Month: July 2022

You Are Ignorant

Did you know you’re ignorant? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

You are ignorant.

Yes.

You.

The person reading this.

How can I know this? I don’t even know who you are reading this. I’m not omniscient. Perhaps I am the ignorant one.

I am. I am indeed ignorant.

Yet I still know you are.

How can I know this?

Because I know everyone is.

And what are you ignorant of?

I don’t know that one.

The lesson to be grasped that is easily lost on social media is that we are ignorant. All of us. The problem is that we are all ignorant of different things and too many of the things that we think we are authorities in are things that we are really ignorant in.

For me, let’s start with an easy one. Sports. When I am playing Jeopardy on my Echo Show and I get a question about sports, I just think that this is going to be a miss for me, and normally it is. If I get a question also about food or alcohol or something like that, I usually also miss that. These are areas of knowledge that I am ignorant of.

If I go to get work done on my car, I try to go to a place that I trust or have someone go with me who knows cars. Why? Because I do not know about cars very well. I can drive them and put gas in them.

Many people think that if you’re smart, you automatically know computers well. Not true. I consider myself a highly intelligent person and I do not know computers that well. There are plenty of people who can run circles around me in their understanding of how a computer works.

Now in many areas, we can all bear to improve, but we can’t improve in everything and we can’t learn everything. There will always be something that is not known. In apologetics, for example, when someone asks me a question about science as science, I refer them to someone else. That’s not my area of specialization and I know it.

If you are a scientist, there are areas of science you are ignorant in. You can’t study it all. It might be botany or astronomy or geology. (Oh wait. We all know geology isn’t an actual science. It’s the dirt people after all.) It’s a mistake to think you know it all.

Sadly, on social media, everyone is convinced they are an expert and usually, they convince everyone else of the opposite. This is especially so in politics. Whatever the controversy is of the day, every person on the internet is an expert in that kind of policy. Of course, there’s a line between being an expert and being a complete dunce in an area, but we should be able to admit we can all learn a bit more about everything.

And definitely this happens with the Bible and religion. Too many atheists share ideas that they think are absolutely devastating to Christians and we instead just roll our eyes and think “That old one again?” This is one reason to read the other side. See if the objection you present has already been answered. As I said yesterday, I’m part of an Aquinas study group and it’s amazing how many times Aquinas in the Summa Theologica deals with a kind of objection that sounds like it came right out of the mouth of an internet atheist today who thinks he’s stumped us all.

The good thing is anyone who wants to treat ignorance can. No. You can’t cure it in every subject but you can learn in what you want to know something about. Perhaps if more of us spent as much time understanding the world around us as we do arguing about it, we would all be better off.

It’s worth a shot.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Other Extreme

Is it possible to go too far the other way? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Lately, a quote has been going around the internet of John MacArthur saying that God has no blood and then talking about salvation and the blood of God. I have Catholic, Orthodox, and indeed fellow Protestant friends who have been pointing out the error in this. Now if this is a right assessment, the problem with what is being said is more akin to the ancient heresy of Nestorianism.

The tragedy is it could be that Nestorianism rose out of a noble concern, which I think honestly most heresies would in wanting to defend something of God. In this, Nestorius could have heard people calling Mary the mother of God. At this, many of my fellow Protestants do get concerned, and to an extent I can understand it. God doesn’t have a mother after all! It could be, Nestorius was concerned.

Now it could be that there is some misunderstanding on what Nestorius taught, as we all know many times someone’s opponents have misrepresented him, but the idea seems to be to separate Christ into two hypostases with one human and the other divine. No doubt, this would be a serious error and the reason for this is similar to the idea of the blood of God. We may never know fully what Nestorius taught, but we know the idea should not be believed.

Now everyone knows that God doesn’t LITERALLY have blood. This in the sense that God is not eternally a flesh and blood human being made of matter that has blood. In the same way, God does not literally have a mother. God never came into being. What is being said by the phrase “Mother of God” is not that Mary brought God into being, but that Mary is the mother of a human being who is fully man and fully God. God chose to dwell in a sense in the womb of Mary, which is something that all Christians should consider incredible.

When we say the blood of God then, we mean that Jesus, a real human being who is also God in nature, saves us by His blood. This does not mean that the Trinity itself has blood. This would apply to a passage like Act 20:28.

So what can happen in this? I understand that too many of my fellow Protestants can see terms like mother of God and see a whole branch of study on the person of Mary and think “Whoa. That’s taking things too far.” However, if we Protestants are right and the others are in error here, it is just as much error to totally ignore Mary and only bring her out around Christmastime. Mary should be able to be used as a constant role model for Christian women especially.

Suppose we think, rightly or wrongly, that Catholics and Orthodox go too far with honoring the saints by praying to them. It is just as much a mistake to say, “Therefore, we will ignore the saints.” We should study the lives of the great men and women of the early church and seek to emulate that which we hold to be in keeping with the character of Christ.

Suppose we think there is too much put in church tradition when many times we don’t know the source of a tradition. That is understandable. It is a mistake to think that Christians should not study the church fathers at all. We should read them and learn from them. They said many things that were admirable. They said many things we will find questionable, but they were the ones who passed down the faith that we eventually inherited.

I’m part of a Thomas Aquinas study group that meets on Thursday nights on Zoom. I don’t always agree with Aquinas’s interpretation of Scripture, but I think much of his philosophy and theology is accurate. There is a lot that can be learned from him.

This also goes the other way. Catholics and Orthodox have a lot to learn from one another, but also a lot to learn from we who are Protestants. I remember my ex-wife and I when we were going to an Orthodox Church for her met a couple from that church at a restaurant and they offered to join us and one thing the husband said is, “Those Protestants do know their Bibles.” We have engaged in much Bible study and research and it would be a great error for others outside of Protestantism to say, “Forget that. I only study from my own tribe.”

I disagree with many of the things that my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters say, but they are my brothers and sisters and they do say many things that I agree with. I find Catholic moral philosophy to be highly enlightening. I find the Orthodox to have a great grasp on practical day-to-day living and wisdom. When I am with the Aquinas group, I am one of a few Protestants in there, but I do think that my contributions on biblical studies are appreciated. There are plenty of ways I could disagree with them, but as a believer in mere Christianity, I choose to focus on what I agree on.

It just works better that way.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Jesus and the Centurion

How did Jesus treat the centurion? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I had said I would do some talking on Jesus and the crowds. I wish to now speak a little bit more on the story of Jesus and the centurion in Matthew. To begin with, we need to try to see this from the perspective of a Jewish person living in Israel.

This centurion is said to be a good man as he paid for a synagogue for the people, but even today, in a similar situation we would be suspicious. “Of course that politician paid to get a new hospital put up! Look at how much press coverage he gets over it!” This centurion could have very well been noble in what he did, but some people will look with suspicion. Some won’t, but some will.

What was inescapable however was that this centurion is a reminder that the Israelites don’t own their own land. Who provided the synagogue? An outsider. What outsider? One that represents the ruling power in the world that hopefully, the Messiah will deliver us from.

Even if this guy has done a lot of good, Israel would by and large prefer to not have him around. They would prefer to have the land to themselves. They were still waiting on the deliverance of God.

So now here comes Jesus and how many could already be wondering if this guy is the Messiah? If so, well surely He’s going to deal with this centurion. He’s going to tell him he’s an intruder and needs to get off the land. Those who think in such a way will be highly disappointed.

This centurion has a simple request. He wants one servant healed. When he asks, he tells Jesus that Jesus doesn’t even have to enter his house. This centurion, a man or honor and prestige in Rome, is not worthy to have Jesus in his house. All Jesus has to do is say the word. The centurion illustrates this by explaining how he says a word to a servant and they do it.

This centurion is understanding that as he has authority over the realm of his servants, Jesus has authority over the realm of at least sickness. Who knows for sure how far this goes? Keep in mind this is a pagan gentile giving this statement. (He could have been a God-fearer, but we have no explicit data showing otherwise. Either way, he would have been seen as outside of the covenant.)

After the healing, Jesus turns to the crowd of people and what does He do? The exact opposite of I’m sure of what many people were expecting. He tells them He hasn’t seen a faith like this in all of Israel. Sorry guys, but this gentile here has you beat!

Not only this, but he pulls this over to the next world. He says that many will come from all over the world to join the feast of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but many of the Jews themselves in Israel will be cast out and not entering. If you are a Jew in the audience sick of Rome and wanted to see Jesus lay down the law on these guys, you got the exact opposite of what you wanted.

This is not a good day for you.

Something we can think about here is that Jesus did not say something to please the crowd. If anything, He said something extremely offensive to the crowd. Jesus in all His talks never apologizes. He never takes back anything that He says. He says it and it’s out there and that’s it. If you don’t like it, He’s not responsible for your feelings.

I am not saying we need to be needlessly offensive, but if Jesus was not afraid of offending His audience with the truth, why should we? A huge problem in our Western society today is that offensive statements are deemed unallowable because someone’s feelings could be hurt. Everyone’s feelings will get hurt sometime and the more we coddle this, the more we make it that we can’t handle anything. As a pastor I was talking to yesterday said, “The early church was willing to face death for Jesus Christ and we breakdown if our air conditioning goes out.”

Not only this, but Jesus is considered one of the greatest personalities and speakers of all time as well as one of the holiest and best men who ever lived. Now as a Christian, I think he’s the best of all time period, but even non-Christians can praise the life of Jesus in these areas and often do. Aside from the crazy position of mythicism, most everyone would tend to agree that Jesus is a figure that is admirable in many ways.

Jesus did not sway to popular opinion.

Perhaps we should be the same way.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

A Reply to I.M. Skeptical on Thomism

Are Thomism and science incompatible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Someone sent me this article about Thomism and science by I.M. Skeptical who I will just call IM from now on. In this, he seeks to show that science is not compatible with Thomism. While he is at least quoting the other side, I do not think he really has the issues understood.

At the start, he says in this article that is a response to Thomistic Scholar that Dr. Dennis Bonnette, that since the original article was written, Thomistic scholars are obviously feeling the heat. This kind of armchair psychologizing I find amusing. If a Christian says nothing in response, he has no answer. If a Christian says something, it is obviously because he is scared of what has been stated. This doesn’t put the article at a good start.

As IM continues, he says that there is disagreement on the issue of God, but this cannot really be considered science vs. Metaphysics. After all, there are plenty of scientists who do believe in God. What ends up usually happening in this post of IM’s is that contradiction is asserted when it does not follow. IM does go on to say this:

Science has nothing to say about God, which is a metaphysical claim, so there is no disagreement there.  But metaphysics goes far beyond the question of God’s existence.  It is concerned with the reality of all kinds of things.  In Thomism, movement is explained in terms of the metaphysical paradigm of act and potency.  In science, it is explained in terms of the paradigm of mass, force, and energy, which is no less a metaphysical concept.  But Thomists disagree with that, because they see metaphysics as being separate and distinct from physical reality.  To them mass, force, and energy are science, but act and potency are metaphysics.

All movement in metaphysics is potentiality and actuality, but that can be brought about in terms of mass, force, and energy. It’s not an either/or. Gravity can cause an apple to fall, but that fall is also a case of actuality and potentiality at work. Thus, I don’t see how we disagree with that. While we could debate what a “law of nature” is, that doesn’t mean we don’t see that what is claimed is brought about by them does happen and there are physical consistencies. Actually, we would see this as part of the fifth way.

He goes on to say the following including a quote from Bonnette:

Bonnette attempts to illustrate his thesis of basic agreement by way of an example involving sensation and cognition.  It is epistemological realism – the philosophical notion that the object of our perception has external reality.  But his example goes off the rails with regard to agreement agreement between science and Thomism.  The scientific view is that sensation of an external object creates a neural pattern in the brain, and subsequent cognitive references to the object actually occur by means of neural activity and connections involving that set of neurons.  And Bonnette calls this an epistemological nightmare.  He insists that knowledge of an external object is “direct”:

While an entire epistemology is not possible here, note that we cannot doubt external reality when it is directly confronted. Doubt arises only when we shift our attention to a judgment about the external object in which what we know is not the object itself. For example, if I close my eyes and wonder whether the lion confronting me is really about to attack me, I am no longer looking at the lion, but at some internal image of it.

IM responds with:

Just to get this straight, as I understand it, the point of agreement here is on an issue of epistemology – namely epistemological realism – not on the science of cognition, which Bonnette apparently holds in disdain.  We don’t “directly confront” external reality at all, but the only image we have is an internal image that exists entirely in the brain.  And to the extent that our senses can be fooled, it is possible for a false image to be formed, and we certainly can doubt that external reality.  How this supports his thesis is a mystery to me.

However, IMs statement would be a science killer if believed. Why not be a solipsist? You could point to the data you get from the world around you, but how do you know that is really from the world around you? Perhaps it is all a hallucination? If the place you start is inside your head, you can never get out. This is why Thomism has been called the common sense philosophy.

Do we know about hallucinations and senses being wrong? Of course, but we start out with the idea that all things being equal, our senses are generally reliable. IMs position is more of a Kantian position which is probably the strongest reply to Aquinas, though I still find it problematic. If IM starts in their head, then all the data that comes in to them supposedly could still just be part of the hallucination. You could never know otherwise.

IM goes on with another quote from Bonnette:

The next area of agreement that he discusses is “metaphysical first principles”, such as the principal of non-contradiction and the principal of sufficient reason.  Again, he gives examples that don’t seem to support his own thesis.  On non-contradiction, he says:

Even the smallest phenomena must be read as what it is and not as its contradictory – otherwise, the reading would be useless. Claims of contradictory phenomena, such as wave-particle duality, rely on such observations. If a subatomic entity appears as a wave, that same exact reading cannot say it is a particle.

He evades the real issue here.  Yes, it’s true that observations of particles only measure one of these properties at a time, but the more fundamental issue is not that these properties are contradictory, but that the subatomic particle is something that exhibits both characteristics.  So rather than clinging to concepts of physical substance that are contradicted by observation, we need a metaphysical concept of substance that agrees with what we observe.

All that is being said is contradictions can’t be true. Again, if it is thought that contradictions can be true, then we can all go home. IM is right and Bonnette is right and I am right and if you disagree you are right. Again, reality will all break down. What about the Principle of Sufficient Reason?

Likewise, on the principal of sufficient reason, he reverts to a theistic definition of causation:

Causes are merely reasons for things that do not explain themselves.

Which is just another way to say that everything has a cause except for God.  And he insists that scientists always have to find causes for everything.  But that’s not really true.  At a macro level, things can be said to have causes (in terms of objects interacting with one another according to Newtonian or relativistic physical laws), but at the quantum level, things happen on a stochastic basis, and there is no notion of causality in quantum physics.  As it happens, this is a major point of disagreement between science and Thomism, despite Bonnette’s denial.

I love that first line of dismissal as if what Bonnette is saying is all about God. No. It’s not. There is no interaction with the four traditional causes of Aristotle. There is also nothing wrong with finding causes for things. Am I to think that scientists look at the quantum level and say to themselves, “Well, that looks uncaused. Let’s go get a drink.” At this point, my thinking is wait and see what will happen in the future in science.

Moving on:

He also takes care to separate the metaphysical principles at the heart of Thomism from science.

Potency and act, matter and form, finality, essence and existence: Most other Thomist principles are so clearly philosophical that natural science properly says little about them. The exceptions would be materialist denials that substantial forms and final causes exist in nature. Still, those are clearly philosophical, not scientific, claims.

He has no choice but to make this separation, because these metaphysical principles are in direct contradiction to modern science.  Act and potency do not explain how things move.  They provide a teleological account of movement that was incorporated into the physics of Aristotle, which was the science of the day, but no longer have any explanatory value.  Essentialism and forms are a reflection of man’s propensity to classify things, but they are purely conceptual, and don’t even stand up to philosophical scrutiny, let alone scientific.  (As modern philosophers note, how many grains of sand can you remove from a dune before it is no longer a dune?  As scientists note, at what point in evolutionary history does an ape give birth to a man?)

I always find it amusing that when science has a question, it’s always “Let’s go and find out the answer!” When the question exists in philosophy, “See? That’s proof that it’s false.” Every position has hard questions to answer. How many grains of sand make a dune? Granting evolution, when does an ape become a man?

These are all great questions worthy of study, but none are a defeater. They’re just reasons to keep studying. The same applies to science. He also says potency and actuality do not explain how things move. No one said that they do.

So why is it that Thomists place metaphysics as primary? IM has the answer!

“There is only one reason Thomists hold metaphysics above and separate from science.  Metaphysics is the thing that stands between science and theism.”

Again, it has to be fear. Right? Nope. Metaphysics is first because it comes first in order of being. Science is second because it covers specific kinds of reality. Note that in the time of Aquinas, science as we know it would be called natural philosophy. Theology would be called a science for Aquinas seeing as it was a body of knowledge, which is essentially what is meant.

Thus, I find IM’s position not strong at all. He has at least interacted some, but the armchair psychology is the problem. I could just as easily turn it on him and say that he wrote a reply because he is feeling the heat of Thomism. That could be true, but it cannot be demonstrated and is only an ad hominem.

Finally, as a Thomist, I have no problem with science. Whatever is true in science we should affirm. Reality does not contradict.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Grounding of Abortion Laws

Is an executive order what pro-abortionists should really want? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Right now, abortionists are wanting to pull out all the stops. Biden, a supposedly devout Catholic president, is considering an emergency health crisis in support of abortion. There’s also been an executive order issued. To an abortionist, this might sound really good, but is it really the right way to go.

Roe v. Wade was simply put, poorly based at the start. Ginsburg thought it was. While Alan Dershowitz doesn’t agree with what Dobbs did, he also thought Roe was not done right. Just like I can be a Christian while thinking there are some bad arguments for Christianity, and there are, you can be an abortionist and even think the case in Roe was weak.

An executive order to save the day might seem like a good idea, but is it really? Carl Trueman in his book The Rise and Triumph Of The Modern Self, bases some of his work on Philip Rieff. Rieff argues that with regard to laws, countries are either first, second, or third world. First world countries do have a transcendental basis and it’s usually fate or some other power, It could be the Oracle of Delphi or some other sort of otherworldly source.

Second world is what is in line with monotheistic theism today where the laws are rooted in the character of God. This could apply to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or even Deism. This is why some people like Clarence Thomas use a lot of natural law reasoning.

Third is a secular world. In this world, the laws are rooted in society. Whatever the society says, that is what is good. The problem with this is ultimately that might makes right. It also has the problem that whatever you do, your opponents can do the same thing eventually.

Suppose a liberal president makes an executive order in support of abortion. What is stopping a conservative president from doing the opposite? If the government can give a right, it can take it away too. This is why our government has it in our founding documents not that government gives rights, but rather it recognizes the rights humans have.

This is also why these rights are things that are restrictions on everyone else. The government doesn’t give me ilfe. It is meant to tell everyone else they can’t take away my life. The same applies to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So if you are an abortionist what are you to do? Simple. Come up with better arguments. Look at Roe and see where it was weak and do what you can to improve it. Shows of power will be at best temporary havens of salvation for the side of abortion.

Meanwhile, those of us who are pro-life need to familiarize ourselves more and more with why we are pro-life. At this, I do want to give a plug to my friend Clinton Wilcox, who has recently started a substack on defending life and answering abortionists. If you want a good place to get the information you need, this is a great one and you can see it here.

Also, to those on the left supporting abortion, the reactions are showing many of us what we always thought. Abortion has always been a back-up way to deal with pregnancy and it was never about safe, legal, and rare. People react in proportion to how much a loss effects them and if a loss effects people this much, we need to ask why.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Crisis at Peor

What happened at Peor? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

For now, let’s get back to marriage in the Bible with intermittent posting when I get something new on how Jesus handled the crowds in His day. In this chapter, Balaam had failed to curse Israel, but that didn’t stop other methods being used. If the direct approach won’t work, get them to abandon their covenant indirectly and well, what better way to lead men astray than the temptation of women.

So some women show up and the men give in to the temptation of the flesh. Something to note here as an aside. Usually if you want a family to go to the church, you go for the father and if he goes, most likely, the rest of his family will come along. We could say if you want the family to fail, you do the same thing. You strike the father.

The operation is successful. In Numbers 25, the men are led astray. It’s worth noting also that Israel was more than willing to leave Moab alone. They only wanted to get to the Promised Land. Moab went out of their way to go after Israel. The goal was to get them to abandon their covenant with YHWH and lose His favor.

Moses tells them to deal with the problem by hanging the chiefs of the people who were responsible. While some of the leaders are weeping in repentance, an Israelite man comes with a Midianite woman and enters into the chambers right in front of everyone. Phineas the priest will not put up with this. He grabs a spear and goes in and interrupts their intimate time together by running through both of them with one spear. Phineas was praised for this action and was often held as an example of zeal for the Lord.

What’s fascinating about this is that this man did this in open defiance. Everyone knew what was going on in that tent. Consider today in movies and TV shows, when it comes to a sex scene, practically everything has to be shown. Older people will tell you in the past, a man and a woman went into a room and you saw the door closed and perhaps heard a click of a lock and you knew what was going on. No one had to be shown.

While everyone is in repentance, this man doesn’t care and will do what he wants. He will not only do it, but he will flaunt it. This is a man who cares nothing about the standards that YHWH has set up. Had he really wanted to go this route, he could have just left Israel and traveled to Moab and had a relationship with a Moabite woman.

Nope. He wanted to flaunt.

One of the ways to be faithful to YHWH is to be faithful in your marriage covenant and that means treating sex as something sacred. Don’t have it before or outside of marriage and when you are in marriage, honor the one you are with with the gift of sex. Our culture is caught up in a confusion about sex. We treat it like a recreational activity and then say that we have an identity built around this recreational activity.

I am not at all saying divorce is always wrong. I have cases where I would even encourage a couple to sadly get a divorce, but even when I think it is the best option, it is still a tragedy. It means along the lines, someone was that unfaithful to the covenant. However, if that has not happened to a party, then it is not just unfaithfulness to the person they promised faithfulness to, but unfaithfulness to God, and in a marriage, they did promise God they would be faithful to Him in being faithful to their spouse.

Phineas was more faithful to YHWH than he was to public opinion. He didn’t care what the people would think of him. He didn’t wait for Moses to take the lead. He knew what needed to be done in faithfulness to YHWH and he did it.

Marriage is also a call of faithfulness to YHWH if you enter it. It doesn’t matter what the public opinion is. You also don’t wait on the other person. You do what you can to build up your marriage and it is done in faithfulness to YHWH. That’s hard many times, but if we want to rebuild our nation, we have to rebuild marriage. We can blame the left for attempts to redefine marriage and matters like that, but we have to ask ourselves if we were treating marriage seriously ourselves.

Keep in mind, this is also so serious that this is what leads to Numbers 31 where Israel battles Midian, a favorite passage of skeptics. Abandoning of YHWH’s covenant by abandoning marriage led to a full-on war where several people died. It’s serious business.

Marriage always is.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Jesus and the Crowds

How did Jesus respond to the people? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m considering doing some research on the question of Jesus and the crowds. I started thinking about this because I was thinking more about the question of who Jesus is and not just the theological answer, but the more personal answer. What was Jesus like in His behavior? What is His personality like?

I have been going through the Sermon on the Mount in my nightly reading. I go through slowly, reading one verse every night and just thinking about it, so I decided to go right after that account to see how Jesus treated a leper. There’s something that’s easy to overlook.

Matthew 8:

When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. 2 And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” 3 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4 And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”

Did you notice it?

Great crowds follow Jesus, but when the leper comes forward, the crowds are nowhere to be seen. Jesus doesn’t even acknowledge them. All He cares about is the leper. The crowds could likely have been aghast that a leper would even approach Jesus. One can hardly imagine what they think when Jesus actually touches him.

Yet when do we see this crowd again? Immediately after this, we get the healing of the centurion’s servant. Here a Gentile comes forward wanting a servant to be healed and gives a great statement in the authority of Jesus. Jesus turns to the crowd, which consists not mostly if not entirely of Jews, and tells them that he has not seen such great faith in all of Israel.

Jesus doesn’t seem to care about winning over the crowds or what they think of Him.

I was intrigued and went back further. This crowd, or rather these crowds, start to follow Jesus in Matthew 4 after He does multiple healings. Then He climbs up on a mountain and gives a sermon that is one of the greatest messages of ethics the world has ever heard and yet one of the most difficult ones for anyone to follow. Jesus is not making it easy on the audience.

Naturally, I wanted to see if anyone had done anything on this that I could see. I went to Amazon and put in Jesus and crowds. Nothing. Now this doesn’t mean no one has written anything, but it means I couldn’t find anything specific. Perhaps if I look at this, it will be some of the first research done on this topic.

I still also do not want to lose sight of Jesus and divorce. Yes. That question still affects me every single day and every single day has a degree of pain to it because of that event. I was talking to my therapist about it today even and talking about some problems I have had lately and I have thought it could be boredom, but he said that could also be stemming from depression. I am sure some of that is still there.

I do find this question interesting. Jesus doesn’t seem to be a crowd-pleaser and He seems to care more about the individual in these matters instead of the people at a large who He doesn’t think are truly committed to the cause. There are sociological implications to this, but also as a Christian in daily living, gives me some thoughts on how Jesus sees us on an individual level.

Stay tuned. We’ll see what happens.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Mark Hamill Is A Slimeball

What is Mark Hamill trying to accomplish? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We have all heard it several times. Pro-lifers are not really pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once a child is born, they don’t really care. Never mind that we are the ones that run the centers to help mothers who have children and don’t abort. Never mind we have so many adoption agencies out there as well. The facts really don’t matter. The rhetorical punch is all that matters.

One such example is Mark Hamill who is known for playing Luke Skywalker as well as voicing the Joker on Batman: The Animated Series. On Twitter recently, he decided to make a post and who knows what he was really trying to accomplish. It makes less and less sense. Anyway, here’s the link.

If you can’t access it, it’s basically a picture of the Joker and Harley Quinn saying “We will adopt your baby.” Apparently, the idea is that if you go with adoption, well you could get an evil pair of parents so you might as well kill the child just to be safe. It’s always in the best interest of the child to kill it apparently.

Now if Hamill wants to stick with the comics, we can do that. I am not a reader of the comics, but I do know how to do some research. I decided to look and see if I could find any superheroes in the comics adopted by evil parents. As it turns out, it was not hard to find.

It is not good in itself for anyone to be adopted by parents that are evil, but that won’t always be the end of the story. People if they want to can overcome a great deal. Fortunately, there are plenty more people who adopt children for the good of the children.

What looks like what is going on more is a sort of attack on adoption. Yet why should this be? What is accomplished by this? Perhaps the elimination of adoption somehow or having it presented as a less than noble alternative is a way to make abortion the best option. This does ignore what kind of option abortion is, but who cares?

Apparently, the abortion side wants it where you can’t win either way. Want to adopt? Well what kind of twisted people could adopt a baby? That’s too risky! Want to run a pro-life center? They will be attacked then. Yeah. It hasn’t been breaking news for some reason, but that has been happening.

Hamill meanwhile can deal with all the people who are ready to give pushback who have been adopted by loving parents. While I have shown there are superheroes who were adopted by supervillains, some superheroes were adopted by good parents as well. One such example Mark Hamill should know about is Luke Skywalker himself. Of course, none of this information that is more factual in nature is of any interest when one just wants to push emotional strings.

One aspect that should definitely happen in this country is that adoption should become easier. To adopt a child is much more expensive than is feasible for many people beyond the ordinary costs of raising a child. Perhaps if adoption was made to be as easy as possible, like abortion has been, then we could see more adoption.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge for Fun: Odd Billy Todd

What do I think of N.C. Reed’s work published by Creative Texts Publishers? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A friend told me about this book and I heard a bit of it in audio format and the story I could just not get out of my mind. I kept pondering it over and over. The situation is that Billy is a sort of country boy who might be slow in some ways, but for understanding how to live and how to survive, he’s right on top. He lives in a world where humanity was struck with a plague and within an incredibly short time, most everyone was dead. At the start, as far as Billy knows, he’s the only one left alive.

Billy has a journal that was left behind by his parents and he had noted much of the wisdom of his parents. He tries to make it in this strange world that he finds himself in. Without spoiling too much, I will say it becomes apparent that there are some other survivors here and there and the story is all about the survival of Billy and those he meets that he allies with.

What do you do when everyone is dead? Normally, we would discourage stealing, but is it really stealing to go into town to take what you need if the people who had it are dead and you need to survive? Billy tries everything he can to be a man of morality and virtue as well in this world that he’s in. The book is set in Tennessee, where I happen to live now, and one can easily see the traditional kind of southern values we talk about down here.

No. The book is not explicitly Christian or anything like that, but while religion is not regularly mentioned, if anything is a worldview of the good guys in the book, it is mostly Christianity. While Billy does get weaponry to prepare himself in case of raiders, not knowing who is out there, there is no hint that he really wants anything to do with violence. If he has to engage in it to protect himself or someone he cares about, he will, but he knows it leaves a mark on a man.

Billy doesn’t have much book sense, but he does have common sense and sense of the way the world works. His real training is as a mechanic, but he does know how to run a farm and has an uncanny ability for telling time just by looking at the sky. As his journey continues, he also rises up as a leader.

As I was going through this, I was thinking it would be great if some indy developer was to make a video game out of this. You could have driving stages, farming states, stages involving shooting, and even Sims style relational stages where you learn to relate to others.

As I reached the end of the book, I was honestly saddened. I did think the ending was a bit abrupt, but I was wanting more. I would be pleased to see another book rise up that is a sequel to this. What happens to this world? What happens to all of these people that I have come to know?

If I had any criticism besides that, it would be that there are some grammatical errors in the book such that I wish an editor had done a better job. While that was annoying, it wasn’t enough to detract from the story. I read a chapter a day for 80 days and found it to be a treasure to go through. If you want to read a kind of apocalyptic book of this sort, give it a try. I am sure you’ll like it too.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

I Don’t Celebrate The 4th of July

Why do I not celebrate the 4th? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Some of you might be surprised to see that I don’t celebrate the 4th of July. After all, I am a strong conservative Christian. I make frequent posts on Facebook about political issues and have my own strong opinions on the matter. Surely, I would celebrate the 4th of July.

I don’t.

I celebrate Independence Day.

When we talk about Christmas, we don’t call it the 25th of December. We don’t call a day for lovers the 14th of February. When we go out getting candy, we don’t call it the 31st of October. Somehow, we changed this day to make it the calendar date instead of the real meaning of the day.

We are celebrating independence. We are celebrating freedom. We are celebrating the establishment of our nation.

Unfortunately, I have seen some people, not just on Facebook but even in person, asking what there is to celebrate today. Why? Because Roe v. Wade was overturned, therefore America should not be celebrated today.

Yet this says that we only celebrate America when America does what we want. It’s a love that is dependent on actions. When this country had Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, I still loved it. I still disagree with the redefinition of marriage, but I still love the country.

There are ways I think America has gotten off track and mistakes that have been made, but what country has not had this. There will be no perfect countries this side of eternity, but I fully believe that thus far, this is the best one. This is the country that I am thankful to live in and it is a gift of God that I got to be born here.

It’s easy for people to think of the evils that have happened in the past in this country. It’s easy to think of the evils going on right now. However, let’s not lose sight of the goods. Most of us do not live in abject terror throughout our lives. We don’t have to fear a government coming to kill us. We who are Christians have the freedom to worship.

We can all work to continue making this country the best that it can be. I especially am thinking about the men and women who gave their lives and continue to serve today to make sure that we are free. Whenever I see a soldier or a veteran, I stop and thank them for their service.

I don’t know how you’re celebrating today. For me, I might just enjoy the day off and while I am with my folks, my Dad and I could continue catching up on the Flash tonight, to which I multitask and get in some good gaming then. (Thank you, Nintendo Switch.) There could be patriotic music today and perhaps reading such works as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well.

Happy 4th of…..no, no no.

Happy Independence Day!

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)