Back to School

I was set to begin my Old Testament class in September of 2009. I was somewhat looking forward to my fall semester in 2009. I say "somewhat" not because I really did not want to take the classes, but because it has been a tough year mentally and emotionally. When I decided to take seminary classes I did so to challenge myself and to learn more about my faith. I wanted to challenge myself and be prepared if I needed to defend my faith in someway or another. What I found out was that some people are severely entrenched in their views and/or accept things without critically thinking about what they have accepted to be true.

It is fall and the seminary classes have begun! The class is about the Old Testament, but the professor begins by pressing the issue about the Bible being inerrant. The class was confronted with either accepting the Bible is error free or not. However, the doctrine of inerrancy supposes that the original documents are error free. What we have now is clearly NOT error free since textual critics have pointed out inconsistencies and alterations to some documents. So, I find it rather moot to posture some sort of hyper-fundamental mentality towards other Christians regarding the inerrancy of Scripture. Please do not mistake me for some lunatic and such—I just cannot see the importance of forcing the doctrine of inerrancy towards people. It is a doctrine that cannot be verified with the data that we have, but is taken on faith which is solely up to the believer. I find nothing wrong with the doctrine of inerrancy, but I do think that becoming judgemental against those who do not adhere to inerrancy is counter productive to the message of the Gospel. Lastly, I am in the class to learn about the Old Testament and NOT about some tangent regarding what the professor thinks about inerrancy...

The Fight Within

Sovereign Lord,

The more time passes, the more I understand that I need You.
Every time I strive to live on my own, I fail and fall on my face.

You know my heart, and that kills me daily.
My heart is filled with despair, anguish, hopelessness, anger and things that others do not see but do not escape your eye.

Oh Father!
Oh God!

I know what I want to do and what I do not want to do. Yet, what I want not to do is what I do, but what I want to do is not what I do.

I cringe at the thought of what You think of me; but I know if I believe, I stand justified by faith alone in Christ.
In You I trust, but I show You not!

Some friend I am! Maybe, I am not a true friend to You, but You are to me.
You carried the cross and died for me. Please forgive me for taking You for granted—it’s just that I do not fully understand the grandeur of what You have done.

In the end what matters is only You and solely You. So, I plea for your pardon for failing so miserably with my life even after You came and showed us how to live.

Here I stand with only my belief in Christ, and I hope that is good enough for You.

God and Time

What is time? Does time exist or is time an invention of man? There is no doubt we use time as a measurement of things/events of a less than greater than relationship(s). Things that we can perceive as timeless might be numbers. Time as far as I understand does not cause 1 any changes, thus we might be able to suppose that 1 has the attribute of "timelessness." Numbers then can be categorized as immaterial. We can see numbers and assume (i.e.) 1+1=2, and as time passes 1 will always be 1.

When we examine things that are material it seems that time can and does affect them. As time passes things tend to go through some sort of change. This could be tied to the entropy, but I am not sure if entropy affects everything that is material/matter. However, I am inclined to think that physical things, which are part of our perceived reality, allow us to posture time causing changes to those things.

If God does exist, can God be immaterial? If God does exist, does that mean God remains timeless? But if God is immaterial how can God relate to mankind? Can it be that God was timeless but after creation God is now enduring time? The very possibility that God is in time does not mean that God changes or has changed, but rather God endures time with God's nature remaining intact. Of course there is that possibility that there is no such thing as God. If that is true can we suppose that the universe and everything within is explainable because it is that way, or do we have to come to the understanding that we just made up concepts and presumed things are that way? I think that if there is no God then we most likely would have to take the latter position.

The Shack Revisited

Several months ago I read the book The Shack. You can read about my opinions of the book in my previous post. At any rate, I thought the book was very good. I really liked how the author portrayed that God interacts and relates to humanity. On May 04, 2009 the author of the book was coming near to the area where I live. I had thought about going, but then decided not to go. However, my wife and sister encouraged me to go, and so I ended up going to the event.

The reason William P. Young (the author of the book) appeared at the fund raiser was to help a ministry which helps pregnant women who are abused or have no where to turn to have a place that would nurture them. So, to my mind the reason(s) for the author being there was a good one. I was hesitant to cough up $25.00 dollars, but the more I thought about it the women needed it more than I did (plus the support of my family helped my decision). So I went to see and hear about his testimony, and the evening ended up being very powerful as well as adding a more in-depth understanding of the book.

The first thing I learned about the book is that The Shack stands for the heart of the individual. The heart does not stand for the muscle that pumps blood in a person, but the inner part of self which allows one to love and produce the what is known as feelings. Mr. Young goes on to allude that people tend to build facades because life's experiences affect them in different ways. If you read the book you will notice the words The Great Sadness throughout the whole book. As one reads the book the reader will come to understand what the great sadness is, but during Mr. Young's testimony he says the great sadness in the book is a symbolism of when his innocence was lost as a child. In fact in the book the great sadness is when the protagonist's daughter gets murdered, and so I tend to think his innocence got severed/extinguished when he was a child. For a young child to lose his/her innocence at an early stage is a tremendous blow to the psyche. I can only imagine the effect such an event has on a child.

Mr. Young made some comments that made me ponder and take a step back as a member of the invisible church of Christ. He stated that his parents were busy "doing the things of God," but as they did they failed to see how he as a child was being affected by their "missionary work." The people who his parents were helping were the ones that took care of him. So what happens to a child when the people who are taking care of you sexually abuse you as a child? The child may think it's okay to sexually abuse others? The effects psychologically on a child has to be devastating to the well being of the individual. Hence, the psychological barriers put up by Mr. Young were of self-survival and that of learned behavior. Part of the problem is the learned behavior (sexual abuse) of the child is not healthy neither socially or mentally. In order to cope with the baggage (bad experiences) of the past the child more likely than not will create false assumptions on how to deal with certain situations.

Mr. Young talks about how he became a person who was good at impressions and making people think what he wanted about him. He became addicted to pornography, cheated on his wife, and was not able to deal with internal emotions. It took his wife catching him in lies and cheating on her in order for him to be able to deal with his past. His wife could see through the facade he made in order to protect his shameful past (being sexually abused). Mr. Young stated he could not forgive himself for what happened to him when he was a child (as if it was his fault anyways, which it was not since he was just a child). Since he could not forgive himself he ended up having a bad self-esteem which led him to adopt a personality that pretended to portray a person that was made of what he thought others needed to see.

Mr. Young testified that it took him ten years (give or take a few) to deal with his problems. Part of the healing process was writing the book The Shack, which neither he nor his wife expected to receive the support it has and continues to receive. Though he knows not everyone will like the book for "theological" and other reasons he welcomes the criticism. Moreover, his reason for writing the book was not to write a novel, but it was a healing process for him and something that he wanted to pass down to his kids. The journey has taken him into doing a self-published book and being transparent about his past as well as who he really is. I welcome The Shack not only as reading material but as a testament to how God works through imperfect people.

The Shack

I recommend that especially in Western Theological circles The Shack be read. For the most part Western Theological thinking is fixated on the wrath of God and the sinfulness of man. However, the book thrust is to highlight God’s nature when it comes to relationships. The attribute of love and man’s independence is stressed throughout the book. Man’s independence is the reason why humanity is in the fallen state they are in. The way the Trinity is portrayed is very unique. I suggest that even if you do not like the way the Father is represented throughout most of the book you understand why it is being shown in the manner that it is. As the book explained God is neither male nor female, and God explains to Mack why He revealed Himself as the Father to Abraham.

One of the negative critiques the book is getting is that it espouses Universalism. Several things to keep in mind: (1) the author of the book addressed that issue and stated he did not believe in Universalism (2) in the book it is plainly stated that God tells Mack that He finds believers in whatever situation they are in. It was not stated in that exact manner, but I have concluded as much. I might be accused with equivocation, but I think that is a false charge when one considers the meat of the book.

Not everyone is going to like the book. You will either love it or hate it! The hyper-fundamental folk will most definitely have a field day with the book. Most of the time these people will beat their chests to expound God’s sovereignty to the point where God’s attributes are most certainly lessened, but these individuals just propose that “we don’t understand how it all works,” and/or the Bible says God “loves” and so that settles it. These people seem to not understand when they have a contradiction in their hands and just chalk it up to mystery. The book dealt rather well with a lot of these “issues,” because in the end it is a novel and so people just need to chill. Personally speaking, I highly recommend the book.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Criticized

It appears William Lane Craigs' cosmological argument is stirring talk within the philosophical community.

Rasmussen states:

I'll wrap up. My sense is that the Kalam argument is more likely to appeal to the common man or woman than to your average philosopher. From the common man's perspective, beginnings obviously have causes; science reveals a beginning to our universe; and surely only God would be the cause of our entire universe(I've conducted informal surveys). But philosophers recognize a lot of complexity beneath first appearances. They ask: Does science reveal that our universe popped into being, or merely that it has existed for a finite amount of time? Is our intuition that all beginnings have a cause, or is it rather that everything that comes to be is made out of pre-existing materials or is preceded by a past? Must the cause of our universe be a supernatural God, or might it instead be a more natural phenomena? Questions like these often motivate skepticism among philosophers concerning the Kalam argument. At least that is so for Wes and me.

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2009/04/more-reflection.html

For additional references read here (Pruss):

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/04/infinite-numbers-of-objects.html

and here:

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-on-kalaam-argument.html

Enjoy!

An Interesting Flight (Part 2)

The conversation shifted towards morality, which he believed did not exist. He "reasoned" from what we observe in nature there is no difference between animals and humans. Since the theory of evolution points to gradual evolution (which assumes a probable link between animals and humans) then there is no morality. Is there morality when the lion eats the gazelle? No. The lion eats the gazelle to survive, because that is the lion's nature. Since humans are animals (according to him) and survival of the fittest is real—then morality is only an illusion. He talked about all the killing done by mankind in order to rise to power, which comes from only the strong survive mentality. Unfortunately for him he cannot account for ethical epistemology, and it is something he even denied (he said morality was an illusion). Yet we find the notion of ethics in the likes of Richard Dawkins as he writes:

Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). [1]

What? So we are to "construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it." Based on what? We are to care for the poor and so forth, but all this is based on what? To my mind these people have nothing to ground their ethical propositions other than illusions, which they themselves have set up by their own conclusions. Yet, my new found acquaintance supposes he can tell me that we are to be regarded the same as animals. What? If we (humans) are at the top of the food chain according to his own worldview, how can we be or should be compared as equals? He implied that we should have some regard for animals. Huh? Why should we have any regard for anything other than ourselves under his worldview? I am not sure how he can ground his premises on epistemological grounds that are non-fallacious.

Nevertheless, the conversation continued, though, I really did not want to continue, since no progression was happening. The topic reaches its peak when he tells me, "There are no absolutes!" I told him that such a statement is an oxymoron, because such a statement is an absolute statement. There is a difference in humans being limited and producing theories that are incomplete with claiming there are no absolute truths. Even if absoluteness eludes us it makes practical sense to me that we seek truth because it is there to be found, and not because there is none to be had. The latter supports an infinite loop which leads to truth never being found. It very well could be that there are no absolutes and we are children of the absurd. I told him to read Richard Swinburne as he could do a better job than I could in the realm of philosophy for proofs for the existence of God. And so, we went our marry way onto our lives...

__________________________
[1] Richard Dawkins

An Interesting Flight (Part 1)

On 03/05/09 I embarked on a journey to visit one of my best friends. I do not have a lot of people I tend to call best friends, but he is indeed one of the few. Anyways, I had to take a plane in order to see my friend. On the last flight I would have to take I met a stranger that would come to challenge my thinking and my worldview. Out of all the people I could have met, this individual was the one I was destined to encounter on that day. He politely started the conversation on how his fishing trip to Florida had been ruined due to the storm that most likely killed two NFL players. He continued to tell me about how he loved to travel and see the world. We both came to the agreement that seeing the world enables you appreciate other cultures and different people. At that time I thought the conversation was over since we both became quiet, and so I pulled out one of my books.

He glanced over and saw that I was reading a book about philosophy. He proceeded to talk about existentialism and the works of Soren Kirkengaard. I acknowledged his statements and told him that I knew about Kirkengaard who in fact was a Christian. He showed skepticism towards Kirkengaard really being a Christian. He went on to tell me about the abuses of the Church and how powerful they were and still are. I pointed him towards any philosophical encyclopedia and/or philosophical resource(s) can verify to the fact that Soren Kirkengaard was a Christian philosopher. Yet, he still refused to accept the reality of Kirkengaard being a Christian. He went on to assert that Bacon, Newton, Galileo, etc. were really not Christians but were in fact victims of the Church.

I did not deny or cannot dismiss that the Church did actually hamper the scientific revolution that was brewing and taking place. However, some (in fact a lot) of these individuals were in fact documented as being Christians. If one wants to make assumptions on things that have no validity, then one can surely propose that position but it is something without substance (I explained). I also stated that I cannot deny that the Church did not have any abuses and/or that abuses do not happen; rather, I understand human nature will tend to show brokenness in things that it touches, which of course includes the Church. Do I then take the position in concluding that God does not exit, because the Church committed acts of evil? That would seem to be an emotional deduction, which at the very least puts burdens that we cannot fathom. We would have to prove that God has no business in allowing evil in the world and/or that freewill does not exist. Moreover, the assumption of evil actually existing means just that—evil exists. He on the other hand took the position that evil does not exist. Even more damaging to mankind is that postulation that morality is also not real which he actually accepted willingly. (The moral discussion continues later as the conversation shifted to faith.)

The conversation moved to the topic of faith. I told him that he had exercised some sort of faith when he got on the plane. He however did not agree that he had. He proposed to actually having confidence in the reliability of the plane being able to fly. My new found acquaintance postulated the ever fallacious position that gravity's testability is as solid as a plane flying. Now, I do not have a problem in accepting that planes have demonstrated to fly every time they go up, but this is assuming no malfunction or other possible contingencies will not affect the plane's flight. I can accept that humans have proven they can make planes that are able to fly; however, it has also come to pass that planes have crashed. Therefore, it can be said that I accept the reliability of planes being able to fly, but I refuse to accept notions which claim getting on planes does not require faith since at any given time the plane can crash given the right circumstances. So, his refusal to accept my proposition about him having faith does not hold water, I don't think.

cont.

Reflection and Supplication

I have brought shame to your house,
though I claim to know You.
I have doubted Your Son,
though I have felt and seen his essence in my life.

Please, help my past, present, and future NOT be a shameful memory to You.
Please strengthen my faith and reason so I can go forth in Your name.

Let You be my focus!
Only in giving up self and selfish wants will I fully give myself to You.
So please help me! I cannot do it! I cannot bear it!
Please take not Your hand from me.
Help me seek You now and always.

Use me, touch me, embrace me, cleanse me, love me…

In You things are possible!
Help me move mountains in Your name.

Jesus is real and only through Him shall I know You!
Jesus I beg Your forgiveness.
I urge my inner being to know You.
Guide and shine my path.

By example shall I teach my children?
Help me attain their souls for You.

Lead me to oneness with my wife.

I love Thee!
You are worthy of worship and praise.
May I do so forever and ever. Amen!