There are many intelligent and educated atheist, but I have always been surprised that there aren’t more deist. A deist is someone who believes in god but doesn’t think he is personal. What this means is that there is a supernatural being, but he doesn’t interfere with the world. I believe in a personal God. One piece of evidence for him is the particular kind of beauty we see. Under naturalism, my body was built for survival, so something like music is hard to explain. Music is incredibly beautiful and unessential for survival. Music is best explain by God.
Author: estrangewanderings
A Problem for Universalism
One view of heaven and hell is that everyone will end up in heaven. The thinking goes something like God’s love is so grand and overwhelming that he will eventually win us over in the life to come. This is because he both desires communion with us and has the ability to win us over, so he will.
Now, I don’t think this reasoning works. I think one could actively choose to not want a relationship with God for eternity. However, this is an additional problem.
In Matthew 12:32, it is written that “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”. I take the most natural interpretation of “age to come” is heaven.
A universalist would have to say that no one ever commits this sin. But if that is true, then why speak the warning in the first place? Perhaps the warning is why no one ever commits it, but that seems unlikely. If that is right, then this verse is a thorn for universalism.
Continue reading “A Problem for Universalism”Understanding Abortion
Let’s talk about abortion, a topic that is personal and uncomfortable. Often the topic is framed in the context of a person against women’s rights or a person for killing kids. The issue is that generally, people on either side of this debate don’t think of themselves as against women’s rights or for killing kids. In light of all the accusations, we should wonder why there is such a gulf of understanding.
Whether abortion is permissible or impermissible comes down to the question if the fetus is a life of moral value. There are lives that don’t hold moral value — cells are easy example of this. They are the basic unit of life, but not lives of moral value. Perhaps insects also are lives without moral value, at least not intrinsic moral value (See below for an explanation of “intrinsic value”).The problem is that pro-life people assume the fetus is a life of moral value without usually arguing for and pro-choice often don’t recognize this as a possibility. Both approaches are quite flawed. In later posts, I will explain the reasons one might think a fetus is a life of moral value. For now, I only wished to show the problem from a bird’s eye view.
________________________________________________________________
“Intrinsic value” Means that something holds value in of itself. This is in contrast with “instrumental value” where an item only holds value for what it can do or give. Money is a clear example of something that is instrumentally valuable. It is merely a piece of paper on its own, but because society has agreed to give it power it has power.
A Philosophical Case Against Abortion
A Philosophical Approach to Abortion
I do not think the bible has any verses that are clearly against abortion. However, I do think there is a philosophical case against abortion. There are two arguments that should incline a person to be against abortion. One reason is a simple pragmatic reason and the other reason is more complex.
The Pragmatic Case
The pragmatic example is from Calum Miller.[1] Assume the opponent is correct that we cannot establish whether or not the fetus is a person. It does not follow from this that one should be in favor of abortion. If there is an abandoned building about to be destroyed and it is known that homeless people sleep in the building, there is a duty to thoroughly check the building before destroying it.[2] Now, if it for some reason cannot be established if there is a person in there, then the right thing to do would be to wait until it can be established to a reasonable degree. By a reasonable degree, I merely mean that there is always some possibility a person could be wrong but if proper precautions were taken to full measure, then one would not be responsible if a person died. For example, if the there did a permitted check of every area and closed off every area after giving a thorough check, but it just so happens that a drunk person broke the caution tape and ignored the sirens warning the building is about to be destroyed, then it is no one fault but the drunk guy if he dies.
In the case of the fetus, the proponents for the permissibility of abortion must give a persuasive account on why we can conclusively think that the fetus is not a person. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such account. It is not even clear what such an account could look like. All this means is that normal ethical values show we should exercise pragmatic caution in these scenarios and pragmatic caution leads to the impermissibility of abortion.
The Abstract Case
In the above argument, we granted the opponent the claim that we do not know if the fetus is a person. In this following argument, I will attempt to establish to think the same morality that applies to a normal human adult should also apply to a fetus by borrowing and simplifying Alexander Pruss’ argument.[3]
I once was a fetus. If I was a fetus, then it is wrong to kill me as a fetus for the reasons it is wrong to kill me now. The reasons why a person gets an abortion are not valid reasons for killing a person. If this is all correct, then most abortions are immoral.
I once was a fetus is a strong claim. The reason we should believe this claim is because a fetus never died and a being which has never died, still exist. If this being still exists, then it must be somewhere, but I am the only thing it can be. (Note, that we are not calling the fetus a person or a human but a being. For clarification, God is one being, three persons and only one of those persons became human. A rudimentary way of understanding this is that a being is more fundamental than being a person or a human. Some thing can be a non-human person such as an angel, but angels are also beings.) Thus, the fetus is a being and I am that being.
The second premise still needs some support. Killing me now is wrong because it deprives me of the rest of my life. Exactly why this is not in need explanation for our purposes. It is clear that a major reason killing is wrong is the deprivation of life. If I was a fetus, killing me now or then would have the same victim. There is more loss of my life if killed when I was a fetus compared to now. Therefore, killing a fetus is just as wrong if not more wrong than killing me now. Thus, there is a philosophical case against abortion.
[1] https://calumsblog.com/2014/01/26/a-brief-case-against-abortion/
[2] Ibid.
Two Views on Hell
This is written for a bible study I am leading. One goal of the bible study is to try to keep these no more than two pages. Thus, there is many things here not covered. Instead, I try to give the most basic underpinnings of the debate.
An orthodox view within Christianity is that hell is an everlasting eternal conscious experience of torment (hereafter, ECET). This view has recently come under fire since prima facie it appears against to go against the nature of a perfectly good being (God). There are a couple of pivotal questions to answer in this debate. One question is if ECET is the most plausible view given the biblical data. If the biblical data points to ECET, then the prima facie worry that God isn’t all good should not be too troublesome since this very well might be an area where we should expect not being able to know. However, if the view is not required by the biblical data, then it is much harder to justify believing in ECET, but an alternative account still would need to be offered. The most common alternative is Annihilationism. Annihilationism is the view that people go to hell but only for a finite time before they are completely destroyed.
I will focus on a few key bible verses used to support ECET, then explain why they fail to support ECET. This will not cover every piece of biblical data, but I think the reasoning here can be used for the other bible quotes one could use to defend ECET.
2 Thess 1:9 states, “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” This would be one of the most basics pieces of biblical data used to support ECET. The punishment is everlasting; thus, hell must last forever. However, one should note that we already admitted that both views believe the punishment is everlasting, what is at stake is the nature of the punishment. This verse does not actually support the claim that everlasting punishment is a punishment of eternal consciousness.
A second Bible verse that could be used is Matt 13:42, “They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Here the idea is that weeping and gnashing of teeth is a conscious experience. If this is a conscious experience and hell last forever, then hell is an eternal conscious torment.
The problem with this understanding is that there is no indication that the weeping and gnashing of teeth will happen forever. One can be eternally removed from the presence of God without the removal needing to be an eternal consciousness experience. Another way to think of this is that the verses on the weeping and gnashing of teeth state nothing about this experience being eternal, merely that this happens in hell. The annihilationist can agree that this happens, but it is only for a finite time.
The last and most compelling piece of biblical data is Rev 20:10, “[The devil and the beast] will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” If the enemies will be tormented day and night forever and ever in the lake of fire, then the same should be expected to happen to the enemies of God here on Earth.
There are two notes on this passage which need serious consideration. One is that revelation is very difficult to understand given that kind of literature it is and the second is that this passage mimics the language of Isaiah 34:9-10, which we know not to take literally. Given the difficulty in the literature and that there are other clearer passages of this kind which are not taken literally, then this gives sufficient reason to not take this passage literally.
Now, if all there is for the annihilationist case is a negative one. That is a case defending against biblical passages, there might be some worry that this position is on shaky ground. Sometimes all there is, in fact, shaky grounds for biblical positions and we need to do the best we can.
Most of the biblical examples given in favor of annihilationism, I think are also wanting. However, it is known that God’s anger is short while his mercy endures. It isn’t clear that hell must be a product of God’s anger though. This means that the biblical data is inconclusive. I think given the understanding of God’s nature as primarily merciful, then this is compelling enough to accept annihilationism.
Made in his Image
This morning I had an epiphany. As Christians, we all know that God is love. This is a deep mystery, but one all Christians accept. However, I have never considered this fact in conjunction with the fact we are made in God’s image. To be made in God’s image is typically taken to mean that we have a soul or consciousness. There are good reasons to reject this view since angels and some higher mammals appear to have souls and consciousness yet are not made in the image of God. Perhaps, instead we are love, or at least, meant to be love. If this is what is meant by we are made in God’s image, then there is a good explanation for that which separates us from angels and animals. They at their core, are not beings of love, in this sense. They would have a capacity for love, but not be intrinsically love at the core of their souls. Furthermore, it would make sense of how Jesus could fully love as a human, it would make sense why loving everyone is the heart of the law. By loving we would be fulfilling the deepest parts of our nature, even if it is yet unknown to us. There is, of course, one sense that we cannot be love, that is we are not God. However, just because it isn’t clear what the difference is right now does not mean someone could not figure it out.
Christianity, Buddhism, and Suffering
There is a western cultural assumption that all religions are basically the same. This view cannot be seriously held by anyone who is in the depths of religion, for even if there are some similarities, it is the differences that inclines a person to pick one over the other. For example, both Christianity and Buddhism have teachings on suffering which are similar such as suffering exists, and that suffering can be transformative. However, one religion teaches that a person can escape or move beyond suffering while the other teaches that God will be with you in suffering and promises that you will suffer in this life. It is clear that these are radically different notions on a basic fundamental nature of reality.
Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist monk, who wrote The Heart of Buddha’s teaching claims that Buddha said, “I am an enlightened person, free from suffering.” In contrast, Christianity teaches us that God dwells among men and suffered as they suffered. There is no freedom from suffering, but a God willing to live with you in the suffering of the world, a God willing to experience the suffering of the world, and a God who heals you in the midst of suffering. Consider the radical claim from Jesus’ brother James, “Consider it pure joy my brothers when you face tribulations of many kinds”. There can be joy in suffering, but there is no escape from suffering. Indeed, any person can see that either the Christian claim must be true or the Buddhist claim, but it cannot be both.
I have rest knowing that God was willing to partake in the suffering of the world. I am not comforted at all by the idea that a person transcended suffering. It is evident that many fake having joy while having inner turmoil. In contrast, there aren’t people faking rising from the dead. While this post isn’t about the evidence for that claim, I believe the evidence does point to this being a fact in the case of Jesus. If this is all correct, then it is not only silly to say all religions are the same but it a fundamental and grievous error to believe so.
A Biblical Analysis of Abortion
Abortion
1 Intro
Virtually every Christian holds a view on abortion. Most are against it and will declare God as their vindicator in this claim. Here I will attempt to articulate a Christian view on abortion. The summary of my view is that the bible is indeterminate in the issue, but there are good reasons to be against abortion, nevertheless. Here I will be only covering the biblical date. In a different post, I will cover the philosophical arguments against abortion.
2 Background Information
Let’s cover some background abortion debate. Instead of using “pro-choice/pro-life” I will use “anti-abortion” and “permissible”. I use “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life” because it is a misnomer to think “pro-abortion” people are typically antilife. In the same way that it is a misnomer that anti-abortion people are against womens’ rights. The debate is really a debate on whether the fetus is a person. I opt for using “permissible” for the proponents are abortion because no one wants abortions if they can be avoided, but proponents think they are sometime the best option available for a particular circumstance.
3 The Anti-Abortion Argument
Now that some terminology is out of the way we can cover the basics of the argument. Most people would agree that if the fetus is a person, then he or she ought not to be killed. However, if the fetus is not a person, then there is no killing. A point of clarification, it isn’t enough for most people that abortion might be killing someone. This is because there are cases of killing that many people think are justified. For example, self-defense. What makes abortion clearly the wrong kind of killing is that this would be an innocent person. Thus, the argument is that if the fetus is a person it is an innocent person and it is wrong to kill an innocent person for reasons that most women get an abortion. Secondly, the fetus is a person. Thus, it is wrong to kill a fetus in almost all cases.
One should notice that this is a simple argument with only two premises. I will not defend the premise that it is wrong to kill an innocent person for the reasons that most women get an abortion since some of these reasons include just not feeling ready or the baby will be mentally disabled or have down syndrome. This is in contrast with the reason that the mother’s life is in danger. It clear that if the former reasons are why a woman is getting an abortion, then this is not justified if the fetus is a person.
3.1 The Biblical Argument
Many Christians think the Word of God is clear and that it is against abortion. The strongest verses for this view are Pslam 139:13-14, Gal 1:15, Jer 1:5, Luke 1:41.[1] Respectively, the verses are
- “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”.
- “But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace”.
- “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations”.
- “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb…”
Conceptually, the first three verses can go together. They state that people were set apart and made before they were born. The fourth verse is different because it talks about the actions of a baby in the womb.
The first verse about knitting in the womb certainly shows a creation act in the process. However, a creation act in the process is not the same as the fetus being a person. One can easily think that there were times while God was knitting that David was not yet a person. A similar example is thinking of the dust coming from the ground to form man. While forming from the ground up into the air the dust is being transformed, but the transformation is not the man. The man is the end of creation. In the same way, David can be being knitted without being formed. In order to get this verse to support the anti-abortion position we need a principle such as, “Don’t interrupt the acts of God”. However, this principle is clearly too strong. Noah interrupts an act of God when was about to destroy the world. In the same way, the city of Nineveh interrupted an act of God when they repentant.
The next two verses don’t talk about being created but rather being set apart before there were born and being known before they were born. Here the issue is slightly different. Take a look at Jer 1:5 the entire verse includes being set apart to be a judge of the nations. Not everyone if set apart before they are born to judge the nations. That was a specific proclamation for Jerimiah. If the latter part of the verse is only for Jerimiah, there is no reason that the first part of verse can’t also be the same. I think the same line of reasoning can always be applied to Paul. It is not clear that because Paul is known and set apart before he is born that everyone is.
If it were the case that everyone was set apart there are terrible consequences in our theology. For example, I do not want to say God called apart of a person for a miscarriage. I think this is a sad result of a fallen world that God allows, but God does not cause this event. However, if the fetus is a person and God calls everyone before they are born then, some are called purely to be a miscarriage. This simply cannot be correct.
The verse could count as significant evidence if we knew how far along Elizabeth was in her pregnancy. For example, if she was only a few months in, then this would be good evidence for the anti-abortion claim for it would show a fetus is a person early on. However, if this was near the end of Elizabeth’s pregnancy then it is not surprising that the fetus is a person. Even proponents of the permissible side are against late-term abortions. As far as I am aware there is no biblical evidence to suggest how far along Elizabeth is when this happens so there is no good evidence for the anti-abortion side from a biblical perspective.
[1] https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro-life/what-the-bible-says-about-the-beginning-of-life/ Focus on the family uses other verses as well, but I think these are even weaker.
A Refuge
Psalm 34 encouraged my soul yesterday. It speaks of the Lord as our refuge and as our deliverer from our fears. There is a promise in verse 7 that the angel of the Lord encamps those who fear him, and delivers him. This makes me wonder why, at least the English translation, use the singular “angel” instead of the plural “angels”. I even doubted if “angel” is plural and singular. Perhaps in Hebrew, it was.
Whatever the case may be, I was thinking of how awesome — in both senses, terrifying and awe-inspiring, it is to have an angel protecting us. Perhaps they are invisible in the room with you and me currently.
What is even more impressive is that the word says, “for those who fear him have no want”. I wish to be this one with the Lord, where his presence is all sufficient.
The Problem of Evil
The world is a mist of darkness. Ignorance and knowledge are abundantly supplied at the doorstep of our minds. The ringing question is if there is a reason, an explanation, for the evil before our eyes. Christians may wonder if there is a uniquely Christian response to the problem. My thesis is that Jesus Christ answers the problem fully in the potential relationship between him and every individual. His invitation to walk beside us and to walk as he walked allows every terrible moment to proliferate the glory of his creation.
The problem of evil has no shortage of discussion. It has been discussed for at least a few thousand years and has no end in sight. There is a temptation to think any topic which has been discussed rigorously for that duration must have had every talking point already examined. This is simply not the case. There has been talk of the problem of evil, the problem of pain, the problem of suffering, and the problem of horrendous evil. These can be different scopes of the problem of evil or they can be understood as various emphasis. Whatever the case may be, there is little talk of the propensity in every human to be both good and evil. The oddity of this is that almost every person writing on the problem of evil if they are honest must admit he is a part of the problem. There is a real worry then that any person writing on this particular subject might have ill-intentions and thus are not to be trusted in their conclusion. Even worse, we must recognize that we are not exempt from this problem. Our nature is likely one that is corrupted, just as often leaning on the side of evil as on the side of good. If that is the case, then it appears we must hold every conclusion drawn tenderly, as if one were a parent holding their baby for the first time. Clearly, that is not guaranteed safeguard against accidents, but it is the best one can hope for.
This might be the best we can hope for, but this does not mean it is the best that has been achieved. The traditional interpretation of Jesus is that he is one without sin. That is, he is a person who has not committed the kind of evil acts that you and I can be justly accused of doing. The implication of this is that his teachings are not warped. He has a clear-headedness because he sees clearly through the midst of darkness enveloping the world. He states, “The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:45). There is no clearer statement that evil which is happening in the world is because of the nature of our souls. The soul is not something we can touch with human hands or fix by exercising our will. God alone is the redeemer who fixes the soul. Thus, there is no fixing the problem of evil without personal redemption to Christ.
estrangewanderings 