CADRE Comments

How Ancient Mud Balls Provide Evidence for the Kingdoms of David and Solomon

Posted by BK

January 10, 2015

Biblical archaeology has always fascinated me -- especially the way that archaeologists in this area discount the Bible. After all, in virtually any area of archaeology, if archaeologists have a written text that describes people, places or activities then that written text is used to inform the research. Naturally, there is always skepticism due to bias or story-telling that may be involved in ancient writings, but the written source is almost always seen as providing an additional source of information. In the case of the Bible, however, the Biblical account is treated as less than helpful. It appears to be assumed to be wrong or treated as though it has no worth whatsoever.

And yet, over and over history keeps coming up with other sources of information that either directly confirms the Biblical accounts or leads the accounts to be more possible. Such is the case with a recent discovery that was reported in December 2014 from the area of the Gaza strip. Essentially, archaeologists discovered "six fragments of clay, once used to seal documents or expensive goods," according to an article entitled "Ancient Seals May Shed Light on Biblical Kings, Government." The article continues:

"They're little bitty mud balls but they're really important because of what they suggest about what's going on," [Mississippi State University archeologist James W.] Hardin, the lead author, said in a telephone interview from the university in Starkville. After tying the scroll or other item, ancient officials would wrap part of the string with clay and stamp it with an official seal to show that it had not been opened.

What exactly do they suggest? Well, these six little fragments of clay are from approximately the 10th Century BC. This is the time period that roughly corresponds to the dates that the Kingdoms of David and Solomon should have been assistance if the Old Testament is accurate. For many years, archaeologists have discounted the Biblical accounts of these kingdoms, however, basically assigning them the same level of truth as is assigned to the Legend of King Arthur. The belief was either that these two Kingdoms never existed or that they are accounts about much smaller rulers (usually referenced as minor warlords) that were elevated in importance through Legend. Of course, a few years ago, a large structure in East Jerusalem was located by archaeologists dating back to the 10th Century BC, and an Israeli archaeologist, Dr. Mazar, reported that it was likely the Palace of King David. (Of course, there is rarely an end to such debates, but I have yet to see any articles that successfully disprove that claim. In fact, a later article published at the now-defunct Leaderu.com gave several good reasons to conclude that it was the palace of the great Old Testament king.)

Now, this seemingly insignificant finding may help establish that the Kingdoms of David and Solomon were much larger than the kingdoms of minor warlords. The article points out:

Impressions from ancient clay seals found at a small site in Israel east of Gaza are signs of government in an area thought to be entirely rural during the 10th century BC, says Mississippi State University archeologist James W. Hardin. This could indicate that Biblical accounts of David and his son Solomon described real kings rather than the backwater chieftains considered more likely by some archeologists, said Hardin, an associate professor in the department of anthropology and Middle Eastern cultures.

If the Israeli influence stretched from Jerusalem to an area in Gaza approximately 20 miles from Jerusalem that was previously thought to be totally rural and under control of Gath, that is important evidence that a significant kingdom controlled from Jerusalem existed at the time that David and Solomon were said to be kings over tribes of Israel and Judah. Interesting to see what else is exposed from the continuing excavations of this site.

Should Atheism Lead to Discounting of Homosexuality?

Posted by BK

January 8, 2015

comments (14)

Over at the thought-provoking Dangerous Idea, Victor Reppert, author of C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea, put forth a syllogism relating to atheism and homosexuality that I found interesting. The underlying thought I had heard before, but Dr. Reppert was the first person I had seen put the argument into a syllogism. It goes like this:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then something like Blind Watchmaker Neo-Darwinian Evolution (hereafter just “evolution”) is a fact.
Premise 2: If evolution is a fact, then, objectively, my only purpose in life is to survive, reproduce, and spread my genes to the maximal extent (this premise is taken, essentially, from the mouth of Richard Dawkins).
Premise 3: Homosexuality makes it impossible to reproduce and pass on our genes.
Premise 4: Therefore homosexuality prevents us from achieving my only purpose in life.
Premise 5: Therefore homosexuality is wrong, and should be discouraged.

Of course, this syllogism plays on the fact that people who believe in the type of evolution described in the syllogism tend to believe that the greatest good is the passing of genes to the next generation so that the group (whatever the group may be) will survive. This type of thinking is essential for atheists to explain concepts such as altruism. Consider: if life’s goal (and hence, its highest good) is simply to pass one’s genes onto the next generation then it would seem to make no sense that people would find altruism or self-sacrifice to be “good.” In fact, they would be bad as they would stop the one sacrificing himself or herself from passing along his or her genes to the next generation. In order to make sense of a world where both the passing of genes and self-sacrifice make sense, those who believe in an atheistic world view must posit that the real good is passing along at least some of the genes of the group to the next generation.

An example of this kind of thinking can be seen in an article from the New York Times entitled “The Moral Animal” by Jonathan Sacks. While Mr. Sacks makes the case in the article that religion is needed, he does set forth fairly succinctly the argument being made by atheists to account for altruism. Mr. Sacks writes:

Altruists, who risk their lives for others, should therefore usually die before passing on their genes to the next generation. Yet all societies value altruism, and something similar can be found among social animals, from chimpanzees to dolphins to leafcutter ants. Neuroscientists have shown how this works. We have mirror neurons that lead us to feel pain when we see others suffering. We are hard-wired for empathy. We are moral animals. The precise implications of Darwin’s answer are still being debated by his disciples — Harvard’s E. O. Wilson in one corner, Oxford’s Richard Dawkins in the other. To put it at its simplest, we hand on our genes as individuals but we survive as members of groups, and groups can exist only when individuals act not solely for their own advantage but for the sake of the group as a whole. Our unique advantage is that we form larger and more complex groups than any other life-form.

So, what Dr. Reppert argues is actually quite sensible given this line of thinking. After all, if our function is to make certain that at least some (if not all) of the genes in our group make it to the next generation then there is a problem that homosexuality presents. Obviously, sex between two males or two females cannot possibly produce offspring and prevent any possibility that the genes will pass to the next generation. This would appear to plainly go against the function that we are “hard-wired” to do. So, if atheist adopt this viewpoint of the function of organisms, on what basis should they find homosexuality – which plainly opposes this main function – to be acceptable?

The form of the argument appears valid. However, I would rewrite it, at least in part, to make it clearer. I would write is as such:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then something like Blind Watchmaker Neo-Darwinian Evolution (hereafter just “evolution”) is a fact.

Premise 2: If evolution is a fact, then, objectively, my only purpose in life is to survive, reproduce, and spread my genes to the maximal extent (this premise is taken, essentially, from the mouth of Richard Dawkins).

Premise 3: Heterosexual sex is the only natural means of reproducing and spreading my genes to the maximal extent.

Premise 4: If my only purpose in life is to survive, reproduce and spread my genes to the maximal extent, then heterosexual sex is the only natural way to achieve that purpose.

Premise 5: Homosexuality cannot naturally lead to the reproduction and passing on of our genes.

Premise 6: Therefore homosexuality prevents us from achieving my only purpose in life.

Premise 7: Anything that prevents us from achieving the only purpose in life ought to be discouraged.

Premise 8: Therefore homosexuality should be discouraged.

I think that the additions I have made to the syllogism (while possibly adding nothing that was not implied) helps to clarify the argument. After all, the point of the syllogism is that homosexuality, by the very nature of the act, cannot lead to offspring that can pass genes to the next generation, and if that is the purpose of life then we need to discourage that activity.

Having said that, I think that the biggest problem with the syllogism is that Dr. Reppert adopted Dawkins’ language of “purpose.” In a mindless, unguided universe, it is not possible that there is any transcendent purpose. This is why any atheist will discount this argument: it assumes that there is good or bad – a position that they flatly reject, especially in matters that involve sexual morality.

So, while I think that Dr. Reppert has made an interesting argument and it is quite possibly sound, it will not convince atheists who are already committed to a world view with no rules when it comes to how we act in the area of sex.

Eight Common Myths about the Bible

Posted by BK

January 6, 2015

comments (3)

The Federalist has published a fun little article entitled The Eight Biggest Myths about the Bible. They are, in order:

Myth 1: Money is the root of all evil.

Myth 2: Thou Shalt Not Kill

Myth 3: The Bible Makes Wives Subservient

Myth 4: Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

Myth 5: The Bible Condones Slavery

Myth 6: The Bible Condones Rape

Myth 7: If You Oppose Gay Marriage Yet Eat Shellfish, You are a Hypocrite

Myth 8: Isn't the God of the Old Testament an Angry Tribal Deity?

I'm not sure that these are the biggest myths, but I do think that these are pretty fundamental myths that people use to try to hammer Christians. The answers given appear to be quite sound. Some are obvious, e.g., the Bible doesn't teach that money is the root of all evil, but rather that the love of money is the root of all evil. Some are a little more subtle, e.g., Judge not lest ye be judged is not a Biblical mandate against judging but against hypocrisy. Some deserve a great deal more detailed argument, e.g., it is very difficult to explain in a couple of paragraphs why God is not some type of blood-thirsty God in the books of the Old Testament. Still, the article does a nice job of highlighting some quick answers. I recommend it as a primer or a refresher.

The Location of Jesus' Trial Before Pilate Found?

Posted by BK

January 5, 2015

comments (0)

"Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover." ~ John 18:28

The Gospel of John reflects that Jesus was taken before Pilate at the Praetorium. Now, Praetorium isn't a word that we use regularly in the 21st Century, so it is a word needs to be defined. The International Bible Encyclopedia defines Praetorium as follows:

Praetorium: pre-to'-ri-um praitorion, Mt 27:27 (the King James Version "common hall"); Mr 15:16; Joh 18:28,33; 19:9 (in all margins "palace," and in the last three the King James Version "judgment hall"); Ac 23:35, (Herod's) "palace," margin "Praetorium," the King James Version "judgment hall"; Php 1:13, "praetorian guard" (margin "Greek ‘in the whole Pretorium,' " the King James Version "palace," margin "Caesar's court"):
1. Governor's Official Residence: The Pretorium was originally the headquarters of a Roman camp, but in the provinces the name became attached to the governor's official residence. In order to provide residences for their provincial governors, the Romans were accustomed to seize and appropriate the palaces which were formerly the homes of the princes or kings in conquered countries. Such a residence might sometimes be in a royal palace, as was probably the case in Caesarea, where the procurator used Herod's palace (Ac 23:35).

2. In Gospels Herod's Palace: The Pretorium where Jesus was brought to trial has been traditionally located in the neighborhood of the present Turkish barracks where once stood the Antonia and where was stationed a large garrison (compare Ac 21:32-35), but the statements of Josephus make it almost certain that the headquarters of the procurator were at Herod's palace. This was a building whose magnificence Josephus can hardly sufficiently appraise (Wars, I, xxi, 1; V, iv, 4). It was in this palace that "Florus, the procurator took up his quarters, and having placed his tribunal in front of it, held his sessions and the chief priests, influential persons and notables of the city appeared before the tribunal" (Wars II, xiv, 8). Later on, "Florus.... brought such as were with him out of the king's palace, and would have compelled them to get as far as the citadel (Antonia); but his attempt failed" (II, xv, 5). The word translated "palace" here is aule, the same word as is translated "court" in Mr 15:16, "the soldiers led him away within the court (aule), which is the Pretorium." There is no need to suppose that Herod Antipas was in the same palace (Lu 23:4 ); it is more probable he went to the palace of the Hasmoneans which lay lower down on the eastern slope of this southwest hill, where at a later time Josephus expressly states that Herod Agrippa II and his sister Bernice were living (Wars, II, xvi, 3).
The palace of Herod occupied the highest part of the southwest hill near the northwest angle of the ancient city, now traditionally called Zion, and the actual site of the Pretorium cannot have been far removed from the Turkish barracks near the so-called "Tower of David." It is interesting to note that the two stations of the Turkish garrison of Jerusalem today occupy the same spots as did the Roman garrison of Christ's time. It is needless to point out how greatly this view of the situation of the Pretorium must modify the traditional claims of the "Via Dolorosa," the whole course of which depends on theory that the "Way of Sorrow" began at the Antonia, the Pretorium of late ecclesiastical tradition.

Since this definition relies, in part, upon the writings of Josephus, it seems appropriate to quote what Josephus said about Herod's Palace in The Jewish Wars.

The largeness also of the stones was wonderful; for they were not made of common small stones, nor of such large ones only as men could carry, but they were of white marble, cut out of the rock; each stone was twenty cubits in length, and ten in breadth, and five in depth. They were so exactly united to one another, that each tower looked like one entire rock of stone, so growing naturally, and afterward cut by the hand of the artificers into their present shape and corners; so little, or not at all, did their joints or connexion appear. low as these towers were themselves on the north side of the wall, the king had a palace inwardly thereto adjoined, which exceeds all my ability to describe it; for it was so very curious as to want no cost nor skill in its construction, but was entirely walled about to the height of thirty cubits, and was adorned with towers at equal distances, and with large bed-chambers, that would contain beds for a hundred guests a-piece, in which the variety of the stones is not to be expressed; for a large quantity of those that were rare of that kind was collected together. Their roofs were also wonderful, both for the length of the beams, and the splendor of their ornaments. The number of the rooms was also very great, and the variety of the figures that were about them was prodigious; their furniture was complete, and the greatest part of the vessels that were put in them was of silver and gold. There were besides many porticoes, one beyond another, round about, and in each of those porticoes curious pillars; yet were all the courts that were exposed to the air every where green. There were, moreover, several groves of trees, and long walks through them, with deep canals, and cisterns, that in several parts were filled with brazen statues, through which the water ran out. There were withal many dove-courts (11) of tame pigeons about the canals. But indeed it is not possible to give a complete description of these palaces; and the very remembrance of them is a torment to one, as putting one in mind what vastly rich buildings that fire which was kindled by the robbers hath consumed; for these were not burnt by the Romans, but by these internal plotters, as we have already related, in the beginning of their rebellion. That fire began at the tower of Antonia, and went on to the palaces, and consumed the upper parts of the three towers themselves.

As the International Bible Dictionary makes clear, it is very likely that Pontius Pilate, who Philo describes as a inflexible, mercileess and obstinate, set up his Praetorium in Herod's Palace. (Confiscating part of the most beautiful building in the city as the Roman headquarters? Who would expect Pontius Pilate to do any less?) In fact, a later procurator, Gessius Florus (64 AD to 66 AD), is reported by Josephus as having done exactly that:

Now at this time Florus took up his quarters at the palace; and on the next day he had his tribunal set before it, and sat upon it, when the high priests, and the men of power, and those of the greatest eminence in the city, came all before that tribunal; upon which Florus commanded them to deliver up to him those that had reproached him, and told them that they should themselves partake of the vengeance to them belonging, if they did not produce the criminals; but these demonstrated that the people were peaceably disposed, and they begged forgiveness for those that had spoken amiss; for that it was no wonder at all that in so great a multitude there should be some more daring than they ought to be, and, by reason of their younger age, foolish also; and that it was impossible to distinguish those that offended from the rest, while every one was sorry for what he had done, and denied it out of fear of what would follow: that he ought, however, to provide for the peace of the nation, and to take such counsels as might preserve the city for the Romans, and rather for the sake of a great number of innocent people to forgive a few that were guilty, than for the sake of a few of the wicked to put so large and good a body of men into disorder.

Moreover, Philo, in his work A Treatise on the Virtues and on the Office of Ambassadors. Addressed to Gaius, Philo makes reference to Pilate involving the Palace of King Herod. Paragraph 38 of this work states,

Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there.

Taken together, these external sources strongly suggest that Pontius Pilate set up his headquarters (his Praetorium) in the sprawling grounds of King Herod's Palace in Jerusalem. It is important to note that the tower that rises above these ruins has erroneously been identified as "King David's Tower" even though the tower is part of King Herod's palace and had no ties to King David's palace.

So, yesterday, there was an article published in the Washington Post entitled "Archaeologists Find Possible Site of Jesus' Trial in Jerusalem" by Ruth Eglas. According to the story, the site of King Herod's palace presently hosts a museum known as the Tower of David Museum. In the act of expanding the museum, the archaeologists began to peel away at the floor of an unused building adjacent to the presently existing museum and discovered something remarkable: "the suspected remains of the palace where one of the more famous scenes of the New Testament may have taken place — the trial of Jesus."

While the article contains little detail of why the site is believed to be the site for Jesus' trial, the article closes with the following:

For Shimon Gibson, an archaeology professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, there is little doubt that the trial occurred somewhere within Herod’s palace compound. In the Gospel of John, the trial is described as taking place near a gate and on a bumpy stone pavement — details that fit with previous archaeological findings near the prison, he said. "There is, of course, no inscription stating it happened here, but everything — archaeological, historical and gospel accounts — all falls into place and makes sense," Gibson said. The Rev. David Pileggi, minister of Christ Church, an Anglican congregation whose complex includes a guesthouse and heritage center near the museum, said the discovery inside the prison confirmed "what everyone expected all along, that the trial took place near the Tower of David."

I personally would like to see more of what exactly was found that would alert the archaeologists to believe that this was the place that actually served as the location of Jesus' trial. But based upon what I know of history and archaeology of the ancient city, this does appear promising.

Labels: Biblical Archaeology, Pontius Pilate, Praetorium, Trial of Jesus

Is the Number of Atheists Really as Large as Atheists Claim?

Posted by BK

November 14, 2014

comments (1)

In a post I authored on Valentine's Day in 2009 entitled "Atheism by the Numbers: Going Nowhere Fast, I questioned the claim by atheists that their numbers were rising. I pointed out the following:

What do the polls tells us? Stark offers the numbers from leading polling organizations since 1944, for those who do not believe in God:

4% -- 1944 (Gallup)
6% -- 1947 (Gallup)
3% -- 1964 (American Piety)
3% -- 1994 (GSS)
4% -- 2005 (Baylor/Gallup)
4% -- 2007 (Baylor/Gallup)

The number of atheists in the United States appears to be unchanged for at least 63 years, despite advances in science and secularization.

Since that time in 2012, the Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project published a poll that suggested that the numbers of atheists were actually rising. According to Ecumenical News,

In October 2012, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a report finding that the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans under the age of 30 had increased five percentage points in five years.

Now, the graphs that accompany the report show that the number of people who claim to be atheists is still quite low. According to the Pew Forum, the total number of self-identified atheists in the United States has risen from 1.6% of the population in 2007 to a meager 2.4% of the United States population in 2012. Now, this would be a significant increase percentage-wise, but the total number of people still represents a very small percentage of the population. In fairness, I should add that the number of self-identified agnostics has also grown from 2.1% to 3.3% during that time, and those who apparently hold a faith of "nothing in particular" rose from 11.6% to 13.9% as well. Adding the number of atheists in 2007 (1.6%) to the number of agnostics (2.1%) and rounding up from there gets to the 4% from the Stark numbers. Thus, the number of people who "don't believe in God" using the number of atheists plus the number of agnostics has risen to 5.7% (which rounds up to 6% - making that number the highest since 1947). But the increase of those who aren't sure or who are indifferent to faith really is not the position that the atheist evangelists have been promoting. They want people to come to believe that belief in God is irrational, primitive and even silly.

The problem for the atheists is that despite a significant growth in the percentage of atheists according to the Pew Forum, the total number of atheists remains less than 3% of the population. But now there is even question as to whether all of those who claim to be atheists are, in fact, atheists. According to an article from The Humanist entitled "Do You Believe in Atheists Who Believe in God?", not all self-identified atheists are atheists in the ordinary understanding.

The definition of an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in any kind of deity. Alternately, an atheist could be defined as someone who asserts that no kind of deity exists. With either definition in mind, how did the Pew Religious Landscape Survey discover that one in five self-identified atheists believe in God?

In a November 4 article for Religion News Service (RNS), Tobin Grant attempts to reconcile these findings with what atheism means, acknowledging first that the term “atheism” may mean something different to individual people and that their personal definition may not fit the conventional understanding of the term. For instance, someone may take an active dislike to institutionalized religion but believe in some sort of higher power, and may adopt the label “atheist” as a kind of protest against the bureaucracy and dogma that she or he associates with traditional faiths. Grant also considers the possibility that some survey respondents may consider themselves atheists but use the term “God” to refer to abstract laws of nature or the principles of the universe. Additionally, the article recognizes that issues of personal belief or nonbelief are often complex and cannot be communicated through simple survey options. An atheist might acknowledge that there is a social construction of an all-powerful being referred to as “God” without believing that this being objectively exists outside of society’s conception of it. However, this intricate view is difficult to convey in a survey response.

Grant’s analysis demonstrates that if atheism is a lack of belief in a deity or an assertion that there is no deity, then the deity being denied requires a definition as well. For example, when the term “atheist” was first used by the ancient Romans, who were polytheists, it referred to people who believed in foreign gods. By this understanding of atheism, someone could easily be both an atheist and a theist simultaneously. However, this meaning is far from atheism as it is recognized now. To fully understand how someone today might be able to reconcile the identity of atheism with belief in a higher power, using the philosophical concepts of “narrow atheism” and “wide atheism” might be helpful.

Okay, so now we need to worry about "narrow atheism" and "wide atheism" so that all of these additional atheists can be brought under the penumbra of atheism? That's interesting.

Of course, one could take this as more evidence that atheism as a religion because, like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other world religions, atheism seems to have branched into denominations. If people can have these different views, it is hardly the case that science can be said to demand God does not exist since even certain denominations of atheism appear to reject that claim in the absolutist sense that the loudest proponents of atheism (not sure if that's narrow or wide atheism) would have us believe. Still, the point remains that it is hard to take seriously that the number of atheists is growing when atheists don't really mean that they are atheists when they self-identify as atheists.

If you find that last sentence to be confusing, remember that it is not nearly as confusing as the juggling that has to take place for people who believe in a higher power to call themselves atheists.

Labels: Atheism

Does God want us to be Dumb? A look at Joyce Meyer's Quote on Confusion and Reasoning.

Posted by BK

October 30, 2014

comments (0)

"I once asked the Lord why so many people are confused, and He said to me, 'Tell them to stop trying to figure everything out and they will stop being confused.' I have found it to be absolutely true, reasoning and confusion go together." ~ Joyce Meyer

Last Friday, I came across a YouTube video by someone calling himself the "Quiet Atheist" in which he criticized Joyce Meyer for her statement quoted above (hereinafter, the "Confusion Quote"). In his video entitled "Christian Joyce Meyer: "Reasoning And Confusion Go Together,'" this particular atheist opines that she is telling all Christians to be "dumb." Specifically, he says that Ms. Meyer is telling people:

According to her, we should all, as I said, remain dumb. We should stop asking questions. We should stop being curious about everything there is out there on this planet or in the universe. We are just going to be confused. ... Questioning isn't good. Being skeptical isn't good. Wanting answers isn't good.

Now, I know next to nothing about Joyce Meyer - who she is, what she preaches or what she believes. I located her website, but I don't have either the time or the energy to spend much time searching through pages and pages of material to even begin to understand her theology. Still, other Internet searches allowed me to determine that the Confusion Quote apparently comes from her book, Battlefield of the Mind, however, I could not find the chapter online so I also admit to flying a little blind on what exactly she meant. However, for purposes of this post, I don't think I need to know much about Ms. Meyer to be able to note that the Quiet Atheist's criticism is ill-founded. I think that there is ample reason to believe that Ms. Meyer was not saying that God told her that there is no place for reason at all. Moreover, even if Ms. Meyer were saying that there is absolutely no place for reason as a Biblical truth, the Bible leaves no doubt that she is incorrect. But first, I need to express my concern over whether Ms. Meyer really heard from God.

The form of Ms. Meyer's statement makes it a prophesy. Note that she says that she asked God a very specific question, i.e., why are so many people confused? She then says that God "said" to her something which is the answer to that question. Now, I take the claim that God spoke very seriously. If Ms. Meyer is saying that God said something to her when God did not speak to her then she may have done something quite shameful -- she may have lied about what God has said. To me, this is a major problem in the Christian Church. Too often in the church, people use the phrase "God spoke to me" to express something about a feeling or a urging that they had. I understand that. I have had such feelings and urgings myself. For me and according to what I understand from speaking to others, God's speaking usually arises as a strong senses that God desires something to be done and is urging me (or the person receiving the urge) to do that thing. Sometimes it arises as a small thought that percolates up in the back of the mind and challenges me. Is this something from God or something from my own mind? That's always the question.

While both the urging or the small thought could be the result of the workings of my subconscious (as I am certain that that the non-theist would contend), 1 John 4:1 tells us that we should test the spirits "to see whether they are from God." Now, I use a two part test to determine if the urge or small voice are from God or from me. First, does the thought or feeling challenges me? I ask, if the thought is comfortable to me then why would God have bothered to send me the message? I'm already prepared and comfortable doing those things that I want to do, and if I am already doing God's work God would not send me an urge or thought to look at it a different way. Second, is the thought consistent with the Scripture? I can also have thoughts or urges that are clearly unbiblical. Those, by definition, cannot come from God. Thus, it is the thought or urge that both challenges and is consistent with the Scripture that I take to be truly the Word of God speaking to my subconscious.

Let me apply this thinking to the Confusion Quote. First, what she says meets the description of something that challenges me. I tend to not want to let things go. I want to understand everything. That's human nature. Heck, even the Quiet Atheist claims to want to know things (even if he has closed his mind to the entire supernatural world). And what this calls me to do, giving Ms. Meyer the benefit of the doubt, is to recognize that reason will not answer everything. That is challenging me, and therefore appears to meet the first part of my test.

But does it pass the second test, i.e., is it consistent with God's word? Well, that depends upon exactly what Ms. Meyer means. If Ms. Meyer means that we should never use reason (as the Quiet Atheist loudly complains), then it is without question unbiblical. The Bible makes it clear that we are to use our reason. God tells us that we are to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength - and loving God with your mind means using your reason. We are told in Proverbs 2:6 that the Lord gives wisdom, and out of his mouth come knowledge and understanding. We are called to renew our minds in Romans 12:2. In fact, Jerry Solomon makes the point quite clearly that the mind and reason are part and parcel of the Christian faith in his online article, The Christian Mind. There, he notes:

Reason is a term that is descriptive of the Christian mind. This does not mean that a Christian is to be a rationalist, but rather he is to use reason based on the reason of God found in Scripture. For example, on one of several occasions Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus to test Him by asking for a sign from heaven. Jesus responded by referring to their ability to discern signs of certain kinds of weather. Then He said, “Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times” (Matt. 16:3)? Obviously He was noting how people use reason to arrive at conclusions, but the Christian mind would conclude the things of God. The book of Acts indicates that the apostle Paul used reason consistently to persuade his hearers of the truth of his message. Acts 17:2-3 states that “according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned [emphasis added] with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead.” For two years in Ephesus Paul was “reasoning [emphasis added] daily in the school of Tyrannus” (Acts 19:9). In light of the fact that our contemporary world attempts to reject reason, such examples should spur us to hold out for the possibility of reasonable dialogue with those around us. After all, those who reject reason must use reason to reject reason.

So, if I believed that Ms. Meyer was saying that we should abandon reason, I would have to reject her statement as being entirely contrary to the Bible and therefore a false and condemnable prophesy. Fortunately, I don't have to believe that Ms. Meyer is arguing against the clear Christian principle that Christians should use their minds. In a short clip of a longer sermon by Ms. Meyer entitled "God is Not the Author of Confusion", she says, "I believe it's okay to ponder things. It's okay to think about things. I think it's even okay to ask God to show you things. But if it's not His time to do that and He's not doing that yet, then you have a choice of being miserable or trusting God." Clearly, what she is saying in this short video clip is that is that God has given us minds and we can use them. This quote alone completely destroys the ill-informed rant of the Quiet Atheist. However, what it appears Ms. Meyer is saying is that there are certain things that we cannot understand, and what God wants us to do in those situations is trust Him. This is entirely Biblical.

Now, let's be clear about what types of things God asks us to trust him. Is Ms. Meyer talking about science? Is she saying we should bury our heads in the sand about the way the world works and "be dumb" as the Quiet Atheist accuses? I don't see any reason (sorry, there's that word again) to believe this is the type of thing that Ms. Meyer is suggesting that we should not use our reason to understand. Is she saying that we should simply say, "Suffering exists and I don't know why, but I trust you God"? I don't think that she is saying that we cannot use our intellect to understand how the existence of evil can be consistent with a totally good and just God. Rather, what she seems to be referencing, quite clearly in fact, is when we cannot understand why suffering happens in a particular situation. Because God has not revealed it to us, we cannot understand through our reasoning why thousands of people are dying of Ebola in parts of Africa. Because God has not revealed it to us, we cannot understand why a newborn baby is born without a functioning brain. Because God has not revealed it to us, our reasoning will not lead us to understand why we lost a job that we needed, why our best friend had to die, or why a particular divorce had to happen. These are the types of things that we cannot understand because we do not have the omniscience that the divine perspective brings.

Does the fact that we cannot understand mean that we strop trying? Absolutely not. When my eldest sister died as a young adult, I spent many days wondering why God had chosen to take my sister from me, her husband and my family. To this day, I have not determined the reason and nothing in my reasoning will give me the reason. Atheist don't see the reason - they say that there is no reason. The only way I will ever understand why my sister died at such a young age is if I can see things from God's perspective or if God chooses to tell me. I don't have His perspective and I don't expect Him to give me an explanation. So, I have a choice: continue to fret and try to figure out why my sister had to die or trust in God that there was a reason - a reason that I cannot see and cannot fathom. In faith, I choose the latter.

I want to make it clear that I don't know if Ms. Meyer is a false prophet (as some websites assert). I don't know if she preaches the heretical Prosperity Gospel (as other websites assert). To a certain extent, Ms. Meyer doesn't matter, and no one should take away from this post that I am giving a general approval of the teachings of Ms. Meyer. I don't know enough about her to do so. However, because I think that there is some Christian truth in the Confusion Quote that the Quiet Atheist completely misses out of his ignorance, I felt it appropriate to point out that I do agree that there are things that we will never understand and that's okay.

I close with the words to a song that I heard for the first time today at the funeral of a dear friend, Dr. Joan Eyring, a Ph.D. in psychology. She was (and is) a brilliant, beautiful, loving Christian woman who spent all of the eight years I knew her in a broken body. There was not a time that she was not suffering from heart disease and breathing problems. She underwent multiple surgeries and it was never clear if her body was strong enough to withstand the procedures that the doctors recommended. Much of her beloved family died prior to her own death. Her life was one of continual physical and emotional suffering. Did she know why God had allowed her body to be broken? Did she know why she had to witness most of her children die before she did - one of the most difficult things for a parent to do? I don't. No one does. She certainly didn't. But despite it all and through it all, she trusted God. At her funeral, she asked that the song "Bow the Knee" be played. It is a fitting testament to how she accepted what she could not understand and a lesson in what I view as the true meaning of the Confusion Quote.

There are moments on our journey following the Lord
Where God illumines ev’ry step we take.
There are times when circumstances make perfect sense to us,
As we try to understand each move He makes.
When the path grows dim and our questions have no answers, turn to Him.

Bow the knee; Trust the heart of your Father when the answer goes beyond what you can see.
Bow the knee; Lift your eyes toward heaven and believe the One who holds eternity.
And when you don’t understand the purpose of His plan,
In the presence of the King, bow the knee.

There are days when clouds surround us, and the rain begins to fall,
The cold and lonely winds won’t cease to blow.
And there seems to be no reason for the suffering we feel;
We are tempted to believe God does not know.
When the storms arise, don’t forget we live by faith and not by sight.

Bow the knee; Trust the heart of your Father when the answer goes beyond what you can see.
Bow the knee; Lift your eyes toward heaven and believe the One who holds eternity.
And when you don’t understand the purpose of His plan,
In the presence of the King, bow the knee.
~ Lyrics by Chris Machen and Mike Harland

Does the Pope's Statement regarding the Big Bang End the God Debate?

Posted by BK

October 28, 2014

comments (1)

Today's USA Today ran an article entitled "Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real" in which he seemed to give a pretty strong statement of support to Theistic Evolution. The Pope reportedly said:

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said.
"He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."

I am certain that there are some who will witness this as a caving in of the Vatican to the arms of scientific naturalism. They will note that the Pope, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, acknowledged that the Biblical account of creation found in Genesis 1 and 2 has been proven wrong by science.

Of course, that view is short cited. It assumes that there are only two ways of understanding the evidence for the universe. The first is a straight-forward reading of the Bible as the universe having been created in seven consecutive twenty-four hour days - a view commonly referenced as "Young Earth Creationism." The second is the view backed by those who believe that science is the only way to know anything and who believe that the universe was created by purely naturalistic processes in an completed unguided and random way - a view commonly referred to as Naturalism.

The problem, of course, it that this is the fallacy of a false choice. The Bible is not quite so black and white as those who set up this dilemma seem to suggest. There are a myriad of ways to understand the Biblical accounts. One of the most popular is that of Old Earth Creationism which largely agrees that the universe is 13 1/2 billion year old and with many of the other scientific discoveries over the past 150 years. Another is Theistic Evolution which goes further than Old Earth Creationism and holds that God used his omnipotence and omniscience to set up the laws of the universe in such a way that it would ultimately result in the universe we see today - including man and all of the other animals and plants. This latter view seems to be very close to what the Pope is debating.

Regardless of what the Pope said, it certainly does not end the discussion or the debate for several reasons. First, as I understand Roman Catholic teaching, not every statement by the Pope is equal to the word of God. That only happens when he speaks ex cathedra about a subject. But even if he has spoken in that way about creation and evolution here, the Pope only speaks for the Roman Catholic Church - not for Christianity writ large.

Moreover, the Pope made it clear that God had to be part of the picture. The article notes that, "Francis said the beginning of the world was not "a work of chaos" but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist." It also noted that the Pope made a very strong commentary that showed he did not believe the Naturalist viewpoint. The article noted, "Pope Francis has waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it." Yes, the Pope appears to be siding with those of us who make the point that Naturalism does not and cannot explain the universe and all we see in it.

Now, I am not a fan of Theistic Evolution. It is way too similar to the idea of the god of Deism, and I think that the Bible makes it clear that God had an active hand in how the universe was created. I think that science also supports the idea that the universe had a designer behind it. Several good books have been written about this subject which make the case based upon such things as the existence of information in DNA, the Cambrian Explosion and the complete failure of science to come up with a viable theory of the origin of life itself. I don't think that God started the entire process and let it run out based upon his original plan, but at the same time it isn't beyond the possibility that he did. So, while I don't agree that Theistic Evolution is the best explanation, it is certainly a possible explanation and an explanation that works better than Naturalism.

Consequently, while Pope Francis seems to go out on a limb and push a much more worldly agenda than Pope Benedict XVI did, he has not abandoned the idea of a creator behind the universe. And there is no reason that any other Christian, including Roman Catholics, need to follow him even as far as he goes.

Labels: evolution, Pope Francis, theistic evolution

CADRE Comments

A Rational Look at Christianity; Basing Reason in Truth

Welcome

Contributors

Blog Archive

CADRE Blogs of Interest

Comments Policy

Popular Posts

Followers

Share it

Christian Institute

Translate This Blog

Bravenet Counter

How Ancient Mud Balls Provide Evidence for the Kingdoms of David and Solomon

Should Atheism Lead to Discounting of Homosexuality?

Eight Common Myths about the Bible

The Location of Jesus' Trial Before Pilate Found?

Is the Number of Atheists Really as Large as Atheists Claim?

Does God want us to be Dumb? A look at Joyce Meyer's Quote on Confusion and Reasoning.

Does the Pope's Statement regarding the Big Bang End the God Debate?

Use of Content