This blog will be on another philosophical argument concerning God and Christianity.
There are many different versions of this argument, but it usually goes something like;
"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
First, I think this argument goes in circles, which I will explain why later on in this blog. But I also don't even think this argument logically follows that God doesn't exist. However, it is a fair questions, so I will give my two cents on it.
The main answer I will be giving is that both sentences in this argument are correct. What God commands is moral, because God is moral. And since I am a Christian, and this argument is usually for Theists, I will also be giving a Biblical response to this argument.
The Bible says that God is perfect, holy and good. God is so good and holy, He cannot be evil or do evil acts. This means He would never command something evil. Because God is so good, holy and just, He can only command something good, holy and just. Also, because God is all knowing, He knows what is best.
So in a sense, God did create moral standards and values. These standards and values reflect Him, who He is and also what He desires in His creation. Again, keep in mind God would never desire something evil.
And it's always good to clarify that what is good, is moral, and what is considered evil, is immoral. If it wasn't for God, we wouldn't what truly is immoral or moral. So He is the author of moral understanding. And I guess you can even say God has a morality. But it's simply not His subjective opinion or what He thinks. It's the fact that God knows what is right and wrong, because He is all wise, all good and all holy.
Conclusion: What God commands is moral, because it is. And also, it is moral because an all wise, all good and all holy God commanded it. And this god, would never command anything that are not these things, or in other words, He would never command something evil or immoral.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Did Jesus teach to hate your family?
In this blog, we will be taking a look at a couple of verses used by skeptics to counter the teachings of love by Jesus.
When I first came across these verses, I was actually surprised. It didn't make sense, because we all know the stories and teachings of Jesus about love. Like, love your enemy and love your neighbor. So immediately, there has to be something to these verses that the skeptics use.
Let's take a look at one,
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:34-37
All Jesus was trying to get at here was that those who believe in Him, will be considered an enemy of a sort even in families. A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and so on. This will cause division in one's family, and Jesus was trying to draw a picture in a more poetic sense to get his point across. The reason why Jesus said if you love your family more then Him, then you are not worthy of Jesus is because that is how serious Jesus is about having a relationship with you. And if your belief in Him is causing division, then the onl person you can truly trust is Jesus Christ. But no where in this teaching did Jesus encourage to disobey your parents.
Let's now take a look at another,
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. " - Luke 14:26
The reason why I talked about Matthew 10:34-37 first is because it would help to explain this verse. Jesus was pretty much saying the same thing as he did at the end of the verses I gave in Matthew. Jesus earlier in Luke 12:51-53 talks about division in family, and how He came to bring the sword.
Conclusion: All Jesus is saying here is that He is very serious, and that a belief in Him might cause division in your family. But He wants you to trust Him more, over your family, because that is how serious He is about you and Him.
When I first came across these verses, I was actually surprised. It didn't make sense, because we all know the stories and teachings of Jesus about love. Like, love your enemy and love your neighbor. So immediately, there has to be something to these verses that the skeptics use.
Let's take a look at one,
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:34-37
All Jesus was trying to get at here was that those who believe in Him, will be considered an enemy of a sort even in families. A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and so on. This will cause division in one's family, and Jesus was trying to draw a picture in a more poetic sense to get his point across. The reason why Jesus said if you love your family more then Him, then you are not worthy of Jesus is because that is how serious Jesus is about having a relationship with you. And if your belief in Him is causing division, then the onl person you can truly trust is Jesus Christ. But no where in this teaching did Jesus encourage to disobey your parents.
Let's now take a look at another,
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. " - Luke 14:26
The reason why I talked about Matthew 10:34-37 first is because it would help to explain this verse. Jesus was pretty much saying the same thing as he did at the end of the verses I gave in Matthew. Jesus earlier in Luke 12:51-53 talks about division in family, and how He came to bring the sword.
Conclusion: All Jesus is saying here is that He is very serious, and that a belief in Him might cause division in your family. But He wants you to trust Him more, over your family, because that is how serious He is about you and Him.
Water Baptism
In this blog, I will be talking about water baptism is, if we need it and if so, then why do we need it? I will also be answering if it necessary for salvation.
Let’s start off by defining what Baptism is. The origin of the word "baptism" comes from the Greek word "Baptizo" which means to dip repeatedly, to immerse, or to submerge. Baptism is a very much symbolic thing. It is symbolic of what Christ came and did.
Romans 6:3-4 says, "Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
To basically sum all of this up. When we get into the water, we are dying with Christ. When we are dipped into the water, we are buried with Christ and when we are brought out of the water, we are raised with Christ. This is what Romans 6:3-4 teaches.
Baptism not only shows God, but it shows the people around you that you are obedient to Jesus Christ.
Now, one might ask now, should we be fully dunked in water or should we be sprinkled with water? I don’t think it really matters. It’s just the ritual in itself of baptism which is important. But by reading the definition of Baptism above, you will see that it indicates that you need to be fully dunked in water. This is the meaning of the word "baptism".
So, should we be baptized? Of course! I don’t know of one Christian who doesn’t think Baptism is a good thing. I mean after all, our Lord and savior Himself was baptized. And He encouraged His followers to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Bible says in Matthew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
This spread like wild fire after Jesus died. The apostles and other believers were going around preaching and baptizing a lot of people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So to sum all of this up so far. Yes, it is good to be baptized and I encourage all believers to be baptized. This is a very Christian practice.
But is baptism necessary for salvation? I’m going to come straight forward with you all. I don’t think it is, and I’m going to show you why I think this.
We are justified by faith (Romans 3:28 and Romans 5:1) and not by dunking ourselves in water. You see, when you teach that in order to be saved you need to dunk yourself in water, we get a works righteous gospel. We are trying to please God, so that He will save us, by getting wet pretty much.
Baptism is kind of like the Jewish practice of circumcision. Abraham was justified by faith before He was circumcised (Romans 4:12)
When the Bible says to repent, and be baptized, it is only encouraging you to show your obedience towards God to to show that around others. But first, we must repent, and be justified by faith before we do so. The Bible doesn’t say that to actually become saved, you need to be baptized.
God bless.
Let’s start off by defining what Baptism is. The origin of the word "baptism" comes from the Greek word "Baptizo" which means to dip repeatedly, to immerse, or to submerge. Baptism is a very much symbolic thing. It is symbolic of what Christ came and did.
Romans 6:3-4 says, "Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
To basically sum all of this up. When we get into the water, we are dying with Christ. When we are dipped into the water, we are buried with Christ and when we are brought out of the water, we are raised with Christ. This is what Romans 6:3-4 teaches.
Baptism not only shows God, but it shows the people around you that you are obedient to Jesus Christ.
Now, one might ask now, should we be fully dunked in water or should we be sprinkled with water? I don’t think it really matters. It’s just the ritual in itself of baptism which is important. But by reading the definition of Baptism above, you will see that it indicates that you need to be fully dunked in water. This is the meaning of the word "baptism".
So, should we be baptized? Of course! I don’t know of one Christian who doesn’t think Baptism is a good thing. I mean after all, our Lord and savior Himself was baptized. And He encouraged His followers to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Bible says in Matthew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
This spread like wild fire after Jesus died. The apostles and other believers were going around preaching and baptizing a lot of people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So to sum all of this up so far. Yes, it is good to be baptized and I encourage all believers to be baptized. This is a very Christian practice.
But is baptism necessary for salvation? I’m going to come straight forward with you all. I don’t think it is, and I’m going to show you why I think this.
We are justified by faith (Romans 3:28 and Romans 5:1) and not by dunking ourselves in water. You see, when you teach that in order to be saved you need to dunk yourself in water, we get a works righteous gospel. We are trying to please God, so that He will save us, by getting wet pretty much.
Baptism is kind of like the Jewish practice of circumcision. Abraham was justified by faith before He was circumcised (Romans 4:12)
When the Bible says to repent, and be baptized, it is only encouraging you to show your obedience towards God to to show that around others. But first, we must repent, and be justified by faith before we do so. The Bible doesn’t say that to actually become saved, you need to be baptized.
God bless.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Did Elijah ascend into Heaven before Jesus?
Jesus said in John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
But we know in the Old Testament the Bible says Elijah was taken up by God into Heaven. So, is this a contradiction? Is Jesus lying? I'm certainly not prepared to say that. So lets take a look at Elijah's story, and what Jesus is really saying.
"And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." - 2 King 2:11
It's always important to read the context of the story, and the language it was written in. The Hebrew word "Shamayim" simply means: air, astrologer, heaven(-s). However, the Heaven Jesus was referring to was the dwelling place of God; the third Heaven.
The Bible speaks clearly that there are three Heavens. The sky, space and the place where God is. The truth is, no man has ever went to the place where God is, other than Jesus Christ Himself.
So Jesus didn't lie and this is not a contradiction. Jesus was telling the truth.
But we know in the Old Testament the Bible says Elijah was taken up by God into Heaven. So, is this a contradiction? Is Jesus lying? I'm certainly not prepared to say that. So lets take a look at Elijah's story, and what Jesus is really saying.
"And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." - 2 King 2:11
It's always important to read the context of the story, and the language it was written in. The Hebrew word "Shamayim" simply means: air, astrologer, heaven(-s). However, the Heaven Jesus was referring to was the dwelling place of God; the third Heaven.
The Bible speaks clearly that there are three Heavens. The sky, space and the place where God is. The truth is, no man has ever went to the place where God is, other than Jesus Christ Himself.
So Jesus didn't lie and this is not a contradiction. Jesus was telling the truth.
An even more complex designer?
One of Richard Dawkins arguments in his best seller "The God Delusion", is the classic "if God created everything, then who created God?" or "If God is the designer, then who designed the designer?"
Now, I have already answered the question "who created God?" in one of my previous blogs. So I am not going to focus on that issue in this blog. What I am going to focus on however, is something else Richard says in addition to this argument.
He pretty much says, that it is absurd to believe that a being, which is more complex than the universe He created, doesn't have to be created. Because usually, Theist's will argue that complexity can be best explained by a creator or designer.
But I think this makes a couple of mistakes. Again, not trying to get into the whole "Who created God?" thing, but we don't need an explanation for the explanation. And I think this argue fails on another point because it assumes that God is even more complex than the universe He created.
I want to know where this idea came from. Who said God is more complex than the universe? In order to reason with this argument, we must define what God actually is. God can simply be defined as a spirit. One characteristic of a spirit, is omnipresence. God is not made up of parts at all. He can simply be an omnipresent spirit of mind, which is not made up of parts. So actually, He doesn't need to be more complex than His creation. God can actually be quite simple.
Now, I have already answered the question "who created God?" in one of my previous blogs. So I am not going to focus on that issue in this blog. What I am going to focus on however, is something else Richard says in addition to this argument.
He pretty much says, that it is absurd to believe that a being, which is more complex than the universe He created, doesn't have to be created. Because usually, Theist's will argue that complexity can be best explained by a creator or designer.
But I think this makes a couple of mistakes. Again, not trying to get into the whole "Who created God?" thing, but we don't need an explanation for the explanation. And I think this argue fails on another point because it assumes that God is even more complex than the universe He created.
I want to know where this idea came from. Who said God is more complex than the universe? In order to reason with this argument, we must define what God actually is. God can simply be defined as a spirit. One characteristic of a spirit, is omnipresence. God is not made up of parts at all. He can simply be an omnipresent spirit of mind, which is not made up of parts. So actually, He doesn't need to be more complex than His creation. God can actually be quite simple.
Is God to weak for chariots of iron?!
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." - Judges 1:19
This has to be one of the most used verse by skeptics in the Bible to disprove the omnipotence of God. After all, it does appear to be suggesting exactly how it sounds.
But lets take this bit by bit and see how this verse does not mean God cannot deal with chariots of iron.
If we look at other Biblical stories before the book of Judges, you will see that surely, God has no problem with iron chariots. So this verse has to be saying something else.
At first, this verse says the Lord was with Judah. So there is no debate on that. God was obviously with them. But just because God was with them, does that mean they would win any or every battle? The answer is no. In fact, God never promised that the Israelite's would win all there battles.
Now, there are a few answers for this. Every time we see people not trusting God in the Bible, something bad always happens. For example, when God had Moses send spies into the land of Canaan, they were to spy out and see what the Israelites would have to face. When they returned, they had no faith, and they were scared. They did no want to go into battle. So, God had them wonder the desert for a long time. We can compare things like this, to Judges 1:19. Perhaps the Israelite's were too scared to fight them because they had chariots of iron. So instead of winning the battle, they would not defeat them due to there lack of faith.
Or it also could be that God did not want them to conquer the land so quickly for some reason. Perhaps reasons for not having enough people to hold that area.
I don't think chariots of iron are any problem at all with God Himself. Just because this verse says God was with Judah, does not mean they could win, especially if what I said was right. They lacked faith.
This has to be one of the most used verse by skeptics in the Bible to disprove the omnipotence of God. After all, it does appear to be suggesting exactly how it sounds.
But lets take this bit by bit and see how this verse does not mean God cannot deal with chariots of iron.
If we look at other Biblical stories before the book of Judges, you will see that surely, God has no problem with iron chariots. So this verse has to be saying something else.
At first, this verse says the Lord was with Judah. So there is no debate on that. God was obviously with them. But just because God was with them, does that mean they would win any or every battle? The answer is no. In fact, God never promised that the Israelite's would win all there battles.
Now, there are a few answers for this. Every time we see people not trusting God in the Bible, something bad always happens. For example, when God had Moses send spies into the land of Canaan, they were to spy out and see what the Israelites would have to face. When they returned, they had no faith, and they were scared. They did no want to go into battle. So, God had them wonder the desert for a long time. We can compare things like this, to Judges 1:19. Perhaps the Israelite's were too scared to fight them because they had chariots of iron. So instead of winning the battle, they would not defeat them due to there lack of faith.
Or it also could be that God did not want them to conquer the land so quickly for some reason. Perhaps reasons for not having enough people to hold that area.
I don't think chariots of iron are any problem at all with God Himself. Just because this verse says God was with Judah, does not mean they could win, especially if what I said was right. They lacked faith.
The fool hath said in his heart, "there is no God!"
In this blog, I will be talking about a claim an Atheist might make in his lifetime. Now, I'm not trying to put words in Atheists mouth's, because I realize not all Atheists make this claim.
I want to ask those who say this. How do you know? On what basis do you make such an assertion on? To claim there is no god, is claiming you know something, that you do not know. It's simply a statement of faith. I don't see how you could make such a statement without invoking faith. It takes just as much faith to say "there is no god" as to say "there is a god".
I want to ask some other questions. Atheist, do you know everything? The answer is no. Do you know half of everything? Again, the answer is more than likely to be no. But lets say you do know half of everything. Could it be that God exists in that other half that you do not know? Could God be a reality there?
Claiming there is no god, is claiming something with assurance. Can someone be so sure that God doesn't exist? Again, I want to ask. How is that even possible? You would have to have universal knowledge to know if God doesn't exist. But in order to have universe knowledge like that, you would have to be omniscient. Which is a characteristic of God. So in other words, you would be God! Thus making Atheism a false position.
Conclusion: If you are an Atheist who says there is no god, you are religious. It's a statement of faith and personal opinion. There is no way someone can know that God doesn't exist, so why even say "there is no god"?
I want to ask those who say this. How do you know? On what basis do you make such an assertion on? To claim there is no god, is claiming you know something, that you do not know. It's simply a statement of faith. I don't see how you could make such a statement without invoking faith. It takes just as much faith to say "there is no god" as to say "there is a god".
I want to ask some other questions. Atheist, do you know everything? The answer is no. Do you know half of everything? Again, the answer is more than likely to be no. But lets say you do know half of everything. Could it be that God exists in that other half that you do not know? Could God be a reality there?
Claiming there is no god, is claiming something with assurance. Can someone be so sure that God doesn't exist? Again, I want to ask. How is that even possible? You would have to have universal knowledge to know if God doesn't exist. But in order to have universe knowledge like that, you would have to be omniscient. Which is a characteristic of God. So in other words, you would be God! Thus making Atheism a false position.
Conclusion: If you are an Atheist who says there is no god, you are religious. It's a statement of faith and personal opinion. There is no way someone can know that God doesn't exist, so why even say "there is no god"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
