tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122473822024-03-13T07:17:43.409-07:00Weblog of a Christian philosophy studentWeblog of a Christian philosophy student. Please feel free to comment. All of my posts are public domain. Subscribe to posts [<a href="http://joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default">Atom</a>]. Email me at countaltair [at] yahoo.com.au.
I also run a Chinese to English translation business at <a href="http://www.willfanyi.com">www.willfanyi.com</a>.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.comBlogger200125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-22215727067872490552013-06-14T19:59:00.000-07:002013-06-14T20:02:39.824-07:00Calvinism and Arminianism: 5 viewsFor those of you who don't know what Arminianism and Calvinism are, that's good. This is a knotty theological debate and there's been many a Bible discussion I've been in where a Calvinist and Arminian have butted theological heads. To sum up the debate quickly, a Calvinist is like 'See those non-Christians? That's not God's incompetence, that was intentional' and an Arminian is like 'Why, oh why, does humanity resist the gospel?'<br />
<br />
Here are 5 kinds of views about this difficult theological debate that I collected earlier.<br />
<br />
<div class="p1">
'Compatibilist' Calvinism</div>
<div class="p1">
'Free Will' Calvinism</div>
<div class="p1">
‘Mysterious’ Arminianism</div>
<div class="p1">
'Works-Response' Arminianism</div>
<div class="p1">
'Semi-Pelagian' Arminianism</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Here's a chart summarising each view, with more of an explanation below:</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cjkNHQvLVOk/UbvPzzE9MJI/AAAAAAAAAKc/CLupq-_GkUE/s1600/Summary+chart.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cjkNHQvLVOk/UbvPzzE9MJI/AAAAAAAAAKc/CLupq-_GkUE/s400/Summary+chart.png" height="103" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<b>Compatibilist Calvinism</b></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
We can totally define free will and that free will is 'compatibilist' free will. That is, although humans have the freedom to choose our desires within the personality God gave us, we can’t go outside our original personality and choose what desires to have outside of that. We can only do what's in our nature, which creates our desires, and God is the author of our nature. Regardless, God is not responsible for our sin because free will = choosing within our desires, which creates human responsibility.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
My comments: it explains free will at the cost of making it into something that isn't that great (compatibilism). If I was a Calvinist I would choose the position below.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<b>Free will Calvinism</b></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
People have a kind of free will that we can't define rationally, so there is an ability for people to do other than they in fact do. This doesn't contradict, however, Ephesians 2:5 which says that we are dead in trespasses and sins. As we can't think in a totally loving way, so then no one wants to join God's heavenly kingdom - although they may think they do, no one could choose such a thing. Everyone freely chooses to be separated from God in a CS Lewisian sense of hell, or the Twilight Zone's 'A Nice Place to Visit' (episode) sense. But for some people, God violates our desire to spend eternity in our own style and makes us desire to be with Him forever, according to a selection of grace which is not based on works.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
My comments: I think this is the most reasonable Calvinism, because we do have a genuine kind of free will, so we are responsible even though no one comes to Jesus without God calling them, and when God saves us He's actually going against our free desire to be separated from God.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
(I would also add (if I was thinking of being a free will Calvinist) that if humanity had been in the Garden of Eden we would all have made Adam's choice. Therefore, our desire to separate from God isn't a result of God being a bit ‘inconsiderate’ and letting us 'Soz guys, Adam represents y'all'-style fall under original sin, but it would have also been our choice if we had been there. I think of it like Adam's free will was more protected than our free will, but he can still go off the railway tracks. E.g. in Adam's style of freedom God is sort of like a good angel sitting on our shoulder and saying, 'Really Adam? Do you really want to light fire to that forest? What about all those animals?' (for example) in favour of a free will where there is no shield, no protection given internally in our thoughts from God against selfishness, so we can become the worst devil quite easily with nothing to hold us back).</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<b>‘Mysterious’ Arminianism</b></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
People have a kind of free will that we can't define rationally, so there is an ability for people to do other than they in fact do. Like the free will Calvinist, a ‘mysterious’ Arminian accepts Ephesians 2:5 which says that we are dead in trespasses and sins, and so we cannot choose to come to God. But here is the difference with Calvinism: God performs a miracle on <b>everyone</b> when they hear the gospel, so that in that moment and only after that moment do they have the ability to accept Christ - i.e. <b>everyone</b> but <b>by miracle</b>. And here is the difference with other kinds of Arminianism: the choice to come to Christ has nothing to do with our personality or character. So no one gets an advantage in accepting Christ over another person, or suffers a disadvantage in accepting Christ compared to another person. A really nice guy doesn't get an advantage in accepting Christ over a psychopath. Someone who loves blindly accepting everything their culture says doesn't get an advantage of an inveterate skeptic. The decision to accept Christ completely transcends (goes over and above) personality and character. A person rejects or accepts <i>without respect</i> to their personality or character (works). And yet the response comes from them.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
My comments: because this last part is so hard to understand I call this 'mysterious Arminianism'. It does, however, avoid the 'Pelagian issue'. My view.</div>
<div class="p2">
<b></b><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<b>Works-Response Arminianism</b></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
People have a kind of free will that we can't define rationally, so there is an ability for people to do other than they in fact do. Like the free will Calvinist, a Works-Response Arminian accepts Ephesians which says that we are dead in trespasses and sins, and cannot choose to come to God. Similarly to 'mysterious' Arminianism, God performs a miracle on everyone when they hear the gospel so that everyone can come to Christ despite our deadness in trespasses and sins. But unlike with mysterious Arminianism, our ability to respond to God's offer of salvation does relate to our personality and character. So the person who loves blindly accepting everything people tell them does get a better shot at eternal happiness than the skeptic. The good person gets a better shot than the psychopath. It's not a really reliable correlation, so yeah, feel free to go and preach to that crazy guy, but our own goodness does help us accept God. That is, our works do come into whether we reject God's grace - but <b>only after</b> God's power makes the offer available.</div>
<div class="p2">
<b></b><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<b>Semi-Pelagian Arminianism</b></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<div class="p1">
People have a kind of free will that we can't define rationally, so there is an ability for people to do other than they in fact do. Unlike the free will Calvinist and the other forms of Arminianism above, we are not so dead in trespasses and sins that we cannot initiate a relationship with God. We have a desire for God and seek Him out. People want His grace even though they haven't been offered it yet. We still need grace to be saved, of course, but we don't need grace to <b>accept</b> the offer of grace, if that makes sense. It's like accepting a briefcase with a million dollars in it - I don't need help receiving the briefcase full of cash, but I definitely couldn't have gotten it on my own.</div>
Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-54059679774470743712013-02-18T14:51:00.000-08:002013-03-08T22:18:48.580-08:00上帝的恩典:四个方面Four Areas of Grace translated into Chinese (Simplified)<br />
<br />
<div class="p1">
I've been learning Chinese for a while now, so I thought that I would try translating some of my favourite posts into Chinese. This one, called 'Four Areas of God's Grace', is one of them, click this <a href="http://joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/four-areas-of-grace.html" target="_blank">link</a> to see the English version.</div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="t1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="td1" valign="top"><div class="p1">
上帝的恩典:四个方面</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
基督教的这个<span class="s1">‘</span>恩典<span class="s1">’</span>的主意包括很多内容。我觉得基督徒可以用四个方面去分析上帝的恩典。</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">1</span>。救恩的恩典</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
马太福音<span class="s1">26:39 </span>祂稍往前走,俯伏在地上祷告:<span class="s1">“</span>我父啊!如果可以,求你撤去此杯。然而,愿你的旨意成就,而非我的意愿<span class="s1">."</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
约翰<span class="s1">19:30: </span>耶稣尝了那醋酒,然后说:<span class="s1">“</span>成了!<span class="s1">”</span>就垂下头来,将灵魂交给了上帝<span class="s1">.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
启示录<span class="s1">21:6: "</span>祂又对我说:<span class="s1">“</span>一切都成了!我是阿拉法,我是俄梅加<span class="s1"> </span>;我是开始,我是终结。我要将生命泉的水白白赐给口渴的人<span class="s1">."</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
这些经文是怎么看救恩呢?为一个无偿礼物吧。通过分析看来,我觉得其主意合于以下的体系:</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">1</span>。人都不能完全履行<span class="s1">‘</span>爱邻如己<span class="s1">’</span>的原则。所以,人都<span class="s1">‘</span>错过<span class="s1">’</span>让人永远与上帝同在的条件。</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">2</span>。上帝在十字架独自的全然解决了这个问题了。这个救恩呢,连一番帮助人也都没给上帝了。</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">3</span>。想要与上帝同在的人,不是在上帝的牺牲寄托期望,就是在自己的能力寄托期望。前者是让人去上帝的。</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
基督教的所谓<span class="s1">‘</span>恩典<span class="s1">’</span>跟人类的<span class="s1">‘</span>送给别人的免费的无偿的礼物<span class="s1">’</span>享有不可分离的联想。是基督教的去上帝的路。</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">2</span>。接受上帝的恩典的恩典</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
以弗所书<span class="s1">2:4-5: </span>然而上帝有丰富的怜悯,祂深爱我们,<span class="s1"> 5</span>尽管我们死在过犯之中,祂仍然使我们和基督一同活了过来。你们得救是因为上帝的恩典。</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
罗马书<span class="s1">11:6: </span>既然说是出于恩典,就不再基于行为,不然又怎能算是恩典呢?</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
想象你有两位朋友。他们的性格,方式,品格截然不同。一个是充满着傲气的不为别人着想的,另外个是个天使。如果你很像我的话你只是跟那个<span class="s1">‘</span>天使<span class="s1">’</span>的朋友传福音。为什么呢?是因为说人的思想的话救恩和善事很难划分出来。我的意思是,很多人认为,如果你是个好心人,容易相信别人,等等的话你要相当容易接受基督教。这个思想相等于很方便的性格带给人接受福音的帮助。</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
以上的经文,你觉得怎么样呢?我觉得是这样子:上帝尽爱人类甚至于他不肯任何人的不方便性格和方式作为个碍事。上帝的能力也有效甚至于没有人享有<span class="s1">‘</span>去上帝的优惠<span class="s1">’</span>。你可以问我,是怎么回事的?我也不知到。但是你可想而知为什么以上的经文带给我这个印象。</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">3</span>。让人做善事的恩典</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
腓立比<span class="s1">1:6: </span>我深信,上帝既然在你们心里开始了这美好的工作,祂必在耶稣基督再来的时候完成这工作。</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
希伯来书<span class="s1">13:21: </span>在各样善事上成全你们,好使你们遵行祂的旨意,并借着主耶稣在你们心中动工,使你们做祂喜悦的事!愿荣耀归给上帝,直到永永远远。阿们!</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
以上的经文,读者,你的印象如何?就我来说,基督徒侍奉上帝的有所善事,根本是因为上帝赐给恩典。就是说,通过上帝的恩典,基督徒才能取得侍奉上帝的机会-从此既上帝的恩典又侍奉上帝的善事都归于上帝的能量和荣耀。</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">4</span>。上帝守护基督徒的信仰的恩典</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
歌林多前<span class="s1">10:13: </span>你们遇见的诱惑无非是人们常见的。上帝是信实的,祂绝不会让你们遇见无法抵挡的诱惑,祂必为你们开一条出路,使你们经得住诱惑。</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
有的时候基督徒判断离开基督教的人,说我比他们的保护自己的信仰的能力强得多。但是,以上的经文做个提醒,基督徒的信仰不是自己保护的。上帝是保护者。每个基督徒都要面临挑战(而不是没有收获的挑战)但是胜负由于上帝提供的以上的<span class="s1">‘</span>出路<span class="s1">’</span>,不是我们比别人强的态度。上帝一定要提供出路,我们的责任和能力都在于用不用其路。</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-66405729643889782152012-04-22T17:25:00.001-07:002012-04-22T18:39:58.402-07:00Can we subject God to questioning?Something that always perplexed me about the Book of Job is that it seems God doesn't consider Himself accountable to His creatures.<br />
<br />
From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job">Wikipedia</a>:<br />
<br />
<i>God's speech also emphasizes his sovereignty in creating and maintaining the world. The thrust is not merely that God has experiences that Job does not, but that God is king over the world and is not necessarily subject to questions from his creatures, including men. The point of these speeches is to proclaim the absolute freedom of God over His creation. God is not in need of the approval of his creation. It is only the reader of the book who learns of God's conversations with Satan; Job himself remains unaware of the reason or source of his sufferings. The traditional interpretation is that, humbled by God's chastising, Job turns speechless, giving up and repenting his previous requests of justice. However, another interpretation is that Job's silence is defiant, and that what he gives up is not his belief that justice be done, but his confidence that God will behave justly.</i><br />
<br />
I don't mean that God has no good reason to allow suffering. God may have a fantastic reason. My concern was I didn't understand why we can't hold God to account.<br />
<br />
For example, surely if you had a child who was suffering, while their parent was standing around and could seemingly assist that child, then it would be reasonable to demand that the parent explain their inaction. Maybe the parent has an excellent reason, e.g. the pain involved in the medical operation was necessary for the child's future health. But, at least with parents, courts can demand an explanation for apparently negligent actions.<br />
<br />
It occurred to me that one way to justify the Book of Job's position might come from the definition of God.<br />
<br />
Consider these verses:<br />
<br />
<b>James 1:13: "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"</b><br />
<br />
<b>Titus 1:2: "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago"</b><br />
<br />
<b>Hebrews 6:18: "God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged."</b><br />
<br />
They seem to say that God is unable, not just unwilling, to sin (maybe because sin means acting on some untruth, and truth is so firmly planted in God that He cannot so act).<br />
<br />
If you define God as a being who is unable - not just unwilling, but unable - to commit evil, then asking God whether or not He is committing evil seems a bit silly. It would be like defining a triangle as an object with three sides and then asking why there is no fourth side. E.g. the answer why there is no fourth side is that a triangle can only have three sides. Similarly, if God is defined as unable to do evil, then you already know whether that particular God has committed evil before you even ask the question.<br />
<br />
Under the definition of God as a being who is unable to commit evil, it's fair to say that you shouldn't demand that God tell you whether He is committing evil. Why? Because, with that assumption, the question doesn't make sense. If you already accept that God is unable to do evil, then the answer has to be: God didn't commit evil.<br />
<br />
So I suppose you can make an argument that if you are running with view that God is unable to commit evil, then you shouldn't question God because the question is nonsensical.<br />
<br />
Applying this to Job, one main difference is that even though the Bible tells us that God is unable to commit evil, by looking at the world we can have some doubt about that. So are we really in the position of being able to say God cannot commit evil before we discuss the problem of suffering?<br />
<br />
If we can't start off with that assumption, then you can't say that questioning God is nonsensical.<br />
<br />
I would say that if we look at the world, then yes, we don't know that God is a being who is unable to commit evil, but consider the issue from the point-of-view of a God who is unable to commit evil and created the world. According to this God's point-of-view, He is allowed to disagree with our negative impression. For this God knows the real situation. So from that God's point-of-view, maybe He is allowed to say, 'Well, if you knew the truth, then you would know it is nonsensical to question me', and put forth this view to His creations.<br />
<br />
In summing up, I think that for people who don't know that God cannot commit evil, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to question God. But this doesn't take away from the fact that from God's point-of-view, questioning His goodness is literally nonsensical (assuming us Christians are right), on the basis of inability. That is, on the basis that God is unable to do evil, it makes no sense to ask whether God did evil. So I suppose that God could in this way have a right to tell people they are unable to question His ethical conduct.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-46611410585322675002012-03-03T13:45:00.004-08:002012-03-04T19:55:20.014-08:00Analogies and weak atheismA lot of atheists make a distinction between 'strong' and 'weak' atheism. 'Strong' atheism is where you claim there is no God. 'Weak' atheism is where there is no evidence for or against a God's existence, so the 'default position' is you go about life without any belief in God, with the help of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor">Occam's razor</a> (note that specific ideas of God may have lots of evidence against them, but the general idea of a God is neutral).<br /><br />Atheist thinkers have given us a number of analogies to support weak atheism. A famous one is that we all assume there is no teapot flying around the Sun because there is no evidence for any such teapot. Not thinking there is a teapot flying around the Sun is the default position. Some argue it's the same with God.<br /><br />But I don't think this analogy is appropriate because the claim, 'There is a teapot flying around the Sun', is not a 'no evidence for, no evidence against' 'default-position' issue. In addition to no evidence in favour of a teapot, there is a lot of evidence against it.<br /><br />One piece of evidence against the teapot claim is that there seems to be no way for a teapot to get out into space unless some astronaut has put it there. But it seems unlikely that an astronaut has ever thrown a teapot into space which has found a stable orbit around the sun.<br /><br />This means the teapot analogy is not really a good analogy to express weak atheism, because it doesn't express well the situation of something having no evidence for or against it. The teapot analogy is a situation where there is overwhelming evidence against something (the teapot's existence). But God's existence, in weak atheism, is a claim where there is no evidence for or against, and then Occam's razor gives you a bit of evidence against and that's it (although specific ideas of God may have more problems).<br /><br />So the 'teapot' analogy only works if the idea of God has a lot of evidence against it and no evidence for it.<br /><br />But if the idea of God's existence receives little evidence either way, then an analogy which is supposed to show what belief in God is like needs to be the same.<br /><br />But it's actually quite hard to find such analogies, because most claims with no evidence for them also have evidence against them. Such as the fairies at the bottom of the well analogy (how could fairies come to exist except by divine intervention?) and the flying spaghetti monster analogy.<br /><br />I think an appropriate one would be that believing in God if there's no evidence either way is like someone believing that there exists a place in Melbourne where an standard sized cappuccino cup of coffee costs $6. On the one hand, that is extremely expensive for an ordinary cup of coffee, but, on the other hand, Melbourne is a large city and maybe there's a place somewhere that charges that much. So perhaps this is an example of a claim with no real evidence for or against it.<br /><br />Do I believe that such a place doesn't exist? Well, I don't really know. I wouldn't say that I believe no such place exists, because the truth is I just don't know. I wouldn't tell anyone that no such place exists in Melbourne because I don't have enough information either way to judge. I must be very agnostic about whether that place exists.<br /><br />Another example would be someone believing there is an ocean-going cruise ship currently docked in Melbourne's harbour right now without having consulted any information. According to the <a href="http://www.portofmelbourne.com/">Port of Melbourne</a> website it is a common occurrence but there are more days without an ocean going cruise ship docked than with one (although the website can actually answer my question, but let's imagine it can't). But if someone forced me to give an opinion, although I would say there probably isn't one docked, my confidence about it would be very low.<br /><br />I think this shows that if we are really careful to use an analogy where there is little evidence for or against the existence of something, then we are pushed towards a very agnostic view. Our confidence will not be great.<br /><br />Also, we can see that many analogies used to support weak atheism often involve a fair amount of evidence against and not just a lack of evidence for, and that these analogies indicate a less agnostic, more confident position than more evidence neutral analogies would.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-87730060457746407222011-12-17T22:24:00.000-08:002011-12-17T22:27:05.851-08:00Why can't God just forgive sin?People sometimes ask: why can't God just forgive sin? Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for us?<br /><br />My answer to this would be that there are two kinds of forgiveness, one of which is a lot more 'powerful' than the other, and God needed to use this second, more powerful kind of forgiveness. Moreover, giving this kind of forgiveness required Jesus to die on the cross.<br /><br />How so?<br /><br />Imagine a thief who keeps stealing some guy's stuff - let's say John's stuff. John is so nice that whenever the thief steals from him, he forgives the thief. But the thief never changes his behaviour. John can forgive the thief all he wants, but it doesn't stop the thieve from stealing. Forgiving the thief doesn't make the thief a better person.<br /><br />John's kind of forgiveness could be called the first kind.<br /><br />The story shows that John's kind of forgiveness doesn't do that much. John's forgiveness won't make the thief stop stealing, it will only prevent John from seeking justice and might also relieve some emotional tension from his anger. John's kind of forgiveness won't change the thief's behaviour.<br /><br />If God's forgiveness is like John's forgiveness then God's forgiveness won't change people's behaviour. If God's forgiveness is like John's forgiveness then we'll act in heaven the way we do on earth. This could lead to heaven having such things as people really disliking one another, splits between different groups, cliques, and so on. Not really a great picture of heaven.<br /><br />The Christian idea is that to solve humanity's problems, God needed a more powerful 'second' kind of forgiveness - one that changes behaviour. That's the kind of forgiveness you need to really deal with humanity's issues.<br /><br />See Col 2:13: "You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins."<br /><br />The Bible says that when God forgave us He managed to change our behaviour as part of the forgiveness. Our sinful nature was 'cut away' by God's forgiveness, although we will still fight against it until Jesus comes (<a href="http://bible.cc/galatians/5-17.htm">Gal 5:17</a>).<br /><br />Imagine John forgiving the thief with such 'power' (somehow) that the thief decided never to steal again! That would be similar to the second kind of forgiveness.<br /><br />So how does it work?<br /><br />The Bible says that the mechanism for God's more powerful kind of forgiveness must involve Jesus dying for us (<a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/26-39.htm">Matt 26:39</a>). I'm not too clear on the details of how it works, but I suspect it involves some kind of exchange between sinners and Jesus. 1 Peter 2:24 says, "He personally carried our sins in his body on the cross so that we can be dead to sin and live for what is right. By his wounds you are healed", in Romans 6:6, "our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ", and in Gal 2:20, "It is no longer [my old sinful self] that lives, but Christ lives in me".Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-14851360173227164652011-11-21T22:26:00.000-08:002011-11-21T22:28:17.236-08:00Why didn't God only make people who would follow Him?God knows everything, right? So God knew who would choose not to follow Him and therefore who would go to hell. So God could, clearly, have prevented a lot of suffering by simply not creating those people. But God didn't.<br /><br />How does one respond to this issue?<br /><br />What I would say is that if it was that easy for God to solve the problem, then God would do so, based on verses like these:<br /><br />1 Tim 2:3-4: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."<br /><br />Ezekiel 33:11: "Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'"<br /><br />2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his word, as he seems to some, but he is waiting in mercy for you, not desiring the destruction of any, but that all may be turned from their evil ways."<br /><br />Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, putting to death the prophets, and stoning those who are sent to her! Again and again would I have taken your children to myself as a bird takes her young ones under her wings, and you would not!"<br /><br />Turning to philosophy, what I might conjecture is that God can make us knowing everything we'll do, but not use that knowledge to make or not make certain people.<br /><br />Creating a person could be a bit like flipping a coin that will come up 50/50 heads or tails. You can't make it go heads or tails. So just like I can't make a random coin toss always come up heads, God can't make people who will always choose a certain way.<br /><br />However, unlike flipping the coin God *does* know everything about us before we are born. So in that respect what we have here is something very unlike flipping a coin. God knows but this knowledge is not 'actionable', God can't avoid making the people who will choose badly.<br /><br />This is venturing further into speculation but it might be that once a soul exists God knows everything about it, including how it will choose in all possible situations. So once God guarantees that a soul will exist, God knows everything about it. However, without making the soul there is nothing can God know about it, because the knowing is based on that soul actually existing - not merely potentially existing. Because before it's created there is not a potential set of choices, there is actually no set of choices at all, because you need a real person to have a potential set of choices to look at, not a mere <i>idea</i> of a person.<br /><br />(I found <a href="http://christianthinktank.com/gr5part1.html">this</a> answer interesting as well).Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-14600877955763317802011-10-13T20:09:00.000-07:002011-10-13T20:19:26.587-07:00Classifying sinOne of the problems that people can have with Christianity is that what is considered sin sometimes doesn't resonate on an emotional level. So, for example, sins can be things like murder, rape, and assault, but people often include within sin many minor things, such as wasting one's time, being silly, liking certain kinds of music, etc which don't feel particularly wrong or evil.<br /><br />There is a problem with sins that do not feel very wrong (or wrong at all). This problem is that a Christian, in that situation, sort of has to force themselves to repent and to act like something is wrong, but they themselves do not actually feel it is really hurting anyone and so they cannot really make themselves feel, rather than think, it is wrong.<br /><br />I believe this could be an influence that motivates Christians to give up their faith, because people get tired of saying things are evil or sinful when they don't actually feel those acts hurt anyone.<br /><br />Here are some interesting verses written in Psalm 119 about this issue:<br /><br />18 Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.<br />27 Make me understand the way of your precepts, and I will meditate on your wondrous works.<br />33 Teach me, O LORD, the way of your statutes; and I will keep it to the end.<br /> 34 Give me understanding, and I will keep your law and obey it with all my heart.<br />73 Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.<br />125 I am your servant; give me discernment that I may understand your statutes.<br /><br />The psalmist prays specifically for understanding of God's laws, to see why they are right or how they make sense. So the psalmist is praying not to follow God's law out of an iron sense of obligation, but to follow it because they can say, 'I can actually agree with that command, I can see how that makes sense and is the right thing to do'. Then they can feel the rightness or wrongness of a command because it makes sense.<br /><br />So it seems that it's important to be able to rationally see how something is a sin if you say it is a sin, and for many people that means tracing it to some kind of harm - self-harm, harm of others, or harm of God.<br /><br />So one conclusion is that some things we consider sins may actually not be sins, and we are being too hard on ourselves, because we cannot trace it back to a rational basis. A verse that relates to this is from 1 Corinthians 4:6, where people in the church had been adding to what the Bible said:<br /><br /><i>"Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other."</i><br /><br />Another conclusion is that we can trace it to a rational basis after thinking about it a lot, and this will help us do it joyously rather than from inexplicable guilt, e.g. "I can see now how that action might be harmful in some way and why I shouldn't do it".Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-6679501157373095802011-09-24T17:42:00.000-07:002011-10-19T16:01:24.085-07:00God's sufferingOne thing that distinguishes Christianity from other religions is that in Christianity God is supposed to have experienced the evil and suffering that humanity experiences in everyday life. Jesus is supposed to be God in the same way that you are you, and I am myself (<a href="http://bible.cc/john/10-30.htm">John 10:30</a>, <a href="http://niv.scripturetext.com/mark/2.htm">Mark 2:5-12</a>, <a href="http://bible.cc/john/14-9.htm">John 14:9</a>). This means that although God hasn't taken away evil and suffering in this life, God has experienced a pretty broad range of evils and sufferings, which, I suppose, is more comforting than if it wasn't the case.<br /><br />The fact that God has suffered from the things that we go through means that God can more easily have empathy for what it's like, having been in our situation. God knows exactly what we're going through. God's ability to emphathise with our situation reminds me of John 11:33-5: "When Jesus saw her crying, and the Jews who were crying with her, he was deeply moved and troubled. So Jesus asked, "Where did you put Lazarus?" They answered him, "Lord, come and see." Jesus cried."<br /><br />An interesting aspect to God's suffering is whether Jesus on the cross experienced more than purely anguish at his situation and physical pain. When Jesus "bore our sins in his body on the tree" (<a href="http://bible.cc/1_peter/2-24.htm">1 Pe 2:24</a>), did this involve more than being crucified? One analogy I have heard about this is that you can imagine humanity's sins like a big pool of black sludge, and then this is somehow collected and poured onto Jesus on the cross.<br /><br />If so, then Jesus' crucifixion involved much more than the anguish of his situation and physical pain. It also involved the pain of carrying humanity's sins, which could be quite horrible. Carrying all of humanity's sins would be an act on a massive scale. It is also an act with a terrible nature - we don't know what it feels like to carry someone's sins, but it could be really horrible. Perhaps it is the most painful experience anyone can go through. And maybe Jesus was also spiritually separated from the first member of the trinity in some way while it happened (<a href="http://bible.cc/mark/15-34.htm">Mark 15:34</a>), which could be quite awful for God to undergo.<br /><br />Suppose this is correct, then perhaps God is the one who has suffered the most in the history of the world.<br /><br />This is a very surprising idea. Normally when we think of suffering we don't see God as an example of the miseries in the world. We might imagine a starving child in Africa, or someone with terrible chronic pain, or a victim of horrible evil. But, actually, according to this reasoning God is actually the person who has suffered the most in history. God's story is a good example of what it means to live in a world of pain and evil.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-85503650842299100622011-09-02T23:53:00.000-07:002011-09-03T21:16:49.208-07:00Is God pro-Western?A while ago I had a conversation with a Chinese friend who is not a Christian about Christianity, and one thing she felt was that Christianity seems to be a mainly Western religion, and we discussed whether most people in heaven will be Westerners. Western people throughout history seem to have had the best chance to hear the gospel and therefore perhaps an implication is that God prefers Westerners?
<br />
<br />There are various ways that one could take to answer this point. For instance, in Revelation 7:9 God emphasises His inclusiveness:
<br />
<br /><i>After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.</i>
<br />
<br />But I think it is interesting to reflect on how the future may be very different to the past. It's possible that by the time Jesus returns, Christianity will have become a much more significant presence in the East and South of the world compared to its North and West. Some statistics on its growth in the East-South from <a href="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/02/06/2042801/a-religious-revolution.html">here</a> say:
<br />
<br /><i>"In 1900, Europe and North America accounted for about 85 percent of the world's Christians. By 2050, that number will have shrunk to about 25 percent.
<br />
<br />During the same period, he said the number of Christians in Africa have, well, skyrocketed seems too tame a word. In 1900, there were 10 million; in 2000, 363 million. By 2015, Jenkins expects 500 million. And, by 2050, he predicted that Africa would become the first continent to have 1 billion Christians. Put another way: One of every three Christians in the world will be African - and that's not counting the Africans who will have moved to the United States or Europe."
<br />
<br />…"But by 2025, as Europe continues down the road of secularism, "Africa and Latin America will be jostling each other for (that) title," Jenkins said."</i>
<br />
<br />And from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China">here</a>:
<br />
<br /><i>"By 1949, out of an estimated population of 450 million, there were just over 500,000 baptized Protestant Christians. Anonymous internet columnist Spengler speculated in 2007 that Christianity could "become a Sino-centric religion two generations from now."
<br />The current number of Christians in China is disputed. The most recent official census enumerated 4 million Roman Catholics and 10 million Protestants. However, independent estimates have ranged from 40 million to 130 million Christians."</i>
<br />
<br />As this is happening, Christianity is suffering in the West. When people from non-Western cultures come to the West they sometimes assume that everyone is Christian or that the West is essentially a Christian society. This impression is way off base, although somewhat less off base with America which is quite a religious society. The West is now a post-Christian culture where church attendance and rates of serious Christian belief is dropping overall. From <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10-europe-religion-cover_x.htm">here</a>:
<br />
<br /><i>"Ireland is not an exception. Every major religion except Islam is declining in Western Europe, according to the Center for the Study on Global Christianity at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass. The drop is most evident in France, Sweden and the Netherlands, where church attendance is less than 10% in some areas."</i>
<br />
<br />So I would say that there is evidence that the proportion of non-Westerners versus Westerners who are Christian is steadily growing, so much so that some commentators say that Christianity will become a mainly non-Western religion within our lifetimes.
<br />
<br />A second important point on this is that it's only recently in human history that there have been billions of people living at any one time. See this <a href="http://www.heartoftheinitiate.com/images/library/articles/2012-revisited-graph.jpg">chart</a>.
<br />
<br />In 1000 AD there were 275 million people alive, in 1650 - 500 million, in 1800 - 1 billion, at 1930 - 2 billion, which has skyrocketed to 7 billion now, with 9 billion people expected to be alive in 2025.
<br />
<br />This matters because, to use a thought experiment, if 90% of Christians are Western in AD 1000 when there are 275 million people in the world, but 60% of Christians are non-Western in AD 2100 when there are 9+ billion people in the world, then which group has more Christians when you compare the two times? Obviously, the non-Western group would have more Christians by a massive margin, even though 60% is less impressive than 90%.
<br />
<br />This indicates that if the population of the world keeps getting larger, and Christianity completes the shift from a very Western-associated religion to a South or Eastern-associated religion, then more non-Westerners will have been Christian in history. Evidence from demographic changes can support this general view.
<br />
<br />So, in conclusion, it doesn't matter what the proportion of non-Western versus Western Christians are because, according to the Bible, God 'does not show favouritism' (<a href="http://bible.cc/romans/2-11.htm">Romans 2:11</a>). And someone from every ethnic/cultural/linguistic group will go to heaven (<a href="http://bible.cc/revelation/7-9.htm">Rev 7:9</a>). But I think you can reasonably believe that at the end of history Christianity will not be considered a mainly Western religion.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-32136056393652982662011-08-22T16:34:00.000-07:002011-08-22T16:39:12.578-07:00Mental illness, the Fall and stigmaI am studying Social Work (now) and in my social work class last Friday people were discussing the stigma against mental illness and how it comes about. Usually it comes about when people blame people with mental illness for their behaviours, for example, they might think to someone with depression, 'Why can't you just be more positive?' In this view, someone is responsible for being mentally ill because it does not get better due to the bad choices that person is making.
<br />
<br />I was reflecting on this stigma and I believe the idea of the Fall really takes away this stigma. In the idea of the Fall, there's an idea that because of our separation from God suffering has come to humanity in many random ways, without regard to justice. For one person it could be cancer, for another person a physical disability, for another person a natural disaster, there are diseases, etc. I think obviously it could also manifest in a chemical imbalance in the brain, or generally something being wrong with the brain so that it suffers from unavoidable problems which can only be relieved through physically correcting that problem, like depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc. So the mental illness has a physical cause and you cannot change this by an act of will.
<br />
<br />If the Fall can damage every area of our lives, including our brain, then something normally under our control could be physically taken away, for example, our mental equilibrium. So being mentally ill is more like e.g. not having an arm because of an accident at work rather than being incompetent at helping yourself.
<br />
<br />So I would say that viewing the Fall as having the power to mess up every area of our experience should help Christians relate to mentally ill people without a stigma.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-28035901187268399422011-07-22T23:42:00.000-07:002011-07-22T23:54:35.440-07:00Why is God not more obvious?This is a speculative theology article that should be taken with a grain of salt, as it stands outside what the Bible says, but I think it raises a couple of interesting questions...<br /><br />If you believe that those who die outside the age and state of accountability (e.g. children, mentally disabled people, etc) go straight to heaven (which is quite a popular view), then you reach the interesting conclusion that possibly half of all people who have ever lived will go to heaven. Why? Because somewhere approaching half of all people who have ever lived have died before reaching adulthood throughout history (<a href="http://137.140.1.71/jsec/articles/volume2/issue4/NEEPSvolkatkinson.pdf">source</a>), as children and babies (more if you include before birth). Before modern times, the infant mortality rate was very high. Say that those who never hear the gospel have a chance to go to heaven and that figure increases a lot.<br /><br />Moreover, in the thousand year reign after Christ returns, mentioned by the Old Testament prophets and in the Revelation of St John, almost everyone will come to know Christ (e.g. <a href="http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/11.htm">Isa 11</a>, <a href="http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/65-17.htm">Isa 65:17-25</a>). That includes potentially quite a lot of people going to heaven, perhaps billions, given no war, very little suffering, no disease, very long life spans (<a href="http://bible.cc/isaiah/65-20.htm">Isaiah 65:20</a>), and presumably no involuntary infertility.<br /><br />Combine this with the 'age of accountability' theory and you end up with a lot of people going to heaven, perhaps 2/3rds or more of all people who will live, given a third to half of all people in this age plus almost everyone in the age to come.<br /><br />An interesting aspect to this train of thought is that on this view most people who go to heaven get there without much, if any, testing or trial of their faith, as CS Lewis suggests in the Screwtape Letters. Thus, God only allows a small proportion of the people who will go to heaven to be tempted and/or to suffer for a long time.<br /><br />If so, then heaven isn't such a narrow gate. It's a pretty wide gate, seemingly contradicting <a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/7-14.htm">Matthew 7:14</a>.<br /><br />But perhaps it is both a narrow and a wide gate. The key thing is, it's a narrow gate for <i>us</i>, for us who are in this present age, who have reached the age and state of accountability. For people in other ages, or in certain states, it is not narrow at all.<br /><br />So why are we here then? Why are we, this minority, tested so much when most of the saved aren't? Isn't that unfair? What is going on?<br /><br />One possible reason is that the vast majority of people that God creates accept God's gift of eternal life without much reflection or struggle, but there's a small minority of people who only respond to the gospel in a less-than-perfect situation. Most souls don't need to be led to accept Christ through negative reasons such as e.g. perceiving a lack of meaning in their life, etc, negative reasons which are common in testimonies among Christians today. But for others, maybe God knows that they are like the prodigal son (<a href="http://niv.scripturetext.com/luke/15-11.htm">Luke 15:11-32</a>), wherein experience of life without God is the key factor that leads them to accept God.<br /><br />So what does God do? God puts those people into this world, where God pretty much lets people do their own thing.<br /><br />Perhaps, in this theory, if we, the 'problem cases', had started off in the happy world, then we would, for some reason, have wanted to be our own masters and rule our own fate, in a place of our own apart from God. But in this world we have learned such things as to reject sin although we do sin, how much we need God, that God is rightfully ruler as well as helper, that life can lack meaning without God, and so on. We perhaps wouldn't have ever realised this stuff if we had started out in the 'happy world'.<br /><br />Thus, God, in His infinite wisdom, saw that being in this world was key and that's perhaps part of the reason why this stage of history exists.<br /><br />In conclusion, I suggest that this speculation could help to explain why God chose to make two stages of history, and why God has given so much free reign to people in this world and decided not to broadcast His presence in a 'fireworks-like' display.<br /><br />Secondly, I suggest that, with some assumptions, one can find that altogether most of the humans that God creates might make it to heaven although heaven is a narrow gate for people in this world in an accountable age/state.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-26149265608431958872011-06-27T18:00:00.000-07:002011-06-27T23:52:28.688-07:00Is God's forgiveness conditional or unconditional?I was thinking the other day about how a lot of people think that God's forgiveness is conditional because God only forgives people who want His forgiveness or ask for it. But I'm not sure this is entirely correct.<br /><br />You could say that there are two kinds of forgiveness: conditional and unconditional.<br /><br />They can be shown in this way: suppose a superior decided to make your life really difficult in your workplace and started being passive aggressive or even somewhat abusive towards you. Conditional forgiveness is that you'll forgive them if they stop bothering you, making your life hard, and so on. Unconditional forgiveness is that you'll forgive them even if they decide to be even more difficult towards you and don't care at all whether you forgive them.<br /><br />What is God's forgiveness more like according to the above analogy?<br /><br />If God's forgiveness is conditional, then people have to deserve or earn God's forgiveness in some way before they get forgiven. So God would be like someone who won't forgive a person if they won't stop their bad ways. Therefore, if God forgives us conditionally, then we have to 'step up' and get our act together before we get forgiven.<br /><br />If God's forgiveness is unconditional, then we don't have to earn God's forgiveness in any way before we get forgiven. The forgiveness would always be extended, whether we wanted it be or not. Whether this forgiveness actually reconciles us to God would depend on whether we wanted to have a relationship with God.<br /><br />Under the unconditional view, our relationship with God is more like a damaged friendship when one side wants to reconnect with the other side, but the other side doesn't want to at all. That is, I might want to talk to someone again, but nothing will happen if that person actively avoids me. And so the break, or split, continues, maybe forever. And, as you can probably guess, hell would be that broken connection lasting for an eternity, where someone doesn't interact with God in any way forever.<br /><br />To continue with this view, you have to see the warnings in the New Testament not to do bad stuff as saying that people who do bad stuff don't really want to have a genuine relationship with God, rather than, 'If you do bad stuff, God will take away His forgiveness until you stop', broadly speaking.<br /><br />Here are some verses on this:<br /><br />Eph 2:1-5: "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved."<br /><br />Col 2:13: "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,"Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-84732921660993852292011-06-03T22:22:00.000-07:002011-06-04T00:39:01.969-07:00Fatalist attitudes and the Bible<i><a href="http://www.k-state.edu/english/baker/english320/Maugham-AS.htm">The Appointment in Samarra</a><br /><br />Death speaks:<br /><br />There is a merchant in Baghdad who sent his servant to buy provisions from the market and in a little while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, "Master, just now when I was in the market-place I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me.<br /><br />She looked at me and made a threatening gesture; now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city to avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me."<br /><br />The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the market-place and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, "Why did you make a threatening gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning?"<br /><br />"That was not a threatening gesture," I said, "it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Baghdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra."</i><br /><br />This short story, The Appointment in Samarra, is a story about fatalism. The world it describes is one where people cannot avoid their fate or situation in life. A practical implication could be that people therefore should not try to avoid their fate. You could call this attitude the 'fatalist attitude'.<br /><br />The 'fatalist attitude' has an opposite attitude, which is a sort of 'can do' attitude, where you can really do quite a lot. In fact, both attitudes could probably be put on opposite ends of a scale relating to one's level of passive acceptance of one's fate or situation in life.<br /><br />Both attitudes have good and bad aspects.<br /><br />A good side to the 'passive acceptance of one's fate' attitude is that it helps people be content with what they have and not worry that much. Why not be content with a situation that you can never change? And why worry about things you can never affect?<br /><br />On the negative side, this attitude encourages passivity and to ignore ways in which we can make a real difference to our and other people's lives.<br /><br />The good side to the 'can do' attitude is that it's a hopeful attitude, and hope, the emotion, makes people happier. Another good aspect is that maybe you can do something about your situation and your 'can do' attitude will encourage you to try.<br /><br />A bad side to the 'can do' attitude is that it might morph into worry if you start thinking that you can affect or control problems that you simply can't, instead of passively accepting that certain things are outside your control.<br /><br />Here are some verses that relate to this discussion from the Bible:<br /><br />Proverbs 19:21: "You can make many plans, but the LORD's purpose will prevail."<br /><br />Proverbs 20:24: "The LORD directs our steps, so why try to understand everything along the way?"<br /><br />Psalm 32:8-9: "The LORD says, 'I will guide you along the best pathway for your life. I will advise you and watch over you. Do not be like a senseless horse or mule that needs a bit and bridle to keep it under control.'"<br /><br />Phil 4:6-7: "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."<br /><br />Matt 6:25-34: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."<br /><br />1 Peter 5:7: "Cast all your anxiety on Him because He cares for you."<br /><br />At first glance, the Bible seems to be endorsing a fatalist attitude, but I'm not sure that it is. It's not really about fatalism, it seems, so much as, e.g., a child accepting that their parent will take care of their needs. That is, it seems to relate more to trust than passively accepting one's situation in life. The Bible is saying we should not worry because God will take care of our needs and us.<br /><br />But I also believe that Jesus does give us a bit of practical advice and encourages us not to try and control things that we simply cannot in Matthew 6:27: "Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?" This could be interpreted as saying that, for example, suppose one has a general anxiety about the length of one's life, this anxiety will not practically allow one to control matters so that one's life is actually longer. Perhaps Jesus is practically recommending a touch of fatalism as an antidote to worry, but only about things we certainly can't affect.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-27117887439810242972011-05-29T18:02:00.000-07:002011-05-29T18:07:22.746-07:00Discussion on the religious instinct<i>This is part of a discussion I had a while back with someone about why humanity seems to have a deeply set religious instinct…</i><br /><br />If you take your own conscious experiences and compare it to inanimate matter, or the actions of a person and compare it to how inanimate objects behave, then it seems like there's not just one kind of thing out there - inanimate matter - there's possibly two fundamentally different kinds of things, because the former stuff seems so different to inanimate matter.<br /><br />Because it seems like there are two fundamentally different things in existence, it becomes in some sense rational to suppose that inanimate matter comes from the other thing rather than the other thing comes from inanimate matter - possibly because they're so different and there's two options. Although I'm not exactly sure how this intuition about it being 'the other way around' happens.<br /><br /><i>Yeah, that's the rub, your intuition that it is the other way around. Why would you assume that to be the case when we can observe that matter exists regardless of whether or not it has the property of consciousness, but you do not observe the existence of consciousness without matter. Not to say that it is not a possibility, an immaterial self dependent consciousness but why assume it, since it leaves the question unanswered as to how does matter emerge from the immaterial?</i><br /><br />Ah, so we observe that this 'other kind of stuff' - consciousness - seems to be dependent on matter, but matter doesn't seem to be dependent on consciousness, and matter seems to have come first, so you'd assume that matter comes first.<br /><br />But there's still the issue of how consciousness/the subjective seems to be a fundamentally different kind of thing to matter, regardless of those two considerations. So, I guess, it's an easy thing to think of at least, for anyone, I mean, you just switch it around, matter=>mind becomes mind=>matter; it's very easy to do. So that helps it always be an option on the table, I believe, and maybe there being only two options gives it some additional reasonableness; I'm not sure how that works.<br /><br />Two important issues are: as far as our observations go, matter seems to have come first, and, two, how can matter possibly emerge from an independent mind?<br /><br />But they're not too powerful as objections, I believe. Our observations wouldn't include seeing mind come first if it did come first. And it's not like we ought to know how mind originates from matter because we're so smart, I mean, it also makes a lot of sense we wouldn't know how it does, or have any idea how, even if it was true.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-63356261924773604792011-05-20T16:29:00.000-07:002011-05-20T16:35:43.568-07:00How is there free will in heaven?Is there free will in heaven (or rather the new heavens and new earth)? How can the people in heaven be free if you know they will always do the right thing for an eternity?<br /><br />Here is an answer I like to this question, that involves a certain view of evil.<br /><br />In traditional Christian theology, evil is an absence of good like cold is the absence of heat. Evil is not an independent thing, but exists only because good exists and sometimes there is not much good in a situation. So evil is a <i>lack</i> of empathy, a result of a person not processing things morally.<br /><br />For practical example of this, suppose someone wants people to treat them well, but they are really rude to staff at restaurants and other places. If someone could make them feel the pain they cause others for no reason, then this person would change their behaviour because they wouldn't want to be treated in this way. So their bad behaviour is actually the result of them not being consistent with their own principles in terms of how they want to be treated. In general terms, this shows how evil is not being truthful about how one's actions affect others in ways one's own self would not like (assuming someone endorses the Golden Rule, that is).<br /><br />So if evil is something like this, then in heaven God has solved evil by making us completely truthful, through Jesus taking our sins (<a href="http://bible.cc/1_peter/2-24.htm">1 Pe 2:24</a>). Because we are completely truthful, we can never choose to be evil because we will always be aware of how we would like to be (ideally) treated.<br /><br />We will be unable to do evil in the sense that you, the reader, are unable to find it desirable to rob banks or murder people - that is, you are free to do it, but you can't do it because you can't be tempted by it. It's an inability to find something a good (or 'truthful') idea rather than any sort of physical inability.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-49672330062830799872011-05-02T21:40:00.000-07:002011-05-02T21:41:13.842-07:00Can some beliefs be immoral to believe and what does that imply?Are some beliefs immoral? Imagine someone who believes that certain people are sub-human. We would react to that person as having an immoral belief.<br /><br />What about a dictator who believes that people who disagree with him are evildoers opposed to everything good, and that they are comparable to murderers who need to be put in prison?<br /><br />So it seems that some beliefs can be immoral, and not just true/false.<br /><br />If some beliefs are immoral, then this shows people have some control over what they believe. It indicates that people are not helplessly tossed here and there by their beliefs. Otherwise how can any belief be immoral? You can't criticise someone for something that they have no control over.<br /><br />This does not show that people can choose to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but I think it does show that there is something we can control about our beliefs.<br /><br />Although it's possible that people can't choose to believe that the moon is made of green cheese because it goes against their self-interest completely. If someone decides that the moon is made of green cheese, then that person is choosing to let go of their sanity to some extent. It's a crazy belief. Maybe we can't choose to believe the moon is green cheese because of a strong desire not to get rid of our sanity?<br /><br />It might be that we always have a desire for our beliefs to reflect reality and, although we can choose to a degree what we believe, we won't very willingly choose for our beliefs to be insane. So, because we want our beliefs to reflect reality, we won't exercise our power to believe the moon is cheese. But, in theory, we have quite a lot of power to affect what we believe, but this power is hidden, or protected, by our desire to be accurate in our beliefs.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-3863664142606193202011-04-15T01:10:00.000-07:002011-04-15T01:33:00.410-07:00Moral contributions from the BibleHas the Bible made important contributions to the development of morality? Here are three areas:<br /><br />1. The Bible has been positive influence regarding the idea that everyone is equal. From an evolutionary perspective, the idea that every person is equal in a really fundamental way seems a bit hard to find. But in the Bible we read:<br /><br />Acts 10:34-5: "Then Peter replied, "I see very clearly that God shows no favoritism. In every nation he accepts those who fear him and do what is right."<br /><br />Romans 2:11: "For God does not show favoritism."<br /><br />Gal 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."<br /><br />The image of God is equally given to everyone (<a href="http://bible.cc/genesis/1-27.htm">Gen 1:27</a>).<br /><br />2. Another area that the Bible has had a large positive impact on is the idea that doing unto others involves really caring about people who are hostile towards oneself and forgiving people who don't deserve forgiveness (although I note that not everyone would agree with these values). Normally when we think of 'doing unto others' we include in that the idea that we should be able to get revenge on people who wrong us, an instinct that comes easily. But Jesus says that <i>really</i> 'doing unto others' involves loving your enemies, praying for people who persecute you, and forgiving those who wrong you (<a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/5-44.htm">Matt 5:44</a>, <a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/6-15.htm">Matt 6:15</a>, <a href="http://bible.cc/luke/10-27.htm">Luke 10:27</a>). Also, God has given us an example of forgiveness to follow (<a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/18-33.htm">Matt 18:33</a>) and that is that God tries to forgive everyone, using the only way possible (<a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/26-39.htm">Matt 26:39</a>), even though we have not earned God's forgiveness and weren't 'owed' Jesus' sacrifice. This is a surprising moral insight or argument from the Bible.<br /><br />3. Another interesting moral concept from the Bible relates to a way of distributing social status in a community that accepts, loves, and honours every single person there. If people follow it carefully, it completely sidesteps certain unhappy problems with social status and people seeking social status. Jesus says that the greatest person in a community should be the greatest person because they serve everyone else. While the person who is least should be the person who is least because they are served by everyone else (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2020:26-28&version=NIV">Matt 20:26-8</a>). It's an ingenious system for keeping pride in check and making sure every member of the community is honoured, that a lot of people wouldn't have thought of without the Bible.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-14171119468571722402011-04-05T17:14:00.000-07:002011-04-05T17:19:06.127-07:00The theoretical and practical problems of graceSuppose two people are having a conversation about tennis matches between the world's best tennis players and one person asks, "But what would happen if someone got to the Grand Final and instead of playing properly, they just stood on the court, with their arms frozen to their sides, and span around again and again? What would happen then?"<br /><br />In a way I believe this is like asking, "What would happen if God saved someone and they decided they didn't really like God and wanted to live a life lacking in empathy?"<br /><br />When God saves someone God's Holy Spirit is supposed to be in them and with them and God and the Holy Spirit are supposed to change, over a long time, people's desires regarding wrongdoing. So if this process is happening, then there should be no way that someone's fundamental orientation should be against God and towards hurting people.<br /><br />Phil 1:6: And I am certain that God, who began the good work within you, will continue his work until it is finally finished on the day when Christ Jesus returns. (NL)<br /><br />The idea of someone undergoing this process deciding to abuse grace and embrace wrongdoing is a theoretical problem. It's not a practical problem. Just like in theory people in tennis Grand Slam finals can choose to spin around in circles instead of play, but in practice this is not a problem.<br /><br />Another analogy might be if someone decided they really wanted to lose weight and someone organised a diet and exercise plan for them that would be really effective. Now, imagine they had the chance to eat chocolate cake every night and never exercise. They can do it, but they would ask themselves: should I, who want to lose weight, really eat these things and never exercise? Compare to Paul:<br /><br />Romans 6:1-2: Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? (NL)<br /><br />Paul points out that in theory Christians can do the wrong thing as much as they want and still go to heaven. But in practice, one, God has changed Christians' desires/wants so this is impossible and, two, if you love God and think being nice is a good thing, then why would you decide to ignore God and hurt people?Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-68910686237373659832011-03-31T22:08:00.000-07:002011-04-04T17:05:53.147-07:00Does free will contradict the laws of physics?People often say that free will contradicts the laws of physics because free will implies a 'garden of forking paths' where you can do A or B. But the laws of physics imply that either history was fixed at the time of the Big Bang or that where chance exists it is merely randomness and probability. Where does that leave free will?<br /><br />An interesting way of imagining how free will can be compatible with the laws of physics comes from quantum mechanics. The 'Schroedinger's cat' idea gives a good account of it (from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroedinger%27s_Cat">Wikipedia</a>):<br /><br /><i>Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison and a radioactive source, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If an internal Geiger counter detects radiation, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition">This</a> article explains a bit more about why the cat is both alive and dead:<br /><br /><i>The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any configuration, any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a superposition of the two, where the amount of each configuration that is in the superposition is specified by a complex number.</i><br /><br />There is superposition with regard to the Geiger counter detecting radiation, because it's a subatomic phenomena. Therefore, after a while an atom has in some sense both decayed and not decayed, releasing and not releasing radiation. Thus, after a while the cat is both dead and alive.<br /><br /><i>In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well-defined in this interpretation. The experiment can be interpreted to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states.</i><br /><br />Schroedinger's cat illustrates how quantum mechanics seems, at least superficially, to allow for something that sounds like a 'garden of forking paths'. The cat is both alive and dead, two contradictory possibilities exist, and our conscious observation forces reality to 'choose' one. Perhaps our brain has many possible configurations and our consciousness/the soul can make out of them one reality?<br /><br />But does quantum mechanics apply to the workings of the brain? Some scientists have come up with theories of how it could (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind">link</a>).<br /><br />So with free will, imagine that until our consciousness/soul affirms a value, e.g., 'I think it's important to be truthful', then the neurons in our brain are simultaneously affirming a 'truthful' brain state and a 'not truthful' brain state. But after the conscious decision is made then the 'truthful' brain state 'resolves' into being - just like the cat is alive or dead only when the scientist looks into the cage and 'forces' an answer.<br /><br />This type of analysis doesn't explain what free will is, it just indicates how the soul or consciousness might be able to change the brain using free will. (Libertarian) free will's workings would still be beyond our understanding.<br /><br />I apologise in advance for my scientific ignorance if this idea is fundamentally flawed, but, as others have said, it seems that a genuine free will can be compatible in theory with the laws of physics.<br /><br />(Edited 5 April 11).Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-81632791936150059622011-03-26T00:30:00.000-07:002011-03-26T01:07:13.799-07:00Location heaven versus state of mind heavenThere's a common perception out there that heaven (or eternal life in the new creation) is just a place. There's a common view that all God has to do to let people into heaven is put them in heaven. And that God doing this would instantly make hell empty.<br /><br />The Bible also talks about heaven as a state of mind rather than a location:<br /><br />Romans 14:17: For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,<br /><br />Psalm 16:11: You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.<br /><br />Psalm 36:8-9: They feast on the abundance of your house; you give them drink from your river of delights. For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light.<br /><br />Luke 17:20-1: Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."<br /><br />In the Bible, heaven and eternal life also involve one's mind or self being deeply and intimately connected to God.<br /><br />So heaven isn't just about going to a heavenly location in a spiritual dimension, it also involves a state of mind. Judging from the verses above, this state of mind involves experiencing whatever happiness or contentment God feels through being reconciled fully to God.<br /><br />The question is: how do you get reconciled to God to experience a state of mind heaven? The problem is that our wrong actions (sin) separate us from the kind of closeness to God that is heaven. The Bible's answer to this problem is that God/Jesus Christ "bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness" (<a href="http://bible.cc/1_peter/2-24.htm">1 Pe 2:24</a>). This meant God could "[make] [us] alive with Christ" dealing with the problem (<a href="http://bible.cc/colossians/2-13.htm">Col 2:13</a>) - meaning that although we can't avoid sinning in this life (<a href="http://bible.cc/1_john/1-8.htm">1 John 1:8</a>), our fundamental orientation has changed.<br /><br />This analysis says that going to heaven isn't simply a matter of God letting someone into heaven. Intentions, thoughts, desires, and so on need to be different as well, and a two-way loving relationship needs to exist between us and God.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-20745742105242496732011-03-15T20:03:00.000-07:002011-03-15T20:09:31.143-07:00Some thoughts on the argument from apparent designI thought I would mention an argument for believing in God which I find quite convincing, an argument for the design of the laws of physics. General arguments for God are important because if God exists, then it's not a big step to Christianity out of other religions, especially with arguments like the one that uses historical evidence to support Jesus' resurrection.<br /><br />I'll quote part of an article which is quite good on this subject, available <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html">here</a>.<br /><br /><i>...The world is conditioned principally by the values of the fundamental constants A (the fine structure constant, or electromagnetic interaction), mn/me (proton to electron mass ratio), aG (gravitation), aW (the weak force), and aS (the strong force)...<br /><br />For example, if aS were increased as much as 1%, nuclear resonance levels would be so altered that almost all carbon would be burned into oxygen; an increase of 2% would preclude formation of protons out of quarks, preventing the existence of atoms. Furthermore, weakening aS by as much as 5% would unbind deuteron, which is essential to stellar nucleosynthesis, leading to a universe composed only of hydrogen. It has been estimated that aS must be within 0.8 and 1.2 its actual strength or all elements of atomic weight greater than four would not have formed. Or again, if aW had been appreciably stronger, then the Big Bang's nuclear burning would have proceeded past helium to iron, making fusion-powered stars impossible. But if it had been much weaker, then we should have had a universe entirely of helium. Or again, if aG had been a little greater, all stars would have been red dwarfs, which are too cold to support life-bearing planets. If it had been a little smaller, the universe would have been composed exclusively of blue giants which burn too briefly for life to develop. According to Davies, changes in either aG or electromagnetism by only one part in 10^40 would have spelled disaster for stars like the sun.</i><br /><br />etc...<br /><br />But what about the idea that there are an infinite number of universes? If there are an infinite number of universes, then our laws of physics are nothing special, because they must happen somewhere.<br /><br />I think there's a really good article, from Discover Magazine, on the idea of the multiverse from the point of view of modern physics, <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator">here</a>.<br /><br />Here's some key quotes about the issue:<br /><br /><i>...Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life...<br /><br />...Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, agrees. “This is the one fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident,” he says.<br /><br />Dark energy makes it impossible to ignore the multiverse theory. Another branch of physics—string theory—lends support as well. Although experimental evidence for string theory is still lacking, many physicists believe it to be their best candidate for a theory of everything, a comprehensive description of the universe, from quarks to quasars...<br /><br />...Linde’s ideas may make the notion of a multiverse more plausible, but they do not prove that other universes are really out there. The staggering challenge is to think of a way to confirm the existence of other universes when every conceivable experiment or observation must be confined to our own. Does it make sense to talk about other universes if they can never be detected?...<br /><br />...Rees, an early supporter of Linde’s ideas, agrees that it may never be possible to observe other universes directly, but he argues that scientists may still be able to make a convincing case for their existence. To do that, he says, physicists will need a theory of the multiverse that makes new but testable predictions about properties of our own universe. If experiments confirmed such a theory’s predictions about the universe we can see, Rees believes, they would also make a strong case for the reality of those we cannot...</i><br /><br />So basically the multiverse makes sense as a theoretical idea but it has no real evidence for it in an empirical sense.<br /><br />So where does one go from there?<br /><br />I guess to some extent it could be a matter of personal taste, God or multiverse. But I have one more thought on the issue.<br /><br />One of the traditional problems with asserting the existence of God is that it can easily fall afoul of Occam's razor. Occam's razor is the famous scientific principle that says you should not multiply entities unnecessarily.<br /><br />A practical example of Occam's razor is the belief, 'My friend keeps ordering hamburgers because they like hamburgers', is more parsimonious than, 'My friend keeps ordering hamburgers because they made a bet with someone to eat 500 hamburgers before the end of the year', because the second one has more (and more complicated) entities in it as an explanation.<br /><br />If you can explain everything with only one universe, then God has problems with Occam's razor. But if the only alternative to God is literally an infinity of other universes, then it's not clear God will be badly affected by Occam's razor. Because 'infinitely many universes' is a pretty big entity to assert, as big as an infinite God perhaps.<br /><br />So, I would imagine, if you believe that there's a multiverse, then atheism no longer gets to use Occam's razor.<br /><br />Normally atheism gets an inherent advantage over theism as the default position from Occam's razor. But with the multiverse that inherent advantage is lost, and neither position gets any inherent advantage over the other.<br /><br />So the atheism-theism debate is then like thinking it will come up heads on a coin toss rather than tails, in terms of overall plausibility.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-54552909813295705982011-03-02T19:16:00.000-08:002011-03-02T19:22:49.026-08:00Why is it so hard to describe heaven?Why can't Christians come up with a really fantastic description of heaven (or rather the new heavens and new earth)? Here is my attempt to explain a large part of the reason.<br /><br />Something interesting about our happiness in this life is that it is very, you could say, 'temporal'. That is, people's happiness experiences a huge issue with boredom. Some people would be happy to live forever as long as they could keep experiencing new things forever, but in polls a lot of people say that they wouldn't want to live forever even if they could do so.<br /><br />I believe this is because human happiness is not naturally hardwired for eternity. Our ability to be happy cannot sustain us for that long. E.g. it's a relatively <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhoWantsToLiveForever">common motif</a> in horror stories that someone is condemned to live forever even though they can do whatever they want.<br /><br />But it's interesting to note that God is probably not at all like this, if any God exists, because otherwise God would have gone completely insane with boredom. In most theologies God is eternal and outside time, and thus God has already lived for an infinite length of time. If God's happiness can't handle eternity, then God would be mad with depression (Isaac Asimov actually wrote a <a href="http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=isaac+asimov+the+last+answer">short story</a> based on this premise called "The Last Answer").<br /><br />And this leads to the conclusion that, because God is naturally eternal or for some other reason, God's happiness is a kind of happiness we have no experience of in this world - apart from through the Holy Spirit's sense of peace, if Christianity is to be believed. This can be indicated, if any God exists, from the reasoning above (unless Isaac Asimov's short story is right!)<br /><br />Thus I conclude that part of why heaven is such a great place is because we have access to this divine kind of happiness that allows someone to be at peace and contented forever without being insane or something like that.<br /><br />See Rom 14:17: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,"<br /><br />1 Cor 2:9: "However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him""<br /><br />Psalm 16:11: "You will make clear to me the way of life; where you are joy is complete; in your right hand there are pleasures for ever and ever."<br /><br />Psalm 36:7-8: "How precious is your unfailing love, O God! All humanity finds shelter in the shadow of your wings. You feed them from the abundance of your own house, letting them drink from your river of delights. For you are the fountain of life, the light by which we see."<br /><br />Rom 8:18: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us."<br /><br />We get this happiness through being connected to God through His Holy Spirit. And this is made possible by Jesus Christ removing our sins when He took them into himself on the cross (<a href="http://bible.cc/1_peter/2-24.htm">1 Pe 2:24</a>).<br /><br />I believe this is a significant part of the reason why heaven is so hard to describe in a really fantastic way.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-9096344112558658282011-02-25T00:33:00.000-08:002011-02-25T00:37:39.372-08:00Why should we worship God?A question that people who aren't Christian often ask is why should we worship God? What right does God have to legitimately want worship from us? Isn't God a megalomaniac for making heaven involve praising Him?<br /><br />There's an analogy I've started to use a lot to explain why I would want to worship God that borrows from everyday life.<br /><br />Let's say you have a friend who is an amazingly good person. They are 100% genuine, kind, respectful, trustworthy, dependable, etc. They are generous to a fault, and are a very kind husband/wife who works very hard to support their family. They sacrifice a lot to help others, even people who aren't their friends or relatives.<br /><br />Now, you would, I suppose, respect them a lot, and this would just be a natural reaction to the truth of the situation.<br /><br />Now, what if God is perfectly loving (and not just perfectly good but also can't be tempted otherwise), infinite in abilities and knowledge, and is the creator of everything? Then respecting God and putting God at the centre of one's life is not anything different from one's presumed reaction to that friend - it would just be a natural reaction to the truth.<br /><br />And we say, as Christians, that God really is all those good things, and so worshipping God is a natural reaction to the truth of the situation like respecting that friend is a reaction to the truth.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-48887418197189659222011-02-17T14:31:00.000-08:002011-02-17T14:37:05.999-08:00Jesus' prediction of his second coming, Part 1There are two occasions where Jesus is interpreted by some as having said that he will return to the world and usher in the Kingdom of God within the lifetime of his disciples. In this article I want to examine this claim and argue that contextual evidence shows that Jesus plausibly did not say this and would not have been interpreted by those listening to have said it.<br /><br />In this article I will deal with the passages called the 'Olivet discourse' in Matthew, Mark, and Luke which some have said involve Jesus making a mistake. Here is the passage in full from Matthew's gospel, 24:3-35 (NIV):<br /><br /><i>3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”<br /><br />4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.<br /><br />9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.<br /><br />15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.<br /><br />22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.<br /><br />26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.<br /><br />29 “Immediately after the distress of those days <br />“‘the sun will be darkened, <br />and the moon will not give its light; <br /> the stars will fall from the sky, <br />and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’<br /><br />30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.<br /><br />32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.</i><br /><br />Some people have argued that 'this generation' in the last sentence must be taken to mean the generation alive when Jesus is speaking, which gives a timeframe for Jesus' return of about 30-40 years.<br /><br />But I don't think that Jesus would have been taken to be referring to those presently alive with 'this generation' when you read it in context. For example, in the same speech Jesus says that before He returns:<br /><br /><i>'many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.'</i><br /><br />Now, if Jesus thought he would return in about 30-40 years, then there wouldn't be many Christians to deceive, because the whole world would pretty much be non-Christian. Unless Jesus thought that the whole world would immediately convert on hearing about Jesus. But that presumes a level of optimism on Jesus' part that doesn't seem sensible, especially considering how many people rejected his message during his ministry (John 6:66-67).<br /><br />But one could say that Jesus just thought that other people would claim to be Christ and attract a following like he did.<br /><br />I guess Jesus could have thought that within a very short time frame, 30-40 years let's say, there would be many people claiming to be Christ. But I feel that this 'jars' a bit as an interpretation because every century or so there would be a couple of people claiming to be Christ, but I think it would be odd to think there would be a large increase in the numbers of Christ-claimants within 30-40 years in addition to the usual number of a couple a century (if I recall correctly).<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianic_claimants">This site</a> says there were 2 people before Jesus who claimed to be the messiah, 4 in the first century (not counting the emperor Vespasian), 2 in the second century, none for ages, then 1 in the fifth century, etc.<br /><br />So it's not really all that common.<br /><br />This is why I think Jesus is speaking, with his 'you', to all Christians throughout many centuries, and not just his disciples, in that section of his discourse.<br /><br />Then:<br /><br /><i>'And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.'<br /><br />'Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.'</i><br /><br />What I wonder is how can a small Jewish sect that very few people have heard of spread the 'gospel' message to every nation in the whole world within 30-40 years? How could one sensibly expect that under any scenario? By the end of the 1st century 99% of people had probably not heard of Christianity, let alone been 'preached to'. It's not like preaching to everyone in the world is easy. So assuming that Jesus was a sensible thinker, he must be talking about events much further into the future.<br /><br />One could say in response that the ancient Jews had a terrible knowledge of world geography and so it makes sense that the first Christians could preach to and become hated by all nations within 30-40 years.<br /><br />But here is a list of countries that were in the Roman empire at some point:<br /><br />Portugal, Spain, Andorra, United Kingdom, France, Monaco, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Italy, San Marino, Vatican City, Malta, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, FYR Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Cyprus, Lebanon, Jordania, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Lybia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Palestine.<br /><br />Keep in mind the Romans also knew about China, but didn't have much contact with them because the powerful Parthian and Kushan empires lay between.<br /><br />They didn't know about Japan, Antarctica, and the Americas, and they didn't know about Australia, although Claudius Ptolemy hypothesised there must be a land to connect the east coast of Africa with China, which he called 'Terra Australis' (The Southern Region). But they (people at that time) knew about the other continents: Africa, Europe, and Asia.<br /><br />So when you read:<br /><br /><i>'And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.'<br /><br />'Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.'</i><br /><br />And if you assume that people knew about the aforementioned places, which seems quite likely since almost all of them were part of the Roman empire at that time, then is it really reasonable to interpret that was referring to a time span of a mere 30-40 years? Assume also Jesus is a reasonable person.<br /><br />If you take actual Christian evangelism 40 years after Jesus left his disciples, it didn't cover anywhere near that much territory. It was many centuries before Christian missionaries even got to China.<br /><br />With regard to the quote about being 'hated by all nations', if Jesus thought he'd come back in about 30-40 years, then who would care that much about Christians and Christianity? I can understand persecution, because occasionally small cults would worry the Romans. But why would first century Christianity with a small number of followers near Palestine be 'hated by all nations because of me'? The vast majority of people and nations would never have even heard of Christianity. And even if they had, they probably couldn't care any less about a small cult in Palestine that was powerless. So this is just puzzling if Jesus thought He would return in 30-40 years. Or he was crazily optimistic, but that's unfair to the Bible's portrayal of Jesus as a reasonable guy.<br /><br />Now, it's true that Jesus and his followers did have a rough time at the hands of the local government, and so persecution wouldn't have been unexpected.<br /><br />But Christians were not really persecuted heavily by a secular government until Nero, which was I think in the 60s CE, which is already 30 years after Jesus left, and moreover this is only one government, albeit a very large one, not all governments that were around. Most of their persecution before Nero, in any intense way, if I recall correctly, was from the Jews, only one small nation.<br /><br /><i>'At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.'</i><br /><br />What's going on with the second sentence if Jesus thought He would return very soon? The 'increase in wickedness' must be referring to society as a whole, which influences Christians' love to grow cold. But this seems a little odd given that, at this point in history, life had pretty much been continuing as it had before for thousands of years, only this time the Romans were the people you had to obey. Just something interesting to note (on the other hand, if Jesus is talking about many more years from now it does make sense that values in society could somehow drastically change for the worse).<br /><br />But maybe Jesus thought that false prophets appearing very soon after he leaves the world would cause a lot of wickedness and his followers to turn against each other?<br /><br />And yet this is such a short time span for that to happen though, it seems. After 30-40 years Christianity would just be starting up and gathering a small number of followers, and then just as it's starting everything gets really intense. How would we normally read that statement in terms of time?<br /><br /><i>'So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.'</i><br /><br />If Jesus thought he would return in 30-40 years, then this conversation would presumably only be happening between a small group of followers of Jesus. But it has undertones of being a really significant discussion that a lot of people are having instead of a debate that is happening among 0.001% (or less) of the world's population.<br /><br />But maybe Jesus is thinking that someone else will come and make use of Jesus' success? That someone will make use of Jesus' movement for his own ends?<br /><br />But this is a pretty small timeframe to talk about someone making use of Jesus' movement for his own ends, a mere 30-40 years after he leaves.<br /><br />So with this contextual evidence let's look again at the 'this generation' comment that has caused confusion.<br /><br />The way we normally use 'this' is to refer to the object close at hand in terms of what we are talking about. For example, if I say, 'This book at the library that I've been talking about is actually by an American author', then even though the book is far away (at the library), it is being referred to with my 'this' because it is close at hand in terms of what I'm talking about.<br /><br />So, using the contextual evidence, if we look at the generation Jesus is talking about when he says 'this', it seems to be the generation that sees all of these horrible events happen, and is not necessarily the one around now. This is the generation close at hand in terms of what Jesus is talking about.<br /><br />So I would say that 'this generation' refers to the generation in the future that sees all this end-timey stuff happen, not the generation of Jesus' day, which is an interpretation helped by the contextual evidence.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12247382.post-65467450230753455832011-02-12T20:59:00.000-08:002011-02-15T19:53:53.235-08:00Where analogies break down with the atonementMany analogies have been proposed for the atonement of Christ to help us understand exactly what happened when Jesus died for us.<br /><br />One analogy about the atonement in particular gets criticised a lot for not making sense, and the criticisms do have a point. This is the analogy where the atonement is likened to an innocent person volunteering to be punished in a guilty person's place in a local court. When you think about it, this implies that the sacrifice doesn't change the guilty person, who is now free, and so maybe he/she wants to go out and commit some more crimes.<br /><br />There's one thing that this analogy gets really right, which is that the innocent position the guilty person is in afterwards is like the position we are in as Christians. For God considers Jesus to have 'paid' for our sins on our behalf. After accepting Christ people will certainly keep sinning (<a href="http://bible.cc/1_john/1-8.htm">1 John 1:8</a>), but as long as Christ is accepted, then all of our sins are dealt with. Thankfully, Christians won't abuse this system because genuinely believing that Jesus dealt with our sins necessitates that we will care about what God wants (<a href="http://niv.scripturetext.com/romans/6-1.htm">Rom 6:1-2</a>).<br /><br />I think the biggest problem with this analogy is that no one would ever support a system for everyday life where an innocent person could walk into a courtroom and take the punishment meant for a guilty person. This is partly because 1) then the guilty person is free to threaten the community, and, 2) they have, e.g. murderous, intentions that need to be changed.<br /><br />The Bible says something interesting about this analogy in Colossians:<br /><br />Col 2:13-14: "You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins. He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross."<br /><br />Note how Jesus taking our punishment is combined with our sinful nature being cut away.<br /><br />As Col 2:13-14 illustrates, when Jesus died for us it was not like an innocent person going to a court and saying, "Put me in prison instead of this murderer". Because when Jesus died for us, Jesus' act of taking our sins into Himself actually cut away our sinful nature.<br /><br />This does not mean that Christians are perfect; 1 John 1:8 says that "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." But it does mean that something has happened that has dealt with our sinful nature but which which is not 'fully manifested' or 'fully shown' in this life (<a href="http://bible.cc/ephesians/4-30.htm">Eph 4:30</a>).<br /><br />A modified analogy that better fits with what the Bible teaches (but which also has problems) would be that an innocent person and a murderer volunteered for a strange procedure. The innocent person will be punished in the place of the murderer, but the punishment does something very weird. In the punishment all the guilt and badness of the murderer will be transferred to the innocent person. As a result the murderer will become no different from an average, law-abiding citizen who has never murdered anyone. And they get off scot free because their past self, which committed the murder, is no more. They are fundamentally not a murderer.<br /><br />This would fit with our sinful nature getting cut away by Christ's death for us, which also we and Christ are happy to have happen.<br /><br />One conclusion from this is that Christ's atonement for us is not like anything we have experience of in this world. No human process can accomplish this or reflect it accurately. The second is that one analogy that gets criticised a lot by skeptics of Christianity is not actually accurate.Will Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.com0