Living Like Jesus: An Argument Toward Christianity

So I'm going to talk about living like Jesus, or living as a Christian. By this of course I mean for you to imagine a person who really is living like Jesus, helping the poor, encouraging and comforting others, and aiding the oppressed and the downtrodden.

Now as you consider this, you might think that one need not be a Christian to be good. You may even be an atheist. But I'm sure you would maintain that being an atheist doesn't make you a bad person. And I think we would agree that as an Atheist, you may:

Still want to love your neighbor as yourself, like Jesus said.

Still feel repentant or feel remorse if you do something wrong.

And you still may want to help the poor, or feed the hungry, and want to create a better world.

If you find that to be true of yourself, then please consider, that if you're going to live like Jesus, or in other words, live as a Christian anyway, that it doesn't hurt to hope... even if you don't think you can fully believe. I really think that the more you think about this, the more you'll find it as reason to hope in Jesus.

Health Benefits of Theanine

According to Medical Publications .org, Theanine will:

• Relieve stress and anxiety
• Lower high blood pressure
• Cardiovascular support
• Neuro-protection
• And improve Immunity

But is this a new drug? It can be taken as a supplement, but Theanine actually is naturally occurring in tea. In fact Lipton black tea boasts 10 mg of Theanine for every 8 oz serving. If you were to buy it as a supplement, it costs about $20 per bottle at a GNC, but tea is much cheaper, and has many other antioxidants, and added benefits.

What is really interesting, especially to me, is that Theanine works synergistically with caffeine, to improve mood and cognition.

For more information, see here, and here.

Earthquakes, Tornadoes, Evil, and Free-Will

Sometimes I hear people asking why God would allow natural evils to occur, like Earthquakes or Tornadoes, or Tsunamis. But none of those are intrinsically evil. It is only the suffering and death that we experience with them. I believe that is necessary as a demonstration of the effects and consequences of the presence of Evil in the world, (which is necessary for Free-will). In absence of evil, and by extension suffering and death, Tsunamis are only killer waves to surf, or Tornadoes a chance to fly around faster than a roller-coaster, and even earthquakes and fires are only interesting novelties in the absence of suffering and death.

Defecting to Faith

An interesting article I came across lately had some poll results that some might find surprising. I think I have spoken before, if not on this blog then certainly elsewhere about my thoughts that the church would be renewed by this falling away.

I recall quoting C. S. Lewis before as saying:

There are people (a great many of them) who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves by that name: some of them are clergymen.

This can not be truer than it has been in America for quite some time, but with the advent of New Atheism, I think this is coming around to full circle wherein some people forsake the plastic religion they grow up with, and jump on board with Dawkins and his cohorts.

Here however is the twist that I don't think a lot of people saw coming.

According to the latest American research, parents with no religious affiliation are losing the battle to indoctrinate their children. A majority of those surveyed who grew up in atheist or agnostic households, or where there was no particular religious attachment, later chose to join a religion. The New York Times sees it as a retrograde step, labelling the process "defecting to faith" and noting that in comparison only 13 per cent of those raised as Protestants and 14 per cent of cradle Catholics later severed connections.

The article is titled Defectors to Faith Mark A Growing Trend. Pretty interesting. It seems to me that while atheism is having another stint of popularity, it has a retention rate lower than any religion I know of. Of course when people find faith again, it is in a more thoughtful and analytical way, than would have been had they been raised up on a stagnant and narrow version of their faith filled with pious Christianese and the Bible says so's. (or insert other religion in the blank if you like)

I have to wonder if all of those believers who humbly and steadfastly pray for revival would have imagined it would come about like this. Of course from what I hear, this is what's always said when something interesting happens.

So to all my brothers and sisters out there, take heart. Those like Dawkins who think they can put a stick in God' eye become merely tools in his hand to redeem the world, and bring about good where they meant for dischord.

Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Pluralism and Christianity

Different Positions On How God May Relate to Those Lacking Revelation

1 Exclusivism (restrictivism, fundamentalism)
- All religions are different and only one is true
- One can only be saved by hearing and accepting the message of Jesus in this life.
- Sharp distinction between general revelation and special revelation
- Christians have little or nothing to learn from others (at least with regard to salvation)
- There are few or no redeeming qualities in other religions
- People of other religions are at best tragically ignorant or at worst evil
- Harsh exclusivism or compassionate exclusivism.
Pros - Clarity, Strong set of convictions and lines in the sand, urgency of being missionary focused, Helps make sense of certain passages of scriptures, something stable and something to hold onto.
Cons - Very Narrow , How many people have no hope then?, How is this in line with a good and merciful God?

(Defense: A Calvinist might argue that humans do not really deserve forgiveness, hence anyone being forgiven at all is still testament to Gods incredible mercy, whereas one who adheres to this who believes in Free-will would argue that we should not blame God for the failures of humanity, and if we as humans and as Christ's Church had lived up to our ideal potential, then this would be a non-issue, hence the problem that is created by exclusivism is only the manifestation of a failure to truly follow God with abandon on the part of Christians or the Church.)
2 Pluralism (Liberalism)
- All religions are basically the same and all roads lead to God.
- No one religion can claim uniqueness or supremacy
- Christianity is one true religion among many
- Different religions are simply different cultural/historical expressions of the universal quest for truth.
- Normative Pluralism - All religions have "independent salvific potential"

John Hick - Grew up conservative Christian "God has many names" "the Metaphor of God incarnate"

Pros - Peace between religions, tolerant, Everyone wins, Room for explorations without fear of doing something wrong, Bridges for peace, All religions have the ability to teach one another about God.

Cons - Causes those to choose the God they want rather than conforming to Gods image, what do we do with the differences?, what about conflicting truth claims, what of religions that are harmful?, What does a Christian to do with pluralism and with Jesus Exclusivist claims? Seems to promote epistemological relativism. Arrogant in that it presumes that all religions actually are literally wrong. Has to claim that everyone misunderstands their own religions and that "I have to explain your religions for you". What about Evil? Claim to reinterpret all religion for all history for all people. Pluralism needs a mythological approach to truth. All world religions need to be mythological.

(defense: Talking about major world religions - must always move people from being self to God or others centered. All seek to bring peeps toward God. Similarities exist with regard to morality in mahy major world religions, (Blind men and the Elephant) and they would argue that the differences are due simply to cultural, manifestations, or what was needed to address the culture.)

3 Inclusivism (bahai are a good example of inclusivism)
- God can beeseen in other religions but all going in a single direction
- Progressive revelation

Christian inclusivism
- many starting points and many roads, but they all eventually lead to Jesus (even if the people don't know it)
- Christianity is unique, Jesus is The Answer, but God still mediates grace through others.
- Everyone that is saved is saved through Christ, even if they do not know it. (one can have a relationship with God, saved through the blood of Jesus and not know it)
- what they do not know is they have their access through Jesus.
- God saves people apart from a cognitive conversion to the christian faith.
- "Wider hope" - a wider hope for those who are not Christians
- God can be seen in other religions
- Saving grace in General revelation

Christian Inclusivists - C.S. Lewis!!!!, Clark Pinnock, Karl Rahner - "anonymous Christians" - Saved By Jesus and living in line with Gods Grace that don't even know it yet.

Pros - Wider hope, Continues maintaining a traditional understanding of who Jesus is, Not abstract there is still clarity and absolute truth, a more humble approach with allowing God to be God, and upholds the teachings about different religions about their own respective claims. Seems to uphold a high Christology, Who Jesus IS, in line with God's Mercy.
Cons - Less driven for missions, does spreading the Gospel decrease their chances?, Does it compromise teachings about Jesus?, How does it work what does it mean to be saved by Jesus without knowing it, Is there any reason for evangelism?

(Defense: A missionary to whom these questions were posed (who also happens to be a professor of philosophy) gave this answer, that the Gospel has the power to transform lives of both those who were previously receptive to revelation and those who were unreceptive too it in very positive ways, and while, it may not necessarily be an issue of salvation for all individuals, an understanding of Jesus kingdom, and Jesus plan has truly benefited their lives. (generally the most radical transformations occur in those least receptive to revelation before the arrival of additional revelation) There are dramatic turn arounds in many after the Gospel is introduced. For those who may not recognize Christ as who he truly is, the fundamental tenet of Inclusivism would still apply, that one could walk the path without recognize it.)

My own view:

I am an Inclusivist, I believe this makes the most sense and is rooted in the Christian faith, for example, if as according to Hebrews "the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins" then how were the Hebrews or Abraham saved? Was it because they were all around "nice guys"? Or because of the death of Jesus? If we will claim that Christ's mercy extended to those who had not heard Christ's message before he came, then the examples of faith cited in the New Testament are lost. If, as some might do, one claims that God had mercy on those without full Revelation previously, yet now only those who hear and accept "Christianity", then to call the Gospel "Good News" is very misleading, as it would be very bad news in fact.

If we excuse the retarded or infants because they cannot be accountable for what they did not know or understand, how could we say differently for others? How could anyone be held accountable for revelation they have not been given?

I believe we need to take into account the principles found in Romans 1:20 and Romans 2:12 - 15,

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So why it that men are without excuse? Because revelation is present. Is it a fully developed Christology with Jesus being made flesh and dying for one's sins present in this general revelation? Hahaha, NO!

Next passage:

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

But do you suggest a *Gasp* works salvation? Hell no. One is not saved by their works, they are saved by and through Christ, while one might typically pull out this verse to object to inclusivism, but it is not in conflict with it, but an important element one must understand about inclusivism.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

The only different way an inclusivist would interpret this passage than an exclusivist is the inclusivist would say this is true whether the person knows it or not.

C.S. Lewis had an interesting way of looking at the situation: “The world does not consist of 100 percent Christians and 100 percent non-Christians. There are people (a great many of them) who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves by that name: some of them are clergymen. There are other people who are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand."

Now that I have largely addressed exclusivism, I do not see the pluralist position as tenable either. The position taken makes each of the religious figures to be either extremely deluded or entirely dishonest. Between that, and the allegation that despite over a milennia, or in the very least, centuries of intellectual discussion and evaluation of a religion by its adherents, that they do not themselves understand the tenets of their own belief system, wherein an individual even with a shallow, understanding of any of these religions in question or their propositions has the intellectual authority to soundly "reinterpret" everything seems to be the height of arrogance.

Now I do not mean to undermine anyone, I have found very kind and well meaning individuals in every position nor will I be so bold as to claim that I can speak for God, but I will say that based upon what God has given us, to the best that I understand the issue, Inclusivism makes the most sense, and is the most defensible, and humble out of any of these positions.

Lying for Science: The Texas Science Standards

With the recent Texas School Board Decision to do away with "strengths and weaknesses language" we have come across a lot of titles like this "Science Setback For Texas Schools" around now while I agree that doing away with such points is a Science setback, the articles take a different perspective. This is due to the fact that the actual vote was not strictly in favor of, but tied to maintain the ruling that the language be removed. However, from the afore mentioned article:

Although the "strengths and weaknesses" wording that has been part of the standards for over a decade was finally excised--wording that has been used to pressure science textbook publishers to include creationist arguments--a number of amendments put the creationist-inspired wording back in.

"What we now have is Son of Strengths and Weaknesses," says Josh Rosenau, a project director for NCSE. "Having students 'analyze and evaluate all sides of scientific evidence' is code that gives creationists a green light to attack biology
textbooks."

Now look at how little of the actual text we see quoted here. Is this what the ammendments really say? Let's take a look.

“in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."

Wait... that seems a little different that what E. Scott implied. That doesn't even single out evolution. All it says is allow students to analyze and evaluate and critique scientific explanations. IOW critical thinking. If I have to be a "Creationist" to support critical thinking, I am fine with that. What I take issue with is lying to the scientific community about what is really going on, and lying to the public. We also hear from her:

"The final vote was a triumph of ideology and politics over science,"

"The board majority chose to satisfy creationist constituents and ignore
the expertise of highly qualified Texas scientists and scientists across the
country."

Orly? From another article we hear:

"Reasonable people understand we are not trying to cut off debate and stifle academic freedom. The problem is that [evolution] critics want religious perspective put into the classroom, which we know is unconstitutional," she (Mavis Knight) said.

Is that really what this is about? There are always at least two sides to a story. What do the "Creationists" say?

During its deliberations, the Board was presented with hundreds of articles from mainstream science publications documenting various scientific controversies over major evolutionary claims, and this past week the Board heard testimony from science teachers, students, and Ph.D. biologists about the need for students to critically analyze the scientific evidence for evolution.

Wait... why don't we ever hear about that? What we from the Creationists is like this:

"I don't see how we can say there is no disagreement about evolution. There is disagreement," said Mercer, taking issue with science teachers and academics who told the board that the theory of evolution is universally accepted in the scientific community.

Who is the one really pushing ideology over fact here? I will give you a hint. It is not "Creationists".

The Star of Bethlehem

Here is an intresting abstract from Science and the Christian Belief:

Evidence from the Bible and astronomy suggests that the Star of Bethlehem was a comet which was visible in 5 BC, and described in ancient Chinese records. A comet uniquely fits the description in Matthew of a star which newly appeared, which travelled slowly through the sky against the star background and which 'stood over' Bethlehem. The evidence points to Jesus being bom in the period 9 March-4 May, 5 BC, probably around Passover time: 13-27 April, 5 BC. Birth in the spring is consistent with the account in Luke that there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby keeping watch over their flock by night. Birth in 5 BC also throws light upon the problem of the census of Caesar Augustus. A new chronology of the life of Christ is given which is consistent with the available evidence. This chronology suggests that Christ died close to his 37th birthday.

The article can be read here. There is also a nice pdf powerpoint file here. This seems to be an empirical validation of the testimony of the Gospels with regards to the birth of Christ. Now the simple existence of a comet, while interesting wouldn't amount to much in the way of evidence to say that the magi (a group of astologers and persian-parthinian elite), would make the journey, but if astological signs were indicating that such a great, or divine, king was to be born in Israel in different ways over 3 three consecutive years, such conjunctions being obscenely rare, it is then not surprising or out of the ordinary to suggest that they would do so. Intrestingly, the article goes to address the behavior of the Comet as following exactly the same behavior as described of the Star in Matthew. In the past such ideas like a Comet were not considered as a probable explanation because of the question as to how a comet could follow the description of the star's erratic behavior, and the cultural implications. These are addressed in the article as well. Please don't take my word for it, or think you have to.

I understand that someone can accuse or make the argument of contrivance, but I do not think that the Gospel writers were even farmiliar with Persian Astrology. Of course even if they were it is still very coincidental that we have a conjunction in 7 BC, that occurs every 900 years, then one in 6BC, which occurs every 800 years, then the very next year, the appearance of a comet in coincidentally the right constellation (house of Saturn, the Divine Father) to suggest the birth of a Divine King. However you view it, this coincides with what Jesus claimed about himself, and could only be Jesus, because Israel was specified in the Pisces.

According to Colin Humphreys, he first presented these arguments in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical society. Here is the full citation for that article however I have not found it accessible online:

Colin J. Humphreys, "The Star of Bethlehem - a Comet in 5 BC -and the Date of the Birth of Christ", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 32, p. 389 (1991).