A "Quick" Note

I decided to keep this separate from any other post, and it was too long to simply tweet. Two things are often posed to me in conversation and I figured it'd be good to list them here. One is use of Scripture and the is church attendance.

I think I mentioned it in an earlier post, but I'll repeat myself here. The point of this blog is to make arguments for Christianity, morality, and so on in a secular manner to show that the Bible is correct. Rather than do what many Christians do, my aim is to give unbelievers a reason to see consistency in Christianity. In terms of the faith, it's good to use the Bible to prove itself. However, if someone has no reason to find the Bible or the faith valid, then they'll need something else to do so. That's my aim here. The worst that happens is non-Christian people agree with me and Christians tell me Scripture I could use. Bombarding a nonbeliever with Scripture won't magically make them convert. Intellectualism will always attempt to be a substitute for Jesus Christ; my use or non-use of Scripture is not going to change that.

Secondly, church attendance. Nearly every ministry that I've spoken to a member of in the past few years will ask me what I believe, if I'm a Christian, and if I attend a church. Personal feelings aside, the big issue I see here is some "mustache growing." For unfamiliar readers, it's something I say instead of another male comparison. Anyways, I find that many ministries are interested more in numbers than anything else. With so many apostate churches, it's hard for me to take seriously very many claims by ministries.

This addition is mainly for Christians and "Christians": Asking me, or anyone else, what we believe, listening, and then asking if we have accepted Jesus when at least I, personally, already said I have in response to the first question, is a complete insult. Yes, some of us are intellectuals. We've all tried to be "normal" at some point (though I digress from that word now). We aren't going to want to attend your church if you undermine our entire thought process by assuming we're like the "intellectuals" that reject Christ. Never mind that many of us who scrutinize every detail won't attend a church with even a hint of apostasy.

I think you all get the picture, and I'm sure some of you, believers and nonbelievers alike, can relate. If something doesn't make sense to us who think in our way (mathematically in my case), we'll never get to the faith part. Ministries around the world are losing numbers by apostasy and limiting new numbers by alienating those of us who go intellectual->faith process rather than the opposite.

Arguments for God: Part 2

Disclaimer: Before I even continue with my arguments and proofs, there is something that must be made absolutely clear. There can be no question of it. There is a massive difference between acknowledging God or even that He might exist, and actually following Him and putting yourself in the service of Christ. Without reception of the Holy Spirit, there is no change. This is why so-called Christians, yes, even if Hitler said he was, are not indicative of actual Followers of Christ. And such a change must be out of sincerity, the true reconciliation that you know what the Truth is and how to correct your fallen condition. As such, these proofs are not fool-proof. No matter how air-tight my cases, they will not suddenly make someone hard of heart into a believer as suddenly if they had been exposed to a frosty wind. Let us continue.

This second argument starts where the first left off. From my first argument we see that is logically necessary for a Creating Force. This proof used to be much longer being a list of deductions from non-Christian faiths. However, I have condensed it and changed partially to a proof by induction.

Premise 1: The Force must exist outside of creation, otherwise it presents a paradox.
Premise 2: The Force must be able to create the universe as we know it (logically, orderly, etc).

Point 1: The Force must be self-sufficient and uncreated. Thus we can discount the following:

Aboriginal "Dreamtime" and other "guiding ancestor" types can be discounted because it does not speak of creation's ultimate beginnings. The Force, Baiame, is not sufficient to create and rather teaches man through the use of ancestors.

Taoist use of yin and yang, because they are created (as are other things)  are without logical explanation. The elements that would form the universe already existed without explanation.

Hinduism fails because it describes the universe as eternal or an illusion. Since we have already seen that the universe cannot be eternal, it must be an illusion. If the universe is an illusion, then it cannot be eternal but only appear to be eternal. Thus, the universe cannot be eternal or an illusion.

Islam fails due to logical inconsistencies in the Quran See here for examples. Thus the Force, Allah, is either mistaken in his book or is not logical.

Other religions, particularly polytheist ones, rely on various deities that exist within creation and cannot account for each other. There is no order, even among those with the power, let alone the paradox of existing in creation. This is essentially the same as  the guiding ancestor type.

Point 2: By previous result, we know that the universe requires a creator. By previous result, we have deduced the potential list. By induction, we see that God, in Christianity, fits the requirements. He exists outside of creation, He has the capacity to create(unlike other deities) and He is orderly thus creating the universe in a certain way with certain laws for its function.

Conclusion:  This proof and the first show that God is able to, by definition, be the Creator. However, just because He does, doesn't suddenly mean people will change their hearts. This logic only serves to show that the conclusion is logical. In other words, this is a tool for those at a certain point in their journey.  Please do not use this or my other posts as a beating stick.

An Issue with Jesus' Parables?

Today a fellow named Tom Short and his ministry came by Purdue and basically did a Q&A on Christianity. During this time of five or six hours, one of the observers brought up a point. He stated that Jesus' parables were just redactions of Greek myth. Or perhaps of mythology in general, his phrasing was vague. This made me think for a moment: What's the point?

Indeed, what does that accusation accomplish? As someone who's dabbled in logic and is becoming a teacher, I don't see how this claim doesn't seem to harm Christ's message or Christianity as a whole. First remember the cultural context. By being culturally sensitive and using familiar stories, Christ made His work more relatable. This is a simple tool used in teaching; we take something students are familiar with and frame the new material within it.

Logically, this neither confirms nor denies Christ's existence, His work, or the Bible. You know, as someone who was an intellectual and not a true believer for awhile, I almost didn't include this. But then it hit me: in many cases, a complaint like this is exactly what it sounds like, a nitpick.

There are legitimate skeptical questions. How do we know the Bible is accurate? Where does it come from? Is it historically accurate? Sometimes it doesn't even take a Christian to see when a skeptic has a legitimate question or simply a  complaint, as I've shown above.