I Wanna Know What Love Is

Saint Valentines Day is once again upon us. But just who was the saint that put the "saint" in saint valentines day? In case you don't know the story (it is supposed to be a true story) there was, in ancient times, a law that soldiers were not allowed to marry. Family life would have been a distraction in wartime. Well, a Christian man, named Valentine, would perform underground marriages for fellow Christians in the army.

Fast forward to today. We celebrate this man today, or, more accurately, the love he epitomised. We give chocolates, roses, and Vermont Teddy Bears to our significant others, or, if we are children, we exchange valentine cards with our Platonic friends at school.

If we are celebrating love, it would certainly behoove to pause for a moment and reflect on what "wuv... twoo wuv" weely-er-really is.

Before doing that, I remind us all that the original lovers in question, as we said above, were Christians. This is important to remember because "love" is different for the Christian than for others. This is not to say that an atheist mom, say, does not love her children. I think she does.

So then, what is love exactly? How shall we define it? Well, Aristotle distinguished two different sorts of definition. The first is that of description. We may define X by saying what X is like. Alternatively, we may define X by giving the essence of X. Let us take a look at "love" from both of these standpoints.

When describing what love is like, certain key components are necessary. First, love is directed primarily towards others. It is not selfish. Second, love is sacrificial. You have to look out for number two! And for a healthy love, there really ought to be both grace (and mercy, which is different from grace) and truth.

This brings up the concept of a grace/truth relationship. In a grace/truth relationship, when one party wrongs the other, the other is to respond, in turn, with both grace and truth. The truth is to confront the first party with open acknowledgement of the wrong done. The grace is the forgiving and-so much as it is possible-forgetting. A truly deep and healthy relationship ought to operate on this program. It goes without saying that the first party will also be operating on said program and not take advantage of the second party because they know they can get away with it. Grace/truth in reality makes interpersonal sin more difficult, not less, to commit. Finally, if just grace, or just truth, is present without the counterbalance of the other, the relationship shall be out of kilter and not really work as it should.

But all of this is rather dry. Isn't love supposed to be dynamic? Indeed it is! And this brings us to the second sort of Aristotelian definition. What is the very essence of love qua love? In a word: Jesus.

Christian apologetics is all about religious proof. And God proves His love for us by sending Jesus. If you look up "love" in the dictionary you'll see a picture of the "Old Rugged Cross."

Some time ago, Jessica Simpson and her hubby talked about how much they were in love. By the by, being 'in love' is ridiculously over-rated. Shortly thereafter they got divorced! "The Beatles said all you need is love, then they broke up!" Popular music is, of course, filled with the tired cliches of love that moves mountains and the like. In reality, love appears rather shallow, at least, in the lifestyles of most of the rich in famous. And so, on that note, I leave you today with some lyrics from my favorite song. It is 'Love Song' by Third Day. I'm not a huge fan of Third Day, or CCM in general for that matter, but 'Love Song' is my favorite song. The person speaking, in the song, is Jesus Himself.

I've never swam the deepest ocean, but I walked upon the raging sea...
I've never climbed the highest mountain, but I marched the hill of Calvary...
Just to be with you I'd do anything.
There's no price I would not pay.
Just to be with you I'd give everything.
Yes I'd give my life away...
Just to be with you I've done everything.
There's no price I did not pay.
Just to be with you I've given everything.
Yes I gave my life away.
Just to be with you.
Just to be with you.

Got a Kick outta This

God Has Not Left Himself Without Witness

Another year is through. A new year has just begun. And even in these post-post-modern days we live in, all the way into 2009, God has not left Himself without witness. We have just celebrated the birthday of God the Son. Isn't it amazing that 2000 plus years after the fact, even atheists celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ?

I am both perplexed and upset by the fact that people are trying to take Christ out of Christmas. I was into a snowmobile store on Christmas Eve day and the clerk wished me a merry Christmas. I was so ecstatic. If I hear "happy holidays" one more time in my life I am going to puke. I guess they don't want to offend anybody, besides Christians of course, and so when everyone is especially cheerful and good willing, celebrating the birth of Jesus, they aren't allowed to actually mention Him.

So then, much to the consternation of both myself and Stan Smith, Christmas is not as Christ-centered as it perhaps used to be. Still, as I said above, God has not left Himself without witness. Where does the goodwill and good cheer and peace on Earth and so on ultimately derive if not Jesus of Nazareth? I can think of no other place. I believe in total depravity, after all. Since Jesus has made such a difference, even in the lives of atheists, He must have really existed.

Speaking of Christmas, do you like Christmas music? I know, I know, a lot of people don't like it because "you can only listen to it at a certain time each year." Aside from that being irrelevant and false, I myself do enjoy it quite a bit. A while ago, I got hold of a Twisted Sister album of traditional carols, of all things. Not a bad album. More punk than hair metal, the album has, alas, only one religious carol. Still, coming from Twisted Sister, that is rather impressive. After all, Twisted Sister is said to be a Satanic band which glorifies rebellion and disrespect against parents. Apparently they're not going to take the secularization of Christmas either. "O come all ye faithful! Joyful and triumphant! Come ye oh come ye to Bethlehem! Come let us adore Him! Come let us adore Him! Come let us adore Him! Christ the Lord!" Dee Snider screams as the guitarist plays the same three power chords-apparently the only ones he learned-over and over.

And who could forget good ol' Charlie Brown? As a child growing up, almost all of my religious instruction was limited to Pig Pen (or whomever it was) explaining the true meaning of Christmas to Charlie Brown. By the way, the album of that cartoon is a pretty good Christmas album too. Smooth jazz.

The beginning of the new year, the rebirth that is Springtime, the metamorphosies of butterflies, natural theology, and blogs of apologists all witness to the existence and bigness of God. God has not left Himself without witness!

Peace on Earth.
Good will to men.

We Wish You a Molinist Christmas

"The most wonderful time of the year" is once again upon us. And when reflecting on Christmas, a good place to turn our attention to first, is the trip to Bethlehem in light of the census. Comparing the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke, together with some considerations of Josephus, some people conclude that the Bible dates Jesus' birth in error (in one or both Gospels). However, the census Josephus mentions is no doubt a different census from the one Luke mentions and there is no problem.

But the dating is not what I wished to talk about today.

When "there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed" it necessitated the return of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. That is exactly where the Messiah needed to be born according to the prophecy, clearly written centuries in advance, in the fifth chapter of Micah in the Old Testament. Since God gave His word that His Son would be born in Bethlehem, God wanted Him to be born there (else He would be made a liar).

But Caesar Augustus was presumably not taking the census to fulfill Bible prophecy. He likely had reasons of his own, having nothing to do with biblical religion, for the census. For whatever reason, then, he wanted Mary (one could say) in Bethlehem as she was about to give birth.

God knew that if there was a Caesar Augustus, and if he found himself in the circumstances of the 4th century B.C. (Christ was apparently born in the fourth year B.C believe it or not) that he actually did find himself in, that he would decree a census requiring Mary to return to Bethlehem. God also knew that Mary was about to give birth to the Messiah who must, as we saw before, be born in Bethlehem.

I ask you, was Caesar free to issue the census which landed Mary in Bethlehem or was it really God's sovereign and fore-ordained decree? Yes!

You see how inter-related theology is? We started off talking about the first Christmas and ended up in the arena which has been debated for centuries by Calvinists and Arminians.

Merry Christmas one and all!

Steve's and Rob's American Testament

I have recently been writing some comments in response to posts on the Mormon blog americantestiment.blogspot.com

That blog is an Mormon apologetics blog run by Steve Smoot and Rob Watson. They are Mormon apologists and the purpose of their joint blog is to defend the Book of Mormon. Sometimes one, or both, shall respond to my friendly criticisms and sometimes not.

I think that overall, the case against the Book of Mormon (and more precisely, against current Mormon doctrine in general) vastly far outweighs the case in favor. In my dialogue with the two gentlemen, Smoot and Watson, I believe this has shown itself true. In particular, much of their defence is manifestly ad hoc and so, according to Occam, should be shaved away. Once that is done, the original critique is made even stronger by what the opponents say against it.

I certainly welcome Steve Smoot and Rob Watson to comment on this post and give their own perspective of the discussion which has been taking place between us and their thoughts on this post here at this blog. I also encourage all of you to check out their own blog.

Historic Presidential Race in Biblical Perspective

I am the president of procrastination and it looks like we're in for four more years. It should come as no surprise to anyone, therefore, that it took me until November 20th, to write a blog post I should have done on the night of November 4th.

The race to the White House this year was truly historic. This would be the first time in history that there was either a female Vice President or an African American President of the United States. As the chips fell, my expectation was realised, and with Obama's victory, we now have, waiting in the wings for inauguration, our first ever African American President.

What better time, then, to remind us all of the position of the Bible on women and various races. Often times, it is said by people who apparently do not know the Scriptures very well, that the Bible is sexist and/or racist. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Women. Woman was taken from the side of man, not the foot or head. Also, woman alone was 'meet' for man unlike the inferior animals. Both of these facts suggest that men and women are equals in the eyes of the Bible. While it is true that Paul said he did not permit a woman to speak in church, we must keep the historical context in mind. In the culture of that time, women were largely uneducated. So they would tend not to follow everything being said in the services. Imagine a high school freshman in a college senior math class. They would not be able to follow everything perfectly. The situation is analogous. In either case, the person would constantly be interrupting the instructor and nothing would ever get accomplished in the ensuing chaos.

Ethnicity. The most common charges of racism in the Bible are with respect to Jews and, in America, those of African descent. But the Bible was written by Jews, to Jews, about Jewish concerns (though, of course, many Jews today would likely deny this of the New Testament). So the Bible is clearly not anti-Semitic. What about prejudice with respect to African descendants? There is nothing in the Scripture that connects the mark of Cain to dark skin. The only other allegation I could think of are the biblical passages about slavery. Two comments here. First, just because the Bible talks about slavery, that does not mean that slavery is a good thing. Second, slavery as practiced in the ancient near East was different from slavery as practiced in the American south. This brings up a very important hermeneutical point. We must always be careful not to read modern events/experiences/perspectives into the ancient text of the Bible. Besides, it is in the Bible itself we read that God is no respecter of persons (i.e. all are equal in His eyes). And what is more, the abolitionist movement included many persons who were involved because of their Christian faith-not unlike the pro-life movement of today. There were, of course, slave owners who tried to justify their practices by appeal to the Bible but that does not mean the Bible actually said what they said it did. People have been reading all sorts of strange things into the Bible, that aren't really there, since day one. Is the Bible racist? I answer that with an emphatic 'no'.

So then, I see nothing wrong with either a female or a black leader of this country. The President (and Vice President) of the USA is the representative of the citizenry but who is that citizenry? The United States citizens are none other than the melting pot of many different men and women from many different nations. It is therefore appropriate to have that reflected in the ones we elect to represent us in high office.

A Human Mind-The Blog

I have been spending some time over at Fabio's blog. Not the Fabio but another Fabio. ahumanmind.blogspot.com is the address if you'd like to check our our discussion.

Fabio ran across a list of questions for skeptics on an apologetics website and, for his blog, he was answering them. In my turn, I responded to his comments.

What I found in our dialogue together was a great deal of frustration. There is a general trend found in many atheists to merely ridicule faith and the people of faith. The problem is, the more they talk, the more it becomes obvious that they have no idea what "the faith" really is. In addition, such people will tend to view themselves as eminently rational and Christians (or whomever) as complete imbeciles. But then when the Christian approaches them with good reasons, they merely blow it off.

So the general procedure went as follows. Fabio would respond to a question with the common misconceptions of antitheists that Christians have already dealt with 2000 years ago. Next, I would clearly explain the factual errors he made and give a rational defence of my own view. In the process I would point out inconsistencies in his own position. He would then respond by misrepresenting what I said and ridiculing me. Instead of having a fruitful and illuminating discussion, the whole affair was apparently fruitless. That is too bad.

I am not saying all this to get revenge or pay back Fabio for injustices done. But I did want to shed light on this all to common occurrence in apologetics. The same scenario recurs again and again (though not with all skeptics). For example, in a radio debate between Walter Martin and Madeline Murry O'Hare, she spent the entire time ridiculing-nit picking, really-Walter Martin. She never said a single thing of substance during the entire debate and would not allow Dr. Martin to get a word in edgeways. All this after remarking how offended she was for the rudeness of an audience she had recently addressed! And my experience with Fabio was somewhat similar. All fury and no substance.

Why would such eminently rational people be so afraid of rational discourse? Perhaps they are not really so rational after all. And how could somebody, whose entire life revolves around debunking religion, write books, give lectures, and participate in debates yet have no idea what it is that they are denying even though it has continuously been pointed out to them for thousands of years? I guess they don't want us to confuse them with the facts. It is no wonder that such persons do not believe in Christianity if they really think Christianity is as they say it is. But it is all a gross caricature. It seems a caricature that these people refuse to spend a pico-second reflecting on or examining because they want the caricature to be true. I can only conclude that they are willingly ignorant.

It is my honest desire that someday Fabio shall give a fair hearing to the many infallible proofs of Christianity, really reflect on them, and, hopefully, eventually embrace Christ as his personal Lord and Saviour. Please, if you believe, keep him in your prayers.

Shalom out.