Month: August 2008

We’re going through the frequently asked questions on the radio program “Unbelievable” now. A link to the program can be found from this blog. I highly recommend it to everyone as what I’ve heard so far has been most pleasing. I am especially pleased that this is coming from the U.K. which has generally been seen to be overridden by secularism.

Today’s question is about the apocryphal gospels. Why aren’t they included?

In a table here in my living room, I have a book called “The Essential Gnostic Gospels.” I’ve read through some of it, though not all at this point. To those who wonder about why the gnostic gospels aren’t included, I have a piece of advice.

READ THEM!

Now some might think that sounds strange to say, but honestly, go read them. They are often quite nonsensical speaking in esoteric language that thankfully, doesn’t have to be taught in a Sunday School lesson, and are certainly written to convey gnostic teachings.

However, an astute reader will raise an objection, “So they’re difficult to understand and gnostic. That can’t be it. It can’t be they’re not in there just because you don’t like them.”

Touche.

For this then, we start with the gospels we have. Why do we accept them? Now I’m not going to go into a full-fledged argument here. I’m just going to list some basics.
First off, the manuscript evidence is tremendous. We have more manuscripts of the NT than any other ancient document and we could re-create the entire NT from the quotes of the Early Church Fathers alone sans 13 verses. It is inconceivable that someone would be able to alter all the quotes in all the manuscripts in all the languages.

The archaeological evidence is there also. Archaeology has time and time again attested the validity of the NT and this is best shown in the book of Acts. Luke has been shown to be accurate in the most minute of details. It is hardly likely that a writer so keen to minute details and wanting to convey a message of truth would error on the major details.

Also, we can date the gospels early. The book of Acts does not contain mention of such events as Nero’s persecution, the deaths of Peter and Paul, or the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. for the most likely reason that they hadn’t happened yet. Acts is seen as the sequel to Luke placing Luke earlier. Luke is said to have used Matthew and Mark placing them even earlier.

John is for another thread, but I see no reason to date any gospel later than 70 A.D.

There is also prophetic fulfillment in the texts. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is attested to in the Olivet Discourse in the three synoptics. This description is so accurate that it is insisted that it is written after the fact. Unfortunately, that is dating simply by personal bias. When dating is done based on the manuscript itself, it is easily dated to before 70 A.D.

What about the others?

First off, they are dated to the second century at the earliest. Thus, these cannot be seen to be eyewitness accounts. The gospels on the other hand are. These stories have no way of verifying them often and contain numerous errors, such as a high priest spending the night in a graveyard. (Let the astute reader figure out why that would not be.)

Second, they were then most definitely not written by the people whose names were on them. Instead, these gospels would be given these names in order to lend credibility to them, which was a common tactic of the day. The gospels are interesting on this point as one like Matthew is hardly noticed in the gospels, but he has one. It would seem a church wanting to make a name to attribute were it fake would choose a more noticable name. (And why choose Mark and Luke for that matter?)

Third, they contradict what we do have in the orthodox gospels we know we can trust. Take for instance, the teaching in the gospel of Thomas that Mary must make herself male so that she can inherit the kingdom. I’m really not sure what that process would involve and frankly, I don’t think I want to know. Some things are better left not known. Ignorance is bliss in this case.

As for the selection of what books were in the canon, this was hardly random. One can see lists by the Early Church Fathers and realize that there is little if any change and when they were ratified, it is simply what the church knew all along. Other gospels weren’t suppressed. They never had a large following to begin with! The true gospels did.

The simplest answer though to the skeptic is simple. Read them. Test them and compare them. Do so with the canonical gospels then and I believe the answer will be clear.

We’re going through the questions from the radio program “Unbelievable” in the U.K. on Premier Christian Radio hosted by Justin Brierley. These are the tough questions that lately have been beginning every show. A link to the program is available from this blog. Today, I look at the question of force. Does Christianity exist because it was spread by force?

Sadly, there are pieces of Christian history that we should condemn and rightly so. Much that went on in the Inquisition and Crusades did not reflect Christianity. It’s not to say it was all wicked and evil, but it was definitely not all well and good. When we see leaders in Christianity with anti-Semitism, we should stand up and condemn that. The Salem Witch trials are another piece we should condemn.

But is that the story really?

Early Christianity spread historically by the actions of the Christians in love for one another. Sadly, I do believe that Christianity being incorporated with the state was generally not a good thing. Absolute power can corrupt. Christianity can at that point become more of a cultural phenomenon than anything else. Sadly, I think in America today Christianity is more cultural than an honest worldview that people use to see all of reality.

The early Christians were often the victims of persecution. Nero used them to light his evening festivities. Many of the Roman emperors made it there goal to slaughter them. The emperor Diocletian even wanted to eliminate all of Christian Scripture. There can be no doubt that for the first three centuries, Christianity was the underdog.

Yet then came Constantine and everything changed. I’m really not interested in why Constantine converted or if he really even converted at this point. All I want to say is that it changed. Christianity became an accepted faith and then it became the faith. Now there were some supposed forced conversions, but many Christians recognized that these were not conversions at all.

One question to ask is, “Does what really happened flow logically from the teachings of Christ?” Do we see anything in Christ that would make us think the way to deal with heretics is by burning them at the stake? Does what happened in the Crusades and the Inquisition and other events in history flow from what Christ taught?

I’ll also say that like the first question, this is a secondary question. No matter what the future of Christianity is, that cannot change what happened in the past. If Jesus Christ is who he claimed to be and he did die and rise from the dead, then Christianity is true. It doesn’t matter what happens in the future. The past has already clinched the fact.

The best proof though is to look and see about Christians today. How many Christians do you know that became that way by threats of violence? Do you really live in fear of Christians coming to you with a sword and saying “Confess Christ or die!”? Instead, Christianity is in the forefront today in humanitarian effort. We should condemn our errors in the past, look forward to good things in the future including the return of Christ, and live for him today in the present.

I find this to be an odd claim. Again, these questions are coming from the U.K.’s radio program “Unbelievable” and a link can be found from this page to that program. I encourage everyone to listen as on my day’s off, I’ve been going back and listening to archives and I am quite pleased with what I’ve heard. (And really itching to debate some of the non-Christians as well.)

But this is really an odd claim. For the sake of argument, I am going to accept the theory of macroevolution. Readers know that I do not believe in the theory, but this is simply for the sake of argument. This is especially important in light of statements like how Dawkins says he can’t imagine anyone being an atheist before Darwin and since he is here and evolution is true, then there is no God.

I do not accept though that a scientific theory can prove or disprove God. It can lend credence to the idea or make it seem more unlikely, but proof is too strong a word. Especially since science is the study of the physical universe composed of matter and God in classical theism is immaterial. It seems like a category fallacy to think that science could say something with certainty about God.

I do believe though that there is something to arguments such as the fine-tuning of the universe and even if evolutionary theory is accepted, even a TE would say that there is still wonder in the design (If they’d even want to use that word) of life. Even if one doesn’t accept the premises of ID, I don’t know anyone who would deny that a single cell is incredibly complex!

However, as I’ve said, science can only tell us with certainty about the physical world. It can’t tell us about things beyond it. Science can tell me the atomic weight of the Carbon atom, but who designed the carbon atom if it is designed cannot be answered. Science can give reasons for thinking it’s a highly complex structure, but it cannot tell me about the designer.

Science also cannot answer our most important questions.

How do I raise my children?

How do I love my neighbor?

What does it mean to be a friend?

Is there a God?

What is love?

Is there such a thing as objective morality?

Imagine that you knew everything there was that could be known about the physical universe. Imagine you knew all the chemistry and all the physics behind things. You still would not know the answers to these questions because these deal in the nature of metaphysics and theology and philosophy. They are not answers that can be obtained by repeated experiments. In fact, questions like “What does 2 + 2 equal?” cannot be answered. Science uses math, but it cannot determine the answers to mathematical questions.

You also would not know the answer to the God question.

Now someone like Richard Dawkins can try to extrapolate, but really, he goes into the areas of philosophy and theology which he doesn’t know well. Dawkins is great at explaining science, even though I don’t accept his conclusions since I think they stem largely from his naturalistic worldview. In naturalism, evolution is the best theory. I just want to know if it’s the best theory period.

In fact, without that philosophical base of the world being real and knowable and our senses giving us an accurate picture of it, which science cannot demonstrate answers to any of those questions, there can be no such thing as science. When I compare theology, philosophy, and science, I put them in that order and the physical sciences are thus at the bottom. Philosophy gives the basis for those and theology for the philosophical sciences.

Science does not disprove God. Instead, scientists extrapolate beyond their findings. I tend to believe though that more and more discoveries are pointing to a designer, but again, that is not the area of science. Even if we say there is a designer, it is up to philosophy and theology to give information on the nature of that designer.

We’re going through the questions from the radio program “Unbelievable” in the U.K. which is again, an excellent program, and a link to it can be found on this blog. Today, we’re going to be answering the question of if Christianity is against progress? Hasn’t Christianity hindered the work of science and of philosophy and is just a backwater religion for ignorant people?

No.

Somehow, I suspect my readers want something more substantial.

So let’s go at it!

First off, the opposite is the case and I highly recommend the reader get a copy of Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason” for this information. Aristotle was a believer in the idea that he was in the Golden Age and things wouldn’t get better. There was a cyclical view of the universe so that most people saw no need of progress as history just kept repeating itself.

Christianity came with something different that it got from Judaism. (See Thomas Cahill’s work “The Gifts of the Jews.”) This was the idea that history was going somewhere. It was the idea that what you did made a difference into the future. In fact, the book of Hebrews could be seen as the first reading of the Christian ideal in history.

It is from this idea that we reach the conclusion that there is a God who created the material world, that is good, for man to live in. That meant that a rational God was behind it and our rational minds could grasp it then as it reflects a rational mind. Christianity then became a boon to science and phiosophy as these were both allowed to progress under Christianity.

This also led to the advancement of technology and with that, the abolition of slavery. Based on biblical passages like Galatians 3:28. The rise of capitalism followed and that of education. Early universities were established by Christians. This also led to the rise of science as Christianity was the system that made sense of science.

Now some might ask about Galileo. It’s a fair question to ask, but the Galileo trial is highly misrepresented. I do agree a lot went wrong here, but this was not theological so much as it was political. Galileo and the Pope at the time both had huge egos and Galileo made a mockery of the Pope and was demanding that his ideas have immediate acceptance and publication instead of waiting things out. Keep in mind also that geocentricism came from Aristotle as well.

I recommend the reader check works like John Lennox’s “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” and Alister McGrath’s “The Twilight of Atheism.”

What about evolution? I am not an evolutionist, but there were Christians on both sides of the debate. Some accepted and some didn’t. I think both sides at the time probably had excellent reasons. Today, with so much coming out about the fine-tuning of created beings, it seems harder and harder for me to believe evolution played a major role. I do believe in microevolution, but not macro.

Looking at science though, most of the major branches of science have been founded by Christians. In fact, this is the way we should hope it to be. Christians ought to be on the forefront in science and going out and trying to understand this wonderful world that God created. It is a shame if we hide our intellectual gifts for thinking that the emotional is better, yet that seems to be what is going on in Christian circles today.

Is Christianity against progress? No. Sadly, some Christians are and this is their own theological progress. Many Christians today receive the new birth and seem to stay there. If Christianity is going to help the world progress, then Christians themselves need to progress. We cannot do any good in a world of adults if we remain babies.

We’re going through the list of questions from the program “Unbelievable” in the U.K. Right now, I’d like to look at the second one which is the title for this post, but I’d like to hit it from a different angle. I could go on about the evidences for Christianity. I could write about philosophical arguments for God’s existence, scientific arguments showing fine-tuning, archaeological evidences for the validity of Scripture, the internal consistency therein, the accuracy of the manuscripts, etc.

And someday, I will probably go through those.

I’d like to hit on this from a different angle. Let’s consider first off history. In the ancient world, we know that Christians were not the most popular bunch. I think even Christ mythers, as ignorant of history as they are, would affirm this. Christians were set on fire by Nero for his ceremonies and were shamed in the public marketplaces and not until the Edict of Milan did they get any safety, and that was in 313 A.D.!

It seems if one was making up a religion, they would not make up a religion like that. Consider also a city like Corinth where the word Corinthian came to mean a person that was sexually immoral. With such religions around, why would one create a religion that was so different? Let’s see. If we’re choosing based on what we like, we can choose this religion where sex is part of the worship, or this one that tells me to deny myself, take up my cross, and be prepared for suffering.

Ah decisions, decisions.

In fact, not only that, but later on if you join this religion, the emperors will want your head. You will be acting in treason against the Roman Empire by refusing to do emperor worship. You will not be able to buy or sell in the marketplace if you don’t worship the emperor either. Thus, you can expect a painful existence if you become a Christian, which again, is a religion that promises its followers they will suffer.

Let’s look at this from another point.

Why would I wish a religion like this?

As Dinesh D’Souza said, “Look at the Ten Commandments. I can think of three I’d scratch off right now.”

Look. I’m a single guy. I guarantee you there are times as a Christian it’d be nice to be able to ignore my faith at the sight of certain ladies. I know though that Christianity tells me something. That when I have these strong desires, I am to control them and wait. Yes. One of the strongest desires of all if not the strongest, I am told to wait on.

Despite sometimes I just want to scream….

Yep. I choose this religion because I always love it so much!

I give income of mine to the church that I could use elsewhere.

Yep. I love it so much!

Now don’t get me wrong. I love being a Christian really. I just don’t always love everything about it. I love the thought that God sent his only Son to die for me and that he loves me that much. I love that this universe will be re-created to be a paradise. I love the fellowship that I have with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

But Paul exhorts us to do many things probably because they’re difficult. Self-control is difficult. Learning to love your enemies is difficult. Learning to be devoted to prayer is difficult. Learning to control your temple is difficult. Learning to avoid sexual immorality is difficult. Friends. The Christian life is not a life for quitters.

Also, I know people who are going to Hell forever. Yes. They died without Christ. I willingly choose that? If I was making this up, everyone would go to Heaven. I’d be a universalist. There are times we must all admit when we wish universalism was true, but wishing it was true does not make it true. I believe Jesus spoke plainly of the reality of Hell. I believe sadly those Mormons that were at my door are going to Hell if they don’t come to the real Jesus. I take no joy out of that. Not a bit. It saddens me as I say it. Honestly, I’m not a crier sadly, but I get watery eyes a bit typing that out.

I only believe Christianity for one reason.

It’s true.

In fact, there’s no other reason ultimately to believe anything.

Friends. Christianity does have the facts behind it, and it also isn’t wish fulfillment by any means. This is not a made-up faith.

My thanks goes out to Premier Radio in the U.K. and the program “Unbelievable” with Justin Brierley as the host. I just recently found this program while on vacation last week and friends, this is a program you need to be listening to. I’ve been pleased with what I have heard often and many a time I’ve wanted to be on there dealing with the skeptic.

The program also has a section for frequently asked questions with a different one each week. I plan to go through these and give my own reply. The first objection is that the church is a load of hypocrites.

I honestly find this an odd objection.

Let’s suppose that it is. Since the church is full of hypocrites, Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead? That doesn’t seem to make sense. On the other hand, if the church was full of people who weren’t hypocritical, Jesus Christ did rise from the dead? That doesn’t seem to follow either. Good deeds are an important part of a religious life, but they are not the ultimate proof of the propositional truth that that religion is portraying. However, living a good life can make people more open.

So let’s really deal with this objection.

First off, yes. It’s true. The church is full of hypocrites. We are an organization full of people who don’t consistently live out what they believe. However, that is why we’re the church. We’re members of the body not because we’re perfect, but because we’re imperfect. Ironically, the church should be the one organization where unworthiness is exactly what gets you in the door.

Now if we are hypocrites and being in denial, that is a problem. If we are hypocrites and admitting it, it’s a problem still, but not as large. When people approach me about my faith and we start talking about example, while they often think I’m a good one, I tell them that I try to be, but I also would not consider myself a saint in the RCC sense. (And I am Protestant.)

I have my failings. I’ve fallen short in the past and made some huge blunders. I’m sure I’ll make more in the future. I know this though. A friend of mine is a huge fan of Xena who in a podcast of hers recently played a clip with one of Xena’s opponents telling her it often bothered her that Xena never had to pay for her crimes. Xena then says “It bothers me too.” I love that reply!

What should we do? We should deal with sinners in our midst and unfortunately, church discipline is not really practiced today. Now I’m not saying that someone went over the speed limit to get to church so kick them out. I’m talking about serious sin to the point that it’s interfering with the lives of members of the body of Christ.

Also, while we must preach forgiveness, let’s not take it for granted. We make it seem such a light point at times that the world doesn’t know the awesomeness that forgiveness is. One way we do treat it lightly is by living in sin. Now naturally, we will still have struggles with sin. This is also a place where we could bear to learn some openness. Again, I’m not RCC, but I think the Catholics have something with the confessional. We’ve lost the joy of confessing our sins one to another.

What needs to be remembered though is this is a secondary issue. The primary issue is “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” If that’s the case, then accept it and when you are part of the body, help us to live the lives that we should. Yes. The church is an organization of hypocrites. Thank God though that there is an organization where hypocrites can go to become saints.

Wow. Last night’s blog had a much greater response than I expected. If readers like it, I can write on more Smallville episodes and I think as much as some people might disagree with the beliefs that I hold to on this blog, I doubt I will find much disagreement with the idea that when it comes to Smallville, I can safely call myself an authority.

Today though, it’s going to be answering a question from a friend on what it means to grow to be like Christ. I think it would be best to start out by what it does not mean. Let’s suppose that Jesus was 5’4″ and weighed 145 pounds. I’m about 5’10” and weight 116 pounds. (At least, when I weighed myself at the Y today that was the case.) Does that mean that I will have to shrink myself and gain 29 pounds if I am to be like Christ?

No. It is not saying that Christ has some ideal weight, height, hair color, eye color, etc.

This is especially the case for our female readers. While the gospel of Thomas might say women need to make themselves male in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ says no such thing.  A woman can be a woman and still be like Christ. In fact, we shall see as we go on that it is striving to be the woman she was meant to be that she is being like Christ.

Also, this doesn’t mean everyone goes into the ministry although everyone should be doing ministry of some kind. Jesus was a carpenter by trade, but we know that Paul was a tent maker. Paul never saw part of the goal to be like Christ consisting of giving up making tents and instead learning how to build tables and chairs.

So what does it mean?

It’s not the physical. That cuts down our options.

To be like Christ means to match his character. Throughout the book of Leviticus, we read “Be holy, because I am holy.” We have a parallel in Matthew 5:48 with Christ saying “Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” In Hebrews 12:14, we see this is so important that the writer says “Without holiness, no one will see the Lord.”

Being like Christ means getting rid of sinful attitudes and thoughts and actions and replacing them with holy ones. It means that more and more we grow to be seen as Christ walking on Earth. A great epistle on this would be 1 John. Go through and read and see what the life of the Christian is to be like and remember how the early Christians were known for their love for one another.

Note also that the good news is that this is a guarantee! Look at Romans 8:29. Those God foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son! Christian! We are not dealing with the borg. You will not be assimilated. You will, however, be conformed. There is a day coming when your moral and spiritual nature will reflect Christ.

Also, my counter-cult side wants to remind our readers of this. We have just seen that being conformed to the image of the Son does not mean the physical characteristics of the Son. Hence, neither does Genesis 1:26-27 point to any physical characteristics. I simply wait for the day to come when my Mormon friends will understand that.

Want to be conformed to the likeness of the Son? Be holy. Be the best man you can be or the best woman you can be. Whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Cor. 10:31.)

I’ve been going through Season 1 again and last night I watched Episode 5 called “Cool.” (Some places mistakingly call it “Freeze.”) A brief synopsis of what happens. A boy at Smallville High who’s a womanizer falls under ice in Crater Lake which is loaded with Kryptonite giving him the power to suck heat out of anything he wishes, which is really helpful since he can’t stay warm. This includes wrecking Clark’s evening with his love interest, Lana Lang. Eventually, of course, Clark defeats the villain. I recommend watching the whole episode, but I would like to write tonight on what I think this episode is about and I didn’t find a single reviewer who caught it.

This episode is about sex.

A transcript of the episode which I will be getting quotes from is here:

http://tvmegasite.net/prime/shows/smallville/transcripts/season1/1-5.shtml

The mood is set at the beginning with Clark and Chloe attending a party and this opening line.

Chloe: This is what I love about high school parties. People will gather anywhere as long as there’s illegally purchased alcohol and even the slightest chance of hooking up.

And that is what happens when the villain, Sean Kelvin, tries to hit on Chloe. (Interesting play on words as a villain who can’t stay warm is named Kelvin after the temperature scale.) When he goes to play football with his friends, they ask about his interest in Chloe. Keep in mind that Whitney is actually a guy’s name in this series.

Whitney: So what’s with you and that Chloe Sullivan chick?  The girl from the Torch? You into her?

Sean: Another notch, dog.

To which at this point, Sean’s view of women is made apparent by himself. Of course, Clark and Chloe know this also as Clark asks about Chloe writing her number on Sean’s hand.

Clark: That’s not what I meant. The guy’s a dog.

Chloe: Clark, relax. I just gave him my number to get rid of him.

However, at this point, a football has been thrown too far and goes out on a frozen Crater Lake. This is the point where Sean falls under the water and becomes the “freak-of-the-week.” What is being asked at the party that evening when no one can find Sean?

Partygoer: Hey, where’s Sean?

Football Player: Who knows? He’s probably in the back of some car.

Again, his reputation is pointed out repeatedly. How can this be missed?

Later in this episode, Sean visits the school nurse and his coldness is reduced when she places her hand on his forehead to check his temperature and he grasps her hand and seems to suck the heat out of it. At that point, he decides that he’s good enough to go through the day. When he comes up to hit on Chloe after last night, she plays a little hard-to-get. Sean’s not interested then. He sees easier prey. His old-ex Jenna.

Apparently, his hitting on her is a success. Next thing we know, she’s in the shower at her place apparently inviting him to join her. Instead, he pulls back the curtain revealing his frozen nature to which she conveniently falls to the ground grabbing the curtain to cover herself after he turns the shower into a rain of little ice cubes. At this point, Sean picks her up, kisses her, and in so doing, sucks all the heat out of her turning her into a frozen statue which then falls to the ground and is shattered.

Like he cares….

It doesn’t last long though. Before too long, Sean is frozen again trying to light matches and calling every single girl he can. He then looks at his hand and sees Chloe’s number. Chloe is helping Clark then and she tells him that Sean is going to meet her at the Torch, the school newspaper, with a drink. Clark goes off for a limo ride with Lana arranged by his friend, Lex Luthor then, and while watching the news hears about the death of Jenna to which he asks that the car be stopped as he leaves Lana at a restaurant saying he’ll explain when he gets back.

Chloe has been left a trail to follow that takes her to the pool at which she sees a frozen Sean as well.

Chloe: What happened to you?

Sean: I can’t stay warm.

Chloe: Why don’t you just sit by a fire?

Sean: Because I only get a quick fix. Body heat lasts longer.

At that point, Chloe gets scared and in her haste to run falls into the pool. Sadistic that he is, Sean stands there watching and then when she gets close to the edge, starts to suck all the heat out of the pool leaving Chloe with one foot stuck in the water and Sean drawing close. Fortunately, Clark rushes in and breaks her foot free and knocks Sean out. Sean sneaks away somehow though and Clark takes Chloe back to safety.

Clark: Any idea what happened to him?

Chloe: The only similar thing I can find is a medical condition where there’s damage to the thermo sensitive cells in the brain. The person literally can’t stay warm. It’s like a permanent case of hypothermia.

Clark: So Sean’s getting his heat where he can take it.

Chloe: Yeah, preferably from high-school girls. But you saw the pool. You take the heat out of water, you get ice. He’s like a battery that can’t hold its charge.

It is later on that Clark once again confronts Sean and Sean says the following:

“I need heat, Clark – contact! That’s the only thing that’s going to work for me. Every person’s another fix.”

Naturally, Clark manages to defeat Sean by knocking him into a lake that freezes over him. Fans of the series though will suspect Lex Luthor salvaged Sean though for some “studies.”

Now for the point.

I said at the beginning this episode is about sex and some of you probably saw it as I was going through.

The way this guy treated women before was the exact same way he treated them after. It just had different results. Each girl was a fix. Each girl was a notch. He could have had his heat from anywhere else, but high school females were the preferred target. As the case of Jenna shows, a girl used in that case definitely becomes a victim.

I wonder how different our society is.

How many Sean Kelvins are out there?

Each girl is another notch. Each one is another fix. The girls themselves don’t really matter. Just as long as they supply the need.

Every time I see this episode, that is what I think about. I can see it as a play on the view of sexuality.

Let’s remember that Sean was a villain. As Christians who believe sexuality is something sacred from God and that people are not objects to meet our pleasure, let’s remember we can do better.

Sean:

I wrote last night on the nature of beauty, but I was talking today to a well-known Christian apologist who is in my area who I haven’t seen in a long time and we started talking about philosophy classes seeing as I’m about to start another one. Somehow, we started talking first about the modern period and I had to confess I like the ancient period better. It seems the ancients have more to say for us today than the modern writers do.

In fact, it seems modern thought has killed our souls.

When I read the ancients, I see the writers who thought of the strangest objections and often because people had the strangest ideas. They wanted to answer every question that they thought imaginable to ask. Also, while they did not want to have the supernatural often in their writings, they weren’t dominated by science either. I actually consider science a lesser branch of knowledge than philosophy. If I put them in order, I would say the theological categories, then the philosophical ones, and then the scientific ones at the bottom.

Yet we seem to have that reversed today so much so that some people think that if something cannot be shown to be true in science, then it is not true. The idea of any study in metaphysics to some is absolutely nonsensical. As for the question of God, it would be best shown by the movement of logical positivism that would imply that all talk of God is meaningless.

What we had left was a world where everything was explained by purely physical terminology.

Please note I am not saying nothing is explained by physical terminology. I am simply wanting to avoid reductionism and say that everything is merely physical. I am typing out this sentence right now. That is a physical action, yet I do believe there is something else going on. There is an interaction taking place I believe between my soul and my body. I can think about typing while sitting here all I want to, but somehow, I will myself to type at one point and I could not even tell you how I do it. If you don’t believe me, try to imagine how you would tell someone how to walk. Just try.

In such a world, I believe beauty is a difficult concept. (Among other concepts like morality.)

In such a world, we have a hard time grasping an idea of beauty. We simply think that it is in the eye of the beholder because no such idea can exist. However, is that accurate? When we see something and call it beautiful, we are thinking of some idea of beauty. It is as if intuitively, we all know what beauty is even if we cannot explain it.

Could it be also that we cannot explain it because we have been raised for so long in a reductionistic world where everything is explained in terms of physicality? Now please keep in mind that I am not denying a physical aspect to beauty. However, is that beauty purely physical or is it the case that like my hands typing on the keyboard, there is an immaterial aspect behind the material reality?

Any reader of my blog regularly should know my beliefs on physical beauty, particularly since I write often of the beauty of the lady. Alright guys. Time to consider. Let’s suppose you like a girl with an hourglass figure. Let’s suppose you like one with long hair. Let’s suppose you like one with their eyes having a certain complexion. Let’s suppose another says being fair-skinned.

Now you can list a number of physical traits in a lady you find attractive. I find many of them attractive as well. Now though, I get to the hard question of, “Why do we find such things beautiful?” You can tell the lady all day long that you find her long hair incredibly attractive. You can talk about how you want to kiss her luscious lips. The question is, “Why?” What is attractive about both of those?

Now my answer has been that in some way, the female form represents life. All about her body is geared towards life, including the bringing of new life into the world. There is something beautiful in the nature of life because God is beautiful by his nature and God is life as well. It would then follow that life must be something beautiful.

Please note something. In saying beauty is objective, I am not saying I am 100% certain on what beauty is. This is common in the philosophers though in dialogues of Plato like Laches or Meno among others where the nature of what one thing is was questioned. The most famous is the Republic that attempts to answer the question of what justice is.

However, it seems odd to say “Because we are not absolutely sure what beauty is, we should think there’s nothing objective to it.” I would instead think that since we all seem to have this idea of beauty, maybe there is something to it and it can only be a benefit to the human race if we work and try to figure out just what that is. Consider that it would be hard for us to define what is essential to a human being, but do we deny there is something about a human being that makes them a human being?

I contend that I would like to see us return to a world where science is not the final authority. Science is great and has given us many great things, but it has too often had a role that is not meant to have. We need to realize there are greater truths out there than those that can be put in a test tube and maybe when we do that, we can get even more benefits from science as well.

And if we can learn more about beauty, I’m all for it.

A good reader of the blog and a good friend of mine recently wrote to me about my blog series on what I meant by saying that things are beautiful in themselves.

It’s a good question and an important question. Too often in these kinds of discussions, we can get to the point where we sometimes use terminology and forget it’s not always being understood. I believe in deep thinking, but I also believe in keeping your terminology as simple as possible.

So what do I mean by “Beautiful in themselves?”

Suppose you are sitting on your porch one evening and I happen to walk by. As you sit on a chair out front, I take a chair next to you and you’re watching the sunset. I hear you say “Beautiful, isn’t it?” What is it that you are really saying?

Are you saying that it is beautiful to you? If that is the case, then does it really matter what I think? Am I going to argue that you don’t really find that beautiful? Or, are you wanting me to acknowledge that you are making a truth claim and you say that that thing you see out there is beautiful and you have really discovered the beauty in it instead of pushing beauty onto it.

Let us suppose you also say you have a date tonight with your beautiful girlfriend. In fact, she is coming over and you are going out for dinner. (Yeah. I know it’s not typical for the lady to come over and the guy take her out, but bear with me.) If she shows up and I see her, you will be insulted if I do not agree with you that she is beautiful.

There is no doubt now that there is a subjective element to beauty also. It is we who are experiencing the beauty and we who have an experience of it. It is also we who have opinions of what is beautiful and what isn’t. It is also the case that in every other area, some opinions are right and some are wrong simply because we are dealing with truth claims. If something is a truth claim, it is either true, false, or meaningless.

For instance, if I say 2 + 2 = 74, that’s not a meaningless claim, but I hope we all know it isn’t a true one! On the other hand, if I say “Colorless green dreams sleep furiously,” that is a meaningless term. There is no content to that that we can say anything about.

What if we make the same about claims of beauty though?

“That is a beautiful lady!”

That statement could be true or false. What makes it meaningless is that the terms have no meaning. Does it mean anything to say something is beautiful then? It must mean that it relates to some concept of beauty. What if that concept is entirely subjective though? Then you’ve told me nothing about the thing itself. You’ve only told me how it relates to you.

If you’re not telling me about the object itself, then it’s really a meaningless term. (I mean as object of the sentence. I don’t mean women are objects just to be clear.) Now it could also be sadly that the term is false. A lot of women today have really damaged themselves to lose beauty. A lot of them don’t like me saying that, but I believe it’s true. It could even be the ones most people consider to be beautiful. They just show themselves so much and have such a character that they have lost beauty.

Thus, let us suppose that you and I did not exist. Let’s suppose there were no human beings. We only had this planet. Would it still be beautiful? Yes. It does not rely on our experience. It relies on its participating as it were in the beauty of God by reflecting that. There is even a place in Aquinas’s writings where he equates God with beauty.

What if nothing is beautiful in itself? Then friends, the only conclusion I can reach is that nothing is beautiful. It is simply an idea we push on something but it is not an attribute of the thing itself. If that is the case, then we are not speaking truly. We can say that it is beautiful to us, but we have not said anything about the object but about our reaction to it.

I hope this clarifies it. If need be, I can give further reasons for thinking beauty is objective, but I will say that if beauty is not objective, then nothing is beautiful.