Explain God

Updates, New Blog- Check it out

2010-09-08T14:58:00.001-07:00

I'm not closing this site, nor am I discontinuing posts (although they have been coming rather slowly)..

Instead I'm opening a sister blog to investigate non-christian related existentialism. It should provide an interesting read and really help analyze the questions one should ask to understand life.

Visit the new blog here: Existential Vortex

A quick update, in case anybody was wondering-
I'm not dead, I'm actually in the process of writing my first book. It's been an exciting adventure so far, and I'm very excited about the prospect of being published. I'll keep everybody updated here and my other blog. Again, thanks for the support and I hope to keep the discussion going forward, both here and on Existential Vortex.

The Unchanging God and Incest

2010-04-05T08:03:00.000-07:00

The concept that God is unchanging is a very common theme among just about every major branch of Christianity. With many different references in the bible, it's hard to refute that the static nature of the creator of the universe is a main staple of the Christian doctrine. Note the following:

Malachi 3:6 (New International Version)
⁶I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

Hebrews 13:8 (New International Version)
⁸Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

James 1:17 (New International Version)
¹⁷Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Ecclesiastes 3:14 (New International Version)
¹⁴I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.

The idea is fairly simple- God is a rock on which all truth can be (and is) based. He is unchanging.

The concept that somebody doesn't change seems to make sense. You consider 'who' somebody is based on their personality. To really boil it down, we're talking about how a person reacts to situations, which is really what a personality is. To say somebody is unchanging, means that given the same input on more than one occasion, said person would react exactly the same.

Given this approach, it appears that the concept of an unchanging personality seems a bit broken. Given certain inputs, people make decisions. How does one determine if their personality has changed or not?

It seems that given the chance to make a decision at any point in time, one would assess all given data surrounding such a decision before coming to a conclusion and acting upon this information. If you were to learn that this decision had an undesirable outcome, would you then make the same decision again? Most likely not. But does this show that your personality has changed, or that you're making a different decision based on now different information? Armed with different input information, you've calculated a different conclusion. Does this mean you've changed your mind? Or does this mean evidence surrounding your decision now favors a different outcome?

What this establishes isn't that people cannot change, or that people can't stay the same. What this illustrates is that the concept of an unchanging personality cannot be so easily explained, and therefore the concept seems inherently flawed... unless we consider another option.

Perhaps an unchanging personality requires strict adherence to a set of rules, or a moral code. This would allow you to predict exactly how you would act in certain circumstances, even before you're able to analyze (or even become aware) of all pertaining information regarding the decision.

Perhaps most people would consider killing to be wrong. I could say that my personality is consistent and my morals do not change if every time I'm confronted with a chance to kill somebody, I choose not to.

This strict adherence to a predefined code would appear to be different from our original approach, which requires analysis of all pertinent data before making a decision. But does this show change in the personality of the lifestyle above?

Consider that both decision making processes are a set of rules. Option 1 contains these rules:
1. Obtain as much information about a decision as possible before making a decision.
2. Weigh the foreseeable outcomes of each option
3. Choose the decision that is both most likely to succeed and is most beneficial to your goal.

Option 2 contains these rules:
1. Strictly adhere to preset moral rules.
2. Choose the decision that best fits preset moral rules, despite the outcome.

Both appear to be a consistent rule set, while one appears to be more dynamic.

Option 1 does show that even with a consistent modus operandi, the results can vary. Option 1 plays the odds, and leaves room for error if the facts are not first obtained completely or accurately.

But Option 2 also leaves an incredible gap for unpredictable outcomes. Imagine the scenario of killing...

While one may believe that killing is always wrong, and may be predisposed to favor letting somebody live over taking of another's life, imagine a predicament where a foe is poised with a bomb, ready to kill hundreds of innocent people. If you were armed with a gun, and had an opportunity to kill him before he could execute his plan, would that not be more beneficial? If we were to stick to our absolute moral code, we would favor not killing over the likelihood that it would result in hundreds of deaths.

This illustrates the impossibility of the notion of a static being- a never-changing personality that always points towards truth. Either each situation must be dealt with based on the information within each situation, or an absolute code must contain exceptions for literally infinite possibilities that could occur. A rule book with infinite rules cannot be a rule book any human could ever adhere to. And speaking from experience, we can be sure that the bible contains no such depth.

Incest

Leviticus 20:11 - 21 (New International Version)
¹¹ " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
¹² " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads...[13]..
¹⁴ " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you..[15,16]..
¹⁷ " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible..[18]..
¹⁹ " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.
²⁰ " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
²¹ " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

This outlines quite clearly that incest is not ok. It goes into great detail on exactly what forms of incest are not ok... Yet there are two major examples (and plenty more smaller examples) of incest that was not only happening in the bible, but required by god himself.

Incest #1. Adam and Eve's Children.
Let's face it. If there were two people who started the human race, their children had to eventually reproduce, or we wouldn't be here today. This wasn't because Adam and Eve's children were sinful, this was because this was god's plan to populate the earth. He provided no other way to do so, therefore it is clear that it was expected, and was, in fact, part of god's plan.

Incest #2. The flood
After god was finished killing everything, he expected the small group of people from Noah's ark to get busy and re-populate the earth. Again, another prime example where it wasn't just happening, but it was the only option and was apparently god's plan to repopulate the earth.

Now, without arguing the absolute morality (or immorality) or incest, it is illustrated quite specifically in the bible that incest is considered wrong and immoral and can even be punishable by death, while in other places in the bible, it's required by god to populate the earth.

Is this an example of a changing god? Or is it an example of god using judgment based on the individual circumstances surrounding each situation- which cannot be an absolute moral system. If it were an absolute moral system, it would require infinite rules as we discussed above. An absolute moral system cannot have infinite rules, or it would not be absolute. Infinite rules cannot be followed by humans, and we certainly can't be held accountable for something which is literally unknowable.

It appears the concept of an unchanging immutible god doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny of it's own basic concept. No requirement to debunk whether apparently conflicting decrees in the bible prove god changes- only that the concept that he doesn't change is illogical, and therefore a myth created as a catch-all excuse for one's own behavior.

The moral thing to do would be to take responsibility for one's actions.

Hello, Folks! Not Dead!

2010-02-12T08:11:00.000-08:00

Been busy as of late, but not too busy to continue my thoughts on these subjects. I have many ideas still brewing, but I wanted to open the floor if anybody else is interested...

What are some topics or particular questions that people would like to see discussed here?

Why is God Hidden? Thought Crimes

2009-11-17T09:29:00.000-08:00

Any christian would approach this question with a bit of apprehension. From within the walls of the christian church, questions like these are not to be pondered, and are likely sinful temptations to doubt, which is the opposite of belief and faith- which, by the way, is your only key to salvation. Surely, you don't want to interfere with that.

And this reveals one of the biggest issues surrounding christianity: Thought Crime. If we make the act of merely thinking about something into a sinful concept, we can keep the masses from truly investigating the logical consistencies (or lack thereof) of christianity's claims.

Why is God Hidden? Well of course, as any christian would tell you, God is not hidden, and, in fact, can be seen performing miracles on a daily basis. God is everywhere, you just need to look. Flowers blooming, the sun setting, everything is an example of god's works. Right?

Unfortunately, this type of circular reasoning (which is fairly common to christianity) does not actually make any logical sense whatsoever.

A thought experiment.

A tree falls in the woods. Was this god's doing?

One would say, quite possibly. This may have been part of god's plan. Who knows just what positive effect it may have in the future. Maybe this tree falling will stop a wildfire a year from now from spreading beyond that point, saving millions of lives.

One might say it's impossible to tell. It could just be unrelated to anything.

One might say it's the devil, the inherent sin in the world that causes death and decay. This tree may have been home and provided food to many animals. This tree could've been used as building or firewood, but instead is now rotted and useless.

Why did the tree fall? All three possible explanations could be correct, but the real question is actually hidden. Is there really a moral reason for a tree to fall?

Let's ask a christian just which of our three choices could be correct. It is impossible to know for sure, isn't it? We could take a guess. Possible in the future any coincidental positive (or negative) outcomes could influence our reasoning. Maybe the fallen tree helps spread a wildfire instead of prevent. That may change our thinking. But under no circumstance will we ever know for sure what the meaning of it is, because to us, it is unattainable.

What does this thought experiment show?

That God is in fact, by definition, hidden. If he exists, he has made sure that any actions that he takes are completely explainable by natural causes, and he ensures that the motive behind each act is arguably subjective.

But what if a person is miraculously healed from an incurable disease? Surely this is God's will and therefore a sign that he is acting.

When presented with this argument, it's easy to look at the small picture. Yes, it would seem that this child who had no chance of survival, but was cured anyhow, has experienced a miracle, and this would be proof that god works miracles and is not hidden.

With this zoomed in view of a "miracle" it's easy to miss the real problem.

What about the other 2000 children a year that die from this incurable disease? If we are to pray that they are all saved, can it be proven that god is in fact working to save only 1?

Some would say that it's possible that this is just God's will.

Some would say that it's coincidence.

Some would say that it's the devil's influence, and the nature of a sinful world causing so much suffering.

One thing is for sure, there is no way to know exactly what forces are at work, if any are at all. This is because if god truly existed, he is hidden.

If god was not hidden, there would be undoubted proof that these actions around the world were caused by him and only him, and as the ultimate moral being, we would not question the motive of his actions when they are taken.

But instead, we do not understand the motives, if any. We do not understand the moral implications of 1 child living while thousands of others die. We cannot comprehend if this is simply sin, or god's work, or both. We can only hope that it is god showing mercy in a sinful world.

But hope is not proof. Hope is the blind wishing they could see, and telling everybody else that they can, when indeed they cannot.

Why is this a problem? From where does this problem stem? From the basis of thought crime. The collection of values that are pushed upon the church to reject any such impure thoughts as to analyze all of the factors in an event, and instead hope. But an emotionally honest person knows the difference between hope and belief.

I hope next summer will be warm, but I do not believe it will be so merely because of this desire. I do not know whether it will be or not. I can pray that it will be, but if somebody who does not enjoy the heat is actively praying for a cold summer, how can one prove one's belief? If it is warm, was god acting for my best interest? If it's cold was he acting against my interest? Or am I assigning a motive to nature when all I've got is hope?

Believers confuse hope with belief. You cannot believe something that you have evidence against. If I have told you I have a million dollars to give to you, do you believe it? Will you believe it without seeing it?

It is a claim that makes you skeptical. The more astounding the claim, the more you require proof to believe it. But the act of believing is not a choice, it is an emotional side effect of your brain analyzing the evidence and factors, and making an informed decision based on what is presented. Miniature decisions such as these take place in your mind all the time without you even thinking about it.

A Thought Crime Thought Experiment

On pay day, when you deposit a check in your account, you believe you've got money, because you physically have deposited the check into your account.

But what if the check bounced? Your belief may be wrong. But the minute you get a call from the bank letting you know of the problem, your belief system changes to acknowledge this new data. Your mind now believes that this money does not exist in your account, and this would be true.

Go ahead and try to believe, despite this evidence, that your money is still in your account. You can't change your belief. You can wish (hope) the money was there, but you cannot change your mind's belief that the money is in fact not there, because it knows the evidence and has changed your world view based on this evidence.

This is how belief works. You do not choose what you believe. Your mind does this automatically.

Now, it is possible to believe the money is there when you have a check directly deposited into your account. You expect the money at 5 o'clock on friday night, because that's what you've been told.

It is not unreasonable to believe this, and in fact, you are acting on faith alone. Most likely, your bank account reflects your direct deposit check, and you have funds available.

It would be prudent to check, though, wouldn't it?

If the money wasn't there when it should've been, do you continue believing that the money is there, and it is your eyes that are mistaken? Whether you wish it to be true or not, you cannot change your mind, which now believes the money is not there.

How does the church fit into this scenario?

If the church explains to its followers that the teachings of christ are true, and that god does work in visible ways, how does it keep your mind from automatically disbelieving?

By keeping you from ever checking your bank account.

If you believe that checking your bank account is a thought crime, and that is it proof of your disbelief in the church, you will avoid doing so. You must believe that money is there, lest you be guilty of the sin of doubting that your money has been deposited.

If you never discover this evidence that would otherwise disprove your belief system, your mind will never change its world view. And the scammers who've got you convinced the money is there without proof can continue draining your bank account completely unnoticed.

Until next time, this is analogy man signing off.

Hey All, Quick Update

2009-11-17T08:53:00.001-08:00

As you may have noticed, I did a quick update on the look and feel of this blog. I think this matches it well, I downloaded this template from http://www.deluxetemplates.net/, so if you like it, let them know. I personally can't design blogger templates for anything, so this worked great for me.

More updates to come. Please holler in the comments!

The Objectively Absent God

2009-10-29T11:35:00.000-07:00

Today I'm going to step away from the tone of the rest of my blog for a personal story leading to my next subject: The Objectively Absent God.

We start with a story of a child: Myself as an early teen.

The setting: a Christian youth conference with the goal of re-igniting the fire of faith in America's youth. I am standing up front with hundreds of other believers accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior.

The worship music began to mellow and the lights stayed dim as dozens of conference staff poured across the crowd, laying hands on as many bowed heads as possible.

Some spoke loudly while others whispered. Some spoke in other languages while others spoke in movements.

My eyes were shut but I could feel a hand eventually make its way to the back of my head. This was it. I had heard about Christ and I knew that God was real, but this was the final moment.

The prayer started. "Lord please fill this boy with the holy spirit, let him know you are there, let him feel your presence. Let him know the joy of knowing you, and bring him into salvation through the death of your son, Jesus Christ..."

Inside my head the excitement grew. The dim light and powerful melodies echoing through the room ensured that this would be a very spiritual night. The creator of the universe was about to enter in to me, and I would be a new person tonight.

But instead of knowing that Christ was with me, I was left with a rather confused feeling. Did it work? Was I saved? Do I know Christ now? Did I do something wrong?

Around me tears flowed and sobs were heard. Everybody else seemed to be having a very emotional moment. Something must've gone wrong with me. Why didn't anything seem different?

Maybe I was over-thinking it, but this entire thing was ambiguous. Surely if I had just been filled with the Holy Spirit, I'd know by now, yes?

Questions and doubt suddenly filled my mind. Was everybody else just faking it? Or did I seriously just not want it enough? Was I not sincere enough to accept Jesus into my heart?

I left that conference that night with my group more confused than when I started. Surely that was not the goal of the conference.

What was missing? That's a good question. Impossible to know for sure. But why was it impossible?

There can be many explanations for my experience. Maybe I just wasn't truly ready. Maybe I didn't believe enough. Maybe I wasn't sorry enough for my sins.

Conveniently, the problem presented by Christianity is an unsolvable problem. It is a problem of vague degrees. What is it to be sorry enough? This question would torture me for a good portion of my childhood.

When everybody else can do something that you can't, you start looking within. What am I doing wrong? What's wrong with me?

The problem is that there is no objectivity within Christianity. Because there is no proof, there is no room for critical thinking.

Why would God give us the ability to utilize critical thinking, I often wondered, if we aren't to use it for the most important part of our lives?

It just never added up for me. It was a big chunk of change that never came out to the right number. Yet for a good portion of my life, I did spend a lot of time living a life that didn't make sense inside. We call this cognitive dissonance.

With the threat of hell hung above me and a set of instructions to "accept Christ" that never seemed to work for me, I was stressed, confused, and depressed. And what's worse, it just never made sense!

But maybe, in all my confusion, I ignored a certain logic. It's possible that the answer had been staring me in the face that night.

Did I want to accept Christ? Absolutely. I really believed he was real, why else would I have stepped forward that night? I was convinced that this was what I wanted for my life. I had faith that despite common sense, Christ was real, and I was ready to accept him into my heart.

So why would God decide not to enter my heart at that time? If he did, why would he choose to avoid letting me know? Why would the creator of the universe stay silent when I had done everything that was asked of me? When I had finally dedicated my life to Christ and wanted to make a commitment, why was the almighty silent?

To what advantage does God have for being silent in this predicament? Maybe because the objective proof I was seeking was that he didn't exist.

Thanks for listening. I will attempt to continue our logical discussion moving forward!

Hey all

2009-07-23T22:16:00.000-07:00

Been busy lately. Also been thinking through my next few posts. Still here, not dead. Will post soon.

How's everybody doing?

Free Will & Predestination

2009-05-15T00:46:00.000-07:00

Let's start with some definitions that we can agree upon for the matter of this discussion.

Free Will - The concept that one's decisions and actions are not completely determined by causality. Ethically, this implies responsibility morally for one's actions.

Predestination - The concept that events in the future have already been decided (for this argument, we will presume such events have been decided by God). There is question in the christian community to what extent God interferes with the future to accomplish his goals of predestination.

Before I really dig in, I want to make it clear that this will not be a discussion of free will vs deterministic causality. Although this makes for an interesting debate (and ultimately a stale mate, in my opinon), it would serve little purpose and provide no value to this particular debate.

Predestination and determinism (and fatalism)

A common mistake, I find, when discussing predestination with christians, is their ability to cherry-pick on the issue. Many argue that God controls certain aspects of the future, in order to fulfill his prophecies, but leave the rest up to us, which allows us free will.

While we could argue on the merits of certain degrees of predestination, or the merits of predestination without interference (from an agent who knows the future), I find these topics to be superfluous. There is a deeper problem in this logic that is often ignored, in what I believe to be an attempt to avoid self-defeat.

Predestination is hinted at in many places in the bible. That God has decided certain events, and has even chosen certain people to enact his plan-

Acts 2:23 (New International Version)
²³This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Romans 8:28 - 30 (New International Version)
²⁸And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. ²⁹For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. ³⁰And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

I could continue to quote, but I believe that what christians are really suggesting is that God enacts his will throughout time to meet what he has predetermined.

This ignores a few topics- the first of which is God's omniscience. It's almost as if, in the case of a christian's argument, full omniscience is ignored in light of predestination - to be consistent with the concept of free will.

Job 28:24 (New International Version)
²⁴for [God] views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.

Matthew 10:29-30 (New International Version)
²⁹Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. ³⁰And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

While this is only a small sample, the bible does outline God's omniscience. God is timeless, and knows everything; therefore God knows precisely what has happened and what is to come.

Quite a few arguments in defense of free will in light of predestination highlight the concept that God only knows the future because he knows us so well, he knows what choices we'll make. Other arguments consist of selective ignorance on God's part. This suggests that God only bothers to know the parts of history (and the future) that concern his will directly.

Both of these arguments for free will put a limit on God's knowledge and ability, in order to skirt around the idea that God's omniscience is bad news for free will. This is a dangerous habit, however, although it is not uncommon to have confirmation bias, when one is emotionally invested in something as deep as religion.

There is little question whether or not the christian doctrine outlines free will. It's readily apparent in the inherent responsibility given to all creation to avoid evil or suffer the consequences (ultimately death). Responsibility can only be present if one has free will, otherwise, one could not be blamed for actions not caused by him/herself.

This brings us to the point. No matter which way you slice it, if you take God's omniscience into account, predestination exists for all actions and interactions, big and small. As the bible outlines, even the hairs on our heads are counted, lest we believe any detail is too small for God.

So how, then, can predestination co-exist with free will?

Free will

Unfortunately, for those looking for an easy way out, you won't find one. The problem is that if the existence of predestination is true, then all events have been decided and therefore free will cannot exist.

As I mentioned above, some may argue that God only knows the future because he knows how we make decisions, because he knows us. This does not actually change the outcome. While it is a convenient perspective, it does not actually change the problem- if our future is known, then it has already been decided.

This brings us to a dilemma. Upon hearing this information, tomorrow, a boy just out of college may decide to discontinue pursuing his future. Instead, as the future has been decided, he may sit in his room and do nothing. As it is, since the future has already been decided, what ends up happening must be what was determined to happen. At no point is this boy given a choice, but instead, he is only given an illusion to choice.

Now, many will point out that while determinism and fatalism are very similar, there is a difference in how they are approached. While determinists would believe the future is still due to human involvement, fatalists believe that the future is the only option as the present and past are also subject to causality.

I believe any degree of determinism which is not fully fatalist is in err. Determinism without fatalism is an optimistic view, which ignores crucial details. We cannot affect our futures without our present having been affected by our past, etc.

Now, this is not an argument for fatalism. Whether or not fatalism is in line with reality is impossible to deduce. Therefore, it's in our best interest to ignore such a concept, as it serves little purpose but to depress. One who believes he does not possess free will is probably very depressed at the notion.

However, we cannot so easily dismiss this argument if one is to believe the christian doctrine consistently.

Predestination MUST imply fatalism. There is no middle-ground gray area on the topic. If the future is known by an agent, all decisions are fated to be, whether or not said agent is in communication with the subject. Any implication that our slated fate is in line with what we would've done, and therefore is not fatalistic, but instead deterministic to a degree is, again, superfluous. Your view on fatalism does not change fatalism, if predestination exists.

We could further convolute the subject by suggesting that because God is not bound by reality, it is impossible to fathom both free-will and predestination, however, as God is omnipotent- he can enact both without conflict. This argument dodges logic to avoid the pitfalls inherent in itself.

An argument that God is not bound by reality, and therefore all logic is to be discarded is also superfluous. We could argue for the existence of miniature men who are invisible and enact God's will as well, but this would be overly convoluted, and in the same way provide nothing to the argument at hand.

I truly believe that while God may not be constrained by our physical reality, I don't believe he is not constrained by abstract logic, which requires no basic truths, and can be established on any presuppositions. To believe God is anti-logical is counterintuitive, given evidence that both reality and the bible (both his creations) utilize and support the use of such logic. While trivial matters such as time, space, gravity, and limited knowledge do not limit God as they do humans, it would not appear logic is confined by such properties of our reality either. Logic is definitive and abstract, and is inherent in any system. God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5, without changing the actual values of these abstractions. Likewise, God cannot defy logic, as logic is an abstract description of the difference between truth and non-truth.

Additionally, it should be noted that all of God's word is based on the simple premise- that God is truth. This would fail to have meaning if God didn't acknowledge the inherent logic within this system.

I'm Still Here

2009-05-14T22:14:00.000-07:00

Just a quick update -

I've been researching and writing my next segment for a few days, and I expect to be finished shortly. Please stay tuned. I'm very excited about the conversation that has been sparked so far. My next peice will be up soon, and I can't wait to discuss it.

I'd like to thank everybody for their encouragement, I'm glad I won't be alone for this journey. I'm wondering if it'd be worth putting together a forum to discuss each topic in more depth?

Thoughts?

Submitting to Authority

2009-04-29T01:02:00.000-07:00

The bible outlines a clear guideline to submit to authority, and calls upon followers to do so, because authorities are in place by God to "punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."

While many would argue that the possibility that an authority, while not necessarily benefit the people in the short term, may be part of God's plan in the long run- I'm afraid I find myself at an impasse trying to envision why it is that God calls for such measures.

Submission to the Authorities

Romans 13:1 (New International Version)
¹Everyone 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.

Hebrews 13:17 (New International Version)
¹⁷Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

1 Peter 2:13 (New International Version)
¹³Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, ¹⁴or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

What we can gather from these passages:
-We are to submit (give way, yield) to governing authorities
Obviously, if you're called to jury duty, do jury duty. If you're under arrest, you're under arrest. You must pay taxes, and obey laws. Check.

-All Governing authorities are established (and therefore approved of) by God
Whether or not you like the outcome of the last vote, the current president is part of God's plan. Whether or not you like a fascist regime, God put it there to avoid anarchy, and to keep people honest.

This is obviously a hot topic which is often debated among the faithful and the faithless. The idea that submitting to authority helps avoid anarchy, and keeps things in order, makes sense. Of course, God would prefer that things were orderly, otherwise we'd have events from Lord of the Flies taking place everywhere, and humanity would savagely destroy itself.

From this perspective, it tends to make sense. There's usually very little you can do, aside from submitting to authority, so we might as well heed this advice, so that way we can get to the parts of life that really matter. If we do not submit to authority, we would be busy all the time in the courts, and in jail. Ok, so this is very practical advice, but it seems that our passages take it one step further, and claim interference, and responsibility with the free will of the people.

God takes credit (and thusly, implies responsibility) for governing authorities. One must assume this applies to all governments, as the passage does not indicate a particular country or government style. It appears, from these texts, if taken literally, that God has directly put into place the governments that are in place for a reason, and there is no question that we should blindly yield our free will to them, when it applies.

In 1 Peter, chapter 2, it goes on to say, "¹⁶Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. ¹⁷Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king."

It is, then, obvious that God's intentions are for us to be free, but to not only submit to authority, but honor the authority. That means that as long as we don't break laws, or bad-mouth the president, we're free to continue living our lives as we see fit (or as God would want us to).

But as we know, governments can sometimes be the source of great suffering, and immoral injustices. Some of the greatest moments in history, some of the people most revered, are those who questioned authority, and did not submit when morality was on the line. Are these verses to be taken literally or taken as guidelines?

Does God place (and therefore control) all the governments in the word? Let's review possible interpretations of this text:
Option 1. God put it in human nature to create governments to avoid anarchy. God establishing governments is his way of indirectly avoiding some amount of suffering from anarchy. He doesn't control beyond this, and thus cannot be directly responsible for immoral actions taken by the government.

Option 2. God indirectly enforces his will through all governments good and bad. His desire is to keep us out of trouble so that we can stay alive and doing his work. When it suits him, he exerts his will through certain actions, but not all. He does not interfere with individual free will, but shapes the future with clever and seemingly hidden actions taken by large groups and government bodies.

Option 3. God directly manipulates all governments to ensure his will is carried out. He is the sole reason for all governing bodies on the planet, and has a direct hand (and therefore responsibility) in all actions taken, good or bad.

Let's breakdown each option.
Option 1 appears, on the surface, to be reasonable, doesn't seem to conflict with the rest of the Bible, and allows some wiggle room for those squeamish about the idea that Hitler could possibly be an authority put in place by God. Use of the word "established" could mean either put into place, or just laying the groundwork. However, it is understood that God calls his believers to follow him and his will. If he calls us to both submit to him and to human authorities (which are evidently all established by him), it is reasonable to assume that both cannot conflict if this text is to be taken for its full meaning (that is to say, without cherry-picking [see Premises 3 and 4]). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that God not only laid the groundwork for all governments, but also has a direct hand in the governments' decisions and actions, because he expects his people to follow his will and submit to these governments and as well.

Option 2, then, seems to make little sense as well. If God does not directly affect all decisions and desires of all human governments, how are we to yield our wills to them, without putting into jeopardy our ability to follow God's will? The texts do not have exceptions for times when the government does not agree with God's word (the bible). It does not allow picking and choosing when we should be expected to submit to government authority. It clearly states that we should be submitting unilaterally to government authority. It is not expected that we use any personal judgment in cases involving authority. Option 2 does not appear consistent with the bible.

Option 3 then seems to be the only interpretation that is consistent with both logic and the bible itself. Unfortunately, we find ourselves asking the question that sparks quite a bit of debate. If God's hand is directly involved in ALL government activity, then he must be responsible for not only the good actions, but the bad actions.

We'll start with the low hanging fruit. Hitler. Yes, the Holocaust, which accounts for the genocide of around six million people under the guidance of the Nazi party (lead by Hitler). Could God, who is the absolute truth we should base morality on, directly responsible for the Holocaust? It is generally accepted that genocide is never a moral action taken by any government. Yet, genocide happens. Death and war happen. Torture happens in some cases. All in the name of government authority. Should it be assumed, that since governments are established by God, and that all actions are directly caused by God, that God must be responsible for these horrible deeds?

This is a question that is hard to face. Many Christians would prefer to cherry pick on this particular subject. A loving God who is the basis of morality could not perform in an immoral action. Should it be assumed then, that the social cleansing of the Jews is moral? This may be an absurd extreme to take our reasoning to, but it would appear to be the logical conclusion, based on Christian principals.

The next question we must ask is whether or not our actions should be considered moral, so long as they are in agreement with government authority. Although the bible does not call for us to agree with the governments' policies, it does call us to submit to them. It has been said that actions speak louder than words. How, then, can it be possible to believe one thing, but do another- just because the government told you to? If you perform immoral acts because you are told to, does this absolve you from blame? Could they be considered immoral if they are in-line with the government's policies? If you were told by a government official to kill a family because they were Jewish, and your government has an official no-Jews policy- are you doing the moral thing by not standing up for your morals? It's a contradiction to be moral by violating your morals.

Civil disobedience has been a great tool to stand up to tyrannical governments, used by many people- Take Rosa Parks or Mahatma Gandhi for example. Surely their actions could be considered moral. What they stood for and what changes their actions began. Certainly, for example, we no longer believe black people to be unequal. We consider racism to be immoral. Surely, then, Rosa Parks' actions could be considered moral? Or is it expected that social changes cannot be brought in such a way?

Should it be said that the ends do not justify the means? Is the action of civil disobedience considered immoral, despite what changes it can spur? Are there any means that can bring about change that do not contradict the imperative outlined above (submit to authority)? Or should it be assumed then that policies of the government to which we are required to submit are already moral, and thus no change is necessary. Surely this cannot be true- has the very act of freeing people from oppressive governments been against God's will?

Finally, can government’s policies actually be considered moral, without justification? The answer must be no. Governments cannot be considered perfect or moral by the virtue of being a government (despite the fact that they are put into place by God), as many governments world-wide conflict with each other. In policy, in talks, and sometimes in war. Certainly God's unified will, which he exerts through government cannot be unified if not all governments are then unified.

I know some of you are noticing that I have taken the spirit of these passages, and reasoned them to death. I have missed the point, so you'd say. Surely, if Jesus taught us anything, it's that morality (and goodness) transcends these concepts. These are general rules to live by- not laws of physics. Jesus leads by example in Matthew 12:

Matthew 12:10-12 (New International Version)
¹⁰and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

¹¹He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? ¹²How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

Jesus outlines the point- Listen, obey the law, but within reason. Clearly morality wins out here, obviously it's more important to save a life than to obey the letter of the law. We are to obey the spirit of the law.

But why would God present conflicting ideas? Why would god, who speaks to man through his word- the bible- cause such confusion? Why would he allow the bible to be ambiguous like this? Is it our judgment we should use, then, when deciding whether or not to obey God's laws set before us, or obey the morality that we feel inherent within us?

Is this a test? Why would we be mislead? Should the bible be considered the biggest test of the Christian faith, then? Not the trials and tribulations presented to man through the inherent evil of the world, but directly from the bible itself? Is the test of humanity to observe morality despite what we're told? Or is it to observe the law presented in the bible despite morality? Or is morality a soft grey piece of clay that molds itself to each situation?

How is it advantageous to a loving God to present such confusion in his word?

We will explore the answers to these questions, and explore more questions as we move forward.

The Basic Premises (Presuppositions)

2009-04-29T00:51:00.000-07:00

To start, we should outline some christian premises that we will be utilizing as my own presuppositions. I will probably be adding to this list, but I will refer back to this article if I update it.

To clarify - I am not indicating that these presuppositions are neccessarily true, only that we will assume they are for the sake of the following arguments.

Premises
According to Christianity...

Premise 1
God is omniscient, and omnipotent - He is all knowing and all powerful. There is nothing past, present, or future that he does not know. There is nothing he cannot do.

Premise 2
God influences reality - Depending on his will, he can and will affect any decision or event. This includes small decisions (such as what you'll be eating for lunch), and large events (hurricanes and meteors).

Premise 3
God agrees with the bible - Because God is omniscient and omnipotent, there is little reason to believe that the bible, which refers to itself as God's own will, does not actually reflect God's will. We must believe that the texts that have survived and been included in the collection now known as the bible have done so only because of God's direct involvement. We must believe that because God is all powerful, there is no reason that he would not ensure that a book claiming to be his word would not actually be his word.

Premise 4
God agrees with the obvious translations (and interpretations) of the bible. - Because God agrees with the bible, and has declared it his own word, he has no obvious benefit for the bible to be ambiguous. Texts from the bible should be considered the way they seem to appear. Nothing in the bible is there by accident, and therefore, any meaning evidently derived from the texts in the bible must exist because God agrees with it. It is implied that God's hand is involved in the translation of the bible to ensure his message and meaning is preserved throughout different versions of the bible.

Premise 5
Logic applies to God - I truly believe that while God may not be constrained by our physical reality, I don't believe he is not constrained by abstract logic, which requires no basic truths, and can be established on any presuppositions. To believe God is anti-logical is counterintuitive, given evidence that both reality and the bible (both his creations) utilize and support the use of such logic. While trivial matters such as time, space, gravity, and limited knowledge do not limit God as they do humans, it would not appear logic is confined by such properties of our reality either. Logic is definitive and abstract, and is inherent in any system. God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5, without changing the actual values of these abstractions. Likewise, God cannot defy logic, as logic is an abstract description of the difference between truth and non-truth.

Additionally, it should be noted that all of God's word is based on the simple premise- that God is truth. This would fail to have meaning if God didn't acknowledge the inherent logic within this system.

[Edited 5/15/2009 to update term "presupposition"]
[Edited 5/16/2009 to add Premise 5

Welcome to Explain God...

2009-04-27T11:28:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Explain God. This is a site dedicated to discussing Christianity, and their version of God and doctrine.

What is this blog here for?

Although it appears to be religiously centered, this blog takes a primarily atheist point of view, and approaches such questions as:

1. Does God exist?
2. Why do people believe in God?
3. What are atheists missing that so obviously makes Christianity make sense?
4. Does Christianity make sense?
5. Does the christian God make sense?

We will discuss these questions, as well as similar questions, by analyzing different aspects of the christian doctrine. I will attempt to separate each article by topic/keyword, and will create keywords (tags) for each, so it will be easy to browse through questions you may have.

Who is this blog meant for?

Whether you're a curious christian, or a curious atheist in any stage of your walk in life (with or without faith), this may be an interesting exercise in testing or confirming your beliefs. For those who are entirely set in your ways, this blog may nothing more than an interesting set of thought experiments.

No matter what direction you're coming from, I will be avoiding using the circular reasoning often found in religion-based sites and texts, which conclude their arguments set on the premises of inherent truth of Christianity, which in turn only serves as confirmation to those already convinced that the subject at hand is either true or false, respectively. For example:

How do we know god is real?
It is obvious God is real, because he loves us very much. This love has been shown to us over and over through faith in him.

While I'm sure this little nugget just warms the hearts of Christians, it does little to even begin discussion of the actual question. Those who are already atheists will not identify with the suggested answer. This is, of course, a pointless answer, which only provides information to those who claim to already know the answer, and suggests that those who don't already know the answer cannot know the answer. If the goal of a christian forum for questions and answers such as this was put into place to convert non-believers, it would have a hard time doing so.

Because of this, we will be avoiding such reasoning, and attempting to apply to logic and reason that both sides of the argument can agree holds true. We will be exploring these ideas with an open mind, presuming that the topics which we will be discussing from the bible must be taken as truth to Christians for the Christian religion to be considered as a contender in this debate. We will working towards establishing either:

1. Christianity makes sense (and may very well be true)
2. Christianity does not make sense (and is very unlikely true)

What not to expect?

Please do not expect equal consideration to be given to any other religions. I am analyzing the logical viability of the Christian Religion in accordance with the New International Bible.

This will not be Sunday school. Things could come out either way.

This will not pander to atheists, just as it won't pander to Christians.

Please discuss...

The entire reason for this blog is to create a place for me to empty my head of different debates I have with myself from time to time. Please feel free to join in with the debate. I have left comments open and un-moderated. I encourage anybody and everybody to join and debate. I do have a few ground rules, though:

1. Blatant threats of hell are off-limits. Just because they don't agree, doesn't mean you can't argue on the merits of the topic. Please don't name call, or threaten eternal damnation.

2. Circular reasoning won't get you far. If you're Christian, and you truly believe your standpoint, I invite you to discuss with us. I am very open to what you have to say- in fact I'm excited to hear from you. But please, refrain from using circular reasoning. If you need help with that, please reference: Wikipedia: Begging the Question

So, let's get started

I'm very excited to get started. Please do let me know by leaving comments or emailing me if you're reading this, so I can see if I've got any interest on this line of thought.