2008 June archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for June, 2008

Debating the Existence of God: Some Definitions and the Burden of Proof

Published by Casey Huxley June 30, 2008 in Religion and Philosophy. 44 Comments

Defining terms is frequently half the battle in any discussion - and discussion concerning the existence or non-existence of god(s) is no exception. Often meaningful conversation is made impossible by conflicting sets of definitions. I see two main different sets of definitions in use. Unfortunately, dictionaries are often mixed on the issue. For the record, I’m an ex-Christian who is now a weak agnostic.

Popular Definitions
Perhaps the most common set of definitions are what I here term the popular definitions. It appears that most people who haven’t been involved in much debate on this issue will hold to definitions like these.

Atheist - someone who claims to know that god(s) and the supernatural don’t or can’t exist.

Agnostic - someone who isn’t sure if god(s) or the supernatural exists.

Theists - someone who is sure god(s) and/or the supernatural exists.

These definitions are flawed for a few reasons, but many people do seem to hold these or similar definitions. When they talk to someone who is using the more technical definitions, communication can be difficult.

Technical Definitions
Here are the more technical (and in my view, correct) definitions.

Atheist - is simply someone who is not a theist (hence a - theist). This means that they lack a belief in any god(s), but it doesn’t mean that they deny the possibility of god(s) or supernatural forces. This is the position of the “new atheists” (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc) that have achieved much media discussion in recent years. They would say that while they can’t prove or state absolutely that a god doesn’t exist, they nevertheless don’t believe in one, and find the existence of one unlikely.

Recently the terms strong atheist and weak atheist have come into being. A weak atheist would be one as described in the above paragraph, whereas a strong atheist is as described in the popular definitions section. Those atheists who hold to the weak position appear to greatly outnumber those who hold to the strong position.

Agnosticism - literally means without knowledge. The agnostic position is that there is no evidence, or at least no good evidence, to suggest that god(s) exists or that god(s) doesn’t exist. Agnosticism also has a strong and weak division. Strong agnosticism states that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is unknowable. Weak agnosticism states that existence or nonexistence of god(s) is currently unknown (in the “weakest” view, perhaps merely unknown to the specific agnostic in question), but is not necessarily unknowable.

Theist - simply someone who has a belief in god(s).

It’s important to note that in this set of definitions, that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic atheist - don’t know if god(s) existence and do not believe in any, or be an agnostic theist - don’t know if god(s) exist but believe in one (or more). Agnostic theists in theological terms are often called fideists, a term that emphasizes their position that religious questions are better (or only) answered by faith rather than by reason.

You can see how these two sets of definitions can lead to misunderstanding. A theist might challenge an atheist to prove that god(s) doesn’t exist. To which an atheist could very well reply that they can’t and that isn’t the position of atheism anyways.

Debate and the Burden of Proof
A key question, either overtly or covertly, in debates over the existence of god(s) is which side has the burden of proof. The atheist and the theist will likely insist that the other has to prove their position, and the agnostic is likely to agree with both of those statements. Atheists will say that they aren’t making a claim, and that the theist is, and therefore has the burden of proof. Theists will contest this.

In a debate, whichever side can force the other side to carry the burden of proof by making them defend their position more than they themselves have to, will often appear to have “won” the debate. Thus, the burden of proof issue is critical.

My personal view is that as long as the debate is about the existence of god(s) in general, theists and atheists should have an equal burden of proof. (With the atheist arguing that the position that the existence of god(s) is very unlikely). This changes though if the theist’s claim becomes more specific. If the theist is arguing for the existence of an omnipotent, loving god then they are making a greater claim and must suffer the greater burden of proof. And if the theist is arguing for a specific god or gods and that all other ones are false, then that is a very great claim and the theist must meet an extremely high burden of proof.

Links: Bush Administration Screw-Up, Google Space-Race, More Laws = Less Safe Driving

Published by Colin June 27, 2008 in Current Events. 1 Comment

Every week, our users put together the news, interviews, articles, videos and media that they have found important, interesting and informative. We post it every Friday. Here are the links for this week:

Another Bush administration screw-up:

So far, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly $500 million to fund those broadcasts. The television station, called Alhurra, and the radio network, Sawa, were meant to provide an American perspective on world events and counter the wave of global criticism that had been building against the Bush administration since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Instead, Alhurra’s four years of operation have been marked by a string of broadcast disasters that government officials believe are as negative as anything aired by Al Jazeera, the widely watched Qatar-based station that aired unedited speeches of Osama bin Laden.

Google is funding a private space-race:

We believe that space should be open to anyone and everyone, especially those people who want to go… The government has accomplished amazing things … but we think that we can do it less expensively.

There are 16 million people on the membership rolls of Southern Baptist churches, but only 6 million show up to church. The Southern Baptist Convention has adopted a resolution on church membership. Local churches are urged to “exercise church discipline” and to “maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members.” Small Victories are Still Victories

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 57 percent of evangelical church attendees said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life. Another interesting part of the survey (link) is that 21% of atheists believe in God (see page 3 of the summary). Apparently, atheists are not so sure what that word is supposed to entail.

More Links
Why stop signs and speed limits endanger Americans

Is it inherent that Mom’s and Dad’s have unequal roles? Some researchers say, “yes.”

‘Pro-Life’ Drugstores Market Beliefs

Whistle at construction workers in England and you risk being put on the sex offenders register.

Review: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Part IV

Published by Thainamu June 26, 2008 in Book Reviews. 4 Comments

Part 4 of 4 - Appendix on Bioethics and my reflections

Links to earlier parts of this review: Part I, Part II, Part III

Francis S. Collins ends his book with an Appendix chapter about bioethics, especially bioethics relating specifically to the rapid progress in understanding of the human genome. He talks about his first hand experience in dealing with an extended family who were part of an experiment to isolate the gene for a certain type of breast cancer. We all think that an understanding of genetics could do wonders for treating disease, but the non-medical implications that the families and doctors had to deal with in this case were considerable. For instance, should a woman have a preemptive double mastectomy if she learns she has the bad gene? Should children be tested, and what should their options be? How does one deal with “survivor guilt” when one sister has the bad gene and the other doesn’t?

He goes on to other issues that come up when we can learn about our own genetic predispositions to disease. Some examples: Who gets access to our genetic info, and what will they be allowed to do with it? Would insurance companies discriminate on whom they will cover? Will our life-style change if we learn about our own predispositions?

He covers cloning in detail, and devotes a few pages to the “when does life begin” question. He brings up a case that I personally have seen, where Christians who believe that life begins at conception turn a blind eye to the process of in vitro fertilization which often destroys embryos and most certainly leaves thousands in frozen limbo.

Lastly, he talks about the idea of “my genes made me do it.” He presents evidence that, yes, there are psychological traits that statistically do run in families, but strongly puts forth that these traits are “genetically influenced, but not hardwired.”

My Reflections on the Book
First of all, in regard to this appendix, I’ve often felt like, for several decades, humans have had the scientific and technological expertise to create situations way beyond their ability to deal with the implications of those situations. The burgeoning field of genetic medicine is just one more example of this. At this rate, I wonder what things my grandchildren will have to deal with–probably things I can’t even imagine.

I very much enjoyed reading this book and re-reading it as I wrote this review. I had known of Collins’s work for some years, so it was good to read his autobiographical story. I suppose the big idea that I come away with is that which I wrote about in part 3, my views on the creation of the world. This book has given me cause to think that maybe an interpretation of Genesis 1-2 that is not literal would be possible without doing damage to one’s faith in scripture or the saving work of Christ.

Ironically, my father comes to mind. He was not a believer during my growing up and teen years (though he always attended church as a way to shut my mother up). He was not an educated man, just high school, but he liked to read the newspaper. I remember having some weird conversations with him as he read news items about finding humanoid fossils, etc. He believed the scientists, and that made him more disbelieve what he was hearing at church. He was one of those people for whom a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 was a stumbling block to faith.

A final green-light thought that reading this book brought me to: if evolution is true and continuing, I wonder what would happen if humans manipulate the world such that the unfit will survive as well as (or instead of) the fit?

Why I Am Not An Anarchist

Published by Kenneth Martens June 25, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 37 Comments

This essay responds to the idea that if small government is good, then no government is better.

Two Kinds of Libertarians
If a small government is good, no government at all must be better, right? Some libertarians agree, some don’t. That point of disagreement defines the two basic forms of libertarianism.

Anarchist libertarians believe true liberty can only be achieved if there is no government at all. Any form of government is oppressive.
Minarchist libertarians believe that a government is necessary for liberty. The ideal government is not oppressive.

Or to put it more succinctly:

Anarchy = no government
Minarchy = minimal government

Governments Abuse Power
The main problem with governments is that they can use their power to oppress the public and violate the rights of the people. At first glance that makes anarchism appealing. As one anarchist put it, how can minarchists trust “the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers” to coerce and oppress the public? (The Minarchist’s Dilemma) There’s nothing to stop the government from using its power for evil. The only way to prevent that is to eliminate the government completely.

Ayn Rand offers a succinct explanation of why anarchy cannot and does not work.

[A] society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

“The Nature of Government” (PDF document)

I’m a Minarchist
I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. There are practical reasons for my belief. E.g., I don’t think anarchism is workable in a fallen world filled with sinful people. It devolves into might-makes-right. Even Ayn Rand, a hostile critic of religion, recognizes that fact. But for now I want to focus on biblical reasons to support a minarchy. According to Romans 13, God establishes earthly governments and expects Christians to submit to them in obedience to God. Submitting is not optional for Christians.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).

God’s Purpose for Government
OK then, submitting to the government is biblical. Does the Bible say that men must be governed, though? Is it acceptable to submit to the authorities that exist while also advocating their abolition? I believe not. The reason is related to the purpose of government. Let’s look at Romans again, to see the purpose of government.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 13:3-5) [Emphasis added].

The Bible is Not About Political Philosophy
The God-ordained purpose of government is to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” God doesn’t tell us to obey the government on a whim; we must obey the government because it is God’s instrument of justice on Earth. The precise form of government isn’t detailed in the Scriptures, but the qualities of that government are listed: a government acceptable to God is one that punishes evildoers and holds no terror for those who do right. There is no biblical support for the idea that God’s purposes (i.e., punishing evildoers) can be achieved without a government.

The Bible isn’t a treatise on political philosophy. It doesn’t discuss the merits of republics or kingdoms or dictatorships; it doesn’t list the virtues of democracies. All the Bible tells us is that governments are established by God for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers. As a Christian, I can only support governments that achieve those biblical objectives. As a citizen and a rational, thinking human being, I believe a minarchy is the best kind of government to fully achieve God’s stated purposes for government.

To summarize:

I am not an anarchist. I believe God has established earthly governments for a purpose.
I am a minarchist because I believe a minarchy best fits the purposes of government laid out in Romans 13.

Are Anarchists Heretics?
This doesn’t mean that anarchy is heresy. I believe you can read the Bible and come away with an understanding that anarchy is compatible with God’s character and with biblical values. For example, you might look to the period of judges and see that God preferred Israel as a nation without a national government. God permitted Israel to have a king, but he warned them of the dire consequences. I don’t believe this implies that anarchy is God’s preferred system of government, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion.

So no, anarchy is not heresy. I believe minarchy is a more reasonable understanding of the Bible, but good Bible-believing Christians can be anarchists too.

Stepping Back - What Is A Sacrament, And Does It Do Away With “Faith Alone”?

Published by Bryan June 24, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Theology. 10 Comments

About The Series In General
This will be the final entry directly on the subject of sanctifying grace being given in the Lord’s Supper. In past entries we have looked at: The Frequency Of The Lord’s Supper, If The Lord’s Supper Is Magic?, and Calvin’s View Of The Lord’s Supper. In the next few entries we will be turning to other aspects of the Lord’s Supper before moving on to baptism. Today we will examine the objection to the view that sanctifying grace is given in the Lord’s Supper which argues that such a view does away with the Protestant doctrine of “Faith Alone”.

Stating The Objection
The objection has been stated on here in the following form:

Our FAITH is what bestows grace (and that faith is also a gift from God). Belief in magic rituals that “force” God to bestow grace is unbiblical. Grace is not something we do acts to earn, it is a gift granted despite our complete inability to do anything to deserve it…

And summed up as

Grace granted as the result of an act isn’t grace, it is a wage that was earned.

Since sacraments have already been distinguished from “magic” in a previous post in which were given biblical examples of acts brining about God’s grace not being considered magic, I will first only briefly address the magic comment before moving onto the main trust of the argument.

What Is Magic?
Magic is the act of relying on a supernatural force to bring about some desired end. The supernatural force is under the command of the magician and in popular cultural is usually brought about by some kind of ritual.

A Christian sacrament on the other hand is a gift given by God to help the church perform it’s mission on earth. It is God who brings about the result of the sacrament, it does not rely on any power in the one who performs it. Whereas magic attempts to either appease or control of a supernatural power or being into performing the whim of the magician, there is no appeasement or control in a sacrament. Man does not force God to given grace in a sacrament, God freely gives it because it is a gift to the church.

A Comparison To Prayer
Why sacraments are accused on being magic, and doing away with “Faith Alone” and not prayer confuses me. One way to think of sacraments are prayers of physical matter. In prayer Christians ask for grace to be given them (Lord give me the strength to overcome XYZ so I can conform more to Christ) and in the Lord’s Supper one takes the bread and wine expecting help to become more like Christ. The only major difference in this respect is that one is spoken, and the other a physical action. If sacraments are magic rituals, then prayer is magic enchantments. We will return to this comparison of prayer later.

The Doctrine Of Faith Alone
No Protestant will argue with the importance of faith in the life of the believer. No Protestant will argue with the statement that “It is by faith alone that one is justified.” However, Protestants will differ on what that statement means. The first Reformers who championed the doctrine saw no contradiction between that doctrine and the belief the the sacraments bestow grace.

As we saw in the last entry, that was Calvin’s view, and it was also Luther’s, the greatest champion of the doctrine to to mention the hundreds of other Reformers who held similar views. One could argue, and it often is, that those Reformers were still caught up in some Roman Catholic doctrine and it was left to others to shed the remaining Roman Catholic doctrines. While such an argument may be made, futility I believe, all I wish to point out is that historically we need not see a break between sacramental grace and the doctrine of faith alone.

How Is That Possible
One modern evangelical writer who has bucked the trend of seeing the Lord’s Supper only as an act of remembrance, and has made room for grace being given in it is Wayne Grudem. Chapter 48 of Grudem’s Systematic Theology is entitled “Means of Grace Within The Church” and will be used to explain why sacraments and the doctrine of “faith alone” are not mutually contradictory.

Grudem begins by asking the question:

All of the blessings we experience in this life are ultimately undeserved - they are all of grace. In fact, for Peter, the entire Christian life is lived by grace (1 Peter 5:12).
But are there any special means that God uses to give additional grace to us? Specifically, within the fellowship of the church are there certain means - that is, activities, ceremonies, or functions - that God uses to give more grace to us? Another way of formulating that question is to ask whether there are certain means through which the Holy Spirit works to convey blessings into the life of the believer. Of course, personal prayer, worship, and Bible study, and personal faith, are all means through which God works to bring grace to us as individual Christians. But in this chapter we are dealing with the doctrine of the church, and we are asking specifically within the fellowship of the church what the means of grace are that God uses to bring blessing to us.

Grudem identifies 11 activities, ceremonies and functions that God uses to bestow grace on the believer (For example; teaching the word, prayer, worship, giving…etc). Two of them are ceremonies (Baptist and the Lord’s Supper) which are which are the sacraments. It is important to note that in Grudem’s understanding, and all orthodox Christians, these means are only avenues that the Holy Spirit uses. The ritual in and of itself does not bring about grace, but it is the Holy Spirit working through them that does.

On the Holy Spirit working through the sacraments Grudem is lock step with Calvin who said in section 19 of his Short Treatise On The Lord’s Supper:

But to understand this advantage properly, we must not suppose that our Lord warns, incites, and inflames our hearts by the external sign merely; for the principal point is, that he operates in us inwardly by his Holy Spirit, in order to give efficacy to his ordinance, which he has destined for that purpose, as an instrument by which he wishes to do his work in us.

Not Ex Opere Operato
Ex Opere Operato is a Latin term that means that the work of the sacrament being performed confers the grace to the recipient, for the sake of our discussion, regardless of their faith. Such a belief would do away with the Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”, but Grudem is clear that this is not what he means:

But on a Protestant view, the means of grace are simply means of additional blessing within the Christian life, and do not add to our fitness to receive justification from God (However, the Anglican Church teaches that baptism is “generally necessary” for Salvation [My Note: We will deal with this in a later post if we get to baptism]). Catholics teach that the means of grace impart grace whether or not there is subjective faith on the part of the minister or the recipient, while Protestants hold that God only imparts grace when there is faith on the part of the persons receiving these means.

Once again we can turn to prayer to see a correlation. Prayer must be made in faith, in fact prayer is an act of faith. It must be made by someone who is trusting in God, and they put that trust into action by, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says “…offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgement of his mercies.” The fact that the faith of a person is acted on in a way commanded by God to receive grace does not do away with the supremacy of faith in prayer just as it does not do away with it in the Sacraments. In the sacraments the faith of the person is acted on through the means that God has ordained (Baptism or the Lord’s Supper) and it is because of faith that the grace is given, just as in prayer.

Why Then External Ritual?
The obvious question at this point should be; “If it is faith that is what matters in the sacraments, why bother with the external sign?” This is a huge question and one that I can only deal with in part in this entry. For an excellent extended answer see Evangelical Is not Enough by Thomas Howard The simple answer, and one that I heard given this past weekend, is because God commands it, but such a view seems to make the sacraments into a burden instead of the gift that they are. Yes God commands participation in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but He does it for our own good. To base participation in them on a command is akin to saying the reason your use a gift is because your dad who gave it to you our of love forces you to. God knows that humans enjoy ritual, that the physical is something that humans need to connect with, and there is so much meaning locked up in the sacraments that participating in them makes the gospel come alive in ways that reading about them can not bring about.

Conclusion
Are sacraments magical? No, they are means that the Holy Spirit use to bring grace to the Church. Do sacraments do away with faith? No, faith is the heartbeat of them. They are nothing without faith on part of the recipient. Is there nothing then to the external ritual of them? No, God has ordained the rituals of the sacraments, they are the means that our faith is expressed. Will this explanation satisfy everyone? No the debate that been going on in Protestant churches since Luther and Zwingli, but I hope at least to have done away with some misconceptions on the topic.

GOP Flip-Flop on Financing

Published by Colin June 23, 2008 in Politics. 24 Comments

One of the major party candidates wants to see the Federal Government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on presidential campaigns. This candidate also wants restrictions on donations, especially from businesses and wealthy people. This includes restrictions on the speech of religious groups as well.

The second major party candidate has decided to save taxpayers millions of dollars, by not taking this money in what is basically welfare for politicians. By this same token, free speech is no longer put into boxes based on timing, nor is money now channelled into rule-laden 527 Groups.

As I am sure the reader knows, the big-government position is being advocated by Republican John McCain, while, ironically, Democrat Barack Obama has forgone spending taxpayer money.

While this is already an almost comical commentary on the lack of distinction between Republicans and Democrats, the Republican National Committee has made themselves look even more foolish by criticizing Obama for his conservative position.

RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said the following:

In his decision to break his promise and forgo our nation’s public financing system, Barack Obama failed to demonstrate the kind of principled leadership that Americans are looking for in our next President. Obama’s decision is what we’ve come to expect from a candidate whose rhetoric is nothing like his record, and it undermines his own claims to represent a ‘new’ kind of politics. Clearly, Barack Obama is just another politician who is willing to do whatever benefits his own personal agenda.

While Obama is “flip-flopping” - it is the good kind - moving from a bad policy to a good one. Whereas McCain and the GOP’s steadfast adherence to their own hypocrisy is deplorable. The correct thing to do, is for the GOP to issue an apology for supporting a candidate like John McCain who claims to want to “reduce wasteful government spending” and subsequently supports federally-funded elections and free-speech restrictions.

What I suspect is the biggest problem with Obama’s move is that it is a break from the typical bipartisan agreements that the Dems and GOP have made to keep unfriendly elements (third parties and independents) from using wealth or grassroots support to crash their two party fiesta. That is the reason McCain-Feingold is in place - to enforce the duopoly currently in control of Washington.

Perhaps Obama really does represent change, and maybe his decision will have a positive impact on the future viability of non-traditional candidates. Either way, in this instance, it’s clear that public financing is not a viable program.

Links: Japanese Healthcare Solutions and Gitmo Outa’ Here

Published by Colin June 20, 2008 in Current Events. 2 Comments

Politics
Japan has enacted a law in an effort to rein in ballooning health care costs. Local governments are measuring the waist size of citizens.

British man pepper sprayed while watching TV. See what happens when you won’t open up your door and prove you aren’t being a bad boy? I love police.

Is Obama an enlightened being? His answer/opinion is at the bottom.

Senate Votes To Privatize Its Failing Restaurants. Alternatively: Mark Cuban wouldn’t hire politicians to manage a Diary Queen.

‘Deadly flooding keeps Iowans from homes’ and/or ‘Man gets pulled from truck at gunpoint for trying to go around a barrier’

Women’s hands, feet, hacked off, then throw into firebombed house in Zimbabwe election violence

From the New York Times:

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its third consecutive rebuff to the Bush administration’s handling of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, ruling 5 to 4 that the prisoners there have a constitutional right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.

Religion
President Bush considering conversion?

Anglican Church In Meltdown

Misc.
10 Minute Radio interview with Canadian Industry Minister Jim Prentice on Canadian DMCA. This is an excellent interview where the Minister shows that he either has NO idea what he’s talking about or he’s outright LYING…and then hangs up. Seriously, this is unbelievable. Oh, and Canadian Music Artists do not like this bill.

Wine snobbery: “When wine drinkers tell me they taste notes of cherries, tobacco and rose petals, usually all I can detect is a whole lot of jackass.”

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol

The New Birth (Part III)

Published by Chris A June 19, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Theology. 0 Comments

As was mentioned in the previous article entitled Our Introduction to the Holy Spirit, following the experience of being convicted of sin such that we recognize that we need Jesus, the sinner is born again. This occurs when a conscious effort is made towards a profession of faith in the redemptive work of Christ. When a person receives Jesus by faith, he becomes a new creation spiritually (2 Corinthians 5:17). This is made possible by the Holy Spirit.

Born of the Spirit
Jesus explained the New Birth to Nicodemus in John 3:

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

4″How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spiritgives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘Youmust be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

In this passage, Jesus contrasts two very different kinds of birth, both of which are necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God – the natural birth and the spiritual birth. Spiritual birth is necessary because of the spiritual death that passed on all the sons of Adam (Romans 5:12, Romans 5:15, 1 Corinthians 15:22). The experience of being born again signifies the death of the spiritually dead man and the creation of a new man with a new spiritual nature, having the capacity to express the nature of God and overcome the world (Romans 6:4, Romans 6:6, Colossians 2:12, Ephesians 4:24, 1 John 5:4, 5).

Sonship
Anyone who has been born of the Spirit has become a son or daughter of God. Contrary to what some people often say, the whole of humanity is not included in the family of God; only those who have entered into the kingdom of God through the only way (Jesus) are recognized by God as his children. Being born again not only involves the process of adoption by God the Father, but naturally puts believers into a sibling relationship with Jesus.

11Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. 12He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises” (Hebrews 2:11, 12).

Because we have the same Father and are part of the same family, we receive the same degree of love from the Father as does Jesus. To put it another way, God does not love Jesus any more than he loves his other children.

22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24″Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world (John 17:22-24).

Spiritual Growth of the Newborn
Much the same way newborn babies have to grow and develop, those born of the Spirit must do the same. Growing spiritually involves the development of spiritual fruit. Jesus spoke of this in John 15.

4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5″I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

The food necessary to facilitate spiritual growth is the word of God. Jesus, who is the Word incarnate, said that it was impossible to bear spiritual fruit apart from him. 1 Peter 2:2 is in complete agreement with this concept.

“Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.”

The passage most generally referred to with respect to spiritual fruit resulting from growth is found in Galatians 5.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Most Bible translations, including the New International Version which is quoted above, capitalize the word spirit. In one sense it is accurate to say that spiritual fruit is of the Holy Spirit because it occurs subsequent to one being born of the Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit is not the one bearing fruit – the believer is (John 15:4, 5). Therefore, it is more accurate to say that the fruit mentioned is the fruit of the human spirit having been recreated by the Holy Spirit.

Why I am a Christian libertarian

Published by Kenneth Martens June 18, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 59 Comments

This essay responds to the common objection that libertarian ideology is inconsistent with a biblical worldview.

Isn’t that unchristian?
When I tell people I’m a libertarian, they look at me like I’m crazy. “Isn’t that unchristian?” they ask. “How can you support legalized drugs and gay marriage and immoral stuff? What about morality and God’s law?”

What about morality?
Good question. What about morality? I’m a proponent of biblical morality. It’s God’s law, after all. I believe that mind-altering drugs are bad, that homosexual acts are detestable to God, and that God hates sin. I don’t support sin. I just don’t think the government should get involved in punishing it. Let’s let God sort it out on judgement day. The government doesn’t need to enforce morality.

Shouldn’t governments enforce morality?
When I explain that, I get a response something like this: “But governments have to enforce morality. That’s why God gave us governments–to keep justice. Governments can’t condone sin.” That’s true. God did give us governments and he expects us to obey them. But do you really want the government to enforce God’s moral law? Many Christians will say yes, but they’re inconsistent about it. Let’s try this thought experiment.

Do you think freedom of religion is a good idea? Most American Christians do. But idolatry is a sin. If the government enforces God’s morality, all religions except Christianity should be illegal. Many Protestants would like to outlaw the Catholic church. While we’re at it, we should outlaw some of the wishy-washy Protestant denominations too.
Do you think freedom of speech is a good thing? Of course! It’s one of the basic civil liberties listed in the US Constitution. But God considers lying lips an abomination. If the government enforces God’s morality, lying–not just perjury under oath, but all forms of lying–should be illegal.
Do you think gay marriage should be permitted? The standard Christian response is “Of course not, homosexuality is a sin.”

Does a “morality-enforcing” government really enforce God’s moral standard?
So to recap:

Idolatry is a sin, but we should have freedom of religion.
Lying is a sin, but we shouldn’t throw people in prison for lying.
Homosexuality is a sin, so gay marriage should be illegal.

One of these things is not like the other one. Clearly, most Christians accept the fact that the government is not an instrument to enforce God’s laws–except for the particular moral laws that they find really, really important. That’s not consistent. There’s no biblical basis for permitting idolatry but erecting legal barriers to homosexuality.

Libertarianism is just more consistent, that’s all
So I don’t see any contradiction between being a Bible-believing Christian and an advocate for a minimalist libertarian government. I don’t support sin, but–like most other Christians–I don’t think the government needs to be the morality policeman. I’m just like most non-libertarian Christians, except my political philosophy is more consistent than theirs.

Should you be a libertarian?
Maybe. You don’t have to be. You can be a good Christian without being libertarian. The Bible doesn’t talk about political philosophy, so as Christians we have a great deal of freedom in this area. I won’t question your salvation or your theology if you’re a staunch Republican or a Democrat or a socialist. I hope you won’t question mine just because I’m a libertarian.

Game Review - Bioshock: Welcome to Rapture

Published by Ornot the Majestic June 17, 2008 in General, Essays, Politics and Philosophy. 6 Comments

Bioshock Logo I am Andrew Ryan and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?

No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose…
Rapture.
-Andrew Ryan

The year is 1946. Disillusioned with war and perceived religious and political authority, business mogul Andrew Ryan secretly begins building an escape, a utopia free from the parasites of Marxist altruism and religious scrutiny. He built Rapture, a city where man could build, where a man could make himself by his own merit, where a man could be free from moral entanglements and social obligations. He built “Rapture,” at the bottom of the sea. He invites all the great minds and free-thinkers to relish in his wonderland of libertopia, free to do as they please, how they please.

And then, in 1958, it all fell apart.

So begins the story of Bioshock, the newest game for XBOX 360 and PC from 2K, makers of System Shock and System Shock 2. Set in 1960, the story tells of an Objectivist dystopia at the height of ruin. You, the narrator, crash land into the mid-Atlantic near a mysterious island containing a lone lighthouse. You enter the lighthouse, board a bathysphere, and descend to the depths of Rapture. Leaking and crumbling, and apparently victim of its own design, you must fight the denizens of the genetically malformed and psychologically disturbed to discover its secrets, and its powers.

Unbridled by regulations and rules, scientists in Rapture discover the way to unlock the power of the human genome. Andrew Ryan creates (discovers?) Plasmids, a genetic code that gives humans additional strengths and powers including telekinesis, fire, ice and electricity and powered by EVE, a substance that acts as a fuel. Another substance, ADAM, enhances the ability of plasmids, but also weakens the physical/brain barrier, requiring more and more ADAM to maintain sanity. Soon, the residents of Rapture, horribly transfigured and addicted to ADAM, go crazy. And revolt.

The Philosophy of Rapture
Bioshock raises two important issues behind its symbolism:
1) Is this a game showing the futility of Objectivism, and its consequences? or…2) is this a game showing that regardless of intentions, man eventually falls to its basest of levels?

The makers of this game never tell us, which allows much room for interpretation.

If we assume #1, then creators have made some inherent flaws and assumptions, through which most can be attributed to #2. But before we start, let’s begin with some basic definitions.

Objectivism (from Wikipedia, a decent summarization) states:

Objectivism holds that there is mind-independent reality; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement and form valid concepts by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or “rational self-interest”; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one’s consciousness.

It is your moral duty to pursue your own self-interests, as long as those interests do not interfere or destroy the individual rights of others. This basic concept is key behind the objectivist movement, and a founding principle of (L)ibertarianism. It is also this concept that the game appears to make as its base in theory, but it could be argued that it was not Objectivism that brought Rapture down, but the fact that it was not quite Objectivist enough.

Food for Thought, and for Skeptics
Now I know by now many of you are thinking “BUT! IT’S JUST A GAME! YOU’RE CHASING SMOKE ON A WINDY DAY!” Well, possibly. But with it being the #1 selling game on XBOX, and with 9.8/10 or higher in most game review magazines, there is no doubt that this game will be played. Also, given its thought provoking plot, there is little doubt it will many raise questions. Consider also the Randian basis that this game builds upon, including the symbolism which alludes to famous works and characters of her novels. With names like Andrew Ryan….Frank Fontaine…Atlas…it’s not hard to see Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and notice it’s more than just coincidence. Like a good book, or a good movie, this game was meant to raise questions and be explored.
Continue reading ‘Game Review - Bioshock: Welcome to Rapture’

Zeal For Truth