B-I-B-L-E

So John chapter 8 begins with a footnote that says that the earliest manuscripts and witnesses do not have the following account. So, should we treat this with as much respect as the rest of the Bible, or do we believe some monks somewhere in the 5th century (when this first appeared) made the story up and put it in there? How are we to know what should be in the New Testament and what should not? How do we know that any of this is truly the directed word of God? After all, none of them even claim to be such books. They just claimed to be accounts of people's experiences with God, or letters of instruction from one man to others. Whatever may be said about the rest of the NT, one must reach a conclusion about this passage in John 8. Is it authentically from God or is it just a good story added in there? It's easy just to accept it because that's how Zondervan packages the Bible, but is that a sound reason? We must either believe
1. God, although deciding to use the written word to communicate to his people, decided to rely on the oral tradition for just one story, until the 5th century where he decided it was the right time and divinely inspired someone to stick it into his holy text.
2. Man inserted this story by his own volition. While this story is good and may be very instructional in figuring God out, it is nonetheless a fictional piece put in there by man's own volition.
3. Oral tradition handed this story down, and while it's not something from the mouth of God, it is still a true account.
I started to write a fourth option which was that God inspired others to include this later, but what would be the reasoning for that? Did God forget to put it in there the first time? I don't think so. So I hold to the original three options. But I think that each person needs to think about it and not brush it off.

Decision Making

So, the question is as follows: Is there any point in asking God to help us make decisions? Would God affect our thinking so that we decide to go one way on something we normally would go the other?
This would be only too great, but I think that although God certainly has the potential to be able to tweak our minds, I think that that is the one area God will not invade and control. After all, if he were willing to make up our minds for us, would there ever be any sin? If he were willing to enter our heads and make us decide to do or not do certain things, then Jesus wouldn't have had to come down and die for us, would he? So it seems to me that if God was willing to go to such extremes by having Jesus die rather than affecting our decisions, then he's pretty determined that we are going to be responsible for our own decisions.

Bottom line: If God will make our decisions for us, then we have quite assuredly lost our free will. I think that is the whole thing about the human experiment: that God gives us free will and sees what we do with it.

At any rate, I know that God has helped us along with the decision making process by giving us a conscience and reasoning abilities. And I can't explain how, so it's pure hypothesis on my part, but I am convinced that God will act on our behalf and help us make the right decisions, whether it's God removing temptation from us, our God putting us through experiences that will help us grow in wisdom, or by putting people in our lives who will give us good advice or be a good example, or some other means I have yet to realize.

And yet, while I don't want to put God in a box, I cannot fathom he will make our choices for us.

Grossman Lives Up To His Name

Ah Rex oh Rex, our quarterback Rex,
I'd ship you out of Chicago, using FedEx

Your throws I admit are definitely the best
They hit players right in their chest
Your throws are exact, straight and true
If only you'd throw to the players in Blue!

PRIDE

I have presently been reading Mere Christianity, and more specifically, a section on pride. Lewis describes pride as being the worst of all sin, saying pride IS enmity. I've been thinking about it, and it seems that yes, in one use of the word it certainly can be a very hellish thing within us, but in other uses it can be quite positive.

For instance, you should take pride in your work. It doesn't necessarily mean that you should do your best in order to be better than someone else, or you should look down on work lesser than your own. To take pride in one's work means that you should give it your best effort, and do such work that you do not consider shabby and that you are not ashamed to be associated with.

A father can be proud of his son, or a coach can be proud of his player. Certainly this is a negative side of pride if you are wanting to be associated with someone in order that your own status may increase. But I found myself telling a guy I was tutoring who had done well on a placement test that I was proud of him. I only mean that I am happy for his accomplishment and he should feel good about himself for doing so. Now would he be feeling pride if he was feeling good about himself? I hardly think so. After all, we are all trying our hardest (hopefully) to be more Christlike (that includes doing your best always) and so should we not be happy when we find ourselves walking down that path? I think the negative pride comes in when we do a good job on something in order that others think higher of us, but to say that we should not feel proud if we pass a difficult test or run a long race or resist a temptation would be to say that we should never have good self-esteem.

Humility should not be confused with low self-esteem. If you ace a difficult test, you shouldn't lie to yourself that you didn't do anything very great, but neither should you display your test where all can see your high marks. Humility simply dictates us to keep our self-esteem to ourselves.

One last thing on pride. Everyone has some sort of talent, and some have extreme talent. Would it be prideful to pray to God and thank Him for it? I don't think so, as long as we understand the next point. When I understand who God is and who I am, I realize that the only reason that I am smart or that I am stupid or that I am fast or that I am slow or that I am artistic or not artistic has nothing to do with me but everything to do with how God created me. If I am particularly smart, God could have just as easily have made me quite dumb, and I could hardly do anything about it. I have no say in how God made me. When we realize this, I think it is worshipful, appropriate, and quite necessary to thank God for the talents that he gave you.

Parable-

During much of the 20th century, scientists have debated over the "Big Bang" Theory of cosmology and the Steady State Theory. Both on paper seemed quite plausible. When the evidence started trickling in however, it seemed that the Big Bang theory described evidences and predicted future results with more and more confidence, whereas those holding to the Steady State paradigm needed to explain away more and more incoming data. The Steady State Theory received its final blow when CMBR (radiation) was predicted in 1948 and then discovered in 1965. Now, it would seem obvious that for those who originally believed that their Steady State Theory was indeed true would switch camps when conflicting evidence would come in, as well as supporting evidence for the Big Bang Theory. It would also seem that those who would not switch camps even after being exposed to overwhelming evidence have either a pride or a stubbornness that is unyielding and unwilling to come to grips with what is much more likely to be the truth, and at the very least, come to grips with knowing their original idea is wrong.

Now the concept of a scientific theory is simply to look at a physical phenomena and try to interpret what it signifies.

Similarly, we all have "theories" about what the Bible says. We all read it, and try to interpret what it signifies.

I'm as guilty as the next of claiming that my interpretation is correct. In fact I can be quite stubborn about it, but after all, I'm right.

Just kidding of course.

So let's go to Genesis, because I believe that it is a spot where the story of the two cosmological models can be translated into our Biblical interpretations. Each of us hold some idea as to how to interpret the first chapter of Genesis. The three most common ways are these:
1. God created in 24hr. periods,
2. Each "day" of creation is an indefinite time period, a "day-age,"
3. the first chapter of Genesis is a piece of literature with the intent of teaching specific messages without any scientific considerations.

I'll pick on the first one because it is easiest.

If someone were to read Gen. 1, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created each grouping during 24 hr. periods. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created everything less than 15,000 years ago. However, when we take our noses out of the book and look around us, it takes no time at all to completely disprove this idea (despite what Recent Creationist literature may say, it is completely impossible). Yet many still believe this. Why? Well, partly it is because a bunch of hogwash that may seem like science is fed to people, but mostly I believe it is because they believe that that is what the Bible says and so there is no other possibility that could be true. Just as those who stuck by the Steady State Theory would not give in to the conflicting evidence, these Christians will not be persuaded that their interpretation of the Bible could be incorrect.

Last class period in my Science and Religion class, we were discussing the above mentioned three interpretations of Genesis 1, giving the strengths and weaknesses of each. A girl piped up and mentioned what she thought was a strength of the literary view of Genesis.

"It is permissive. It allows you to believe what you want about science."

This to me reveals a serious flaw in her integrity. We as Christians ought to be truth seekers. This means that we should not be concerned one bit with what we want to believe or what we think is permitted to believe. We should not say that something is not true or is true based on what we think we are allowed to believe, but rather we should believe true what we are convinced is true. I believe quite strongly in the third interpretation of Gen. 1, but I certainly will not look down on someone who has looked at the evidence and truly thinks that the day-age interpretation is correct. Who I will think less of are those who pick any of these interpretations (even the one I think is right) because they think that is what we are permitted to believe, or because it goes along with their original interpretation of Genesis. Maybe this will illustrate what I'm getting at- In all fields of science, theories are contrived to fit the data. When new data comes which does not fit the original theory, that original interpretation is discarded for a new one (ideally of course, for in reality, people are people, Christian or no, and will stick with their own interpretation or theory). Later if still another theory comes along that describes the data better, it is adopted in place of the old. Similarly, we all have interpretations about Genesis 1, and if an interpretation comes along that better describes the facts that we have accumulated, why stick with the old which is contradicted by what we have discovered?

Psychology of Morality

I was reading an interesting article yesterday on the psychology of "disgust." It was intriguing to hear the author's ideas of how our sense of disgust develops, and how it originated. The studies done however, I found to be more than a little faith shaking, as odd as it may seem for such a study to do so. The results were that most of what we consider disgusting is something that is taught. Those who were not taught to think something was disgusting did not feel that that particular something was disgusting. This was quite extraordinary to me, for I had always assumed that this feeling of disgust had nothing to do with what I was taught, but rather my feelings of revulsion were very natural and innate. This disturbed me mostly because I view how my stomach can turn at stepping barefoot on dog excrement is similar to how my innards twist at acts of immorality. They both are natural feelings and involuntary reactions to what I observe. Indeed, we consider many extreme immoral scenarios to be disgusting. They are linked to each other in an intimate way. Thus my fears began as I saw that if disgust is something that is taught, so could be the case for morality. If you do not yet understand why this frightened me, notice that if morality is nothing more than what we are taught, than there is no absolute morality, and thus no God to have given it to us.

However, still dwelling on it today, the light bulb lit brightly above my head. Compare the development of morality with the development of language. Are we born already knowing right from wrong? It is quite dubious, otherwise why do we see such a maturational development as one ages? And certainly we are not born already knowing our vernacular, but we are also just as certainly born with the ability and desire and need to learn a language. Similarly, we are born with the ability and desire and need to learn what is right and what is wrong. Language becomes such a natural process within us- it is how we respond and react to things (what happens when you stub your toe?) and indeed it is how we consciously think. Similarly, morality becomes so ingrained within us, we respond and react to things with our sense of morality, and we cannot engage a moral decision without our previous moral teachings affecting our cognitive processes.

The conclusion? Perhaps more than what we thought previously, morals are based more on what a person has been taught as opposed to what would naturally develop. This does not mean that we would have no sense of morality without any teaching. We would still feel disgust towards bad flavors and odors without anyone teaching us this, and we would still feel disgust at blatant immoral behavior without anyone teaching us this. Therefore, the question of where does any sense of morality come from is still valid, and the only valid answer still is GOD.

Three Creational Sparks

Matter, Life, Spirit- the three creation events. This idea of three sparks of creation is a new way of looking at God’s handiwork, and is worth the looking over. Some of us ask questions such as “when did God’s creation event happen?” while neglecting the various facets of creation. Others ask questions regarding when particular things came into being, while neglecting who caused it to come into being. It is time to merge these two sets of questions and see where they lead us.

1. Around 13 billion years, the first spark occurred. Matter was born out of nothingness. Space-time was created, particles and sub-particles were created, and all the laws of nature, discovered and those still undiscovered, were born- God’s first creation event.

2. Around 4 billion years ago, the second spark occurred. The first simple cells of life were formed- a true miracle and completely unexplainable. Thus was the beginning of all the miraculous life forms we view today, with all their complexities, intricacies, beauty, grace, behavior and intelligence- God’s second creation event.

3. Around 200 thousand years ago, the first Homo Sapien walked the earth. When and how the human consciousness began, this third spark of creation, I do not know, but this surely is the most profound of all. Capacity for rational thought, capacity for involved relationships, a keen awareness of aesthetics, and possibly the most significant, a development of a spiritual nature and a moral sense were all born- God’s third creation event.

Now it is interesting to ponder the symmetry of what we know of God and what we know of his creation.

1. God the Lord is the king- the ruler over everything that exists. The Lord is the creator of the heavens and the earth. His laws are obeyed by all of nature. The Lord’s power is demonstrated in this first creation event.
Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 14:19- “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.”
Deuteronomy 10:14- To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.

2. Jesus Christ put himself into the position of experiencing life on earth, to know what it is truly like being confined to a biological shell, to feel every wound and happiness. He experienced family, friends, betrayal, threat, predation, joy, food, drink, love, happiness- all the things of life he experienced.
John 1:3,4- Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
I Timothy 1:15- Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.

3. The Holy Spirit, by nature is spiritual, just as a part of man is spiritual. The Holy Spirit resides in man and guides us and helps us. The Holy Spirit is not in other biological beings because they do not have the moral choices set before men due to their spirit.
Mark 1:8- I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Mark 13:11- Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
John 20:22- And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 1:8- But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. . .


This is of course just one possible lens through which we can view God and what he has made.