“I could never believe in a God who…”

Upon watching a forceful, honest, passionate display of emotion and straight-talking Bible teaching from pastor Mark Driscoll as he was answering a question on hell (56:50), I accidentally glanced at the comments section on Youtube, where I was watching it, and saw a familiar objection that went something like this:

“I could never believe in a God who is angry at us and/or sends people to hell for their sins.”

The comment was stated more forcefully and more passionately than my bare bones version above and added a current population figure. Mark was discussing his view based on the Bible, a Christian view about a Christian teaching. If Christianity isn’t true, the question would have no force at all because the Christian view then wouldn’t matter. But what was the commenter’s response based on? Was it based on the teachings of Jesus for a question about the teachings of Jesus? Based on a principles of justice or mercy? Was it even based on a search for truth about the way reality is? None as far as I could tell, but simply based on what the commenter would not like to believe. For what does one’s preferences in the matter have to do with how reality is? He didn’t even consider all the people in history, just the population of today. Without saying it directly, he’s describing God as being unfair, but without offering up why any of us should think that his unoffered standard is better than God’s.

In answering this objection, I think my friend said it well: “I find it interesting how people can seemingly decide what kind of God they can believe in. It’s not like God can be determined by our beliefs.”

But perhaps this overlooks another side of the skeptic’s objection. Perhaps they “could never believe” not because they have an intellectual problem with it but rather a genuine emotional reaction to hearing that their unsaved family members and friends who have died are now . . . It’s understandably and unspeakably tragic. Christians too have friends and family members who have died without taking hold of the pardon God has offered. We too have to face whether there’s good enough reason to believe that Jesus was who he said he was and whether we should believe he historically resurrected to prove it. I don’t like hell, but in light of his qualifications I also believe Jesus really knew what he was talking about—which is why he went through the crucifixion to get me out of it or else I too would die in my sin and rebellion against God.

I’ll leave you with these last thoughts. Heaven is not a right that God owes anyone or else it wouldn’t be amazing grace to being with. What if instead he chooses to show his righteousness by punishing evil rather than forgiving it?

“But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?”
(Romans 3:5-6 ESV)

Bigot!

Bigot: (n) a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

Tolerance: (n) 1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2 : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.

So to “tolerate” something or someone means my views will differ from, even conflict with, the ones tolerated. So it doesn’t make anyone a bigot to disagree. It doesn’t even make someone a bigot to conflict against views that are really emotionally charged. It makes them a bigot to hate and be obstinate about it. It may even be possible to be a bigot while calling someone else a bigot, especially if they really aren’t.

Do I, in fact, hate God?

“We hate God.
Nobody really seeks him on their own.”

“I disagree. Some might hate him, but I don’t.”

“But, you are agnostic.”

“Yeah, but I believe in a God of Love.”

“So you don’t hate the God you believe in and/or don’t know about?”

“Of course not!”

“But what if that God you believe in is not real? Then could it be possible that you actually hate the real God?”

“No, because I believe we all basically believe in the same God, but none of us can know about him very well.”

“What about the God of the Bible specifically? If God were that God exactly, could you love that God?”

“Well, I don’t believe the real God is like that. . . .”

Have you ever had a conversation something like this where the person did not even want to admit the sheer possibility of something? I have and it makes me more and more convinced of God’s word. There’s a passage, a few of them, that I had a hard time taking at its word. For example, Romans 1 says that people refuse God because they are “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” to which I promptly responded, “No, that must be hyperbole. There are lots of sincere people trying to find the truth. I was one of them.” But are they? Was I? Is that really the condition I found myself in when God called me? Or was I rather delighted to stay in the apathy I had wrapped myself in and wait until I was old and grey before I sorted out and committed to the truth about God? In light of Romans 3:11 and 5:10, Tim Keller once said, “If you deny you are an enemy of God, then you’re really an enemy of God.” God took me, while still an enemy, reconciled me to Him and adopted me as a son and an ally.

If only more people would investigate Christ Jesus and the Bible more even handedly. If only they’d merely pose the “what ifs” of testing out the worldview of Christianity to see that it is sound rather than presuming that it isn’t when it doesn’t fit their own worldview (but does it fit what we know of the world on its own measure?). We have “uneven scales,” judging one worldview solely and only by another, and by so doing we’re unable to get away from our narrow cultural bias to think-test another point of view—to wear the other man’s shoes. If only more souls, when posed with strange Bible verses about, say, humanity’s spiritual deadness and hatred toward God, would react honestly with the Bible’s view of God in mind rather than their own god when they respond, “No, I love God. I just don’t agree with Jesus’ view of God.” Then they’d at least realize that if Jesus was speaking truly, they do hate God—the God of the Bible.

So if your heart has convicted you and the Spirit is tugging at your soul to seek the truth about God, and if you desire forgiveness for breaking the most important moral commandment (to Love God), you may find yourself saying something like this: “Thus have you said: ‘Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we rot away because of them. How then can we live?’

Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?”
(Ezekiel 33:10-11 ESV)

Higgs Boson – Holding the universe together- to the glory of God

It’s called the “god particle,” present surrounding all things, yet unseen.

Scientists yesterday revealed how they had discovered evidence to show the existence of the elusive Higgs Boson a particle said to be responsible for holding other particles together and thus giving mass.  That’s my rudimentary understanding of it.  This is certain to once again spark the debate as to whether the universe can be seen to have been created without the need of a creator – think Stephen Hawking and “The Grand Design” last year.

Yet, what one can observe here is a great amount of precision and planning in what seems to be a purposeful design.

and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. – Hebrews 1:3b (ESV)

How do I arrive at this?  Well I believe that this discovery by the scientists at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland have made a significant scientific discovery.  I also believe that this discovery shows us great beauty in the design of the universe.  If this particle does as the physicists claim and grants mass to matter by holding it together, I can then understand that this is one way that God is upholding the universe with his hand.  Indeed, this discovery leads me to worship God all the more for his wondrous creation, and revealing how he is holding up his creation.  This discovery is helpful in understanding God’s design, and thus can lead us in to seeing God’s beauty, power and majesty all the more.

 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. -Romans 11:36

Thank God for science!

Aliens, Darwin, and the Bible

Aliens? Oh no! I’ve utterly lost my faith!
No problem, kid, watch my flashy thing.

I wish more journalists who made comments about religion actually knew what they were talking about. Here’s an example of one who doesn’t.
http://io9.com/5921472/would-people-still-believe-in-god-after-we-made-contact-with-aliens
The article asks the question “Would people still believe in God after we made contact with aliens” and broadly berates all religions, but Christianity in particular, for irrationally holding on to their faith now that he believes the likelihood of discovering them is at hand. Then he throws Darwinism up as a second prime example of what should have “quashed religious sentiment.” The best part is when he tries to show that history has proven that Christians will ignore science discoveries that contradict them, yet his example is the discovery of so-called canals of Mars which have since been shown to be false. . . .

The film Prometheus [mild spoiler] also asked a similar question to its own religious character, Elizabeth Shaw, after discovering that aliens made humanity. “Do you still believe in your God?” they ask, as if discovering this should eradicate her faith in her God. Shaw rightly responds, “Who made them?” Alien makers would only set the problem of origins back a step, but there would still be need for an ultimate First Cause with the power of being in itself.

To be honest Prometheus’ discovery in particular would be a game changer, though not suddenly a proof for atheism. But in case you were wondering about what the mere discovery of aliens existing would do to Christianity (and you probably weren’t until you read the io9 article): No, the Bible doesn’t imply that God only made one world inhabited with intelligent life, though many have drawn such conclusions. The Bible is not even concerned with that question. So neither am I.

And no, Darwinism isn’t a trump card against the Bible either since well before Darwin, theologians too (like Augustine of Hippo of the 4th and 5th century) had said that perhaps life arose slowly over time.

The problem with Darwin is that he thought his entire system could work with simple mutation + time + chance, but this leaves big questions as to how life got there in the first place and where the new genetic information is coming from when a cat evolves into a catfish (or vice-versa). And neo-darwinism is based on illusory philosophical assumptions before even getting to the science (i.e. naturalistic materialism and also grand ideas about Progress that should have gone extinct after WWI. Ever heard a darwinist talk about creatures devolving? I rarely have.).

Darwinism, and now here’s the crux of it, says natural selection is good enough to explain the apparent design in nature, so that there’s no need for a Divine Hand to guide evolution at all. But how does one prove that scientifically? Again, this is a philosophical issue more than a material facts issue, because Darwinism starts with the presupposition that the material world is all that exists. But if one presupposes naturalistic materialism (that there is no supranatural) in order for Darwinistic evolution to work, they have already self-refuted themselves.

By advocating an intelligent cause I’m not advocating some superfluous idea like: “Sure Darwin was 100% right and I’m just adding a leprechaun to the mix to make sure it happens.”
Of course someone would ask, “Why not just remove the leprechaun, wouldn’t it work just as well?”
“Umm… yes. But—”

Rather, I’m saying Darwin’s wrong that his system is good enough to replace a designer’s input. The Bible has nothing against evolution in the vein of adaptation. But what it has against Darwinism is this idea that it could all happen undirected, without an intelligent cause (an idea which is very sparse in the evidence department when compared to the evidences for Christian Theism). It turns out Darwinism is the one suffering from discoveries that contradict it. This is precisely what some leading microbiologists are starting to insist: that natural selection alone isn’t enough to get life from non-life or even to get completely new species.

Seeking Popularity or Seeking Truth?

For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.
-Paul the Apostle, c. A.D. 49-51 (1 Thessalonians 2:3-6 ESV)

Paul’s life proves this statement that his motives were to please God rather than be popular with the public. No preacher going through the persecutions he did is trying to be popular or he’d have said something to please the majority in order to avoid rioting mobs and Roman punishments. No martyr is seeking worldly wealth because it would be useless to him after death. Only someone with a sincerity of belief would take such fearless risks.

Remember, Paul was in a position to know whether he was lying or not. Either he was lying, he was crazy, or he really saw the resurrected Christ that changed his whole life around from bitterly violent skeptic to world traveling preacher.

“And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. . . If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, . . .”
-Paul (1 Corinthians 15:17-20 ESV)

Overpopulation propaganda hurts people.

Humans inherit human rights by virtue of just being human. “Over”population or not. And the seven billion people of earth could hypothetically fit comfortably in a suburb the size of Texas. Go ahead, divide the area of TX by seven billion.

Overpopulation myths simply serve to hurt people. These people!

I knew this sort of thing has happened but I didn’t know it was still happening. This story is so shocking that I couldn’t believe the video until I saw corroborating stories in Indian newspapers like this one: indiatimes.com/india/53-women-sterilized-in-Bihar-in-2-hours/

For some quick facts on the numbers regarding the world’s population I have found this site to be very informative and useful: Overpopulationisamyth.com They explain all of their claims pretty clearly, too.