A Problem With Pluralism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.