Friday, April 07, 2006
Jesus was a homosexual, Jesus never existed. We cannot trust the biblical record. Israel and Jews never existed before very recently. The Bible was written as a super secret conspiracy to take over the world. Religion is an old-fashioned attempt to control you. Christians are stupid. I hear this all year long, but why do these attempts to destroy biblical Christianity always crest at this time of year? Simply, it is considered the most sacred time of year, and the religious are doing battle. Atheists are fighting to prove their case that God does not exist. Pagans are celebrating the spring renewal of earth. Christians are arguing just as strongly for the historical validity of the Bible and the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Jews are arguing for the historical validity of their escape from Egypt and establishment as a nation.
What bothers me the most about this is that all of these people live in the same world, but see radically different things. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the area of the historical record. The ever present issue of the biblical record (claiming a young universe created by a eternal God) and the evolutionary record (claiming an eternal universe in which the people created gods) is particularly troubling. How can two people look at the same data and come to such opposite conclusions? Is one of them just super ignorant?
I am troubled by that assumption. I think they have a faith, which they are trying to apply consistently and intelligently. The problem with all these debates is that they do not focus on the presupposed framework by which all the other data is interpreted. One good example of this is the geological layers. The evolutionary presents them as proof of his theory, and the creationism presents them as proof of his.
Today, launched by National Geographic, is a document that claims a different historical record for Jesus' life and a different understanding of who He was and what happened surrounding His death. This document has been around for some time, has undergone varying analysis, and has hit the news wires with amazing promotion.
Being a bit cynical, I suspect that the whole issue was raised on the news wires today to accomplish two major things. The first, is to attack Christianity with an attempt to hurt or discredit the various celebrations in the week to come. The second, and here I go really cynical, is to promote the soon release of the Davinci Code movie and try to give its fictional portions some validity.
Being a cynical reader, I am clearly not an expert. I leave you with many links today. Some go to very anti-Christian sites, with which I disagree almost completely. Some go to very ecumenical sites, with which I disagree on many things. Some go to what you might call conservative sites, with which I agree almost completely. The point is to see what I was talking about in the beginning. Different people are looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions. This is because they are all coming into the arena of debate with a bag full of assumptions that are changing the way they interpret the data. I am showing you some of mine right now.
Here are some of my thoughts directly on the document. Thousands of ancient manuscripts exist consistent with the Old and New Testaments which Christians hold as Scripture. These documents, being hand written and spanning generations of time show tremendous consistency. The consistency is particularly marked with respect to the Old Testament, since it spans much more time in authorship and many more men wrote the books. The existence of ancient documents to the contrary does not prove these documents wrong or illegitimate. It only proves that even in those times people were partisan, interpreting history according to their own presupposed framework.
Does the New Testament accurately describe the history and interpret it? I do not know. In the first place, I was not there to be able to judge by experience. In the second place, I would be judging anyway based on my presupposed framework, just as I am now. In the third place I am not alone in this problem (in other words, dear reader, you and everyone else have the same problem). I do know this: as a basis for knowledge, gnosticism is an inconsistent system, making their documents less convincing. I know that the people presenting the document as authoritative evidence of any kind hold very partisan views, and that needs to be taken into account before one goes off into blind acceptance of what they say.
What bothers me the most about this is that all of these people live in the same world, but see radically different things. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the area of the historical record. The ever present issue of the biblical record (claiming a young universe created by a eternal God) and the evolutionary record (claiming an eternal universe in which the people created gods) is particularly troubling. How can two people look at the same data and come to such opposite conclusions? Is one of them just super ignorant?
I am troubled by that assumption. I think they have a faith, which they are trying to apply consistently and intelligently. The problem with all these debates is that they do not focus on the presupposed framework by which all the other data is interpreted. One good example of this is the geological layers. The evolutionary presents them as proof of his theory, and the creationism presents them as proof of his.
Today, launched by National Geographic, is a document that claims a different historical record for Jesus' life and a different understanding of who He was and what happened surrounding His death. This document has been around for some time, has undergone varying analysis, and has hit the news wires with amazing promotion.
Being a bit cynical, I suspect that the whole issue was raised on the news wires today to accomplish two major things. The first, is to attack Christianity with an attempt to hurt or discredit the various celebrations in the week to come. The second, and here I go really cynical, is to promote the soon release of the Davinci Code movie and try to give its fictional portions some validity.
Being a cynical reader, I am clearly not an expert. I leave you with many links today. Some go to very anti-Christian sites, with which I disagree almost completely. Some go to very ecumenical sites, with which I disagree on many things. Some go to what you might call conservative sites, with which I agree almost completely. The point is to see what I was talking about in the beginning. Different people are looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions. This is because they are all coming into the arena of debate with a bag full of assumptions that are changing the way they interpret the data. I am showing you some of mine right now.
Here are some of my thoughts directly on the document. Thousands of ancient manuscripts exist consistent with the Old and New Testaments which Christians hold as Scripture. These documents, being hand written and spanning generations of time show tremendous consistency. The consistency is particularly marked with respect to the Old Testament, since it spans much more time in authorship and many more men wrote the books. The existence of ancient documents to the contrary does not prove these documents wrong or illegitimate. It only proves that even in those times people were partisan, interpreting history according to their own presupposed framework.
Does the New Testament accurately describe the history and interpret it? I do not know. In the first place, I was not there to be able to judge by experience. In the second place, I would be judging anyway based on my presupposed framework, just as I am now. In the third place I am not alone in this problem (in other words, dear reader, you and everyone else have the same problem). I do know this: as a basis for knowledge, gnosticism is an inconsistent system, making their documents less convincing. I know that the people presenting the document as authoritative evidence of any kind hold very partisan views, and that needs to be taken into account before one goes off into blind acceptance of what they say.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Faith
Who do men say that I am?
Some say a John the Baptist, some say Elijah, some say Jeremiah, some say a prophet, some say a teacher, some say a liar, some say never existed, some say cool dude.
Who do you say that I am?
The Messiah, The Son of the Living God.
Who do men say that faith is?
Some say morality, some say religion, some say illogical, some say foolish, some say uneducated, some say keep it out of public discussion, some say it is not science, some say it is important, some say it is irrelevant.
Who do you say that faith is?
It is certainty, assurance of knowing the truth.
"I had rather see an entire regiment armed and ready for combat coming toward me than one lone calvinist convinced he is doing the will of God" (author unknown).
This common sentiment is more real than we may know. There are many kinds of "calvinists." Not all of them believe in God. I fear atheists in their faith convinced that evolution, themselves, or some convention has dictated something and they must fulfill it.
I fear Christians and anyone else who misunderstand just what faith is. Faith is not a groovy feeling or a deep sentiment. Faith is not trusting the illogical or nonsensical. I repeat, Faith is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for.
As a Christian, I think it is important that I know that Jesus is The Christ. I think it is important to know that in full assurance. If that makes me one of those feared calvinists, then so be it. The difference is that I will talk with you about it over a cup of coffee. Those insecure "calvinists" are trying to bomb, regulate, or conquer earthly kingdoms.
Faith is believing the facts to be true, and having the wisdom to discern what the facts are. Many people believe "facts" that never existed as fact. That is not faith; it is foolishness.
If you want faith, get wisdom, get knowledge, and with all your getting, get understanding.
Some say a John the Baptist, some say Elijah, some say Jeremiah, some say a prophet, some say a teacher, some say a liar, some say never existed, some say cool dude.
Who do you say that I am?
The Messiah, The Son of the Living God.
Who do men say that faith is?
Some say morality, some say religion, some say illogical, some say foolish, some say uneducated, some say keep it out of public discussion, some say it is not science, some say it is important, some say it is irrelevant.
Who do you say that faith is?
It is certainty, assurance of knowing the truth.
"I had rather see an entire regiment armed and ready for combat coming toward me than one lone calvinist convinced he is doing the will of God" (author unknown).
This common sentiment is more real than we may know. There are many kinds of "calvinists." Not all of them believe in God. I fear atheists in their faith convinced that evolution, themselves, or some convention has dictated something and they must fulfill it.
I fear Christians and anyone else who misunderstand just what faith is. Faith is not a groovy feeling or a deep sentiment. Faith is not trusting the illogical or nonsensical. I repeat, Faith is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for.
As a Christian, I think it is important that I know that Jesus is The Christ. I think it is important to know that in full assurance. If that makes me one of those feared calvinists, then so be it. The difference is that I will talk with you about it over a cup of coffee. Those insecure "calvinists" are trying to bomb, regulate, or conquer earthly kingdoms.
Faith is believing the facts to be true, and having the wisdom to discern what the facts are. Many people believe "facts" that never existed as fact. That is not faith; it is foolishness.
If you want faith, get wisdom, get knowledge, and with all your getting, get understanding.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
God's Grace
I had a teacher that said once, "You don't have to squeeze grace out of the Old Tesament like you would try to squeeze blood from a rock. The Old Testament is already saturated with grace. It's practically dripping grace all over."
The story of Cain and Abel is the same. As I was thinking about how fast the Bible's history records the rise of murder, and I wrote about that last week, I realized that the same story is dominated by God's great grace. Cain, guilty of murder was approached by God. God came to Cain with the same instructive attitude, asking questions and leading Cain to the truth, just as He did with Adam and Eve. God judged the sin of Cain, because justice was required, but God made the judgment gracious and loving. He made the judgment bearable.
I believe that God did this because ultimately God loved Cain as much as He loved Abel. He passed the judgment of Cain's sin onto the future judgment of all sin in the promised Redeemer. Cain, as one can read in Genesis four cried out for mercy beyond the mercy that God had already given. Rather than becoming angry and upset with Cain, God eased Cain's pain even more.
I talk a lot about the argument that the Bible is, because I do not believe it is legends, or stories, or sentiments. I believe that the Bible is a systematic presentation of a complete theological, cultural, and practical culture. This passage of Scripture is no different. Aside from Moses, the author, arguing for the depth of sin's depravity, Moses is arguing that God's justice is carried out in a grace that is far deeper. God loves mankind. He loves me. He loves you. He has a "missionary heart," in the sense that He comes to men, reveals Himself, judges the sin and saves the sinner. As we say in Portuguese, "Que tão grande amor!"
The story of Cain and Abel is the same. As I was thinking about how fast the Bible's history records the rise of murder, and I wrote about that last week, I realized that the same story is dominated by God's great grace. Cain, guilty of murder was approached by God. God came to Cain with the same instructive attitude, asking questions and leading Cain to the truth, just as He did with Adam and Eve. God judged the sin of Cain, because justice was required, but God made the judgment gracious and loving. He made the judgment bearable.
I believe that God did this because ultimately God loved Cain as much as He loved Abel. He passed the judgment of Cain's sin onto the future judgment of all sin in the promised Redeemer. Cain, as one can read in Genesis four cried out for mercy beyond the mercy that God had already given. Rather than becoming angry and upset with Cain, God eased Cain's pain even more.
I talk a lot about the argument that the Bible is, because I do not believe it is legends, or stories, or sentiments. I believe that the Bible is a systematic presentation of a complete theological, cultural, and practical culture. This passage of Scripture is no different. Aside from Moses, the author, arguing for the depth of sin's depravity, Moses is arguing that God's justice is carried out in a grace that is far deeper. God loves mankind. He loves me. He loves you. He has a "missionary heart," in the sense that He comes to men, reveals Himself, judges the sin and saves the sinner. As we say in Portuguese, "Que tão grande amor!"
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
The Fundamental Problem of Democracy
The reader is probably asking himself, "Who would ever try to entitle an article like that?" This is one author who should not surprise you in this regard. As modern people call for the expansion of democracy, and differing governments claim to have the same thing, but have wars over that "same thing," I ask my self, why haven't we learned anything in the last six thousand years of history?
Venezuela's democracy is trying to start an arms race with the USA's democracy. Brazil and China try to forge a new definition of democracy. Europe has fights, but insists on forging its new definition of democracy. Democracy is resulting in street mobs dominating society in France. Iran's alternative form of democracy is asserting its independence. Israel and the whole Middle East continue to fight over what it means to be democratic.
Democracy is such an overused term that it has come to mean really anything at any time. It essentially is the claim that the power goes to the people. The problem is in deciding what power and which people.
You see, as badly as we may berail the oligarchy, it has never and it will never go away. Someone will always rule someone else. In democracy, it is really exxagerated because of the dominance of the mob. That is, without checks and balances, the shrillest and most violent voices are always the ones that rule.
I believe that government should be accountable, so much so that I believe every government position should be up for election, right down to teachers and secretaries, and dog catchers, and every beurocratic administrator. However, government accountability does not prevent the abuse of power.
What really gets my goad is when I see society broken down into demographs that now lobby for their agenda. The students lobby for their agenda, the retirees want what's coming to them, the farmers fight to maintain subsidies, the women's vote, the black vote, the gay vote, the christian vote, the workers vote, blah, blah, blah. This is not even rule by majority, it is rule by largest demograph. What has been happening with riots in the streets around the world (called protests by sypathetics) and especially in France has been an example of how the mob can take democracy and turn it into a real hand to hand street fight. Why, because no matter what form of human government we may choose, it is human and therefore corrupt. I wish I had a good alternative, but I do not. I only wait, hoping for a supernatural intervention.
Venezuela's democracy is trying to start an arms race with the USA's democracy. Brazil and China try to forge a new definition of democracy. Europe has fights, but insists on forging its new definition of democracy. Democracy is resulting in street mobs dominating society in France. Iran's alternative form of democracy is asserting its independence. Israel and the whole Middle East continue to fight over what it means to be democratic.
Democracy is such an overused term that it has come to mean really anything at any time. It essentially is the claim that the power goes to the people. The problem is in deciding what power and which people.
You see, as badly as we may berail the oligarchy, it has never and it will never go away. Someone will always rule someone else. In democracy, it is really exxagerated because of the dominance of the mob. That is, without checks and balances, the shrillest and most violent voices are always the ones that rule.
I believe that government should be accountable, so much so that I believe every government position should be up for election, right down to teachers and secretaries, and dog catchers, and every beurocratic administrator. However, government accountability does not prevent the abuse of power.
What really gets my goad is when I see society broken down into demographs that now lobby for their agenda. The students lobby for their agenda, the retirees want what's coming to them, the farmers fight to maintain subsidies, the women's vote, the black vote, the gay vote, the christian vote, the workers vote, blah, blah, blah. This is not even rule by majority, it is rule by largest demograph. What has been happening with riots in the streets around the world (called protests by sypathetics) and especially in France has been an example of how the mob can take democracy and turn it into a real hand to hand street fight. Why, because no matter what form of human government we may choose, it is human and therefore corrupt. I wish I had a good alternative, but I do not. I only wait, hoping for a supernatural intervention.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Vistas de Portugal
Castles, countrysides, history. Oh, and note the multi-million dollar stadium in from the turret of a thousand-year old castle. What a priveledge to experience this!
