Archive for November, 2010

Hitler and Christianity

November 27, 2010 1 comment

I’m becoming very interested on this topic. I was first introduced to this idea in a debate between Dinesh D’souza and Christopher Hitchens. And this video made me really interested. Not interested because I agree that Hitler was acting in line with the will of God, but rather because a lot of people do. Has anyone considered that Hitler used all kinds of ideologies and twisted them to fit his agenda? He was a politician, and acted like it. He claimed Catholicism and Christianity, but rejected the very teachings of Christ. Such as, “love your enemies”, “turn the other cheek”, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first”. I can go on and on, and explain them to you if you like. Let me show you some more direct evidence.

This source states “The Nazi Master Plan; The Persecution of Christian Churches”, shows how the Nazis planned to supplant Christianity with a religion based on racial superiority.”

Read it, check it out. It’s short. And let’s chat it up.

Categories: Uncategorized

The Intelligible Code of Matter & DNA

November 25, 2010 2 comments

I heard Ravi Zacharias say “Behind intelligence, intelligence is assumed.” He then went on to make the analogy that goes something like this: If I had a dictionary and told you that it appeared out of an explosion in the sky you would not believe me. You would think that’s ridiculous. Because a dictionary is intelligible, you assume intelligence, in this case, an author. Now imagine a universe that is made up of a code, like an alphabet. The basic pieces are put together in different arrangements to create different molecules and compounds that are then put into different arrangements that make more and more complex combinations and compilations of matter. All matter is essentially compounded of the same basic pieces that are arranged differently to work like a code to contain different meanings according to arrangement. Grass, rocks, humans, fish, and Neptune are all essentially made up of the same matter in different amounts and arrangements.
Consider biology. These combinations of matter create proteins that connect and work together to create DNA- and intelligible code as well. Through different arrangements of DNA all biological matter is composed. A tree, a fish, humans, and fungus are all essentially determined by the same particles in a different arrangement. It is a code, that works like an alphabet. All english books are made up of english words that all find their root in the english alphabet. And through the code we get intelligibility. It is a brilliant and sophisticated system at all level. DNA contains more information than any of our books, and is a more complex code, wouldn’t you assume an intelligence equally complex?
Also, from a book what can you tell about the author- excepting an autobiography? You can assume there is an author, but the knowledge of what he is like, what he is composed of and things of that matter is easily theorized, but hardly known. Just something to keep in mind.

Genesis: The Prophetic Allegory

November 25, 2010 Leave a comment

A good friend of mine, AF as I will call him, loves to ask the leading question of who spilled first blood? Most Christians he has asked the question to say Cain. He then says no, God did. And then he moves into tell you all about the prophetic nature of the Genesis story- of Adam and Eve. AF is really smart, and one of my closest friends. This blog is inspired by him and I dude, you rock.
In the garden of Eden Eve was deceived into eating the fruit, and gets Adam to do the same. Now they realized their nakedness and were ashamed. In response to all this God said

“[To the serpent]
Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers, he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.”

It becomes obvious that God began animal sacrifice to cover then naked shamefulness that came about by disobeying his commands, and our consciences (Romans 3). Only sacrifice of God’s creation could serve to cover the shame of Adam and Eve. This does two significant things:

  1. Alludes to Christ’s sacrifice to eternally wash away our sin, not just cover it up through lesser sacrifice.
  2. Gives insight into God’s character as merciful. Instead of smiting the sinner for his wrong doing He makes the sacrifice on our behalf so that we may have relationship with Him. After all, what father does not?

God’s words to the serpent are also very powerful. It is known that the society in which these words were written were patriarchal. All societies were patriarchal at the time with a few exception of some african cultures that traced their lineage maternally instead of paternally. That is the only exception I know of, but am interested to know more if you have some insight. So, in this society to be the offspring of woman, the seed of woman, you must not be the seed of man. There is no reason for the author say woman instead of man in that context unless man could not apply. Psychologically the culture would say man. We know from the accounts in the gospel that Jesus is said to have a virgin birth. Jesus is the only person ever who could be called seed of woman in this cultural context. If you then replace he with Jesus, and the serpent with satan or sin, then the text now reads “Jesus will crush your head, and you [satan] will strike his heal.” thus the first prophesy of Jesus is made in Genesis 3. The text is so intertwined and meshes so perfectly that you can’t help but feel it’s divinely inspired. I can’t, at least.

Scientifically Moral Atheists?

November 23, 2010 11 comments

I was reading an interesting blog (here) and had a coincidentally interesting thought. SVS’s blog mentioned new atheism lacking compassion because everything is determined through rigid reasoning and science. The mindset of “if there is no evidence, there is no meaning” is applied to everything, especially religion (which is a fatal flaw in itself, since there is evidence). But I want to put this thinking alongside morality and see what result we get.
I have read and heard answers from atheist concerning morality and the best sense of an answer I have received, the only answer at that, was morality was developed through our genes by evolution. In that case, we all have different genes, and therefore a different sense of morality. That makes sense, right? It actually sounds pretty accurate. But now we test it: What evidence is there that this is because of evolution?
I hate to break it to any new atheists out there, but you can’t have any insight into morality because there has been no scientific research into the origin or even the true existence of morality- perhaps it was all made up by some group of people conspiring against the world. (sorry for being so suggestively mean).
But it goes further than that, does it not? If morality is specific to each specific person, we all have differing DNA, then all morality is absolutely subjective since it is defined absolutely objective but different for each individual. One could then make up their own morality and not be immoral since they are merely ‘dancing to the tune of their own DNA.’ In fact, why not just get rid of law because someone thinks it is moral to speed, or rape, or kill. To have a rigid law the government would be DNA discriminatory. Murder is only wrong if your DNA says so. I don’t believe that, and no atheist should either since there’s no scientific evidence to support it. I’m not making a case for Christian morality, though it is pretty good, but I am pointing out the ridiculousness of the ‘evidence must be shown, or I will doubt’ philosophy. Of course there is a right and wrong that is not individually defined. Search for it.

Genesis Theory

November 23, 2010 3 comments

I am a skeptic of Genesis- especially the creation story. According to the bible the Jews were in captivity in Egypt, where they became the nation of Israel. Joseph went through his trying life in order to get into his position of authority in Egypt through which he was able to bring his family into the country during a time of famine. They became slaves, and multiplied. Then through another odd chain of events Moses is a position of authority in Egypt, and similarly leads the people out through yet another odd chain of events. Then he decides to sit down and write all of history from the beginning of time until now based on oral tradition of the people kept in slavery. That is the origin of Genesis. Just so you know, I do believe it was divinely inspired. However, I do not believe it to be literal on every point. The creation story reads like classic mythology. Any student of mythological religion would agree that the way Genesis 1-3 is not written to be literal, but is a highly figurative story. I would say, because of my belief that it was a prophetic allegory alluding to future events. I’ll write a few more blogs on that idea, since it’s super interesting. I’m tired of creationists, and I’m tired of hearing atheists rant on how the earth isn’t 6,000 years old and concluding that God is all a myth because of some obviously bad interpretation of the bible. Stop being a young Earth creationist. And if you’re an atheist, stop having this one little misunderstanding be the backbone of your disbelief. Read the scripture; look at science; ask: do they really conflict?

Strong Atheism: The Cartoon Universe of Theism

November 21, 2010 Leave a comment

In response to the article

The only thing this article actually argued was is God’s will arbitrary or goal oriented? And that is what I will discuss in this post. I am putting the argument expressed into the article into these logical terms, so please be quick to point out if I misrepresent the article.

1. Rationality is due to goal-orientation
2. God has no such objective reference point
3. God can not have goals (from 1 and 2)
4. God is arbitrary, and irrational- assuming he exists at all.

Logically I would tend to agree with this argument, assuming that it is clear that God has no objective reference point. To translate what “objective reference point” actually means: God cannot be added to; by definition He does does not need. Since God does not need, he cannot have goals. I want to crush this idea, because it is false.

Inconsistent nature of atheistic arguments:
When an atheist makes a statement being with “If God exists…” and goes on to ‘disprove’ God by some characteristic attached to God I always want to ask, do you buy into the non-cognitivism of the idea of God? Based on non-cognitivism arguments you cannot assign any real characteristics to God, and certainly nothing meaningful. They have to either believe that the whole idea of God is non-sense or disprove Him through other means. One cannot argue the Cartoon Universe of Theism and the Non-Cognitive nature of God. If you are an atheist and have reconciled the two, I’d be glad to hear it.

A self-referencing God:
If you have read my blogs to date this will all be repeated information. According to the bible (the source on which Christians base their concept of God) when Moses asks God his name God replies, “I AM”. This is a fascinating reply because it implies that God is self sufficient. That by nature he exists, and existence is through him. Interesting idea. But “I Am” doesn’t really say that I’m self-referencing, and that by nature i exist, or anything like that. Oh, but it does. Names are given by parents, and tell a lot about the history of a person. It can tell the culture, ancestors and so on. God saying “I AM” means that none of that applies. All of the begining of existence that we carry around in our names do not apply to God. He IS.
Cute. But is that all we have to work with? Luckily, no. Jesus left us some teachings that became the doctrine of the Trinity. This gives us some insight on who or what God is. Father is relevant only in reference to a Son. See, without the Son the Father would be meaningless, and without the Father, the Son would also be meaningless. In light of each other, THEY ARE. Self-referencing. Also, Jesus says “I and the father are one.” In the Old Testament it is written, “The Lord your God is One.” This word One is not one in a unitary sense, like I have one cupcake, or one dollar. But rather one in spirit. It’s the same word that describes a man and woman being united in marriage into “One flesh”. God also uses an odd plural way of referring to himself in the Old Testament. Read it, you’ll understand what I’m talking about. The Spirit is the most elusive to me, though. I have trouble figuring it or him out..? Is the Spirit what makes the Father and Son Echad, One, or an equal component in the Oneness bound by a spirit that each of them share…. Or what? It’s a hard concept, and one that I don’t know how much understanding we will ever have, but I do know that this idea of Trinity makes God a self-referenced goal-oriented being whose needs are inherently met by his own being.

Now, why do we exist? That question was kinda shoved under the door through this thinking. If God is needless, then he doesn’t need humanity to exist, so why do we? Instead of rushing to the conclusion, “God doesn’t exist!” I challenge you to think about it. Think. Now think some more because you probably haven’t figured it out yet.
What i know is that because God is complete does not mean he would not create us. Think about a mother. If she were merely a woman, or a wife would she be less complete? Perhaps, in some psychological sense, but there are plenty of women who are totally fulfilled without a child. In their circumstance children may add meaning to them, or add another layer of fulfillment, but they are not a necessary component to their completion. So can God be goal-oriented for us to be brought into existence and love him and yet not be relying on us for completion of who he is? Yeah, I would say so.

Strong Atheism: Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God

November 18, 2010 Leave a comment

This argument was found n the article Introduction to Materialist Apologetics. The actual Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God, or TANG is found here. The argument refutes some idea called the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God or TAG. I’ve never heard of TAG before this article, so I guess I’m claiming not it. But I will refute TANG and some mentions of the TAG argument will come up. TANG says that logic, science, and morality disprove God.

So let’s get into logic. TANG states that if logic were dependent on God then he could manipulate logic, and do the illogical, or unnecessary. Logic is necessary, so God cannot exist. I disagree. I do not believe that logic was devised by God. logical thinking is a way of systematically breaking down what we perceive to find if it holds any weight as truth. logic is not gravity, it is not a marble. It isn’t even an solid idea within itself, but rather a way of testing ideas. God is the standard of truth, from a theist’s perspective, that does not make logic bend to the “arbitrary will of god”.

Science, the uniformity of nature. TANG says that science would not be uniform if it was dependent on God. God would literally have to make every reaction for every action, thus making it all subject to God’s will, subjective, and unpredictable. Which then proves God false as well since science is predictable. Martin of TANG also mentions miracles of violation of the uniformity of nature, which also disproves God. I’m going to refer you to my Blog on the necessity of naturalism. Check out the last paragraph, and fill in the gaps to apply it to this situation. Also, if God is all that he claimed to be from his inspired word, as we Christians like to call it, then is it so hard to imagine that he’s so wonderfully powerful that he created the universe to be self sustaining? Imagine a self sustaining universe with an all-relational creator and sustainer. Moreover, based on what I wrote in my other blog, I would say that miracles are more real, and the reality we live in is less real. So that when we observe or read about a miracle that’s a touch of reality, of truth, in our false world. Take it how you will, it is more an idea to ponder than a solid argument.

Morality. This is my favorite of the three, because I get to make it an Ontological argument. Again, TANG states that there is no objective moral code according to TAG, since morality is subjected to God’s “arbitrary will”. First I have an appeal to find where they’re sourcing God’s will as arbitrary, or if that was just made up to fit the argument. Because if we could find that God’s will is not arbitrary, but purposeful and consistent, then the TANG falls apart, and TAG fits pretty well. But is God’s will arbitrary or not? Well I want to refer you back to my blog on the Argument from Non-Cognitivism. We are assigned secondary attributes like love, kindness, servanthood, and so on. But God’s primary attributes are those things. We are who we are, and can obtain love as a characteristic, but God is love. Morality is not defined by God, God is the definition for morality. See, so God cannot violate this morality, it is not up to His arbitrary will.

Tell me, did I miss anything?