1 week ago
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
On my post, Why I Lean Towards Traducianism, I received an interesting and extremely telling comment by an evident atheist.
His response was pedantic and condescending in tone, but he laid out his argument against the soul by saying:
For the sake of argument I'm going to assume that he's a metaphysical naturalist. For those interested on what that is please visit this link for a nutshell explanation. It's also safe to assume he believes that scientific evaluation, and only scientific evaluation can give you any true knowledge. This belief is called scientism, scientism is explained in the Christian Cyclopedia as:
So basically this person believes that his ability to observe and reason from that observation is good enough to comprehend his reality. Therefore, if anything is incapable of being measured by some metric of some sort is then essentially unknowable.
With that said, I'd like to switch gears a bit and express my fondness for Christopher Hitchens. I know that may come as a shock to some, but I think he's provocative, intelligent, funny, and a delight to listen to. That is not to say that I don't disagree with him vehemently, and that I do, but for as much as I know him, which is very little, I like him.
In a somewhat recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson held at Westminster Theological Seminary—Philadelphia; Hitchens gave a uncharacteristically revealing reaction to a statement given by Wilson. Towards the end of their exchange Wilson said to Hitchens, “I have faith in the Bible, you have faith in reason.”
Hitchens responded with, “No, I don't have faith in reason; I'm inclined to doubt something if its truth will be something that suits me. We [i.e., atheists] don't love the idea that we will be annihilated; we don't indulge in wish-thinking. We don't assume what we're asked to prove.” He then goes on to say, “You're a man of one book.”
Then Wilson quickly shot back, “You're a man of one thought!”.
The audience laughed; however, the audiences laughter seemed to perturb Mr. Hitchens. He quickly reprimanded the audience with this statement,
His cadence along with way he uttered it out, with such an uncharacteristic sour tone as opposed to his normal triumphant tenor really caught me by surprise. It seemed that perhaps Wilson got Hitchens' mind close to grappling a unique and special bond between the theist and atheist, that is; they both believe certain things to be true—a priori—which means that people must assume the truth of something before concluding its validity. In logic this is known as the fallacy of petitio principii, or circular reasoning, and also otherwise known as begging the question. With Wilson his die-hard trust in the Bible begs the question, and with Hitchens his unrelenting trust in reason begs the question: equally.
Now, the atheist/agnostic at this point can claim that the Bible is a book of myths and has been proven unreliable in many circumstances, and, therefore, intellectually shaky as a starting point, and they are certainly free to make this objection (although I don't agree). However, this also means I'm just as free to say that if a conglomeration of neurons, neuro-chemicals, and cognitive faculties, mixed in a certain way, has the ability to give a reliable comprehension of reality, then why can't a different mixture of neurons, chemicals, and cognitive faculties also give us an accurate comprehension of reality as well? If this were the case what would be the difference between the intellect of a person with a Phd, and a person on LSD? What would be the difference between a college professor, and a person with schizophrenia?
G. K. Chesterton, author and Catholic apologist, while speaking of mad-men in his book Orthodoxy said:
So, what does make reason reliable? Majority rule? Societal norms? Predictive ability? Well, majority rule is a group of powerful people imposing their power on others, and that doesn't speak to somethings validity or not. Societal norms change with time; what was once considered reasonable decades ago, can now be viewed as ancient and irrelevant by todays standards. An insane person, in the height of their mania can be every bit as predictive as any “sane” person regarding the world outside them, granted that their condition remain constant. However, it is no matter the constancy of their condition, for their perception of reality is as every bit true to them as the next mans, given that the set of presumptions about brain chemistry and cognitive function being a good judge of reality true as well. Yet, that is the question isn't it, why is our brain chemistry and processes in such-an-such a configuration reliable?
You see, this question can't be answered conclusively; it can only be assumed true with a hope for better future insight. And, as such the premise of the question is included in the conclusion. This is petitio principii. Circularity, begging the question, etc., is the best humanity can do, and so, we are smart enough to realize this, but not always honest enough to admit it.
So, what am I getting at with all of this? Well, let's just be honest about our starting points, our assumptions, and our best guesses at the outset. Let's give them a fair comparison to other ways of thinking and viewing the world, instead of dogmatically accepting our unprovable assumptions as something so “self-evident” it needs no defense.
.His response was pedantic and condescending in tone, but he laid out his argument against the soul by saying:
...I have often wondered how anybody could be stupid enough to believe in a soul, which is invisible and has exactly zero evidence for it.
I guess there's nothing too childish for the brainwashed masses to believe.
For the sake of argument I'm going to assume that he's a metaphysical naturalist. For those interested on what that is please visit this link for a nutshell explanation. It's also safe to assume he believes that scientific evaluation, and only scientific evaluation can give you any true knowledge. This belief is called scientism, scientism is explained in the Christian Cyclopedia as:
Thesis that factual knowledge based on rational interpretation of sensory evidence is the only valid knowledge. On a broader base it includes some nonsensory data drawn, e.g., from introspective observation. Excludes moral, aesthetic, and religious experience. Proponents include representatives of logical* positivism.
So basically this person believes that his ability to observe and reason from that observation is good enough to comprehend his reality. Therefore, if anything is incapable of being measured by some metric of some sort is then essentially unknowable.
With that said, I'd like to switch gears a bit and express my fondness for Christopher Hitchens. I know that may come as a shock to some, but I think he's provocative, intelligent, funny, and a delight to listen to. That is not to say that I don't disagree with him vehemently, and that I do, but for as much as I know him, which is very little, I like him.
In a somewhat recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson held at Westminster Theological Seminary—Philadelphia; Hitchens gave a uncharacteristically revealing reaction to a statement given by Wilson. Towards the end of their exchange Wilson said to Hitchens, “I have faith in the Bible, you have faith in reason.”
Hitchens responded with, “No, I don't have faith in reason; I'm inclined to doubt something if its truth will be something that suits me. We [i.e., atheists] don't love the idea that we will be annihilated; we don't indulge in wish-thinking. We don't assume what we're asked to prove.” He then goes on to say, “You're a man of one book.”
Then Wilson quickly shot back, “You're a man of one thought!”.
The audience laughed; however, the audiences laughter seemed to perturb Mr. Hitchens. He quickly reprimanded the audience with this statement,
If you laugh at that, you're like Bill Mahr's audience, you'll laugh at anything. I don't like being told that my arguments aren't as good as his because he has divine information that I don't have. There's an assumption with which I will dispense before the inquiry - there is no supernatural intervention in this argument. Like LaPlace, I don't need the god-hypothesis. If he does exist, he is incompetent, absent-minded, capricious and cruel.
His cadence along with way he uttered it out, with such an uncharacteristic sour tone as opposed to his normal triumphant tenor really caught me by surprise. It seemed that perhaps Wilson got Hitchens' mind close to grappling a unique and special bond between the theist and atheist, that is; they both believe certain things to be true—a priori—which means that people must assume the truth of something before concluding its validity. In logic this is known as the fallacy of petitio principii, or circular reasoning, and also otherwise known as begging the question. With Wilson his die-hard trust in the Bible begs the question, and with Hitchens his unrelenting trust in reason begs the question: equally.
Now, the atheist/agnostic at this point can claim that the Bible is a book of myths and has been proven unreliable in many circumstances, and, therefore, intellectually shaky as a starting point, and they are certainly free to make this objection (although I don't agree). However, this also means I'm just as free to say that if a conglomeration of neurons, neuro-chemicals, and cognitive faculties, mixed in a certain way, has the ability to give a reliable comprehension of reality, then why can't a different mixture of neurons, chemicals, and cognitive faculties also give us an accurate comprehension of reality as well? If this were the case what would be the difference between the intellect of a person with a Phd, and a person on LSD? What would be the difference between a college professor, and a person with schizophrenia?
G. K. Chesterton, author and Catholic apologist, while speaking of mad-men in his book Orthodoxy said:
To the insane man his insanity is quite prosaic, because it is quite true. A man who thinks himself a chicken is to himself as ordinary as a chicken. A man who thinks he is a bit of glass is to himself as dull as a bit of glass. It is the homogeneity of his mind which makes him dull, and which makes him mad. It is only because we see the irony of his idea that we think him even amusing; it is only because he does not see the irony of his idea that he is put in Hanwell [a London insane asylum] at all.
So, what does make reason reliable? Majority rule? Societal norms? Predictive ability? Well, majority rule is a group of powerful people imposing their power on others, and that doesn't speak to somethings validity or not. Societal norms change with time; what was once considered reasonable decades ago, can now be viewed as ancient and irrelevant by todays standards. An insane person, in the height of their mania can be every bit as predictive as any “sane” person regarding the world outside them, granted that their condition remain constant. However, it is no matter the constancy of their condition, for their perception of reality is as every bit true to them as the next mans, given that the set of presumptions about brain chemistry and cognitive function being a good judge of reality true as well. Yet, that is the question isn't it, why is our brain chemistry and processes in such-an-such a configuration reliable?
You see, this question can't be answered conclusively; it can only be assumed true with a hope for better future insight. And, as such the premise of the question is included in the conclusion. This is petitio principii. Circularity, begging the question, etc., is the best humanity can do, and so, we are smart enough to realize this, but not always honest enough to admit it.
So, what am I getting at with all of this? Well, let's just be honest about our starting points, our assumptions, and our best guesses at the outset. Let's give them a fair comparison to other ways of thinking and viewing the world, instead of dogmatically accepting our unprovable assumptions as something so “self-evident” it needs no defense.
.
.
Dawkins: Fastidious Researcher Can't (or Won't) Quote In Context
0 comments Posted by Drew Lomax at 10:10 AM(Seriously, much of the "new-atheist" crowd champion this guy as their leader-extraordinaire; however, if this guy can't even quote in context or correctly cite his sources how can the rest of his work, let alone his opinions be trusted. Read this article from over at Christianity Today-Australia, by Bill Muehlenberg on how Mr. Dawkins, fastidious researcher, makes a part Frankenstein, part Straw-man monster of an argument out of Muehlenberg's and columnists Melanie Phillips' articles. This guy should be ashamed.)
(Dawkins - must have missed English Comp. 101)
(Dawkins - must have missed English Comp. 101)Telling Lies for Atheism
by: Bill Muehlenberg
by: Bill Muehlenberg
In his famous work of fiction, The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky observed, through his character Smerdyakov, “For if there’s no everlasting God, there’s no such thing as virtue, and there’s no need of it.”
That seems to be an accurate reading of things. Without God and immortality, the case for an objective, transcendent moral order is awfully hard to make. And therefore the case for moral obligation is difficult to sustain as well.
If life is simply about survival, and the replication of genes, then things like morality in general and truth-telling in particular seem quite out of place. As an example, atheist Richard Dawkins has been fairly candid about life without God. As he wrote in his 1995 volume, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life:
“Theologians worry away at the `problem of evil’ and a related ‘problem of suffering.’ … On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies… are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature. Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
Presumably in such a world truth means very little as well. After all, if humans are nothing but a bunch of selfish genes, then why should truth matter at all? If life is simply a purposeless struggle for survival, then why would it show any interest in truth or falsehood?
Such a reductionistic worldview may help to explain why some atheists seem so cavalier with the truth. Indeed, Richard Dawkins has had a bit of a history of stretching the truth and pushing misleading information. The many criticisms of his The God Delusion, even by fellow unbelievers, are a testimony to this.
But it seems poor Richard has been caught out yet again with a bad case of truth decay. The full story is told by English commentator Melanie Phillips: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3571996/the-truth-delusion-of-richard-dawkins.thtml#comments
Phillips does a great job of demolishing Dawkins here. She begins with these words: “The most famous atheist in the world, biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, poses as the arch-apostle of reason, a scientist who stands for empirical truth in opposition to obscurantism and lies. What follows suggests that in fact he is sloppy and cavalier with both facts and reasoning to a disturbing degree.”
And she ends with these words: “Unfortunately, he fell flat on his face. From this attempt to tarnish his opponents with the charge of dishonesty, we learn instead that for Richard Dawkins truth is a delusion. Who other than the similarly deluded can ever take him seriously again?”
Please have a read of her entire article, and then come back here for the rest of the story. Mind you, the rest of the story simply gets worse. The part I play in this is two-fold. First, at one point in a recent public presentation Dawkins claims to be quoting from Phillips when in fact he is quoting from me. What he attributes to Phillips comes from an earlier article I wrote about both Dawkins and Phillips: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/10/30/dawkins-deism-and-jesus/#comment-136168
Second, not only can he not even get the authorship question right here, but he has deliberately misquoted me as well. He has done this by sneakily taking two separate remarks of mine and joining them into one paragraph, resulting in a quite misleading statement.
This is the paragraph in question as presented by Dawkins, (but wrongly attributed to Phillips): “Arch-atheist Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist. But many are now asking whether the dyed-in-the-wool critic of religion may be, well, evolving in his views about God. You see, in a recent debate with theist and Christian John Lennox, he let slip what many would regard as a major blooper: he actually admitted that there might be a case for theism of sorts. This was a worldview change of seismic proportions. It was a most remarkable turnaround. For someone who had spent over five decades championing the atheist cause to all of a sudden renounce it was an incredible achievement.”
But if you go to my original article, you will see that he took the first paragraph (which is speaking specifically about Dawkins), and then added my eighth paragraph to it (which is specifically referring to former atheist Antony Flew).
So he selectively cut and pasted from my article, in order to misrepresent me (or Phillips, as he sought to do). In part he can only make his trumped-up charges against Phillips by pulling quotes apart and re-pasting them together for his own disingenuous purposes.
When I spoke of a “worldview change of seismic proportions” in my original article I of course was referring to Flew, not to Dawkins. So Dawkins uses this cutting and pasting in an effort to discredit Phillips, when in fact all he has done is discredit himself.
Indeed, we are left with only two possible explanations for all this. He is either incompetent as a writer and researcher, or he has deliberately set out to misinform and deceive his audience. Either option is not very pretty. Considering that this guy actually calls himself a “Bright”, he does not seem so bright after all. He is either quite a dolt who cannot even do the most basic of quotations and referencing, or he has deliberately and maliciously made these gross misrepresentations and distortions in order to promote himself while he seeks to demonise Phillips.
So much for integrity and truth-telling Mr Dawkins. To paraphrase Dostoyevsky, “For if there’s no everlasting God, there’s no such thing as truth, and there’s no need of it.” Thanks for being such a good illustration of this Richard.
.
.
That seems to be an accurate reading of things. Without God and immortality, the case for an objective, transcendent moral order is awfully hard to make. And therefore the case for moral obligation is difficult to sustain as well.
If life is simply about survival, and the replication of genes, then things like morality in general and truth-telling in particular seem quite out of place. As an example, atheist Richard Dawkins has been fairly candid about life without God. As he wrote in his 1995 volume, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life:
“Theologians worry away at the `problem of evil’ and a related ‘problem of suffering.’ … On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies… are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature. Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
Presumably in such a world truth means very little as well. After all, if humans are nothing but a bunch of selfish genes, then why should truth matter at all? If life is simply a purposeless struggle for survival, then why would it show any interest in truth or falsehood?
Such a reductionistic worldview may help to explain why some atheists seem so cavalier with the truth. Indeed, Richard Dawkins has had a bit of a history of stretching the truth and pushing misleading information. The many criticisms of his The God Delusion, even by fellow unbelievers, are a testimony to this.
But it seems poor Richard has been caught out yet again with a bad case of truth decay. The full story is told by English commentator Melanie Phillips: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3571996/the-truth-delusion-of-richard-dawkins.thtml#comments
Phillips does a great job of demolishing Dawkins here. She begins with these words: “The most famous atheist in the world, biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, poses as the arch-apostle of reason, a scientist who stands for empirical truth in opposition to obscurantism and lies. What follows suggests that in fact he is sloppy and cavalier with both facts and reasoning to a disturbing degree.”
And she ends with these words: “Unfortunately, he fell flat on his face. From this attempt to tarnish his opponents with the charge of dishonesty, we learn instead that for Richard Dawkins truth is a delusion. Who other than the similarly deluded can ever take him seriously again?”
Please have a read of her entire article, and then come back here for the rest of the story. Mind you, the rest of the story simply gets worse. The part I play in this is two-fold. First, at one point in a recent public presentation Dawkins claims to be quoting from Phillips when in fact he is quoting from me. What he attributes to Phillips comes from an earlier article I wrote about both Dawkins and Phillips: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/10/30/dawkins-deism-and-jesus/#comment-136168
Second, not only can he not even get the authorship question right here, but he has deliberately misquoted me as well. He has done this by sneakily taking two separate remarks of mine and joining them into one paragraph, resulting in a quite misleading statement.
This is the paragraph in question as presented by Dawkins, (but wrongly attributed to Phillips): “Arch-atheist Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist. But many are now asking whether the dyed-in-the-wool critic of religion may be, well, evolving in his views about God. You see, in a recent debate with theist and Christian John Lennox, he let slip what many would regard as a major blooper: he actually admitted that there might be a case for theism of sorts. This was a worldview change of seismic proportions. It was a most remarkable turnaround. For someone who had spent over five decades championing the atheist cause to all of a sudden renounce it was an incredible achievement.”
But if you go to my original article, you will see that he took the first paragraph (which is speaking specifically about Dawkins), and then added my eighth paragraph to it (which is specifically referring to former atheist Antony Flew).
So he selectively cut and pasted from my article, in order to misrepresent me (or Phillips, as he sought to do). In part he can only make his trumped-up charges against Phillips by pulling quotes apart and re-pasting them together for his own disingenuous purposes.
When I spoke of a “worldview change of seismic proportions” in my original article I of course was referring to Flew, not to Dawkins. So Dawkins uses this cutting and pasting in an effort to discredit Phillips, when in fact all he has done is discredit himself.
Indeed, we are left with only two possible explanations for all this. He is either incompetent as a writer and researcher, or he has deliberately set out to misinform and deceive his audience. Either option is not very pretty. Considering that this guy actually calls himself a “Bright”, he does not seem so bright after all. He is either quite a dolt who cannot even do the most basic of quotations and referencing, or he has deliberately and maliciously made these gross misrepresentations and distortions in order to promote himself while he seeks to demonise Phillips.
So much for integrity and truth-telling Mr Dawkins. To paraphrase Dostoyevsky, “For if there’s no everlasting God, there’s no such thing as truth, and there’s no need of it.” Thanks for being such a good illustration of this Richard.
.
.
Atheists in Great Britain are seeking to become "de-baptized".
Michael Evans, an atheist, believes infant baptism to be "a form of child abuse". That's right, his parents who most likely treated him with nothing but kindness their entire lives took that early moment, which I'm sure he didn't remember to begin with, to viciously attack them with the cool waters of baptism. Please! Heaven forbid if his parents actually gave him a bath! What torture!
What these heathens do not understand, is that baptism, although performed by a pastor, priest, etc., in a particular church, may seem like something that is wrought by one man upon another, is really nothing but an act of mercy and blessing through regeneration on behalf of the Holy Spirit to man, and not vice-versa. Therefore, the regeneration brought about by baptism is something which no man has the power to rescind. Like it or not baptism is with us until the day we die and neither man nor demon can take this objective reality away from us. However, to him who does not believe in his Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus and His vicarious atonement on our behalf, will find that his baptism has been of no personal benefit, because justification comes by grace, through faith in Christ alone, none of which can be received apart from God's Word. It's safe to say I believe this man, and anyone in the NSS organization, has not taken comfort in God's Word as their actions betray. As a matter of fact, God's Word, His sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper cause them quite a bit of discomfort. Why?
I mean, what's the big deal about us silly Christians sprinkling a bit of water on the heads of infants, or eating a wafer and drinking wine? At least from an outsiders perspective they would appear to be foolish, meaningless ceremonies from an ancient, and irrelevant religion. What's the big deal? Seriously atheists, answer me this one question, what's the big deal?
.
.
Excommunication and Abortion: The Holy Spirits Best "Last-Ditch" Attempt At Working Repentance
0 comments Posted by Drew Lomax at 12:00 PMI've waited some time on posting about this story, mostly because of its controversial nature, but I think there is no easy way to put forth what I'm about to say.
First, you may or may not have heard about the story of the nine-year-old Brazilian girl who was abused and raped by her stepfather, which resulted in her impregnation of twins. This simply is a horrible, tragic event which words fail to describe, and thoughts can ever come to terms with. Quite honestly it's stories like these that make me crave the day for Christ's return so that we can be free of this wicked horror and evil which dwells in our very hearts.
Beside the horror of this case, two questions arise. First , "can a girl that age actually, physically bare children?"
Her doctor, Jose Severiano Cavalcanti said, "We don't know if she will develop the pregnancy up to the end because of the structure of her body. It is a big risk for her,'' further saying, "She doesn't have a pelvis able to support a gestation of twins....''
Alright, second question that I believe would pop up in the minds of many would be, "considering the heinousness of the crime perpetrated against her, the complications such a situation brings, and the danger to her overall health, should she get an abortion?"
In Brazil, a heavily Roman Catholic nation, abortion is illegal except in cases of incest and danger of physical harm to the mother, at least as is decided by their judicial system. This case obviously fits both bills, and is to be the ultimate outcome in this poor girls case.
However, this is where things began to get complicated. The office of the Archdiocese for the Roman Catholic Church in that region of Brazil has condemned the abortion as murder, and suggested that the girl should have attempted to carry the twins to the gestational date and perform a cesarean section when the girl was due.
Pro-choicers the world over were "up in arms" over this, as to be expected. However, they were to be even more irate over what happened next, for the Arch-Bishop of this region in Brazil, as a result of the girls abortion, excommunicated the abortion practitioners and her mother from the Church (they did not excommunicate the little girl) siting, "The law of God is higher than any human laws. When a human law - that is, a law enacted by human legislators - is against the law of God, that law has no value." He also stated, "The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion have incurred excommunication."
One commentator, an atheist who writes for the Examiner, regarding this case stated,
The church is so interested in protecting the lives of the unborn, it seems they lose sight of the humanity that is staring them right in the face. What about the rights of this little girl to live? I suppose it was God's will for that conception to take place. Therefore, it is not for man to undo it by abortion. And by this line of thinking, perhaps it was God's will for that poor little girl to be raped. And by God's hand that sick man was created and eventually placed in the presence of the little girl. And it was by God that that man was created in the image of God. And now, the church wants to evoke God in this case... where was God when this girl was allegedly raped? It is sickening that the church continues to place so much faith in their supposed loving mythical being that they would choose the unborn child over the living child. Where is the humanity in that?
So, it's safe to say this was a controversial case all around, and its cases like this that seem to give credence to the Pro-choicer's side of the argument. You see, when looking at this case with our natural, unaided human reason it seems quite easy to see it through the atheists eyes, that is, if God is responsible for the human life created in the womb of this little child, how then is He devoid of any responsibility when the girl was attacked by her stepfather, or how does He escape any culpability in threatening the life of this child by foreordaining this pregnancy to begin with?
However, the atheist needs to substantiate some claims on their side as well for any of their condemnation to make sense. For instance, when an atheist charges a person or an organization with being "in-human", what does that mean? I guess what I'm getting at is why is it more human (whatever that means) to save the life of the little girl, than that of the unborn child in her womb? I guess such questions, from any pragmatic or material sense are darn near impossible to answer. I mean, which is more valuable? Is there any way to quantify that? After all, the rules of identity demand that both be human, does it not?
Also, as for her life being in danger from the pregnancy, I believe that is overstating the original, albeit ambiguous, diagnosis from her doctor who said, ""We don't know if she will develop the pregnancy up to the end because of the structure of her body. It is a big risk for her,'' further saying, "She doesn't have a pelvis able to support a gestation of twins....'' He is certainly stating that her pregnancy has the potential to be dangerous to her health, but that ultimately he didn't know. However, the Church spokesman had a point in stating that her and her physician could at least try to carry the pregnancy as far as it could go and then attempt a cesarean. Why is it more "humane" to err on the side of death, rather than siding in error with life? After all, there are many, many couples out there who would love to adopt a child from any circumstance; could she not have put these twins up for adoption?
These are objective, legitimate, and logical questions that at least deserve an attempt at answering. I know it's considered in bad taste to "think" instead of "feel" about something, at least by today's standards, but we must use the gift God's given us in reasoning about a situation according to God's Word rather than reacting to it with raw human emotion. And so, given the precepts of Christianity, given the sanctity of ALL human life as affirmed by God's Word, the Arch-Bishop did rightly by the Word of God in exercising the Office of the Keys and excommunicating the mother and the doctors complicit in this act of murder.
And, let it be said, the act of excommunication should never be done in the attitude of moral superiority, but one of extreme love and care for the soul under the pastors keep. This is true compassion, namely that excommunication, Biblically speaking, is meant as a "last-ditch" effort to work repentance in the heart of the faithless, and that is exactly what her mother indeed was, and perhaps still is; faithless. Her mother was unwilling to see that this child growing in the womb of her daughter was given life by God and none other, even in spite of the heinous act committed against her daughter by the girls stepfather. If she had seen this clearly, that is, only through the eyes of faith, she would have done everything in her power to keep both her daughter and unborn grandchildren alive, even if it meant public ridicule, personal scorn, and strife. Such is the life of the Christian; we must pick up our cross daily, do we not?.
You see, there is a fate worse than anything we can endure in this world, it is the fate of being hopelessly and permanently separated from God because of our sin. This can only come about by personally blaspheming the Holy Spirit, that is, as an act of persistent denial of God's forgiveness given us in Christ. And, like I said, I hope on behalf of the Arch-Bishop that he, in excommunicating them, is doing it in the attitude of bringing about repentance for their sin. This means that the forgiveness of sins not be withheld from them if they in fact repent. Let's pray that these people, in the midst of a horrible ordeal, will in fact see their evil acts as evil and confess their sins so as to receive the mercy of God given us in Christ.
*
Today we'll examine the fourth thesis of the Heidelberg Disputation, it states:
Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.
If the last thesis jarred your head a bit, this one should definitely put many wrinkles in the old noodle. This thesis is more of a reflection, or perhaps the inverse of thesis three, for its structure and propositional content is essentially the same but only inverted. You see, mans works appear good, but, are in fact evil; while God's works appear evil, when they're in fact “eternal merits”.
Now, when we pious folk think of God, we think of nothing in him but goodness and light. And this is a right way to think of God; indeed it's most certainly true, however, God, when he works in his creation, does not always work in a way that is attractive to us, reasonably speaking, of course.
This is where many atheists have made their stand against the idea, and existence of an all powerful god. The argument goes something like this: if "he/she/it" exists, why would a good and omnipotent god allow evil to go on unabated? Do they not have the power? If not, then there really not omnipotent, are they, nor are they subsequently god for that matter, right? Well, it's a good argument, and I suppose worthy of meditation, yet, this is only the case if you allow for the premises to stand unchallenged. You see, this question really does not apply in Christendom, for in Christianity, under its own premises the question should really be: if there is a good God, then why does he let any of us evil people go on living and committing more atrocious behavior amongst ourselves? However, the atheist will not give ground for this argument because we're essentially and admittedly starting from two different vantage points; the atheist is seeking for some non-identified "god's" existence all the while believing they have a solid case in claiming the amorphous "it" evil, and therefore non-existent, on the other hand, the Christian presumes God's existence and questions his justice, and in so doing, is unwittingly claiming God to be evil as well, whether the believer is aware of it or not.
(nah, not really)
However, when most believers feel their reason begin to "connect-the-dots" regarding their perception of how unattractive their God appears, many will "shoo" away such thoughts and attempt to make their God's actions reasonable. This is because their “god” is actually their reason, thus many theologians will bend themselves backwards to make God appear good, but only result in twisting themselves into philosophical pretzels. In doing this they appear as fools to the learned and wise. Unfortunately, these futile attempts at theodicy, so as to make Christianity seem like the wise option, are completely unnecessary, for it is the work of the Holy Spirit to deliver the renewal of mind given solely by the power of the Gospel. Evangelizing is not equivalent to winning reasonable arguments; Evangelizing is bringing God's Word of the Gospel to broken people who despair of themselves. This work in “breaking” is not ours; this work is Gods and Gods alone!
Luther best shows the case for this in his proof of thesis 4, which states:
“That the works of God are unattractive is clear from what is said in Isa. 53[:2], "He had no form of comeliness," and in 1 Sam. 2[:6], "The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up." This is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sins so that we seem in the eyes of men, as in our own, as nothing, foolish, and wicked, for we are in truth that. Insofar as we acknowledge and confess this, there is no form or beauty in us, but our life is hidden in God (i.e. in the bare confidence in his mercy), finding in ourselves nothing but sin, foolishness, death, and hell, according to that verse of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 6[:9-10], "As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as dying, and behold we live." And that it is which Isa. 28[:21] calls the alien work of God that he may do his work (that is, he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope), just as Hab. 3[:2] states, "In wrath remember mercy." Such a man therefore is displeased with all his works; he sees no beauty, but only his ugliness. Indeed, he also does these things which appear foolish and disgusting to others.
This ugliness, however, comes into being in us either when God punishes us or when we accuse ourselves, as 1 Cor. 11[:31] says, "If we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged" by the Lord. Deut. 32[:36] also states, "The Lord will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants." In this way, consequently, the unattractive works which God does in us, that is, those which are humble and devout, are really eternal, for humility and fear of God are our entire merit.”
You see, we humans, since the fall of our first parents, have been trapped by the lie of the serpent. After Eve had told the snake what God said regarding the penalty of death for eating the fruit, the serpent responded in Gen. 3:4, by saying:
“You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Unfortunately, since then little has changed. We still judge God by our reason, because we'd rather trust in our own little “self-god” we're accustomed to, thus not solely relying upon His Word as Adam and Eve should have done. And now that we no longer commune with God in our natural selves, which is original sins consequence, we all the more do not understand him and his ways which is attested to by St. Paul in Rom. 11:33-35, it states:
“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
“For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
“Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”
However, our Lord has not left us high and dry, for His Word forever abides with us in the promise of His redeemer Son, Jesus Christ, and by the guarantee of His Holy Spirit. It is by the Law and the prophets that God, as testified by Christ,overtakes our intellect, and puts reason in its right place so as to apprehend our Savior for all eternity. It is by the Law and prophets that our agitated and restless mind can shake off its arduous burden so as to cling comfortably in “child-like” faith onto God's Word alone. It is in Christ and Christ alone where our reason, nay even our whole selves find our final rest in regard to God and His “hidden” ways.
For example, when Joseph's brothers were ready to throw him in a well and leave him for dead, where was God? When his brothers sold him instead, and as a result he was put under the cruel bondage of slavery, once again I ask, where was God? When he was falsely accused of adultery by Potiphar's wife, and was subsequently jailed for many years, where was his God? It's a valid question, because as anyone can see of the Old Testament saints, none was as sterling in character as Joseph, and yet, he was completely mistreated and suffered horribly. Why? Where was God? Why was such a righteous man treated in such a wretched manner? Did God not foreordain this evil to befall his holy and upright servant? Surely God should have known how much he suffered?
However, after Josephs days of great woe were behind him; after he was transformed into a king governing the mighty gentile nation of Egypt, his brothers were to appear before him unaware of this now older-looking and made-over younger brother they had once left for dead. Here Joseph utters a profound truth concerning God's work in his life through his brothers actions, in Gen. 45:4a-8, he says:
"I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”
"So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt.”
According to Joseph his brothers weren't to blame for his calamities, God was! You see, when God has set us aside to suffer it is never without purpose, yet, in the midst of such suffering, whether we've brought it upon ourselves, or we are afflicted from without, we, of our own natural ability are unable to understand that this too is the will of God meant for our own good, and as well for the good of others.
The greatest and clearest example of this in God's Word is in regards to the events of Good Friday. What could possibly be good about that day? Man, unaided by God in any manner was and is completely unaware of what actually happened on the cross.
Jesus' friends and disciples were in a state of complete and utter shock. Here was the most innocent, perfect, Godly, and holy person they had ever known, who was now condemned to death as a criminal by one of the cruelest means imaginable. All they had known, all they had understood was lost, was over, and was to never be again, at least according to their reason.
To the common Jewish citizen on the street, this was the very person they had welcomed into town as the great Messiah King to deliver them from the oppressive Roman magistrates just days before, who now hung powerless and forsaken of God upon a cross.
To Christ's enemies, who came to see if His supposed “Father in Heaven” of whom He so boldly spoke would save Him from this most humiliating death. And as He suffered, as it became utterly clear there would be no intervention from God, they mocked Him all the more because their reason couldn't dream of a Messiah who would ever allow Himself to be treated in such a manner, who would be totally powerless over his captors.
Yet, little did they know, that Jesus, like Joseph was to suffer but for a little while. Little did they know, that Jesus, like Joseph was to attain life for many people by his suffering. And, little did they know, that Jesus, like Joseph would come again to show his brethren that he was not only king of them, but over a vast foreign nation as well. Yet, Joseph is only a shadow or a type of Christ in the Old Testament, for by God working through the life of Joseph he was able to help many people avoid famine by becoming a prudent king over a small portion of the world, but in Christ how many more were helped?
Christ in his suffering took upon himself the sin of the world, the evil power of death, and the wrath of God we so justly deserve. Yet, it is not only that, for in His resurrection He became victorious over sin and death with its ghastly power, and in so doing has promised that we one day will do the same through the gift of faith, given us by God, in this holy work of love done for our sake. Who could have possibly known without divine revelation what exactly took place during those three days? I dare say, even now, as someone who both knows and accepts this most holy truth, I'm still completely incapable of understanding why God had to do things in such and such a manner, yet, nevertheless, I'll rest my reason with God's Word; let Him be true, and every man a liar.
You see folks, the basic lesson and teaching of this thesis regarding our natural judgment of God and the way He does things is this; empirical observation isn't what it's cracked up to be, at least when it attempts to judge God and his works. As Nietzsche once alluded to in response to the logical positivists of his day, there is no such thing as the “immaculate perception”, and so it is amongst us Christians, just because we possess the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that we can see into the “hidden” will of God either. So, when our reason seeks to understand and judge God according to it's ability, it is here where we must suspend it and let God be God.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
