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.

Moral Relativism

This is a short thought I had last night. Moral relativism, politically, boils down to the majority. Short of regressing to tribalism, this means that there will always be a minority (or more) in disagreement over legislation. The only thing stopping an infinite loop is how the Supreme Court system works, for better or worse. So long as moral relativism is used for "freedom," its supporters will always have the usual crowd of "bigots," "haters," and so on to contend with. Perhaps relativists would be best served reviewing why they want things a certain way. In my interactions in life, it has always boiled down to personal want. Regardless if this is the majority position or not, I wonder when humankind will realize that they've been acting out of physical want their entire existence, ignoring the soul?

The Big Question

Introduction

While taking lunch today, I was reminded of an oft-cited explanation by evolutionists about evolution. It usually goes something like "What you learn in the textbooks isn't evolution/the whole story/what actually goes on," or "Researchers know what it is, even if you don't." There are other variations. This is almost nearly in response to, when used seriously, the question "How did DNA, proteins, and such get more and more complex, as in length, number of pairs, etc?"

The question is within the Theory of Evolution itself. I aim to use ToE only in its own terms to show why such claims fall flat, namely that which I posed above. The answer I usually get is "Copying errors mutate into beneficial things to pass on." This seems a decent explanation at first. Let's ignore copying rate and mutation rate for a moment. Even if this idea is true, let alone demonstrable, there's a huge issue. This series of copy and mutate must happen enough over a course of billions of years to what we see today. Let me explain further.

The Example

Say we have some primitive form of life, whatever the in-thing is now for ToE to work off of after assuming first life. Let's say it gets these copying and mutation errors that end up making it something more advanced. The job is not yet finished! If this lifeform dies, the same series, or at least same sort of series of events must happen to the same kind of primitive lifeform there or elsewhere in a beneficial way. This is to say nothing of how multiple sexes formed or how those different sexes must then survive and pass on enough mutations.This then must repeat, going up Evolution's Tree of Life, which brings me to another point.

The Division

In the ToE, there are two thought camps: one that Evolution is progressive, working towards a goal; the other says it's simply random and we're here. Both fail logically. The latter shows by my example above that the explanation is already ad hoc. We're here, so this sort of thing must have happened numerous times. If Evolution is Progressive, this embodies it with certain qualities of intelligence, a sort of transcendence if you will. Evolution can no more work actively towards a goal any more than Democracy. Those things themselves are labels for a process; they describe, but do not guide how those things act. True, both are things done actively, but they do not work as themselves; they are not autonomous. Humans vote to make a democracy happen by electing officials. Evolution adapts organisms for an immediate need. Neither has some crystal ball revealing why those things are being done in terms of the future. (In the case of democracy, humans rationalize their vote, thus guiding it; Evolution has no such backing).

Conclusion

This is the part where I ask "How is it really supposed to work?" What are people like me missing? Even within its own system, Evolution begs the question "How did we get here?" This isn't some knockout punch. If anything, it reveals that ToE and Creationism are both philosophies and have no place in the classroom. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

On the Prop 8 Lawyer and "Evolving Views"

Introduction

Attorney Charles Cooper was the one to argue Prop 8 all the way to the Supreme Court. As it stands now, he says his views are changing. This post aims to use this man and his views to make a contrast between oft-confused points while not slamming him or his views.

Why is this News?

First and foremost, his views changing comes from his step-daughter being a lesbian and her future marriage. That is his business and I don't even know what his worldview is. However, the issue in a Christian sense is the difference between loving someone and endorsing what they do. I no more tell a gay to continue in his ways anymore than I endorse the personal use of pornography, or something nonsexual like stealing. On the flip side, we Christians are called to be loving, not discounting anyone since we all have fallen short of the glory of God. Love your neighbor as yourself: your gay neighbor, your neighbor from a broken household, your wealthy neighbor, and the list continues.

The second important point is about standing one's ground. The people closest to use affect us the most. Sadly, many change their morality due to this. I get that people don't want to shake or shatter their family by not being fully supportive. Indeed, it takes a sense of maturity for both people involved to resolve the difference between who they are, how they act, and what morality surrounds them. Again, I cannot stress enough that love /= changing one's morals or approving of something that breaks your worldview.

Closing

By now there are dozens of posts on this matter. Posts making parallels, posts without a loving tone, posts that are about recontextualizing the Bible. I'd like to address that last part. "Evolving," in this case, entails that you are improving in some capacity. If this means you adopt a more loving attitude and actually show it, great! I advise caution on the other hand. If "evolving" means moving past God's Word and what it commands, then quite simply you are no longer following God's commands. In fact, such an "evolution" tends to be humanistic, focusing on the people as opposed to the morality involved or even love. It isn't necessarily a slippery slope, but it is still a breaking of a whole that should remain as it is. "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

TL;DR Version: Love thy neighbor, regardless. Christ didn't use modifiers to describe this. Love /= changing one's morals. "Evolving" views must makes sense in the context of one's worldview.

A Quick Note and a Tale

Introduction

This blog post is about an old canard I see regularly. Namely how pro-choice people say conservative Christians are trying to shame women into not having access to or the ability to have an abortion. First, not only conservative Christians are pro-life. It's disrespectful to attack a group you have a problem with when the issue or people involved are much broader.

Disclaimer

Secondly, the only shame involved in abortion is thinking it's okay. Before I continue, allow me this: anyone who has aborted needs support. Do not turn your nose up at a woman who has been damaged by abortion. For God's sake, after such a decision anyone would need support! I cannot bolster this point enough. Supporting abortion is shameful. What can top that shamefulness is scoffing at those who realize the what they've done. Quite simply, if you're more concerned with the child than the woman, you're doing it wrong. A woman won't be able to find forgiveness in herself if her fellow "Christians" are demonizing her. Like any other sin, we should not simply give up on ourselves or each other. Bringing it to Jesus is what we should do.

It has been known that life begins at conception since before Roe v. Wade. I may argue about personhood in a later, expanded post; after all, it really would be a legalistic argument, wouldn't it? For now, consider this: I often hear first trimester abortions are the most common and that the fetus isn't viable. It's important to note that in many cases, first trimester abortions are the only ones legal. This statistic of "most abortions are first trimester" should not then be surprising. Moving on, it still ends a life. Read the following story:

The Tale of the Wilderness

You and I are out in the wilderness. By freak accident, you become grievously injured, unconscious. The supplies we have are barely enough for one person, due to the accident. The rough terrain means that even if you recover, we'll probably be slowed down enough that we won't make it back to civilization. Knowing this, I reason the following: I can't keep you around! You'll take away from my meager standard of living, place a burden on me I didn't ask for, and perhaps even cause my death. I notice that you're unresponsive; you can't function on your own. You need me. But, caring more about myself, I justify murder by throwing you in a nearby lake thereby letting you drown.

Conclusion

I would never do such a thing. Even if I did, I would be guilty of manslaughter or murder if it was ever found out. However, the reasons are the exact same I hear to justify abortion: resources, management, responsibility. The story isn't perfect. You didn't ask to be injured in the wilderness. But this makes the point even more salient: if you choose to have sex, potentially conceiving a child, then you've already created a scenario where someone (the unborn) is "injured in the wilderness." Also, in the story you aren't inside me, but it's demonstrated that the reasoning to kill can still be carried out. Could you justify killing a friend or family member in this wilderness tale?

Intermission: HELL

Introduction

Oh yes, there's that word hell. Something some churches have removed to be more relevant is still just as relevant either way. Jesus Christ spoke on hell more than anyone else in the New Testament, such as in Matt 5:22, 7:23, 8:12, and others beyond the book of Matthew. It's quite clear to me that hell is a very real thing. So what is hell?

Hell and Unheard Ofs

Hell is the destination for those who reject God and the salvation offered through Christ's sacrifice. Separation and eternal torment are details of hell. Why would God, all-loving and perfectly just, send people to hell? Even if they choose to reject Him, what about others? This is a question I was asked this evening by a  friend of mine. Until now I had not taken it too seriously. After all, I just knew God meats out justice and knows what He's doing. But I never asked why, until tonight.

Specifically, I speak of others who have not or could not in their lifetime hear the Gospel. Secluded tribes, those who lived before Christ's resurrection, and anyone else who falls into this category would be damned, right? Not so. Let's look at Romans 2:1-16.

Here Paul begins talking about passing judgment. Those who judge but commit the same sin they judge will feel the wrath of God (verse 3). He then continues into God's judgment to those who are righteous and those who are wicked (verses 5 through 11). While no less important, many have already heard this in some such form. Stick with me here.

Look at verses 12 through 16. Those who obey God's Law will be justified, but those who don't will not. Verse 12 says those who have sinned without the law will perish without it. Not looking good yet, is it? Let's look closely at verse 14 through 16:

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when,according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

It's clear here that those without the Law will be judged by Jesus Christ, through what is written on their hearts and consciences so long as their work is of the Law, even if they do not explicitly know of it. Recall in Matthew 22:36-38 Christ commands us to love God with all of our heart, mind, and soul. So long as those without the Gospel follow this, Jesus will judge them according to it and their actions.

To clarify, it seems that even if there are those who do not know God explicitly, they can still be saved if Christ judges them so. I do not claim to know how lenient this is. Will any believer of a deity with some attributes of God be saved? Or is it more specific? I don't know. Maybe it's just that gut feeling that there is One who rules over all. Whatever the case, God has a plan for them. He is perfectly just after all.

Conclusion

In closing, it is important that I remind my fellow Christians that we remain salt and light and continue missionary work. We can't suddenly slack off. After all, such delinquency could lead to blood on our hands, in soulish terms. We should not become lazy and deny others the joys of Christ's gift, let alone shirk our responsibilities!

Like, comment, share, read to others, read to your plants, just get this message out! I could not find such a write-up as this on the internet, yet many ask about hell and those who haven't heard the Gospel! Blessings, Lu.

Arguments for the Existence of God

Here is argument one:

Argument 1
Given: Universe cannot be eternal by 2nd law of thermodynamics
Given: Each created thing has an creator by Law of Sufficient Cause (3rd law of logic)
Given: Design requires intelligence (observation)
Given: Universe cannot create itself because of Fallacy of Infinite Regress and LoSC
Conclusion 1: Universe was created because it cannot be eternal; also, creating agent must be external
Conclusion 2: Universe was created by an uncaused force because of Law of Sufficient Reason
Conclusion 3: Universe was created by some intelligent, uncaused force
Synthesis: The universe was created and designed by some uncaused, external, intelligent force

As can be seen, this is merely a deist argument. Still, it is logically impossible to be an atheist due to this argument. Argument 2 will be posted in the near future.

Edit: It has been brought to my attention that Gottfreid Leibniz and William Lane Craig also follow this argument, or one very similar. This post is all work done by me.