I'm moving off of typepad onto wordpress, and moving to a new domain. All of the content and comments here are moved over to Whole Reason (wholereason.com) already, so no more posts here. This site will go down in a few months.
So, I've scoured the internet to find out how to use Google Voice with my Sprint account. You can use it for voicemail without incurring any forwarding charges, but I'm not sure if they will allow you any of the plans that would make it possible for all of your calls via GV to be free, i.e. not count against your minutes. I'll updated when I find out more.
Last Update: 07/08/10
You can use conditional forwarding on Sprint, which is now FREE (Sprint) (GV). Conditional forwarding makes no answer / busy / out of service area calls go to your Google Voice number (xxxxxxxxxx):
If you attempt using the *28 feature and you are not successful in activating it, call the Sprint Tech department. They can activate the *28 feature on their end. Make sure you have the Google Voice phone number to give to them.
Note, unconditional call forwarding (*72) is the one that costs 20 cents a minute. You don't want that.
Q1: Does it use my anytime minutes when someone leaves a message?
A: Yes, but so does Sprint Voicemail! So no difference.
Q2: How does Sprint handle free cell to cell calls if I use Google voice for incoming/outgoing calls? Are they still free if I am using Google Voice? The answer is:
With this service, you pick three numbers that you call all the time, and they don't count against your minutes. If one of these is your GV number, then all calls to and from that number would be free.
This service allows you to call home for free from your cell phone, for a mere $5 per month. If you tell them that your GV number is your home number, all calls using GV would presumably be free. Sprint, however, does not offer this service anymore.
Inbound Calls: For inbound calls to be free, people need to
Outbound Calls: For outbound calls to be free, you need to
I recently listened to apologist Peter S. Williams (blog) deliver this talk at the 2010 European Leadership Forum on the topic: Arguments for Theism, and finally understood the Ontological Argument for God's existence.
However, it brought up a question in my mind, which I submitted to William Lane Craig's website. I'll post the answer if I get one, but here's the question:
If the Ontological Argument assumes that God is the maximum quality of attributes of goodness and greatness:
Comments?
Is Obama facilitating change or forcing it? Here's today's quote.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~ William Pitt
In our recent political history, this might be applied to some of the actions of GW Bush, such as the war on Iraq, wiretapping, suspending habeas corpus for Gitmo detainees, etc.
It could also be applied to the Obama Administration, in the way that they forced through their various enormous spending bills, as well as their upcoming "carbon offsets" (a.k.a as 'cap and trade') legislation. Trust me, it will be urgent and necessary.
As we have seen in the Obama administration, you don't need time to read or openly debate legislation, you just need time to manipulate a majority vote.
Anti-incumbent or Anti-liberal?
BTW, if you really want to get a feel for how abusive the powers that be is, you can look at the currents in the current election and political cycle.
I am amazed, but not surprised, at how the liberal media is slow to see the current primary results as a judgement on Obama's far left liberalism. Instead, the look for and find (minor) evidence for anti-incumbency - they think that people are primarily fed up with Washington DC corruption and pork-barrel spending.
But part of the confusion arises from the fact that the 'attacks' are occuring from two sides. On the right, both conservatives and moderates are joining the Tea Party movement, and are essentially removing moderates and replacing them with conservatives and libertarians.
From the far left, however, libs are also aiming at removing moderates, mostly moderate Democrats who are not 'liberal enough.'
While there may be some anti-incumbent sentiment due to the economy and the general negative mood towards Washington, I believe that the liberal media is really missing the anti-liberal core of the current electorate changes. Just like they initially dismissed the Tea Party as inconsequential (as did the GOP when it put forward RHINOs who have been pretty much universally defeated by Tea Party candidates), they really can't read the writing on the wall - most Americans are waking up to the bankruptcy, both fiscally and intellectually, of the liberal tax and spend legislation pushed through with panic politics.
Repealing Obamacare
If you still don't believe me, watch not only the November elections, but the subsequent push for repealing much of Obama's legislation. While the libertarian Reason.com doesn't think this will happen, I think they are again underestimating the groundswell of discontent with Obama and the growing conviction that conservative economics are more common sense. See:
Here's my first sermon as an ordained pastor, and here's what was in it:
I was recently in a discussion at the skeptic site NW Ohio Skeptics, and got into a discussion about the differences between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, and one topic that came up is that of inerrancy. While I think all Fundamentalists hold to a plenary inerrancy, I don't think that that position is the only one among evangelicals.
First check out Daniel Wallace's great essay My Take on Inerrancy.
Then, check out the diagram I made comparing the different types of Christianity and their stands on different doctrines, including inerrancy - Neo-fundy Doctrines?
Now, you are ready to read my explanation of how I view inerrancy, and how I think many Evangelicals view it - but I bet there is a bit of diversity on this topic in Evangelicailsm.
How I (an Evangelical of sorts)Your comments?
Ok, since I really enjoyed the video below, I thought to read the short (16 page) Arizona immigration bill (PDF) myself and see what all the hubub is about. Even though I am politically conservative, I do believe we need a compromise solution that enforces our borders and has compassion on people fleeing the poverty and corruption of Mexico (though the current administration is trying hard to shut down the drug cartels).
Summary? I think the law is a little too harsh, but only a little. Even 'worse,' AZ Senator Russel Pierce argued on The O'Reilly Factor last night (also below) that giving citizenship to the children of illegals born in the US is NOT covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, nor by court cases since. His argument is very interesting, and not out of the question.
This statute seems to allow Enforcement Officials to stop people for merely the *suspicion* that they are illegals - they do not seem to have to be breaking any other laws to be stopped. Here's the legaleze:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.
This statute seems to merely raise or define the penalties for incarceration, including increased penalties for felonies like possessing weapons, drugs, etc. Not a big deal for otherwise law abiding illegals.
This is essentially targeted at coyotes and people that would profit from illegal labor - you can't transport people to work if you make money off of the transport (does that mean that bus drivers are guitly? ;). Relevant text:
3 A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the
4 smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.
However, this section MAY give police the power to stop people merely on the suspicion of transporting aliens:
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.
See that AND I highlighted? I'm not sure if that means that they must first be guilty of a civil traffic law OTHER than being illegal.
This is targeted at employers who knowingly hire illegals, and illegals who pose as citizens in order to obtain employment. Nothing hidden here, but interesting verbiage on the illegal communication used in hiring - the infamous 'nod'
20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A
21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE
22 EMPLOYED.
This is where it gets dangerous. This statute seems to say that if you knowingly transport an illegal anywhere, even if you are not profiting from it, you are committing a crime. I guess that might include any of your illegal friends, family, or hitchhikers (I have all three). They can immediately impound your car.
29 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
30 OFFENSE TO:
31 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS
32 STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY
33 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE
34 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
35 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD
36 AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR
37 ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE
38 FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES
39 IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
No surprises here. This section specifies a process where complaints can be made to the Attorneys General. I'm glad that frivolous or false complaints also seem to carry a penalty. Penalties start with probation and progress, after multiple violations, to suspension of business licences.
There are two more following sections that apply to employers, including mandatory use of the e-verify system for all new employees.
This section doesn't contain any whoppers, but does give one interesting exception for impoundment. IF the vehicle is properly registered and the driver's SPOUSE is in the car and legal, not intoxicated, and if less than 21, has NO alcohol in them, the spouse can drive the car home and avoid impounding of the car.
How generous. Anyway, you can go read the verbiage on that one yourself.
I'd say that critics of this bill have a little something to complain about - if officers were required to look into citizenship AFTER pulling someone over for another reason, like speeding, and AFTER they failed to produce a valid driver's licence, that would be cool. To me, this otherwise reasonable bill seems to lack the safeguards to prevent racial profiling, which in principle, I am not against - except when it leads to bothering a significant number of law-abiding citizens.
What say ye?
I didn't know he was lost. Seriously though, if they found him, I can tell you where. Supposedly, his body is buried in the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina. However, the point is, he is dead, but Jesus rose from the dead. And may I add, Momo's words bring death, but Jesus' bring life.
Not sure that Jesus actually rose from the dead? You can always listen to William Lane Craig or Lee Stroble defend that proposition.
As is often the case with controversies surrounding politicians, much of the rhetoric on Rep. Mark Souder's affair with a staffer has been divided politically. As I have stated on numerous occasions, hypocrisy makes it worse on these type of issues for conservative Republicans, especially those who claim to be committed Christians.
At Ace of Spades, Drew M. responded to liberal bloggers and some in the media posting a video of Souder extolling the virtues of abstainance education ... with the his mistress serving as the interviewer.
There are a lot of things that adults do that they teach kids not to, not always because the thing itself is bad but because kids are not able to handle them (either emotionally, physically or what have you).
I agree that Souder's personal failings are not a failing of any public policy proposals he supports, but that video does illustrate the depth of his hypocrisy - to discuss an issue relating to his view of the proper place and function of sex with a women with whom he is cheating on his wife.
Hypocrisy always makes it worse. Is it more noteworthy if Rush Limbaugh's mansion in FL or Al Gore's mansion in TN uses twice as much energy in one month than the average American home uses in one year? Obviously, conservatives would agree that Gore's act is worse because he spends his time lecturing others on how they should conserve energy more. There is a reason that conservative bloggers loved reporting the fact that the UN Climate Change conference in Bali ran out of private jet parking places and limousine rental businesses in Copenhagen had to have extra cars driven in from hundreds of miles away, across Europe during the most recent enviro-conference. Why? Hypocrisy.
If conservatives can see the reason why "Green" advocates gulping down fossil fuels is especially newsworthy, then they should also see why conservative Christian pols sleeping around with a staffer (or even a non-staffer, for that matter) is a big deal. Liberal critics have every right to pound Souder and any conservative that would defend him.
I will repeat again that if conservatives want to establish themselves as bastions of morality, then they have to act that way in their life, not simply propose laws that encourage (or force) others to behave in ways they are not willing to do themselves.
If there is a "good guy" in this whole fiasco, it is Mike Pence, Souder's fellow Indiana Republican. Pence confronted Souder during the week, when a reporter asked him if he knew of anything "funny" with his fellow representative. On Sunday, Souder told Pence his affair was with a staffer. At that point, Pence insisted Souder resign. He also turned him into the ethics committee. That is the type of leadership and principle needed within politics, regardless of party.
I have moved off of Firefox for Google Chrome, for now. If you load the DEV version (5.x), you finally have an almost worthy browser from Google. Here's my favorite extensions.
Last Update: 05.17.10
As I wrote previously, Lang wrote Leaving to Stay about leaving faith, but recently returned to faith and wrote this beautiful song as a testimony - I think this duet is with his wife.
This last studio CD, Turn Around, won the 2007 Grammy for Best Rock Gospel Album.
I used to live my life in fear
Was worried all the time
From waking up to laying down
I had no peace of mind
The world became a darkened place
A struggle without end
Although bitter times those were
The days that I had began to understand
I was only a man
I grew up singing songs in church
With questions in my mind
Then turned my back and ran away
From God who gave me life
Then one night his presence fell
I wept and shook and then
I fell down and cried, Dear Jesus, rescue me again
I understand I am only a man
And He said, What will it be now?
Will you choose me or keep swimming up stream now?
I've been inside your head hearing you scream out.
Well here I am, just take my hand and I'll take out
All of the pain and all of the fear
All of the fear
I'll give you my burdens (I'll give you peace)
All of my desires (I'll give you what you need)
Oh, what about these chains, Lord? (I'll set you free)
But they're so heavy (Lay them at my feet)
I'll lay them at your feet
Just promise you won't leave (I'll never leave)
So where do I go from here, Lord? (Just follow me)
(Just follow me)
I'll follow you (Just follow me) wherever you lead
Wherever you lead, wherever you lead
I was updating my ID3 data on my mp3 collection, and had a great time going through all of my old CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) that I haven't listened to for almost 20 years.
I came upon Susan Ashton's debut album, which was awesome, especially this song, which is written to atheists. Enjoy the lyrics - it's also beautifully arranged and sung.
You've heard the stories
You've read the message in the pages
You consider crucifixion: is it fact or fiction for the ages
Did He really appear
Like they say that He did
Does it conquer the fear
Did He die so that we could live
You'd like to think that it's true.
Oh, But you want to hold the intangible
To fashion the darkness into familiar shape
To see with your eyes
To know in your mind
Oh ye of so little faith
Only the heart, can hold the intangible.
There is a chamber
In the soul of the believer
It holds reason in defiance
The demanding hand of science may not enter.
But let's just suppose how it would be
To trade all you know
For one ounce of true belief
Then you'd learn the peace of that place.
Oh, But you want to hold the intangible
To fashion the darkness into familiar shape
To see with your eyes
To know in your mind
Oh ye of so little faith
Only the heart, can hold the intangible.
But let's just suppose how it would be
To trade all you know
For one ounce of true belief
Then you'd learn the peace of that place.
Oh, But you want to hold the intangible
To fashion the darkness into familiar shape
To see with your eyes
To know in your mind
Oh ye of so little faith
Only the heart, can hold the intangible.
You want to hold the intangible.
Oh, you want to hold the intangible...
Here's my list of resources for those interested in the history of religion and science, both pro and anti-religious.
For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark
Stark argues that faith in God encouraged Christians to invent science. Having read other books making the same claim, I think Stark's approach to this question is one of the best. Not only does he go over the development of technology in the so-called "Dark Ages," and show how the "Enlightenment" picture of Copernican era science is a myth, he studies 52 key early scientists, and shows that more than 60 % were "devout," while only 2 were skeptics. The critic below who asks why Christianity did not produce science in Russia did not read attentively: Stark argues that faith in God was a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the rise of science. Other factors were also involved. ~ From this excellent review
Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion by Ronald L. Numbers
Defining myth as just “a claim that is false,” editor Numbers and 24 other scholars debunk 25 falsehoods about science and religion. The most familiar—that the church imprisoned and tortured Galileo, that medieval Islam was hostile to science, that medieval Christians thought the earth was flat, that the church fought against anesthesia—have long been discredited, yet the briefs on them so admirably distill their history that Wikipedia should swipe them. Others—that the church suppressed science, prohibited dissection, and martyred Giordano Bruno for his scientific work—still have their propagandists. Some remain quite lively, such as that Christianity birthed modern science (see Rodney Stark’s For the Glory of God, 2003), that intelligent design challenges evolution scientifically, and that creationism is a strictly American phenomenon. Many are known primarily, perhaps, to specialists, and one or two may startle those who thought themselves in the know about such figures as Descartes and Newton. The pieces on all 25 have been written and edited for accessibility, making the book excellent for ready reference as well as recreational reading.
The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success
It is a commonplace to think of Christianity and rationalism as opposite historical and philosophical forces. In this stimulating and provocative study, Stark (The Rise of Christianity) demonstrates that elements within Christianity actually gave rise not only to visions of reason and progress but also to the evolution of capitalism.
Stark contends that Christianity is a forward-looking religion, evincing faith in progress and in its followers' abilities to understand God over time. Such a future-based rational theology has encouraged the development of technical and organizational advances, such as the monastic estates and universities of the Middle Ages.
Though he is a favorite whipping boy of atheists (I think of him as the Chrsitian Richard Carrier, their level of apologetic seems about the same to me), Dinesh D'Souza is engaging and I really enjoyed the book, probably my favorite from last year.
I have to say, I didn't agree with his old earth approach, and his chapter on philosophy was informative but long.
This book is worth the price just for the chapter that reexamines the Galileo case in light of the true history rather than in light of the Hollywood myth.
What Has Christianity Ever Done for Us?: How It Shaped the Modern World by Jonathan Hill
This book is interesting because the author is not explicitly grinding a Christian axe - that is, he seems to be writing as a social historian, not as an apologist. I have one of his other books and find him an able historian. From the description:
Why do we seal wine bottles with cork? Where did musical notation come from? How did universities get their start? And why was the world's first fully literate society not in Europe, Asia or North America? As Hill tells the story of the centuries-long entanglement between Christianity and Western culture, he shows the profound influence that Christianity has had--from what we drink to how we speak, from how we write to how we mark the seasons. Employing a rich, narrative style packed with events and people and illustrated throughout in full color, he describes the place of Christianity both in history and in the present day. What Has Christianity Ever Done for Us? is an enlightening and often humorous tour of culture and thought, the arts, the landscape, education, society, spirituality and ethics, and social justice.
How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin Schmidt
This is Schmidt's magnum opus, one of the most complete historical treatments of Christianity's positive influence on the west.
Western civilization is becoming increasingly pluralistic, secularized, and biblically illiterate. Many people today have little sense of how their lives have benefited from Christianity’s influence, often viewing the church with hostility or resentment. How Christianity Changed the World is a topically arranged Christian history for Christians and non- Christians. Grounded in solid research and written in a popular style, this book is both a helpful apologetic tool in talking with unbelievers and a source of evidence for why Christianity deserves credit for many of the humane, social, scientific, and cultural advances in the Western world in the last two thousand years. Photographs, timelines, and charts enhance each chapter. This edition features questions for reflection and discussion for each chapter.
The Constant Fire: Beyond the Science vs. Religion Debate by Adam Frank
While this book unfortunately confuses the difference between historical claims and the mythical power of the Christian story, it does bring a little humility to the scientism approach to knowledge.
The elevation of human empirical research into an all-encompassing worldview is a basic ontological error. When all is said and done, it's an attempt to elevate a finite ability to an absolute. Most good scientists are aware of this, and refrain from the dangers of dogmatism ("scientism"). But some don't. A scientist stuck in this mentality will tell you, "well, science is the only way we have of determining the accuracy of our understanding...". Yes, I know that. But even that entire mentality is limited. ~ Amazon review
The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does It Continue? (The Terry Lectures Series) edited by Mr. Harold W. Attridge
Both sides of the debate are represented here, though I'm not sure how well, since I haven't gotten to this one yet.
Why does the tension between science and religion continue? How have those tensions changed during the past one hundred years? How have those tensions impacted the public debate about so-called “intelligent design” as a scientific alternative to evolution? With wit and wisdom the authors address the conflict from its philosophical roots to its manifestations within American culture. In doing so, they take an important step toward creating a society that reconciles scientific inquiry with the human spirit.
Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction edited by Gary B. Ferngren
Compilations of various authors always seem to have better content than a volume by one author. This one should not disappoint. As Library Journal said, "An essential purchase for any library that does not have the larger volume."
This volume consists of 30 articles, all taken from the 103-article The History of Science and Religion: An Encyclopedia (Garland, LJ 8/15/00).
While exploding a number of myths that make up the popular image of the warfare between science and religion, the writers show that there was actually a complex relationship operating in both directions.
When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners?
This author actually takes the view that science and faith cover independent spheres, which is a more liberal position held by anti-theists.
In each chapter, Barbour recognizes four possible ways of responding to the dilemmas posed by these topics: conflict, represented by Biblical literalists and atheists, both of whom agree that a person cannot believe in both God and evolution; independence, which asserts that "science and religion are strangers who can coexist as long as they keep a safe distance from each other"; dialogue, which invites a conversation between the two fields; and integration, which moves beyond dialogue to explore ways in which the two fields can inform each other. Barbour notes that his own sympathies lie with dialogue and integration.
Religion and Science by Bertrand Russell
Russell, philosopher, agnostic, mathematician, and renowned peace advocate, offers a brief yet insightful study of the conflicts between science and traditional religion during the last four centuries. Examining accounts in which scientific advances clashed with Christian doctrine or biblical interpretations of the day, from Galileo and the Copernican Revolution, to the medical breakthroughs of anesthesia and inoculation, Russell points to the constant upheaval and reevaluation of our systems of belief throughout history. In turn, he identifies where similar debates between modern science and the Church still exist today. Michael Ruse's new introduction brings these conflicts between science and theology up to date, focusing on issues arising after World War II.
The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails by John Loftus
John Loftus is to be congratulated for assembling such a fine collection of papers from such a diversity of fields. This book is not simply an anthology of atheist thought, but a wide sweeping attack on the basis of Christianity. Using these various approaches, the authors subject Christianity to a rigorous critique: challenging it from the psychology of belief to the origins of morality, the historical Jesus, Christian exceptionalism, and claims of eternal truth despite the constant evolution of that religion. The end result is that Christianity is demonstrated to be just one of the many religions humans have invented for themselves.
I just purchased the Leader's version of Logos Software 4, and wow! I am learning like crazy without even trying. Just trying it out, I searched on the term 'homosexual' and a bunch of references came up, including one that mentions 1 Timothy 1:9-10, one of the three New Testament passages that refers to homosexuality directly:
1 Timothy 1:9-10 (English Standard Version)
Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.
One commentary mentioned that this passage tracks closely with the Ten Commandments. I took a look, and here's the parallels. I kept the order the same, and you can see how they roughly line up:
What do you think?
I seem to build or rebuild a Windows hard drive regularly (like again today), so here's my updated list of what to install.
Last Update: 04.17.10
Changes:
--------------------------------------------------
MY INSTALLATION PROCEDURE
1. Install the OS
2. Update your drivers
If you have a driver disk for any of the following, install them
3. Browsers
4. Media Players
5. MS Apps (MS Office, etc.)
6. Handheld Syncing Software
7. Media Editing Apps
6. DVD Ripping
8. Security
9. Cleanup Utils
10. Instant Messengers
11. Misc. Utilities
There are lots of free apps out there, these are just the ones I need/use.
12. Some other optional apps that may come in handy
Here's the abbreviated list from a good article from the American entitled When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’. You can also hear an interview with the author at ID the Future.
You can listen to the sermon below:
How to Misunderstand Scripture
Sermon outline after the jump.
This sermon contains the following points:
A. Good Teacher
The Mistake: Jesus is denying his deity
The Truth: Jesus is challenging the man's idea of 'good'
The Problem: The man is a self-made success and now wants to excel in spiritual matters.
B. Keep the commandments
The Mistake: Jesus is teaching that salvation comes through obeying the commandments
The Truth: Jesus is setting him up to see that no one does or can keep the commandments, hence the need for faith and obedience.
C. Which Ones?
What is happening here:
1. This man is either a religious person who has been very observant, better than the people he knows, and wants praise for such.
2. He is a good person who is impressed by his goodness, and is daring enough to believe that any commandment Jesus can name, he has kept well.
3. Darker Motive: He knows there are many commandments, and that no one can keep them all. This intellectual and moral dilemma can be used as an excuse to not obey God.
a. Dietrich Bonhoeffer - The Cost of Discipleship
Once more the young man tries to evade the issue by posing a second question: "Which?"...Of course, he knows the commandments. BUt who can know, out of the abundance of commandments, which apply to him in his present situation? The revelation of the commandments is ambiguous, not clear, says the young man....He neglects the unmistakable command of God for the very interesting, but purely human concern of his own moral difficulties.
His mistake lies not so much in his awareness of those difficulties, as in the attempt to play them off against the commandments of God...All his difficulties are shown to be ungodly, frivolous and the proof of sheer disobedience.
We often use our moral and intellectual questions and difficulties as excuses to not obey the clear commandments of God.
On Asking Questions
1. We all wrestle with the harder questions of existence that challenge our faith in God.
2. Asking questions is OK, but the problem comes when the answers are not what we would like, or hard to understand, or impossible to figure out.
Honest questions and doubts are part of growing in faith, deepening our understanding.
When we turn to blame God and use these difficulties as an excuse to reject God's claim on our lives, we are on the wrong path.
Why I left Christianity
1. I had experienced a very narrow, controlling Christianity that I had to UNlearn.
2. Some questions really bothered me, like
- eternal hell, seems too harsh
- what about 'good' people of other faiths or those who have never heard?
I know what it is like to have hard questions, and you can't play along anymore.
Don't use unanswered questions as an excuse to blame God. Make sure that, even though you are asking questions, you are also LISTENING to what he is telling you.
On Atheists
NOTE: I frequently listen to podcasts on Common Sense Atheism, where philosophers of religion are interviewed. Many are ex-Christian atheists.
While they often start out with good and meaningful questions, they eventually get caught in a cycle of rejecting God because of the intellectual difficulties that the Bible and obedience present.
They get into this cycle of trying to UNDERSTAND what often goes beyond reason. They BLAME God.
SCRIPTURE: Always learning, never coming to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim 3:7)
They should eventually say like Job:
Job 42:1-6
Then Job replied to the Lord:
“I know that you can do anything, and no one can stop you.
You asked, ‘Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorance?’ It is I—and I was talking about things I knew nothing about, things far too wonderful for me.
You said, ‘Listen and I will speak! I have some questions for you, and you must answer them.’
I had only heard about you before, but now I have seen you with my own eyes.
I take back everything I said, and I sit in dust and ashes to show my repentance.”
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."