Brant, the host of the show, was talking about how we, as people, are for all intents and purposes unable to make selfless choices. The reasoning being that there is always, even if subconsciously, a motive in our choices that brings us some sense of satisfaction. I tend to agree with Brant on most things, but this is certainly not one of them.

We play catch with our child to be a good parent, or hoping they’ll love us more, as if that were even possible; we make coffee for our spouse maybe in hopes that they’ll appreciate us that much more, as if the fact that they loved us enough to marry us wasn’t enough; we go out of our way to make others feel welcome and loved in hopes that they’ll think better of us, as if the fact that we simply made the time didn’t somehow convey how much we care.

If we accept that nothing we do can ever be truly selfless, then humility is an unattainable goal, and one that God has ultimately set up for our failure (like Adam and Even in the Garden, right? *wink*). But we know better than that. God doesn’t set us up for failure, and would never ask us to do something He knew we couldn’t. That’s not what’s taught to us in Scripture; and that’s certainly not something we should be spreading as such.

It seems that the idea of making truly selfless actions outright denies any good come to the person doing the acting. This is taking it a bit far, and quite further than God intended, I’d say. C.S. Lewis, in his masterwork The Weight of Glory, touches on this very issue:

If you asked twenty good men to-day what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, Love. You see what has happened? A negative term as been substituted for a positive, and this is of more than philological importance. The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point.

And this is precisely the point, that God doesn’t wish self-denial “as an end in itself”, as Lewis says, but that through self-denial, as taught in Scripture, we receive the ultimate gifts guaranteed to us by God, that is, everlasting life in Christ, love, peace, et al.

If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires, not to strong, but too weak.

It’s not that we should outright deny ourselves, that we must at all costs base our decisions on a strict selflessness, but that we would desire the good for those around us. God wants us to desire more. And if we continue to worry about being selfish, we inevitably focus all our efforts on denying ourselves, leaving those around us without the love they so deserve and that we originally desired for them. Jesus tells us to love one another, not to deny ourselves every good thing He placed here for us.

So, my advice is this, that we forget about denying ourselves for the sake of preserving selflessness, and concentrate on loving each other, doing good to each other, making this place a little bit better for each other.

Here’s the thing, though. If a large company deals with a million customer service issues in a given year, some small percentage of them will turn out badly. Simple human miscommunication, an overly demanding customer, unreasonable expectations from both sides, a customer service rep on a bad day – all of these can turn a routine customer service situation into a nightmarish one.

As a result, any sufficiently large company will have bad customer service stories floating around out there. Many of them are likely true and, if you believe that to be the norm of a customer service department, you’d likely be scared to ever use that company.

But it’s not the norm – far from it, actually.

That comment made me think of all the times I’ve been shopping online and come across product reviews and, truthfully, how I would typically disregard the nasty or bad reviews. And this is where I think Trent is absolutely right: It’s not the norm. Indeed, in my experience, it is quite rare for a product to fail to meet its own performance standards as described.  Though, admittedly, individuals aren’t quite as apt to review an item that actually does meet its own standards. The thought is that it should work, so it’s only doing what it’s supposed to. So unless someone has either stellar experience or a horror story of their own, you’ll very rarely find reviews that say, “This product performed its task as described,” unless of course you’re writing a review on Ebay.  (I’m perfectly content with people proving me wrong on this.)

Yet, as it concerns product reviews, I’d take it one further by saying that it’s not simply the product that’s being reviewed, it’s how well the product suits the needs of the purchaser. 

That type of review has become more and more prevalent, at least to me, with the advent of iPhone applications. It’s not at all strange to see applications with incredibly low ratings, yet that are more popular than any other application out there. It’s then that the review stops being a place where the product is evaluated on its merits and on its performance as described by the product’s maker, but becomes a place where purchasers can vent their frustration at the inability of the product to fulfill some desired task, or give them ample entertainment.  These types of reviews have very little to do with the product itself. It’s these types of reviews that led Apple to re-evaluate the system of reviewing apps.

What next comes to mind are reviews of products that, by nature, are subjective: Music, Film, Video Games, Books et al. It’s these types of reviews that I tend to ignore above all others. Why? Because the person doing the reviewing has no sense of what appeals to me personally, or may have a personal bias that affects their objectivity (when it comes to things like non-fiction books). Such is the nature of subjectivity and taste. These reviews can indeed be helpful to some individuals, like those new to a certain type of music, or film, or if the reviewer possibly has similar taste to your own, and so on. But more often than not, though reviews are often given weight in the decision-making process, they are meaningless to anyone other than the person giving the review.

Lastly, when it comes to products or services I personally review, I’m always right.  Period. :)  Okay, okay. Just kidding. The same thing applies even to me. I may write an excellent review of a particular product, and some of you who know me may give that some weight. Some of you won’t, (you know who you are) and that’s fine. Just know that it’s still a personal experience that may or may not be indicative of the product being reviewed.

In the end, reviews in and of themselves aren’t necessarily the end-all of product value, and they should most definitely not be treated as such. Sure, you can probably come up with some idea as to the off chance the product you purchase will be a dud, and reviews can indeed be helpful in determining whether or not the product operates as described, but scathing reviews should not be any indication of the norm. Take it with a grain of salt, and let your own experiences be the judge.

It was recently discovered that what was thought to be a lock of the famous pilot’s hair turned out to be a bit of thread. I don’t know what’s better, that they mistook a piece of thread for a lock of hair, or that that the International Women’s Air and Space Museum in Cleveland, Ohio is going to continue displaying the thread along with an explanation of the story.

I fully expect a mad rush of Earhart devotees at the museum to see the hair that wasn’t. Maybe the museum can offer photo opportunities. “Get your pictures here, folks! Step right up, the thread won’t bite! For only $19.95 you can have your picture taken with Earhart’s Thread!”

Talk about embarrassing. Though I’d probably keep it on display too. There’s something about owning up to a mistake (it was a mistake after all) and putting it out there for all to see.

You have my respect International Women’s Air and Space Museum, for whatever that’s worth.

My love, my life, you’ve come and gone;
They’ve taken you away.
What’s next? You wretched raven, where’ve
They taken my sweet Lenore?
Shall I fight in vain or die again
To hear what you would say?
Should I recess and remain as mortal man?
Or hear you speak, “Nevermore.”

What’s this? I’m trapped, my own heart speaks
And you, you’re just a raven
You echo the words I want to hear
In my heart, as I frame this question:
To fear, to cry, to wonder why,
I already know the answer.
Will I find myself and live again;
Will I ever have redemption?

1.28.2004

In an interview with NPR News, senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, Mr. John Allen, pointed out the similarity of the returning Anglicans to the 21 Eastern Rite churches in Eastern Europe, as well as the role of the media in the issue over celibacy within the Catholic Church:

Now, it should be said, for centuries the Catholic Church has had 21 Eastern Rite churches. These are churches that are located mostly in Eastern Europe. In those Eastern right churches priests are allowed to be married. So there have always been, in that sense, churches that have married priests that are in communion with Rome. So in principal this isn’t any different.

The big difference is that where those churches tend to be located in places far away from centers of media attention in the West, these new structures of the Catholic Church is creating for Anglicans, are going to be located in the United States, in Great Britain and Canada – and in those places where the debate over priestly celibacy in many ways already is the most intense.

Although it provides a unique perspective to the situation and sheds some light on the issue, this only begs the question: Why do the Eastern Rite churches not have mandatory celibacy? And why is there a lack of uniform doctrine throughout the Church concerning this issue?

I’ve personally never seen the real purpose of mandatory celibacy within the Catholic Church. Mr. Allen gives several examples for the necessity of celibacy, though. The first being that priests are already, in a way, married to Christ and the Church. And yet, from my understanding, the same is trueof us, that we are Christ’s bride. The second example given by Mr. Allen, making little more sense than the first, is that it provides that the priest can be called to service at any time. Indeed, this makes more sense,  though it (perhaps unwittingly)paints an awful picture of a married priest neglecting his duties, consciously not answering his phone, or cowering in some corner pleading with his wife to not make him give confession. We have enough Protestant churches and pastors to see that marriage rarely, if ever, causes one to neglect their duties, though. So even that is not really a very good reason to maintain celibacy. But whatever. Perhaps there are other reasons unknown to us.

In the end, it seems the change we’re seeing within the Catholic Church involving the Anglicans is only a move to bring those conservatives separating from the more and more liberal Anglican Church back into Catholicism, and not really a promotion of change to its doctrines. The compromise, brought about by recent decisions within the Anglican Church concerning homosexuality, is an attempt to capitalize on that division and strengthen the conservative front against the LGBT community. For now, then, I guess we’ll forgo the hopes of change and soon seeing female priests, or the acceptance of homosexuals, or the end of celibacy within the priesthood. Perhaps one day those changes will come about. Until then, I’m glad I’m a Methodist.

December 9, 2003

I feel bad for whoever wanted the awesomely deliciousness contained within this bag of chex mix.  It saddens my heart, really, for now they shall never partake in its glorious tastiness.

It’s times like that that I have to ask myself things like, “Is the Apocalypse near?” and “Is the sky falling?” and “How the hell could that bag fall in just the right way that that tiny hole got perfectly snagged by the protruding circular thingy?”

My mind is about to explode. I think I need a Crunch bar.

This is a continuation of blog posts where the source material is not my own, but comes from Glenn Miller, operator of A Christian Think-tank. I have referenced his work here and here.

I fully intend on posting more of his writings here in the hopes that others might stumble upon them and find them as invaluable as I have.

And now…

Faith is simpler than it looks…

I recently received this letter from a dear, but frustrated soul…

Well it appears there is to much literature for and against the religions of the world to even be able to figure out the truth of the matter. If God exists and if Jesus was God incarnate there must be some other way to experince the fact of his or its existence then just reading or “feeling” it is real. I am not an intellectual and probably misspelled most everthing here. I am not a rich world traveler but I sure would like to know the truth as a simple man without relying on a language I can’t read or determine the proper rendering of. It seems when someone wants to find the God of the universe they have to go back 2000+ years to get an idea of what is going on. Then you just get backed up against a wall of varying points of view about God, who he is, what he is, ect. I have spent all of my life wondering jsut what the truth is and all I seem to get from God is confussion and frustration so after 30 years of searching I think its time to quit looking and face the fact that if God exists he don’t want me to know it. If God is only for the brain children of this world then what are we dolts to do? I guess we all go to hell for being to inquesitive and are punished for eternity. If I need to be some high IQ type to understand what appears to be error in the bible then God doesn’t give many men a chance for discerning the truth. If everthing is fixed then the fight is unfair and unjust. Anyway the whole thing is a mess and I personally have come to an end in trying to figure all this garbage out. Thanks for listening but what you think is God I just can’t fathom, and don’t ask me cause I sure don’t know! Maybe someday when I get a brain like yours, glad someone is smart to bad God didn’t make us all equall.

………………………………………………………………………………………

Dear X,

I think you OUGHT to give up!

It’s not really that complicated–some people MAKE it that way…but Jesus never intended that…

Jesus said once:

“Let the little children come to me…they are the kind of folk I let into heaven”

and

“If you DON’T accept me with the simple trust and heart of a child, you don’t make it!”.

He put the cookies on the bottom shelf for us, friend.

He noticed the pattern that it was the ‘wise’ who didn’t seem to be able to understand His message…

At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
(Mt 11.25)

Think about His message for just a moment…

He never intended for this to be frustrating or full of turmoil–His mission to earth was one of giving rest and peace, and healing lives and hearts, and filling lives with fullness and significance…He said elsewhere:

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”   (Matthew 11.28-30)

and

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.  (John 10.10)

and…
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”   (Matthew 20.28)

and…

For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.  (John 12.48)

 

Granted, it was expensive for Him…He left His majestic situation in heaven and became a peasant and ignoble human, was rejected by His people, abandoned by His friends at His most difficult hour, and suffered a criminal’s execution–at the hands of humanity and through the rejection of His Father–but it was as ‘a ransom for many’…He came specifically to die…as a substitute for you and I, before the just demands of a moral universe and before the fair demands of a just God.

What can be disturbing for us humans about this story, is the scale of it. We often do not think much of the ‘little evils’ we do–even though most of us have done one or two ‘bigger ones’ somewhere along the way. We find it odd that these somehow required the death of God in history! We find it odd that the little ‘rips in the moral fabric of the universe’ that we make daily, somehow ‘added up’ to something so large as to demand such extreme measures as these–a transaction between a grieving God the Father and a willing but crushed God the Son. Yet we are sobered by the fact that we simply do not have reason to doubt it…God is in such better position to determine “what is really needed” to heal our lives, repair the universe, bring life into our lives, mute the consequences of our personal moral failures…He would know, and we simply would not be able to argue–we simply don’t know as much as He does!

But He didn’t stay dead! He came back to life, in a more advanced body, and told His followers to do “whatever it takes” to get this message to people like you and I. And they did.

The message is one of hope: that by facing this God and asking for Him to come into our lives to heal them, we start a new relationship with God–the source of life and change and strength. It really is good news…

But this all happens to an individual…its YOUR life that Jesus is talking about…and its YOU that have to make a decision about Him…

You see, the issue is this: you are not responsible for how OTHER people respond to this message of Jesus–those in other lands, other times, other circumstances–you are responsible for how honestly and openly YOU respond to the information YOU have…Even those closest to Jesus responded in different ways–treachery, unbelief, acceptance, joy, fear, etc. You could listen to arguments forever and ever, and you could never expect agreement from people about Jesus…so it comes down to your personal assessment of the trustworthiness of Jesus. You cannot “pass the buck” or depend on scholars to make this decision FOR you…the fact that you can find at least ONE scholar for every position means that you will always have to still ‘pick between’ scholars, just like you will have to pick between Jesus and others!

And its not really that difficult…Jesus said that children could respond to Him…Children are not ‘blind faith’ types at all–they are VERY careful about who they trust. It’s amazing to watch children in the markets–some adults they trust, and some they don’t…they make “assessments of trustworthiness”
instinctively…they don’t ask for proof, or ask for evidences; they watch the person…Cognitive Development types tells us that this occurs between the ages of 3 and 4–we ought to be able to do this!

So it is with Jesus…just “watch Him”…watch Him as He speaks words of healing to broken lives, as He speaks words of judgment to oppressors and religious phonies, as He rejects crowds who want to make Him a national king, as He quietly goes His death and humiliation at the Cross, as He comforts and reassures His disciples after their trauma…

Toward the end of His earthly life Jesus said these strange words:

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father’?
10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. (John 14.8ff)

Notice how strange this is: Philip asks to see the Father and the Father basically answers through Jesus (”dont you know ME..”)…to see Jesus is to see His Father…

But notice the last sentence: Jesus asks Philip to believe Him–His words about himself, on the basis of the very observed character and integrity of Christ–and if THAT’S NOT ENOUGH, then to believe the ‘evidence of the miracles’!

He even helps us with our natural sense of distrust of others…

Jesus wants us to evaluate His message primarily by looking at His words, life, and death. If somehow, we cannot ’sense’ His awesome truthfulness, trustworthiness, and openness with us, THEN we should be ‘open-minded skeptics’ and look at this ‘extraordinary evidence’…we should be convinced by the miracles and then take a ’second look’ at Jesus–and then, take Him more seriously…Notice that even this last concession from Jesus about ‘evidence’ is a witness to the beauty of His character…He didn’t have to leave us miracles, but He did it for those of us who can’t ’see Him clearly’…He cares enough and knows enough about our weaknesses and mistrust of others to ‘leave us some evidence’ to help us overcome that mistrust…

But mistrust is something He is very familiar with…We humans–by our little treacheries to each other–have taught one another the ’skill’ of mistrusting others…and we transfer that mistrust to God. We doubt His goodness, we doubt His love, we doubt the depths of His Cross-producing commitment to us(!), we doubt the reality of His work in history, we doubt His work in the lives of others…We doubt His willingness to salvage our lives and hearts and minds and relationships…

But this didn’t stop Him…He still went to the Cross for us…He still rose from the dead for us…He still gave the message of hope to His disciples to pass on to us.

So, look at Jesus–yourself. You will have to decide whether He seems trustworthy or not, friend.

You’re gonna have to make SOME character assessments any way you look at it!

If you try to ‘boil the ocean’ and read all the different opinions about Jesus–you will STILL end up having to decide on the trustworthiness of THOSE people FIRST! It’s inescapable–you will simply have to judge SOMEONE’s trustworthiness! The various views about Jesus are written by people, too, and like all readers you will make ‘assessments’ of their credibility, motives, bias, etc.–you will do this almost without thinking. Don’t let anyone–Christian, non-Christian, or anti-Christian–stop you from evaluating the words and message of Jesus. You may come away from your listening to Him with the same conclusion of the temple guards in John 7.46ff. They were sent to arrest Jesus and this is what happened:

Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?”
46 “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards declared.

Evaluate Jesus’ words yourself…do they ring true? Do they challenge your pre-conceptions about God? Do they ‘disturb’ your sense of self-destiny? Do they have the appearance of coming from a Divine Impostor? Do they manifest the erratic and bizarre character of the Insane? Do they have the predictability of the Invented Legend?

Remember the history of all this. A group of 1st century Jews wrote down a historical record of a man named Jesus who claimed to be God on earth. They recorded important sayings and events of His life, and claimed that He had risen from the dead–to prove He was God’s Son and that He had ‘healed the breach’ between God and humans. Their lives were so changed by this encounter with this strange person Jesus, yet they remained lucid and ‘normal’ people. They experienced personally the life and progress that this Jesus said He could give. They were told to spread this good news to the world, so that other people would “look at Jesus” and sense His divine character and mission…

These men worked hard to obey This One. They had nothing to gain politically, socially, or financially. Indeed, most of them were executed for trying to get this message from Jesus to you and I. They were not caught in any ’scandals’ like modern figures, nor were they secretive with their lives. They were ordinary people whose lives had been changed by an extraordinary Person–Jesus of Nazareth.

We have every reason in the world to believe their accounts about Jesus. They didn’t manipulate the message for personal gain, they recorded their most embarrassing and deplorable moments, they listed historical detail and specifics that are the identifying characteristic of truthful witnesses in court. They died for this story and their lives were changed by the Author of this story. They were the individuals closest to the words and deeds of Jesus–and hence, the best source of data about His life and words. They lived in a public setting where all of this could be argued and refuted if incorrect. Their lives are models of practical lives. They left multiple accounts, so we could see different sides of Jesus, and legal experts tell us these multiple testimonies vouch for the credibility of the accounts. They were ordinary folk–not scholars, not skeptics, not gullible people. They looked at Jesus and said “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”. They couldn’t understand it all, anymore than we can. They choked on some of Jesus’ sayings, and they recorded their misunderstandings. We have every reason in the world to believe their accounts about Jesus.

This message–about a God who salvages and heals lives–has come down to you, like it did to me. Some other person in history ‘looked at’ Jesus in this message, ‘recognized’ Him and took Him at His word–that He was the God-who-took-on-flesh and the God-who-suffered-death-in-our-place. This other person’s life began changing then, and the truth of the story became more and more obvious to them every year. And, like the apostles who were changed by that One and had to share the good news with others like them, this other more recent person had shared the story with you or I…

But some people have more mistrust than others…

And as for all the ‘big’ writings on this Thinktank of mine–they actually only exist because somebody doubted the writings of these first followers of Jesus. They doubted their honesty and integrity (so I have to write articles demonstrating their integrity and truthfulness). They doubted their memory (so I have to write articles about the accuracy of the details of their accounts.) They doubted their understanding of Jesus (so I have to write articles about how their beliefs were shaped.). They doubted their sanity because they claimed that a man rose from the dead (so I have to write articles about how this is not that unreasonable for the God who had promised that to His covenant people the Jews all along.) And so on…

But these might have no relevance to you…If you look at the character of Jesus in their writings, you may be able to make an adequate judgment that their portrait of Christ, although strange–since He claimed and acted like a God-man!–is probably true maybe even because of the strangeness. And if you, on the basis of this conviction, ask Christ to come into your life and to begin creating freedom and healing and purpose and peace, then you will understand perfectly that the picture of the apostles being deceived, deceivers, deranged, deluded, or fanatics is simply wrong–without having to read all the articles in the world about the subject.

“But all the skeptics tell me that there are PLENTY of reasons to mistrust the bible, these disciples, this Jesus, and even a God”…Yes, they do say that a lot, don’t they…and they bring out alleged “contradictions” and things that “a God of love wouldn’t do” and “historical mistakes” the writers made…

But there are believable answers to all these questions and issues…so many similar questions were raised in the past AND were answered long ago, and then forgotten…And if you have even one “mistake” that was shown to be actually “correct,” then you have a solid reason to believe that the other “mistakes” will be shown in the future to be “correct”…In other words, you need only read ONE article in the Thinktank that solves a ‘problem’ (for example) to have adequate grounds to give the bible the “benefit of the doubt”…and with hundreds and hundreds of such bible ‘mistakes’ eventually shown by archeology/history to be correct, the weight of the evidence argues strongly that it will continue to be vindicated in the future…The bible has been vindicated so many times in history–you have a whole string of precedents upon which to base your confidence in it…

If you have reason to believe the Person of Jesus (because of His character and miracles) and if you have reason to believe the writings of the apostles (because of their character and accuracy), and if you have reasons to believe that the alleged skeptical problems will be solved (because they always do get answered in history), then you have reached the end of the process!–you have made a personal assessment that is comprehensive, practical, and that will validate itself more and more over time.

Giving others the “benefit of the doubt”…

In the parable of the Sower and the Seed, Jesus described the soil burst into life and fruitfulness upon receiving the seed: But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop. A “good heart” He said…A heart that seeks to be open to others, that gives the other person the ‘benefit of the doubt’, that makes decisions about witnesses based upon their character and integrity–not gullible, but not mistrustful to the extreme either.

Keep it simple–as God intended…Like I said, you are going to make character assessments about the authors you read–the Christians, the skeptics, the apostles, church leaders, scholars, web-writers. You will assess their attitudes and openness and bias and character and love…Some will seem more honest to you, more credible, more genuine than others…and some will manifest bitterness or arrogance or harshness that will raise questions in your mind about them…

The good-hearted soul starts with “believing the best” about the other person. He seeks to trust the individual and hopes that his words are true and constructive. He needs a positive reason to begin doubting–not just some general skepticism towards people in general. He needs a strong pattern of clues (not just one) before he decides that the other person is a deceiver, deluded, or just simply misinformed. Sometimes we do have to make this conclusion, but it must be made reluctantly and after all efforts at “making sense of their story” have proved fruitless.

The skeptical heart (as opposed to the skeptical mind) is the opposite–it starts with mistrust of fellow human beings (except itself, for some strange reason) and requires positive reasons to begin trusting a fellow’s testimony. This, of course, is the theory–in practice it accepts tons of data from teachers, fellow skeptics, etc., often without proof of any kind. The skeptical heart gives up to easily, when difficulties in a system emerge. It is quick to shout ‘inconsistency’ without being gracious enough to give the other person an opportunity to demonstrate consistency or give an answer. Positions are too often evaluated on the basis of superficial evaluations and snap judgments.

Why should we try to give others the “benefit of the doubt”? Why should we seek to start out by trusting someone? Why should we give them a hearing when they try to explain difficulties in their system? Simply because that is how we want others to treat us… The Golden Rule is treasured everywhere, and Jesus’ version is the most aggressive in the world–“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6.31) If we want others to give us the benefit of the doubt, we should do the same. If we want others to judge our positions fairly and generously, then we should do so–Jesus’ words in Matt 7.2 are very sobering: For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you..

For example, listen to this writer from over three hundred years ago apply that:

Humphrey Ditton observes that the apostles were simple, common men, not cunning deceivers. They were men of unquestioned moral integrity and their proclamation of the resurrection was solemn and devout. They had absolutely nothing to gain in worldly terms in preaching this doctrine. Moreover, they had been raised in a religion that was vastly different from the one they preached. Especially foreign to them was the idea of the death and resurrection of the Jewish Messiah. This militates against their concocting this idea. The Jewish laws against deceit and false testimony were very severe, which fact would act as a deterrent to fraud. Finally, they were evidently sincere in what they proclaimed. In light of their character so described, asks Ditton bluntly, why not believe the testimony of these men? (RF:263)

Notice that the above is NOT a ’scholarly’ argument–it is a practical one. It is the kind God expects us to make in evaluating truth every day of our lives. This is something well within our reach…

And then there’s that ’seeking’ thing…

God refuses to be treated like a lab rat.

He is a Person and not an Object. He reveals His reality and His thoughts to other persons, like we reveal our inner-selves to others we have relationships with. We make constructive relationships with good-hearted folk, and we abandon or avoid relationships with those who manifest treachery or abusive hearts. We, of course, will make ‘initial approaches’ to many people, revealing ourselves partially–since we should not pre-judge them according to the above criteria of ‘benefit of the doubt’–but if the response we get back is negative, we don’t pursue it any further…We often will stay “open” toward that person–in case they ever change–but we don’t push the matter until they want to approach us good-naturedly.

God has a similar orientation. He has revealed Himself partially in many ways (the “initial approach”)–His Son, the prophets, the beauty of nature, the complexity of the universe, the predictability of experience, the joy of family life and simple pleasures, moral notions, etc.–but if we respond negatively or impersonally to Him, He “withdraws” until we change our mind…but the offer is still there…so the apostle Paul said to some philosophers one day:

God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.’
(Acts 17.27)

He is available–but we must want to find Him…He hides from those who would strap electrodes on Him, and try to dissect Him, and try to study Him, and to treat him like a thing–just like we would withdraw…His famous statement in Jeremiah 29.13: You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. was reiterated by Jesus in Luke 11.9f: “So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened..

If you REALLY want to know God–as a person, not a thing–and approach Him with an open and generous attitude, He will show His heart to you. He will probably use a variety of communication methods–the bible, true disciples of Jesus, intuition, experiences of awe, bizarre coincidence, stories from others, music and beauty–but He is God, and can reveal His heart and thoughts to you–without disclosing Himself to those who are NOT open or ready…

There is probably no reason for you to postpone this…

If you have been thinking about this for decades, then you have probably heard most of the “arguments” for God, and seen most of the “evidence” for God–as well as all the ‘counter’ arguments and evidences advanced by others. You may even have that inner awareness that God is VERY real (i.e. that sense that everyone has at one time or another in life, but which we can suppress into the subconscious if we try to hard enough–see Romans 1.25,28; 2 Peter 3.5; and 2 Thess 2.10) and is confronting you with His invitation to a relationship at this time in your life…Maybe now you are more open and honest than you have ever been…maybe the circumstances of life that teach us that we are not gods ourselves has awakened a great humility and perspective in your heart…maybe the frustration has driven you to stop all the frenzied analysis and simply look at Jesus…

Now, if you cannot make the decision based on the character of Christ alone (His preference, of course), then take advantage of the evidence He left for you…

Since you have no doubt looked at the data/arguments, let me just list the more common ones here:

1. The resurrection of Christ
2. The miracles of Christ (i.e. specific, in-context, purposeful)
3. The very character and words of Christ
4. The self-understanding of Christ
5. The very super-human complexity of Christ’s life and words
6. The changed lives of the apostles
7. The explosive growth of the early church, in a very hostile environment
8. The conversion of skeptics/enemies (e.g. Thomas, Saul/Paul)
9. The radically new, yet balanced ethics of the young church.
10. The messianic prophecies (e.g. birthplace of Jesus, nature of death)
11. The “regular” prophecies (e.g. specific predicted international events in OT prophets)
12. The miraculous birth of Israel from Egypt
13. The miraculous continued existence of Israel as a people though history
14. The miracles in the OT (i.e. specific, in-context, purposeful)
15. The advanced character of the Mosaic Law (both content and argumentation)
16. The practical impossibility of alternative explanations for the above.
17. The practical impossibility of consistent atheism: the meaning, purpose, value of life.
18. Evidence for immortality of the soul
19. The argument from change
20. The argument from Efficient Causality
21. The argument from Time and Contingency
22. The argument from degrees of perfection
23. The argument from error-detection-standard
24. The argument from the definition of the Problem of Evil
25. The Design argument
26. The Kalam argument (e.g. whatever begins to exist has a cause)
27. The argument from contingency
28. The argument from the world as an interacting whole (e.g. “uni-verse”)
29. The argument from miracles (general form)
30. The argument from the existence of consciousness
31. The argument from truth (requiring an eternal mind)
32. Argument from the origin of the idea of God
33. Ontological argument (various forms)
34. The Moral Argument
35. The argument from conscience
36. The argument from desire for the Ultimate and eternal
37. The argument from aesthetic experience or beauty
38. The argument from religious experience
39. The common consent argument
40. The argument from the character of human language
41. The argument from predictability of natural law
42. The presuppositional argument concerning knowledge
43. The self-consistency of the system
44. The predictive power of God’s moral instructions in the Bible
45. The survival of the scriptures in history
46. Answered prayer and changed lives.

Now, each of these arguments is debated by some people. The skeptic is quick to point out weaknesses in each of these, and in some cases, other alternative explanations for the same observed data. But in each argument above, the Judeo-Christian position is either (1) the most plausible conclusion; or at least (2) a distinctly possible conclusion. The reason for the debate is that each argument has a certain level of ambiguity in how it is interpreted.

For example, consider the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the Judeo-Christian worldview, this resurrection was predicted in the OT often, pre-announced by Jesus to the apostles often, misunderstood by them, was conclusively proved by a number of historical/psychological arguments, and was interpreted as Jesus having triumphed over the problems you and I face. We see the connections and the patterns–they are very obvious to most people. But, a bodily resurrection could also very easily be admitted by an truly consistent existentialist–for, in an totally absurd universe, ANYTHING could happen–including a random resurrection in Palestine! The bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead would carry NO significance in that worldview at all!

Another example might be messianic prophecy. It may be simple for someone to take on the individual prophecies one-by-one, with arguments like “there were tons of folk born in Bethlehem–why do we think that was Jesus?” and “there were tons of davidic descendents–why do we think that was Jesus?” and “there were tons of folks betrayed for 30 pieces of silver–why do we think that was Jesus?” and “there were tons of people crucified before the temple genealogies disappeared–why do we think that was Jesus?”…and so on, for some 30-50 rather detailed passages…And, in isolation, each prophecy does have a range of possible reference wider than Jesus…But when you put them all together!! A string of predictions that uniquely describe the one promised messiah–Jesus of Nazareth–stands out like the pattern in a symphony. The pattern of music in a symphony is so much greater that the simple sum of the notes(!), and the pattern of fulfillment around Jesus likewise is obvious…

So, we need to recognize that no one of these arguments would have adequate individual clarity or adequate individual force to ‘convince’ everyone of its conclusion…But the good news is, our choice in this matter does not require a level of conclusiveness (that eludes every field except math and logic–and even there sometimes)!…Instead we are confronted with a powerful and persuasive pattern that borders upon the mindboggling!

Even though no one of these arguments could alone carry the day, together they converge to point to the Person and Work of Jesus Christ as indeed God-in-human-flesh with incredible force. They make a “cumulative case” (from philosophy) and a “converging evidence case” (from legal science) for the system as a whole.

To understand this, let me introduce an extended illustration from a legal professional with 41 years of experience–most of it as a trial judge (Casteel, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, p. 34ff:

Unlike other religions, Christianity may be proved or disproved, because, unlike other religions, Christianity is based on reason and historical fact. As we saw in Chapter One, Christianity invites and welcomes honest examination. In fact, Jesus and His apostles took the initiative in presenting evidence to prove the claims of Christianity.

Since we are dealing with questions of fact, the highest standard of proof possible is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest standard required in a court of law. Lawyers seek to meet this standard by presenting converging lines of evidence,
that is, by presenting as many different lines of evidence as possible, all of which point to the same fact.

How this works can be illustrated by considering the evidence in a typical burglary case. The victims are a rural couple who work in town. Upon return from work one evening, they find the back door of their home has been pried open. Missing are a 21 inch, Motorola television in a maple cabinet, and a General
Electric micro-wave oven. The serial numbers are unknown. The pry mark on the door frame is 11/4 inches wide and contains red paint marks. A neighbor saw an older model, green pickup in the victims driveway on the day of the burglary. Make and model are unknown, but he did notice a large dent in the left fender and rust on the hood.

The sheriff remembers that defendant owns an older model, green pickup, and going to defendant’s home sees the pickup in defendant’s driveway. There is a large dent in the left fender and there is rust on the hood. This is important evidence pointing to defendant, but is not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many older model, green pickups, and it is reasonable to believe that others may have large dents in the left fender and rust on the hood.

In the bed of defendant’s pickup the sheriff sees a red pry bar. Its blade is 1 1/4 inches wide. Here is a second line of evidence pointing to the defendant. By itself it is not very strong, but taken together with the first line of evidence, it is more significant. It is reasonable to believe that very few people in the area own older model green pickups with large dents in the left fender and rust on the hood, and also own red pry bars with l l/4 inch blades. Still this should not be enough to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

On defendant’s back porch, the sheriff sees a 21 inch, Motorola television in a maple cabinet. The victims say it looks like their television. The defendant says some man whose name he does not know left it there for safe keeping. The sheriff finds a used furniture store in a neighboring town where defendant sold a General Electric micro-wave oven on the morning after the burglary. The victims say it looks like their oven. The  efendant says the same unknown man gave it to him for keeping his television. He doesn’t know when the man will be back.

Note the cumulative effect of these four lines of evidence. Taken together, they are sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The total is much more than the sum of the parts. In this study [of the truth of Christianity], look for converging lines of evidence pointing to the truth of all the issues listed above, and pointing ultimately to the truth of Christianity. You will find far more that four and thus a far greater cumulative weight of evidence. With an open mind, ask yourself if all these different lines of evidence, pointing inescapably to this great fact–Christianity is true–are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Notice that each clue, each piece of evidence COULD have had an ALTERNATE explanation–each had a certain amount of ambiguity–but the overlapping of the clues pointed to specific explanations of each. In other words, the clues, when taken together, all supported specific understandings of the other clues–the overall pattern ’selected’ from the alternatives.

Whereas there could be philosophical or scholarly arguments about each INDIVIDUAL clue, a wise judge would see the pattern easily. You might see this easier if I diagram it. The area under each clue would be the alternative explanations for how that clue ‘came to be’ (e.g. someone gave the accused the TV), and the intersection of the four areas represents the ‘guilty’ explanation.

The same is true for the above list of arguments for the truth of Judeo-Christianity. Each argument may have some variability, but the convergence of these (far more that four clues!) makes the pattern so obvious to regular folk.

The other way of looking at this is the ‘best theory’ approach. The list of evidence and arguments above is so incredibily much easier to explain IF the Judeo-Christian ‘theory’ is true. All the arguments fit together, support one another, and qualify one another. The Christian worldview has the greatest explanatory power relative to those observed characteristics of history, experience, logic, and the universe.

My point here is NOT to advance any of these as specific arguments for you to consider, but rather to point out the whole mass of them–they form a pattern that points to the reality of God and the invasion of the God-man into history. And I certainly don’t want to pretend that there are not unanswered questions and doubts we all face at one time or another…But the overall pattern and argument strength is more than enough to justify our confidence in God and His communication in history…And once you see this, the next step is to look back at the character of this God-man again, and see His concern and commitment to you personally. He left His fingerprints all over the universe and left His audit trails all throughout history. He has made the first overture to you…

It’s your turn…

It’s an individual choice…You can either run and try to hide, or accept the reality of His interest in establishing a personal relationship with you…you can either try to avoid the pattern of data above, by requesting ‘more data’ or quibbling over individual arguments, or you can look up and tell Him you DO want Him to become real and dynamic in your life…you can either keep God at an ’safe, analytical, philosophical distance’, or you can respond to Him as a Living and Gracious Person, and not merely a ‘conclusion at the end of a syllogism’…

God is not some nebulous force, nor a complex of concepts, nor some mere “ground of being”–to look into the face and heart of Jesus Christ is to see the concrete Person we call “God”…He has given us plenty of evidence of His reality, and even more evidence of His intense (yet non-invasive) love for us…and He will give you more and more and more, as you grow in a relationship with Him…He shares more of His ways and perspectives with us as we grow more open and loyal in our relationship with Him…if only we would respond as genuinely and as good-spirited as He does…

Just look carefully at Jesus–His claims about Himself, His description of His work on the Cross for you, His statement of deep interest in bringing life and health and joy and meaning and certitude into your life…Don’t try to boil the ocean; just try to glimpse the heart of the One who promises Living Water–“If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.”

Hope this helps,

Glenn Miller

Glenn, the operator of A Christian Think-tank, has a great mind and, from what I have read, is open and always in search of the truth. I hope you find this blog useful (as I have), and go on to read more of his writings. This is not the first time I have referenced his work in my blogs, and it will certainly not be the last. As he has spent a tremendous amount of time and energy researching and writing things such as this, and as they are quite conprehensive and more coherent than any other writings I have seen on the subject, I may indeed post more of his writings here.

Critically Examine Everything? 

But I thought this was all ‘Blind Faith’ kinda stuff…

(or at least the politically correct ‘intellectually challenged’ kinda stuff…)

The Judeo-Christian faith is surprisingly ruthless in its insistence on proof (broadly considered), evidence, truth, examination, ‘cordial skepticism’…and correspondingly disdainful of those who believe nonsense.
 

Consider briefly the following passages in the Bible:

Gen 15 – When Abraham asked God “how will I KNOW that this future will happen?”, God did not rebuke him, but made a legal covenant with him.

 

Exodus 33 – Moses argued with God that God should not destroy Israel, so that there would be evidence of His work in history
 

Number 16 – Moses argued with the Israelites over the leadership issue, and appealed to evidence.
 

Deut 18 – God is VERY explicit-if a prophet EVER misses a prediction, this proves he is not a prophet of YHWH. The test was evidential–pure and simple.
 

Deut 29 – Moses appeals to their MEMORIES as a basis for decision…historical events .
 

Joshua 3 – Joshua sets up, in advance, a criterion for knowing that YHWH was among them–a future, visible, abnormal event in Israel’s history.
 

2 Sam 1 – David wanted factual support for the report that Saul was dead.
 

Lam 3 – we are to EXAMINE our lifestyles – looking for evidence that reveals our true character and orientation to ultimate issues
 

I Cor 11 – we are to examine our hearts and conduct–testing them against standards
 

2 Cor 13 – we are to examine our life vis-a-vis the content of the worldview
 

Judges 6 – Gideon and the ‘fleece test’ – and yet God ‘humored’ his weakness and provided the evidence he needed
 

Isaiah 7 – King AHAZ was rebuked by the prophet for NOT asking God for evidence!
 

Dan 1 – Daniel in a foreign situation, didn’t appeal with a simple ‘trust us’–he said ‘test us’…and depended upon God for concrete, visible results.
 

Mal 3 – God challenges Israel to test His faithfulness, He invites them to test His commitment to His promises…and in the area of finances!
 

Rom 12 – Paul challenges his readers to continually expand their thinking–SO THAT they can examine and prove what God’s will for their direction is…an active searching and examination of all the data.
 

2 Cor 8 – Paul wanted to TEST the sincerity of their love — he was looking for concrete evidence that would reveal their inner selves.
 

Gal. 6:4 “Each one should TEST his own actions. Then he can take appropriate pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else”
 

Is 43 – The prophet draws a picture of a courtroom scene. The prophets are to bring forth their evidence that they are indeed speakers of truth. The only admissible evidence is a proven track-record of future prediction!
 

Ezek. 13:2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: ‘Hear the word of the LORD!’” –Accuracy and legitimacy is of critical moment! John 2 – the Jews of the day where always demanding proof. Jesus appealed to his coming resurrection as the capstone proof of his deity.
 

Act 17 – Paul referred to the historical resurrection as “God’s proof” that people will have to answer for their innermost attitudes toward God.
 

2 Cor 13 – the Corinthians demanded proof of Paul’s authority. He submitted historical evidence and lifestyle as data.
 

Luke 1 – Luke investigated the sources and wrote the account for his royal reader, SO THAT he could know for CERTAIN.   
 

Or consider the following actions on the part of Jesus…

He is constantly doing overt miracles and “out-loud” prayers, for His followers’ benefit–so they might see the evidence, understand what’s going on, and believe. 

 

He doesn’t scorn the ‘doubting Thomas’ but provides his nail-scarred hands and open side-wound as evidence for him (Jn 20)
 

He constantly refers people back to the data of the OT–as a means to judge His claims and teachings.   
 

Or consider the NT leaders, with their emphasis on the factuality of the Christian events (and their preference for the ‘critical thinkers’)…

Luke who praised the careful and thorough Bereans in Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” 

 

Paul, who challenges us in I Thess 5.21: ” Test everything. Hold on to the good.”
 

And appeals to the ‘openness’ of the historical facts of early Christianity in his public trial: “The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.” (Act 26:26)
 

And appeals to natural phenomena as evidence of a good God (Acts 14, 17).
 

Peter, who tries to ‘force his readers back into the bedrock of data’ in 2Pet. 1:16: We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Hold it a Minute! 

I thought ‘Testing the Lord’ was VERY bad, even Fatal! (as in I Cor 10)…

…Good question (shows you’re thinking, eh?)

If you compare the “DON’T test” passages with the “DO test” passages, you can see the difference in the contexts. 

The “DON’T test” passages are those in which the people are NOT seeking evidence/proof IN ORDER TO learn truth, grow, or develop their worldview, but rather are trying to manipulate God into satisfying illicit desires, or into satisfying licit needs, in destructive ways. For example, in Exodus 17, the recepients of an earlier water-providing miracle are now DEMANDING water in a combative manner! (See Ps 78 and 106 for a later historical account of this.)
 

The ‘DO test’ passages are those in which the people are enjoined to take a small step of commitment, in EXPECTATION of success (sounds a little like giving someone the benefit of the doubt, doesn’t it?). The negativism and close-mindedness of the former situation is not present in the later. The later applies to people who are OPEN to learning, not just trying to engineer the situation for their practical gain.

As a matter of fact, this ‘openness to learning’ and ‘positive expectation of good’ is rather basic to ALL types of personal discovery situations. We ourselves tend not to ‘participate’ in these kinds of situations, if we feel we are being ‘interrogated’ in an abusive manner.

The knowledge of other religions and faiths and beliefs is enough to cripple anyone’s ability to claim simple unbelief.  Only in the remotest and isolated of places, wherein media and scholarship  do not reside, can we say one may be considered a weak atheist. Yet even so, for one to be considered a weak atheist, they must not profess such a position, nor have knowledge of other such beliefs, as such would negate their ability to maintain a sufficient lack of knowledge, and thus remove any means of maintaining a weak form of atheism. 

The lack of knowledge is the only means for weak atheism to exist. 

Yet, a lack of knowledge does not presuppose weak atheism. Psychologist, and Professor at the University of Virginia, Jonathan Haidt (as seen on TED) has said that evidence points to the fact that at birth we possess a morality that is then shaped and revised as we grow. What this suggests is that weak atheism may not be innate; but that since morality exists, even at a base sense, one could logically use the argument from morality to support theistic innatism, that is, we are born with a belief in God. However, just as a lack of knowledge does not presuppose weak atheism, so the idea that morality is borne within us does not presuppose theistic innatism. But, at the very least, it does put the two on an equal playing field, as well as takes away the idea that atheism IS the default position at birth.

Aggressive (Strong) Atheism is incoherent and self-contradictory.   

Strong Atheism points to an active disbelief in all deities, not just specific ones (though specific ones are targeted more often in argumentation).  Within the very foundation of strong atheism are such tenets as logic, reason, freethought, etc. Yet these very foundations are dismissed in order to maintain such a disbelief. Let me demonstrate. 

Strong atheists who engage in theological debate tend to point to the theist’s lack of empirical evidence as reason for the incoherence of the theist’s belief. But if we look at the atheist’s position, they are no better off. The strong atheist maintains an active disbelief in deities based upon a lack of evidence to date. Their disbelief, however, is based upon the assumption that no evidence exists (otherwise, the most logical position would be that of agnosticism). In fact, that scientific evidence has not proven the existence of deities is by no means evidence for the absence of said deities. Therefore, the atheist must compartmentalize one of the major tenets of their position in order to maintain their position.  What this means, then, is that strong atheists must compartmentalize not only logic, but freethought, which also holds to the logical position, which cannot be that of atheism. 

Open-mindedness is another tenet that has been professed by those with whom I’ve been in contact. As stated in one of my Facebook status updates, those strong atheists with whom I’ve argued and debated (as weak atheists who would engage in theological argumentation would cease to be weak atheists and become strong atheists) have majorly claimed a position of open-mindedness, but are the first to dismiss the supernatural (which encompasses deities).  Such persons who indeed claim not only open-mindedness, but profess strong atheism, and thus compartmentalize freethought, logic, and reason, can be said to not be open-minded. Why? Because in taking an aggressive stance in that of strong atheism they close off themselves to new ideas. They have effectively ceased being open to that which they claim does not exist. If nothing more, they have made it exponentially harder for themselves to concede to any evidence that might arise in favor of that which they deny. 

Now, some would heartily object and say such things as, “And Christians rely on logic and reason?!” or “What about the incoherence of theism?” or “Christianity and theism are the ones that are illogical and unreasonable!”  or “Christians are not open-minded at all!!” And while such objections are duly noted, neither are logic nor freethought nor open-mindedness (to a degree) necessarily basic tenets that make up the foundation of theism and Christianity (specifically), but experience and faith. What’s more, theism is not the issue here; atheism is. So objections about theism and theists should not be raised in the context of this argument, as they are irrelevant to the matter at hand and say nothing of the arguments being raised against atheism.

However, I’d like to say that I’ve never even heard a single true agnostic boast of how theirs is the only position of logic and reason (though it is). Only strong atheism makes such a claim, yet fails to stick to it. Even Christians, though at times contradictory and bigoted in their actions, know that they are full of fault, otherwise a savior would not be the staple of their faith. Strong atheists, though, seemingly deny their tendency to falter and retain metaphysical baggage when it comes to maintaining logical and reasonable conclusions. This is why strong atheism is an intellectually indefensible position.