did all the water come from, where did it go, where is the evidence and why didn’t it horribly disrupt every single ecosystem on the planet?

Genesis 7:11 tells us that the water came from “the fountains of the deep” and the “windows of heaven.” The implies both torrential rain and oceans and subterranean water sources. The Bible talks about a “breaking up” which implies fissures on the ground and the ocean floor. A plate tectonics model for the flood indicates that the ocean’s floor would rise rapidly at the onset of the flood up to 6,500 feet, due to an increase in temperature in horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.

According to Alfred Russel Wallace (the co-discoverer of Darwin’s theory) if the earth was flattened the water on the earth would cover the land over 1.7 miles. Many believe that before the flood, the earth was basically flat with only rolling hills. The violent volcanic eruptions and earthquakes so impacted the earth’s topography that the one flat land mass because broken apart and filled with mountains and vallies. (This is talked about in Pslam 104:6-9)

As to the evidence, numerous things appear to be created by erosion. Evolutionists attribute it to having been created over millions of years. Creationists believe they happened in a short period of time due to the flood.

On the ecosystems, they are surprisingly resilent. The ecosystem at Mt. Saint Helens was supposed to be barren for decades. Within three years 90% of all the original plant species were growing in the formerly “barren” blast zone.

7) What about the evidence of linguistics? And why do Christians believe in the Tower of Babel story when civilizations were already all across the globe when the story says they were scattered?

Again, this question presupposes the Bible to be wrong and is a very leading question.

This is from the end of Genesis 10 and Genesis 11. Today we see several language familes that seem to be related within the familes, but seemingly no (or very small) connection between the families (such as the Indo-European and the Sino-Asiatic languages).

Could these distinct language familes be from the original languages of the Tower of Babel? It is not impossible to believe that within a few thousand years, hundreds of languages could spring up from an original three or four. It has been said many times, the only reason why we currently don’t break down into hundreds of different distinct versions of English is because of our communication abilities. Even then we see marked differences between Southern American English, Northern American English, England English and Australian English. We see in the Great Vowel Shift of English that language sounds can be completely transformed within 200 years.

8) How can the Bible be original and inerrant when it is filled with stories from older cultures?

Once again, this presupposes the Bible is false. It is hard to argue my points from this questions when it does not allow me the answer that I want to give, like “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

If the Bible is true, original and inerrant, then there are no older cultures. Stories such as the flood actually happened, the Bible records them correctly and numerous other cultures around the world record similar stories that have very close to the story of the Bible, but not exactly right because they are not the inspired word of God.

9) How can Creationist say there is not enough evidence for evolution, but they believe miracles of the Bible?

This is comparing apples to oranges. Evolution by it’s definition does not allow for supernatural explanation, so it has to be explained purely by scientific and natural means.

Miracles of the Bible are just that – miracles. They are supernatural and cannot by definition be explained by natural means.

But as to evidence (not proof) of evolution or creation. Much of the evidence can be interpreted in favor of either evolution or Intelligent Design. It depends totally upon the way you look at things (ex. similarity in animals, Grand Canyon, fossil layers).

10) Jesus claimed that the world would come to an end before those gathered before Him passed away. How do you explain this passage, knowing that if you allow it to be a metaphor or not taken literally you open the entire New Testament up to that type of reasoning?

I do take his claim literal, but I don’t take your interpretation as accurate. You find the claim in Matthew 24. You have to take the verse (34) in context with the rest of the chapter. Jesus spends the entire chapter speaking of all these specific signs that are to take place before the end. One of those signs was the fact that the Gospel would be preached through out the entire world, clearly this leaves out those in attendance. His claim was that those who saw all of the signs fulfilled would not pass away until the end. (Some narrow the claim down further and say it is speaking specifically about verse 32 and the fig tree is a parable of Israel and posession of their land. But regardless there other explanations outside those you gave.

*Some questions were loaded and asked from a presupposition that I was not willing to accept, so I acknowledged each of those. Some questions were asked in a way that Stewart was looking for answers from the perspective of a young earth creationist. While currently, I hold to that view, I do not treat it as dogmatically as something like the deity of Christ. I believe there are numerous Christians who hold to an old earth and would have vastly different answers to the questions. But the main point would be that there are answers to the questions regardless of which side you take.

————————————–

“THE ROOM” as written by a 17 Year Old Boy.

This is excellent and really gets you thinking about what will happen in Heaven.
17-year-old Brian Moore had only a short time to write something for a class. The subject was What Heaven Was Like. “I wowed ‘em,” he later told his father, Bruce. It’s a killer. It’s the bomb It’s the best thing I ever wrote.” It also was the last.

Brian’s parents had forgotten about the essay when a cousin found it while cleaning out the teenager’s locker at Teays Valley High School in Pickaway County, Ohio .

Brian had been dead only hours, but his parents desperately wanted every piece of his life near them, notes from classmates and teachers, and his homework. Only two months before, he had handwritten the essay about encountering Jesus in a file room full of cards detailing every moment of the teen’s life. But it was only after Brian’s death that Beth and Bruce Moore realized that their son had described his view of heaven.

It makes such an impact that people want to share it. “You feel like you are there,” Mr. Moore said. Brian Moore died May 27, 1997, the day after Memorial Day. He was driving home from a friend’s house when his car went off Bulen-Pierce Road in Pickaway County , Ohio  and struck a utility pole. He emerged from the wreck unharmed but stepped on a downed power line and was electrocuted.

The Moore ‘s framed a copy of Brian’s essay and hung it among the family portraits in the living room. “I think God used him to make a point. I think we were meant to find it and make something out of it,” Mrs. Moore said of the essay. She and her husband want to share their son’s vision of life after death. “I’m happy for Brian. I know he’s in heaven. I know I’ll see him.

Here is Brian’s essay.

“THE ROOM”

In that place between wakefulness and dreams, I found myself in the room. There were no distinguishing features except for the one wall covered with small index card files. They were like the ones in libraries that list titles by author or subject in alphabetical order. But these files, which stretched from floor to ceiling and seemingly endless in either direction, had very different headings.

As I drew near the wall of files, the first to catch my attention was one that read “Girls I Have Liked.” I opened it and began flipping through the cards I quickly shut it, shocked to realize that I recognized the names written on each one. And then without being told, I knew exactly where I was. This lifeless room with its small files was a crude catalog system for my life. Here were written the actions of my every moment, big and small, in a detail my memory couldn’t match. A sense of wonder and curiosity, coupled with horror, stirred within me as I began randomly opening files and exploring their content. Some brought joy and sweet memories; others a sense of shame and regret so intense that I would look over my shoulder to see if anyone was watching.

A file named “Friends” was next to one marked “Friends I Have Betrayed.” The titles ranged from the mundane to the outright weird. “Books I Have Read,”"Lies I Have Told,”"Comfort I have Given,” “Jokes I Have Laughed At.”

Some were almost hilarious in their exactness: “Things I’ve Yelled at My Brothers.” Others I couldn’t laugh at: “Things I Have Done in My Anger”,”Things I Have Muttered Under My Breath at My Parents.” I never ceased to be surprised by the contents. Often there were many more cards than expected. Sometimes fewer than I hoped. I was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the life I had lived.

Could it be possible that I had the time in my years to fill each of these thousands or even millions of cards? But each card confirmed this truth. Each was written in my own handwriting. Each signed with my signature.

When I pulled out the file marked “TV Shows I Have Watched,” I realized the files grew to contain their contents. The cards were packed tightly, and yet after two or three yards, I hadn’t found the end of the file. I shut it, shamed, not so much by the quality of shows but more by the vast time I knew that file represented.

When I came to a file marked “Lustful Thoughts,” I felt a chill run through my body. I pulled the file out only an inch, not willing to test its size, and drew out a card. I shuddered at its detailed content. I felt sick to think that such a moment had been recorded. An almost animal rage broke on me.

One thought dominated my mind: No one must ever see these cards! No one must ever see this room! I have to destroy them!” In insane frenzy I yanked the file out. Its size didn’t matter now. I had to empty it and burn the cards.

But as I took it at one end and began pounding it on the floor, I could not dislodge a single card. I became desperate and pulled out a card, only to find it as strong as steel when I tried to tear it. Defeated and utterly helpless, I returned the file to its slot. Leaning my forehead against the wall, I let out a long, self-pitying sigh.

And then I saw it. The title bore “People I Have Shared the Gospel With.” The handle was brighter than those around it, newer, almost unused. I pulled on its handle and a small box not more than three inches long fell into my hands. I could count the cards it contained on one hand.

And then the tears came. I began to weep. Sobs so deep that they hurt. They started in my stomach and shook through me. I fell on my knees and cried. I cried out of shame, from the overwhelming shame of it all. The rows of file shelves swirled in my tear-filled eyes. No one must ever, ever know of this room.. I must lock it up and hide the key. But then as I pushed away the tears, I saw Him.

No, please not Him. Not here.. Oh, anyone but Jesus. I watched helplessly as He began to open the files and read the cards. I couldn’t bear to watch His response. And in the moments I could bring myself to look at His face, I saw a sorrow deeper than my own. He seemed to intuitively go to the worst boxes.

Why did He have to read every one? Finally He turned and looked at me from across the room.. He looked at me with pity in His eyes. But this was a pity that didn’t anger me. I dropped my head, covered my face with my hands and began to cry again. He walked over and put His arm around me.. He could have said so many things. But He didn’t say a word. He just cried with me.

Then He got up and walked back to the wall of files.. Starting at one end of the room, He took out a file and, one by one, began to sign His name over mine on each card. “No!” I shouted rushing to Him. All I could find to say was “No, no,” as I pulled the card from Him. His name shouldn’t be on these cards. But there it was, written in red so rich, so dark, and so alive.

The name of Jesus covered mine. It was written with His blood. He gently took the card back He smiled a sad smile and began to sign the cards. I don’t think I’ll ever understand how He did it so quickly, but the next instant it seemed I heard Him close the last file and walk back to my side. He placed His hand on my shoulder and said, “It is finished.”

I stood up, and He led me out of the room. There was no lock on its door. There were still cards to be written.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16

But that oversimplification is not entirely true.  If it was, that would mean that all unconfirmable claims about the life to come, by any and all religions, would be equally binding, or just as important or risky.

If the Biblical God makes demands with consequences we can not confirm with empiricism, are they any different from the claims of Buddhism, Islam, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

What we really need is a better measure of how likely such claims are to be true.  Can that be done without direct empirical evidence?  YES.  We must not ignore historical, ethical, and logical support for or against faith claims, and in so doing, discriminate between pretenders and contenders.

Below, I address this objection, which can be stated The lack of empirical support for faith means ALL FAITHS ARE EQUALLY IMPROBABLE and on par with fairy tales.

This is the common atheist ruse “believing in Jesus, the Easter Bunny, or the FSM are all equivalent because they are all equally impossible to validate with empirical science.”
The first problem with this approach is that anti-theists are only allowing ONE type of vidence or line of reasoning – that of empirical science.

But as Immanuel Kant, the great secular philosopher argued in his Critique of Pure Reason, reason itself (and by extension, empirical science) proves that reason has limits, and in being limited, can not make any claims EVEN TO THE POSSIBILITY or IMPOSSIBILITY of more reality than we observe.

Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer.

There are other means of epistemology, even within science itself.  Beyond the direct observation of empirical science lie indirect observation (such as our measurements of cosmic rays, invisible to our senses), historical evidence, the employment of logic, statistics, and reason to assess claims, and lastly, when it comes to assessing faith claims, one can observe the logical and practical outcomes and ‘judge them by their fruits,’ as it is said.

The hubris and mistake of atheism is in failing to recognize the other faculties at our disposal, content to live in the narrow and ‘safe’ world of empiricism, except when it comes to their own myths such as evolution or the absence of God.

Before I give some examples of these other types of evidence, let me discuss the second mistake atheists are making in assuming that all faiths are equally improbable.  They assume, perhaps correctly, that no amount of evidence, empirical or otherwise, can definitively prove the existence of God, and therefore, it can prove nothing.

The error here is that, while it can not PROVE a faith true, it can ELIMINATE pretenders from contenders.  That is, using the OTHER means of evidence at our disposal, some faith claims, such as the FSM, fairies, or the validity of Islam, for instance, will fall into the category of NOT the truth.  We may end up with one or more contenders, perhaps Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism (in my book), and that process of elimination is very useful to the person employing reason rather than making blanket condemnations.

Let me give some examples of how these other methods are used in everyday real life and science (as opposed to atheist philosophy).

1. Indirect Measurement reveals previously invisible reality

Before the discovery of radiation in the late 1800′s, few people would have taken you seriously if you had said ‘there are invisible particles that are emitted from those rocks,’ and they’d be even more incredulous if you said ‘and there are invisible cosmic rays that shoot through us all the time, but we don’t see, hear, smell, taste, or feel them.’

But as it turns out, once we were able to measure them, we could confirm that they were real.  Before the technology existed to see them, they were a fantasy.  But there they were, in a realm invisible to the eye.

When atheists claim ‘it’s not real because we can’t measure it,’ they are not being truthful at all.  Plenty of things were real before we could see them.  This, of course, does not mean that all imaginary things should be considered equally plausible, but it establishes the idea that as  noted atheist and scientist Carl Sagan remarked, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Perhaps they ought to remain open minded, and admit that SOME day, we may find a way to ‘measure’ God, or we may have some way to probe that reality that is more concrete and less subjective (we certainly will after death).

And let me add one more point about yet-to-be-discovered realities.  Einstein opened up a whole new world of possibilities, as it were, an unseen world of physics.  And even now. quantum physics is exposing us to a reality where MIND seems to influence matter – where observation alone changes outcomes. Is this the door to ‘measuring’ the spiritual world?  Since God can be seen as ultimate Mind, it’s possible.

Such new realms of science might not entirely demystify or rationalize the spiritual world, but they are evidence that what science has revealed to this point is far from all of reality.

You know, perhaps when Jesus’ physical, resurrected body went ‘up’ to heaven, it didn’t go into space, but just ‘out of phase,’ as they like to say in Star Trek.  Perhaps heaven is RIGHT THERE at 30,000 feet, but in another space/time dimension that we can’t see.  That’s all I’m saying.  It’s as realistic, or perhaps moreso, than infinite universes and string theory and dark matter.  Don’t get me started.

2. Historic evidence can corroborate both historic AND miraculous claims

The difference between empirical and historic evidence is one that many atheists and evolutionists are slow to recognize – not for lack of intelligence, but often for the pure rejection of the claims that such an approach might let in the door.

Sure, they employ historic evidence, like the fossil record, in their own claims, but they try to elevate it to the status of empirical evidence by claiming that the assumptions they use to INTERPRET the historic data are unassailable and true.  Hence, their conclusions on the matter are as sure as empirical science, or as they love to say, “as sure as gravity.”

This self-deception belies not only a lack of intellectual introspection and self-awareness, it is a bastardization of science.

Assumptions themselves can be evaluated for their reasonableness, and challenged with data.  Since, by definition, assumptions are unprovable, if we differ at that level, we may need to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

If a faith system makes claims about history, science, or logic, these things can be evaluated.  If the faith system is found significantly felicitous, this lends credence to its more miraculous claims, though it does not prove them.  If not, such as in the case of the Book of Mormon’s historic fallacies, we can perhaps reject it as a contender.

SIDEBAR: The historicity of the Bible

Regarding historicity, the Bible is certainly trustworthy, and is in many ways the most reliable historic document we have. As both archeology and manuscript studies indicate, for example, that the Christian scriptures are contenders:

There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.
~ William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968), p. 176.

The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.
~ William F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, Rev. ed. (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Books, 1960), pp. 127-128

Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of Biblical backgrounds.
~ Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1954), p. 15

And the list of this type of confirmation, or disconfirmation, of various claims by holy books or faith systems, can go on extensively

But not only can historical and archaeological studies confirm the natural claims of a faith, they can lend credence to or take away from the MIRACULOUS claims of a faith – not just by their own validation, but by observing how people responded in history to the supposed miracles that occured.

For a quick example, looking at the historical sources of the Jews, we can see that they too recorded that Jesus was supposed to have done miracles.  We can also see how the disciples, who fled and hid after Jesus’ death, had some later experience (seeing him resurrected) that transformed them, to a man, into men who believed so strongly that they were all willing to die for their faith – either because they had a strong delusion, or because they had a reason to believe.

3. Logic, statistics, and reason

One of the most basic examinations we can do of any holy or secular text is to subject it to tests of internal and external logic, looking for gross inconsistencies, as well as elegant consistency.  We can also employ simple comparisons to our own experience and observation of people, societies, and cause and effect we see in our own world.  This can be done heuristically and personally, or systematically and empirically.  Either way some spiritual claims and stories will have the air of authority and reality, while others will be obviously fanciful and illogical.

Naturally, there will be a middle ground, especially when it comes to reporting miracles.  However, if you discard them out of hand as fanciful a priori , then you may end up with a much more limited set of faith claims, if any at all.

However, some stories, like the native American myth that the Sky Goddess put the earth on the back of a giant turtle can be clearly eliminated.  However, for example, the Biblical claim that God first created light (let there be light), followed LATER by the stars and the sun, aligns perfectly with the current astronomical cosmology that says that the Universe came into being in a great blast of energy, i.e. the Big Bang.

4. Their fruits

Judging a belief system by the results it produces in the lives of individuals and society is a bit of a tricky business. In part, because every ideological system can and has been abused by human beings, and secondly, because ‘history is written by the victors.’

This last point is no more true than in the case of Christianity.  Books by such authors as Rodney Stark and Dinesh D’Souza reveal that much of what we hear about, for example, the historical war between science and faith, is not only untrue when one goes back to original documents rather than trusting anti-theist and anti-Catholic authors, it is just the opposite of what happened.  For a great read, check out Chapter 10 of D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity, entitled An Atheist Fable: Reopening the Galileo Case.

When we evaluate the performance of a faith in history and present day, we need to consider the frailties and biases of mankind.  However, that does not have to stop us from recognizing historic trends, logical outcomes of various beliefs, and the present day expression of various ideologies.  For example, you might observe and conclude:

• the teachings of the religion’s founder seem noble, believable, and good, or NOT
• historically, nations that practiced the ideology produced health, freedom, and prosperity, or NOT
• persons I meet from this ideology are kind, loving, virtuous, or NOT

So, we might view Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and atheism and even the FSM from these three vantage points, and at least eliminate a few.

5. Personal Experience

While experience is subjective, all of us use it to help us determine what is true.  We try different ideologies and see what they produce in the lab of our own lives.  But many people only approach the question of faith from a distance with their intellects, keeping their hearts far from it.  There are many reasons for this, but G.K. Chesterton’s is one of the most interesting:

Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

I tried agnosticism and skepticism.  I toyed with drugs and open mindedness.  I tried Christianity.  I left it and tried Buddhism and yoga.  I ended up returning to a more mature Christianity, but I did test things out.  As scripture invites, we ought to test out faith:

Psalm 34:8
Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good;Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!

Matthew 11:28
Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

CONCLUSION

The whole point of this exercise was to show that, contrary to dumbed down anti-religious, narrow materialist dogma, there are ways to at least eliminate religious pretenders, and narrow the field to just a few believable contenders.

With that in mind, when we return to Pascal’s wager in the risk formula I created, we can see that the LIKELIHOOD of all faiths being infinitessimally low or zero, as atheists gamble, is probably a poor decision.  Remember the forumla?

Likelihood x impact = risk.

If the impact of not believing in Jesus, Zeus or the FSM is high, but the likelihood of those being true, as measured by the methods above, is not the same, we may conclude that some faith claims are more reasonable and likely, and ignoring them could be inviting dire and real personal risk.

And this is what Pascal was getting at.  The historic, moral, and personal impact of the life and teachings of Jesus are not only impressive, they outshine other systems when compared.  In addition, if this places them into the realm of plausibility, even probability, the atheist is a fool to gamble on the notion that his limited ability to measure reality with empiricism is good enough ground to live in defiance of the existence of the Biblical God.

NEXT: Pascal’s Wager – Part III: Evaluating the gods

But on closer inspection, this theological conundrum elucidated by the great scientist, mathematician, and Christian well known for his intellectual Christian apologetic Pensees, is a masterful logical rebuke of atheism from a probability perspecitve – and Pascal is basically the father of the discipline of probability.

Blaise Pascal provides a serious evaluation of the reasonableness of seeking for God rather than foolishly betting against the odds that God exists.

1. What is Pascal’s Wager?

Simply put, Pascal’s wager can be said this way – since our reason is limited, and can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God entirely, we would be safer to bet that God does exist than wager our lives that He does not.

If we live as if God exists, and he does not, we lose little, and end up living good lives (as long as that living involves true spirituality, not the bondage of empty religion).  However, if we live as if God does NOT exist, and He DOES, the consequences are astronomical.

2. Pascal’s wager as a risk formula

Here’s an easy way to quantify what’s going on here.  In Project Management, there is a standard method for assessing risk, which is a simple mathematical formula for determining how great a risk is:

Risk = likelihood X impact

Likelihood is defined as ‘how likely, or possible is it that the negative event will happen?’  Highly likely, moderately, or not very likely?  Impact is defined as ‘how devastating would it be if this event actually happened?’

So, for example, let’s say that I ame building a dog house, and I want to ask myself, ‘what would keep me from getting this done this weekend?’  What could interfere?  Let’s say I identify three possibilities.

• The hardware store will be out of wood
• President Obama will spend more of my tax money
• I will hurt myself with a power tool

To evaluate these, I might put them in a grid like so:

As you can see, when either of the two factors is low, the total risk is low, but when both are moderate to high, the risk goes up quickly.

Pascal’s wager can be evaluated the same way:

So, if you live Godly, Pascal argues, and there is no God, you lose very little (low risk).  But if you live like there is NO God and are wrong, the risk associated with being wrong is astronomical.

You’ll notice that I used a LOW likelihood that exists, but this doesn’t actually matter because the more important factor, the impact of being wrong, is INFINITE if there is a God and you don’t live that way.  That is, if the monotheistic story of judgment after death is correct, and failing in judgment means eternal (infinite) separation from God, then the risk is also infinite, since ANY likelihood multiplied by an infinite impact is infinite.

That is, unless the likelihood is ZERO.  Then, the risk is zero (0 times infinity = 0, although I remember from my calc days that this might not be strictly true – infinity is just a theoretical construct).  So atheists basically are betting on the proposition that the likelihood that the monotheistic or Christian God exists is ZERO. Pascal argues that, since you have absolutely NO WAY to use reason and science to PROVE that this God does not exist, you must allow for at least an infinitesimal likelihood that God exists, and therefore, your risk goes back to infinitely high.

Now, this is merely using reason and mathematics (two things Pascal was skilled at) to show that betting on the non-existence of God is an unreasonable choice.  And atheists, who claim to be servants of reason alone, ought to admit that their own logic would drive them to this same conclusion.  However, it often does not, and they raise objections which I will address in Part II.

But autos have a world of things that ought to be improved upon, or problems that need to be solved.  Thankfully, most of the premium car manufacturers like BMW and Lexus have been addressing these problems, but they are woefully slow.   Here’s what I would like to see changed about cars.

1. Car Doors

This is truly my #1 pet peeve with cars.  What I love about our 2000 Honda Odyssey is the sliding doors.  So easy to get the kids in and out.  So let me ask you, why in God’s name have they not done the same for the FRONT doors?!?  I absolutely despise having to squeeze out in parking lots.  I’m sure they have some excuse for not doing it, like cost, or safety, or some other lame reason, but that’s what you pay engineers for.

I mean, just off of the top of my head, I can think of many alternatives:

• Gull wings
• Lamborghini doors
• Sliding doors
• Doors that swing up over the hood
• Doors that swing over the roof
• Doors that disappear under the car
• Doors that open and close like a camera shutter
• Force fields

2. Other access issues

I just got back from a week in Lake Tahoe, with 7 individuals and our luggage in a Honda Odyssey.  The trip was great, the ride?  It sucked.  The lone adult in the back had to fight car sickness and had not enough space to relax.  Not only that, getting to the baby in back when she was hungry was like squeezing through a crowded room with a 4 foot ceiling.

Solution?  I need one of those – a Dodge Sprinter.  While it is expensive fully equipped ($52K), the diesel engine should go for 300-500K miles, and it gets as good mileage as a fully equipped Odyssey, which comes in at $40K.  Total cost of ownership would be equal or LESS over a period of 10 years.  And it can carry 12 passengers plus luggage, and has dual power sliding doors.  When the Odyssey dies, this will be my #1 contender.

3. Blind-spot management

Why do we still have to use mirrors?  Every time you look back, you risk hitting something in front of you.  Thankfully, Mercedes has a nice solution coming out in which red lights appear in your mirror when someone is in your blind spot.  Nissan also has implemented (in Japan only) a full set of cameras to project a birds-eye view of your car and it’s surroundings right in front of you.  Now, if such technologies would filter down to American consumer cars.  Volvo, BMW, and Audi all have their own solutions for this problem.  All I can say is, ‘it’s about time!’

4. Rear leg room

One of the criteria I set for the purchase of my last car was this – if I’ve got the driver’s seat all the way back, I do NOT want to move up my seat when someone rides behind me just to give them leg room.  They should have plenty of leg room with my seat all the way back.

As it turns out, that limited me to looking at the LARGEST vehicle from each manufacturer.  Now, I wish I could afford to buy and maintain a 740iL, but I can’t – so I got a Chrysler.  Admittedly, I think some cars like the newer Honda Accord and Ford Taurus try to correct this problem, but many cars allow something like 3 inches of leg space in the back when the front seats are all the way back!

5. Gas Mileage

Why are we still languishing with cars that get under 30mpg?  Look, I saw Who Killed the Electric Car, I know there’s a conspiracy out there ;).  Seriously, when they make a full-sized car that gets 50mpg, then I’ll be impressed.  Until then, they’re just being lazy.  Or selfish.  Or bribed by the oil industry, I don’t know.

6. Sunlight management

So-called privacy windows (dark tinting on the rear windows) on autos make some difference during those hot sunny days, but really, can’t we do more?  I like the automatic sun shade that BMW has implemented in the rear window of its vehicles, as well as the manual ones that can be drawn up on the side windows.

So tell me, why don’t they have one implemented for the front window? Why must I have to pull out those stupid foil-covered sun-shades every time I park?  Just let me push a button!

Even better, why make me crack my windows or sunroof, esp. in areas where it rains in the summer (east coast)?  Don’t make me buy some stupid solar-powered window fan, just build one into the car!  I remember back in the 1980′s, Saab was exprimenting with putting solar cells in the sun roof to drive just such a fan, but they never did it.  Now, you can buy them as a $1000 option on some high-end Audis.  How generous.

7.Child restraint systems

Actually, booster seats, like the Graco Backless Turbobooster are pretty easy to get in and out, and infant car seats do have the base that you can click in and out of.

But have you ever tried to get a Britax toddler chair out?  Once you get it in, weaving the seatbelt through the back, and clamping the top restraint down, it can be hard work to get it in and out.

Not only that, but few of them have decent side-to side restraints, which means that in a t-bone accident, your kids could fly all over.  More issues include:

• the bottoms often ruin seats – I’ve got a seat protector under my carseat, but why do I have to buy something extra?
• moving the straps up as your children grow is a pain in the neck – you have to take the car seat out, unthread and rethread the straps
• reaching down beside car seats to click in the seatbelt can be a real chore, esp. if you’ve got two right next to one another

Solutions?

• Require cars to have standard attachment points for car seats – above AND below – which would then make it a four point diamond of attachment points (seatbelt provides left and right).
• Make installation and removal easier – easier clamps (like mountain climbing clamps), easier routing of the seatbelt.
• Make strap adjustment easier – you should NOT have to take out the seat (although I would not mind if it was easier).

8. Adult restraint systems

While three-point seatbelts are much easier to use than the older style ones, I’m still amazed that car makers don’t offer the safer version that comes over both shoulders and clamps between the legs, like race car drivers use.  Sure, if you’re wearing a dress, that’s not fun, but if they are so much safer, why not make a consumer version that allows for it?

One other seatbelt pet peeve, which seems to be only on my Honda, and not my American car – if you pull the seatbelt out a little, then let it go back a bit, it locks and you can’t pull it out any more.  This is very frustrating when trying to strap my kids in.  Argh.

9. Cup holders

How is it that no one can make a secure cup holder for more than one or two cup sizes?  I’ve seen some cool ‘ratcheting’ types in pickup trucks, but seriously, someone needs to make cupholders deeper and more flexible so that cups stay in there when I go around the corner, and alternately, can hold my 48 ounce Big Gulp.

An older pet peave of mine, which most car makers have solved (although I think Volkswagen still has this issue in some models) is putting cup holders in places where cups obscure stereo controls, vents, or other things you want to get at while driving.  D’oh!

10. Dumb cruise control

I hesitate to mention this, since the luxury brands are dealing with this nicely, but cruise control should be able to adjust my speed, even brake instead of making me pay attention when I’d rather be texting.  I mean, I’m just saying, it should do more than keep me at a constant speed.

11. Noise and pollution

OK, the electric or hydrogen cars really solve this problem.  I can’t wait!  Nice.

12. Arm rests

Again, some cars are made for small Japanese women, not for your average American male. Have you ever put the seat all the way back so that you’ve got leg room, only to find that your head is behind the center pillar, and the arm rest ran out 3 inches ago?

Even worse, some arm rests are hard, and when you lean your left leg against them, they are VERY uncomfortable.  Arm rests need to be designed with the leg in mind.

13. Air vents

Some air vents are difficult to aim, in part because there’s not much to grab, and even when you do, they seem sticky and hard to move.  I like the oversized and simple vents in the new Mustangs.

Another problem – those stupid symbols they use for opening and closing the vents.  Which one is which?  They’re as bad as the stupid power on / power off symbols.

14.Bucket seats and center consoles

One of the songs that captures my feelings about bucket seats is the song by Cake called Stickshifts and Safety Belts:

stickshifts and safetybelts,
bucket seats have all got to go.
when we’re driving in the car,
it makes my baby seem so far.

i need you here with me,
not way over in a bucket seat.
i need you to be here with me,
not way over in a bucket seat.

I really love bench seats, but they are much harder to come by.  Center consoles make me feel trapped.  One of the things I like about Texas is that they have a nice descriptive name for the center of the bench seat – it reflects the fact that when you are driving, sometimes you want your woman right next to you.  It’s called ‘riding b*tch’ (as opposed to riding shotgun).  Damn straight (spits in spittoon).

15. Car stereos

This deserves a post all it’s own.  Small stereo labels and controls – why do they make car stereos with little buttons that you can’t even read when you are in the passenger seat?  I swear, on my wife’s stereo, I still can’t figure out how to turn off the power, and forget about changing the time! Sony is the worst offender, but they all do it.  I mean, can you see any text on those buttons?  It doesn’t get much better even up close, and who’s gonna get up close while trying to keep eyes on the road?

And then there’s the complicate displays that have that damned ‘Display mode’ – you know, the one that cycles what amounts to a never-ending ad for the receiver’s features?  It took me 6 months before I figured out that you can turn that off.  And I’m technical.  But for some reason, car stereos just bug me when they are complicated.  That’s why I kinda like my stock Chrysler stereo.

16. Clothes hangers

I’m sorry, but those clothing hooks just don’t cut it.  I’ve seen some solutions, like one that hangs on the back of the seat, or even a rod across the entire back.  But seriously, when you get into the car with your suit jacket, isn’t there some convenient, out of the way place to hang it?  No.

Solutions?  That’s tougher.  I’d say put something cool in the trunk that keeps the suit hung up, clean, and unsquishable.

17. Storage

The list never ends, huh?  We need more cubby holes for stuff like papers, briefcases, purses, and the like.  Storage systems for the home and work have come a long way.  Someone needs to innovate storage in the auto.

I mean, I *hate* having my wife’s purse at my feet when she’s driving, or my loose portfolio and books just sitting on the passenger seat waiting to slide onto the floor the next time I brake.

18. Grocery nets

Auto makers may have meant well when they created these, but really, they still allow stuff to fall out of those crappy plastic bags.  Our old Honda CR-V had nice little hooks to hang stuff on, and some minivans have that too.  There’s nothing like having your oranges roll around to the far reaches of the trunk on your way home.

Even better, how about a built-in cooler compartment that is insulated so that you can put perishables like ice cream in there for the ride home?  How hard is that?

CONCLUSION

Autos have a LOT of room for improvement, which means opportunity for someone.  Heck, the first company that solves the front-door problem will have me as its first customer.

There are at least three possible views when it comes to how we view environmentalism – the leftist ‘Wilderness’ view, the rightist ‘Wasteland’ view, and the more balanced ‘Garden’ view.  The extremes are lack of concern for the environment, or virtual worship of the environment, while the Garden view is one possibility between the extremes.  Which camp do you lean towards?

1. The Wasteland of Industrialists

Those who are not concerned with the environment end up creating a wasteland.  Through lack of resource management and industrialization, they either abandon creation care, or actively rape the land for resources.  They have no concern for sustainable practices such as crop rotation, or recycling, re-use, and reduction of industrial by-products and wastes.  Hyper-capitalists and many second world nations such as China are still raping and polluting their land and water without concern for the future, looking only to short term profits.

Unfortunately, biblical Christians have been very remiss in creation care over the last century, and have either tacitly or explicitly bought into this wasteland view, mostly for theological reasons, including:

• Isolationist Doctrine: the mistaken doctrine that faith
  only applies to one’s personal life, and not to public matters.
  Rapture-ready folk have no interest in making this life better, and
  only look to the next. This doctrine was one of the main reasons that
  Evangelicals left the Fundamentalist movement in the early 1900′s. And incidentally, this separationist doctrine is also pushed by secularists who want no religion in public life, which compounds the lack of involvement of Christians in environmental issues.
• Avoiding nature worship: The main difference between the
  Christian view of nature and the panentheistic eastern view (all nature
  contains God’s essence) is that the latter leads to nature worship,
  while the former is supposed to lead to nature stewardship. However, in
  an effort to avoid nature worship, xians have gone too far the other
  way and, instead of pushing for responsible use and stewardship of
  nature, have allowed industrialists to abuse it. Stoopid.
• Rejecting nature worship: Unfortunately, in ceding responsible creation care to eastern and Darwinian thinkers, the arena has been given over to those who worship nature to the point of despising humans, and seeing humans and animals as co-heirs of the creation, rather than seeing man as the caretaker. So eco-whackos who fail to balance human value with the value of the creation often end up damaging humanity, and not really doing a reasonable job, but rather, an emotional one. Hence Newt Gingrich’s push for “scientific environmentalism” in his book A Contract with the Earth. In rejecting this type of environmentalism, xians have unfortunately ended up siding with the industrialists.
• Aligning with free market capitalism: Capitalism is, arguably, the most biblical of monetary systems (although Catholicism leans towards socialism, this may be one reason why Protestant countries have outperformed Catholic ones in both freedom and economics). This  theological alignment with capitalism has catalyzed the Christian  alignment with the industrialists, not only in economics, but in environmental lack of concern, which is a problem. If not balanced with biblical values, capitalism becomes abusive, which is what xians have allowed.

Authors like N.T. Wright have taken this ‘escape to heaven’ view to task in such book as Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church.  One reviewer of Wright’s books remarks:

To those of us still soaked in the idea that God’s end game is “souls escaping the world for Heaven’s clouds” it may seem so foreign…to those of us who have embraced a God who is more concerned with Reshaping, Restoring and Resurrecting His Good World, it will be invigorating and energizing (especially for mission).

2. The Wilderness of Secularists, Darwinists and Eastern Religionists

I hate to pin this extreme view on Darwinism, and I don’t want to get sidetracked on this issue, but I do think that, just as Darwinism gave a scientific rationalization for such things as Nazi eugenics, it’s dehumanizing effects also give some scientific justification for seeing man as a parasite, or just another animal in the creation, rather than the caretaker who should be exercising responsible ‘dominion’ over creation.

Eastern religions that teach panentheism also place man as a coequal with animals, which is why many are vegetarian – because reincarnated men may come back as animals, and because animals may be just as holy and precious as men.  For this reason, for instance, many Hindus may starve for lack of food, while holy cows walk around without concern for becoming hamburgers.  But I digress.  Even some Christian environmentalism falls into this trap – or as the product description of Hore-Lacy’s Responsible Dominion puts it:

Some Christian environmental writings are deeply flawed in that they do not take seriously enough the biblical emphasis on the value of human life.

Interestingly, the famous French Historian Alexis de Tocqueville, in his classic book Democracy in America, discussed the inevitable slide to pantheism in secular democracies, as described in Democracy and its friendly critics:

Democracy, de Tocqueville explains, opposes particular distinctions, and so the particularity of the personal God and human persons.  It tends to replace personal or individual explanations with impersonal ones, and so it tends to culminate in materialism and pantheism. (p. 31)

The “don’t harm or change creation because it is holy” view can originate from hyper-Darwinism, eastern religion, or other philosophies. Regardless of why people hold this perspective, it basically posits that nature should be undisturbed, rather than tended and managed. This perspective is based on a half truth, a biblical truth that most Wilderness proponents probably don’t give conscious assent to – that the inherent DESIGN and mechanisms of nature are to be observed and respected.

Nature itself is amazingly complex and sophisticated, and has mechanisms of balance within each ecosystem that we should acknowledge and work with. Respecting this ‘design’ is important.  However, to put the principles of nature above our own responsibility to manage the creation for the good of mankind is a mistake, because the beautiful creation is flawed by the introduction of sin, sickness, and death, and needs tending.

3. The Garden of Biblical Stewardship

I have tried to associate a philosophic group with each position listed here, and I had trouble coming up with a generic, non-biblical philosophy that promotes the ‘garden’ view, so please excuse me if I give credit to the Bible for this view – there may be a more generic philosophy or other groups that support this view.

Biblically speaking, the command to responsibly manage the creation was given to mankind as his primary responsibility on earth, even before the fall into sin:

Genesis 2:15
Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.

In theological circles, this is commonly referred to as the ‘Dominion Mandate.’  It posits that

God told Adam and Eve to cultivate and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15), and we may certainly use nature for our benefit, but we may only use it as God intends. An effective steward understands that which he oversees, and science can help us discover the intricacies of nature. Technology puts the creation to man’s use, but unnecessary waste and pollution degrades it and spoils the creation’s ability to give glorify to its creator. I think it is helpful to realize that we are to exercise dominion over nature not as though we are entitled to exploit it but as something borrowed or held in trust.

After the fall, the curse made this task more difficult, but it was still part of his responsibility:

Genesis 3:17-18
Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.

But Biblical origins aside, this view basically says that we are to enjoy, use, and manage the creation in a manner that is in concert with BOTH human flourishing (the development and happiness of mankind), and the laws of nature that preserve it. Ultimately, we should eschew greed, and look beyond just meeting our immediate needs and wants to fulfilling the larger purposes of God – to enhance human development and enjoyment, to manage and explore the creation (via science, for example), and to preach the gospel until Jesus returns.

RELATED BOOKS:

• A Contract with the Earth by Newt Gingrich
• Where Garden Meets Wilderness: Evangelical Entry into the Environmental Debate by  E. Calvin Beisner
• Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church by N. T. Wright
• Engaging God’s World: A Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living by Cornelius Plantinga
• Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility by James A. Nash
• The Care of Creation: Focusing Concern and Action by R. J. Berry
• Redeeming Creation: The Biblical Basis for Environmental Stewardship by Fred Van Dyke
• Responsible Dominion: A Christian Approach to Sustainable Development by Ian Hore-Lacy

Some biblical ideas on Capital Punishment

1. The punishments given as part of the Mosaic law were to Israel, not to us

One of the tough questions often posed to Christians is, if you believe the bible, why don’t you subscribe to the punishments given in the OT law, including the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, and rebellious children?  Christians often answer that, though these rules reflected the moral law (i.e. the rightness or wrongness of the things described), the civil penalties for such were not prescribed, except to Israel.  As Joe says:

Christians often look back to the Mosaic Law when searching for
justifications for capital punishment. This is hardly surprising
considering that in the law God gave the Israelites, twenty-one
different offenses were considered worthy of the death penalty.

The problem with this approach is that the Law of Moses only applied
to Israel. Since this particular covenant was made between God and the
Hebrew people, it was never universally applicable. While we might be
able to discern moral truths by looking to the Law our decisions on how
to apply it would be arbitrary. How would we rationalize, for example,
applying the death penalty to cases of murder but not for homosexuality?

2. The Noahic covenant is with mankind, and does specify one act worthy of death – murder.

Although the Mosaic Law doesn’t provide a sound basis for a defense
of capital punishment, there is a covenant that does – the Noahic
covenant. After God destroyed mankind with a flood, he established a
covenant with Noah, his family, and (most importantly for us) his
descendants. Along with the promise that He would never destroy the
earth by water again, God included this moral command:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. (Gen. 6:9, ESV)

This verse not only provides a moral norm for capital punishment but
delegates the responsibility to mankind (i.e., government) and limits
it to a particular crime (murder).

3. This is a faithful view of these covenants, since the Mosaic was superceded, the Noahic was not

We should also note that since this covenant is ‘everlasting’ (v. 16)
and ‘for all future generations’ (v. 12), it’s as applicable today as
it was in the age of Noah. Unlike the Mosaic Law, this covenant was
never superseded by any later actions of God. We should also note that
if we choose to ignore this command, we are choosing to reject God’s
wisdom.

4. False convictions mean that we need to be careful in our application of the death penalty, but not throw it out.

Of course there may be times when the ability of the state to implement
the death penalty is egregiously compromised. The problems that can
occur with its application are numerous and complex so we must remain
ever vigilant against its abuse. Indeed, respect for human dignity
demands that we err on the side of caution to prevent the unjust
killing of those falsely accused of committing murder. The legitimate
objections, however, appear to associated with its application, rather than in the moral legitimacy of the death penalty itself.

Poor application is a good reason to apply it more justly, not a reason to abolish it.

5. So what SHOULD we do with child rapists?

Joe doesn’t answer this question, he merely remarks

The rape of a child is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. But
in the absence of a clear Biblical mandate to expand the penalty beyond
murder, I do not believe we can justify including child-rape under the
crimes that deserve death.

But I made these suggestions – perhaps all of these together:

• Castration (though this might not really reduce their predatory inclinations, it certainly is a punishment)
• Life in prison (since the victim will be haunted for the rest of their lives by the incident?)
• Medically induced impotence? (since most rapists are men) – no more sexual pleasure ever again, not even self-pleasuring.

Related Articles

• Ineffective arguments against capital punishment
• Child rapist gets 60 days
• Is the death penalty pro-life?
• Party of Death
• The Five Functions of Civil Government
• Christian Pacifism, Christian War
• New Conservative Books

Jay Richards – did physics kill God? (Stephen Hawking)

INTRO

1. For the materialist, the fundamental and foundational source is the universe… Carl Sagan said ‘the universe is all there is, was, or will be.’

>> But the cosmos is NOT eternal

A. Three strikes against materialism

   1. A cosmic beginning

        a. Edwin Hubble in the 1920s
             . What were nebula?
             . Discovered red shifts when measuring distant galaxies
             . Discovered that the universe is not static, but expanding

       b. Einsteins relativity implied expanding universe
             . Visited Hubble, admitted that looking for a constant to make the universe eternal was a waste of time

        c. Robert Dicke… An infinitely old universe would relieve us of the necessity of understanding origin of matter…matter would be a fundamental given, we would not have to look for a prior source

   2. A fine tuned universe

        a. MJ Rees … The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values…
        b. Paul Davies … The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions
        c. Universe creating machine (see the privileged planet)

   3. Local fine tuning … Astrobiology (habitable planets)

        a. Carbon and water only create life (no silicon based life forms)
             . Carbon alone forms large metastable molecules that bond to so many other elements
              . Water is liquid over the range of temperatures where carbon is most reactive, forming the perfect solution for reactions

        b. What makes a habitable planet?
             . Carbon and water
             . Solar habitable zone (not too hot or cols)
             . Galactic habitable zone
             . Cosmic habitable era
             . Etc 

Q1. Given the Size of the universe, why do we think our unlikely universe is not chance, but design?
                 >> Habitability correlates with measurability

1. Why does anything exist? (Cosmological argument)

  A. Contingency argument

      1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either necessary or contingent

           a. The universe used to be thought as eternally and self existent. Now we know it had a beginning.

     2. The universe contingently exists. What could cause the universe?

     3. The explanation must be greater than the universe, all of space and time

            a. External to space and time
            b. Transcendent and immaterial 
            c. Personal – must have volition to choose to act in eternity 

2.  The origin of the universe … Nothing can only produce nothing

3. Fine tuning  (teleologic argument)

       A. Constants undetermined by the laws of nature
       B. Arbitrary quantities like entropy, antimatter / matter balance

       C. Possible explanations for fine tuning

              1. Physical necessity
                  . The laws of nature don’t limit the constants
                  . M-theory (string) postulates such varieties of universes

              2. Chance
                   . Probability is statistically 0
                   . Parallel universes, undetectable to us, exist (world ensemble)?
                   . An infinite number of universes is impossible bc our expanding universe demands that even other causal universes had a finite beginning, so only a limited number can exist.

               3. Design

4. Objective moral values and duties (moral argument)

             1. If god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist (mackie, ruse)
                 . If we are accidentally created beings in a meaningless universe, what is absolutely right or wrong?
            2. objective moral values do exist
                  . Objective Moral laws are gradually discovered and understood, not gradually formed or developed over time
            3. Therefore god exists

5. The possibility of gods existence (ontological argument)

     A. Actual v possible worlds 
           . If a maximally great god exists in any world, he must exist in all possible worlds
              > one attribute of greatness is necessary being, not contingent
              > other atttributes include omnipresent, potent, niscient, benevolent
           . Therefore god exists in all possible worlds
           . Therefore, god exists in the actual world

6. The historical facts of jesus’ life, death, resurrection (historic argument)

7. Belief in god is properly basic and can be experienced immediately (experiential argument)

       A. Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted 
       B. 
       C. 

"Our calculations are quite revealing," stated Rex Numero, chief statistician at GODIS.  "We were inspired by Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s accusation that perhaps HIV was created by the US Government, and we immediately set about calculating the likelihood that HIV could have arisen from natural causes.  As it turns out, the HIV virus is irreducibly complex in many areas.  Therefore, it MUST have been engineered."

When Numero was challenged about whether or not the proposed engineer of HIV was the biblical God, Numero immediately denied such conclusions, saying

"We neither confirm nor deny the existence of a supreme being, but we do admit that such engineering is way ahead of our current scientific abilities.  WAY ahead."

Picking up on the GODIS press release, an organization supporting the beleaguered Rev. Wright, Wright’s Holy Infantry Threatening Euro Supremacy (WHITES) immediately countered that such genetic engineering most certainly IS within the realm of our current capabilities.  Chief spokesperson for WHITES Ray Spater enjoined forcefully:

If we can genetically engineer glowing fish, how hard is it to engineer a little virus that kills people?  This news proves that it is possible, even probable that the rich white people running our government created and distributed HIV into the drug and sex businesses in order to kill blacks AND gays, our brothers in this fight for equal rights.

Spater has had to answer, however, the challenge that the spread of HIV in the black and gay communities was due to their own promiscuity and drug use, which is not the government’s fault.

"Are you kidding me?" spat Spater.  "Look, as brother Farrakan has said, the rich white Jews in Hollywood, many of which support our causes, are still to blame for filling our airwaves with sex in movies and on TV.  They are the ones influencing our youth.  Blaming the rappers and the HIV victims themselves is really low – I mean, what makes you say that they bear ANY responsibility for sleeping around or using drugs, when TV makes it so attractive?  No, no, no, we can not blame the victims here in any way."

Not to be left out of the fray, Atheists Reviling God in History and Science (ARGHS) ridiculed the findings of GODIS.  Chief spokesman for ARGHS, Darkes Light, who spoke to the press this morning at ARGHS headquarters in Corpus Christi, TX, reviled:

The conclusions of GODIS are total bunk – I mean, you can prove anything you want with statistics, it all depends on your assumptions.  For example, if you stumbled upon a watch in the sand at the beach, you might be tempted to think that such an unusually complex object required an intelligent maker.  But of course, such a conclusion would be, statistically speaking, not your best choice.  Seeing design everywhere by setting the bar for ‘irreducibility’ so low can lead you to such obviously illogical conclusions as thinking that a watch was most likely created by an intelligence."

Responding to these allegations, GODIS’ Numero answered:

"So let me get this straight. These guys believe in alien life because it is statistically possible, and even after pouring millions of dollars into SETI, have absolutely NO evidence of such, yet they WON’T believe that an intelligence is out there that could do genetic engineering? Is that because such an engineer is too close to being godlike, or because it would provide an alternative theory of origins to evolution?"

In a counter-statement, Light beamed:

"Look, basically, there is NO way to determine if life, or any virus, has been engineered, because quite honestly, we can come up with a theory of how it evolved using natural processes, even if such processes might take longer than the age of the known universe.  The bottom line?  You can’t really tell if anything is designed, and therefore, no form of life is engineered, nor could it be determined to BE engineered.

And since we have proven evolution beyond a doubt, in doing so, we have pretty much deemed the idea of an intelligent creator, god or not, as irrelevant.  And anyone worth their intellectual salt should agree – at least, anyone wanting to publish in a peer-reviewed primary journal or gain their University tenure."

1. Why does anything exist? (Cosmological argument)

  A. Contingency argument

      1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either necessary or contingent

           a. The universe used to be thought as eternally and self existent. Now we know it had a beginning.

     2. The universe contingently exists. What could cause the universe?

     3. The explanation must be greater than the universe, all of space and time

            a. External to space and time
            b. Transcendent and immaterial 
            c. Personal – must have volition to choose to act in eternity 

2.  The origin of the universe … Nothing can only produce nothing

3. Fine tuning  (teleologic argument)

       A. Constants undetermined by the laws of nature
       B. Arbitrary quantities like entropy, antimatter / matter balance

       C. Possible explanations for fine tuning

              1. Physical necessity
                  . The laws of nature don’t limit the constants
                  . M-theory (string) postulates such varieties of universes

              2. Chance
                   . Probability is statistically 0
                   . Parallel universes, undetectable to us, exist (world ensemble)?
                   . An infinite number of universes is impossible bc our expanding universe demands that even other causal universes had a finite beginning, so only a limited number can exist.

               3. Design

4. Objective moral values and duties (moral argument)

             1. If god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist (mackie, ruse)
                 . If we are accidentally created beings in a meaningless universe, what is absolutely right or wrong?
            2. objective moral values do exist
                  . Objective Moral laws are gradually discovered and understood, not gradually formed or developed over time
            3. Therefore god exists

5. The possibility of gods existence (ontological argument)

     A. Actual v possible worlds 
           . If a maximally great god exists in any world, he must exist in all possible worlds
              > one attribute of greatness is necessary being, not contingent
              > other atttributes include omnipresent, potent, niscient, benevolent
           . Therefore god exists in all possible worlds
           . Therefore, god exists in the actual world

6. The historical facts of jesus’ life, death, resurrection (historic argument)

7. Belief in god is properly basic and can be experienced immediately (experiential argument)

       A. Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted 
       B. 
       C. 

A. Natural rights

   1. Our rights wrt other citizens
  2. Natural law tells us what things have value outside of relationships to others

>> atheist got no songs by steve Martin 
>> a case for the crusades by stark
>> Kurt wise
>> legalism: there ought to be a law against it

B. Is natural moral law grounded in god?

   1. The moral law is not physical
       . Discovered from non inferential means of understanding … Not empiricism but introspection. They are immaterial

   2. Moral rules are a form of communication

   3. Moral rules have an incumbency
            . Oughtness, the action of conscience

   4. Guilt

C. Three possible grounds of morality

   1. Morality is an illusion

   2. Moral rules are the result of chance
         . They are givens, brute facts
         . Oughtness implies communication between minds, not accidental recommendations
         . Moral rules evolve to support fitness (begs the question)
             >> the moral animal by wright
         . But why care for the weak? what if that has local negative impact on your fitness?
         . How do we know that cruelty, social darwinism is bad for fitness?
         . If the action benefits fitness, but the motive is bad, is it ok?
         . If the action does not benefit, but the motive is good, is it bad?
         . Should we be good tomorrow? How do I know what actions are good?
         . What if I have conflicting sentiments? Is it moral to prioritize them?
         . What if my sentiments towards evil are positive? Are my actions wrong?

Atheist misconceptions about god and morality
      . You can recognize objective morals wo faith 
      . You can act and be moral without faith
      . But you can not logically ground assertions that objective good exists without god
      . Moral good must include external attestation, obligation/duty, and punishment
      . External means a necessary being, not a contingent one

Richard Taylor… A duty is something owed. Moral obligation requires accountability to another.r

JP Morland – The existence of the soul

A. Xianity is a spiritual religion
   1. It claims a religious realm, including god, angels, souls both animal and human
   2. 

B. Preliminary Notions
   1. The law of identity…if a is identical to b, there are no differences
   2. Cause and effect ….A causes b does not mean a=b
   3. Functional dependence does not mean a=b

Q1  what is the self, not how does it function

Define consciousness (ostensively) : you must give examples to define, using first person
   1. Think of regaining consciousness after anesthesia or sleep

C. Consciousness … The 5 states of

   1. Sensations
      a. External  experiences of the senses
      b. Internal experiences like emotions
      c. Can not be true or false

   2. Thought
      a. Content that can be expressed in a declarative sentence or propositions
      b. Can be true or false
      c. Exist only while I think them

   3. Belief
      a. Mental content you take to be true with > 50% certainty
      b. Can be true or false
      c. Exist even while not thought of

   4. Desire
      a. A felt inclination towards or away from something

   5. Volition…an exercise of will
      a. An endeavoring … Choosing an action

D. What bears consciousness?

   1. Why these states are not merely physical

      a. Things true of mental states that are not true of physical states
           . Physical states can not be true or false
           . Some mental states are normative
           . Brain states have size and location, mental states do not
           . Mental states can be pleasurable, sensations can be pleasurable, but physical states don’t have this type of property

      b. The knowledge argument
            . Facts about consciousness are not the same as facts about material states
            . Imagine we could track the cause and effect of every physical particle…the experience and synthesis of facts, meta data, is above the physical facts

E.g. A mechanical bat v a real bat. What it feels like to be a bat is about consciousness, not physics. 

      c. Intentionality 

          . The ofness or aboutness of consciousness … Have objects of focus
          . Brain states don’t have objects, they are v. Are about

   2. Why you are a soul

Soul as per Aristotle : an immaterial object that contains consciousness and animates the body

      a. You are a simple, indivisible thing, but your  body is not. You can’t have 2/3 of a person. See dandy walker syndrome 

      b. You are possibly disembodiable

          . Even if no life after death, what of nde experiences?

      c. Free will … Libertarian

           . Determinism is false because we are self aware and responsible for action
           . You are the driver of the car, not the car (ucla brain chem guy)

Craig Haizen – Christianity and world religions

A. Raising an arm as a miracle
   1. My soul initiated the action

B. Christianity is different
   1. Its claims are testable
   2. 1 Cor 15…if Christ is not raised, we are fools
   3. Xianity is grounded in historical claims
      a. Hinduism separates religious claims from reality, expects no connection
      b. Buddhism is mostly experience oriented, makes few metaphysical claims
      c. Islam claims no miracles

C. How xianity is different
    1. Xianity is testable
   2. Salvation is free
   3. World view fits reality
      a. Pain/evil/suffering…what do other views say?
        . Eastern religions say it’s an illusion
        . All world views have problems answering this, but we offer hope
   4. You get to live a …….. Life Is. 1:18, 42:21, Jn. 1:1
   5. Xianity has Jesus at the center
      a.  is a figure in most religions, but not central…why do they all include him?

D. Closing
   1. The blind man and the elephant…the original
   2. The Raja appears and tells the blind men what they were touching…they did not know and had to be told or they would keep brawling

Greg Koukl

A. Disproving Christianity
    1. In the Beginning
   2. If Jesus did not rise
   3. If there is no soul/spirit

B. Bad arguments against religion

    1. There is no truth (is that true? Self refuting)
         a. Needs illustration, ppl just don’t see it, it’s so simple
              . If no view is true, how or why argue?
              . If no truth, then your claim is meaningless

    2. Confusing faith w wishing…or hope in the face of no or contrary evidence 
      a. Faith does not fill the space where ignorance exists, into which knowledge pushes.
      b. Faith = active trust (don’t say faith, people misunderstand it)
      c. Believing IN, not THAT
      d. An act of trust grounded in knowledge, not divorced from or antithetical to knowledge
————-
Q1  There is no objective truth in spiritual matters that can be proven or disproven?
————-
C. See, know, believe

    1. Exodus
   2. Elijah
   3. Mark 2 … So that you may KNOW
   4. Romans 1…belief starting from the EVIDENCE of creation
——————–
    3. The problem of evil
      a. If real evil exists, then objective morals exist
      b. If moral relativism is true, then there can not be a ‘problem of evil’
      c. how do you define ‘evil’? 

Q2. Why is natural evil bad? Loss of life? Assumed. Social contract?

Q3 what are the limits of science or reason? The physical? The moral? Morals/values can be defined by logic w assumptions about what is valuable, but not empiricism?

    4. Science can’t confirm gods existence
      a. Material methods can not measure the immaterial
      b. We can infer, like in forensic science or history
      
Q4. What about indirect measurement? Prayer? Happiness? Health?

Q5. Why is it a good idea to assume materialism in science? How does that limit us? What is the role of intuition in science? What are the risks of allowing in supernaturalism in science? How do we manage those risks? Can we safely assume design, or does that make us miss processes? Or does this only apply to origins in a deist sense?

Jp Moreland

A. History of intellectualism in xianity
     1.  now seen as bigoted and dangerous…we have a PR problem

B. Where is this view coming from?
     1. Three world views
          a. Xian theism
          b. Scientific naturalism
               1. Science is our best epistemic tool
              2. Physical world is all there is
          c. Postmodern Relativism

C. Faith, knowledge, and certainty
     1.  Faith is trust based on what we already know to be true.
    2. You can know something without having empirical certainty.

Francis Beckwith

A. No God, No Good
     1. How do you answer the question ‘is there a moral law?’
    2. How do we help people realize what they already intuitively know?
    3. Believing in oughts indicates you believe in objective truth

Greg Koukl

A. Simple cosmological argument
     1. A big bang requires a big banger
    2. Worse than magic…. Big bang lacks magician. What is more reasonable? God or something from nothing?
    3. How is faith illogical?

Jay Richards

A. Different questions require different types of evidence
    1. Most of our answers come from a few accomplished intellectuals
    2. The more accomplished you are, the crazier your claims can be, unchallenged.

B. Hawking’s errors
    1. Category error: gravity is one of the things that needs to be explained, not a cause
    2. He uses ‘nothing’ to refer to a ‘quantum vacuum’

Craig Hazen

A. What are we afraid of?
    1. Most people ask the same simple questions which have answers
    2. Most people are not angry atheists, but ARE hurt by anti-intellectual religionists and anti theist misinformation

The main section titles are:

• Weak Masculine/Feminine Identity
• Distrust of Men/Women
• Gender Identity Disorder
• Narcissism and Profound Selfishness
• Dysfunctional Family Life

What is interesting to me is that, even though studies prove that gays have a much higher background of dysfunctional family life, and esp. sexual molestation, when you mention these causative factors, there are always a few people who will say "I am gay, and I didn’t have any of those.  I had a great upbringing, no molestation, and I have a good relationship with my father." 

Regarding such claims, I would like to suggest:

• studies show that such people are the EXCEPTION to the rule, and so their existence does NOT prove that the assertions made regarding the roots of homsexuality are not true, only that they need more study – there may be other factors
• there are other less frequent, but equally important proposed causative factors, such as problems with peer interaction (e.g. skipping a grade and so being physically and socially behind one’s peers) that can lead to same sex attraction
• some of the people that claim that they had no such causative factors are often unconsciously or consciously ignoring the (often negative) factors in their lives that they KNOW affected or injured them emotionally, and led to their gender preferences.

One of the things I appreciate about Catholics, despite their sometimes awful history of theological error and abuse, is their deep intellectual tradition (in certain pockets of theologically ‘purer’ Catholic Christianity), coupled with their desire to serve humanity.  Hence, the title of their booklet, Homosexuality and HOPE.

And this is the crux of the Christian approach to homosexuality – not just that it is a big SIN, but that it is a malady for which there is reason to hope – for those who recognize it as a deep emotional dysfunction, there is hope for change, and those who deny such are really denying hope to millions of gays who want to change.  Science has not proven that homosexuality is irreversible, nor that it is purely genetic – quite the opposite, as the recent Spitzer review of the literature confirms.

CONCLUSION

Until we have more definite science, we need to allow people the
freedom to explore ‘recovery’ from homosexuality, even if some think it
not possible. And for those concerned with abuse in ex-gay therapy, physicians who practice ex-gay therapy have proposed the following ethical guidelines:

• An ethical framework within which [reparative] therapy
• Sexual identity therapy: Practice guidelines for managing sexual identity conflicts (Dr. Throckmorton)

RELATED POSTS

• Critical Factors in Gay Recovery
• Longitudinal Study Validates Ex-gay Therapy
• Can Gays Change?
• The Psychology Behind Homosexual Tendencies
• Root Causes of Male Homosexuality
• Treatment of Male Homosexuality
• How Politics Guides Psychological Policy

However, Christianity, in a form that does not involve a commitment to Divine Command theory (such as St. Thomas Aquinas‘ view), does NOT lead necesarrily to evil, and perhaps necessarily to GOOD.

Further, this contention is supported by both logic and historical evidence, with exceptions, of course (we argue from the norm, not the exception).   Syllogisms examined below.

ATHEISM LEADS TO VIOLENCE

1. Belief in atheism logically requires a commitment to subjective morals (no external referent)
2. Belief in subjective morals leads to justification of exterminations of dissidents ‘for the sake of the whole’ (often, bolstered by Social Darwinism)
3. Therefore, atheism, when scaled up to a majority, logically ends in exterminations and cruelty.

This is basically an ‘ultimate power corrupts ultimately’ argument. You may disagree with either of the first two premises, but I think history supports the reality of them. I am aware of atheists who believe in objective morals, but the problem is, though they (rightly) are able to identify objective morals, their atheistic presuppositions give them no LOGICAL means of making those assertions.

RELIGION LEADS TO VIOLENCE

1. Religion asserts objective morals by Divine Command without logical support for its claims
2. Without reference to reason, religions can claim any moral grounds they want, including genocide and sectarian superiority
3. Therefore, religion leads to violence.

This again, seems an ‘ultimate power corrupts ultimately’ argument. I think this argument has merit for a Divine Command religion. However, Islam creates violence for more than just this reason, and Christianity, I would argue, is NOT a Divine Command religion.

Christian morality is NOT merely based on Divine Command, but also on such principles as the value of human life and flourishing, racial equality, etc. It asserts that, though we rely on revealed truth in determining what is right, we also confirm and clarify with reason and experience. (For those who want to go deeper down this rabbit hole, Christianity, as William Lane Craig argues, sees the Euthyphro Dilemma as a false dilemma, and splits the horns of this dilemma, thereby not committing to either Divine Command or objectivism).

Again, I would argue that history shows that Reformed Protestant Christianity has produced such goods as abolition, the valuing of human life, the founding of hospitals, universities, and service organizations, and much more (see How Christianity changed the world by Alvin Schmidt), and perhaps logically so based on it’s ideas and values.

Other religions, specifically Islam, produce violence, not merely because RELIGION or DIVINE COMMAND produces them, but because the direct teachings of Islam and the life of Mohammed directly teach violence.

Such an accusation, if taken seriously and without being defensive, forces one to examine the reasons WHY they take stances, and how those stances compare to one’s current habits, as well as one’s history.  And how our stances, compared to our history and current practices determines whether we are hypocrites, virgins, or sinners.

Actually, to examine the relationship between our stances on issues and our own righteousness, we need to separate what we are FOR from what we are AGAINST.

1. AGAINST Stances: hypocrite, virgin, or sinner?

If we create a matrix to compare our past and present activity in relation to our anti-stance on an issue, it might look like this:

Past History	Present	Result
TRUE Committed the opposed action	TRUE Commits the opposed action	HYPOCRITE
FALSE Never committed the opposed action	FALSE Do not commit the opposed action	VIRGIN
TRUE Committed the opposed action	FALSE Do not commit the opposed action	SINNER
FALSE Never committed the opposed action	TRUE Commits the opposed action	HYPOCRITE

So, for example, if I oppose premarital sex, I fall into one of three categories – a virgin (V), who has never done said action, a hypocrite (H), who currently engages in such (whether or not I did it in the past is immaterial if my present is bad), and sinner (S) – someone who admits it was wrong, and has ceased ‘sinning’ (and so in that sense, being an admitted sinner is a good thing ;).

Of the three, the most believable is the sinner, the virgin a bit less, and the hypocrite, not at all.  So, for the following issues (if you are against them), which are you?  My results below:

• Abortion – V
• Drug use – S
• Homosexuality – V
• Gay marriage – V
• Lottery – H
• Porno – S
• Premarital Sex – S

2. PRO-stances: hypocrite, advocate, or convert?

On the pro side, we have results that are in some ways analogous to the the categories above.  For clarity, the things we support below are NOT indisputable rights (like helping the poor), but questionable things (like being anti-immigration or pro-gay-marriage).

Past History	Present	Result
TRUE Performed the proposed action	TRUE Willing to perform the proposed action	ADVOCATE
FALSE Did not perform the proposed action	FALSE Unwilling to perform the proposed action	HYPOCRITE
TRUE Performed the proposed action	FALSE Unwilling to perform the proposed action	HYPOCRITE
FALSE Did not perform the proposed action	TRUE Willing to perform the proposed action	CONVERT

So, for example, lets say you are pro-abortion.  If you have had an abortion or supported it in the past, and would be willing to have one now, you are an advocate (A).  If you support abortion, but are unwilling to have one now (or allow your own daughter to, for example), you are a hypocrite (H). Now, I admit that you may, for instance, not want your daughter to have one, but you would not take that choice from others, and so in some way be consistent in your values.  But for the sake of argument, tentatively accept that such a position may be viewed as hypocritical.  Lastly, if you were unwilling to have an abortion in the past, but are now, you are a convert (C). 

So, how would I stand on issues I am FOR?

• Abstinence – C / H
• Contraception – A
• Day after pill / Plan B – A
• Faithfulness in marriage – A
• In-vitro fertilization – C
• ESC research – C
• Pathway to citizenship for aliens – C
• Speed limits – H

Now, I know this analysis works better for things you are against than for.  Mostly, because when you are against something, it’s really actions that count.  When you are FOR something, there are more variables.  I think that willingness AND action are probably worth looking at.  Many of us are willing to support a cause, but in actuality, don’t take much action on it.  Am I a hypocrite because I am pro-in-vitro fertilization, but have never used it?  Not necessarily. 

But what is important about willingness is, if we are unwilling to take an action ourselves, yet support the action for others, we are probably being hypocritical.

Even more importantly, we should consider our actions in relation to causes we support.  If we are FOR something (ADVOCATES), the question is, have we actually DONE it in the past or present.  If so, we may have a conflict of interest – that is, we may be justifying our behavior, not taking an independent stand.  In such cases, whether it be pro-gay or pro-immigrant, if we have something to directly gain from our stance, we are less believable.

I think each of us ought to at LEAST look at what we are for and against, and see if we are being hypocritical or not, and if we are possibly at risk of having a conflict of interest, and end up justifying our behavior, or having less credibility because of our conflict of interest.

1. The reality of natural selection proves evolution – in fact, they are nearly synonymous!

One of the consistent errors  of those who misunderstand evolution and scientific reasoning is to conclude that, since natural selection seems a reality, evolution itself is a reality.  What they fail to recognize is that (a) proving one of the supposed mechanisms of evolution does not prove evolution, and (b) natural selection fits into the creationist model also, so proving that natural selection happens doesn’t obviate the other major contender, creation science.

A related problem is that evolution’s definition is ambiguous and plastic, and can mean different things in different contexts – and this is not a strength, but a weakness, because it allows for easy misunderstanding and bamboozling (example from Science), and such unclear communication relies on the reader to have to interpret the scope of the claims of the writer. 

2. The reality of adaptation proves evolution – in fact, they are nearly synonymous!

While sloppy evolutionists imply or allow their readers to make the jump from adaptation’s reality to evolution’s reality (same error as above), they also make the mistake of failing to differentiate between adaptation (which they might rather call ‘variation and natural selection’), which relies on existing information and genes being expressed, which is congruent with the creationist model, NOT the evolutionist one.

What evolutionists mean when they imply that adaptation is evidence of evolution is ‘random mutation  creates new information (variation), which gives an organism selective advantage AND is passed on to progeny.’  But that’s way more than simple selective expression of existing genes, and the burden is on them to prove that mutation really creates novel functional proteins, rather than combinations or adaptations of existing proteins.  The evidence they usually parade out, such as the A-I Milano mutation, or nylonase, is thin, if not inadmissible.

3. Evolution has been proven by empirical science.

While the evolutionary model might make predictions (though poorly), and might incorporate existing data (again, poorly, see the next point), it has never been directly observed.  That’s because it relies on the interpretation of historical evidence, not direct empirical evidence. Evolutionists try to squirm out o this fact, but they can’t.  Evolution is as observable as the creation event.  It’s assumed to be true. 

4. The phylogenetic trees are factual and stable.

In Evolutionary Trees – In Flux or Broken and Bogus?, I discussed the common response of evolutionists  to new evidence – more often than not, they have to scramble to redo their ancestry models to fit the new data.  Even worse for them is that genetic mapping is forcing scientists to hugely modify the existing trees, which were based on morphology instead of genetics.  While some may feel that this is merely using better data to improve our model, I predict that the more genetic info we get, the MORE confused the trees will get. 

5. The human fossil record is significant and clearly defined (lucy anyone?)

Lubenow points out in his book Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils that

• Most palaeontologists have never handled the original fossils, but only casts of them
• Many fossils exist to falsify evolution, and are purposely marginalized or miscategorized to avoid their obvious implications
• Most hominid remains can be easily categorized as fully human or fully simian

Lubenow seems more and more correct in asserting that all ‘hominid’ fossils may actually turn out to be entirely modern human or entirely simian, not part of an evolutionary continuum.  Now of course, evolutionists have some rebuttals to Lubenow, but his points remain salient and meaningful, and the rebuttals are often a real reach against simple, obvious logic, imo.

6.  The fossil record may be incomplete, but other scientific disciplines have proved evolution.

Interestingly, more and more evidence from the micro and macro worlds, genetics (more genetics, even more) and astronomy, and other sciences like geology (not to mention statistics), are constantly bringing up challenges to evolution.  But that’s a well-guarded secret kept by the priests of evolution.

7. Evolutionists don’t really believe in abiogenesis as part of their evolution myth.

Evolutionists rightly avoid committing to abiogenesis as the source of the origins of life, even though they have to admit that this is really what they believe, and they have no other explanation for origins.  Why should they shy away from it?  Well, because scientists have for years tried to prove the Miller experiment, the Dawkins selfish gene idea, and such, but it can’t be done.  And it never will, because it’s contrary to reality and nature, just like evolution itself.

8. Christianity and evolution are compatible

If you have a very liberal approach to the interpretation of literature and the bible, you could easily believe this.  But reading the historical narrative of the book of Genesis as a myth is not just liberal, it’s intellectually dishonest, because it is obviously written by the author, and assumed by people after him, as real history.

But even deeper, the implied theology of evolution contradicts standard biblical theology.  See Evolution and Religion: Not Compatible?  Also, such a strong approach begs the question, Is Creationism a Barrier to Faith?

9. Evolution is in no way related to social darwinism, eugenics, and historic racism.

Evolutionists might be forced to admit that Darwinism, racism, and Nazism were historic bedfellows, but they fail to admit that social darwinism is a logical, inescapable conclusion drawn from Darwinism.  Even Darwin Understood the Social Application of his Theory:

At some future period, not very
distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will
almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the
savage races.
- Charles Darwin, from The Descent of Man

10. Evolution is in no way related to the Nazi approach to science.

It is a small step, if any at all, from Darwin’s quote above to this one:

A stronger race will supplant the
weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every
ridiculous fetter of the so-called “humaneness” of individuals, in
order to make place for the true “humaneness of nature,” which destroys
the weak to make place for the strong.
- Hitler

For more on evolution and it’s ideological counterparts in history, see:

• Darwinism’s history of racism
• Evolution and Social Darwinism in Civil War Reconstruction
• Darwinism and  Imperialism
• From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

11. Evolution has contributed meaningfully to science, and certainly has not hindered it.

Evolution can claim few, if any real contributions to science and medicine, and the few they do claim may be easily attributed to basic scientific method, to basic genetics, and not to evolution.  Feel free to enjoy these gems:

• Darwinism Impeding Science
• The Role of Evolution in Biomedical Research is Highly Exaggerated
• Evolution Contributes Nothing to Medicine
• Evolution’s Impact on Science
• How scientific materialism undermines science and reason

12. Evolution is not a key component of the atheist world view.

Some people like to argue that you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, and that is true – there are some well known Christians who are theistic evolutionists, like Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, who wrote a recent book on the subject entitled  The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

However, if you are an atheist, you have pretty much a 99% chance of believing in evolution – not just because you rely on reason and science exclusively, but because you have no other theory of origins – that is, unless you are a truly strong individual, you MUST have a story to explain where life came from.  This is why Richard Dawkins, the infamous atheist famously said:

…although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Another well known fact is that every cruel totalitarian atheist regime has also had evolution as part of its ideological underpinning – not just because they thought it “true science,” but because they used it to justify their anti-religious stance and persecution, if not for eugenic purposes also.

13. Scientists don’t have a reason to be self-deceived about evolution

When I express doubts about evolution, I often hear the retort “how could so many smart scientists be wrong?” as if such a thing could never happen.  Not only will a ready student of history see how often scientists have held on to orthodox positions and resisted new ideas, it still happens today.  We have good reason to be skeptical of today’s scientific claims.  For example, see:

• Why I Trust Science in Principle, but not in Practice
• Separation of Science and State
• How the Media Spins Science
• The Politicization of Scientific Research
• Science as Salvation – A Cautionary Tale

Expressing such skepticism is not

• ignoring the significant contribution of science of the past decades (though much of its origins may be credited to Christian and creationist scientists like Pascal, Keppler, Lister, Steno, and Maxwell, to name a few)
• revealing a fear of science, nor a belief that science and faith, or reason and faith, are antithetical
• revealing a belief of a vast conspiracy in science

But it does show that modern thinking people should be disabused of their naivete, thinking science to be infallible, or able to answer moral and social questions, or above political and ideological manipulation and bias.  But that won’t stop some evolutionists from thinking that evolution is the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

But back to the question – do scientists have a reason to deceive themselves into believing evolution, and in doing so, in enforcing a dogmatic scientific orthodoxy that squashes dissent?  You bet. Read with pleasure Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution, and call me in the morning.

CONCLUSION

While the original article that instigated me outlined a similar list of misonceptions that people have about evolution, it was decidedly PRO evolution.  My list, though named similarly, is the list from the other side – rather than misconceptions of evolutionary doubters, my list is one of misconceptions of evolutionary believers.  I dare say a similar pair of lists could be written for creationism, as well as intelligent design.

1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.
2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
3. Therefore C is the correct position.

But I would like to explore this error in more detail, so that we can also identify a healthy compromise.

1. Truth – Lie

When one of your propositions is untrue, a compromise between them is not possible.  For example, if I say murder is wrong, and someone else says that it is OK, shall we allow murder sometimes (self defense and the death penalty aside)?  While we may find exceptions for certain truths, compromise with a lie is not really smart, and is one of the conditions that I call ‘the extreme middle.’

2. Lie – Lie

Of course, if both positions under consideration are untrue, then a compromise between them will not be any closer to the truth. 

3. Truth – Truth

A healthy compromise is one where your two opposing opinions are
really to halves of a truth paradox – a typical situation that we see
in many profound truths such as the good/evil of man, or in the need for both punishment/rehabilitation of criminals.  When both sides have a bit of the truth, a compromise, or balance between them is called for.

Interestingly, though, it is not always a 50/50 split, and
determining how much to emphasize each truth can be problematic.  For
example, when a criminal is put in jail for murder, how much should
they be punished, and in what way, and how much should we try to rehab
them?  Which persons are beyond rehab and how do you know?  Such
questions are the subject of much study, debate, and trial and error.
We can make some rough philosophical guesses at the relative
proportions, but at least let me say, it is rarely 50/50, since one
truth proposition will carry a little more power when it comes to
application.  Don’t ask me why, I have just seen it so.

With that in mind, it may be MORE correct to be either "left" or "right" on an issue.

Also worth mentioning here is the slippery slope argument.  When those at the two poles of an argument refuse to compromise or acknowledge the other truth involved, they often invoke the slippery slope argument.  The problem with this is that, rather than do the necessary mental work of defining a compromise position that prevents the ‘inevitable’ slide towards the other pole or various abuses, hardliners refuse to budge, instead promoting the fearful view that any compromise will lead to inevitable ruin.  So what you get is a half truth, defending itself against balance, and doing damage to those who need the balanced truth.

4. Truth – Truth – Truth

One other condition that makes compromise between two positions erroneous is when there are are actually more than two truths involved.  The error of black/white thinking, a.k.a. ‘false dichotomy’ or bifurcation, states that there are only two positions, when there are actually more.

In this case, the false middle would assume that the correction position is a compromise between the two, when in fact, it may be between three or more positions.  While this type of condition is rarer, since many, if not most profound truths can be boiled down to a truth-truth paradox, we must be aware that sometimes, a compromise between two true positions may still be incorrect when more than two truths are present.

CONCLUSION

I have outlined the "extreme middle," not because moderates actually act like extremists (though they can), but because this somewhat inappropriate label for moderates brings to light the possibility that a moderate position is not always correct, and even when compromise between truths is best, the proportion we assign to each pole makes a difference.  I will explore the methods we can use to determine correct proportions in the future – I am still mulling over that.  Any suggestions?

Related Posts:

• What is an extremist?
• Far Left, Far Right, and Middle?

• The two kingdoms: this world v. God’s coming kingdom
• The two levels of personal interaction: individual v. societal rules for interaction
• The two foci for attack: attacking people (and their character) v. attacking ideas

A.  THIS WORLD V. THE COMING KINGDOM

Jesus was primarily concerned with the coming Kingdom and not this world, but that does not mean that being a Christian means being only concerned about the life to come, while being unconcerned about justice in this life.  By such logic, Christians should be pacifists, and uninvolved with this world.

While that may sound correct and pious on the surface, I think it is a mistake for many reasons:

1. THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT – This isolationist position is one that Christians have adopted in the past, and in doing so, have ceased being salt and light in society.

By refusing to develop, obey, and teach a biblical world view of subjects other than personal piety (like in art, science, political thought, relationships, education, business, finance), they have ceded these very important civil institutions and disciplines to secularists, socialists, and other unsavory -ists, who have made a mess of it in many cases.

For instance, if you look at art, some of the most impressive artwork comes out of the period when Christianity and public Christian thought was the social norm – Rubens, Rembrandt, Michaelangelo.  When a Christian view of life recedes, we end up with chaos and death, as revealed in the later painters like Picasso and abstract artists.  The late great Francis Schaeffer discussed much of this in his writings.

2. THE PAULINE ARGUMENT – Paul suggests that we take EVERY thought to a biblical world view, which includes ideas of justice and just war.

Again, the biblical perspective on war has two facets:

• The Kingdom of God and faith can not be spread by force of arms, nor even defended by such.
• The Earthly kingdoms should be ruled by biblical wisdom, which includes a right view of
  • the nature of man (fallen, made in God’s image, redeemable and reformable, but not perfectable),
  • justice and mercy
  • the use of force in punishment and enforcement

B.  INDIVIDUAL V. SOCIETAL LEVEL RULES OF INTERACTION

1. THE PACIFIST ARGUMENT – mistakenly applying the rules for individual conduct to public policy and justice.

Part of biblical thinking is a biblical view of justice, and of the use of punishment and force (as I’ve said, Christian Pacifism is not biblical.

Individuals have the moral right and responsibilities to

• protect the weak
• defend themselves

Governments have the moral right and responsibilities to

• protect the weak
• defend the country or allies from aggressors

2. THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT – Jesus did not obviate the OT, but affirmed it

Don’t forget that in many ways, Jesus affirmed the old testament moral law, which included principles for just war and legal punishments for wrongdoing.  Arguably, many of those laws were for the state of Israel, and may not apply to us, but it is worth examining.

So a Christian can, in good conscience, be a peace officer or a soldier if the war he is in is just (sometimes hard to tell).

C.  ATTACKING PEOPLE V. IDEAS

1. THE PAULINE ARGUMENT – Paul uses the imagery of war to describe the Christian life.

Paul the apostle used the metaphor of war to describe the Christian life in many places (Ephesians 6, 1 Corinthians 9,1 Corinthians 14, 2 Timothy 2).  Of course, he goes on to clarify that we are not warring with people, but with ideas, as well as spiritual forces (2 Corinthians 10:2-4).

But when we are active in the public battle for ideas, we need to be careful not to be attacking people.  And even when we are careful, many people will think that we are being warlike and aggressive against people, and therefore acting "unchristianly."  But this is a mistake, one that you can see echoed in my infamous post What is Hate?

D.  CONCLUSION

Once we cease being overly simplistic in our application of scripture, and discriminate between the various arenas of life, and how the scriptures apply to them, we will stop being confused by such phrases as "Christian soldier."   This term can legitimately and biblically be used for:

• a Christian in law enforcement or the military
• a Christian engaged in the spiritual life and public battle of ideas

What it can not be used for, biblically, is someone who implies that force of arms will advance God’s kingdom, or by compulsion, can be used to force others to be Christian in personal faith.

While having a combative nature may not be Christian in many ways, and may serve as a cover for many Christians to excuse their personal hatred, unresolved hurts, and anger, it does not mean that we can not be aggressive in the battle of ideas, and be zealous for God – let’s not forget that Jesus himself was angry on many occasions – he is recorded as having glared angrily, expressed exasperation with his disciples, and even consciously made a weapon (a whip) and forcibly overturned the tables of merchants, driving them away while threatening them with the whip.

Jesus was not a pacifist or wimp.  We shouldn’t be either.

1. Priorities

• Extremists do not recognize a prioritized list of issues and ideas.  All of their positions are equally true, equally important, and equally non-negotiable.
• Healthy people differentiate between what is essential to their outlook, and what is negotiable.  They perform a sort of triage on their ideas, and determine which are worth fighting for, and which are actually negotiable

2. The Single Principle Error

• Extremists often apply one true principle in exclusion to others, or out of any sort of context.  They fail to recognize that all truths exist in a web of related ideas that limit and clarify them.  Without such limits, extremists apply truths "to a fault."  For example, the commandment "do not kill" is limited by the commandments to defend the weak from the violent.
• Healthy people recognize that all principles can go awry if you apply them in isolation.   They recognize and define the neighboring principles which limit and define the understanding and application of the principle under consideration. 

3. Legislation

• Extremists want all of their positions put into law, even the controversial ones.  They will often go to the point of martial law, forcing others to capitulate rather than allowing their ideas to win a majority in the public arena.
• Healthy people want only the essentials put into law, and would rather ensure that legislation remains neutral on questionable issues, or takes a path of partial regulation or affirmation of a position (e.g. labeling of games or tax incentives for saving money, resp.)

4. Logic

• Extremists favor sloganeering, parading rhetorical statements, and neglecting to provide data for their assertions.  Extremists also fail to argue at the level of their foundational assumptions, and how they logically proceed from them to conclusions. Rather, they argue at the level of their desired ends, rarely examining the validity of their means or assumptions.
• Healthy people provide their foundational assumptions, and a clear path of logic from them to their conclusions.  They also seek to validate their means, not just their ends.

5. Data

• Extremists, when they do provide data, are often selective, or fail to
  recognize and discuss conflicting data.  They often reject data, not
  based on criticism of the experimental model or data interpretation,
  but based upon their evaluation of the researchers, and which
  ideological camp they come from.   And while it is acceptable to
  question the data from one ideological camp, it is not acceptable to
  reject their data and conclusions just because they have an existing
  bias – the question is whether or not their conclusions are logical,
  and their experiments were designed to not be affected by their bias.
• Healthy people entertain all of the data, and discuss the reasons why they have
  rejected or accepted various studies.  They can also accept that the
  data is sometimes inconclusive, and that their opinions have yet to be
  validated.

6. Attitude and Maturity

• Extremists often engage in derision, name-calling, ad-hominems, and mockery.  Lacking either the maturity, capacity, or will to make a reasoned argument (or lacking a good argument at all), they resort to what is essentially bullying.
• Healthy people focus on the arguments, not the people.  They can agree to disagree.

7. Single Polarity v. Balance and Nuance

Most ideological positions fall somewhere on a bipolar scale (though not all can be boiled down to just two alternatives – beware of the logical error of bifurcation or "false dichotomy")

• Extremists will not admit to any sort of principled compromise between their position and their opponent – often, they remain at their extreme pole because a principled compromise means that the issue is not black or white, which they require.  Like those who engage the slippery slope argument, they eschew the inevitable vagaries of a principled approach rather than a polar, no exceptions, rule-based approach. 

  Unfortunately, they ignore the fact that they are so far to the pole that there is NO reasonable position to the right (or left) of them.  if you ask them, they are unable to define a more extreme version of their position because, well, they are it.  It’s like the old saying, "every group has a person with high emotional needs – if you can’t identify them, it’s probably you." If you can’t identify a position to the ‘outside’ of yours, guess what?  You are extreme.

• Healthy people are able to define what the extreme, unhealthy position is, and why their own position is reasonable in comparison.  Rather than relying on black and white rules, they use principles to set the scope and limits of their compromise position.

8. The Slippery Slope

• Extremists love to use the slippery slope argument, which states that any concession, even a small one, on their part will lead to a slide down to the pit of error that their opponents represent.  Their argument is a lazy, fear-based threat of impending danger and chaos if any latitude on their position is taken.
• Healthy people know that the slippery slope argument is rarely valid, and usually is an intellectual copout for those who would rather not spend the time and energy to define parameters for small compromises that would allow for a little healthy breathing room on their position.

9. Conspiracies and Paranoia

• Extremists often see their opposition, and all criticism, as part of a larger conspiracy against them.  In fact, they often disallow criticism from within their ranks (all such critics are "traitors").
• Healthy people know that true conpiracies are rare, even though various power blocks exist in the public arena.  At worst, they chalk up such "blindness" to group-think, brainwashing, or self-deception on the part of their opponents.  They follow the adage "never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by stupidity."

So, what other characteristics of extremists have I missed?   Do you, like me, see yourself in some of these descriptions?  Time to wise up!

Related Posts:

• The extreme middle, the healthy right and left
• Far Left, Far Right, and Middle?

• Essential Products for Babies I – Medicines and Ointments
• Essential Products for Babies II – Transportation
• Essential Products for Babies III – Furniture, Climbers, and other large things

Some of Craig’s contentions:

1. Using the FSM to attack Intelligent Design is dumb because ID theorists agree that ID does not indicate any specific deity.

What’s curious about this parody is that ID theorists like William Dembski have been insisting on this same point for years, but everyone seems to think them disingenuous. Dembski makes it abundantly clear that on the basis of the specified complexity in the universe one cannot infer that the Designer is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and so forth. It is precisely for that reason that ID theorists deny that ID is disguised religion. The identification of the Designer with God is a theological conclusion that cannot itself be warranted on the basis of the design argument alone.

2. Any reasonable description of god must include a non-corporeal entity, since material entities are, by definition, created.

Ok, this argument is not really that strong, or made well, but it is made.  By this definition, the FSM can not be god because it is physical.  Of course, you could then argue with the incarnation.

Moreover, it’s plausible that any ultimate explanation must involve a personal being which is incorporeal. For any being composed of material stuff will exhibit precisely that specified complexity that we are trying to explain. The old ‘Who designed the Designer?’ objection thus presses hard against any construal of the Designer as a physical object (see my Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion in the Question of  the Week Archive). That immediately rules out the Flying  Spaghetti Monster as a final explanation.

3. Argument from Contingency - the FSM, being physical, can not fulfill the requirements of a god as defined by the Contingency argument.

The contingency argument, if successful, proves the existence of a metaphysically necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe (see Argument from Contingency in the Question of the Week Archive). That conclusion is also incompatible with the Sufficient Reason of all things being the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since as a physical object (even if invisible to our senses) he can be neither metaphysically necessary, timeless, spaceless, nor immaterial.

4. The Kalam cosmological argument

Again, not well described in this post, but mentioned as one more reason why the FSM fails

The kalam cosmological argument, if sound, gives us grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe. Again, a being with such attributes cannot be anything like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

5. Historic “natural theology” demands a god with certain attributes, most of which the FSM does not contain.

What the parody shows is that we are not justified in attributing to our explanatory postulates arbitrary properties that are not justified by the evidence. Natural theologians have always known this. That’s why, for example, Thomas Aquinas, after his five brief paragraphs in his Summa theologiae proving the existence of a being “to which everyone gives the name ‘God’,” goes on to discuss in the next nine questions God’s simplicity, perfection, goodness, limitlessness, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, and unity. As a being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes up drastically deficient as an explanation of those phenomena…

6. CONCLUSION:  FSM proponents are not very smart, but rather, merely smart-alecs.

Those who seriously parade the FSM as an argument against the biblical god are showing their lack of intellect, reasoning ability, and understanding of classical philosophical and theological arguments surrounding the existence of God.

That people could think that belief in God is anything like the
groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present. No doubt part of the fault lies with equally ignorant Christians who have no answer when called upon to give a reason for the hope within and who therefore give the impression of arbitrary and  groundless belief. But it must also be attributed to poor education, intellectual laziness, and a lack of curiosity. Given the revival of natural theology in our day over the last half  century, we have no excuse for such lame caricatures of theistic belief as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Dog people like golf : cat people like … bird watching. And this is all due to the different nature of dog and cat people.

As a dedicated cat person who sort of likes dogs (as long as they aren’t in MY house, or barking, stinking, or pooping near my house), I have long and deeply considered the personality traits that lead one to become a cat or dog person.

*** WARNING***
This post is humorous, and filled with annoying generalizations designed to make you mad.

Dog People – the good side

Dog people are, in general (please, don’t complain if you don’t fit the stereotype), more playful and active. If given a choice between a frolic with the frisbee in the sun, and a good book with a cup of tea, the frolic wins.  Dog people can be care free and fun, and don’t let themselves get pulled down by the difficulties of life.  They intend to love life and enjoy it.

Dog People – the dark side

Dog people can also be annoyingly light-hearted (too much frivolity), and seemingly lacking in pensive depth.  In fact, they often interact at an incredibly superficial level (even if they themselves are not shallow), thinking that a romp in the park can solve even the most serious tragedies.  In attempting to console others, they can be impertinently and inappropriately humorous, thinking that humor, or tossing you a tennis ball should make you feel better instantly (since it does them).  They often shy away from the deeper, more serious emotions, tending to find comfort in humor.

They have little patience for intellectual discussions of any sort, especially in the highly “impractical” disciplines of philosophy, politics, and theology.  Their philosophy is “don’t worry, be happy.”  Their politic is “live and let live,” and their theology is forgiving and hedonistic.

Dog People and golf

Dog people enjoy golf for one reason – they like to chase balls and romp in the grass outside.  Life is about play.  it’s about the sunshine.  It’s about pleasure.  It’s about the base pleasures of life – eating, pooping, sex, play, and sleeping.

Cat People -the good side

Cat people are, in general, more reflective and introspective.  If given a choice between a frolic with the frisbee in the sun, and a good book with a cup of tea, the book wins.  Cat people can be thoughtful, good listeners, and sources of perspective and wisdom.  They tend not to waste time on the frivolities of life, but invest time in things of meaning.

Cat People – the dark side

Cat people can be annoyingly aloof, arrogant, and seemingly uninterested in the lives of those around them.  They can be overly serious, and lack even the ability to laugh, much less laugh at themselves.  They can over-analyze and over-think even the simplest of tasks, and be real downers in social situations.  Every conversation has to turn into a political, philosophical, or religious debate.

They have little patience for spontaneity, and have a perverse need for tranquility and order.  They have little patience for highly “frivolous” activities such as spectator sports, reality TV, and fiction.  Their philosophy is “an unexamined life is not worth living.”  Their politic is “do what it takes to keep order, but don’t tread on me,” and their theology is mostly serious, demanding and contemplative.  It’s all about thinking, planning, order, and being calm.

Cat People and bird watching

Cat people enjoy bird watching for many reasons (there can’t be just one reason for them).   They don’t like to interact, as much as observe and learn.  They enjoy slinking around observing other creatures unbeknownst.  In some cases, they actually enjoy stalking others looking for a weak point at which to attack, always scheming to use the element of surprise.  For them, it’s all about being a solo artist – being quiet, observant, thoughtful, independent, and planning life from the shadows, springing their plans on life to get the best results.  It’s about self-mastery and control of life – knowledge, wisdom, planning, peace and order.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Cat people vs. dog people (salon.com)

In discussing Global Warming Alarmism (GWA), I have begun to see a pattern of evasion emerge among GWA proponents.  It is an alarming (pun intended) anti-reason, anti-intellectual tactic that is often engaged in by those in the majority position of an argument.  These tools for evading reasoned discussion are the logical fallacies of fait accompli and false analogy.

As Aaron recently noted, this past year’s hurricane season failed to meet the dire predictions of the GWP lobby – and while that may be too small a sample to be conclusive, it does show the speculative nature of the whole apocalyptic approach of the GWPers.

We’ve argued whether or not GW is a threat, or a hoax perpetrated by misinformed environmentalists.  But there’s one more unusual perspective – that global warming, whether man-made or not, will be the worldwide catastrophe that unites the world in one cause, and under one world leader – the antichrist.

Now, skeptics will surely mock at such a proposition, and they have reason to mock – religious claims that the antichrist and one-world system are at hand have been the boon of Christian sects from the first century.

THE ANTICHRIST AS ENVIRONMENTALIST

While some armchair theologians merely note that global warming could bring on the famines and plagues that attend the end times scenarios in the bible (see Global warming could bring end times disasters), others, like one Cardinal recently advising the Pope, remark that the antichrist will probably be an environmentalist.

An arch-conservative cardinal chosen by the Pope to deliver this year�s Lenten
meditations to the Vatican hierarchy has caused consternation by giving
warning of an Antichrist who is �a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist�.

GLOBAL CATASTROPHE FORCES CENTRALIZED OVERSIGHT

Others argue that this sense of real or impending global warming apocalypse will force us towards a global, centralized, statist solution that even Islamists may buy into:

Like Marxism, this Global Warming Apocalypse pronouncement is supposed
to sustain civilization not through individual virtue but through
regulation and centralized planning. Their elite whose goodness is
measured not by their own moral behavior but by the brilliance of their
statist schemes will apparently save the earth. And through the
Leftist/Marxist � Islamist Alliance they promote appeasement with the
very forces seeking their own destruction [i.e. the left hates Christianity so much it has become an apologist for Islamic leaders who dupe them into partnership in the guise of wanting to help solve global warming.]

RELIGION AND GLOBAL WARMING POLICIES

This begs the question, What part will religion play in emerging global warming policies?  The author gives a detailed history of the global ecological/political organizations, and how they mean to unite us around ecology and generic spirituality:

The Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders on Human
Survival began in October 1985. While the United Nations was
celebrating its 40th anniversary, ten "spiritual leaders," two each
from the world’s five major religions, and eight elected officials from
parliaments on five continents, met together at psychology’s New Age
center in Tarrytown, New York to explore ideas for ecological salvation
and world peace. Out of this meeting grew a working partnership between
the world’s religious and political leaders�something which had been
unthinkable since ancient Rome….

Laying the foundation for the coming world religion, ecological
concerns are being expressed increasingly in pantheistic/New Age terms
as though the universe were a living and even conscious entity (the
Gaia hypothesis) with whom we must make peace and live in harmony.
Calling spirituality "common to all humanity," New Age physicist
Fritjof Capra defined it at the Moscow Global Forum as "the experience
of being connected to the cosmos as a whole…a sense of belonging that
gives meaning to life." Capra recently founded The Elmwood Institute,
dedicated to "the convergence of politics, ecology and spirituality."

NUCLEAR IRAN COULD INITIATE AN IMMEDIATE WARMING OF THE ATMOSPHERE

If the insane leader of Iran decides to hasten the end times with the use of a nuclear weapon, we may have a global catastrophe years ahead of global warming:

Ahmadinejad�s mystical obsession with the coming of the Mahdi raises
concerns that a nuclear-armed Iran could trigger the very conflagration
he envisions for the end of the world.

ET TU, AL GORE?

Speculation based on the environmentalist antichrist has brought some prominent world leaders into the running – the chief of whom is Al Gore.

We first alluded to Al Gore�s merits as the antichrist back in July 2006, when we quoted Christian radio host Woodrow Kroll on the possibility of the antichrist being a popular environmental leader.  This
notion was consistent with the statement, in March 2007, by 78-year old
Roman Catholic Cardinal Giacomo Biffi that the antichrist will be �a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist� that �the masses� will follow.

Others have even detailed Gore’s progressive (pun intended) departure from Christianity over the years as evidence that he could be the antichrist:

In choosing to back constituents on �abortion rights� instead of backing God, Al Gore shows he does not even respect God�s Rights to God�s Own Personal Property, His created embryos! Gore thus shows the spirit of �the Anti-Christ� on both abortion and in his rash, get-them-scared approach to global warming.

Of course, that is wild speculation, but this speculation has been heightened in light of his Nobel Peace Prize – don’t forget, pacifist (peace prize), ecologist (inconvenient truth), and ecumenist (well, he’s not there yet).

Interestingly, left-leaning Christians have intimated that the "Christian" leaders of the US and Canada (Bush and Harper) are the anti-Christs because they fail to respond to man-made global warming.  But everyone likes to compare their opponents to the antichrist and Hitler ;)  (see Global Warming and the Disciples of the Anti-Christ).

CONCLUSION

Though on first (and maybe second) glance the idea that global warming is somehow related to the biblical end times and the antichrist sounds ludicrous, there are some interesting reasonings from the bible and just practical observation that will probably promote this doctrine to the forefront of the Christian Church. 

What’s also interesting is that many Christians who are now believing that global warming is real tend to think that it may not be man-caused, but the thought that it is, and the necessity for us to respond to real disasters no matter what the cause, means that a global warming apocalypse may easily lead to a one world, statist government very soon, and even sooner if Iran uses nukes. Scary thoughts.

• Part I: The Christian view of war, aggression, and violence (this post)
• Part II: Specific objections from the political left and right
• Part III: The real issue – what ends and means to those ends are really appropriate for Christian youth groups?

Before we can actually answer the question about whether or not it is OK for Christians in any arena to play violent games, or enjoy violent movies, or use such to instruct or draw boys and men to church functions, we need to do some theological introspection. Let us, therefore, examine the biblical theology of war, violence, and aggression

1. The Kingdom of God can not be ushered in through physical warfare or political insurrection.

Jesus clearly taught that His kingdom can not be ushered in by political or military means:

Jesus answered [Pilate], ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.’ (John 18:36)

Paul the Apostle echoes this theme when he teaches that our enemies are not people, but ideologies and spiritual powers:

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)

In fact, if people do not receive the message, or torment you, Jesus’ clear instruction is not force or retaliation, but rather, patient endurance, forgiveness, and moving on to the next group of people who need to hear.

And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for  that city! (Matthew 10:14-15)

These ideas ought to allay fears that any pro-war or pro-justice biblical stances have nothing to do with spreading the faith, and all to do with applying biblical views on justice.

2. Human government was established by God for executing justice, which includes war

As discussed previously, pacifism in public policy is neither biblical nor just.  While peaceful resistance is appropriate, even desirable over armed action, there are times when despots and evil men must be put down by the righteous with force of arms – cf. Hitler and WWII.

Not only do the Old Testament laws show ample evidence of God’s desire to execute justice through government, Paul the Apostle intones the forceful implementation of justice by civil government.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist  are appointed by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring  judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.  For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an  avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Romans 13:1-4)

While not all wars are just, there are just wars, not to mention just uses of force in law enforcement, and the Christian world view does not preclude using force in such situations to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. “Turn the other cheek” is for personal interaction, and reflects the fact that we are to forgive evil done – but it does not mean that we should fail to love the weak by not protecting them from wicked men.

3. Men are biologically designed for aggression and warfare, which should be channeled, not suppressed

This point can not be made very strongly from a biblical point of view, but there are some scriptures to back this view (e.g. 1 John 2:13), and common sense and physio-psychological studies confirm that natural levels of such hormones as testosterone make men more aggressive, and even cause them to enjoy physical competition and conflict.

There is nothing wrong with these characteristics, as long as they are applied righteously. As described in Healing Injured Masculinity: The Warrior, there is a false, macho masculine, and a true, noble warrior masculine that we must encourage in order to have healthy manhood.  You can read more about biblical manhood at The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (you gotta love or hate organizations with names like that).

Such recent titles as those below examine the subject of biblical manhood:

• No More Christian Nice Guy
• The Way of the Wild Heart
• Why Men Hate Going to Church
• The Real Man Inside (an out of print classic that every man should read)

4. Warfare games provide the perfect metaphorical teaching tool for describing the ideological and spiritual battles between good and evil that Christians are to be involved in.

Like it or not, scripture pictures us as engaged in a spiritual battle.  Metaphors of spiritual warfare are throughout the New Testament, and even Jesus referred to spiritual warfare and conflict that would come as part of his message.

‘Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.  For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he
who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.’ (Matthew 10:34-37)

Paul the Apostle, as shown above, used war metaphors for the Christian life, and let’s not forget that Protestant theology has long accepted the war metaphor, among others, for describing the Christian mission, as in the famous hymn, Onward Christian Soldiers:

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.

Please note, liberal fear mongers, the target of such war anthems is Satan, the gates of hell, etc.  This is not even close to jihad-like language, and such attacks miss the entire point that we are in a spiritual battle for truth and the souls of men.  Those who deny such are merely pawns of the darkness, content to live in it and allow others to perish in it.

The point is, since we are in a battle, such games as Halo, with its obvious spiritual overtones, are a great illustration that can be parlayed into a discussion of the Christian life.

5. Jesus was not just a man of gentleness.

When we project a milk-toast Jesus, one that never got upset or angry, and who was only interested in love and peace (and not righteousness and justice), we are basically telling a half truth, and neutering both the spiritual life and biblical manhood.  Let’s not forget that he openly and angrily called religious hypocrites names (Matthew 23), glared at them angrily (Mark 3:5), and on at least one occasion, in a premeditated fashion, made a whip, and then turned over the merchant’s tables and forcefully drove them out of the temple in a threatening manner (John 2:14-16).

So let’s dispense with the peace-nik hippie version of Jesus, and see Christianity for what it is – militant for truth in the ideological and spiritual realms, but gentle towards people. As Jesus said “be wise as serpents, harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16).

6. Violent video games may have downsides to manage and be aware of.

Studies have shown that violent video games do seem to increase aggression in gamers, are socially isolating, and desensitizing.  Not to mention, long periods of adrenaline are bad for the major organs of the body, and may negatively affect organ and body development.  Are they deadly, or dangerous enough to be avoid, like smoking?  Probably not.  But they are not harmless.

CONCLUSION

I think that I have made it clear that we can not discard Halo 3 based on a pacifist, milk-toast version of Christianity – metaphors of war, and the right use of force and aggression are entirely at home in Christian theology.

But there are still questions to answer.  In Part II, I address some specific objections that people from the political and religious left and right are making.

• The Power of Desire
• The Priority of Desire
• The Problem of Desire
• The Transformation of Desire
• The Pursuit of Desire

To download Finding God’s Call IV – Motivated by Desire, please subscribe to the podcast URL.

[powerpress]http://wholereason.com/wp-content/uploads/powerpress/Finding%20God%27s%20Call%20IV%20-%20Motivated%20by.mp3[/powerpress]

But the question arises, is the biblical perspective on alcohol entirely or mostly negative, or the opposite?

NOTE: You can hear my sermon on this subject at The Biblical Perspective on Drinking and Alcohol.

1. Wine as a blessing

The biblical position on alcohol is, on one side, actually very positive – the passage below indicates that one of God’s main purposes in giving wine was to “make our hearts glad.”

Psalm 104:14-15
He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the service of man,
That he may bring forth food from the earth,

And wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make his face shine,
And bread which strengthens man’s heart.

In fact, the Psalmist also remarks on this gladdening affect when trying to explain how God fills our hearts with gladness:

Psalm 4:7
You have filled my heart with greater joy than when their grain and new wine abound.

In fact, having lots of wine around is a sign of prosperity and blessing.

Genesis 27:28
Therefore may God give you
Of the dew of heaven,
Of the fatness of the earth,
And plenty of grain and wine.

Proverbs 3:9-10
Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops;
then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine.

Proverbs 9 personifies wisdom as a woman who offers a wonderful meal with wine.

Proverbs 9:4-6
Let all who are simple come in here!” she says to those who lack judgment.
“Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have mixed.
Leave your simple ways and you will live; walk in the way of understanding.”

2. Wine can soften the pain of sorrow

Though we often think of “drowning our sorrows in booze” as
something that leads to alcoholism, scriptures indicate that in times
of sorrow, wine may be helpful to ease our pains.  But I may be
misunderstanding this scripture in context:

Proverbs 31:6-7
Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;
let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.

3. Wine has medicinal purposes

Luke 10:34
So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine;

Timothy 5:23
No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.

4. The Bible warns about the dangers and abuse of wine

Many sins are merely the abuse of something good that God has given for our pleasure – food, sex, and wine are all pleasurable and potent, but abuse invites disaster, and the Bible also reflects this reality.

Proverbs 20:1
Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.

Proverbs 21:7
He who loves pleasure will become poor; whoever loves wine and oil will never be rich.

Proverbs 23:19-21
Listen, my son, and be wise, and keep your heart on the right path.
Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat,
for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.

Proverbs 23:29-35
Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes?

Those who linger over wine, who go to sample bowls of mixed wine.
Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly!

In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper.

Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. ‘They struck me,’ you will say, ‘but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink.’

Those of us who have had a hangover understand this well.

5. Those in leadership should probably abstain

Proverbs 31:4-5
It is not for kings, O Lemuel, not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer
lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.

Interestingly, the Levitical priests were not allowed to drink wine at all as part of their vows (Leviticus 10:9).

6. Those who focus on drinking and feasting often forget or leave God’s way

Isaiah 5:11-12
Woe to those who rise early in the morning,
That they may follow intoxicating drink;
Who continue until night, till wine inflames them!

The harp and the strings,
The tambourine and flute,
And wine are in their feasts;
But they do not regard the work of the LORD,
Nor consider the operation of His hands.

Isaiah 28:7
But they also have erred through wine, And through intoxicating drink are out of the way; The priest and the prophet have erred through intoxicating drink, They are swallowed up by wine, They are out of the way through intoxicating drink; They err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

7. Fundies often accuse those who don’t abstain of abusing alcohol

Matthew 11:19
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.

8. Jesus’ first miracle was to create wine from water (John 2)

This alone ought to convince tea-totalers that Jesus was not against having a drink.

9. We should consider how our drinking affects others

The main passage that tea-totalers refer to when justifying their stance is Romans 14, which talks about not causing others to stumble in their faith because of your own freedom of conscience.

Romans 14:21
It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.

So while Paul certainly allows us to drink, he recommends that we curtail our freedom in order to help others.  In addition, Paul warns that we should not condemn those who do feel free to drink.

You can see my “complete” discussion on Romans 14 in Navigating Moral Gray Areas.

10. We should not waste our time in drunkenness

We should avoid drunkenness, which is wasteful, and instead, be filled with the Spirit of God

Ephesians 5:18
And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit

Now, those of us familiar with the manifest presence of God in our services understand that such a filling does bring on a drunkenness – in fact, when the Disciples first received the Spirit, people thought that they were drunk:

Acts 2:14-17
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning!

No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.’

CONCLUSION

Christians certainly have the liberty to drink and enjoy all that God has given us to enjoy, with liberty but with caution – abuse of those things leads to ruin.  And those who are cautious for the sake of others in not drinking, are doing something admirable, as long as they realize that those who do not share their conviction on the matter are not lesser in a spiritual maturity sense.

We must be careful not to condemn what Christ has not condemned, lest we be like the Pharisees adding out own rules as heavy burdens.  However, if we feel free to drink, we should not flaunt our freedom, lest we also be sinning against God:

Romans 14:22
Do you have faith [enough to feel free to drink]? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

As an evangelical Christian who does enjoy and practice yoga, I would like to add my perspectives.

1. Yoga is about self awareness and self-mastery, not to mention practicing calmness and self control amid tension
2. Yoga is not really about emptying the mind, and those who say such not only reveal their lack of knowledge about yoga, they are merely attempting a “guilt-by-association” technique – while emptying the  mind uncritically may allow demons or deceiving spirits into one’s  life,  focusing and listening to one’s body is in no way the same  activity.  Yoga is about self-awareness, self-mastery, self-control,  self-care and self-stewardship, not emptying.
3. Even if you are focusing on self-control, self-mastery, and self-awareness rather than on God, such things are not anti-Christ or unbiblical, and are part of regular athletics or any other  discipline of mind, occupation, or body. While self-mastery can not bring you salvation, it does help us develop and practice self-control, a biblical virtue.
4. Those who think that self-care and self-control are selfish are thinking  unbiblically, and need to listen to my sermon entitled Finding God’s Call III – A Biblical view of self-love.
5. I suppose you can take the yoga positions to the level of worshiping  Hindu deities, but I highly doubt that by practicing awareness and  self-discipline, and by holding certain poses, that you are in any way  worshiping deities – that’s just plain silly talk.  What makes the  difference is where your mind and spirit are at, not how you hold your  body.
6. Christianity has a severely underdeveloped theology of the physical  self-care, and literally NO physical disciplines to integrate with our  Christian life (worship aerobics may be fun, but it’s hardly  approaching  any serious integration of spiritual practice and physical disciplines). This is largely due to an almost literal hatred of the body  which comes from (a) a poor understanding of the use of the term  “flesh” in the NT, which does NOT usually refer to our physical bodies,  (b) the idea that too much self-care is a waste since these bodies will be discarded, and (c) an anti-pleasure theology that rejects the goodness  of the created body and the Christian enjoyment of sex and food  without being mastered by such.
7. I highly recommend Anglican Peter Toon’s book Meditating As a Christian: Waiting upon God, which has one very good chapter on yoga, where he recommends it with some warnings – a very balanced,  if not educated and practical view.

As to Christians ruining their testimony by doing yoga, I would say

• they already have a negative testimony by lacking any cogent and useful physical practices to integrate with spirituality, beyond fasting and praise aerobics.
• our failure to recognize common truth and wisdom in other traditions, as Paul did on Mars Hill with the Greek philosophers, is a bad testimony and causes people to reject our gospel because we are rejecting valid common truths and wisdom
• Romans 14 is about freedom – to obey our conscience, to not condemn others, and yes, to be considerate if our freedom might cause others to stumble.  However, Romans 14 is about balancing these prerogatives, not cowing in to Pharisaical narrowness every time some religionist is offended?

Owen states the accusation that men make, or the problem of the scripture’s presentation of truth, in this way:

Some think they have an advantage to charge the Scripture with obscurity, and do thereon maintain that it was never intended to be such a revelation of doctrines as should be the rule of our faith.  Had it been so, the truths to be  believed would have been proposed in some order unto us, as a creed or confession of faith, that we might at once have had a view of them and been acquainted with them; but whereas they are now left to be gathered out of a collection of  histories, prophecies, prayers, songs, letters or epistles, such as the Bible is composed of, they are difficult to be found, hard to be understood, and never perfectly to be learned.

In other words, scripture is obscure, and inefficient, if not ineffective, because it is not presented didactically (though, as Owen remarks, some parts like the books of Romans and Hebrews ARE presented as organized doctrinal treatises).

Owen defends the current organization and presentation of the scriptures with these points:

1. We should assume that the method in which the scriptures are presented to us IS the best way to communicate such truths.

It is a sufficient reason to prove this the absolutely best way for the disposal of divine revelations, because God hath made use of this and no other.

While this certainly appears to be circular reasoning, what he is really saying is that we should, at least for the moment, put aside our pre-supposition that didactic presentation of truths is the best way in which such truths should be captured and communicated, and assume for the moment that a different method may actually be better for accomplishing the ends of God and scripture, which is to transform us with the truth and bring us into relationship with the Creator.

2. Didactic teaching, as opposed to communicating through stories, poetry, and other methods, robs them of their power.

God puts not such value upon men’s accurate methods as they may imagine them to deserve, nor are they so subservient unto his ends in the revelation of himself as they are apt to fancy; yea, ofttimes when, as they suppose, they have brought truths unto the strictest propriety 189of expression, they lose both their power and their glory.  Hence is the world filled with so many lifeless, sapless, graceless, artificial declarations of divine truth in the schoolmen and others.

In fact, he goes on to explain how the “occasional occurrences of truth” within stories and such actually have a much greater transformative effect than organized teaching:

But how many millions of souls have received divine light and consolation, suited unto their condition, in those occasional occurrences of truth
which they meet withal in the Scripture, which they would never have obtained in those wise, artificial disposals of them which some men would fancy!  Truths have their power and efficacy upon our minds, not only from themselves, but from their posture in the Scripture.  There are they placed in such aspects towards, in such conjunctions one with another, as that their influences on our minds do greatly depend thereon. He is no wise man, nor exercised in those things, who would part with any one truth out of its proper place where the Holy Spirit hath disposed and fixed it.

3. “Artificial methodizing” of truth may help us in our comprehension, but such ready comprehension may actually hinder the type of intuitive apprehension of truth that actually transforms us.

Artificial methodizing of spiritual truths may make men ready in notions, cunning and subtile in disputations; but it is the Scripture itself that is able to ‘make us wise unto salvation.’ Such a systematical proposal of doctrines, truths, or articles of faith, as some require, would not have answered the great ends of the Scripture itself.  All that can be supposed of benefit thereby is only that it would lead us more easily into a methodical comprehension of the truths so proposed; but this we may attain, and not be rendered one jot more like unto God thereby.

The main point of scripture study, and the pursuit of truth, is to be changed by it.  And the problem with us is that, we usually think that, once we have understood truth, we have embodied it, and such predigested doctrinal presentations lend themselves to this habit of self-deception.

A nice way to summarize this is that the purpose of scripture is not merely to inform us, but to transform us.

If any expect that the Scripture should be written with respect unto opinions, notions, and speculations, to render men skillful and cunning in them, able to talk and dispute about all things and nothing, they are mistaken.  It is given us to  make us humble, holy, wise in spiritual things; to direct us in our duties, to  relieve us against temptations, to comfort us under troubles, to make us to love God and to live unto him, in all that variety of circumstances, occasions,  temptations, trials, duties, which in this world we are called unto….

Sometimes an occasional passage in a story, a word or expression, shall  contribute more to excite faith and love in our souls than a volume of learned  disputations.  It doth not argue, syllogies, or allure the mind; but it enlightens, persuades, constrains the soul unto faith and obedience. This it is prepared for and suited unto.

4. So that we would rely on illumination rather than merely our own understanding

Our tendency is often to rely on our own wisdom and abilities, rather than reaching for and depending on God to teach us.  In fact, we might entirely avoid interaction with God in favor of intellectual apprehension of truth if reason alone could reveal to us the meaning, impact, and application of scripture to our lives.

It will appear obscure unto all men who come to the reading and study of it in the mere strength of their own natural abilities;

In fact, as I mentioned previously when discussing whether or not we can be sure of our spiritual convictions, illumination is necessary in order to overcome our own spiritual ignorance, corruptness, and limitations there is unto the understanding of it use made of that aid and assistance of the Spirit of God concerning which we do discourse.  Without this the clearest revelations of divine supernatural things will appear as wrapped up in darkness and obscurity: not for want of light in them, but for want of light in us.

And in fact, the necessity of illumination means that even those with lesser intellectual capabilities can take heart, because they have access to the teacher (the Holy Spirit), and can, at least in a spiritual sense, know as much about God and his ways as the well-schooled.

Thus all things are made plain unto the meanest capacity; yet not so, but that if the most wise and learned do not see the characters of infinite divine wisdom on things that seem most obvious and most exposed unto vulgar apprehension, they have no true wisdom in them.

5. To hide the truth from the proud and self-righteous

When Jesus was asked why he spoke in parables, here’s how he responded:

And the disciples came and said to Him, ‘Why do You speak to them in  parables?’

He answered and said to them, ‘Because it has been given to you to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been
given.

For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.  Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.’

Owen observes:

The minds of men are prepossessed with opinions, dogmas, principles, and practices in religion, received by tradition from their fathers; or have vehement and corrupt inclinations unto such ways, practices, and opinions, as suit their carnal reason and interest.

It is no wonder if such persons conceive the Scripture dark and obscure; for they can neither find that in it which they most desire, nor can understand what is revealed in it, because opposite unto their prejudices, affections, and interests.  The design of the Scripture is, to destroy that frame of mind in them which they would have established; and no man is to look for light in the Scripture
to give countenance unto his own darkness.

Some things are in the Scripture disposed on purpose that evil, perverse, and proud men stumble and fall at them, or be farther hardened in their unbelief and obstinacy….

So our Lord Jesus Christ affirms that he spake unto the stubborn Jews in parables that they might not understand.

6. The scriptures were written to communicate truths across history, with different emphases at different times.

It was not given for the use of one age or season only, but for all generations, for a guide in faith and obedience from the beginning of the world to the end of it. And  the state of the church was not always to be the same, neither in light,  knowledge, nor worship….

If all divine truths had from the first been stated and fixed in a system of  doctrines, the state of the church must have been always the same; which was  contrary unto the whole design of divine wisdom in those things.

As for types, allegories, mystical stories, and obscure predictions, he made use of them under the Old Testament on purpose to draw a veil over the things signified in them, or the truths taught by them; for the church was not yet to be  acquainted with the clear knowledge of the things concerning Jesus Christ and his mediation.

Simply put, didactic teaching does not really lend itself to items that must be communicated metaphorically or in a veiled fashion.

CONCLUSION

From Owens’ writing, one can deduce many more reasons why the scriptures presented in the manner that they are, but they are less central than those presented above (IMO) – they include:

• The scriptures were written in a non-methodical fashion in order to necessitate the work of the ministry – that is, to allow people with gifts in teaching and preaching to serve the church
• To make the truths somewhat hard to find so that men would make an effort to seek God and work for truth, rather than just giving it away cheaply, and in so doing, cause men to take it for granted.
• To force us to come across other truths than merely those we are looking for – because often, we need or will need truths that we never sought for.

All in all, some very interesting theology.

1. Jesus’ offensive and harsh words were almost always directed at the religious hypocrites.

When it came to sinners, he often spoke about sin, but did not call sinners names.

2. God offends the mind to reveal the heart.

While Mike Bickle says that “God offends the mind to reveal the heart,” he doesn’t mean that God does so by insults or derogatory names.  He offends the “logical” *mind* with spiritual wisdom.

3. You must hate the sin but love the sinner.

While many people don’t like this aphorism, and find the very thought of judging someone else as a sinner as judgmental and wrong, it is essentially how God treats all of us – he declares us sinners that need a savior, but loves us.  It is very clear that all men are sinners, and those who have yet to trust in Christ are still in their sin, hence, we can easily count them as such, and should.  Otherwise, we would be playing dumb.

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

You should preach as if one of those people was present, as if they were your closest friend, or a family member that you cared about, and you were trying to show them Jesus.  Conviction of sin through preaching the law is necessary, but it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance, not threats, and not insults.  You must put yourself in their shoes and say “if that were me, what would cause me to desire God?”

4. Are we accused by religious people and unbelievers of “loving sinners” or “loving them”?

Jesus was accused of loving sinners, and we ought to be so accused as well.  That doesn’t mean agreeing with sin, but it does mean that they should experience positive regard from us for them as human beings, rather than feeling like we despise “their kind.”  Their kind is OUR kind, that is, fallen and valuable human beings, sinners loved by God.

5.  Just because you are passionate doesn’t mean your approach is correct.

We need to be passionate for the care of their souls, not for finding reasons to tell them we are right and they wrong.  It is very easy for us to despise others who are different from us, whose sin we have not personally been captured by.  We should treat them as someone who has had to recover from the same errors, the same sickness – with understanding, gentleness, and firm but kind and balanced application of truth. Jesus said be angry, but do not sin.  That passage deserves careful study.

6.  Paul said that it is possible to have faith to move mountains, but if we don’t have love, we are nothing.

Passion is nothing if you do not have love for your fellow sinner, no matter what his favorite sin is, no matter how hardened he is.

7.  We must use stern preaching to reach some because of their hardness.

The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Psalm 111:10), but I submit that it is not the END of wisdom.

Before i explain that, let me add one more scripture paraphrase – the rod of correction is for the back of the fool (Proverbs 26:3), but a wise man receives commands. What these mean is this – when we are hardened to God’s wisdom, he does not discard us.  Rather, he gently breaks us.  That is what the rod of correction is for – when we are fools, hardened to God’s wisdom, we don’t hear what is being said – instead, we need to experience a little pain to wake us up.

However, God does not want to have to strike us to teach us all the time.  That method is for when we are FOOLISH.  This principle also applies to the fear of the lord in the above scripture.  The *beginning* of wisdom, that is, for the beginner, often the fool, is when they learn the fear of God, the fear of his correction, the rod of his correction.  However, once we learn that, God doesn’t want us to be motivated by fear all of the time, but rather, by his goodness.

So, while preaching to fools and other sinners, we should preach about the consequences of sin, which are more than just separation from God in the life to come or God’s anger – people must see how sin affects their lives now – being cut off from their destiny with God, their potential and best possible selves, the love of God, life-giving relationships – we need to preach these consequences.  In part, the fear of God is the fear of the *consequences* of sin.  This is the wake up call, but not the ongoing motivation for godliness.

But talking down to people, or openly despising them, that is not the type of correction God provides, nor is it the love of God – it shows hardness in our own lives.

Related Articles

• Stick or Carrot in Gospel Preaching?

One classmate wrote that I was promoting a hopeless view, and that I was essentially saying that we can’t really know anything for sure.  My response is below.

Again, I am trying to chart a course between extremes, which I think is
what is needed when we approach our understanding of scripture.

I would state that while scripture is always true and trustworthy, our
UNDERSTANDING of it is not.  I mean, even John MacArthur has changed
positions on some doctrines over time.  Why?  Because while the
scriptures may be inerrant, our understanding of them, and our
understanding of the Holy Spirit’s illumination are NOT inerrant.

So I would distill a few observations from the fact that our limitations affect our accuracy:

• We can be much more sure of the central, essential doctrines of
  Christianity, like the gospel, because they are clear, and tradition
  (doctrine), reason, and experience all easily and firmly confirm them
• We can be much LESS sure about non-essential doctrines, and even
  when we have convictions, reason, and perhaps even some doctrinal
  tradition behind us, preaching such things merits a more circumspect
  confidence, with the attitude that, while we are currently convinced of
  the truth of our position, we are open to being persuaded otherwise
• We must allow room for being shown that we are incorrect, even on some non-essential but significant doctrines, like eschatology
• We can be sure that we will not understand all of the nature of
  God due to our limitations, which again calls for humility in the face
  of the infinite.

Such limitations are not necessarily a cause for hopelessness, but a
cause for humility and dependence upon God.  I also think that our
compulsion to be able to know and explain everything comes from our need

• to be in control
• to know surely enough that we don’t need faith, and
• to feel secure that we are on a sure footing

But such things are not a life of faith.  Our sureness comes not from
what we can know, but the few things we are deeply convinced of (our
salvation through faith), and intimacy with and trust in the One in
whom we trust.  As I like to say to those who ask me if I have doubt

Ambiguity and mystery are part of true spirituality – not that we can
know nothing for sure, but that we can know a few things for sure, that
we can develop deeper convictions about a widening sphere of doctrine over time,
and with the confirmation of traditional doctrine, reason, and
experience, and that some things may always be outside our grasp on
this side of eternity.

I again think this is why the following aphorism is wise, if not essential (pun intended)

I also like this saying when it comes to doctrine and the knowability of spiritual things:

"It was really quite logical," said spokesperson Dr. Ima "Spin" Master.  "Once we assumed that everyone who spouts regular anti-gay rhetoric, which we call "hate speech," was really just projecting self-loathing at their own same sex attractions, it all added up quite quickly."

Using similar models, GASBAGS has also estimated that most evangelicals
have had, or are secretly having, abortions and illicit sex.  This data,
of course, is no surprise, as we see such revelations daily in
high-level Christian leadership across the news (though, bless their hateful hearts, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Billy Graham, and D. James Kennedy have yet to be exposed for the adulterers and homosexuals they probably are – it brings consternation to think that for every Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, or Jim Baker, there are 10 highly visible Christian leaders who haven’t been found out yet).

However, not all of their analyses produce such overwhelmingly conclusive results.   

"Assuming that evangelicals are filled with hate," remarked Master, "we were surprised to find that evangelicals give more to charities, even non-Christian charities, than others."

However, there is an explanation that can preserve the conclusion that evangelicals are basically hateful, while still being able to give.  As popular atheist and humanitarian Sam Harris has noted, evangelical, and in fact, Christian morality and generosity, are basically fear and threat-motivated, rather than love-motivated.  Such self-preservation motives are clearly compatible with hatred.

GASBAGS is investigating many other exciting hypotheses, including evidence that

• humans are actually born promiscuous, and that the institution of marriage and the promotion of chastity is actually inhibiting our natural state, which is to have multiple children by multiple partners throughout our child-bearing years
• aggression, even homicidal aggression, might be genetic, and therefore, we might be harming murderers by incarcerating them.  Rather than punishing such offenders, newer research indicates that they may be perfectly suited for work in such clandestine organizations as the CIA, or as soldiers in middle-east operations
• all children are actually BORN biologically homosexual, but  environmental factors and social pressure turn them into heterosexuals.  If this hypothesis turns out to be true, we may have to add heterosexuality to the DSM as a developmental disorder and an illness.

Such provocative and exciting research is what GASBAGS is all about.

"We’re not interested in the more esoteric, dare I say boring scientific research," Masters remarked teasingly, "but rather, we want to question the cultural and traditional assumptions held by humanity and the world’s enduring religions for centuries, because they often inhibit the free expression of the human soul, and especially, the sexual being.  And we think this is, well, a sin, if you’ll pardon the expression."

And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. (Genesis 1:28)

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (Genesis 9:1-3)

But how many children is too many? And is it immoral to use any kind of birth control? And is it immoral to overpopulate the earth?

1. Do Christians have freedom of conscience with respect to fertility?

The short answer is yes, if you follow the Augustinian dictum of

In the essentials, UNITY
In the non-essentials, LIBERTY
In all things, CHARITY

Fertility is NOT a central Christian doctrine, and as per the application of Romans 14 to non-essential matters of conscience, we absolutely do have freedom to choose apart from church authority, and still be able to consider ourselves Christian in an orthodox sense.

But this does not make the decisions equally biblically justifiable – in fact, we may argue that certain biblical principles apply, and make some decisions less biblical, and therefore perhaps less moral, than others.

2. Should Christians EVER limit the number of children they should have?

There are more principles at stake than just "be fruitful," Although some would quote the scriptures that indicate that children are to be viewed as a blessing (Psalm 127: 3-5), which is NOT the prevailing selfish, anti-human view, there are a few important balancing principles.

A. The ability to PROVIDE for your children.

While some may want to say "I just trust God for material provision," there is also the issue of EMOTIONAL provision. Do you and your spouse really have the TIME to be emotionally engaged with your children? Not if you are a two-income family. And even if one parent stays at home, it is hard to be emotionally engaged with large numbers of kids.

I am not saying that parents of large families are being irresponsible, because there are many ways to aid the parenting of many children. This includes the help of extended family, mentors, and teaching the older children to care for the younger, which, if not done in too burdensome a way, actually prepares them well to be parents themselves.

But the opposite must be acknowledged – in light of some parents’ resources, they may NOT be able to faithfully care for more than a small handful of children, given their other responsibilities and resources. Of course, they must consider whether a lifestyle of consumer debt or other poor value system is actually stripping them of the ability to be present for their children, but it is conceivable that some couples may want to limit their family size out of a desire to obey the command to PROVIDE for their families.

B. The mother’s health

One point that should not be overlooked is that child birth is very hard on a woman’s body, and it may be in her interest to stop having children. Not only does this save the woman’s life, but it allows for continued emotional and physical provision for the children.

C. The ability to HELP OTHERS in need, especially other children.

We live in a world where children around the world are not wanted, and die daily for lack of care. We may want to limit our biological progeny for the sole reason that we want to help other children through sponsorship, foster care, or adoption. This care for "orphans and widows" is one of the chief values of Christianity, as declared by James, the brother of Jesus (James 1:27)

D. Overpopulation and world resources

I do NOT believe that this value should be considered as Christian, nor part of a biblical decision to limit the number of children one has, except as it applies to your own ability to care for others (point B above). The reason is, I do NOT believe that overpopulation is the true root of today’s resource issues, and biblically speaking, we see no command or principle governing population limits.

Are there limits?  If so, how do we determine them?  Does God expect us to increase forever, and allow plague and starvation keep us to the right numbers?  Or should we be proactive?

While I think the latter question is the right stance, we should take careful action, acknowledging that our models for living space, lifespan, and food and energy creation and consumption greatly influence our conclusions.  And I seriously doubt that population is really the root cause of today’s problems with so many orphans.

As many have argued, the real problem is not overpopulation, but corrupt governments, war, abuse of natural resources, and resource distribution. Also, anti-population gurus often ignore the plain facts that (a) we have not even come close to reaching the limits of agriculture or land use, and (b) they regularly ignore the role that technology plays in making our use of resources more efficient, sustainable, and scalable.

Now, in the short run, we may want to make as much room in our own family to adopt the unwanted, but to say that population is a problem is probably the wrong cause, even if we are employing a valid solution to the real problems of orphans caused by poverty, war, politics, and irresponsible parents.

3. How many children are enough?

While every couple must determine this for themselves, I will offer a number – at least THREE. Why three? While I have no direct biblical mandate, I note that, in order to at LEAST replenish themselves, parents need to have two children. And to be fruitful and multiply (or at least ADD to) the current population? You need one more.  As has been noted, we each need to provide about 2.3 children to at least maintain our national numbers.

Interestingly, nations like Germany and France are having failing economies, not just because they run expensive welfare states, but because their shrinking populations (death rate greater than birth rate) are eroding their tax base. Not only does this affect their economy, but it means that they will have lesser prominence in the future world economy, and less influence overall since their lower population will by default mean they represent less of the world population, and so should wield less influence in world politics.

I’d like to say this – that it is not only our duty to provide more children in obedience to God, but it may be our PATRIOTIC DUTY to provide more children to a free America. There, I said it. Now, I don’t really believe that, but it’s worth considering. A better way to provide more freedom-loving Christian patriots, of course, may be to also convert more of the immigrants and unbelievers in our country as well. And with the influx of Catholic Mexicans, this is already half done for us (in that even unredeemed Catholics usually share our values.)

Interestingly, even Al Mohler, who preaches these same ideas, does not put a number to the "how many is enough" question, but he also warns that some types of birth control are probably immoral.

4. What kind of birth control is acceptable, if any?

To be entirely safe, I’d say there are only two, doctrinally speaking – abstinence or sterilization. Many evangelicals are rethinking the ethics and morality of birth control , and I’ve even read lately that some Christian writers are saying that the reason we have been unsuccessful in defeating abortion is that we evangelicals are tolerating birth control, including such know abortifacients as the mini-pill and IUDs.

CONCLUSION

I am obeying my own conscience by stopping at three children. This leaves me room to adopt in the future, and it also means I have at least replaced my wife and myself. I go for a vascectomy in a few weeks. And I’m going to be able to fully enjoy interacting with my three children. Of course, I’ll teach them to be thinking Christians, and Christian patriots. And Christian parents who have at least three children apiece.  :D

Method One: Roll your own.

1. Open
   a new worksheet, and make your favorite starting settings
2. Save
   the file with the name book.xlt to the following location:
   C:\Program Files\Microsoft
   Office\Office11\XLStart\

Method Two:  Use My Template

1. Download book.xlt
2. Save
   the file with the name book.xlt to the following location:
   C:\Program Files\Microsoft
   Office\Office11\XLStart\

Here’s the settings I used:

1) Deleted two or the three default sheets (so I start with just one)

2) Set Page Properties (File > Page Setup)

a)    Page Tab

• Orientation:  Landscape
• Scaling: Fit to 1 page wide, 100 tall

b)    Margins Tab

• Left and right margins reduced from .75 to .5

c)    Header/Footer Tab

• Header:  Sheet Name
• Footer:  File Path\File Name | Blank middle | Page X of Y

d)    Sheet Tab

• Print Titles: Rows to repeat at top (I choose the top row, or $1:$1)
• Print:  turn ON Gridlines

3)    Set Cell Properties

a)    Highlight the entire worksheet by clicking in the top left corner
b)    Format > Cells > Alignment Tab

• Text Alignment: Vertical = Top
• Text Control = select Wrap Text

• Evaluating God’s Righteousness, Part I – Underestimating Sin
• Evaluating God’s Righteousness, Part II – Rules for Evaluating Evil
• Evaluating God’s Righteousness, Part III – Dispensing Justice and Mercy

• Faith and Politics in a Post-Falwell World – Part I
• Faith and Politics in a Post-Falwell World – Part II
• Faith and Politics in a Post-Falwell World – Part III

• The Ethics of Controversy – What TO Do
• The Ethics of Controversy – What NOT To Do

• The Wrath of God – Part I – Five Types of Divine Anger
• The Wrath of God II – How God abandons a nation
• The Wrath of God III – Reversing God’s Abandonment

But here’s the executive summary:   Hate crimes laws are redundant with existing laws that cover those same crimes, can demand punishments out of proportion with the crime, and are Trojan horses for ushering in hate speech laws which threaten the free speech of opponents, usually to liberal social policy, by erroneously equating disagreement and moral criticism with hate.

1. Are hate crimes worse than ‘regular’ crimes?

They do inspire more fear, because crimes based on ideology, rather than just personal corruption and things like drug abuse, seem more premeditated.  But the fact is, the crime itself is of the same magnitude no matter what the motive.  Is a racially-motivated murder worse than one done for money?  Is the rape and murder of a woman any less heinous or hateful than that of a gay by heteros?  Are the threats and intimidation of a mafioso demanding protection payment any worse than the threats of gang members who sell drugs on the corner and control the commerce and traffic in a neighborhood? 

Threats and intimidation should be treated with equal censure.  If minorities feel like the punishments for those intimidating them are not enough, the answer is not to create special laws for them, but to treat all such intimidation as equally heinous, and if need be, strengthen existing law.

We do not need a separate code for hate crimes that is more severe than the punishments for the same crimes motivated by some other hatred, fear, addiction, or greedy reason.  The downside of having stricter laws for such crimes is that often, these new rules are now used to disproportionately punish people who are accused of being motivated by some specific and more "evil" hate, but are really not.  While we may want to assess whether an action was premeditated or not, our judicial system should not be in the business of assessing motive – the detective solving a crime might need that, but the judge needs to look at the crime itself.

I know some will nit pick and disagree, but my main point is that assessing motive in court is a fools errand, and having a separate code of punishment for the same crimes is not only wasting our time being redundant, it is rife with the potential for injustice.

2. Remember Matthew Shepard?

Matthew Shepard was a gay man who was brutally murdered by two heterosexuals.  The tragic murder, however, has been leveraged by the pro-gay lobby to not only raise awareness of anti-LGBT violence and intimidation, it has been used to champion legislation to punish such crimes.  And while the awareness is good, the legislation is problematic.

Complicating the story is the testimony of the killers in this case.  The killers were drug dealers who had previous drug dealings with Shepard, and one of them actually testified that he beat up Shepard, not based on his orientation, but based on the affect the drugs had on him.

Former Laramie Police Detective Ben Fritzen, one of
the lead investigators in the case, also believed
robbery was the primary motive.  "Matthew Shepard’s
sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly
wasn’t the motive in the homicide,"  he said.

"If it wasn’t Shepard, they would have found another
easy target. What it came down to really is drugs and
money and two punks that were out looking for it,"
Fritzen said.

‘All I Wanted to Do Was Beat Him Up and Rob
Him’

Asked directly whether he targeted and attacked
Shepard because he was gay, McKinney told Vargas, "No.
I did not. … I would say it wasn’t a hate crime. All
I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him."

But if the attackers were just trying to rob someone
to get a drug fix, why did they beat Shepard so
savagely?

Rerucha attributes McKinney’s rage and his savage
beating of Shepard to his drug abuse. "The
methamphetamine just  fueled to this point where there
was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible
murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by
drugs," Rerucha said.

Dr. Rick Rawson, a professor at UCLA who has studied
the link between methamphetamine and violence, tells
"20/20" the drug can trigger episodes of violent
behavior.

"In the first weeks after you’ve stopped using it, the
kinds of triggers that can set off an episode are
completely unpredictable. It can be: you say a word
with the wrong inflection, you touch someone on the
shoulder. It’s completely unpredictable as to what
will set somebody off" Rawson said.

"If Aaron McKinney had not become involved with methamphetamine, Matthew Shepard would be alive today," Rerucha said.

This complication does not lessen the horror of the murder, but it does mean that the pro-gay lobby is really just using this high visibility case to push their cause.

3. How many hate-based crimes are comitted each year, and how many against gays?

In 2005, FBI statistics on hate crime show that of the 7163 incidents, 1017 were related to sexual orientation.  That is significant, and it is important to note that only 21 of them were anti-heterosexual crimes.  So we see that gays are victims of this type of crime more than non-gays. 

So activists may have a point in raising awareness, but if they want to create laws, they need to consider the impact, abuse, and limits of such laws.

4. Remember Jesse Dirkhising?

Jesse Dirkhising, 13 years old, was brutally tortured, raped, and killed by a male homosexual couple.  The left-leaning press ignored it, but the lefties were unapologetic:

On 4 November 1999, Jonathan Gregg addressed the issue in Time magazine. He asked: "Could it be because we in the media elite were unwilling to publicize crimes committed by homosexuals
because it didn’t suit our agenda? The next stop in that line of
reasoning was clear: That news is controlled by a bunch of gay-loving liberals only too happy to wield a double standard."

In his opinion, Gregg wrote that the discrepancy in media attention was:

because it [Dirkhising] offered no lessons. Shepard’s murder touches
on a host of complex and timely issues: intolerance, society’s
attitudes toward gays and the pressure to conform, the use of violence
as a means of confronting one’s demons. Jesse Dirkhising’s death gives
us nothing except the depravity of two sick men. There is no lesson
here, no moral of tolerance, no hope to be gleaned in the punishment of
the perpetrators."

No lesson?  How about that such crimes are often NOT hate-related, but are nonetheless as heinous as any other? I’m glad that heteros are not using this to pimp their own brand of needless, redundant hate-crimes legislation.  But of course, they don’t have the associated social agenda that the pro-gay lobby does, and THAT is the real difference here.

5. How hate crimes laws are used to usher in hate speech laws

Again, I am not justifying hate crimes, and let me also say that I am not justifying speech that directly incites violence.  But what I am saying is this – hate crimes laws can not be divorced from hate speech laws, and these are nothing more than the blasphemy laws of the secularist, pro-gay left.

In an effort to rightly quash speech that directly incites violence against gays, in their mistaken idea of what hate is, they are also quashing all moral criticism of their sexual identity and lifestyle.  To them, it’s just discriminatory, which is hate (everything is hate to the left). 

But here’s the chilling effect – who else will seek such protections?  How about Muslims who don’t want their Shariah law publicly criticized or judged?   In fact, this is exactly what they DO, but these laws are called blasphemy laws. And what we are seeing on both of these poles, both fanatical left and religious right, are the erosion of free speech rights, ushered in within the Trojan Horse of unneeded hate crimes legislation.

6. What we SHOULD do about crime and ideologies that encourage it

Look, all crime is hateful on one level.  I mean, should we convict a black youth of a hate crime because the misogynistic rap music he listened to motivated him?  Should we ban all misogynistic lyrics and jail those who use them?  Of course not.

The answers are simple, and current law covers them.

• Violent crime is a crime is a crime, and should be persecuted and punished as we do today.  The rape or murder of an individual is not any less awful just because it was done out of lust than hate.
• Speech that DIRECTLY incites violence should be illegal, just like libel or slander, and appropriate punishments, be they fines or jail time, should be determined. 
• Speech that is derisive, demeaning, or profane, or abusive,
  though regrettable, is not a crime.  If it were, half the rap albums on
  the stands would be illegal.  What do we do with such speech?  We label
  it to protect children, and maybe we restrict it’s sale.  But that’s
  it.  The white supremacist and the atheist
  who hates religion both have the opportunity to have their say and let
  society and public opinion decide their case, as long as they are not
  directly inciting violence.
• Moral disapproval is NOT hate speech, EVEN if the speaker is motivated by hate, disgust, or disapproval.  Even if SOME people take such speech and use it to justify or motivate themselves in their own violent acts, this speech can not be considered illegal.  Inciting disgust or disapproval is not a crime – otherwise people of all ideological stripes would be stripped of their right to criticize, even judge others publicly.

Hate crimes legislation is really a waste of the taxpayers time, and is almost exclusively used by the pro-gay lobby towards one end – to garner social and legal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, and to squelch critics by taking away their rights of free speech.  Christians should be wary of any such hate crimes legislation, and be willing to endure the puerile accusations of hate as they examine every proposed law for such anti-freedom and anti-American efforts.  We don’t want violence, but we don’t want the liberal blasphemy laws to clamp down on what we say or think.  That’s what fascists do.

One interesting example that author gives of liberal inconsistency in this matter is the infamous Piss Christ painting.  Paint Christ in a jar of piss, and leftists call that free speech.  But paint a homosexual in a jar of piss?  Unthinkable.  Offensive.  And you know what?  It probably is.  But only the OPPONENTS of the left are hateful in almost every stance.

In fact, for budding liberals, here’s a quick checklist for how to respond to conservatives on the issues:

• Conservative: “Homosexuality is not healthy or normal, and should not be condoned or taught to our children.”
  Liberal: “You HATE homosexuals.” (BONUS:  You are a bigot)
• C: I don’t buy into the global warming panic and the “argument-is-over” bulldozing
  L: You HATE the environment (BONUS:  You are a flat-earther who is ignorant of science)
• C: I don’t think entitlement programs work as they are.  We need a hand up, not a hand out.
  L: You HATE the poor.
• C: I think affirmative action is reverse discrimination and unfair.
  L: You HATE minorities.  (BONUS:  You are a racist bigot)
• C: I think abortion is murder and should be illegal.
  L: You HATE women and women’s rights (BONUS:  You are a fascist totalitarian religionist)
• C: I doubt evolution.
  L: You HATE science and love religion instead. (BONUS:  You are a flat-earther who is ignorant of science)

Hate-accusation is an intellectual pandemic on the left, and a grand, childish self-delusion, as I discussed in What is Hate, one of my favorite posts.

What’s really interesting is that I’m a moderate on immigration, and disagree with the far right on this issue.  But while I consider their policies mean-spirited, and legalistic, I don’t think of those people as hate mongers.  Why?  Because I don’t have the erroneous knee-jerk liberal reaction that everyone who has opposing policies, even policies that are a bit hurtful, is hateful.   From the outside, liberals really look to have a pathological, deceptive, irrational group think going on.

But then again, maybe it’s because, in general, in the balance between love and truth, lefties err on the side of feelings instead of truth and logic, and righties err on the side of cold, compassionless logic.  So maybe that’s why the left looks illogical and oversensitive (because they are), and the right looks heartless and insensitive (which they are).  So maybe I am a little insensitive.  Hmmm.

Liberal, MO, named after the Liberal League in Lamar, Missouri (to which the town’s organizer belonged), was started as an atheist, “freethinker” utopia in 1880 by George Walser, an anti-religionist, agnostic lawyer.  He bought 2000 acres of land and advertised across the country for atheists to come and

“found a town without a church, [w]here unbelievers could bring up their children without religious training, ” – and where Christians were not allowed.  His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels…”a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon.”  Some of the early inhabitants of Liberal even encouraged other infidels to move to their town by publishing an advertisement which boasted that Liberal “is the only town of its size in the United States without a priest, preacher, church, saloon, God, Jesus, hell or devil.”   (from Atheism and Liberal, MO)

Well, how did that little experiment turn out?  It’s more incredible than you could imagine.

The Founder and Founding of Liberal, MO

The founder of this unique community experiment, George H. Walser, was born in Indiana in 1834.  He went to Barton county immediately after the war, where he was soon recognized as one of the best lawyers in southwest Missouri.  He was elected prosecuting attorney there, and became a member of the 25th assembly.  With an eye for future developments he purchased 2,000 acres of land and selected the site of Liberal as the home of an experiment in intellectual community living.  He was an agnostic and placed himself in open opposition to organized religion.  “With one foot upon the neck of priestcraft and the other upon the rock of truth,” he declared, “we have thrown our banner to the breeze and challenge the world to produce a better cause for the devotion of man than that of a grand, noble and perfect humanity.”

In harmony with the purpose for organizing the town a number of unusual institutions designed to promote the ideal community were tried during the 1880′s and 1890′s.  The first of these was a Sunday Morning Instruction School, where children were taught from the ‘Youth Liberal Guide’ and from various works on physics, chemistry, and other sciences.  In another class organized for older young people elementary experiments in the physical sciences were performed under the supervision of teachers whose avowed function was to encourage and direct free intelligent discussion.  In the Mental Liberty Hall lectures were given each Sunday evening, and scientists, philosophers, socialists, atheists, Protestant ministers and Catholic priests were invited to speak – respectable decorum being the only limitation placed upon any speaker.  Large enthusiastic crowds gathered each week in the interest of mental liberty.

The Liberal Normal School and Business Institute was another institution organized by Walser to promote liberal education free from the bias of Christian theology.  This school was well advertised and soon had a large enrollment.  According to a tract published in 1885, the Liberal Normal School and Business Institute was “located in the liberal town, taught by liberal teachers and courted only the patronage of liberal patrons.”  Out of this organization developed Free Thought University, which opened in 1886 with a staff of seven teachers.  (Sikeston (Missouri) Herald, December 1, 1938)
——————————-

People who moved to Liberal signed an agreement promising not to hold religious services on their property. Nor would they sell it to someone who planned to use it as a place of worship. Institutions to further the new order were born. The National Liberal Orphans Home was established to take care of children without parents or guardians. It would teach them an upright life, but they wouldn’t be exposed to a “sectarian or a supernatural religion,” according to incorporation papers that were filed with the Missouri secretary of state. Free Thought University, which had a faculty of seven, was founded in 1886 with courses of study that were “untrammeled by Bible, creed or isms,” according to one of the university’s surviving publications. As residents moved in, they created an everyday life with a twist. There was Sunday School, but in Liberal people listened to lectures about science followed by concerts and music. Sunday School often concluded with chemistry experiments for the kids. Evenings were reserved for debates and speeches at the Universal Mental Liberty Hall. Evolution vs. creationism was a favorite, but most any topic could be heard.  (Kansas City Star on Saturday, December 22, 2001)

Christians send missionaries

Christians, of course, found in Liberal a perfect mission field.

As news spread about Liberal, Christians came to convert the town. Walser tried to keep them out by posting his followers at the Liberal train station to tell passengers that if they were Christians they were not welcome, according to an 1896 article in The Kansas City Star. They came anyway. Some Christians quietly bought homes and began holding religious services. Walser would interrupt them and even put a stop to it after he proved to a court that the services were being held on properties he still partly owned.   The Christians then bought land next to Liberal and moved more than a dozen houses there from Liberal. The last building had a sign attached that said: “And the Lord said: Get thee out of Sodom.” Walser then built a barbed wire fence to keep them out of Liberal. It was time to fulfill the original aim of the town to “enjoy the full benefits of free American citizens without having some self-appointed bigot dictate to us what we should think.”  (Kansas City Star on Saturday, December 22, 2001)

Regarding the adjoining town that the Christians created:

In an effort to throw off the yoke of Walser, the Christians purchased an eighty-acre tract of land adjoining the town, called the place Pedro and moved their houses and places of business  out of Liberal. (Sikeston (Missouri) Herald, December 1, 1938)

What was it like in Liberal?

There are a few out of print books that discuss the history of the town, but their content is not available online.  They include:

• This strange town–Liberal, Missouri: Founded by G.H. Walser as a place set apart for freethinkers. A history of the early years of the town, 1880-1910, … Christians, and other human interest stories by JP Moore
• The Story of Liberal Missouri by O.E. Harmon
• George H.Walser and Liberal Missouri by Boyce Houton

But one of the records we do have is the op ed published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885 by Clark Braden.

Braden was an experienced preacher, debater, and author. In his lifetime, he presented more than 3,000 lectures,  and held more than 130 regular debates – eighteen of which were with the Mormons (Carpenter, 1909, pp. 324-325). In 1872, Braden even challenged the renowned agnostic Robert Ingersoll to debate, to which Ingersoll reportedly responded, “I am not such a fool as to debate. He would wear me out”  (Atheism and Liberal, MO)

Quick note here, Ingersoll was one of Walser’s heroes:

It’s a place where residents still live on Darwin Street, named after the man who set forth the theory of evolution. Visitors can take a walk along Ingersoll Street, named after Robert Ingersoll, a well-known lecturer in the 19th century who questioned the existence of God. Both men were heroes to George H. Walser, a Civil War veteran who moved to Lamar, Mo., in 1866 to practice law. He was a follower of Ingersoll and carried a deep conviction that intellect and religion were incompatible. His favorite description of Christianity was “superstition.” (Kansas City Star on Saturday, December 22, 2001)

Back to Braden and his article:

Although Braden was despised by some, his skills in writing
and public speaking were widely known and acknowledged. In February 1885, Clark Braden introduced himself to the townspeople of Liberal (Keller, 1885, p. 5; Moore, 1963, p. 38), and soon thereafter he wrote about what he had seen.

In an article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, titled ‘An Infidel Experiment,’ Braden reported the following.

The boast about the sobriety of the town is  false. But few of the infidels are total  abstainers. Liquor can be obtained at three  different places in this town of 300  inhabitants. More drunken infidels can be  seen in a year in Liberal than drunken  Christians among one hundred times as  many church members during the same  time.

Swearing is the common form of speech in Liberal, and nearly every inhabitant, old  and young, swears habitually. Girls and  boys swear on the streets, playground, and  at home. Fully half of the females will swear,  and a large number swear  habitually…. Lack of reverence for parents  and of obedience to them is the rule. There  are more grass widows, grass widowers and  people living together, who have former  companions living, than in any other town of ten times the population…. A good  portion of the few books that are read are of the class that decency keeps under lock and  key….

These infidels…can spend for dances and shows ten times as much as they spend on their liberalism. These dances are corrupting the youth of the surrounding country with infidelity and  immorality. There is no lack of loose women at these dances.

Since Liberal was started there has not been an  average of one birth per year of infidel parents.  Feticide is universal. The physicians of the place say that a large portion of their  practice has been trying to save females  from consequences of feticide.

In no town is slander more prevalent, or the  charges more vile. If one were to accept what the inhabitants say of each other, he would conclude  that there is a hell, including all Liberal, and that its inhabitants are the devils (as quoted in Keller,  1885, p. 5).

According to Braden, “[s]uch are the facts concerning this infidel paradise…. Every one who has visited Liberal, and knows the facts, knows that such is the case” (p. 5).  (Atheism and Liberal, MO)

So let me sum up.  What do we find in the intellectual, atheist, tea-totaler paradise?

• Many drunks and three places at which to buy alcohol in a town of 300
• Disobedient and rebellious children
• Abundance of foul language
• Promiscuity
• Feticide (What else do you think happens when promiscuity leads to unwanted pregnancy?  Today, it would be abortion)
• Slander
• Prostitution (see below)

Now granted, the author was a preacher.  Why should we believe him?  Because he was taken to court twice for slander and damages and twice exonerated.

The Infidels are Offended

The residents of Liberal didn’t take such criticisms lying down.

As one can imagine, Braden’s comments did not sit well with some of the townspeople of Liberal. In fact, a few days after Braden’s observations appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he was arrested for criminal libel and tried on May 18, 1885. According to Braden, “After the prosecution had presented their evidence, the case was submitted to the jury without any rebutting evidence by the defence (sic), and the jury speedily brought in a verdict of ‘No cause for action’” (as quoted in Mouton, n.d., pp. 36-37).

So they had him arrested, but without even presenting a defense, the JURY said “no case.”  But that wasn’t the end of it.

On the following day (May 19, 1885), a civil suit was filed by one of the townsmen – S.C. Thayer, a hotel operator in Liberal. The petition for damages of $25,000 alleged that Clark Braden and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an article in which they had made false, malicious, and libelous statements against the National Hotel in Liberal, managed by Mr. Thayer. He claimed that Braden’s remarks, published in the St. Louise Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, “greatly and irreparably injured and ruined” his
business (Thayer v. Braden). However, when the prosecution learned that the defense was thoroughly prepared to prove that Liberal was a den of infamy, and that its hotels were little more than houses of prostitution, the suit was dismissed on  September 17, 1886 by the plaintiff at his own cost (Thayer v. Braden). Braden was exonerated in everything he had written. Indeed, the details Braden originally reported about Liberal, Missouri, on May 2, 1885 were found to be completely factual.

LOL!  Completely factual!  But the proof is in the pudding.  Did people want to live and move there?

Nobody wants to live in Liberal

Again, we have the report of Braden, who probably spun it a little, but still…

It took only a few short years for Liberal’s unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed….Only five years after its  establishment, Braden indicated that “[n]ine-tenths of those now in town would leave if they could sell their property. More property has been lost by locating in the town than has been made in it…. Hundreds have been deceived and injured and ruined financially”….

Walsen Has Change of Heart about Atheism

One report has it that Walsen became a spiritualist

Walser and others became ardent converts of spiritualism, and he spent $40,000 laying out a camp meeting ground of thirteen acres, with twenty cottages, and auditorium seating 800 people, and grounds landscaped with catalpa trees.  In addition he built a magnificent home for himself and called it Catalpa Park.  On these elaborate camp grounds a number of international conventions of spiritualism were held, attended by as many as 2,000 converts.  Walser died in 1910, a firm believer in the spiritualistic cult. (Sikeston (Missouri) Herald, December 1, 1938)

Yet another source reports that he may have actually become a Christian towards the end of his life, and this point is supported by the fact the he published a book entitled The Life and Teachings of Jesus.

When he died in May 1910, the funeral was held at his home and there were remembrances and music. Then there were excerpts read from a book titled The Life and Teachings of Jesus. It was published in 1909, and the author was Walser. He was, he wrote, a converted infidel.

By surviving accounts, he didn’t try to push his new beliefs on others. But he did write the book, a remarkable document from someone who once said that Christianity and the Bible were the crude reasoning of primitive man. He had searched for hope during his life through materialism, atheism, agnosticism and spiritualism but had found none.

Walser wrote in the book that he had “wandered in the desert of disbelief, waded in the river of doubt, and in the sands of desolation.” But near the end of his life he found hope. Jesus was the son of God, Walser concluded, and the Holy Ghost was the infinite spirit of our maker. “We should study the chart which Jesus has given us,” Walser said. (Kansas City Star on Saturday, December 22, 2001)

Today

Today, the town is a normal town with very little evidence of its history.  There are seven churches (all Christian) in the town of about 800, and it is the second largest city in the county.  And very few remember the late 1800′s, and the ignominious beginning of the town.

But this utopian atheist experiment, like the others we’ve seen on a national scale in our lifetimes (Mao, Stalin), proves again the point that when man shuns the God of the Bible, he declines into moral and social chaos, if not cruelty.  The paragraph below is for all of you atheists who think that a society can be run on atheism.  Re-read the story of Liberal and weep, because you are spiritually and intellectually lost.

But, as one young resident of that town, Bessie Thompson, wrote about Liberal in 1895, “…like all other unworthy causes, it had its day and passed away.” Bessie did not mean that the actual town of Liberal ceased to exist, but that the idea of having a “good, godless” city is a contradiction in terms….

It appears that even committed atheists found living in Liberal in the early days intolerable. Truly, as has been observed in the past, “An infidel surrounded by Christians may spout his infidelity and be able to endure it, but a whole town of atheists is too horrible to contemplate.” It is one thing to espouse a desire to live in a place where there is no God, but it is an entirely different thing for such a place actually to exist. For it to become a reality is more than the atheist can handle.

Here’s how to shut down opposing viewpoints.  However, when your opponent takes such actions, there is a positive opportunity as well:

1. Ignore them: The first and simplest response is to ignore your opposition, communicating to them and others that their claims are beneath consideration.
   Positive: This keeps you “under the radar,” and gives you relative obscurity while you develop your ideas and organization.
2. Marginalize them: Cast them as a fringe minority – “out of the mainstream” – “only those on the fringes” believe such things – “these people are a little extreme.”
   Positive: In response to this, you may leverage this level of engagement by responding “I am glad that you have said that I am marginal, it shows that you do not understand my position nor the level of support it has.”  This can be an open door to further explanation of your ideas.
3. Question their facts: Rather than engage their ideas, try to undermine confidence in their facts, and their reliability.
   Positive: At this point, you have begun to argue with reason and facts, and you can then begin to discuss the voracity of their facts, and discuss experimental assumptions and methods openly.
4. Dismissal: This is largely done through what I have previously described as Fait Accompli.  They trot out the line that the argument is over, and everyone who matters has already agreed – you are opposing settled consensus (think “global warming orthodoxy” or “evolution”)
   Positive: “You can be sure that when people start arguing ‘the argument is over,’ it is just beginning in earnest.”
5. Ad hominem attacks: Attack your opponent’s character rather than his ideas.  Anything to divert people from listening to their ideas.  One particularly common method is to associate your opponents with known extremists or crazy people, something I have called using a False Analogy – it’s a type of “guilt by association” attack, except there is no real association.
   Positive: When your opponent stoops to this, you know that they are getting fearful.  In public and political life, ad hominem attacks are a sign that your opponent is weak, and has weak counter arguments.
6. Restrict their ability to communicate: If you limit the forums in which they can speak, like shutting them out of big media outlets, or professional societies, they basically end up talking to themselves.  You can also inhibit their communications by forcing them to water down their message, or, for example, share time with opposing viewpoints (e.g. the Fairness Doctrine).
   Positive: This is the onset of full combat, and your opponent is now grasping by using brute force.  Wright gives the example of Heidi Cullen, a Weather Channel meteorologist who suggested that fellow meteorologists that reject global warming should have their credentials revoked.  This is brute force shutting down of opposing viewpoints.  But opponents of dissent can also do things like refuse tenure to accomplished professors.
7. Legally prohibit them from communicating: This last, brute force step is to make the speech of your opponents illegal.  Such things as “hate speech” laws are an effective example of this type of free speech and thought control (this excludes, of course, direct incitement of violence).
   Positive: When it gets to this point, there is not much positive going on – you have a battle between totalitarian control and freedom.

Now, what is not considered in this article is what you do when a vocal minority is actually pushing a falsehood.  However, in either case, what you should do is not stoop to any of these methods but argue reasonably and try to sway public consensus.  And sometimes, it does make sense to ignore nut jobs.  But if there are enough of them, you sometimes have to act.

1. Many who claim to have been transformed by Christ’s love
are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While you may
ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that the hatred these people
feel comes directly from the Bible. How do I know this? Because the
most deranged of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.

While he does not want to ascribe this to human nature, I do, but not
in the simple manner he probably is thinking of. At any given time, a
significant proportion of xians are spiritually immature – either
because they are new, or because they live in one of the many blighted
churches that perpetuate spiritual immaturity (see Why Most Churches Suck). 

New converts to any new ideology need structure and don’t like
challenges to their faith. I’d say that much of the "murderous"
criticism he recieves is probably in large part due to immaturity.
However, he also says that he thinks it comes from the bible, not just
immature people. However, he ought to read the bible to determine that,
rather than depend on the people he is offending. And usually, the
mature people don’t oft respond – as the bible says, wisdom lies
quietly in the heart of the wise.

2. We agree that, if one of us is right, then the other is wrong. 

What follows is his list of bifurcated issues which I find to be
mistaken – I mean, by his logic, if he proves ONE thing wrong with my
view or right with his, then I must agree with him. That’s a bad trick
of logic, whether he knows it or not. I’ll give you some examples,
below.

a. The Bible either is the word of God, or it isn’t.
Well, it depends entirely on what you mean by "the word of God." If you
define it too narrowly, it will be easy to disprove. For example, let’s
say I believe that the 1611 King James version of the bible is
word-for-word the "word of God." Well, if that is my definition, it
will be easy to disprove. The question would then be, does that
invalidate all other translations? Probably. Then what about new
manusripts that prove that parts of the KJV were not translated
correctly? Damn! The Bible is no longer the word of God! So right off,
I’m not buying into his obvious trap.

b. Either Jesus offers humanity the one, true path to salvation (John 14:6), or he does not. We agree that to be a real Christian is to believe that all other faiths are in error and profoundly so.
First, we must agree on what the word "salvation" means – scripture
talks about salvation of the soul, of the spirit, and the destruction
of the body. So while we may find healing and relief for our souls in
the truths of psychology or self-realization via Buddhism, this is
perhaps not the type of salvation we would be talking about when
talking about Jesus being the only way.

Secondly, as I have mentioned occaisionally (but I should write a
whole article on this), there are two types of truth, empirical and
revealed. Empirical truths, like the truth of sowing and reaping
(a.k.a. karma), are shared by all enduring systems of faith. Anyone can
divine these spiritual principles from observation and experimentation.
However, revealed truths, like what happens after we die, can only be
taken on faith – so you have to choose whom you believe, if anyone.

So you can believe the revealed truths of xianity without assigning
all other faith systems to the scrapyard – in fact, since Buddhism
focuses much more on observation, they actually have as much or more
empirical truth to share than xianity. So I can choose to believe
xianity’s revealed truths, while garnering empirical truths from it and
other faiths. So I don’t buy into his strict either/or equation -
again, it’s a cheap trap. Unfortunately, most xians do not make this
distinction between types of truth, and are therefore forced logically
to say that all other faiths are made up of lies, or at best, are lies
clothed in truth to fool people (as it is written, the Devil clothes
himself as an angel of light).

c. If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I
should expect to suffer the torments of hell. Worse still, I have
persuaded others, many close to me, to persist in a state of unbelief.
They, too, will languish in "everlasting fire" (Matthew 25:41). If the claims of Christianity are true, I will have realized the worst possible outcome of a human life.
Well, no argument there.

3. Every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you now have for being a Christian.

This is not a bad objection, that most groups who trust in their
scriptures treat them as the "word of god." However, I believe xianity
not merely because of this, but for other reasons, including:

• it’s soteriology – that is, it’s emphasis on salvation as a gift,
  not by works. No other system of faith, not judaism (arguably),
  buddhism, or islam works this way (pun intended). None other is so
  freeing and truly shows both the kindness and justice of the divine,
  not discarding either.
• it deals well with real world issues like guilt, forgiveness, restitution, justice, relationships, you name it.
• it translates well into civil government (see Cultural Mandate at wikipedia)
• it is well validated historically
• while it does have some supernatural stuff in it, it doesn’t
  involve worship of elephants or people with 6 arms or a man who went on
  jihads. Now, you might have some objections to the xian supernatural
  stuff, but that’s just my perspective on this one.

For the record, there are different types of "biblical literalists". I’m sure he is taking on Biblicists primarily, and not those who are less stringent like the Contextual Literalists.

4. Muslims are convinced that Muhammad’s pronouncements on these subjects, as on all others, are infallible.

One of the unique features of xianity is that Jesus claimed to be even
more than Muhammad, and lived an amazing life AND rose from the dead to
prove his point. Muhammad lived a life of treachery and sexual
perversion, and is now dead.

I’ve never heard a Muslim sing "Mohammed set me free", mostly
because Islam is a religion of bondage to the law. But you can find
millions who will tell you that Jesus set them free – just because Joe
Murderer tells you that his way is the only way doesn’t invalidate
anyone else’s similar claim. Each should be looked at for it’s value
proposition – that’s what reason is for, and why reason should be used
not only to invalidate sources of faith, but to validate. Perhaps the
author should read my essay Dangers is the Search for Truth – sounds like he has gone afoul of at least one principle.

I understand the author’s problem with everyone claiming that their
way is the only way, but that does not mean they are all wrong – some
claims are more credible than others, and logically, ONE or NONE could
be right. And Jesus backed up his claims.

So when the author asks "Why don’t you find these claims convincing?
Why don’t you lose any sleep over whether or not you should convert to
Islam?" – there’s your answer. And that’s a simple answer. The author
should go read some of Lee Strobel’s books if he can’t tell the
difference between these claims. But maybe he’s just playing Devil’s
advocate.

5. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way
every Muslim views Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.

That is a valid objection, and a good perspective to consider. I have
and will continue to consider the infallibility claims of the
scriptures, and they are not without their difficulties. That does not
invalidate the xian message, but it does make you consider how you
approach the scriptures. However, you don’t have to go to the extreme
liberal side, where you choose what you do and do not like. You can
still use logic and reason to determine how to interpret and apply
scripture.

6. But just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy could be if it were actually the product of omniscience.

Well, now he goes on a long tirade about how HE would do prophecy if he
were God. I understand his argument – that the vague nature of biblical
prophecy can be done without any special knowledge, so what makes
people think it is so exact and convincing? Well, I’m sure it is not as
exact as he would like it, but that doesn’t mean that it is all inexact
- some of it is pretty specific.

Part of the lack of exactness of it
may have to do with the possibility that while certain events are set
in time, others are not and depend on human agency. You might want to
check out What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge.  God’s omniscience doesn’t mean that he knows what you are going to do next…or does he?  :)

His following littany of "why doesn’t God tell us how to cure
suffering like cancer if he is kind and omniscient" is understandable -
it is the age old, and probably most serious challenge to faith – the
problem of evil. Where did it come from, why did God allow it, why
doesn’t he DO something? There are answers to such questions, none of
them totally satisfactor in my opinion.

However, my approach is thus –

• There are some questions that I *have* answered for myself, and these
  keep me in faith – just because I can’t understand some things doesn’t
  mean that the answers I do have are invalid. There are a lot of reasons
  to believe, even if all questions aren’t answered.
• We must not just ask the question "does it make sense to me,
  and do I like it" but "is it true?" Those are not the same question.
• We may need a different perspective. We could ask "how could a
  loving God allow someone to go to (or choose) hell?" Alongside that, we
  should also ask "how could a loving and JUST God allow anyone who has
  sinned into heaven at all?" – Our idea of what is good and just is contaminated with our own
  self-interest and need to justify our sinfullness as "not that bad."
  This is why, in the story of the Rich Young Ruler (Luke 18:18-24),
  Jesus challenges his idea of good, because he thinks he is good enough
  to get in as he is, being a "good" person. "There is none good but God"
  is Jesus’ definition of good. There is a chance that God will give everyone another chance before
  the judgment, and after their death when they realize that Jesus is
  real, and the true way. However, scripture does not indicate that.
• This comparison might help.  If God was loving, would he let children starve to death? – The fact is, children do starve to death. So either God is not real
  or loving, or there is another answer – and that answer could be that
  God has given us free will, and we have perverted it, and WE allow
  children to die because of our wickedness.  Same line of reasoning can be applied to the question "if God loves
  us, how could he create anyone he KNEW was going to hell?" Becuase
  maybe it’s just not his fault.
• What does God know? – The reality of both predestination and free will is a paradox. But
  many theologians have suggested that while God knows the outcome of
  things because he is outside of time, he does NOT know in this moment
  what you or I will choose.  Again, you might want to check out What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge

7. I would point out, however, that billions of other human
beings, in every time and place, have had similar experiences-but they
had them while thinking about Krishna, or Allah, or the Buddha, while
making art or music, or while contemplating the sheer beauty of nature.
There is no question that it is possible for us to have profoundly
transformative experiences. And there is no question that it is
possible for us to misinterpret these experiences and to further delude
ourselves about the nature of the universe.

Valid point. That doesn’t invalidate anyone’s experiences, and neither
does it invalidate xianity. And many have converted between these
systems, so perhaps they found something wanting in their older system
of belief, and maybe some experiences are more profound than others.
Why else would they convert?