What biblical lessons can we learn from a small mirror?
Monday, July 11, 2016
Friday, July 8, 2016
Honor Contest: Round 2
The temple leaders had a good thing going and they were not about to let an upstart, hick from the sticks, self styled rabbi come in and disrupt everything. They were determined to show him up and if possible get him in trouble.
In this second round they tried to make him look ridiculous. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and had many arguments against it. But they didn't realize they were talking to the One who was Himself - "The Resurrection And The Life."
In this second round they tried to make him look ridiculous. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and had many arguments against it. But they didn't realize they were talking to the One who was Himself - "The Resurrection And The Life."
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Honor Contest: Round 1
The Passover was approaching and the people of Israel were gathering in Jerusalem. They were selecting lambs for the Passover observance and took them to the temple officials to make sure they were acceptable - no blemishes - no deformities - perfect as the law prescribed.
As this was happening, Jesus was presenting himself in the temple as the Messiah - the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The temple authorities approached him in an attempt to disqualify him. Would he pass their hostile examination or not?
As this was happening, Jesus was presenting himself in the temple as the Messiah - the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The temple authorities approached him in an attempt to disqualify him. Would he pass their hostile examination or not?
Sunday, June 12, 2016
God's Deadbeat Tenants
What would you have if you had everything you wanted? Some people will never know contentment, no matter how much they have. Others find contentment with surprisingly little in the way of material things.
Jesus tells a parable about a Landlord and his tenants. The Landlord has been kind to the tenants, but they are never satisfied. They want to claim the property as their own and to shut the Landlord out.
What are we supposed to learn from this parable?
Jesus tells a parable about a Landlord and his tenants. The Landlord has been kind to the tenants, but they are never satisfied. They want to claim the property as their own and to shut the Landlord out.
What are we supposed to learn from this parable?
Friday, June 3, 2016
Free Will Or Determinism?
There is a fascinating article in "The Atlantic" about the modern debate over the perception and reality of free will. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/)
The premise is that science has proven there is no such thing as free will. If evolution and naturalism are true (and the scientists who are quoted assume this) then humans are no more than very complex meat machines. Each machine operates according to the programming built into the individual through genetic inheritance. There is no such thing as a spiritual component of the human being (or, for that matter, a spiritual reality outside of human beings.) Decisions are not made consciously, they are made by the meat machine before the conscience is even aware of them.
So the scholars (3x), scientists (6x), philosophers (6x), intellectuals (2x), physiologist(s) (1x), and especially Sam Harris (14x) believe that the truth is that there is no such thing as "free will." They believe in determinism.
Now, some of these "intellectual elites" believe this is a very dangerous truth. They say that if this truth is widely accepted it will undermine any culture and result in antisocial, selfish, unethical and dishonest behavior. The article points to several experiments that supported this idea.
The article explores the various approaches that have been put forward - from hiding this "truth" from the unwashed masses (that is us) and promoting the illusion of free will - to proclaiming the truth while teaching the subtile difference between determinism and fatalism so that people are motivated to be "the best version of themselves they can be." (Harris)
How should a Christian respond to these things?
To begin with, as a Christian, I do not attribute authority to any scientific theorists. They have assumed but have not proven their premises that 1) there is no reality beyond nature and 2) life came from non-life and evolved into higher life forms from lower life forms. Based on these assumptions, they argue about the implications of their assumptions. Experimental science plays a very small role in their discussions - especially since much depends on the architecture and operation of the most vast and complex structure in the universe - the human brain.
As a Christian, I believe in a supernatural spiritual reality and I accept the authority of the Bible as God's written revelation of himself and his works in relation to mankind. I believe that God is eternal and the universe is created by God according to his plans and purposes. I believe that God created mankind in his own image and gave him the ability (and responsibility) to make real moral choices.
In spite of the musings of the intellectual elites, the vast majority of the world's population of humans believes in their own and other's moral agency and responsibility. It is quite natural for people to talk about what they or others ought to do or ought not do. The Atlantic article mentions this as the source of a human idea of holding people responsible for their actions. This is the basis of any idea of justice, but Harris and others would tell us that such an idea is irrational because of determinism.
As I read this article and similar writings, I am amazed that anyone can take these ideas seriously. The discussion should really be seen as a refutation of the underlying assumptions. If their assumptions were truly true (i.e., conforming to an objective reality) then there would be no objective reality to the ideas of justice, responsibility, ethics, morality, etc. So it would be ridiculous to argue about a person becoming "the best version of" himself or herself. It would be silly for these theorists to have any concern over how they "ought" to handle the so called truth of determinism. Given their assumptions there is no "ought" - there is only what is. Justice, ethics, morals, responsibility and so on have no meaning.
The discussions and arguments about these things disprove the assumptions on which they are based.
The premise is that science has proven there is no such thing as free will. If evolution and naturalism are true (and the scientists who are quoted assume this) then humans are no more than very complex meat machines. Each machine operates according to the programming built into the individual through genetic inheritance. There is no such thing as a spiritual component of the human being (or, for that matter, a spiritual reality outside of human beings.) Decisions are not made consciously, they are made by the meat machine before the conscience is even aware of them.
So the scholars (3x), scientists (6x), philosophers (6x), intellectuals (2x), physiologist(s) (1x), and especially Sam Harris (14x) believe that the truth is that there is no such thing as "free will." They believe in determinism.
Now, some of these "intellectual elites" believe this is a very dangerous truth. They say that if this truth is widely accepted it will undermine any culture and result in antisocial, selfish, unethical and dishonest behavior. The article points to several experiments that supported this idea.
The article explores the various approaches that have been put forward - from hiding this "truth" from the unwashed masses (that is us) and promoting the illusion of free will - to proclaiming the truth while teaching the subtile difference between determinism and fatalism so that people are motivated to be "the best version of themselves they can be." (Harris)
How should a Christian respond to these things?
To begin with, as a Christian, I do not attribute authority to any scientific theorists. They have assumed but have not proven their premises that 1) there is no reality beyond nature and 2) life came from non-life and evolved into higher life forms from lower life forms. Based on these assumptions, they argue about the implications of their assumptions. Experimental science plays a very small role in their discussions - especially since much depends on the architecture and operation of the most vast and complex structure in the universe - the human brain.
As a Christian, I believe in a supernatural spiritual reality and I accept the authority of the Bible as God's written revelation of himself and his works in relation to mankind. I believe that God is eternal and the universe is created by God according to his plans and purposes. I believe that God created mankind in his own image and gave him the ability (and responsibility) to make real moral choices.
In spite of the musings of the intellectual elites, the vast majority of the world's population of humans believes in their own and other's moral agency and responsibility. It is quite natural for people to talk about what they or others ought to do or ought not do. The Atlantic article mentions this as the source of a human idea of holding people responsible for their actions. This is the basis of any idea of justice, but Harris and others would tell us that such an idea is irrational because of determinism.
As I read this article and similar writings, I am amazed that anyone can take these ideas seriously. The discussion should really be seen as a refutation of the underlying assumptions. If their assumptions were truly true (i.e., conforming to an objective reality) then there would be no objective reality to the ideas of justice, responsibility, ethics, morality, etc. So it would be ridiculous to argue about a person becoming "the best version of" himself or herself. It would be silly for these theorists to have any concern over how they "ought" to handle the so called truth of determinism. Given their assumptions there is no "ought" - there is only what is. Justice, ethics, morals, responsibility and so on have no meaning.
The discussions and arguments about these things disprove the assumptions on which they are based.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Fruitless Figs
In Mark chapter eleven, Jesus is disappointed when he doesn't find figs on a leafy green fig tree.
But Jesus doesn't leave it there - says, "My no one ever eat figs from you again" and the next day this trees is found to be all shriveled up, right down to the roots.
What is going on here? Is Jesus THAT concerned about getting figs?
Isn't he being kind of harsh with this helpless tree?
What is it we are supposed to learn from this?
But Jesus doesn't leave it there - says, "My no one ever eat figs from you again" and the next day this trees is found to be all shriveled up, right down to the roots.
What is going on here? Is Jesus THAT concerned about getting figs?
Isn't he being kind of harsh with this helpless tree?
What is it we are supposed to learn from this?
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Ready & Willing
In Mark's gospel he spends several chapters describing Jesus' travels with his disciples on their way to Jerusalem. Jesus has, on more than one occasion, told his disciples that he will be arrested, tried and crucified, but they haven't really gotten the message.
In chapter eleven they finally arrive at Jerusalem and they join the happy crowds arriving there for the Passover. The disciples are excited because they think this is the beginning of Jesus' exaltation as King. Jesus rides into the city on a donkey in fulfillment of the prophecies. People pave the way with their garments and branches from the trees. Everyone is shouting praises from the Psalms.
But what does it all really mean? And how does it relate to us? And what should we be doing in view of this passage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)