Category Archives: Philosophy
Merely an Attunement? Life after Death.
Oh really? This is a pessimistic assumption, not a concrete fact. It is just as possible to have faith that we all get out of here alive… that We are not absolutely annihilated at death.
Though our bodies are merely the remnants of what we have consumed over the last 7 years… though we have assimilated Big Macs and Council Water into our physical being… we are so much more than that! The Real *You* is not your arms, legs, not even your brain… the real You is your Non-physical free willed/ thinking / Spiritual being/moral agency/ and personality… and these things are not properties of, nor derivable from Matter. Thus it is self evident that we are more than our bodies, and that it is very possible that our spirits could survive Physical Death.
“To fear death, my friends, is only to think ourselves wise, without being wise: for it is to think that we know what we do not know. For anything that men can tell, death may be the greatest good that can happen to them: but they fear it as if they knew quite well that it was the greatest of evils. And what is this but that shameful ignorance of thinking that we know what we do not know?”
Socrates
Socrates was a Greek who lived before the time of Christ.
He did not get to hear the preaching Of Christ’s Resurection from the Dead by St Paul At Mars Hill.
Thus Socrates only had limited human reason to go by.
It is very Possible that Had Socrates had oppotunity to Discourse with St Paul that he may have had more certainty about Life after death!… I conjecture…
Yet still… though he admitted he could not claim knowledge of life after death… He had a reason baced faith that drinking from the cup of Hemlock would not be the End for him…
He believed life was more than merely the attumement of a physical instrument…
“…Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason
to hope that death is a good; for one of two things–either death is a
state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a
change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you
suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him
who is undisturbed even by dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For
if a person were to select the night in which his sleep was undisturbed
even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other days and nights of
his life, and then were to tell us how many days and nights he had passed
in the course of his life better and more pleasantly than this one, I think
that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king will
not find many such days or nights, when compared with the others. Now if
death be of such a nature, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then
only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and
there, as men say, all the dead abide, what good, O my friends and judges,
can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world
below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and
finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and
Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were
righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What
would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and
Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again. I
myself, too, shall have a wonderful interest in there meeting and
conversing with Palamedes, and Ajax the son of Telamon, and any other
ancient hero who has suffered death through an unjust judgment; and there
will be no small pleasure, as I think, in comparing my own sufferings with
theirs. Above all, I shall then be able to continue my search into true
and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in the next; and I shall
find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not. What would
not a man give, O judges, to be able to examine the leader of the great
Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others, men and
women too! What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them
and asking them questions! In another world they do not put a man to death
for asking questions: assuredly not. For besides being happier than we
are, they will be immortal, if what is said is true.
Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know of a certainty,
that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. He
and his are not neglected by the gods; nor has my own approaching end
happened by mere chance. But I see clearly that the time had arrived when
it was better for me to die and be released from trouble; wherefore the
oracle gave no sign. For which reason, also, I am not angry with my
condemners, or with my accusers; they have done me no harm, although they
did not mean to do me any good; and for this I may gently blame them.
Still I have a favour to ask of them. When my sons are grown up, I would
ask you, O my friends, to punish them; and I would have you trouble them,
as I have troubled you, if they seem to care about riches, or anything,
more than about virtue; or if they pretend to be something when they are
really nothing,–then reprove them, as I have reproved you, for not caring
about that for which they ought to care, and thinking that they are
something when they are really nothing. And if you do this, both I and my
sons will have received justice at your hands.
The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways–I to die, and you to
live. Which is better God only knows…”
Plato believed in we survive death…
St Paul says this:
“Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”
(1Cor15vs51-55) KJV
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Christian.
Dispensationalist.
King James Bible believer.
More from Tim…..
LIFE AND DEATH. HOPE AND HAPPINESS. A TRIBUTE TO REV JOHN STEELE CLARK. (RE-POST)
Faith, Science, and Reason. The Pomposity of Atheism.
Et tu Brute? What is Scientism: William Lane Craig
Willful Ignorance and the Limits of human reason (without Divine Revelation.)
The Rock of Divine Revelation.
Death of an Atheist. Follow the evidence.
Rapturous Amazement! The Advance of Science Converts The High Priest of Atheism to Deism. A Flew.
Pasteur’s Law, Creation Science vs Nose Bone Atheism.
Russell’s Teapot really refutes Atheism not Theism!
Biomimicry… Plagiarizing God’s designs.
How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? (part1) Atheist Nihilism.
Materialism renders Man Nought. Meaning-less, Value-less, Right-less
We are not Robots Ayn Rand. We are Moral Agents.
Monism: Evolutionary Psychology and the Death of Morality, Reason and Freewill.
The Rusty Cage: Scientism.
Are you Lost in Scientism?
Lies destroy our grip on reality.
The Bible tells us of a Necromancer whom raised the prophet Samuel’s Ghost.
Do you doubt this really happened? Do you assume science proves this is impossible? If so you have been decieved!
Science has proven no such thing!
You have been decieved into believing Science proves Materialism/ monism/ Naturalism!
You have been Mentally Hobbled!
If you have been conditioned to believe Reality is strictly limited to only what Empirical Science can substantiate, then you are trapped in the Straight jacket of Scientism.
If you Believe absolutely in Naturalism, No God, no Ghosts, No miracles… You are a prisoner of Scientism.
If you Believe that Material reality is the only reality… You have been Smoked by Atheist Scientism.
Scientism is form of intellectual Coffin Torture!… a closeted mentality… a short sighted blindness… a vanity.
Scientism is a Religion…and not a very intelligent one at that!
Scientism is Irrational.
The day anyone realizes the trap that is Materialist Naturalist Scientism, and boldly embraces the possibility of Super-naturalism…is a day of personal Liberation!
It is an awakening…to a greater reality… Greater possiblities… more plausible probabilities!
It is mind expanding… Freewill is not an Illusion!
It puts Emperical Science (and our sences) into their proper context.
It apprehends their limitations.
It allows the enlightened person to shrug off the absurdities, the Gross implausibility, the wild superstition, The Deadness, The Amorality, The Meaningless, The Purposeless, The enslavement and surrender to Determinism…that Materialist Naturalism demands of it’s devotees.
Hour Of Power. The Great Dr Robert Schuller (Senior).
“Faith is the Optimistic vison of a Possiblity thinker, whereas Atheism is the Pessimistic lack of vison of an impossiblity thinker…” (Quote from memory)
Then One can look back at the past 500 years and appreciate the how the Ideologies of Materialism, Naturalism, and Scientism came about, and why they have successfully blinded the minds of millions of Men whom vainly consider themselves ‘Superior’… ‘Modern’… ‘Men of Reason’…. ‘Liberated from ‘Faith’ and Superstitious Error’, Etc yet ultimately have proven to be Blind, leaders of the Blind.
Thus saith THE LORD…
There is No conflict between True Religion/ The Bible, and True Science!
The Bible gives us access to a reality which is otherwise beyond our reach.
The Bible is Super Natural…Divine Revelation.
“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”
Francis Bacon…The Father of Modern Science.
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Cor2vs114)
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:…” (1Tim6vs20)
St Paul
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian. Libertarian. 1611 King James Bible Believer. Dispensationalist. Possibility Thinker.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia…
Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.
Scientism may refer to science applied “in excess”. The term scientism can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses:
To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.
This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.
To refer to “the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,” or that “science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective” with a concomitant “elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience.”
The term is also used to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.
For sociologists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.
Contents
1 Overview
2 Relevance to science/religion debates
3 Philosophy of science
4 Religion and philosophy
5 Rationalization and modernity
6 Dictionary meanings
7 Media references
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
OverviewReviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R. Petersondetects two main broad themes:
It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
It is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).
Mikael Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism.In the Encyclopedia of science and religion, he writes that, while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension).
According to Stenmark, the strongest form of scientism states that science has no boundaries and that all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor, with due time, will be dealt with and solved by science alone. This idea has also been called the Myth of Progress.
E. F. Schumacher in his A Guide for the Perplexed criticized scientism as an impoverished world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. “The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn’t be counted, in other words, it didn’t count.”
Relevance to science/religion debatesThe term is often used by speakers such as John Haught against vocal critics of religion-as-such.[25] Philosopher Daniel Dennett responded to criticism of his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by saying that “when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don’t like, they just try to discredit it as ‘scientism'”.
Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, draws a parallel between scientism and traditional religious movements, pointing to the cult of personality that develops around some scientists in the public eye. He defines scientism as a worldview that encompasses natural explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason.
The Iranian scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr has stated that in the West, many will accept the ideology of modern science, not as “simple ordinary science”, but as a replacement for religion.
Gregory R. Peterson writes that “for many theologians and philosophers, scientism is among the greatest of intellectual sins”.
Susan Haack argues that the charge of “scientism” caricatures actual scientific endeavor. No single form of inference or procedure of inquiry used by scientists explains the success of science. Instead we find:
the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers
a vast array of tools of inquiry, from observational instruments to mathematical techniques, as well as social mechanisms that encourage honesty. These tools are diverse and evolving, and many are domain-specific.
Philosophy of science
In his essay, Against Method, Paul Feyerabend characterizes science as “an essentially anarchic enterprise” and argues emphatically that science merits no exclusive monopoly over “dealing in knowledge” and that scientists have never operated within a distinct and narrowly self-defined tradition. He depicts the process of contemporary scientific education as a mild form of indoctrination, aimed at “making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more ‘objective’ and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchanging rules.”
[S]cience can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and … non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so … Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science… In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.
— Feyerabend, Against Method, p.viii
Religion and philosophyPhilosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements “no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)” or “no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true” cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.[32]
Rationalization and modernity: Rationalization (sociology)
In the introduction to his collected oeuvre on the sociology of religion, Max Weber asks why “the scientific, the artistic, the political, or the economic development [elsewhere]… did not enter upon that path of rationalization which is peculiar to the Occident?” According to the distinguished German social theorist, Jürgen Habermas, “For Weber, the intrinsic (that is, not merely contingent) relationship between modernity and what he called ‘Occidental rationalism’ was still self-evident.” Weber described a process of rationalisation, disenchantment and the “disintegration of religious world views” that resulted in modern secular societies and capitalism.[33]
“Modernization” was introduced as a technical term only in the 1950s. It is the mark of a theoretical approach that takes up Weber’s problem but elaborates it with the tools of social-scientific functionalism… The theory of modernization performs two abstractions on Weber’s concept of “modernity”. It dissociates “modernity” from its modern European origins and stylizes it into a spatio-temporally neutral model for processes of social development in general. Furthermore, it breaks the internal connections between modernity and the historical context of Western rationalism, so that processes of modernization… [are] no longer burdened with the idea of a completion of modernity, that is to say, of a goal state after which “postmodern” developments would have to set in… Indeed it is precisely modernization research that has contributed to the currency of the expression “postmodern” even among social scientists.
— Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity
Habermas is critical of pure instrumental rationality, arguing that the “Social Life–World” is better suited to literary expression, the former being “intersubjectively accessible experiences” that can be generalized in a formal language, while the latter “must generate an intersubjectivity of mutual understanding in each concrete case”:[34][35]
The world in which human beings are born and live and finally die; the world in which they love and hate, in which they experience triumph and humiliation, hope and despair; the world of sufferings and enjoyments, of madness and common sense, of silliness, cunning and wisdom; the world of social pressures and individual impulses, of reason against passion, of instincts and conventions, of shared language and unsharable feelings and sensations…
— Aldous Huxley, Literature and Science
Dictionary meanings
Standard dictionary definitions include the following applications of the term “scientism”:
The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.
Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.
An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.
The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language.
The contention that the social sciences, such as economics and sociology, are only properly sciences when they abide by the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences, and that otherwise they are not truly sciences.
“A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences.”
“1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists. 2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.”
The Villars Statement on Relief and Developement.
This is a very interesting Christian Libertarian Book.
It discusses the failure of Socialism and promotes Free Market economics.
THE VILLARS STATEMENT ON RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT
PREAMBLE
In the spring of 1987, a group of forty evangelical Christians from around the world gathered in Villars, Switzerland, to examine the topic of “Biblical Mandates for Relief and Development.” For five days, we engaged in intense discussion, debate, and private reflection, our energies focused by a number of prepared study papers. As a result of our consultation, we who gathered at Villars have the concerns enumerated below. We encourage other believers to consider these issues in light of the Scriptures and their relevance for implementing Biblical relief and development.
A WORLD IN NEED
The extent of hunger and deprivation around the world is a reality haunting modern times. Confronted with disaster, disease, and chronic poverty, relief and development agencies have provided massive material assistance. Yet for all the resources expended, hunger and deprivation appear to be increasing. The sad reality is that so much effort has produced little in long-term results.
This reality calls us as Christians to reassess the work of relief and development in light of God’s Holy Word. It is our conclusion that the consistent application of Biblical teaching will require a reorientation of relief and development practices, and that this may involve a change in our understanding of human need and in strategies to relieve suffering.
“Relief and development” is an expression that recognizes two Biblical principles. Relief refers to the insistence in both Testaments that the people of God must help the hungry and oppressed. Development stems from the Biblical vision of a people exercising their proper stewardship of God’s gifts—of societies that are productive, healthy, and governed justly. Together, relief and development envision substantial improvement in economic and human well being.
We acknowledge our own sinfulness and fallibility, and we recognize that other committed Christians may not agree with all our convictions. Nevertheless, we are compelled by God’s Word and by the reality of human suffering to share our convictions with Christians and others. We do not claim to have spoken the final word. Thus, we offer the following conclusions of the Villars consultation for the research, dialogue, and open debate among all who claim Christ as Lord.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
With this as our goal, we raise our concerns over the following issues:
1. The failure to operate from a distinctively Biblical perspective in both methods and goals.
2. The tendency to focus on meeting material needs without sufficient emphasis on spiritual needs.
3. The attempt to synthesize Marxist categories and Christian concepts, to equate economic liberation with salvation, and to use the Marxist critique, without recognizing the basic conflict between these views and the Biblical perspective.
4. The emphasis on redistribution of wealth as the answer to poverty and deprivation without recognizing the value of incentive, opportunity, creativity, and economic and political freedom.
5. The attraction to centrally controlled economics and coercive solutions despite the failures of such economies and their consistent violation of the rights of the poor.
6. A disproportionate emphasis on changing structures without recognizing the frequency with which this only exchanges one oppressive structure for another.
7. The danger of utopian and ideological entrapment, whether from the left or the right.
8. Neglecting to denounce oppression when it comes from one end or the other of the political spectrum.
9. Focusing on external causes of poverty in exploitation and oppression without confronting those internal causes that are rooted in patterns of belief and behavior within a given culture.
10. The need to make conversion and discipleship an essential component of Christian relief and development work, and to carry this out in conjunction with the local church.
11. The need to apply the teaching of the Bible as a whole in the areas of personal life, family, and work, but equally in the shaping of the culture and social life.
12. The need to reaffirm the Biblical support for the family as the basic social and economic unit and its right to own and control property, and to stand against any ideology that would diminish the family’s proper role in any of these areas.
13. The need to oppose a false understanding of poverty which makes poverty itself a virtue, or which sanctifies those who are poor on the basis of their poverty.
BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE
In response to these issues we draw attention to the following Biblical teaching and its implications for relief and development:
1. God created mankind in His own image, endowing man with freedom, creativity, significance, and moral discernment. Moreover, prior to the Fall, man lived in harmony with all of God’s creation, free from pain, suffering, and death.
2. The devastating reality of sin and evil, hunger, oppression, deprivation, disease, death, and separation from God is the result of man’s rebellion against God, which began at the Fall and continues through history.
3. The causes of hunger and deprivation, therefore, are spiritual as well as material and can only be dealt with adequately insofar as the spiritual dimension is taken into account.
4. Man’s rebellion against God affects every aspect of human existence. The Fall resulted in God’s curse on creation and in destructive patterns of thought, culture, and relationships, which keep men and women in bondage to poverty and deprivation.
5. The work of Christian relief and development, therefore, must involve spiritual transformation, setting people free from destructive attitudes, beliefs, values, and patterns of culture. The proclamation of the gospel and the making of disciples, then, is an unavoidable dimension of relief and development work—not only for eternal salvation, but also for the transformation of culture and economic life.
6. When people were held in bondage to hunger and deprivation by unjust social structures, the Bible consistently denounced those who perpetuated such oppression and demanded obedience to God’s law. The Biblical emphasis, then, is not on “sinful structures,” but rather on sinful human choices that perpetuate suffering and injustice.
7. God’s ultimate answer for suffering and deprivation is the gift of His only Son, Jesus Christ, who broke the power of sin and death by His own death and resurrection. The decisive victory was won on the cross in the atoning death of Christ for all who would believe Him. The final victory will be accomplished when Christ returns in power and glory to reign with His people. Until that time, all who claim Jesus as their Lord are called to care for those in need as the Holy Spirit enables them, and to share the only message of true hope for a broken world.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, in light of the issues raised and the Biblical perspective outlined here, we encourage research, dialogue, and debate among all who claim Christ as Lord, so that we may serve Him more faithfully and work together more effectively.
We encourage you to send your response and your concerns to:
Villars Continuing Committee
P.O. Box 26253
Santa Ana, CA 92799-6253
The Villars Statement was signed by the following Villars consultation participants:
David M. Adams
Trans World Radio
Howard F. Ahmanson
Fieldstead & Company
Roberta Green Ahmanson
Fieldstead & Company
Theodore Baehr
Good News Communications
Clarence Bass
Bethel Theological Seminary
Charles Bennett
Food for the Hungry, International
VILLARS STATEMENT ON RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT, 4
Pierre Berthoud
Faculte Libre de Theologie Reformee
Spencer Bower
Christian Service Fellowship
Otto de Bruijne
Association of Evangelicals in Africa and Madagascar
Phillip Butler
Interdev
David Chilton
Church of the Redeemer
Placerville, CA
Michael Cromartie
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Lane T. Dennis
Good News Publishers/ Crossway Books
Gene Dewey
United Nations, Geneva
Homer E. Dowdy
International Institute for Relief and Development
George Grant
President, H.E.L.P. Services
Carrie Hawkins
Herbert Hawkins, Inc.
Preston Hawkins
Herbert Hawkins, Inc.
Evon Hedley
World Vision
Alan Jensen
Biblical Institute for Leadership Development, International
Henry Jones
Spiritual Overseers Service
Stephen Paul Kennedy
Patricia D. Lipscomb
Fieldstead & Company
Ranald Macaulay
L’Abri Fellowship
Vishal Mangalwadi
Traci Community and ACRA
Rob Martin
Fieldstead & Company
Don McNally
University of Toronto
Udo W. Middelmann
International Institute for Relief and Development
Darrow L. Miller
Food for the Hungry, International
Gareth B. Miller
Farms International
Ken Myers
Berea Publications
Ronald H. Nash
Western Kentucky University
Brian P. Newman
Marvin Olasky
University of Texas at Austin
Marvin Padgett
Logos of Nashville
Clark Pinnock
McMaster Divinity College
VILLARS STATEMENT ON RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT, 5
Herbert Schlossberg
Allen R. Seeland
AGW Group, International
Susumu Uda
Kyoritsu Christian Institute for Theological Studies and Mission
Tetsunao Yamamori
Food for the Hungry, International
Names of organizations are for identification only and are not meant to imply organizational
commitment to the statement.
Olasky, Marvin, Herbert Schlossenberg, and Clark H. Pinnock. Freedom, Justice, and Hope: Toward a Strategy for the Poor and the Oppressed. Crossway Books, 1988. 141-48.
John Locke
An educated friend of ours tells me he finds the notion of thinking matter to be incomprehensible … he’s been steeped in dualism too long!
We have the ideas of matter and thinking, but possibly shall never be able to know whether any mere material being thinks or no; it being impossible for us, by the contemplation of our own ideas, without revelation, to discover whether Omnipotency has not given to some systems of matter, fitly disposed, a power to perceive and think, or else joined and fixed to matter, so disposed, a thinking immaterial substance: it being, in respect of our notions, not much more remote from our comprehension to conceive that GOD can, if he pleases, superadd to matter a faculty of thinking, than that he should superadd to it another substance with a faculty of thinking; since we know not wherein thinking consists, nor to what sort of substances the Almighty has been pleased to give that power, which cannot be in any created being, but merely by the good pleasure and bounty of the Creator.
Whether Matter may not be made by God to think is more than man can know. For I see no contradiction in it, that the first Eternal thinking Being, or Omnipotent Spirit, should, if he pleased, give to certain systems of created senseless matter, put together as he thinks fit, some degrees of sense, perception, and thought: though, as I think I have proved, … it is no less than a contradiction to suppose matter (which is evidently in its own nature void of sense and thought) should be that Eternal first-thinking Being.
What certainty of knowledge can any one have, that some perceptions, such as, v.g., pleasure and pain, should not be in some bodies themselves, after a certain manner modified and moved, as well as that they should be in an immaterial substance, upon the motion of the parts of body: Body, as far as we can conceive, being able only to strike and affect body, and motion, according to the utmost reach of our ideas, being able to produce nothing but motion; so that when we allow it to produce pleasure or pain, or the idea of a colour or sound, we are fain to quit our reason, go beyond our ideas, and attribute it wholly to the good pleasure of our Maker. For, since we must allow He has annexed effects to motion which we can no way conceive motion able to produce, what reason have we to conclude that He could not order them as well to be produced in a subject we cannot conceive capable of them, as well as in a subject we cannot conceive the motion of matter can any way operate upon?
I say not this, that I would any way lessen the belief of the soul’s immateriality: I am not here speaking of probability, but knowledge; and I think not only that it becomes the modesty of philosophy not to pronounce magisterially, where we want that evidence that can produce knowledge; but also, that it is of use to us to discern how far our knowledge does reach; for the state we are at present in, not being that of vision, we must in many things content ourselves with faith and probability: and in the present question, about the Immateriality of the Soul, if our faculties cannot arrive at demonstrative certainty, we need not think it strange.
All the great ends of morality and religion are well enough secured, without philosophical proofs of the soul’s immateriality; since it is evident, that he who made us at the beginning to subsist here, sensible intelligent beings, and for several years continued us in such a state, can and will restore us to the like state of sensibility in another world, and make us capable there to receive the retribution he has designed to men, according to their doings in this life. And therefore it is not of such mighty necessity to determine one way or the other, as some, over-zealous for or against the immateriality of the soul, have been forward to make the world believe. Who, either on the one side, indulging too much their thoughts immersed altogether in matter, can allow no existence to what is not material: or who, on the other side, finding not cogitation within the natural powers of matter, examined over and over again by the utmost intention of mind, have the confidence to conclude- That Omnipotency itself cannot give perception and thought to a substance which has the modification of solidity.
He that considers how hardly sensation is, in our thoughts, reconcilable to extended matter; or existence to anything that has no extension at all, will confess that he is very far from certainly knowing what his soul is. It is a point which seems to me to be put out of the reach of our knowledge: and he who will give himself leave to consider freely, and look into the dark and intricate part of each hypothesis, will scarce find his reason able to determine him fixedly for or against the soul’s materiality. Since, on which side soever he views it, either as an unextended substance, or as a thinking extended matter, the difficulty to conceive either will, whilst either alone is in his thoughts, still drive him to the contrary side. An unfair way which some men take with themselves: who, because of the inconceivableness of something they find in one, throw themselves violently into the contrary hypothesis, though altogether as unintelligible to an unbiassed understanding. This serves not only to show the weakness and the scantiness of our knowledge, but the insignificant triumph of such sort of arguments; which, drawn from our own views, may satisfy us that we can find no certainty on one side of the question: but do not at all thereby help us to truth by running into the opposite opinion; which, on examination, will be found clogged with equal difficulties. For what safety, what advantage to any one is it, for the avoiding the seeming absurdities, and to him unsurmountable rubs, he meets with in one opinion, to take refuge in the contrary, which is built on something altogether as inexplicable, and as far remote from his comprehension?
It is past controversy, that we have in us something that thinks; our very doubts about what it is, confirm the certainty of its being, though we must content ourselves in the ignorance of what kind of being it is: and it is in vain to go about to be sceptical in this, as it is unreasonable in most other cases to be positive against the being of anything, because we cannot comprehend its nature. For I would fain know what substance exists, that has not something in it which manifestly baffles our understandings.
Other spirits, who see and know the nature and inward constitution of things, how much must they exceed us in knowledge? To which, if we add larger comprehension, which enables them at one glance to see the connexion and agreement of very many ideas, and readily supplies to them the intermediate proofs, which we by single and slow steps, and long poring in the dark, hardly at last find out, and are often ready to forget one before we have hunted out another; we may guess at some part of the happiness of superior ranks of spirits, who have a quicker and more penetrating sight, as well as a larger field of knowledge.
Monism: Evolutionary Psychology and the Death of Morality, Reason and Freewill.
The Atom. Monists say that Each Individual, All Humanity, All Life, Love, Artistic expression, Every Moral crusade, Politics, Religion, Every Conscious thought, Every moment of Ecstasy and wonder are nothing more than the interaction of Atoms.
Its been one of those days…Reading the Waikato Times pg 7.
So much Atheist Bullshit… So little time to Rub their noses in it!
One of the favorite Atheist ‘Group hugs’ is their Self delusion that their beliefs are planted in ‘superior soil’ to Balmy Religious ‘Hocus pocus’.
They claim to dwell at the pinnacle of the evolutionary advance, having Superior Intelligence and Superior Education to their Lesser Religious cousins, and having escaped the primitive mindset which is religiously prone, they claim *Reason* as the mighty Rock upon which they stand.
Now if the stench of vanity is not enough to make you question the validity of these claims, The Exploits of one of their Sects ought to.
I refer to that sect of atheists known as ‘Evolutionary psychologists’ whose primary ambition is to take the mind of mankind and using scientific jargon make up a rationale to vindicate their faith that everything in the universe conforms to their Atheist Naturalistic Cosmology.
That is their brief, their duty, their delight.
What is important to realize about this process is that insodoing they De-Humanize Mankind from being a Freewill/ reasoning/ Moral Agent into a mere Automation… a robot.
This can be clearly seen in such declarations as this….
Politcal leanings linked to Genes…
How Flocking Ridiculous!
They want you to believe your little Tot has a Pre-disposition to vote Left! (Or Right, or Whateva)
What more via this notion that Genes make our political decisions for us, they have negated your power of reason and freewill …which is what the very purpose of their conclusions are aimed at achieving… forcing the Mind to comply with materialistic determinism, and just as importantly undermining the Moral culpability which underpins The Christian Argument in respect to freewill and Divine judgment.
Many Atheists will get warm fuzzies from this announcement and say to themselves…”Yes! Freewill is a myth! Everything in the Universe has a purely Naturalistic explanation… There is no God and Man is not a Moral Agent.”
“Everything that is… from the Moon, to Leonardo’s Mona Lisa was Pre-ordained in the Big Bang”
Ie they will accept these findings simply because they conveniently integrate with their Materialistic faith…. Ha ha…. Think about that! Blind leading the Blind…
I ask you this…Why would anyone believe any such research produced by such a partisan lobby to be objective and valid?
To think this sect is capable of Real Scientific Objectivity is as Nieve as believing the Waitangi Tribunal’s Ruling that Maori own the Water rights of New Zealand was an objective and impartial judgment in respect to 1840 British Law, and the treaty!
To expect the Evolutionary psychologists to present findings that were contrary to their personal Materialist delusions would be as Naive as expecting Anti-slavery Abolitionist John Brown to have been found ‘Not Guilty’ of treason and insurrection by the Slave State Virginia court!
John Brown did not receive justice, and like shambolic rulings of The Waitangi Tribunal, in declaring Politics to be a Genetic trait, the Priests of Materialism have simply dictated their own prejudices.
This is not Science!
It’s a scam!
And these ‘findings’ fly in the face of Common experience!
Materialism is absurd!
(I had the option of saying Materialism is Ridiculous!… ie we exercise freewill every day!)
We change our political opinions based upon convincing enough Rationale.
*If The Atheists apply their own arguments upon themselves and their Atheism… they must concede that their atheism is not based upon Reason at all but that their rejection of the Idea of a God is simply a Genetic Predisposition!
They ought to conclude that they are not more intelligent…. Not more rationale…. Their education counts for Naught…. They are simply Genetic Atheists… and no amount of reason will convince them God exists.
Thus their own arguments render them stupid.
In the light of this ramification by what act of self delusion do they continue to insist that they are guided by reason, or that Reason is the preserve of atheism?
They have utterly destroyed Reason and enshrined Chemistry!
Our thoughts have been reduced down to chemical actions.
This is where Monism leads to.
The annihilation of the Human being.
Reason is a Theistic/ spiritual concept. Understandable in the Idea of God *THE CONSCIOUS REASONING SPIRITUAL BEING*.
It involves Liberty, and Choice.
Things which are completely alien to Materialistic determinism, and random chaos.
Computers don’t Reason.
Humans Reason. We are not computers… We are like God. We are Free, and we can make real choices. We are Moral Agents.
An ‘Educated’ friend of ours tells me he finds the notion of dualism to be incomprehensible… He’s been saturated in materialism too long!
I must remind him that the fact that we may not be able to understand something (ie Dualism) does not necessarily make it irrational or superstition to accept it and believe in it.I accept Dualism and Biblical morality because it’s explanatory power is vastly superior to Materialism Naturalism.
You cannot expect science to synthesize God, or weigh/ measure the Human soul.
That does not negate their reality. It merely sets limits to the power of science.
(The materialist Tech-myth of artificial consciousness is sooo in fashion!)
I accept spiritual Being as absolutely necessary because materialist naturalism is woefully inadequate to explain reality, and laugh at the pathetic efforts of Materialists to render everything sterile and dead… and accidental.
Scientifically speaking The Human soul is like The Higgs Boson. It’s a Theoretical spiritual particle postulated to explain Consciousness and freewill. Nobody has ever seen it. It’ cant be directly observed. Yet we can trust/ believe in it’s existance because of indirect observations …
Read more on free will and morality…
Little Angelic Robots?
Re: The Freewill vs Materialist determinism debate.
Today I found an interesting scientific study done in New Zealand vindicating skepticism in the fashionable ideas of Evolutionary psychology, which as a ‘Naturalistic Doctrine’ argues that all human morality is determined by Genetics… ie that there is no such thing as freewill moral choice.
This New Otargo research now says Babies lack morals… (Suprise!….not.) This overturns previously Reaserch submitted in 2007 by Yales Kiley Hamlin whom argured that 6-10mth old infants could already make moral choices and that these must be Innate .
We can see that Yales Kiley Hamlin was predisposed to the Evolutionary/ materialist/ genetic/ hypothesis when she presented her research which she argued that Babies are born with an original moral blueprint …
Quote: “… It also reminds us that behavior is not simply nature versus nurture; it is about the interaction of genes and their environments…”
And so we can understand why she now continues to defend her hypothesis against the critisism from New Zealand.
The new New Zealand study undermines these sorts of Evolutionary/ deterministic theories.
To my way of thinking it ought to be Obvious that Both Nature, and Nurture play significant roles in the Morality of individuals, Yet I would add a third and most critical element… an element Naturalist/ materialists are keen to Exorcise from mankind…. The Individual ‘Soul’ or inner spiritual being unique to each individual (The real ‘US’…. indwelling our bodies like a man indwells a house), which has the capacity to make freewill choices which either endorses the amoral desires of our physical being (our lusts), which Licence may or may not be sanctioned by the culture the individual has been nurtured in, or it/we may overcome both these external factors and choose to embrace either a higher’ or ‘lower’ morality than what is ‘the norm’ for his day and age. In my view it is this inner spiritual character which will determine the quality and height of morality any particular individual will aspire to….or settle for. This is why Individuals can appear in complete contrast to the Times and customs of their Peers, and forsaking the accepted norms of the society that surrounds them, and become aliens …. on a pilgrimage of either light or darkness… depending upon the intents of their heart. This Road is steep, yet is a two way street. You can simply stay put with most of your peers… and make camp at the spot you where you feel most comfortable…Why bother going anywhere?
Or you can turn your face to the mountain and labour upwards towards Heavens light…good luck finding faithful company who will not forsake you half way along your arduous journey!
Or you can turn your back and take the direction of least resistance, downward into Darkness…
What this means is that we as individuals are responsible for the sort of human beings we become (or remain). We are not simply slaves to our biology and Environment. We each have an unique inner Being which determines our moral character as individuals. This explains why a child raised in a religious home can choose to forsake the beliefs and values they were taught, and instead choose to become an atheist adult, and why someone raised to accept atheist materialism can later choose to forsake Atheism for God… demonstrating Humanity is in constant Flux… and that Liberty/ freewill and rationality are what matters most in the moral question … not Chemical determinism.
Prior to Darwin, Christians always believed that while Children posess Adams fallen Human Nature, that they are born ‘innocent’, and later develope their moral sence, at which point in time (differeing between individuals) they become morrally responcible for their actions and accountible unto God.
And Our Society also ‘believes’ this to be true in that it does not convict children for crimes.
This rationale also underpins the Doctrine that all innocent little children whom die, Go to heaven… and this doctrine is supported by various scriptures.
I must also point out that even if it was discovered that babies had some ability to make moral choices, that this would not prove that morality stems automatically from Genes.
Right and Good
There is a difference between Right and Good – the two concepts are often used synonymously in discussions but they are not the same. The distinction is noted in Romans 5:7…
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
A righteous man is not (necessarily) a good man. A righteous man is someone whose actions are according to what is right i.e. to do what you must do and avoid doing what you must not do. A good man is someone who does good. To do good is to do something out of love.
Rightness, or righteousness, is a matter of right and wrong – e.g. paying your debts, honouring a contract, honesty, self defense.
Goodness is a matter of the heart e.g. generosity, kindness, helping those in need, mercy.
This topic seems too obvious to blog about but I’m sure this post will be useful for linking to later.
Feel free to discuss or critique.
Faith: In God I Trust!
Awesome pictures from facebook… Simon Bisley The Bible
Heroic Faith! Shepherd Boy David faces The War Giant Goliath… In God He Trusts…
Faith In God, Faith in doing what is right in the face of Evil infuses the Spirit of a Man with Heroic courage and resolve to defy the Powers of Darkness and fear of Death!
The armies of the Israelites and the Philistines were on opposite sides of the hill, and both armies were ready for battle. Each day the Philistines sent their champion, Goliath, who was fully armed and gigantic in size, to shout across the valley “Choose a man, and if he were able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I kill him, then you shall serve us.”
The Israelites trembled as they heard the voice of Goliath. Nobody was brave or strong enough to fight with this giant Philistine. One day, David came to the Israelites’ camp to see his brothers. He heard the words of Goliath. He was amazed that the Israelites were all afraid. “I will go and fight with this Philistine” David said. When the king knew about David’s intention, he said “You are not able to fight for you are a youth, and the Philistine is a man of war”. David replied “The lord who saved me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear when I kept my father’s sheep, will deliver me.” The king said “Go, then, and the Lord shall be with you.” Unarmed, except for his staff, his shepherd’s sling and a few stones, David went to confront the giant.
Goliath was angry when he saw that the Israelites sent a shepherd boy to meet him. “Am I a dog that you come to me with sticks and stones?” Goliath shouted. “Today the Lord will deliver you into my hands and all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.”
Seether: Know Thyself. How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? Part 5.
Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.
Part 4
Dawkins is not a quantum ejaculation.
He is far more easily understood as a son of Fallen Adam.
Much of Dawkins own ‘Rationalizations’ may be reflected back upon the man himself.
One way we can look at the Animal Richard Dawkins is as fairly ordinary/ typical specimen of Humanity… nothing particularly spectacular ….
He’s no mystery.
He’s Quite fathomable as a product of Human Nature and 20th century nurturing.
Dawkins, like the rest of us harbors the same basic ‘nature’….the desire to escape the restraints of Moral law. To be our own God’s…etc
What Dawkins hates the most about the Bible is … As The Highlander might say …”There can be only 1!”
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2vs16,17)
Satan: “Yea hath God said…?
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (Genesis3vs1,4)
I hope to show you that the Book of Genesis appears to have been written to expressly refute the likes of Richard Dawkins.
By the time I have finished this section I hope to have clearly shown that The Bible foresaw the rise of such personalities as Dawkins.
It explains how he was spawned.
It exposes his rationale as that of a man whom professes himself to be wise… when in fact he is a deceived fool…. Caught up in his own craftiness.
The Book of Genesis is written in such a way as to show the proper/ only rational way for man to have a loving relationship with God is to *trust in his good character* and have faith in his word.
*This is wisdom*
It is a simple matter of reason to understand that finite beings like us humans, can never know/ understand everything about The Almighty. And that though we can grow in wisdom, nonetheless it is paramount that we trust in the Goodness of our divine Father beyond our scope of understanding. The basis for this faith is that he has proven himself to be loving, and gracious towards us and therefore has earned full respect.
Life will put this faith to the test.
The deceiver will do his utmost to make you forsake God… to become like Richard Dawkins.
Satan Loves to Bamboozle!
One of the best ‘tricks of the trade’ I have learned as an amateur/ unschooled thinker is that when things get complicated (as with this thorny subject) … it is time to step to the side… and find a simple place to stand.
And it is amazing how well this works to cut through all the Din and confusion.
I want to do this right now.
I want to lay down a few basic ideas which to my mind cut though the ‘Everest of Codswallop’ Sophist rationalists have thrown up against the Good character of God as revealed in the Bible.
This Issue is ideologically speaking ‘The Mother of all Wars’. Satan and His Minions *Cannot allow Faith in the Bible/ faith in Gods word to stand*.
If (By Providence) I can at least succeed in establishing this *Essential point*, Every other Objective spiritual truth follows.
As long as Satan is able to deceive people into disputing the trustworthiness of the Bible, He has them under his Power.
I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. (1john2:14)
Now I am going to go back over the Genesis story.
*Please don’t yawn!*
Put your thinking cap on!
*Pray for God to be your Guide*
Once upon a time, Long ago… God created Adam and Eve.
It is important to realize that before God created Man, Lucifer / the Father of Lies had already rebelled against God. We know this because after a short unspecified length of time, Lucifer entered the Garden *as Satan* to deceive Eve.
Many people (including many Christians/ ‘Young Earther’s’/ Bible skeptics) mistake the First chapter of Genesis as being the Bible story of the Creation of the Universe, and the Planet Earth when in fact this was a restoration of an already pre-existing Universe which God had passed judgment upon/ destroyed due to the Rebellion of Lucifer, and the Earth was laid waste…Flooded and in Darkness.
(Gen 1vs 1,2)
The Biblical account of the actual creation of the Universe is found in the 1st chapter of the gospel of John.
Genesis 1 is the story of God’s restoration the Dry land (Earth) for his new creation Mankind.
There was no death (for man).
He Put Adam in the wonderful Garden of Eden, and because he cared about Adam, he made him his Wife Eve, for company, and for Procreation… to share and enjoy life in the garden and to enjoy the presence and companionship of God their Father.
At this blessed time there were no floods, no earthquakes, no plagues, no pestilences, etc, in the Garden.
According to God’s Determination…*Everything there was ‘good’.*
Yet because God did not want to create clockwork toys, but desired fellowship with beings with which he could truly commune, he made the Earth, and Mankind, in such a way that the potential for Evil and death existed.
Adam was called the Son of God, and it was a Loving trusting relationship which God wanted with Mankind.
God wanted Beings whom could reciprocate true love, could reason and appreciate God’s greatest characteristics, ie his Love, generosity, and Artistic glory, ie appreciate his creative power.
(We shall later see how even the Fall of Mankind allowed God to reveal even deeper parts of his character, and to create even more wonderful beings than Adam and Eve… all perceived in the mind of God before the foundation of the world)
And to established his Sovereignty, and give man opportunity to show his love, trust and respect for his Father, God gave Man one simple prohibition.
The test was to have faith in the Good character of God…
*Though it appeared that he was with holding ‘a good’ from mankind.*
The Test was for Adam to respect Gods Law, and to trust in his goodness.
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2vs16,17)
I know that all sorts of Pre-conceived alarm bells will have been triggered by the ‘dominos’ I have push over, yet I ask you to switch off your ‘automatic’ security system you mistake for thinking, and actually truly *Contemplate what is going on here*.
Ask yourself… Does God have the right to deny Adam the right to eat that fruit?
Ie Does God have the Right to make a Law that appears to withhold something good from us? And can he do so… and yet still be considered to be absolutely Good?
This is a fundamental question in respect to God’s Sovereignty, and Good character.
Let me state that you take extreme care regarding what rationale you choose to apply to arrive at your judgment in respect to this ultimate moral question, as your choice may have more to do with your inner desires, rather than Objective reason.
You are taking the Audacious step of Standing in Judgment of God Almighty!
We ought to tremble at such a dreadful notion.
The extreme presumption of the act!
That we even dare tells us something about us… something dangerous… something awful about our predicament.
After contemplation, My answer to the above questions is rather simple.
*YES!* God is completely within his Sovereign right to make such a Prohibition.
And because of all the many blessings God had already given to Adam, Adam *Ought* to have trusted and obeyed his Father in respect to the Forbidden Fruit.
It is only via a convoluted Sophistry that my simple affirmative answer may be denied.
…Yet it was exactly via such sophistry that mankind was deceived into dis-obeying God, and bringing death and destruction upon himself. Take note ye Rationalists…
Satan enters the Garden….
Satan was able to rationalize a cunning deception which brought the character of God into question, and convinced Eve that God’s word was untrustworthy.
“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
(Gen3vs1-8)
From this we can tell that at the time of Adam and Eve, God, in his wisdom, had not ‘imprisoned’ or annihilated Satan for his rebellion, and so we may reason that God allowed Satan *the Liberty* to continue his wicked ways and to enter the Garden, and to tell lies, in direct contradiction to God’s word.
Satan used a rationale to deceive mankind into distrusting God’s good character by implying God was mean spirited because he was withholding something Good from them, and convinced them into disbelieving God’s word… that they would not die if they ate the forbidden fruit.
What is even more interesting to consider is this:
I have often thought that the forbidden Fruit may have been a ‘poisonous berry’, but not so poisonous as to bring immediate death, but toxic enough to corrupt Adams Genes so as to spoil his physical perfection and ultimately result in his death, and begin the start of Mankind’s hereditary death and genetic degeneration… (the exact opposite direction in the passage of time postulated by the theory of Evolution)… which degeneration is actually scientifically vindicated in respect to the deterioration of the human genome.
I reasoned that if the Fruit was indeed toxic, then we may understand God’s warning that Adam must not eat that fruit lest he die, as being a bona-fide warning of physical danger.
(Question: Is the creation of Poisonous fruit compatible with the notion of a Good God? Ie Doe’s god have the right to make poisonous fruit?)
Yet this Idea that the fruit was toxic is not necessarily so.
I have come to realize a far more plausible yet radical understanding…
*Satan may have indeed been telling the truth when he said ye shall not die!*
Ie The fruit may have indeed been as vs 6 says …*Good for food*… and thus Satan was able to *use the truth* to destroy mankind!
This is Radical. This is Profound!
Satan was able to sow ‘truth’ and into a cunning lie, which presented itself as a valid reason to distrust God.
His Rationale appeared to justify disobeying Gods command.
What this shows is that God was not talking about a physical ‘cause and effect’ scenario, but a purely Moral cause and effect scenario, and Satan was able to get man to focus on the mundane.
Thus Man’s sin, and Fall was purely the act of faithlessness in Gods goodness and his Rebellion via disobedience… and the Fall was a faithless… reason based delusion.
And once Adam had broken his covenant with God, he brought Death upon himself… As God had clearly warned that if he ate of the forbidden fruit, he would surely die.
The Father of Lies had succeeded to seducing Mankind into rebelling against God and brought death upon them… yet it was Adam who freely chose to follow Satan rather than God.
And thus God cursed mankind, and the ground we walk on (The Earth). We lost our physical perfection and became mortals, and threw them out of the Blessed Garden. (yet still made a promise to send Christ)
Paradise was lost.
Now primarily… Morality is morality because our actions effect not only ourselves, but other people for good or ill.
It is a fact of Nature that Children ‘inherit’ the earth their parents have bequeathed to them… for good or ill. Hardworking and thrifty parents may raise their children in a nice house, with Good clothing, and buy them Books to learn etc, while slothful and vice ridden parents may raise their children in want and squalor. The first parents showing their Good values and love by fulfilling their moral duties and responsibilities, the second Parents displaying wicked irresponciblity. The innocent Children of the first parents reap the benifits of their parants moral virtues, while the innocent children of the second parents wrongfully/ unjustly suffer because of their parents wickedness.
To be able to appreciate this and to grasp the ‘wrongness’ of the second parents shows what it means to be Moral agents inhabiting a Moral Reality. The sence of wrong also exposes a need for Divine judgement and justice to correct this wrong.
There are at least two ‘orders’ of evil which we children of fallen Adam must endue as a consequence of Adams Fall. 1. is the Evils Mankind inflicts upon himself and each other…The bible teaches these evils stem from our fallen nature eg. The first born Man was Cain,. He would go on to murder his younger brother Abel. The 2nd order are what we call the Natural evils, Disease, Floods, earthquakes, etc which the Bible says resulted by God cursing the Earth, and destroying its perfect goodness which Mankind enjoyed before the fall. And God Separated himself from Mankind as well.
Thus were the circumstances which brought about all the evils we suffer today.
The Evils which make many people to think there is no God, esp no Good and loving God.
The order of events is important.
Mankind First sinned… that destroyed the blessings and pure goodness of creation as God had created it , God’s judgment bringing all Natural evils upon us and being true to his word, God passed the sentence of Death upon us.
That’s the biblical order.
God repented making Man…before the flood. He was compelled to destroy mankind because of their wickedness!
What the Fall, and the Curse also tell us is that *things are happening on the Earth that are not Gods will*
The evils we suffer were not how God originally made things.
Mankind’s wickedness….Wars, murders, rapes, thefts, etc are a testimony to the rebellion against God.
*They are a part of the moral continuum*
God has separated himself from us so that this ‘Goddless world plays out it’s charade…yet he has not forsaken us… he sent Christ to save us from Damnation, and gave us his Written word… his revelation so that we can come to a knowledge of the truth.
What is also profound to grasp is just how ‘serious’ was the command not to eat of that fruit!
From what we may consider a very ‘minor’ sin…. All the chaos and destruction followed! Rationalists will no doubt stagger at the implication that from such small origin did all the wickedness and separation from God …of human history.
They fail to grasp the quality of God’s holiness, and that sin is a disease… “a little leaven leveneth the whole lump”.
Question: Ought God have locked up Satan in hell before he made man?
He obviously planed to allow Satan to tempt mankind.
Was this wrong?
Who O man are you to stand in judgment of God?
From the Fall of man we can understand where Atheism came from… where is God?
From the fall we can understand where mans Rebellious nature to moral law comes from… Why must I conform to any Laws?
We can understand where the Rationalist spirit of unbelief and sophistry has its root… in the eternal desire to undermine God’s word, and to deny God’s right to make prohibitions, and to judge… ie Rationalism is the Spirit that denies God’s Sovereignty.
The Bible is not like every other Book.
It is God’s Holy, and Authorotive word.
God’s Preachers and Apostles, and Teachers instruct those whom seek after God to trust the scriptures, and present proofs that the Bible is worthy of adoration.
These teachers are not ignorant men. But skilled also in the Arts, histories, and sciences of Mankind.
On the other hand we have the Children of the Devil… the unbelieving sophists…. the contemptible and spiritually lost/ Ignorant Rationalists.
The rationalists tell us we must not ‘revere’ the Bible.
(They revere nothing but the own interlectual vanity…their own grand delusions!)
They say we ought to treat the Bible the same way as we would the Epics of Homer.
Yet by doing so they have already deceived you!
They Don’t believe it is the true Revelation from God!
They then automatically begin to apply their own Naturalistic anthropology to the interpretation of Scriptures.
All miracles are *automatically* rendered fables.
Any conversations Man is said to have had with God, any Judgments God is said to have visited upon mankind are firstly decried as being monstrous delusions of Barbaric minds, and then relegated to the realms of Myth and allegory etc.
By Rationalist logic, All the Gods of Mankind are Guilty of Cruelty and capriciousness by association.
Why should not Jehovah be compared with Moloch?
That The God of the Bible has visited mankind with deadly judgements is proof enough in their minds that he is a power crazy, melicious, tyranical being.
They make no distiction between the God of Abraham who judged The antideluvians and the Cananites because of their violence and wickedness, from the Blood thirsty Gods of the Azteks whom simply lust after Blood!
This is because it suits the Rationalists purposes to Deny God has any right to pass moral judgements upon mankind.
People like Noah and even Jesus are said to be inventions of Savage minds… like Hercules, Maui, etc. Little sleep is lost over the discoveries which prove many of the ancient personalities were real people.
This short little exposé on Materialistic Rationalism merely points out some of their grand assumptions…all of which can be challenged and exposed as sloppy wishful thinking which does no justice to subject it pretends to master.
Yet the pitiful antics of the Rationalists has been sufficient to convince the scholars studying the philosophy and ‘history’ of religion that he may handle the Bible with no more dread than any other ancient book of folk lore.
It is sufficient to convince the ‘schooled intellectual’ that Bible believers are crackpots, and that creationism should have no place in the education of Children.
This whole business is based upon a single premise… that all religion is merely human invention. If indeed the atheists are correct that there is no God, then it rationally follows that all religion must be born in Human imagination.
Yet if they are wrong… and I say they are… then they are making a huge error…If one of the Great religions of the world is actually true, then this whole business is a giant smokescreen, which is burying the truth amongst a pile of lies!
As a Christian I have no doubt that many religions are pure fiction… the inventions of Human imagination. Others are deviations from an original purity. Others still are half truths derived via Natural theology, moral experience, and consciousness.
Yet it is my testimony to mankind that The Bible is different to every other Religious text in that it is truly the inspired and preserved revelation from Almighty God!
The Bible tells the History of Mankind’…warts and all!
The Bible is not a wishy washy fabrication.
I hope that this post at least hints at how Mankind…including ourselves… can be fully understood… even our passions and rationalizations… our violence, our rebellion, our vanity.
Ie The Bible holds true to reality and experience!
Please understand that I am not trying to shield the Bible from rigorous investigation!
By all means investigate!
What I am saying is take care not to be fooled by the atheist rationalizations…sloppy colectivisations… such as equating Jehovah with Zeus… and fall into the trap of putting both Gods on the same human Pantheon.
As a Bible believer, I have spent 27 years studying religion comparatively, and this is a very rewarding subject, yet I have always taken care to measure up any criticism held against believing the Bible to be infallible, to see if it ‘holds water’… and always… always I find the criticism are full of leaks… full of assumptions, etc and so I always return my eyes to the Bible with reverence and faith… For I always give the benefit of the doubt to God and his precious revelation. And after 27 years my faith in the veracity of the King James Bible is such that I am dedicated to propagating faith in it’s trustworthiness to whomsoever will hear. There are few things that are more worthy of my fleeting moments.
Part 6>>> ‘Good Atheist’s’ and the seriousness of sin. Good God/Evil world. 6 <<< More from me... Nyctophilia: Hiding in the Dark….
“Keep things in the shallow end… because I just didn’t want to know…”
Comfortably Numb : Confessions of a Nyctophilliac.