Month: March 2008

We’re not going to cover chapter 5 here as it deals with faith and reason and there’s very little there that is arguing against Christianity. I do have a few comments in my copy of the book in that section, but I want to stick as much as I can to the topics that go against the Christian faith directly. The next chapter then is the one on the Christian illusion of moral and rational superiority.

Let us begin with rational superiority. Now we all know that each of us has times of doubt. Sometimes, this is about rational issues. If that is the case though, then usually when the doubt is answered successfully, it goes away. However, rational doubt can often be a hider of emotional doubt. This is where you encounter the doubter and as you probe his questions, you find emotional reasons underlying them.

Now there is a list of thinkers who have denied Christianity supposedly on rational grounds. It is my understanding that Paul Vitz has written about such thinkers in “Faith of the Fatherless” and shown the underlying emotional issues. (It is a book that I have ordered and look forward to reading when it arrives.)

Is Christianity a matter of the rational alone? Not for most of us. Many of us do have emotional reasons involved. Thats why we speak of the rational and emotional problem of evil. I contend that if you were truly rational, you would be a much better Christian and if you weren’t a Christian, you would become one.

It’s worth noting also that Christianity has a basis for rationality.

Let’s move on to moral superiority.

The argument presented is that Christians will say that atheists have no justification or motivation for being moral. Now I will grant that there could be some personal motivations and there could even be some justification in that an atheist wants to be good. A lot of atheists are really good people and a lot of Christians sadly aren’t.

I will contend though that atheism has no basis for a morality whereby goodness is established. If that isn’t there also, this will lead to the Problem of Evil no longer being a problem. From the Christian perspective, it is a problem that needs to be answered. If there is no evil though, there is no problem.

When Loftus chooses to argue against the divine command theory, I have no problem. I do not hold to that view so I see no need to defend it. However, when we get into the natural law theory, then that is something that I will address. The question boils down to how we know that God is good.

The best way I can think of is to say that God is pure actuality. This also explains that he never makes a choice to be good. Any “choices” God makes are eternal choices that he’s eternally choosing and eternally acting on. If you pray today and God answers your prayer, that is because God has been eternally hearing your prayer and eternally choosing to answer it.

Also, we can see Augustine’s description of the definition between good and evil. Evil is a lack of that which should be there. A rock cannot see, but that is hardly an evil as a rock is not supposed to see. If you have a man who is blind though, then that is considered an evil as the eye is meant to see. Aristotle would even say that you can’t call an eye that can’t see an eye.

Now take that eye that can’t see and take away the evil of it not being able to see and what do you have? You have a better eye. However, take away all that is good in it and what do you have left? You have nothing. Removing evil always makes the good that is there better. Removing good always leaves you with nothing.

In case anyone thinks they have a killer caveat, let me go on and defeat it. This even applies to the devil.  You take away all the evil of the devil and you are left with a beautiful angel. You take away the good and you have nothing. What good is there? Existence is good, intellect is good, and will is good. They’re just all used in a wrong way.

Goodness, by this standard would be pure existence with no lack of what should be there. God lacks no power. He lacks no knowledge. He lacks no wisdom, beauty, truth, fellowship, etc. You cannot improve on him in anyway. He is perfect goodness. He is that which is desired for its own sake. Nothing else experiences existence like God does.

Now someone like James Rachels will be quoted who will say that if natural law theories are true, it means “That the religious believer has no special access to moral truth. The believer and the nonbeliever are in exactly the same position. God has made all people rational, not just believers; and so for believer and nonbeliever alike, making a responsible moral judgment is a matter of listening to reason and following its directives.” (p. 64)

I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

Now Loftus thinks that this is his point. However, there is a difference between the atheist and the theist on this. The Christian theist does have a basis for the rooting of the natural law. Does the atheist? There have been many attempts, but so far, none have worked. They all root themselves on foundations that they cannot back.

While it is brought up about Christians doing awful things, this should hardly be news. We all know that we are fallen and that the church hasn’t been the best in the past. This is also done contrary to the teachings of Christ. When atheism reigns and reigns by the sword persecuting Christianity, is this in contradiction to the “teachings of atheism” or not? How is someone like Stalin being inconsistent with atheism?

Now when he talks about the motivation for Christians, two are mentioned. The first is that Christians are good because they think that they’ll fry in Hell. The other is that God will just forgive them. I’ll go on and say that both of these are not the best motivators. For the first one, I think that can be a start to get to the kingdom, but it should not stay that way. The second is taking advantage of God.

The motivation to do the good is simply because it is good and this brings glory to God when we do this.  To claim the others as the motivations for Christians does not really tell us about Christians. Instead, it seems to tell us more about Loftus. The actions that he condemns, I will more than happy be ready to condemn. It is a shame, for instance, that Christians have long affairs.

This gets us to the problem though for atheism. An atheist can say they have a basis to be good, but what is good? It will not work to borrow the answer from Christianity and then use it against Christianity. Atheism must come up with its own basis totally apart from a theistic view. The lack of such has been revealing.

So why is there moral and rational superiority? There’s a simple reason. It’s rooted in a perfectly moral and rational God.

I have recently read the book by John Loftus called “Why I Rejected Christianity.” Unfortunately, it is definitely lacking. Seeing so much in here, I decided I’d start writing a review of it. This will take my time, but it is important that we learn to engage the ideas of the other side.

Now the book starts off with several autobiographical notes. However, I have decided for my own reasons to skip those parts. Instead, it’s better if we move right on to the argument. The first part that is given is the Outsider Test. This relies on what Loftus describes as one’s “Sociological and cultural background.” (P. 40)

The point for Loftus is that Christianity from the outside looks untrue. That is not the case from the inside though. From the inside, it seems entirely true. The question is though that how can one choose any religion if from the outside, they all seem to lack any plausibility.

Of course, it’s probably hoped you’ll run with that assumption…

Hmmm. Shall we name some names? Let’s see, the early church consisted of people from either a Jewish background or a pagan background or a God-fearing background. Apparently, 3,000 people were able to choose a new faith at Pentecost. Apparently, the apostles all chose a new faith and apparently, the churches founded all consisted of people that chose a new faith.

Could it be that maybe they found the faith plausible?

Oh! Well, that was then! How about now? The ancients might, but anyone else?

Frank Morrison converted after trying to disprove the resurrection. Simon Greenleaf converted after a student told him to test the gospels with all the legal skill he had. The famous illusionist Andre Kole converted after being challenged to disprove Christ’s miracles. J. Budziszewski converted because of the Problem of Evil. C.S. Lewis is one of the most famous conversion stories. Alister McGrath writes about converting in college.

All of these converted because they thought the faith gave the rational answers. Could it be that a faith can look plausible from the outside? Also, let us suppose that a faith was not plausible. Does that mean atheism by default? We’ll have to go through and see if the arguments for atheism hold up. After all, if you reject Christianity because it seems implausible, there is no sense holding to atheism if it is implausible.

We are also given the great line that believers are atheists to all other religions. Atheists just add one more religion.

It’s really saddening that people still use lines like this as if that says anything.

Oh. Let me guess. We hold that religion because it’s true? We reject the others because they’re false. Yeah. That’s it. (Ironically, I could say that believers are skeptics of all other worldviews. It doesn’t show that one religion is true or false. It’s just simply stating that if X is true, all non-X is false.)

Now we are told also that an outsider should come assuming that their religion is false and be like one with on intellectual affiliation with them at all.

Well, I suppose you could just forget everything you think is true about your religion and then approach it and ask if it is true. Or, you could just simply do what anyone else does and read all the arguments one can and make rational decisions and if you encounter a strong argument against your belief, then study it and see if it is true or not.

Excuse me then if I remain skeptical of the outsider test.

Now we have to show the bias supposedly the idea that if you are born in Saudi Arabia, you’ll be a Muslim and if in Thailand a Buddhist and if in America, it’s quite likely that you’ll be a Christian.

I get the feeling that this is supposed to prove something….

Interestingly, it seems to be only the atheists that are the exception. (John Hick is noted but I think we can find an akin relationship with pluralism.) It is the atheists who have risen as they have seen that all religions are false. In the same way, the Pluralist though has seen that all religions have a piece of the truth. (Without telling us how they know that.)

If only the rest of us were as great as the “brights.”

Now on page 41, we are told that if we were born in Saudi Arabia or Iran, we’d be Muslims.

Geez. Couldn’t be because that’s the law of the land could it? Ever heard what they do with apostates over there? Religious freedom is hardly a value. Now granted one might be more likely to hold to a worldview if born in another area, but it doesn’t speak of the truthfulness or lack thereof and it’s just as easy to investigate something that you believe is true.

Furthermore, from what I know of myself and fellow Christians, the hardest questions are the ones we think of. They are not the ones the skeptics give us.

Now we are told that if we lived in the first century, we would believe that God sent illnesses and disasters to punish people for their sins.

Even though Christ argued against such a view and the book of Job argues against such a belief. Where do these people come up with this stuff?

Of course, there’s the usual tirade about the Middle Ages with murdering witches, torturing heretics, and removing infidels from Jerusalem.

It makes me wonder how many works on history of that time period have actually been read….

It’s especially amusing when slavery is brought up. Hmmm. No mention about the Muslims with that one. No mention that Clovis II and his wife Bathilda were instrumental in ending it in the Christian Middle Ages due to the teaching that they found taught in the Bible.

Next on page 42, we are told of the DPT and the DVT. The DPT (Dependency Thesis) states that “Morality is not a matter of independent rational judgment but is causally dependent on cultural conditions.” The DVT (Diversity Thesis) states that “Moral practices and beliefs do in fact vary from culture to culture and at different times in history.”

Please note that this is said while all the while telling the biblical culture that they were wrong. This cultural relativism if held will only end in moral relativism. If moral relativism is held…

Well, no such thing as the Problem of Evil anymore….

Now the same is done to religion by Loftus. The RDVT (religious dependency) states “Religious faith does in fact vary from culture to culture and at different times in history.” and the RDPT (Religious Divesrity) states that “Religious faith is not merely a matter of independent rational judgment but is causally dependent on cultural conditions to an overwhelming degree.”

Well, it obviously has to be because if rational judgment were being used, no one would choose a religion…

Now the outsider test is said to have a greater degree of force because there’s no empirical tests to determine if a religion is true.

Riiiiight. All Christians shun empirical facts about the world and think they have no value. Now I have nothing against empirical data. I’d use data like the fine-tuning of the universe and the resurrection of Christ. I’d also use philosophical data like the moral law and aesthetic value as well as the consistency of theism along with experiential data like how the Christian life can be lived out well and how it makes a difference when applied.

Loftus then tells us that we should forgo our presuppositions and approach the text. We should adopt the presupposition of skepticism.

Odd. I wanted to simply adopt the presupposition that I am skeptical of skepticism and see how well skepticism held up. He also suggests that believers should read books like his and have them read at church groups.

I suppose that’s one way of increasing sales.

However, I agree. Believers should read the other side. I think they should see just how weak opposing arguments are. I think they should be read at church groups so churches can discuss them and answer them together.

Now we are next told that our initial experiences should be questioned when coming to investigate our faith.

Odd. I don’t remember Heaven opening up when I converted. I’ll grant that while I came as a child, I later became an adult and investigated my faith. I wanted to see if my life meant anything and found that it did. I only got greater confirmation when bringing arguments to the other side and finding them lacking.

I love the quote from Michael Shermer about how we take the data and select that which conforms with what we believe and throw out the rest. He states that “all of us do this, of course, but smart people are better at it.”

Of course all of us do this! (I suppose that would include the atheists)….

Odd though. I don’t recall doing that.

I recall taking obstacles against my faith and looking at them and seeing if they hold up and if they don’t, what is the truth from the theistic perspective?

The next quote is from Robert McKim stating “We seem to have a remarkable capacity to find arguments that support positions which we antecedently hold. Reason is, to a great extent, the slave of prior commitment. Michael Shermer adds that smart people can give intellectual reasons for beliefs that they arrived at for nonintelligent reasons.

I’m sitting here wondering if I really need to comment. Why should I not think McKim and Shermer are really the ones committing what they’re guilty of? Of course, Loftus is clear on the presumption of skepticism since there are so many claims and no empirical foot can be found to match them as if in a Cinderella story.

I wonder if the skepticism foot fits or the atheism foot fits…

Of course, this assumes that no religious worldview fits. I do not take that. I see much evidence of the God I serve in the things I observe with my senses.

Now we are told we can’t use the Bible. We must remember that it comes from an ancient and superstitious people.

Let’s hear it for that cultural relativism eh?

We’re also to be skeptical of any miracle claims in the Bible just as we supposedly are of miracles in other faith traditions.

Ya know, maybe it’s just me, but I’m not skeptical of miracles happening in other religions. I don’t believe all of them, but it’s not because they’re in a different religion. Why should I be skeptical of miracles? Why not be skeptical of the position that says that miracles cannot happen?

Next we are told that if God is true, he will make a religion that can pass the Outsider Test.

Ah yes. If there is a God, he will meet the demands of the skeptics. It’s cute isn’t it?

Now Loftus wants an explanation for the rule of religious beliefs. Why do they dominate in some areas?

Well geez, I can explain Muslim nations quite easily.

I can also explain that most parents do teach their children what they believe and in America, these beliefs are commonly held and passed on without thought. (You know, like the belief that the ancients though the Earth was flat or that there’s a war between science and religion.)

I just invite people to investigate. If you have good reasons for holding the Bible is true, there’s no reason to just abandon them. Sure. Feel free to see if they hold up.

We are also told that the test is to overcome the luck of being born possibly in the right belief. Of course, the test between the faiths is based entirely on luck.

Seems strange to me, but when I argue with a Muslim or a Buddhist, it’s always about what we believe and how it corresponds to reality. It’s not about what we were born believing.

The last thing I wish to comment on is how we are told that the skepticism of all religions and metaphysical positions (Hmmm. All metaphysical positions? Would that include Sagan’s statement on the Cosmos?) leads to agnosticism and that in turn leads to atheism.

Thomas Huxley disagreed. There’s no reason why agnosticism should really lead to atheism and it requires a metaphysical leap to get there either way.

Well, that is the section on the Outsider Test. We shall continue more as time goes by.

I’m reading a book now by Armand Maurer called “about Beauty’ concerning Thomas Aquinas on beauty. He makes the statement that a dancer is beautiful when they are sleep, but beauty is not just being and it is when a dancer is dancing that they are the most beautiful of all. Beauty consists in acting according to form.

As I pondered this later, I thought of the saying of Irenaeus that John Eldridge quotes often. The glory of God is a man fully alive.

What is beautiful in a man is when he is being a man and doing that which a man is supposed to do. I believe this is one reason we exult in our masculinity. (Or rather, we’re supposed to.) We believe we are being that which we are supposed to be. God created us as men (I speak to the males of course) and he is exalted when we are truly men.

Could this be why we love action movies also? When we see the man beating up the bad guys, it makes us think that he is being a man and we glory in that. Every man wants to be that hero. Rest assured, no man, despite his physical stature, would say that he wants to be a wimp.

In the same way, this is why we find women attractive. A woman is attractive simply as a woman, but when she lives as a woman doing things as a woman, then she is even more attractive. If she acts indecent though in a sexual way that does not appeal, as much as we might admire her sex, we don’t really find her attractive. She is ceasing to act as a woman.

I also ponder that this is what makes sexual intercourse so fascinating on one level. The man is doing that which only he can do. The woman is doing that which only she can do. In the act, it is impossible to change roles. The man must be the man and the woman must be the woman. That is just the way God made us.

This is also why we men like to excel. We want to be the best at what we are. We don’t want to see a man living more than we are. We long to catch up to him. Watch men get together sometime and tell stories. No matter what, each man thinks that he has to top the other man.

Man is not to be a static creature. He is meant to be active. He is not a passive being. He is an acting being. The glory of God is a man fully alive for in that, the man is taking the role God gave him and is showing the glory of God. He is properly taking care of the lady in his life, the world around him, and living the nature that God gave him.

Glory to God.

 Due to the curse of Daylight Savings Time tonight, I am doing the blog early.

One criticism raised along the lines of the laws of nature and miracles is that the ancients were gullible. They’d readily believe all of these miracle stories. If they were told that Jesus walked on water, why, they’d believe it. Since this was the case, it’s not a shock that Christianity was readily believed.

It’s hard to imagine how people think such things.

For one thing, the Christian faith was not readily believed. Even in the gospels you see this happening. When the empty tomb is discovered, people are not running off shouting “He’s alive! He’s alive!” In Mark at the Transfiguration, the disciples do not know what is meant by the Son of Man rising from the dead. (I mention Mark since it is often considered the earliest. I’m not saying I hold to that, but this is just going with popular opinion on the gospels.)

In Matthew, we read that Jesus was there about to give the Great Commission, but some doubted. In Luke, Jesus has to eat before them so they will know that he is not just a ghost. In John, Thomas isn’t even convinced by the record of his fellow apostles. He has to see and touch for himself.

In Acts, the Bereans are held in high esteem because they tested all things to see if they were true. This was the advice Paul gave to the Thessalonian church in 1 Thessalonians. Glenn Miller of the Christian-thinktank even points out that in Luke’s writing of the visit of Paul to the Lycean’s, he is actually having some fun at how they were too quick to believe something false.

Let’s consider this though. Why did the Christian message not get ready welcome in the Roman Empire since surely God revealing himself and giving salvation would want to be believed by all.

Simple reason. The Romans didn’t believe it. Why? They knew what the Greeks knew at Mars Hill. Dead people stay dead.

What about the Matthew 27 incident with the graves being opened and some of the dead coming out. Why didn’t any witnesses outside of Jerusalem record this?

Simple reason again. They knew dead people stay dead and would not have considered that a serious event.

There is one idea that never seems to cross the mind of the modern man when saying the ancients were gullible.

Maybe, just maybe, these miracles actually happened?

If they did, then we cannot say the disciples and early Christians were gullible. Instead, they were quite rational in believing what they had good reason to believe. If anything, it is the modern man who is gullible in that he is willing to believe any theory just so long as it is not a miracle. If a man will not believe the truth, he will believe anything else.

Were the ancients gullible? No. The jury is still out on the moderns.

You could be an observer of the Mosaic Law without believing in Moses and the parting of the Red Sea. You could observe the five pillars of Islam without a belief in miracles. (In fact, it’s denied in the Qu’ran that Muhammad even did miracles.) You could follow the noble path of Buddhism and have no miracles. You could reach the Nirvana of Hinduism and not have any miracles.

You cannot be a Christian without miracles. They’re at the heart of the Christian faith. You have the Son of God acting in the world in the first place by taking on a human nature in addition to his divine nature. Then, you have his life to be a life where he displayed his power and identity through miracles. Finally, the cornerstone of Christianity is the grand miracle of the resurrection.

This, at the heart, is one of the reasons the New Testament is not readily accepted like other ancient writings. It is full of miracles! If you are to be a Christian, then you must believe that God revealed himself in his Son and raised his Son from the dead. If there are no miracles, there is no Christianity.

Thus, a believer of Christianity should be able to defend miracles. There is one argument against miracles that is probably the most common one, but when it is examined, it is also the most foolish one. This is the argument that the people in the ancient world did not understand natural law and thus believed in miracles.

Now we can be clear on one thing. It is quite certain the ancients did not understand the molecular make-up of water. They did not understand that this is hydrogen and oxygen coming together and forming a substance called water. They did not understand that we can move through water because the molecues are not tightly packed together.

Let us be clear that while they did not have the extent of knowledge that we have today, they did have this much knowledge. They knew that if a man jumped onto water, he would not stand on it. Instead, he would go under the water. (They obviously had to have some understanding since they built excellent boats in that time period.)

Thus, when the disciples see Jesus walking on the water, they know that it is something miraculous going on. We know this because Peter asked if he could do so also. If Peter had believed that this was something perfectly natural, we can be sure that he would have leaped out of the boat immediately. (In fact, had he believed it was natural, why have a boat anyway?)

Yet in the writings of those opposed to the faith, this is the kind of statement I see. I constantly hear that we know about laws of nature and they didn’t. Yet even writing out the explanation seems a bit ridiculous for as soon as one starts writing out how they knew it was an anomaly, one feels required to say “Of course. Wouldn’t anyone know that?”

Of course, this doesn’t prove the miracles happened. That’s not my goal here. My goal is simply to get rid of one of the most bizarre objections I heard. If someone wants to say they were later additions to the text, then that is one thing. If, however, one wishes to say that the ancients did not know about natural law, then that is making the ancients the most unbelievable of fools.

The ancient world had tombs. Why? Because they knew that when people died, they weren’t coming back. The ancient world also had a Joseph who planned to divorce his bride-to-be in secret because she was pregnant. Why? Because Joseph was not ignorant of what it took to make a baby and he knew that he hadn’t done that.

In fact, there was only one way to recognize that something was a miracle and that was to have some idea of a natural working order. Miracles were noted because there was something that seemed to work contrary to that natural working order. Of course, this doesn’t prove that miracles happened, but again, that is not the goal.

If this objection is brought up, it is a fair question to ask the critic exactly when these discoveries were made. Oh? What scientist discovered that dead people stay dead? When was this verified? What scientist discovered what it takes to make a baby? When was this verified?

I have yet to see a real answer to those questions. I doubt you will either.

When we speak about the omniscience of God, I think we miss a lot. I know my Open Theist friends won’t agree with this post. That’s quite alright. They know I don’t agree with them either. My belief is that God possesses all knowledge for all time. He has no potential to gain knowledge. I also say that God is outside of space and time yet fills them both fully. He is everywhere in space and at each moment in time.

What difference do those make?

For the Christian, this can be an encouragement and a joy. It means that you were always on the mind of God. God does not switch from idea to idea as we do. God is thinking about all people at all times in all places. He is aware of all true statements in all times and all places.

So, when have you been on the mind of God? Answer: Always. There never was a time when you were not. God did not have to wait for you to come into being to know who you are. The Bible shows in many places that he knows us before we are born and our lives are watched over by his sovereign hand.

This means that whatever you are going through, God already knows about it and is already there. Whatever crisis you are dealing with, he saw it before you did and has already dealt with it. It might not be dealt with the way you like, but it is dealt with and if you are a follower of Christ, it will work to your good in the end. That doesn’t necessarily mean in this lifetime though.

It also means that he is always there. By being omnipresent, God does not have to move from one person to another. God is everywhere and is not divided in his essence. Wherever you may go, as an example, the laws of logic will apply. Wherever you go, God will be there.

It also means you are just as much the object of his attention as everyone else is. You can be sure when you pray, that the omniscient and omnipresent God is listening to you. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you get what you pray for, but it does mean that what you say is not falling on deaf ears.

Biblical doctrine matters and it matters on a number of levels. We need to argue for it from the texts and sound reasoning first. Then, we need to properly articulate it. However, we need to apply it last. Too often, it seems we take the beautiful doctrines of the Christian faith and never get to application. On the other hand, we take some passages of Scripture and only apply them and never get at the beautiful doctrines behind them.

A good and sound theology requires both. It requires orthodoxy in one’s thought and orthopraxy in one’s lifestyle.

In 1 John 4:18, we are told that perfect love casts out all fear. This is one of those nice verses we like to read for the joy it brings us. We like to remember when we are afraid that if perfect love comes, then all fear will be gone. Unfortunately, if we view it on a sentimental level, I think we miss the wonder of this verse.

There was a time when I was studying Greek. Unfortunately, my computer program doesn’t work like it should any more and so I can’t get back into it, but I did enjoy it. At one point, I set out to translate 1 John which is what I was told was a good book for a beginner in Greek to start on.

So I started going through the book and then I got to this verse. What I saw in this verse was absolutely astounding. I cannot tell you how joyful I was at it. It was so exciting to me that while I had signed off for the evening, I got back on my computer and spoke to another friend for 45 minutes about it.

The key word in this is casts. Now in the Greek the nominative is the subject of the sentence. The accusative is what directly receives the action. Love is the nominative in this case and fear is the accusative. What is really being done by love though directly to fear? It’s not what we think!

My understanding of this passage had always been that this was a more passive thing. Consider the way it is when you light a candle and go into a dark room. The darkness must flee before the light. That was the way I saw things. As you experience the love of God, that love causes the fear to flee.

I was wrong.

The word is ballo. I would safely guess that’s where we get our word ball from. What do you do with a ball usually? You throw it. That’s exactly what is going on here. Someone I talked to about it described it as love is being like a barroom bouncer throwing out the unwanted guest.

Love is incredibly active in this and it helps us to realize that. God is not taking fear passively. He is waging war on it. We should be ready to do the same. My favorite description I’ve seen of fear is still found in the Harry Potter novels and if we grasp it, I think we can realize much on it.

Rawlings depicts a world where there are creatures called Boggarts. You don’t see a Boggart’s shape really. Instead, you see that it takes on the form of whatever terrifies the person who is viewing it. There is no rationality in the belief necessarily. (Think of Hermoine who gets bested by one by thinking it’s her professor saying she failed all her classes.)

The fear has no definite shape though. It is not a substance really in itself. It exists only as a parasite. There was also a great way of defeating a Boggart. One simply had to think of it in a ridiculous light, point a wand, say “ridiculous!” and the Boggart would take on the ridiculous form. The way to defeat it was to laugh at it.

The love of God is a love in truth.  It is not a friend to fear as fear is never an affirmation of the truth. It might have a grain of truth in it, but it is not the truth. Consider a fear of flying for instance many may have. (I used to have it as well.) One can say it is true that planes can crash, but by and large, very few of them do. It is that grain that is twisted.

What can we conclude though? Take fear as an opponent to be defeated and remember your God is not passive at all in dealing with it.

There’s something that really strikes me about 1 John when I read it. I would like you all to take time to consider what is happening in it. This is the same John who was called a son of thunder. Why? Because of his quick temper. Look at what happens when the Samaritans reject Christ in Luke 9. John and James are right there. “Lord! Do you want us to call fire down from Heaven like Elijah did on them?”

I’ll grant that part of me can understand that. However, note the attitude. First off, do you want us to call it down. (“Step back Lord. We’ll handle this one! BURN BABY BURN!) Secondly, these guys had never called down fire from Heaven. It’s like they were wanting the divine power to do so.

Of course, Christ rebuked them there, but that shows you the character we are dealing with. However, I keep that in mind as I approach 1 John.  I look throughout this book and this is the man who would seem to not hurt a fly. He keeps referring to little children and how we are to walk in love and we must love our neighbor and walk as Jesus did.

Something happened. What made the Son of Thunder the apostle of love?

I can think of only one explanation.

God came near.

Consider how it starts at the first chapter.

“That which was from the beginning.”

No doubt, this is talking about God, but John is saying this about the Son. (There’s the deity of Christ right there my JW friends.) John is talking about the eternal reality that is God in the person of the Son.

“What we have heard”

If we consider it as a historical look, my mind goes to Sinai and the voice of God thundering from the mountain and how the Israelites did not want to go near. They even told Moses to go and speak on our behalf for if God speaks to us we will die. (Makes you wonder about those today who make it commonplace.)

“What we have seen with our eyes.”

And now, things are getting closer. We have the manifestation of God. We could consider a passage like Isaiah 6 as an example.

“What we have looked at.”

And John 1:14. The Word has become flesh. That which was from the beginning is now flesh. He now dwells among us. (Or rather, dwelt)

“And touched with our hands.”

Can it get any closer? They walked in and out with the Lord for three years and saw his life. What is my answer then to the question of what changed them?

Christ came to them.

When God draws near, people change. Those who are accepting become more like him. Those that are not, fall away and harden themselves. No one is the same after an encounter with God though.

And for those of us who claim the name “Christian”, we need to watch ourselves. If we are claiming to have made Christ our Lord and Savior and received the Holy Spirit, then we should be sons of love indeed as John would say. As long as we are not, do we give the world any reason to think that God came near?

Yesterday, we heard a sermon on prayer. I really like the speaker who spoke, but I thought we got hit way too hard. I agree that we should pray and we ought to pray, but there were several shoulds and I’m of the opinion that we got knocked down several times and there was never grace to pick us up again.

I’ll go on and confess that prayer is one of those things that I have a hard time with. I can imagine easily that I’m not alone. For those of us here in America, it seems we get up, go to work, come home, and at the end of the day we’re just too exhausted. Running the rat race keeps us perpetually busy.

This leads us to a misconception I think though. Time. It seems that we think the time spent in prayer is equal to the quality of the prayer. Yet when I look at the Lord’s prayer, it is a very short prayer. Many of the Psalms are quite short. You can say them easily and memorize them easily.

If we think we need to spend an hour in prayer for instance, I think we’re burdening ourselves. If you can do that, great. I’m not condemning that. I’m just saying prayer doesn’t become more holy because you do it for X number of minutes. If that was the case, then we should never stop.

Also, we can’t compare it with other activities. If the value we give to something was determined by the time we give it, then it would seem that sleep and work are the most valuable things to us, yet to many of us, those are not the most valuable things. Those are things we do so we can do other things. (While we can pray on our jobs, most of us can’t pray while we’re asleep I’m wagering.)

Instead, I think of how we are to pray without ceasing many our minds should be directed towards God. We should always have a submission in our attitude towards Christ and seeking to be more like him and looking at the world and trying to find the way to bring about the glory of God. We are to pray his kingdom come. Are we doing something to advance that kingdom?

I’m also going to say this to the men. This is our hurdle. I think generally speaking, we men are more action oriented and we don’t consider prayer an action. We consider it like peace talks. Men. We don’t usually like peace talks either. We’d prefer to go out there and bash some skulls in instead.

We need to learn that prayer is action. It’s asking the aid of the most awesome being of all. This is something that irks me. When people say praying for someone is the least they can do, I always wonder about that. You’re asking the Lord of Heaven and Earth to intervene and that’s the least you can do?

So as for me, my prayer life isn’t the best. I’ll confess that. It’s hard to make time. I think we need to encourage prayer, but we need to do so remembering who we are. We are sinners who are telling other sinners where we found bread, and most of us could use a lot of bread.

Socrates: Greetings kind sir! What are you doing?

Atheist: I’m studying DNA.

Socrates: You are studying letters? How interesting.

Atheist: No. It stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It’s what contains the genetic make-up of every living substance.

Socrates: What fascinating things you have discovered!

Atheist: And what about you? You’re dressed up like you’re some Greek dude.

Socrates: Well I would hope so considering I am.

Atheist: I’ve been to Greece. They no longer dress like that.

Socrates: They did in my day.

Atheist: Your day? Who are you?

Socrates: Why, I’m Socrates.

Atheist: Right. And I’m George Washington.

Socrates: Pleased to meet you George.

Atheist: That’s not my name.

Socrates: You said it was.

Atheist: I was joking.

Socrates: You joke about your name? I consider names serious? Didn’t you ever read the Cratylus?

Atheist: Never mind. I don’t believe in dead people coming back to life. We gave up on such fairy tales a long time ago.

Socrates: Fairy tales?

Atheist: You know, myths about things that can’t happen.

Socrates: Ah. So the dead coming back to life can’t happen.

Atheist: Nope.

Socrates: And you know this how?

Atheist: We’ve never seen it happen.

Socrates: I see. And that means it can’t.

Atheist: Not with all events, but these are laws of nature.

Socrates: Laws of nature?

Atheist: Yes. Dead people stay dead. We know that.

Socrates: Kind sir. So did we. We practiced burial. I even told my friends what to do for me when I died.

Atheist: Right. The Phaedo. Uh huh.

Socrates: Good. You know my story.

Atheist: I do. But what’s your point?

Socrates: It’s just the dead staying dead is hardly news.

Atheist: But there are some people who believe that the dead don’t stay dead.

Socrates: Ah. Interesting.

Atheist: They’re called Christians mostly. They believe their leader died and came back.

Socrates: Fascinating.

Atheist: Which we know violates natural law.

Socrates: But didn’t they know that back then?

Atheist: Most likely. They just base things on faith.

Socrates: And what do you mean by faith?

Atheist: I think for the Greeks, the word was pistis. It means believing in something without evidence.

Socrates: My friend, you are speaking my language, but you are not speaking my definition.

Atheist: Then what does it mean?

Socrates: It means trust in what has been shown to be reliable.

Atheist: Oh.

Socrates: So that brings us back to why you don’t agree with these Christians.

Atheist: Because I don’t believe in miracles.

Socrates: Why not?

Atheist: There’s no one to perform them.

Socrates: What about the gods?

Atheist: You mean God.

Socrates: Did the rest of them die and only Zeus remain?

Atheist: Wow. You play your acting part well. No one treats Zeus seriously. The Christians treat their God seriously. He’s called YHWH and he’s the only God they say there is. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.

Socrates: What an interesting idea.

Atheist: But they have no evidence that he exists.

Socrates: Interesting

Atheist: And I don’t believe things without evidence.

Socrates: Then may I ask you a question?

Atheist: Surely.

Socrates: You require evidence for all your beliefs?

Atheist: Of course.

Socrates: So you want to test everything and hold to what is true?

Atheist: Figures you’re a Christian really?

Socrates: Excuse me?

Atheist: Christians tell that to me all the time. It’s in the Bible.

Socrates: The Bible?

Atheist: Their holy book.

Socrates: It may be in that, but my friend, it is just good advice.

Atheist: Get to your point.

Socrates: Okay, you said you should believe only what you have evidence for.

Atheist: Yes

Socrates: And you say Christians have no evidence for their God.

Atheist: Yes

Socrates: I assume you have evidence he doesn’t exist.

Atheist: Well, he’s never shown himself to me.

Socrates: And that means he doesn’t exist?

Atheist: Not necessarily.

Socrates: Then might you not be like some philosophers who just believe that he winds up the clock and lets it go?

Atheist: No. I believe natural law covers it all.

Socrates: But does that rule out God?

Atheist: Not entirely. Some theists apparently believe in evolution.

Socrates: What’s evolution?

Atheist: It’s this belief that all life comes from simple life.

Socrates: That’s hardly news. Aristotle knew that life is in sperm.

Atheist: Not just that. It’s taking those single cells and saying that life was originally just that and eventually improved until it became what we see today.

Socrates: Fascinating theory! I assume it’s well-established?

Atheist: It is, unless you’re religious?

Socrates: A lot of religious people don’t believe it?

Atheist: No. They think it’s opposed to their holy book.

Socrates: Is that the only reason?

Atheist: No. They try to bring up scientific arguments.

Socrates: Like what?

Atheist: That it’s too hard to happen by chance.

Socrates: Chance?

Atheist: No outside interference from God.

Socrates: Ah. So these laws of nature alone did this?

Atheist: Yes.

Socrates: Then if it is so obvious, it must be a simple thing. You’re playing with the building block as you said it was now. Right?

Atheist: Yes.

Socrates: Do all scientists do that?

Atheist: No. Several do though. We study it in a library and try to re-create the first appearance of life?

Socrates: Re-create it?

Atheist: Yeah. Make life in a laboratory.

Socrates: You incredible people! Have you done so?

Atheist: Not yet.

Socrates: Your minds have yet to make life?

Atheist: No.

Socrates: But chance can.

Atheist: Yes.

Socrates: Without a mind?

Atheist: Yes.

Socrates: But minds can’t so far.

Atheist: Not yet.

Socrates: Sounds odd for your position.

Atheist: But Socrates, we see this happening all the time?

Socrates: Life from non-life?

Atheist: Not that. Change from within species.

Socrates: Meaning?

Atheist: We can breed dogs and get better dogs. We can have bugs become immune to chemicals used to kill them. Animals simply change over time.

Socrates: But it seems the dogs stay dogs and the bugs bugs.

Atheist: Yes. But these beneficial changes eventually produce new creatures entirely.

Socrates: So these changed animals stay this way?

Atheist: Actually, no. They usually revert back within a few generations.

Socrates: Interesting. But somehow, this means that new lifeforms emerge?

Atheist: Eventually?

Socrates: Has it been observed?

Atheist: No. Not yet.

Socrates: I see. Let’s move on then.

Atheist: Okay.

Socrates: Why is it so hard to make this lifeform in the first place?

Atheist: Information.

Socrates: Okay. I’ll repeat. Why is it so hard to make this lifeform in the first place?

Atheist: No no. I mean DNA contains information.

Socrates: It does?

Atheist: Yes. One cell contains thousands of pages of information.

Socrates: Incredible! The great mind behind such a feat!

Atheist: There is no great mind behind it.

Socrates: Why not?

Atheist: Natural Law is all we need.

Socrates: I see. Why not admit God?

Atheist: That will kill science.

Socrates: How come?

Atheist: You can say God did anything.

Socrates: But what if he did do something?

Atheist: It can’t be known through science.

Socrates: What do you mean?

Atheist: I mean that science can’t prove God exists.

Socrates: But it can prove he doesn’t?

Atheist: Well, it eliminates the need for him.

Socrates: But it seems you are arguing in a circle. God is a good explanation you have ruled out which leaves you with only natural law.

Atheist: I believe in science. God kills science.

Socrates: My friend, I had many Greeks who sought natural explanations for things who believed in the gods.

Atheist: But that means anything can happen at any time.

Socrates: Perchance it can, but does that mean it will?

Atheist: Why not?

Socrates: Because I would think that such a world would be chaos.

Atheist: Your point?

Socrates: I don’t see chaos here.

Atheist: So God doesn’t exist.

Socrates: Or he just does these miracles infrequently.

Atheist: Science has disproven miracles?

Socrates: It has? When was this?

Atheist: Well, not one specific time.

Socrates: And which part of science?

Atheist: Well, not one specific part.

Socrates: Interesting. Just science in general?

Atheist: Yes.

Socrates: How?

Athiest: We know men don’t walk on water, virgins don’t give birth, and dead people don’t come back to life.

Socrates: So did we.

Atheist: But you didn’t have our modern knowledge.

Socrates: No. We didn’t. That doesn’t mean we were idiots with what we had though.

Atheist: I just say it happened naturally.

Socrates: How do you know?

Atheist: We are here now.

Socrates: My friend, that is self-evident.

Atheist: And we are here without God.

Socrates: We are?

Atheist: He doesn’t exist. That’s why it happened this way.

Socrates: My friend. I am at a loss for words.

Atheist: How come?

Socrates: It seems you have given no clear sign that God does not exist or that these natural laws are all that are at work in the universe.

Atheist: Well, we can’t prove that.

Socrates: You only seem to have assumptions.

Atheist: Do you have evidence otherwise?

Socrates: No. But I don’t claim to know. I claim to not know. I am agnostic on the claim. You are the one making an assertion.

Atheist: I need to do my studies.

Socrates: Very well, but it seems my friend that you have a lot of faith. Until we meet again.