The Island of Truth

A Problem With Pluralism

2009-01-13T14:07:00.000-08:00

It is popular (and trendy, I might add) to subscribe to some form of pantheism. The idea is to take good things from every religion (with the exception of Christianity, of course, because it's so stinkin' intollerant) to form the ideal religion. Herein lies the problem: What is "good"? If "good" is a matter of personal preference, then the decision of which elements of religion one would choose to adhere to is a rather inconsequencial one. In the words of Dr. Ravi Zaccharias, "In some cultures they love their neighbors, in others they eat them. Which do you prefer?"

However, I think that, while in word, many would argue until they are blue in the face that the dicision is in fact a matter of personal preference based heavily on social norms and constructs, in reality, people understand that in order for there to be "good" (or "evil"), there has to be some sort of standard to which one can measure any element of religion (or feeling, or event, or moral decision, etc.).

But when the question is asked, "What is the standard with wich one can measure religious elements and moral decisions?," one is really asking, "Which, if any, of these religions is the true and accurate standard against which one can measure good?" And when this question is asked, oddly enough, the plurality begins to diminish quite a bit. Decisions then need to be made, not as to which elements from which religions need to be adapted, but which worldview most closely matches what seems to be the standard of morality and "good/evil".

But I do understand just how incredibly cool and trendy it is to be pluralistic and "tolerant." So, should you choose to say, "No, Graffius, you're wrong. There is no standard, just personal preference. Can't we all just get along," I would recommend you eliminate the words "good" and "evil/bad" from your vocabulary. By definition, these words are relative, relative to a standard. If there is no standard, then there is no good and no bad. There is simply decisions that one prefers as opposed to decisions one does not prefer. In this case, I could punch you in the face and, while you may not prefer that I do that, you have no grounds to say I was wrong. That would be intollerant of my preference to punch you in the face.

And if this is the case, you have no argument against God on the grounds of the problem of evil. The problem goes something like this: How can a loving God allow so much evil in the world? If there are no standards of good and evil, just personal preference, then there is no loving God and there is no evil. There is just a neutral God making decisions that you do not prefer. But you cannot argue on these grounds. That would be arguing against a God who allegedly does not exist because He does things you don't like. (Also known as BORDERLINE INSANITY!) But if you were to actually attempt such a case, that would be very intollerant indeed.

"Hypocrisy" in the Church

2007-12-29T18:39:00.000-08:00

It seems as though as of late (and by that I mean over the past 2000 years or so), the safety net argument of atheism and agnosticism seems to be the perception of so-called "hypocrisy" in the Christian church. Now, in my limited experience, this argument has primarily been a last resort and is almost always an emotive response to Christianity. Be that as it may, agnostics and atheists frequently fall back on either propaganda fed to them by media, academic professors, "best seller" books, and Dateline specials or some negative personal experience in or by the church. They seem to revel in this as they enjoy the "score-one-for-the-antitheists" attitude.

As you may have already guessed, given the nature of my web log, I have a few problems with this accusation. The two issues I'll discuss here are (1) "hypocrisy" is not just a Christian phenomenon and (2) this perceived "hypocrisy" is a question of standards.

Before we progress any further, when the world says "hypocrisy," in my estimation they mean that someone professes to believe a proposition while acting against that very proposition. An example would be as follows: I believe that it is wrong to lie. When I lie, that is perceived as being hypocritical.

One difficulty with slinging this particular mud in the face of Christianity is that this epidemic is not strictly a Christian illness. In fact, in my experience, at one time or another everyone in the world is guilty of believing or professing to believe something while simultaneously acting against that professed belief. So in order to be fair (which the antitheist rarely is), the mud must be slung in the face of every person who has been hypocritical, including his or her own. In fact, if an antitheist accuses a Christian of being hypocritical, and then commits the same act, that is being hypocritical in itself. So if one is to use the argument, "Christians are hypocrites," one must apply the accusation to everyone who is a hypocrite, which would severely weaken the argument. Otherwise, one would do well to withdraw this accusation all together.

Also, this perceived "hypocrisy" is a matter of standards. Essentially, there are two elements at play here. The first is our "moral." This is what we actually believe about any particular matter. The second is our "ethic," what we actually practice in any particular matter. The correlation of these two elements determines the strength of our integrity. A high correlation of belief and practice makes high integrity. A lack of correlation between these two is what the antitheistic world would call "hypocrisy." Herein lies the problem from a Christian perspective. As Christians, while we are, for the most part, responsible for what we do, we (try to) let God set the standard for what we believe. Unfortunately for fallen humanity, God's standard is perfection in all areas. When we fail to meet these moral standards, it is perceived as "hypocrisy." The world's solution to this problem is to lower the moral standard until it matches your current ethical situation. These are the makings of a mediocre-at-best person with high integrity. This is never, never, never, not even once, not even a little bit, an option for Christians (don't even think about it). When it comes down to compromising God's moral standard on our lives and being called a "hypocrite" by a few ignorant hypocrites, we must be prepared to choose the latter eleven times out of ten.

I believe we would do well to define some terms at this point. My definition of "hypocrisy" as stated above, while representing the world's perception of hypocrisy, is not true hypocrisy. Sure it's bad, sure it's sin, sure it's an example of the black eye of humanity shining brightly on the face of Christianity, but it isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a double standard. Hypocrisy isn't acting against what I believe. Hypocrisy is thinking that it is acceptable for me to act against what I believe. It is setting a different standard for myself than for everyone else. If I believe that it is wrong to be prideful and then I, myself, am prideful, while I am sinning, I am not being a hypocrite. This is evident when I confess that what I have done is wrong. However, if I believe that it is wrong for everyone else to be prideful, but I believe it is o.k. for me, then it becomes hypocrisy. And if the informed antitheist were to examine the Christian church with this new understanding of hypocrisy, he or she would find that it, while still existing here and there, is quite a bit more rare than he or she expects.

Finally, many times when an antitheist uses this argument, he or she likes to site various instances of perceived "hypocrisy" ranging from the Crusades, to some priest in the news who abused an altar boy, to a negative personal experience with a pastor or church-member. To this, I would like to say two things. First, this line of argumentation frequently leans toward the "boo/yeah," emotive argumentation. If you are familiar at all with philosophy, arguments, apologetics, or any sort of academic discourse, you know that this emotive argumentation has no place in an argument based on truth and reality. Second, while these negative things do happen from time to time, they are not the norm in Christianity nor are they approved by most Christians. Antitheists need to understand that the Christian Church is full of humans and humans, all humans, make mistakes.

Anyway, all of this is to say that the argument that many atheists and agnostics use that Christians are hypocrites holds very little water and probably should be withdrawn and discarded from one's arsenal.

Peace out.

How Great the Faith it Takes to be an Atheist

2007-03-26T19:19:00.000-07:00

Many atheists and agnostics I know make the claim that they would prefer to rely on "science" than on the blind faith it takes to be a Christian. To that, I have two responses. (1) If it took blind faith to be a Christian, I wouldn't be one. I prefer to bank on truth and proven data than believing in something with no particular reason. However, Christianity and the God of the Bible is knowable if one just takes the time to know Him and know about Him. (2) I contend that it takes greater faith to be an atheist than a Christian. Keep reading.

I just finished watching the special on the Discovery Channel about the "Lost Tomb of Jesus." In this special, they claimed to find the remains of Jesus and His family, including His wife, Mary Magdalene, and His secret son (DaVinci Code, anyone?). I watched it with my natural, skeptical eyes as opposed to the blind faith that I'm afraid too many people used concerning this special. Basically, they found a tomb with several ossuaries in it. These boxes were labelled with names and full of bones. Bada bing, bada boom, you've got the tomb of Jesus.

The evidence presented appeared to be mildly compelling at first, that is until I started using my brain. The more I thought about it, the more I realized the great amount of faith it takes to fall into this bovine excrement. Let me explain...

First, it is clear that the special was implicitly making a truth claim. So one has to believe in absolute objective truth to begin with. If one doesn't believe in truth, the argument is over, the show meant nothing because it conveyed nothing, and ones time would have been better spent gleaning "truth" from the Simpsons or Seinfeld (and probably would have enjoyed themselves more). The existence of truth in this special was a "given."

Second, it must be taken on faith that the producers, directors, documentors, archaeologists, and anyone associated with the production were in fact conveying what they thought to be true. We are just expected to take it on faith that this was filmed in Israel and not in a Hollywood studio and that the people on the screen actually believed what they said and were not trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the audience. Let me tell you, given the nature of the entity of television and the "truth" therein, this is a MAJOR leap of faith. The Discovery Channel is selling something just like every other station, don't kid yourself.

Third, it must be taken on faith that the names on the boxes matched up to the LORD and His family. In the presentation, many of the names "sounded like" names that these people could have used, or were possibly nicknames for them. This seems like a fairly weak connection to me.

Fourth, it must be taken on faith that the names on the boxes were written at the time of these people's deaths about 2000 years ago and not by some dude 500 years ago playing a great, elaborate prank on the world or by one of the archaeologists the day before they began filming.

Fifth, it must be taken on faith that the bones in the boxes actually match the names on the outside. Who's to say that when they were building the tomb, they didn't just find dead people's bones and put them in the boxes? Recorded history tells us that there were people trying to cover up the resurrection of Jesus (c.f. Matthew 28:11-15). So there is certainly a distinct possibility that the bones in the box labelled "Jesus" are not actually his bones.

And finally, the special used very little Biblical evidence. Why is this important? Because the New Testament documents are some of the most highly accredited documents according to the science of historiography. But the special was very quick to use considerably less accredited documentation. For a show that implicitly claims to be scientific, this seems a little odd to me.

Here are five major leaps of faith required to buy into what the Discovery Channel was selling. (I don't consider the existence of truth a "leap of faith," hence five.) Call yourself an atheist, an agnostic, or a skeptic, whoever you are, you've got to have some incredible faith in order to believe what "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" claimed to be true. Personally, I prefer to place my belief in more reliable sources.

"Keep Religion To Yourself" -The Impossibility of Practical Privatization

2007-01-26T20:21:00.000-08:00

A couple of years ago, I was at a comedy club in downtown Denver. The comedian made the comment that his friend had "found religion" then gave his opinion that it's great when people find something that works for them, "just keep it to yourself." I'm hoping and praying that this was just a joke (since that's what comedians do). But it did get me thinking. Because of the increasing secularization of society, people are subscribing to the mantra of "keep religion to yourself." In consideration of this, I asked myself a question; is this a reasonable request of Christians? My answer was an immediate and resounding "No." This led to two follow-up questions. First, is this just because of my own bias toward Christianity? Second, why is this an unreasonable request?

The answer to the second follow-up, herein contained, is a commentary on the nature of humanity. As such, I believe that it makes the answer to the first follow-up also "No." I believe that there are a myriad of reasons why the Christian religion cannot be kept to oneself. However, there are five primary and sufficiently compelling reasons that I would like to make special note of.

No. 1. People like to tell stories of personal experience. Almost all of casual conversation consists of people telling stories. Sometimes these stories have significance, sometimes they don't. But the fact remains, people like to tell stories. The statistic is that when someone receives good customer service, they will probably share the experience with an average of five people. If someone receives poor customer service, they will tell nine people. Why? People like to tell stories.

Because of this fact, when people find the Way, the Truth, and the Life, when people are forgiven for every sin they have ever done, when people enter into a relationship that gives them eternal life, because of their human nature, they want to tell people about it.

Of course, along with the "keep religion to yourself" slogan comes the idea that it is impolite to talk religion or politics with your friends. Now, I'm no politician. I know very little of the political sciences so I am not qualified to speak to its validity in casual conversation. However, I fully believe that spirituality is by far the number one most important aspect of human existence without question. In my experience, it seems as though at one point or another, every human faces questions of "who am I?" "what is the meaning of existence?" "why can I comprehend cognitive thought while my dog just smells butts and drinks from the toilette?" and so on. There is very clearly something beyond the purely physical existence. Why would someone choose to never speak of these things with their friends? It is part of human nature to consider these things and it is part of human nature to do so collectively.

No. 2. This one is related to the previous one. When people find truth, meaning, or any positive element in life, they naturally want to share it with those they care about so that they, too, can share in the positive experience. Consider the last really good movie you saw. How many people did you tell to go see this movie? I would guess you spoke of it to at least two people. Why did you do that? Because you had a positive experience and you want your friends to enjoy it as well. When someone finds a relationship with the One who gives life more abundantly, human nature dictates that they have a desire to share this information.

The flip side of the coin is true with negative experiences. When you get stuck in bad traffic, you call your friends and tell them to go another way. That's just how people work. From what I understand, eternal damnation is a negative experience (call me crazy). So it only makes sense that I would warn people to avoid this.

No. 3. Personal belief is inseparably tied to physical response. Our metaphysical minds are tied to our physical bodies like a marionette puppet. When the personal belief moves, the physical body follows. Consider this example: if you were standing by a dark ally and you saw six hefty men walking toward you, your body would respond in a certain manner. We call this the instinct of fear. The heart-rate increases. The body temperature rises slightly. Breathing becomes shallow. However, if you knew that these six men had just come from a Bible study, you would respond in a completely different way. Personal belief is inseparably tied to physical response.

Why do people physically demonstrate and live out their metaphysical beliefs? Because they have no choice. This is human nature. This is what separates us from the animals.

No. 4. In my experience generally pluralists and secularists would not make the same request of other worldviews (i.e. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, etc.). In western culture, hindering the free speech of groups such as these is severely frowned upon. However, if the words are coming from a Christian perspective, the rules change so that we are asked to keep it to ourselves. The request is unreasonable because it is inconsistent.

There is an even greater problem with the consistency of the request. Statements made of the Christian faith must be viewed as either statements of opinion or statements of fact. If they are viewed as statements of opinion, then a consistent request of this nature would dictate that all statements of opinion should be kept private. (Feel free to save my space by inserting your own ad absurdum argument here.) If the statements are viewed as facts (yeah, like that will happen), there are absolutely no grounds by which one can request that they be kept to oneself. Which leads me to...

No. 5. Asking this of Christians is hypocritical. To put the request in general terms, it is like saying, "It is my opinion that personal opinions should be kept private." By making the request, you are breaking it yourself.

Spiritual privatization is pragmatically impossible because of the nature of humanity. Because of this, I say please don't keep religion to yourself. If you find something good, share it with your friends. If your religious views aren't that good, for God's sake, change them. If you don't know how good they are, run them by someone.

But I would wager that you probably already have. It's just what we do.

The War on the War on Christmas

2006-12-15T22:54:00.000-08:00

My issue is currently (and most likely will always continue to be) the shameful, unabashed double-standards by which the world operates. One such double-standard consistently shows up about this time every year, and with greater force and anger with each new Christmas season. The way it generally goes is as follows:
1. The general population, in the good spirit of the season, will wish each other "Merry Christmas." Why do they do this? Because they look at their calendar and see that December 25 is labelled "Christmas" and they recall that "Merry Christmas" is the traditional greeting for this time of the year.
2. A significant minority consisting of a combination of Grinches, left-wingers, and idiots who cannot read the label on December 25 of their calendar, begin to raise a big fuss because they don't think that people should say "Merry Christmas." Why? Because not everyone celebrates Christmas and some people might get offended at hearing about it.
3. They make a bunch of noise until those who either just like doing things the way they've been done for hundreds of years or would simply like to wish merriment upon a specific individual on the 25th of this month are silenced.

But let me ask you this: What compensation do we who are offended by the revoking of our freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution get? I'll tell you. We get accused of intolerance. Does anyone else out there see the major inconsistency here?

This being the case, I've decided to adjust the norm and compensate for those who refuse to say or hear "Merry Christmas" and deny others the right to do the same. I have decided that both in my everyday life and right here on the world wide web, I shall wish everyone "Happy Jesus' Birthday!"

Now, I'm afraid this brings up another point. There are a few, both Christian and non-Christian alike, who argue that since we were not in the Ancient Near East to witness the birth of the incarnate Christ, we cannot know when Jesus' birthday is. To this, I reference the thousands of Sudanese refugees in the United States. Many of these people are orphans because their parents were killed in battle. Because of this, many of them do not know when their birthday is. This poses a problem when they fill out any form in the U.S. Their solution is that they just pick a day to celebrate as their birthday. I would wager that no one with even an ounce of a heart would tell these refugees that they cannot celebrate their birthday just because they don't really know when it is. This being the case, we cannot place the same demands upon the Son of the Most High God.

That having been said, I would once again like to wish everyone who reads this rant, as well as everyone who doesn't, "Happy Jesus' Birthday!"

On The Sabbath

2006-12-07T14:24:00.000-08:00

Over the past few years, I have noticed a very interesting phenomenon among Christians. You see, time after time the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, convicts us of areas in our lives that need attention, areas where we fall short. In these areas which are illuminated by Scripture, God expects us to make adjustments in order to be more in line with His will. Of course, reluctantly though it may be, we generally comply. For example, many times God convicts us concerning pride, lust, gossip, prayer, worship, and so forth. Consequently, we work and pray toward greater discipline and compliance in order to become the men and women God wants us to be.

But there is one discipline that Christians do not generally comply. There is one area that seems to be clearly marked out in Scripture to which Christians instantly throw up the dukes. That is the discipline of the Sabbath. If we look at the ten commandments, the law that was written by the finger of God and is especially close to the heart of God, we readily work to comply with almost every one of these; Keeping God first, avoiding idolatry (though I contend we're slipping on this one as well; American Idol, I'm looking in your direction), honoring our parents, not murdering. But when someone mentions the fourth commandment, we instantly get defensive and claim that we don't have to do that one any more.

The following is a relatively brief abstract from my more extensive theology (see below).

I contend that the institution of the Sabbath (by this I mean the seventh day of the week; sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) was established at creation, taught throughout both the Old and New Testaments, and the practice was not changed until the early part of the second century.

In Genesis 2:2 & 3, God ordained the Sabbath principle. Many who worship on Sunday as a "sabbath" argue that the principle is that we are to work six days per week and rest on one. But the principle is clearly deeper than that. Verse three says that God "blessed the seventh day and made it holy." There is clearly a specific block of time, the seventh day, that God blessed and made holy. Of course, blessing and separating out for a purpose is something taken seriously throughout the Hebrew culture.

Some argue against its legal aspect as it doesn't show up again until the commandments are issued (as though that were something to sneeze at (where in the world did that phrase come from?)). This is not the case. While it is uncertain how or even if the patriarchs of Genesis kept the Sabbath, its instruction was given in Exodus 16 prior to the issuing of the commandment.

Then there is the commandment itself. The Decalogue is the set of commandments that God wrote Himself for all humanity for all time. When we begin to prioritize these by misusing or denying the Sabbath all together, there is no reason to stop there. If we can pick and choose how or if we keep the Sabbath holy, why shouldn't we pick and choose if we don't murder or steal or commit adultery?

The punishment given in Exodus for breaking the Sabbath was being stoned to death. That's a pretty serious offense. This indicates to me that the Sabbath is something very important to God. If it was so important to a God whom we claim never changes, then it does not follow that it is something that we can choose whether or not to obey.

One argument is that the commandment of the Sabbath is just an Old Testament law. As previously mentioned, when we follow this line we prioritize the Decalogue which we cannot do. We'll see now that the Sabbath is taught and practiced in the New Testament. Thus we conclude not that the commandment is changed or done away with, but that its details have changed. So when we break the Sabbath, we don't have to be stoned to death, we just repent and receive forgiveness.

In the New Testament, we find that both Jesus (Luke 4:16) and Paul (Acts 17:2) taught by practice that the Sabbath was to be kept.

Now there are those who argue that there are some Scriptures that indicate that the early church of the New Testament began to meet on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7 & I Corinthians 16:2 are among the more popular). However, each of these passages specifically says why they were meeting (Acts 20 they were having a meal before Paul skipped town, I Cor. 16 they were collecting money, etc.).

Some argue that Jesus did away with the law and that keeping the Sabbath is legalism. However, Jesus fulfilled the law, He did not abolish it. He showed us how to keep it by resting, fellowship, worship, and doing good. He didn't get rid of it.

Some argue that Paul taught that it was okay to regard all days the same, indicating that the Sabbath was not important. However, as previously noted, He kept the Sabbath himself. He would not have been teaching against his own practice. Context suggests that He was speaking of High Sabbaths of the feast days.

People point towards John's reference to the "Lord's Day" indicating that this means people worshipped on Sunday. There are two problems with this. First, this is the only reference to the Lord's Day in the entire Bible. As it has no antecedent, there is no reason to believe that the Lord's Day is Sunday or Sabbath or any other day. This is an argument from silence. Second, even given that it could be on Sunday, the passage reads "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10). Suppose the Lord's Day was referring to Sunday, I say So What? It says nothing about worshipping, meeting, or keeping holy the Lord's Day as Scripture so clearly does concerning the Sabbath.

Finally, history tells us that Sunday worship didn't begin until the early part of the second century. Furthermore, when it did happen, it was not for Biblical reasons. The change occurred when the Christian community of Rome was being persecuted for their connection with the Jews. So they began to reduce their connections with the Jews.

To make a long story short, it seems clear that God established the Sabbath to be kept holy on the seventh day of the week for all eternity.

As previously noted, this is a "brief" abstract. For the even longer story check out my full

Sabbath Theology.

Premise .4

2006-12-07T14:23:00.000-08:00

Premise .4: Who is Jesus?

With the information based on the first three premises, we can subscribe to Biblical monotheism. This leaves us with either Judaism or Christianity. The difference rests on one's view of who Jesus was or is.

There seems to be a major investigation in the person of Jesus, especially with the popularity of such books as The DaVinci Code and The Jesus Papers and the like. People are looking into the person of Jesus, His ministry, and His purpose. One of the more popular views is to understand Jesus as a wise teacher and a great leader. It is a good idea to take His teachings and apply them to our lives where possible (read: "where convenient").

I, along with philosophers such as C.S. Lewis, propose that such an understanding is faulty. There are things that Jesus said that rule out a wise teacher or a great leader.

First, taking a step back, we must ask, "Did Jesus really exist?" We must then answer, "Yes, He did," based on the historicity of the documents of the New Testament outlined in Premise .3. Okay. That's out of the way.

One of my favorite proofs of the deity of Jesus is Lewis's "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" line of reason. As previously noted, Jesus said and did things that disqualify Him as a wise teacher or a great leader. Jesus straight out claimed to be God! In John 10:30, Jesus says, "I and the Father are One!" (ESV) Again in John 8:58, Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (ESV) In Mark 2, Jesus uses His authority to forgives sins, an act that He knows only God can do. And these are only a few instances. The problem with believing that someone who makes such claims is a wise teacher is that wise teachers don't make such claims.

There are only three types of people who make these kinds of claims. Liars make such claims. Jesus could have been saying such things when He knows that He, in fact, is not God in human flesh. He could have been trying to deceive everyone with a giant, sadistic farce. But liars do not make wise teachers or great leaders.

Crazy people make such claims. Jesus could have said these things actually believing that they were true, while all along He was mistaken. As Lewis points out, this is along the lines of someone claiming to be a poached egg. If someone claimed to be a poached egg when he or she clearly is not, one would do well to dismiss their claims as faulty and their behavior as crazy. But, again, crazy people also do not make wise teachers or great leaders (for example, my 11^th grade chemistry teacher, but that's another story).

But the option I subscribe to, the option that is presented in the documents of the Gospels and is confirmed by the remainder of the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, is that Jesus was and is the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, God Himself in human flesh. Was He a wise teacher? Absolutely. Was He a great leader? Depends on who you ask. But the important thing is that He is so much more than a teacher and a leader. He is salvation. He is God. He is the only Way to the Father.

"You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." -Lewis, Mere Christianity (HarperCollins: New York, 1980), Book 2, ch. 3, last paragraph.

Premise .1- Absolute, objective truth exists.

Premise .2- A necessary, non-contingent, personal God exists.

Premise .3- The documents of the Bible are historical, verifiable, and accurate. Therefore, the God described in these documents is the true God.

Premise .4- The Jesus described in the Bible is who Jesus really was and is. This means that He is the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, and the only way to Salvation (among other things).

It is based on these four premises that I am a Christian. It is based on these four premises that I have a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe. It is unlike any other relationship that can be experienced by any human. This is who I am.

Premise .3

2006-12-07T14:22:00.000-08:00

According to Premise .2, a Divine, necessary, non-contingent, personal Being that I am calling "God" does, in fact, exist. But who is that God? What does He do? What is He like? How does He relate to us?

Christianity claims that the answers to these questions can be found in their holy document called "The Bible." Of course, in order to buy into this claim, one has to believe that the documents contained in the Bible are legitimate documents which contain truth. Unfortunately, many Christians subscribe to this document not after long, rigorous study in its validity, but because the pastor or mom and dad or friends say so. Fortunately, in doing so, they have studied and lived out the principles found in the Bible and have found them to be true, valid, and applicable. But I contend that such "blind faith" in the Bible is not necessary. I contend that the Scriptures are legitimate and factual documents that have withstood historical tests as well or better than most historical documents. It's not just a bunch of b.s. (bologna sandwich) that a few guys just made up.

Historiography is the study of history (duh). Historiographers use certain tests to determine the accuracy of the information contained in documents that claim to be historical. The three primary tests of this nature are bibliographical/geographical tests, internal attestation, and external attestation. Any major historical document that claims historical truth is subject to these three tests to see whether or not they can be trusted to be what they claim to be. The writings of Plato and Aristotle, Hamurapi's Code, Caesar, and the like all had to be run through these three tests of accuracy.

The bibliographical/geographical test looks at the breadth of a document's circulation. It looks at things such as duration of circulation, number of copies, and actual geographic area the document covers. If some dude wrote a letter to his neighbor and the neighbor just tossed it in his closet to be found hundreds of years later by some historiographers, this document is not going to be a significant source of historical evidence. However, if the neighbor read it out loud at the town meeting, copied it ten times and sent it to his friends who copied and sent it to their friends ag nosium (so that they wouldn't get ten years of bad luck for breaking the chain), the document would hold quite a bit more historical clout.

The test of internal attestation looks at the relationship between the author(s) and the events contained in the document. For example, if I wanted to write to you about the Yaks in Canada, it wouldn't hold a lot of weight because I have never seen Yaks in Canada nor do I know anything about them. If I were to write to you about the Mammoth beating Buffalo in the National Lacrosse League Champion's Cup, that would hold a little more authority because I watched that game on live television (go Mammoth!).

Finally, the test of external attestation looks at what outside sources say about the documents in question. Again, if Gary Gait and Gavin Prout both wrote that my writings concerning the NLL '06 Champions, the Colorado Mammoth, were accurate, first it would be amazing that they gave a rip about what I thought about them, but secondly and more importantly they would give me credibility in my writing.

So these are the three main historiographical tests that historical documents must face. Now lets take a look at the New Testament documents in light of them. (The New Testament is used primarily as a sample. Also, the validity of its contents will be important for Premise .4. The Old Testament has passed these test with similar results.)

Bibliographical/Geographical: There are approximately 5,000 copies of the documents of the New Testament in their entirety or near entirety. These documents were penned and copied for over 100 years and were spread over much of the known world at that time. Additionally, they have been cited by other works by church patriarchs for hundreds of years.

Internal Attestation: There is considerable evidence as to the authorship of all of the documents of the New Testament with only one exception (the book of Hebrews). In every single case, the author is at most separated by only one degree from the events they describe. That means that every author of New Testament documents were either first-hand, eye witnesses to these events (e.g. Matthew, John, Luke in parts of Acts, Peter, etc.) or they got their information directly from someone who was (e.g. Paul, Luke in the Gospel, etc.).

External Attestation: Within the New Testament, there is significant attestation to the validity of the other documents by both direct and indirect reference. Paul makes reference to events in the Gospels. Peter validates the writings of Paul. (Additionally, the authors of the New Testament significantly validate the documents of the Old Testament.) Also, outside authors and historians such as Philo and Josephus have confirmed some of the events described in the New Testament.

Now, there are objections to the New Testament in light of external attestation. Some claim that if such a major movement would have been documented on a larger and even governmental scale where there seems to be none. My response to this objection is illustrated by the following story. A few weeks ago, a friend who is an Alum of Taylor University came up to me and asked, "Did you hear what happened at Taylor?" Apparently there was a major car accident involving some of the students and faculty of Taylor U. I had not heard that news. Was I ignorant to contemporary issues and news events? Had I been living with my head in the ground? No. The fact is that Taylor U. is a relatively small school in a small town in the middle of corn fields in Indiana. Even relatively big news at Taylor does not get national, let alone world-wide press. It is not surprising that I had not heard what had happened. Galilee is, in a matter of speaking, in the middle of corn fields in Indiana. Even the biggest of news and the most major events by Galilean standards probably would not get what would have been world-wide coverage. It is not a surprise at all that the movement of "The Way" (what Christians at that time called themselves) nor any of the events leading up to the foundation thereof did not get any press time in governmental documents.

So according to these tests that are agreed upon by scholars and historiographers around the world, the documents of the New Testament contain facts and are accurate and legitimate according to their scope.

KEEP READING!!! A very important note needs to be made concerning the content of Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments). Each of these documents, just like any other document, were written with a specific purpose in a specific genre. Many argue that some of the contents of Scripture contradicts other parts and still others are untrue all together. The problem with such an assessment is that scriptures need to be understood within the scope and context of their specific genre. For example, some point to the Creation account in Genesis and say that it is inaccurate because "science" (and by "science" I mean "not really science") tells us otherwise. Well, I've got a news flash: the book of Genesis is historical narrative, not a science book. Does that mean it is wrong? No way. It is absolutely true to its purpose. The purpose of historical narrative is to tell what happened, not to convey all of the specific details as to how. The Bible must be understood according to its purpose and genre. Historical narrative is historical narrative, wise sayings are wise sayings, poetry is poetry, and so on.

That having been said, the common thread throughout the entirety of the Biblical documents, the answers to the questions at the beginning, is that God can be known and known about in all of the documents and genres. Thus, I believe that the God described in the documents of the Bible is the One true God.

There it is. Enjoy.

Premise .1: truth exists

Premise .2: a personal, non-contingent, necessary "God" exists

Premise .3: that "God" is the God described in the Bible as it is an historically accurate document

For more information, see J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: a Defense of Christianity (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, 1987), ch. 5.

Stay tuned for the fourth and final premise, "Premise .4!"

Premise .2

2006-12-07T14:16:00.000-08:00

Before we continue any further, we need to establish what is called the Law of Non-Contradiction. (Interestingly enough, it is also called the Law of Contradiction - fricken' philosophers.) Basically, the Law of Non-Contradiction says that A cannot equal Non-A at the same time in the same respect. For example, right now, at this very moment either I am typing on the computer or I am not typing on the computer. Both cannot be true at the same time in the same respect. Now I know that many of you are thinking to yourself, "Well, duh. Why do we need to establish that?" Well, for three reasons: 1) there are people in the world who just aren't as smart as you, 2) because this will be important for the following argument and 3) it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

In this segment we are going to establish the existence of an entity referred to as God (or a god). Now, if your panties are currently collecting into a bunch, bear with me. This has nothing to do with the Bible or the Christian God (yet). We are simply establishing that a God of some sort does exist rather than one not existing by looking at logic and science.

There are several lines of argument that prove the existence of God. The Design Argument looks at the universe and various aspect thereof and sees that the design points toward a Creator. The Argument from the Mind shows how God's existence is evident by humanity's
ability to have rational thought. It also argues that given mind/body dualism, the human mind could not have simply evolved from matter. The Argument from the Meaning of Life basically says that if there were no God, existance would have no meaning which would result in utter chaos.

My favorite argument for establishing the existance of God is what is called the Cosmological Argument. This argument looks at creation and science to establish the existence of God. The best line of this argument is called the Kalam Argument.

The Kalam argument sets the situation up into three dilemmas. The first is that either the earth and universe had a beginning or it did not have a beginning (the universe always has existed).

Logically, it cannot be possible for the universe not to have a beginning. This would imply an actual infinity. The problem is that actual infinities do not exist. For example, if someone were to count toward infinity, he or she would never reach it because in their counting, they are always at a finite number. This present moment can be viewed as the last number in a counting series which, of course, is finite. So if this is the last number, the beginning of the existance
of the universe started the counting to reach the present moment.

Scientifically, there had to have been a beginning of the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Entropy, says that all energy is equalizing; which results in the gradual degeneration of the entire universe. For example, if one were to set
out a cup of coffee in the room, the tempurature of the coffee cup would drop and the tempurature of the room would raise until all of the temperatures were equal. This same thing is happening on a universal level. Since this is true, if the universe had no beginning it would
have degenerated an infinite number of years ago, would not have been able to sustain life and probably would have fallen apart into an almost infinite number of dust particles.

Conclusion: the universe had a beginning.

The second dilemma is either the beginning was created or it was not created. This dilemma is fairly simple to understand. It rests on the simple principle that from nothing comes nothing. In other words, the universe didn't create itself or just happen out of nothing. The first event requires necessary and sufficient conditions. God is not an event nor is He a contingent being. Thus it cannot be said that the first event (the beginning of the universe) just happened; it is not true that the universe was not created.

Conclusion: the universe had a beginning and the universe was created.

The third and final dilemma is that the first event was caused by either a personal being or an impersonal cause. In order for the cause to be impersonal, the necessary and sufficient conditions had to be present for all "eternity" past prior to the first event. These
conditions then would have spontaniously caused the first event. The problem is that when the necessary and sufficient conditions for an event are present, the event takes place. There is no waiting or spontinuity. A spontanious act must take place by the result of a free act of a person or agent. Thus the "agent" that caused the first event was a personal, non-contingent being.

Conclusion: the universe had a beginning, the first event was creation, and the creation was the result of a free act of a personal, non-contingent Being whom we call "God."

There you have it, folks. God exists. Now, as previously noted, this does not speak anything towards who God is or what He (or she or it) does. We'll get to that stuff later. This simply proves that there is a God. Thus it disproves such godless worldviews such as Atheism and probably many forms of Agnosticism.

Enjoy the brain candy.

For more information, see J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, 1987), Ch. 1.

Premise .1

2006-12-07T14:12:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time (and by that, I mean from the beginning of time until about twenty years ago) it was unnecessary to defend the notion of truth. It was just assumed that only the insane and children too young to comprehend coherent thought would not take for granted that absolute truth was just a given. Sadly, there are some misled people who have shown up on the scene, spreading their "No absolute truth" propaganda.
That having been said, I suppose, rather than starting with important things, I need to establish the existance of absolute truth.
It needs to be understood that all claims of belief, truth, or existance are made in propositions. Propositions are ideas offered for acceptance. They are inherently indicative statements. Questions are not propositions because they can carry no truth. Similarly, opinions or emotive declarations can not be propositions. Saying, "I think ...." or "I really like..." are not propositions. Propositions are meant to corrospond to reality. Truth, therefore, is a proposition or a set of propositions that corrosponds to reality.
A lot of people who subscribe to the postmodern worldview like to say that they believe that there is no absolute truth. (Whether or not they actually believe that I think is debatable. But that's another issue.)
But the problem is that in order to believe that there is no absolute truth, one has to subscribe to the proposition, "There is no absolute truth." This is a self-refuting proposition. In order for this proposition to be true, there can not be anything proven to be true, including the proposition. This proposition sets up restrictions for truth that it cannot fulfill itself. If the proposition is true, then it is not true.
The conclusion must be that some things are inherently true. Of course, if some things are inherently true, then it must follow that some things are inherently untrue as well. Thus, there is truth and there is untruth.
Some would say that what is true for one may not be true for another. But if a proposition corresponds to reality, if it is inherently true, it must be true regardless of whether one believes it or not; it is true for everyone (or, put more simply, it is true). Truth is not subject to opinion or vote. Truth is just truth. Truth exists.

I have a working theory on why some claim to believe that there is no absolute truth. Now, bare in mind that this section has not been varified or proven logically. Its proof lies only in my own observation and experience. This is merely speculation, but, I think, fairly accurate.
My theory is that the idea of the non-existance of absolute truth has its roots in personal insecurity. The problem is not that truth exists, that some propositions are accurate and others are not. The problem is that there is such a need among some to be accepted that they have a problem telling others that what they believe is untrue. No one likes to be told that they are wrong. You don't make many friends going around telling people that something that they hold to is inaccurate and false.
But this blog site will be a designated truth zone. I have no qualms about telling the truth, regardless of whether people believe or not. I would like to be your friend. But if I say something that you don't agree with, you just might offer me the big "Screw You." That's no skin off my back.
Here's the thing. If I say something that you don't agree with, you have two choices. You can either split and never read my work again or you can refute what I say with a logically stronger argument. My number one goal is truth. If what I say can be proven wrong, I'd sure like to know. "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice." (Prov. 12:15, ESV)

For more information on the existance of truth, see Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 2000), ch. 4.