A Glorious Mess

As I was listening to some new music, I began to ponder the human condition. Sometimes people puzzle me. Sometimes I puzzle myself. For being intelligent beings, it often boggles my mind how much chaos, drama and complication surrounds human life. Human existence isn't something that is nice, predictable or formulaic. It's anything but.

The simple truth is, we are imperfect people, living in a broken and disconnected world. Each of us is trying to make sense of it. Each of us looks for meaning in life. Some discover that the only meaning behind it is that there isn't any meaning. Some find fulfillment in the arms of a person. Some find satisfaction in a particular hobby or pursuit. Yet, there isn't a single one of us who doesn't occasionally feel out of place. As if this world isn't quite the right sort of place. As if we're merely outsiders. Maybe we shake those feelings off and try something new. If only we can discover the right secret, everything will feel right.

So we make mistakes. We try new things. We go new places. We meet new people. In search of... something. We're not really quite sure what. Sometimes, we feel that we've found it. The new somethings enamor us, and for a few moments everything feels okay. But, the feelings never last. The spell is broken and the feelings of disconnection return. It isn't okay to feel so out of place, is it? There's so much that we're supposed to be thankful for. Why does everything seem to be a struggle? Even when everything seems superficially well. How are you doing, they ask? "I'm fine," is the standard reply. But, are we? What does it mean to be fine?

As my thoughts transcended, I began to ponder what God must think of humanity. Does He love us in spite of our flaws and imperfections? Does He manage to find some enjoyment in us despite our endless quest for happiness in all the wrong things? Why did God create us, knowing that we would stray? Why would He create a world which He knew would be a fallen and broken world, tainted by sin and defaced by human rebellion? He seems to find joy in the midst of all it. How does He manage that?

Maybe God doesn't like things that are simple, perfect, and formulaic. What if God created our world not in spite of its fallenness, but because of it? What if God loves people not in spite of their flaws, but because of them? What if God enjoys watching and participating in the little stories of our lives exactly because they are dramatic and full of drama? What if God gave us a broad range of emotions, because there is meaning and purpose in experiencing all of them? What if God delights in the chaos and unpredictability of it all? What if He takes pleasure in the small and large ironies? What if God is less concerned with sin and punishment and more interested in the journey and direction of our lives?

What if this world isn't merely a mess? What if God didn't want to create a perfect universe? What if God made things exactly the way He did, because He wanted it to be a glorious mess?

Just a thought.

The Rational Case For Christianity - Morality

Previously, in my introduction to The Rational Case for Christianity, I established the criteria that we will use to determine if Christianity is a true and practically viable worldview. For it to be valid, it must be able to account for any aspect of reality or life and leave no contradictions. In the realm of morality, we are confronted with philosophical questions regarding the existence and nature of good and evil. These questions have been pondered for centuries, and are inescapably critical in considering human existence and human interactions. While morality is a fairly broad subject, it is certainly a narrower field than epistemology or metaphysics. As such, it is not especially hard to look at the basic questions and the various possible answers to each. We will examine the basic questions of morality and ascertain which answers are the most rational, logical and consistent with our experience of reality.

The first question we must ask concerning morality is whether good and evil actually exist. At this point, we will not concern ourselves with what is meant by "good" and "evil," only with whether they, by any definition, exist. There are two possible answers to this question:

1 - Good and evil do not truly exist
2 - Good and evil do truly exist

In considering the first answer, we find that such an answer, while theoretically possible, is not consistent with the human experience of the reality. Every human being, from time immemorium, has always firmly believed that certain things are reasonable courses of action and that there are also evils to be opposed, decryed or resisted. Whether expressed through conventional expressions of morality such as laws and social contracts against murder and thievery, whether expressed as mourning over natural evils, such as disasters which exact their toll on human life, or whether expressed in terms of values, all people in all times have firmly believed that certain things are good and certain things or actions are evil. Even philosophers who border on denying the existence of evil, such as Nietzsche, firmly advocate certain things as desirable and oppose certain things (in Nietzsche's case, conventional morality) as evil and restrictive. So long as it is agreed that certain actions and states of being are desirable and other actions or states of being are undesirable, there is universal human consensus that good and evil, in some form, are not non-existent.

A possible objection to this might arise from those who claim, on the basis of metaphysics, that both good and evil are illusory--they are false constructs. There are several major worldviews which might proffer such as answer. Materialism, denying the existence of all thing non-physical, would suggest that there is only an "is" and no "ought." Since the natural world is silent on matters such as murder, lying, adultery and death, it might be reasoned that good and evil don't truly exist, except as empty terms to express human approval. Pantheistic religions offer the answer that all diversity is ultimately illusory. Their conception of good and evil is well depicted by the symbol of the yin-yang, which represents the truth that ultimately good and evil are just different aspect of the the same thing, and that there is no real difference between the two. For that reason, enlightened ones in such religions seek to equally avoid both good and evil, in order to achieve zero karma. While these might seem to be pertinent objections, it yet remains that from time immemorium, even those who claim that good and evil don't exist live their lives as if they do. They still proclaim certain actions and states as desirable and others as undesirable. Clearly, those who deny the existence of good and evil are in denial of their own thoughts and feelings on the matter. As such, any worldview that denies the existence of good and evil is practically incompatible with human experience. Since these sorts of answers deny a clear and obvious aspect of reality, they are irrational.

The second answer to our question, that good and evil, in some form, do exist, is the only rational, logical answer that is consistent with the human experience of reality. As such, the next moral question we must address is, what form do good and evil take? There are two possible categories of answers to such a question:

1 - Good and evil are subjectively defined
2 - Good and evil are objectively defined

Answer number 1 is the general consensus of our day. Modern humanistic morality espouses the idea that morals are a function of social groups. According to the humanistic myths, morals emerged as groups of people began to form, and agreements were reached concerning what behaviors were socially acceptable and which were not. The social construct theory of morality essentially postulates that whatever actions are viewed as socially unacceptable by a societal majority are labeled as "wrong" or "evil," and whatever actions are socially approved and endorsed are labeled as "right" or "good." While this approach does clearly delineate and define morals, it also serves to trivialize them. If morals are subjectively defined, then they only represent the opinions of those who define them. The social construct theory takes a democratic approach to defining morality. Nietzsche would advocate a meritocratic approach to defining morality, wherein the enlightened philosophers are established as the societal lawgivers who create their own values and then impose such restrictions upon the dependent masses. There are numerous other arrangements for defining morality, but they all share the same intrinsic weakness.

With any form of subjectively morality, right and wrong become trivialized and bear no more significance than culinary preferences. I will explain. When good and evil are defined by any person or group of people, it is their moral motions that become the overriding force. Yet, what exactly is a moral motion? It is nothing more than a personal preference for certain actions, things and states of affairs and against other acctions, things and states of affairs. As such, when it is said that murder is "wrong," nothing more is meant than the person or group defining morality has a distaste for murder. If the declaration that murder is "wrong" means that murder is merely distasteful to a person or group, then it is akin to a person's or group's taste for broccoli or asparagus. If moral motions are merely personal preferences, then the declaration that stealing is evil carries equal weight to the declaration that one strongly dislikes garlic. As human experience quite easily shows, people have widely divergent tastes in food. Some people enjoy foods which others loathe. Some people have no strong feelings about any sort of dish or herb. Some people love garlic, others tolerate it and still others won't come within a mile of it. Now, if some people enjoy garlic, is it at all reasonable for a person or group to deny them such a priviliege? Similarly, if there are a number of people who especially enjoy adultery or stealing, is it at all reasonable for a person or group to deny them such a pleasure? This is the weakness of any form of subjective morality: unless a certain moral motion is universally held, the very definitions of good and evil are unreasonably restrictive and oppressive. Even a cursory glance at humanity will instantly reveal that no moral motion or culinary preference is universally held.

The other major problem with subjective morality is that it is inconsistent with the human existence. Any person who truly subscribes to subjective morality must willfully conform to the prevailing code of morality as established by the defining person or group. As such, it is unreasonable to cast any sort of moral judgment that opposes the socially-established morality or to cast a moral judgment on a group that conforms to a different code of morality. If morality is subjectively defined, then it stands that no action is objectively right or wrong. The rightness or wrongness of any given action is solely subject to the localized code of ethics that governs it. This means that so long as the moral authority of a social group or nation endorses certain actions, they must be considered moral by all people at all times as morally good. If Hitler's Germany declares the Jews to be evil and endorses killing Jews, then so long as morals are subjectively defined, we in modern America have no place to declare that the Holocaust was wrong or evil. If an action is subjectively good within its own moral context, then given that fact that there is no objective moral standards, there is no room for anyone to cast a judgment of their own. To do so is akin to declaring to the garlic-lover, "Because I dislike garlic, your love for garlic is evil and reprehensible!" Such a statement is ridiculous and presumptious!

It is this very sentiment that renders subjective morality inconsistent with human existence. Each person firmly believes that certain actions and states of being are undesirable, not only for himself, but for all others. We truly feel that genocide is something which is evil and unconscionable, regardless of who endorses mass killings. We truly believe that stealing is objectively wrong, even if we claim that morals are subjectively defined. The moral motions of each person are so strong that no person will accept subjective morality, unless they themselves are in the defining group and are free to inflict their will upon others. Subjective morality declares that each person's taste in actions is equally valid (although the moral authority's opinion on the matter is a little more equal than everyone else's), and this contradicts every moral fiber of a person's being. Subjective morality declares that people's actions are of no more import than steamed brussel sprouts, while human beings strongly believe that actions are not trivial and do matter very much. It is quite clear, then, that no person truly believes in subjective morality. This answer is one that, while logical, is utterly unlivable and inconsistent with the day to day living of any human being, living or dead.

Answer number 2, by necessity, is the only answer that establishes any real basis for human morality, and it is the only one that can be consistent with human living. For good and evil to exist and have any real meaning or practical applicability, morality must be objectively defined. Morality must be something that is transcendent and universal, else it lacks any strength or usefulness of any sort. If we say that murder is evil, we must mean that it is objectively wrong for all people, at all times, in all places, else we are saying nothing at all. If we say that adultery is evil, we must mean that it is a objectively reprehensible action, regardless of one's ability to avoid getting caught, one's social status or one's present life circumstances. Morality must be objective to be a meaningful concept. If it is anything less then objective, then morality is just a semantic game, lacking any real authority or practical application. The only logical, rational conclusion that can be reached is that humans have real moral motions and feelings because good and evil exist and are objectively defined.

Given that good and evil exist, by some definition, and that good and evil must be objectively defined to be concepts of any merit or usefulness, this leads us to our third question. By what standard or standards are good and evil objectively defined?

1. Good and evil are defined by the universe itself
2. Good and evil are self-defined
3. Good and evil are defined by a transcendent, infinite, personal being

Answer number 1, while an interesting conjecture, leaves us with a poor and utterly incomplete definition of both good and evil. Some may suggest that morals can be derived from the physical universe and its attributes alone. Many people who subscribe to empirical philosophies believe that through a thorough and proper study of our physical universe and material existence humans can arrive at a solid set of moral precepts which set appropriate limits on human behavior. Contention with this point of view clearly arises in modern philosophy. Immanuel Kant clearly illustrated the problem with deriving morals from nature itself by revealing the simple truth that one can never derive an "ought" from an "is". More simply put, while observations of nature can reveal a good number of things about a given state of affairs, one can find no judgments made by nature concerning such a state. When a mouse is eaten by a quick and cunning cat, nature says no more than that the cat has eaten the mouse and that the mouse is now dead. It says nothing about whether it is good that the mouse has been eaten or whether it is good that the cat has had a satisfying supper. The universe is perfectly silent over whether lying, murder, deception, torture, stealing, fornication, or rape are desirable or undesirable actions. As such, nature is an insufficient basis for objective morality. Nature is completely silent concerning all moral issues.

Answer number 2, if true, would lead to moral standards that are incommunicable. Since communication of any sort necessitates a comminucator, good and evil as mere concepts, cannot be both self-defined and communicable. As such, while there is the hypothetical possibility that trascendent concepts of good and evil exist independently of all else (including any divine beings), such self-defined concepts would also be functionally useless, given that no beings would know the definitions of good and evil. Additionally, there is the epistemic problem of any non-infinite independent concept. For any concept or piece of knowledge to be reliable or intelligible, it is necessary for it to be explained by a infinite reference point. If good and evil exist as independent and self-defined concepts, then they do not exist within the framework of an infinite reference point, and since the concepts of morality are implicitly non-infinite themselves, there is no possible way to understand such concepts, since they are floating conceptions without any means of being explained. In my next essay on epistemology, I will explain this concept in fuller detail. As a small example of this concept, how does one know what is meant when I say "The sky is blue," unless there is a reference point which explains what is meant by the words, "the," "sky," "is," and "blue." Without the higher concept of the English language and common linguistic definitions, there is no way to determine what is meant by a certain array of colored dots on a screen or printed ink blots on a page. In a similar way, without a infinite concept to explain what is meant by good and evil, even if they are self-existent concepts, they bear no more significance or meaning that a cacophony of sounds, a jumble of letters or a smattering of random colors. This answer, while theoretically possible, would means that morality is unintelligible and incommunicable. Since such concepts are incompatible with practical living and human existence, it is clear that such an answer is a wholly unsatisfactory one, even neglecting the fact that there is an utter absence of evidence in support of it.

Answer number 3, then is the only possible answer which leaves us with a foundation upon which morals exist objectively, are intelligible, and bear real moral meaning. It is necessary not merely that good and evil truly exist, but that they have objective meaning in the light of an infinite point of reference and that they are communicable. There are a few religions that postulate the existence of a transcendent, infinite, personal being who sets the moral standards for human behavior--namely those of the Abrahamic religions. There is little need to going into much detail on the various moral differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity, since our findings in the realms of metaphysics preclude Islam from being a sufficient explanation, even if it provides a satisying moral foundation (which it doesn't), and because Judaic and Christian morality are essentially identical.

Christianity, unlike any other worldview, provides a full and clear disclosure on morality. It testifies that the real God who exists has ordained certain limits on human behavior, which are not merely suggestions, but are real moral laws. It speaks to the nature of humans, who are real, free-willed moral agents, capable of both great good and horrific evils. The Bible very specifically spells out moral laws for humans, including an organizational hierarchy of which moral laws are most important and which are less important. God transparently delineates the consequences for failing to abide by His moral precepts. In the doctrine of Original Sin, a clear picture of the present moral state of mankind is painted for us: though humans were created sinless in the image of God, as a species we have chosen to violate God's real moral laws and therefore bear real moral guilt before the God who exists and who judges all human actions. Because of the fall of man, every human being is born into the world with a sinful nature, which is, a propensity to choose evil and to rejects God's ways and God's truth. Christianity also sets forth a solution to the moral dilemma of man in the propitiary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. From start to finish, Christianity explains why all people have strong moral sentiments, and testifies that morals are not merely social constructions, personal preferences or sociological averages, but are a reflection of God's divine precepts, written on the hearts of every living person and communication through the Holy Bible.

On such a basis alone is it possible to declare that certain actions are righteous and other actions are evil. Apart from the existence of the objective morality preached by Christianity, it is impossible to decry the murder of innocents, the exploitation of the weak, the evils of corruption, the injustices of tyranny or the wickedness of pride. If man's moral motions are merely random remnants of genetic mutations, then they are meaningless illusions meant to muddle our minds. If morals are relative and differ from individual to individual, then there is no adequate basis for judging human action or legislating codes of ethics. The universal human belief in desirable and undesirable states of being is not simply the product of accidental neural collisions in the synapses of our brains--instead, it is the reflection of the transcendent truth of the existence of real moral standards as created and communicated by God. Only if good and evil truly exist and are objectively defined, universal, knowable concepts does the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder," have any power or authority. If it is merely the preference of a few odd conglomerations of atoms, then it is a relative truth which doesn't actually apply to any atoms at all. But, if "Thou shalt not murder" is the moral precept of an infinite God, then it is powerful and profound.

Summary
As stated in my introductory essay, any worldview that declares to be the truth must perfectly match all the evidence of reality. The existence of the moral motions universally felt by humans is a part of reality that must be explained. The Eastern religions ultimately deny the reality of morality, because the deny the reality of human life. Denial of plain truths is irrational. Similarly, attempts to deny the existence of morals contradict everything that is known about human experience. Alternately, attempts to explain morals as relative concepts fall on their face, since they are impractical, exceptionally weak and unable to be consistently held. Consequently, the only logical, rational explanation for the moral motions universally held by human beings is that there truly exist both good and evil, as defined by an objective standard. The Judeo-Christian tradition is the only worldview that offers an objective and communicable basis for morality, as it is the only worldview that attests to an infinite-personal being that exists, is intrinsically relational, speaks truly, and has established a specific set of moral precepts which are binding and authoritative. All other worldviews either deny the validity of the human conceptions of good and evil or contradict the obvious experience of every living person. As such, the only logical, rational conclusion to reach, concerning morality, is that Christianity has the best explanation for the moral motions of humans, since it fully explains the reason for the existence of morals, the objective moral standards that exist, and man's moral dilemma, while simultaneously contradicting none of the evidence of reality.

The Rational Case For Christianity - Metaphysics

Previously, in my introduction to The Rational Case for Christianity, I established the criteria that we will use to determine if Christianity is a true and practically viable worldview. For it to be valid, it must be able to account for any aspect of reality or life and leave no contradictions. According to Jean-Paul Sartre, the basic philosophical question is why something exists rather than nothing. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with the existence of our universe and questions of how it came to be. Though a comprehensive study of metaphysics would require more than the scope of a single essay, all possible metaphysical answers can be categorized in just a few classes of answers. To simplify our inquiry, we will simply concern ourselves with human existence, which will allow us to circumvent the question of whether the universe itself has a beginning. We can do this because regardless of whether there universe has a beginning or not, it is universally accepted that human existence had a beginning.

The first metaphysical question we must ask is whether there is a logical, rational, intelligible answer to the question of human existence. There are two possible answers to this:

1 - There does not exist a logical, rational, intelligible reason for human existence
2 - There does exist a logical, rational, intelligible reason for human existence

Of these two answers, the first one is self-defeating for exactly the same reason epistemological nihilism is self-defeating... One cannot know that no reason exists unless he is omniscient, and one cannot know that the answer is not logical, rational or intelligible unless he comprehends it, which would result in a self-refuting claim. Therefore, of these two possibilities, the second one is the most rational answer to our first question considering metaphysical inquiry. Proceeding forward, we will assume that there does exist a logical, rational, intelligible reason for the existence of the universe.

The second metaphysical question we must ask is, by what means did human existence occur? There are three possible answers to such a question.

1 - Human existence sprung forth from absolutely nothing
2 - Human existence was caused by impersonal means
3 - Human existence was caused by personal means

Answer number 1, while technically possible, is not presently held by any sane person. It is quite preposterous that human existence sprung forth from absolute nothing.

Answer number 2, on the other hand, is a quite commonly held position. Belief that time plus chance plus matter eventually led to the process of macroevolution which eventually produced humanity is one such sort of answer. An impersonal universe birthed humans based on random physical processes that happened to interact in exactly the right way. Pantheism is another sort of answer that falls under the category of impersonal human origin. Pantheism suggests that everything ultimately is a unity, and that all diversity and personality will either melt back into oneness someday or all diverse and personality are ultimately illusory. The problem with any impersonal origin of humanity is that it cannot explain personality or what Francis Schaeffer calls the "mannishness" of man. Scientific materialism suggest that personality is nothing more than the impersonal plus complexity, and therefore you end up with theories of biodeterminism and evolutionary psychology which commit the fallacy of reductionism by claiming that what appears to be personality or freewill is just an illusion. Pantheism doesn't even try to use fancy words to hide the truth. Instead, religions such as Hinduism are quite clear on their stance that all diversity is an illusion and that at the deepest level, everything is one, which means that personality, too, is an illusion. While it is theoretically possible that personality is merely an illusion, there is no non-circular evidence for it being so. Therefore, unless personality is conclusively shown to be an illusion, no impersonal cause for human existence properly explains the world that we experience every single day of our lives. As such, it is irrational to believe that human existence is caused by impersonal means.

Answer number 3, therefore, must be correct. Since nothing with true personality can result from impersonal processes, and given the fact that humans have true personality, the only logical, rational answer is that human existence was caused by personal means. A personal being created humans. Some sort of personal God or god must exist.

The third metaphysical question we must ask is, is there one God or multiple gods or Gods? Obviously this simple question has two possible answers:

1 - There are multiple limited, personal gods
2 - There is one infinite-personal God
3 - There are multiple infinite-personal Gods

Answer number 1 is insufficient to explain the universe. As Plato correctly understood, without absolutes, nothing has any meaning. For that reason he recognized that the plethora of Greek gods was insufficient to explain existence, since none of the gods were infinite. None of them were powerful enough to create the universe and mankind. Because of this, in his writings he often referred to the Fates, who sometimes controlled the gods, and sometimes the gods controlled the Fates. This odd paradox was constructed because limited gods are not big enough to create and sustain the universe, nor human existence. No number of limited gods can possibly suffice as a metaphysical foundation for human existence, nor for the existence of the universe.

Answer number 2 is sufficient to explain the universe. From our second question we determined that a personal entity is needed to create a human with ture personality. Given the vast nature of the universe and the metaphysical necessity for absolutes, this personal God must also be an infinite* God, else He is not big enough to fit with the evidence of reality. This God must have the capacity to imagine and bring into existence the physical universe and human beings, as well as serve as the integretion point for everything else. The concept of God's necessity as an infinite integration point will be explained more in depth in the essays on morality and epistemology.

Answer number 3, could also be sufficient to explain the universe. However, presently there are no worldviews that postulate multiple infinite-personal Gods. Pantheism suggests that there are many gods, but that really there are none. The Greeks and Romans suggested multiple limited personal gods, but no infinite ones. There are several major worldviews that postulate the existence of a single infinite-personal God, but none that suggest multiple infinite-personal Gods. Therefore, given that one infinite-personal God is suffcient to explain human existence, and there that is no evidence for the existence of more than one infinite-personal God, it is rational to accept that there is just one infinite-personal God.

The fourth metaphysical question we must ask is, what sort of infinite-personal God can best explain the unity and diversity of human existence and the universe? To this question there are only a few possible answers; namely, the Gods suggested by Islam, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and the Judeo-Christian God.

While all of those Gods sufficiently explain the unity that we see in the universe, everything from the natural order of molecular structures to the highly organized and complex ecospheres that cover the planet, since any single being is necessarily unified, only one of those answers sufficiently explains the diversity found in the universe. Perhaps it makes sense for there to be one kind of plant, but why are there so many kinds? Perhaps it makes sense for there to be one sort of planet or star, but the universe is full of widely divergent planets and stars. Perhaps the existence of one kind of animal makes sense, but why are there so many, and why are the various species so similar and yet so diverse? A unifed infinite-personal being can explain the unity of creation, but not the diversity of our universe. Only a God who is both intrinsically unified and intrinsically diverse can explain what we unarguably see in our universe. The only answer that sufficiently explains this is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. That there is just one God, but that He is a triune being who exists in three persons is the only possible monotheistic explanation for the universe's diversity. Returning to even the more limited scope of human existence, given the fact of human biodiversity, only a God who is both unified and diverse can explain the unity and diversity of humanity. You may search through all of philosophy and all of the world's religions to find another satisfactory answer, but you will not find another infinite-personal God who is both unified and diverse no matter how many ancient manuscripts you read, nor how many modern philosophical tomes you digest.

Summary
As I stated in my last essay, any worldview that declares to be the truth must perfectly match all the evidence of reality. The existence of the universe and of humanity, and the unity and diversity we witness in both demands a certain kind of metaphysical answer. For any metaphysical stance to be true and applicable, it must be able to explain why humans exist at all, why true personality exists, why humanity is existentially unified, and why humanity is existentially diverse. Having looked at all the various categories of answers to each of these four fundamental questions, the only metaphysical explanation that makes sense of those four things is the metaphysical answer offered by Christanity. There exists an infinite-personal God who is both the creator of the universe and the creator and sustainer of human existence. One God, eternally existing in three persons, is the only satisfactory answer for explaining the unity and diversity of human existence and of the universe at large. As such, Christianity, since it both offers the only philosophically satisfactory answer for human existence and since it neither contradicts nor denies any aspect of human existence, is the most rational metaphysical worldview. All other worldviews necessarily deny or contradict one or more of those four factors. Therefore, not only is Christianity the best rational metaphysical answer, it is the only rational metaphysical answer. Apart from Christianity, it is impossible to make sense of our universe or of human existence.

* Strictly speaking, it is not metaphysically necessary that God is infinite, in the sense of completely unbounded power or ability. All that is necessary is sufficient capacity to imagine, create and sustain the entire universe and human existence. When I refer to God as being infinite, it is a shorthand way of saying that He is necessarily at least powerful enough to do that. When I refer to limited gods, such as the Greek and Roman gods, I simply mean that no one of them possesses enough power to do so. Each of the Greek and Roman gods had their own domain, over which they possessed a great deal of power, but outside of their individual domains, they were just about as limited as any mortal man. As such, it is no contention with my basic point if you argue that infiniteness is not strictly a metaphysical necessity. I use the term "infinite" in this shorthand manner along with the term "infinite-personal," because Francis Schaeffer uses those term in like manner.

The Rational Case For Christianity - Intro

Wisely has it been said that man is not a rational being--he is a rationalizing being. A person can convince himself that anything is truth simply through enough rationalizing. Whether he is right or wrong about his rationalizations depends on objective truth. As I have written about previously, all people believe in objective truth both regarding material reality and conceptual reality, regardless of purported belief in relativism. And, even if people didn't believe in objective truth, the objective nature of truth is not dependent on the belief or non-belief of people in it.

The rational case for Christianity, then, is based on objective truth. Christianity is not merely a moral code, or a belief in a certain Jewish revolutionary, though it is no less than those things. Christianity is a comprehensive worldview that explains everything. As such, though the case for Christianity is most certainly rational, it is definitely not simple, for reality itself is not simple. Additionally, let us set the bar extremely high. If Christianity is true, it must validly explain everything, it must be practically applicable, and it must not contradict any piece of evidence in our world. If Christianity contradicts even one piece of evidence in our world, then it cannot be completely true.

Allow me to borrow analogies from a couple of brilliant men to illustrate what I mean. Norman Geisler, Christian apologist and philosopher, likens the quest of philosophy to the assembling of a jigsaw puzzle. Imagine that you have a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, but that you have lost the box the puzzle came in. Anyone who has put together a jigsaw puzzle knows how critical it is to use the box top as a guide to assembling the puzzle. If you come across a piece of the puzzle and do not know where to put it, you simply examine the box top and use that information to help you put it in its correct place. Given that the box top for life has been lost, mankind scrambles around looking for various box tops in hopes of finding the one that provides the solution to the puzzle. Every worldview is a sort of box top. Either it matches the pieces of the puzzle or it doesn't. Some of the wrong box tops might possibly help to put some pieces in the right place, but they always either create odd conflicts or provide very little help at all. Only the right box top will serve to reassemble the jigsaw puzzle. If Christianity is correct, then it is the box top that provides a flawless guide for all the mysterious pieces we have to the puzzle of existence and human life.

Similarly, G.K. Chesterton illustrates the challenge of the quest for a fitting philosophy by pointing out that our world is quite complicated and in many aspects, quite unexpected. The simpler something is, the more likely a mere conincidence can satisfy it. The more complicated a thing is, the more irregular a thing is, the less likely a mere coincidence can match it perfectly. For example, noticing that a human being has two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms and two hands, which are all arranged in near symmetry might lead one to decide that the human body is symmetrical. When we discover that a person has a heart on the left side of their body, it would be perfectly rational to assume that they would also have a heart on the right side of their body. But, of course, this would also be wrong. The simple explanation doesn't fit the evidence. Likewise, if Christianity is correct, it must be right not in some simple or obvious way, but it must correctly account for the irregularites and complexities of the universe. In Chesteron's own words, "A stick might fit a hole, or a stone a hollow by accident. But a key and a lock are both complex. And if a key fits a lock, you know it is the right key."

And so it is with the case of Christianity. The real question about whether Christianity is rational is not simply whether it works for some people, or if it explains some things. If Christianity is true, then it must be true about everything. The key must fit the lock. The box top must be the correct box top if we are to solve the puzzle. Either every facet of Christianity will be correct and properly explain the universe, or Christianity is wrong. That a key almost fits the lock is no consolation at all, for the door cannot be opened. To be almost right is even worse that being very clearly wrong, for the answer which is almost right seems the most convincing. Either Christianity is true, or it isn't. If it is true, then it must make sense of every single fact of the universe. If even a single piece is actually out of place, then Christianity fails.

Before I continue to point out some compelling facts that only Christianity can explain, I would like to clarify a few things which demand my attention. First of all, I would like to mention the obvious fact that an apparent contradiction and an actual contradiction are two completely different things. If you ask me where I was on Saturday and I tell you that I was at home reading, and I also tell you that I had coffee at Starbucks, you might perceive it as an apparent contradiction. Obviously, I can't be in two places at once. If I was at Starbucks, then I can't have been at home. If I was at home, then I can't have been at Starbucks. These statements are all quite logical and valid; after all, no person can truly be in two places simultaneously. However, the apparent contradiction immediately fades upon the realization that I never claimed to be at home and at Starbucks simultaneously. Once time is accounted for, it is apparent that I was at home during one part of the day, and at Starbucks during another part of the day. I simply use this playful illustration to show that not everything that appears to be a contradiction actually is.

Secondly, I would like to return to the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle to point out that if there are any missing pieces of the puzzle, it is no fault of the box top. Though Christianity may explain everything, our lack of some critical pieces do not invalidate it's truthfulness. For example, though Christianity may explain why the world exists, why man is fundamentally different than beast and why all men have a conception of morals, it is no argument against Christianity to say that it does not explain everything fully. If one is wondering why Christianity provides no clear and conprehensive explanation for why giraffes have long necks, why people enjoy butter on their bread, and why I enjoy grape-flavored lollipops more than orange-flavored ones, that Christianity does not explain these things in comprehensive detail does not invalidate Christianity. We are simply missing a few pieces of the puzzle. However, if Christianity says that no person enjoys butter on his bread, then Christianity does not fit with our universe, for quite clearly there are a large number of people who do enjoy buttered bread.

Lastly, it may be that some people will be confused as to how I define Christianity. The Protestant reformation definitely opened the door for many various groups to present similar yet different versions of Christianity. Therefore, in order to preempt any possible confusion about what I mean when I refer to Christianity, I would like to point both to my previous post on Basic Christian Orthodoxy and to the Apostles' Creed. My case for Christianity is primarily a rational case for that short list of pivotal Christian doctrines. God exists, and is the Creator of all. Man willfully chose and continues to choose to reject God's clear command, and therefore all men are sinners both by nature and by choice. Jesus, who is God incarnate, was born of a virgin, and lived a sinless life. Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for sin and to make salvation and redemption available to all who place their faith in Him. His bodily ressurrection, three days after His death, secured his victory over sin and death, and gives new life to all who are spiritually united with Him.

In following essays, I will briefly state the rational case for Christianity by looking at questions of metaphysics, morality, and epistemology, and then offer a short essay on why philosophical materialism, the prevalent philosophy of our day, does not properly fit the facts of our universe.

The End of Philosophy

Recently I had an intriguing conversation with a friend of mine. He is currently studying to earn his master's degree in philosophy, which is a topic that he took an interest in when he was halfway done with his undergrad degree, which was going to be in art. I've had an interest in philosophy for several years now and have quite enjoyed studying and discussing philosophy, so I was quite happy to have someone else to have lots of philosophical discussions with. We've had numerous conversations about everything from the various modern strains of existentialism, to the major worldview changes that were brought about by post-cartesian philosophy, to the expansiveness of sin as a social concept, to any one of our other deep and complicated debates. But, our latest conversation really struck me with a profound insight.

We were discussing how Wittgenstein's philosophies changed dramatically over the course of his lifetime. His early philosophical works focused on semantics and the importance of defining concepts clearly. But, his later works headed in a very different direction as he began to consider the ultimate goal of philosophy. One of the major ideas he presented is the concept that the goal of philosophy is simply to live life. More expansively, philosophy is a tool to be used to resolve challenging mental and conceptual conflicts and to find a worldview with practical implications that puts the mind to rest. Philosophy is only needed to resolve philosophical problems. In that sense, philosophy is not a goal unto itself but instead is merely a means to an end.

Interestingly enough, that sort of a conclusion about philosophy finds itself nearly unified with my own thoughts and ideas concerning philosophy. My ultimate test of any philosophy or worldview includes only two criteria. First, a philosophy must be consistent with the evidence of reality. Second, a philosophy must be practically applicable. As you can see, half of my criteria centers on the concept of practical applicability. It is for that reason that I call myself a practical philosopher. I only use philosophy to solve apparent problems, so that I can live confidently and consistently, and so I can show others the philosophical answers I have found so that they can do the same. In that regard, my purpose in utilizing philosophy is nearly identical to what Wittgenstein eventually decided it was for: to live life.

To that end, the study of philosophy isn't what it seems to be. Knowing philosophy doesn't make you smarter; it just fills your mind with a few more facts. Knowing a lot of philosophy is of no use unless you live well. Knowing little philosophy is no hindrance if you live well. What this means is that philosophy doesn't matter in the end. The entire goal of studying philosophy is the cessation of studying philosophy. One only studies philosophy so that one won't have to study it anymore. If philosophy is used for anything beyond this, then it ceases to become useful and simply becomes tedious, tiresome head-wrangling.

For too many modern people, philosophy has exceeded its rightful bounds and become exactly the sort of tedious, twisted, convoluted mind-wrangling that it was never meant to be. Last year I had an ethics professor who had exactly this sort of approach to philosophy. He was one of the kind of philosophers who values the process of inquiry and the endless discussions, but has an unhealthy disdain for answers. Never wanting to commit to any final answers, he also led his students in the endless circular quest for more answers and more answers, with a precommitment to ultimately ignore all of them. The books we read and movie clips we watched weren't being used to teach us how to live. They were being used to teach us that there are numerous points of view, which are all valuable and useful in their own right. But, to say that everything is an answer is to say that there are no answers. If 2+2=4 is correct, and 2+2=5 is correct, and 2+2=8 is correct, then there is no right answer to the math problem 2+2. If everything is right then nothing is right. By transgressing the natural bounds of philosophy, his form of philosophy became mind-twisting exercises in futility rather than equipping students to better ponder life and live well. This is a perversion of philosophy. Needless to say, I promptly dropped the class.

If the goal of philosophy is to live well, then in the end we are looking for a series of answers to practical dilemmas. In that regard, a systematic theology is the best possible set of answers to life. While it is certainly possible to seek answers to life's plethora of dilemmas one by one, having an entire set of answers to all of life's metaphysical complexities, moral problems and epistemic challenges is, if not correct, at least expedient. In that regard, Confucius' teachings are more valuable that all that Kierkegaard ever wrote. The teachings of Jesus Christ are far superior to all of Plato. Ghandi's life is more useful for showing us how to live than the entire works of Karl Marx. Knowing if taxes ought to be paid is a far more practical consideration than deciding whether there exists the perfect idea of bed, which is imperfectly conceptualized by a bed-maker and then imperfectly created by him; for we care nothing for perfect beds, but simply for sleep, whereas the question of paying taxes is a vital and practical one. Similarly, seeing a life that demonstrates the power of non-violent resistence is much more practically potent than being told that all of modern life is fundamentally a class struggle, between the haves and the have-nots. Information, unless actionable, is merely useless trivia for cocktail party conversations and crossword puzzles. For that reason, all good philosophy transcends itself and properly points a person towards living rightly.

And if a systematic theology presents answers to all the practical issues a person faces, and gives answers that are consistent with reality, then adherents of such a theology have no need for philosophy. It may be a fun diversion or a useful exercise in logic and rationality, but it is thoroughly optional. The secular humanist may need to spend his whole life seeking more answers, since he must seek them one at time with each new dilemma that arises. For the Christian, all of the answers to life are contained in the pages of Scripture. "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so", is both the foundation and the final conclusion of philosophy for a Christian. Upon that foundation rests answers to all the other multi-faceted perplexities of philosophy.

Returning to the main point of this blog, philosophy, utilized correctly, is simply the means to an end. The goal of philosophy is right living. Any other goal of philosophy leads to needless exercises in mental frustration. One only does philosophy so that he doesn't have to do philosophy anymore. The only reason a person becomes a philosopher is so that eventually he won't need to be a philosopher anymore. The end of philosophy is its own obliteration, because philosophy kills philosophy. For those who lack the answers, this happens slowly, perhaps taking more than a lifetime. For those who have found the answers, the death of philosophy is swift and sure. As the blood of philosophy is spilled, real life is no longer hindered by needless ponderation.

Divine Brutality

Last week, while writing a blog on Christianity's stance on violence, I pondered many of the examples of violence and brutality in the Bible. Quite frankly, the Bible has numerous exciting stories and wondrous tales. Not only are there countless examples of heroic men and valiant fighters, but God Himself is responsible for countless killings. One thing that I personally found fascinating is that God kills people in various assorted ways. He rarely uses the same method more than once or twice. Quentin Tarantino is renowned as a movie director because of his creative scenes of violence. As creative as he is, God's violent creativity far surpasses anything Tarantino has ever done. Here are several brutal tales of divine slaughter:

-Massive global flood, killing nearly all of the world's population (Genesis 6-8)

-Fire and brimstone rain from the skies and annihilate two cities (Genesis 19)

-Angel of death kills all the firstborns in Egypt (Exodus 11)

-Watery deathtrap, as the parted Red Sea drowns an entire army (Exodus 14)

-The earth split apart and swallowed Israelite rebels whole (Numbers 16)

-Raging fire from heaven selectively consumes over 200 men (Numbers 16)

-Wild, venomous serpents kill numerous whiny Israelites (Numbers 21)

-Diseased rats are sent to spread tumors, decimating the Philistines (1 Samuel 5)

-A deadly assassin angel kills 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night (2 Kings 18-19)

-King Herod was struck by worms and devoured instantly (Acts 12)

While God loves it when people live righteously and honor Him with their lives, He's perfectly prepared to deliver justice in the most vivid, deadly and powerful ways possible to those who reject God's way of living by embracing rebellion and wickedness. As someone who doesn't especially relish the idea of being buried alive, drowned, bitten by a viper, consumed by fire, eaten by worms, nor slain by an assassin angel, I try to live my life in accordance with God's moral law and honor Him with my words and actions. However, we live in a world where all people have freewill. If you think that you can mock God, deny His existence and remain completely unafraid of God's wrath as you try to sleep at night, then go ahead. Richard Dawkins is trying out that strategy. Personally, my money's on the most creative and brutal instigator of violence in the universe.

Salvation, Love and Justice - A Discussion

A couple of months ago, we were discussing whether anything is knowable. Recently, we have been discussing the nuances of salvation. Though I often disagree with Ulcer, I have great respect for him, simply because he actually cares about the topic and offers occasionally brilliant insights. Our discussions are always scintillating and require me to critically think through various philosophical and theological issues. Here are some excerpts from our most recent discussion on salvation and my responses:

Ulcer: If "God cannot simply ignore or forgive the sinner and require no death, because that would make Him unjust," then it follows that grace and forgiveness are not intrinsically just, and since God is just, then grace and forgiveness are not godly qualities. So it follows from that, that Christ's crucifixion has nothing to do with my sins being forgiven, but rather appeasing the outrage of God as you have so succinctly explained. So if it is justice to condemn and punish, why even bother to send a sacrificial lamb to take the punishment? Why not just throw us all into the incinerator, wash your hands, and be done with it? The reason cannot be because God loves us. If love had anything to do with it, God wouldn't need to punish anyone. Consider what the apostle Paul had to say about love: "Love is not provoked, it keeps no record of wrongs." (1 Corinthians 13:5) So yes, he really could simply forgive the sinner, if the sinner was truly, sincerely, deeply remorseful.

First of all, I must say that your reply is very comprehensive and clearly represents a great deal of thought on the issue of salvation. However, it does appear that you don't fully understand the Christian position.

It seems that you view God's love and justice as mutually exclusive traits. This is not the Christian position. Rather, God is both perfectly loving AND wholly just. Because God is just, He must condemn those who break the moral law and enforce the stated penalties for a given offense. Because God is loving, He desires personal relationship with each person and desires the best for each person. Though love may keep no record of wrongs, the nature of love requires chastening not only for the sake of the relationship, but also for the sake of the chastened individual. Hebrews 12:6 points this out, "For whom the Lord loves, He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives." Based on that fact, let us revisit your question. Why does God not just throw us all into the incinerator, wash His hands, and be done with it? Because God's relentless love for each person leads Him to desire relational restoration, absolution from moral guilt and righteous living for each individual.

There are a couple of things wrong with the appeasement philosophy of Christianity, besides the love problem. First of all, you deserve credit for the creative answer you gave to explain how the sacrifice of the one can pay for the many. It does make sense that is if you believe in God in the first place. There's still a problem though: Is Jesus in Hell right now? Will he be in Hell for eternity? If the punishment for my transgressions is eternal torture (or separation from God), then it doesn't matter how much Christ suffered on the cross or how pure and holy he was. You cannot outsize eternity. If it is a one-for-one trade, then only way Christ can redeem us for our sins is to be in Hell for eternity.

Now you are changing the punishment. The wages of sin is death, not eternal torture. As I stated before, death includes both the physical component and the spiritual separation. Death is not an eternal state, it is a temporal occurence which may last for a very short time, or an eternity. In the case of the unrepentant sinner, he is dead now (being spiritually separated from God), and he will remain dead eternally, supposing no change of heart. In Christ's case, He experienced a spiritual separation from God the Father while He was on the cross, dying physically. In Jesus' case, the death was a very short occurence, for death had no lasting claim on Him. He was physically dead for 3 days, and spiritually dead for no longer than that. In a like manner, for Christians who believe in Jesus Christ, death is powerless to hold them. Therefore Paul writes, "So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?' The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 15:54-57)

Still another problem is this: Even though I may have been absolved of my sins, I am still a sinner - one who sins - and I have a hard time believing that the God who was about to throw me into a pool of lava for stealing a candy bar won't eventually get irked at my mere presence again. Eternity is a very long time to go without another blood sacrifice. This is similar to the situation that a woman in an abusive marriage would be in. If her husband strikes her in a fit of rage, should she believe that he won't ever do it again? Now if God loved me unconditionally, I don't think I'd have much cause for worry, but we've already established, according to your explanation of Christianity, that my reconciliation with God has nothing to do with love and forgiveness.

Again, you have artificially divided God's loving nature from His just nature. God loves you even when you do sin or steal a candy bar. Even if He, to fulfill justice, throws you into hell, it is never because that is what He most wants to do. God, for some uncomprehensible reason, loves us in spite of the fact that we are sinners. The only reason He sends someone to hell is because of two things. First, justice demands it. Secondly, the sinner has willfully rejected God's love and His sacrifice and insisted on separation from God. Because God is just and because He respects the free choice of each person, God will send a person to hell who meets those two conditions.

You are quite right to say that reconciliation has nothing to do with love and forgiveness. Reconciliation is a legal concept, related to true moral guilt. Love and forgiveness are relational attitudes. However, because of God's love and desire for a joyous, personal relationship with each person, He is not indifferent to a person's choice. Because of His love, God desires that all people would choose absolution and reconciliation.

You have failed to make a good case for salvation through Christ. Now let me try.

When you offend someone (sin), you severe your relationship with them. Think of love as a cord that connects you to someone; it is the dynamic between you and I. Unselfishness, or giving consideration to the opposite end of that dynamic, keeps that connection strong and healthy. Selfish acts, from the subtle (refusing to help you with something) to the overt (physically attacking you), cuts that cord. This is something that you do, yourself. Its not that the other person - the opposing end of the dynamic - has stopped loving you, its that you have stopped loving them.

In most cases, anyone who truly is sorry, and feels the full gravitas of the unlove that they have committed against someone else, will not want to be forgiven! If someone arrives at a thorough understanding for what they've done to someone, and comes to have respect for social connection, they will want what's coming to them! But you don't have to give it to them. Instead of condemning them, you can redeem them through loving them again. You can mend the severed cord, just because. And why not? Which is better: the severed cord or the mended one? (Consider Matthew 8:5-8)

It is not possible to forgive someone who isn't sorry for what they've done (and, by the way, you also deserve credit for correctly stating that the sacrifice of Jesus must be accepted in order to work. Obviously, it doesn't matter how much you love someone; if they don't love you back, you don't have a relationship with them). However, if the offender is truly, deeply remorseful, the loving thing to do is to forgive the offense for the sake of love itself, and nothing else, no matter what. Love is awesome enough by itself to be the only thing ever needed for sins to be forgiven. Love is the meaning of life. Love is the whole reason why we exist. Why do you think God created us? He created us so that there could be a dynamic between Him and us, because it is only by that dynamic that love can exist. No one can love themselves; that's not what love is. Loving is not being obsessed with oneself; it is being obsessed with everything that surrounds you.

Indeed it can be said that Jesus Christ suffered horribly on the cross of crucifixion so that sins can be forgiven, but how, or in what way, does this get sins forgiven? Does blood and death get sins forgiven? Let’s look to John 15:13 – Jesus says “A greater love hath no one than this: that he lay down his life for his friends.” So, God had to prove to himself (as well as us) that he really did love us enough to forgive us for anything by becoming flesh and demonstrating his commitment to that love in the greatest way that love can be expressed: self-sacrifice.
And that, Theoconfidor, is how you make the case for salvation through the sacrifice of Christ; because love - not blood and death - is what gets sins forgiven.

If salvation were merely the restoration of relationship between God and man, your case would be powerful and compelling. However, salvation involves not just one, but two things:

1 - Absolution from real moral guilt stemming from a person's choice to sin
2 - Restoration of the broken relationship between God and a person

Therefore, no case for salvation is complete unless it includes both legal absolution to satify God's justice and relational restoration. Love, blood and death are all necessary for sins to be forgiven. That is the Christian position. It may not be appealing to the modern person, but it is the truth.

Do you know what the irony is this time? I am an atheist. I do not believe in a sentient, personal creator. I believe that morality is relative. I don't believe that there is any ultimate meaning to life (which is OK because life doesn't need meaning) aside from simply enjoying it. I do believe it is very likely that a historical figure named Yeshu existed, but he was no more divine than you or I. You are the devout Christian, here. You are the one who would, presumably, claim to have a personal relationship with God. And yet, even I can make a better case for Christianity than you can. Why do you suppose this is?

If you truly do make a better case for Christianity, then why do you not believe it? I find it hard to consider a case that is unconvincing a very good one.

Violence and Christianity

The Bible is not opposed to violence. Christianity is not opposed to killing. Nowhere in the Scriptures will you find a place where all killing is considered immoral. Instead, Christianity is opposed to certain kinds of violence and killing. This is a vital distinction that our generation has conveniently forgotten. Our modern American moral stance on violence, which used to be based on Christian morality, has strayed vastly from the actual teachings of the Bible. Where the Bible is quite clear about what sorts of violence are reasonable and righteous and which sorts are wicked and cruel, modern squeamishness has taken those biblical moral rules and twisted them into something very different. Allow me to illuminate this point with some illustrations.

"Thou shalt not murder," taken directly from the 10 commandments is indeed a valid precept that serves as a pivotal part of Christian morality. When understood in context of the rest of the Judaic code, it's importance and applicability makes sense. However, when it is stripped from its original context, that simple phrase morphs into a new moral standard. Modern people have taken the mandate not to murder and altered it to the point that the modern commandment is: "Killing is inherently wrong." For this reason many Americans strongly oppose the death penalty.

In fact, we have gone far beyond that as we expanded and added our own contemporary interpretations to that law. As America has grown into an increasingly feminized nation, we have become increasingly opposed to violence of all sorts. Not only is killing wrong and immoral, but now even spanking your own child is considered child abuse and is punishable by incarceration and state-sanctioned removal of your parental rights. Yelling or giving your spouse an angry look is now considered domestic violence. There are increasingly strong supporters of weapon control laws, which reflects the modern sentiment of many that even carrying an instrument of violence is nearly immoral. This excessive opposition to violence is quite opposed to Christian morality.

Most generic opposition to violence reflects a very effeminate view of the world. Though women are born with a natural distaste for violence and a predisposition against it, men do not naturally have a distaste for violence. In the masculine view of the world, violence is either considered simply a fact of life, glorified as an exhibition of manly prowess, or even enjoyed for it's own sake. Men are born with a fighting instinct. Boys need almost no external impetus to play games and use their imaginations in various violent fashions. From the time they are 2 or 3 years old, boys are already picking up sticks and pretending that they are guns or swords. Nor it is just an adolescent phase that men eventually grow out of. At 22 years old, I quite enjoy violence, for it's own sake. It's enjoyable to watch, which is why all of my favorite movies have pivotal, climactic fights and battles. Men love movies like The Matrix, Equilibrium, Fight Club, Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator and Braveheart. All of those movies would be quite dry and dull without the raw masculinity that they exhibit through the brutality of the fight scenes. Likewise, all of my favorite board games, card games and video games have copious amounts of violence. Given the choice between playing Pandemic, a board game where you must cure diseases that threaten the world's population, and Risk, a game of world domination where the only way to win is by exterminating the other players, nine times out of ten my brothers and I will choose to play Risk.

In fact, many of my close friends and male acquaintances have a similar disposition towards violence. My roommate loves excessive brutality. He has a collection of various medieval swords and typically carries around one or two dangerous pocket knives. Another friend of mine bought a .45-magnum handgun just a couple of months ago. An acquaintance of mine who lives in Seattle is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter who competes in public tournaments. Two guys I grew up with have served in the Marines for several years, one of whom just returned from active duty in Iraq two weeks ago. Yet another friend of mine has been taking jujitsu classes at a local community college. Two brothers I know from my church have a collection of guns and savage, improvised melee weapons. Men naturally accept violence.

If there is a masculine objection to violence it is generally either a moral objection to specific uses of violent force, or else simply an opposition to the harmful consequences of violence. In the latter case, it is not that men are opposed to violence itself, but only to the natural consequences and effects of such violence. Death or injury to oneself or a loved one is something quite undesirable. Robert E. Lee, general of the Confederate army during the American Civil War said, “It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it.”

Contrarily, violence is seen as naturally repulsive from a feminine perspective. When I was growing up, my mother always told me, "Don't practice what you wouldn't do in real life." The context of this typically was in regards to some boyish play-violence that I was involved in. As I reached adolescence, frequently various computer games were banned from our house simply because they were violent in nature. Command & Conquer was banned because mom didn't like the screams of the dying soldiers. Descent, which didn't even have living creatures, was banned simply because the game involved weapons and destruction. Eventually, all first-person shooter video games were banned in our household until the age of 18. My dad never had a strong stance towards violence, and wasn't the primary rulemaker in the family. All of the anti-violence rules in our household were enacted and enforced by my mother.

Therefore, though it is reasonable for women to be opposed to all sorts of violence, it is not reasonable or natural for men to have a blanket opposition to violence, nor for a society to be completely opposed to all sorts of violence. As our nation has become increasingly feminized, and as men are systematically emasculated either through subversive cultural indoctrination or by forced subjection, America's opposition to violence increases. This is not a reasoned, rational, philosophical objection to violence, but instead is simply a gut-level reaction to violence that has no grounding in reality, and certainly no foundation in Christian morality. Those who suggest that violence itself is universally wrong or immoral are making a faulty appeal to emotion, rather than any sort of rational, logical claim.

Now that is it seen that the general modern American stance on violence is nothing more than a vague and baseless appeal to emotion, I would like to examine the Biblical stance on morality, so that we can reach a reasonable, rational stance on morality and come to a fuller understanding of the nature of God. In such a critical examination, I would first like to point out that the Christian moral stance on violence is not a simple and easy-to-understand one, but instead is highly nuanced. The same God who declares, "You shall not murder," (Ex. 20:13) also says, "The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death" (Num 35:19). God commands the Israelites not to murder, but He also commands them to put certain people to death. The biblical stance on violence is that some sorts of killing and violence are just and righteous, while other kinds of violence are unjust and wicked.

Not only does God command certain instances of violence while forbidding certain kinds of violence, but also, God Himself is a violent God. Throughout the pages of Scripture there are countless references to God directly killing people. Genesis 6:17 is quite a brutal passage where God says, "And behold, I myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." Yet, never is the violence of God purposeless and random. His violence is very intentionally, very specifically based on one condition. In the above passage, why did God send floodwaters to kill 99.99% of the earth's population? Genesis 6:5 yields the answer, "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." God's violence is always done in response to the evil actions of a person or group of people.

Likewise, when God commands killing, it also follows the same criteria. Evildoers who violate God's clear moral code are to be put to death, so that the community will be purged of evil. For example, "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God... You must purge the evil from among you." (Deut. 13:5) Concerning a rebellious son who will not obey but instead is living wickedly, "Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear." (Deut. 21:21) There are countless more lists of moral offenses for which the Jews were commanded to put violators to death. Similarly, when God commanded the Israelites to exterminate the inhabits of the promised land, He was quite clear that the Israelites were both not to emulate the deeds of the nations and also that all the false gods of the nations should be destroyed. Exodus 23:24 is a prime example of this mandate, "You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars." The inhabitants of Canaan were not just killed so that the Israelites could have their land--they were slaughtered because of their wickedness and idolatry. Those whom God kills and who God commands His people to kill are those who act wickedly and transgress against the God's clear moral decrees.

Similarly, non-lethal violence that the Bible advocates is always directed in response to evil behavior and is used for the sake of correction and instruction in righteousness. Proverbs 19:18 says, "Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction." Proverbs 20:30 says, "Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, as do stripes the inner depths of the heart." Hebrews 12:11 attests to the goal of chastening, "Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." Jesus Himself, in one of my favorite scenes in the gospels, fashions a whip for Himself and violently drives merchants and lenders out of the temple, overthrowing the tables and pouring money all over the ground (John 2:13-17). Jesus' violence wasn't just a symptom of an anger control problem. He intentionally threw people out of the temple to remind them that God's house is holy and must be treated with reverence and to shame them for their disrepect.

Of course, this is not the whole story of Christianity's stance on violence. While the Bible is extremely pro-violence when it comes to violence used for justice, correction and slaying evildoers, it is also adamantly against many kinds of violence. At some point in the future, I will write another article considering nonviolence and Christianity and looking at what sorts of violence God opposes. As Ecclesiastes insightfully states, "To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven... a time to kill and a time to heal... a time of war and a time of peace." (Ecc. 3:1, 3:3, 3:8) While many people either strongly oppose or strongly support violence, Christian beautifully unites opposites by expressing strong support for some kinds of violence and strong opposition to other types of violence. For this reason there are numerous examples of both stoical nonviolence and fierce bloodshed in Christianity. Medieval monks and priests would never lift a finger to physically harm another soul, while the crusaders soaked the earth with the blood of the Saracens. As G.K. Chesteron memorably writes, "It is true that the church told some men to fight and others not to fight; and it is true that those who fought were like thunderbolts and those who did not fight were like statues." Similarly, God Himself is both the glorious giver of life, and a fearsome, unrelenting bringer of death. Christianity has a stance on violence that is comprehensive and consistent, yet highly nuanced.

Sadly, in modern society's twisting of Christian morality and our wholesale rejection of masculinity we have become a nation that allows our consciences to be driven not by a godly desire for righteousness, but by the capricious whims of our emotions. Not only have we sought to label all violence as intrinsically evil, we have also rejected the fiercely masculine God of the Bible, simply because He doesn't line up with our distorted view of morality. Nor is the modern church exempt from this charge of distorted thinking. John Eldredge, in The Way of the Wild Heart, alludes to this fact, "I don't fully understand the modern church's amnesia-plus-aversion regarding one of the most central qualities of God understood for centuries before us... Our God is a warrior, mighty and terrible in battle, and He leads armies." Exodus 15:3 declares, "The Lord is a warrior." It is time to return to a proper understanding of the appropriate place and purpose for violence, rather than using emotion as a basis for a wholesale rejection of all violence.

In summary, we see that the God of the Bible is a fiercely violent God. His killing is not whimsical and random; it is always directed towards evildoers. God has no qualms about brutally exterminating those whose hearts and deeds are characterized by wickedness. Likewise, the violence that God commands is always directed towards the elimination of evil, for the sake of preserving and encouraging righteousness. Our modern moral indignation is quite misplaced, for we oppose violence more than we oppose evil. We take violence too seriously, while taking justice too lightly, evil too lightly and righteousness too lightly. We are a nation that has begun to believe that nothing is worth fighting for, that nothing is worth killing for. Christianity stands firmly opposed to those stance. John Eldredge attests on this fact, "Our God is a Warrior because there are certain things in life worth fighting for, must be fought for. He makes man a Warrior in his own image, because he intends for man to join him in that battle." In the same vein, British philosopher Edmund Burke says, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Christianity is a violent religion that adamantly believes that righteousness is worth fighting for and that evildoers are worthy of death. The God of the Bible is a fierce and vicious God--and there's nothing wrong with that!

A Malevolent God?

Last week I posted a blog with several quotes by well-known agnostics and atheists. It was a half-serious, half-humorous reply to those who live irreligious lifestyles and encourage others to do the same. One of my commenters insightfully wrote:

I would be curious to know your fuller answer to Mr. Dawkin's quote about the God of the Old Testament. This seems to be one of the hardest questions for Christians to answer, and perhaps the one most commonly asked by the skeptic of the Christian God. How could a loving, creator God destroy his creation? Or suggest, nay command, "his people" to slaughter whole nations?

This is a legitimate and important question to consider. What sort of God is the God of the Bible? Modern popular Christianity seems to present a smiley-face version of God who is ultra-loving and compassionate. Yet, the Old Testament seems to present a clear depiction of God as anything but a "nice" deity. In fact, there are some people who are strongly opposed to the God of the Old Testament because of the things He says and how He acts towards people. As Christians, it is crucial to know who God is, what He is like and whether He is really a good God or not. Is the God of the Bible a benevolent being, or is He malevolent, cruel, vicious and unreasonable? In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, writes:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Within that quote, we have a list of accusations that would take volumes of scholarly dissertations to properly reference and debate. His statement, quite frankly, is dynamite. It calls the whole of God's character into question. In considering how to address Dawkins' characterization of God, we first must see if his accusation is actually scriptural. Although his word-choice is deliberately provocative and excessively negative, to a certain degree He does accurately describe the God of the Bible.

-God is a jealous God.
-God does concern Himself even with seemingly trivial matters.
-God does kill people and order the killing of people.
-God does execute vengeance.
-God does establish inflexible rules and require people to abide by them.
-God does hold His own glory and majesty in high regard.
-God does differentiate between people and treat people differently based on their race and gender.

And clearly there are a few parts of Dawkins' statement that are not true:

-God is not unjust. Justice is one of His defining traits and He always renders to each person according to their deeds.
-God is not unforgiving. A desire for man's repentance and reconciliation is interwoven into all of His actions.
-God is not misogynistic, since He does not categorically hate women.
-God is not a bully. Any actions that may be regarded as cruel are always directed towards specific people for specific reasons.

Now that we have briefly examined the validity of Dawkins' claim, let us take a closer look at what Dawkins' is really saying, beneath all the provocative words. Ultimately, Dawkins is saying that the God of the Old Testament is unpleasant because He is self-centered, immoral, violent and unreasonable. Even supposing that Dawkins is correct, why does that matter? Even if God is unpleasant, does that have any bearing on whether God actually exists, or whether Christianity is true? None, whatsoever. Hitler and Napolean were certainly self-centered, immoral, violent and unreasonable men, but no one is denying their existence because of that. Therefore, if his statement is meant to be an argument against the existence of God or the veracity of Christianity, it lacks any merit.

What then is Dawkins trying to claim? Is he saying that supposing God really exists, that He is not a good God worthy of worship or obedience? This seems to be a more reasonable understanding of Dawkins' stance. By appealing to our moral sensibilities as modern, enlightened people, he is attempting to defame God's character by arguing that the Christian God (if He exists), is quite a horrific and evil sort of god. And what is his basis for such a claim? It is a moral claim, yet the moral basis for it is unspecified.

If he is arguing against violence, unreasonability and self-centeredness simply because of his own personal opinions, then he is making a faulty appeal to authority. Just because Richard Dawkins thinks something is immoral doesn't make it so.

If he is arguing against God's character based on the social construct theory of morality, then he is making a faulty appeal to popularity. The social construct theory of morality is inadequate as a foundation for criticism because it a relativistic standard that differs from people group to people group and therefore has no authority to critique any action outside of its own social sphere. Additionally, the social construct theory of morality cannot serve as a grounded foundation for morality because it uses a circular basis for claiming authority. For example, a community may say, "Whatever a majority says is right is okay and whatever a majority declares as wrong is prohibited." But then when asked, "Why do we have to follow the rules of the majority?" The only answer that can be given is, "Because the majority has agreed that you must abide by the rules established by the majority." Obviously, such a moral foundation wouldn't even support a house of cards, much less any argument of substance.

If he is arguing that self-centeredness and violence are intrinsically wrong, then he is attempting to use Christian morality as a basis for his argument. There are several problems with this approach. First of all, if he successfully uses Christian morality as a basis for arguing that God is immoral, then God would be disqualified from establishing any sort of universal rules for morality, which then renders Christian morality an insufficient basis for arguing that God is immoral. So, even if Dawkins' argument succeeds on such a basis, it still fails.

Secondly, if Dawkins' is attempting to use Christian morality as the basis of his critique, then his approach is flawed because his arguments against God's benevolence aren't actually grounded in Christian morality, but are grounded in a gross modern twisting of Christian morality. In fact, it is for this very reason that Dawkins' statement seems as powerful and convincing as it does. Because of our modern perspective of reality, we have taken some aspects of Christian morality and abrogated them while altering other aspects of Christian morality to match our enlightened, contemporary view of the world. Does Christian morality really condemn violence? Does Christianity oppose self-motivated behavior and glory-seeking? Does Christianity oppose absolute and inflexible moral rules? I think not! In a couple of future blogs I plan to address these three specific moral stances in more detail.

Though there are a few points of Dawkins' quote that I find are unsupported by Scripture, and though his wording is intentionally and unfairly negative, to a certain extent I agree with his characterization of God. Quite frankly, the God of the Bible is jealous. He is vindictive and does retain the right to execute vengeance. God does hold a position of authority and He demands that all people respect His position of authority and obey Him unswervingly. God does recognize that men and women are fundamentally different, and He does treat people differently based on gender. He does directly and indirectly bring death and destruction to nations who oppose Him and His people. God clearly declares that homosexuality is an evil perversion of nature that is punishable by death. Because of this, I can see what Richard Dawkins is trying to say. However, Dawkins fails to establish a reasonable criteria that would demonstrate any of God's actions as being truly evil or malevolent. Maybe God is violent. So what? Maybe God does treat different people and different groups of people differently. So what? Maybe God is radically self-centered and concerned with His glory. So what? Since Dawkins has failed to establish a baseline for his criticism, he is expressing nothing more than a personal opinion. Therefore, whenever I read his quote, this is what it says to me: "My personal opinion is that the God of the Old Testament is self-centered, violent, murderous, unjust and unfair." So what? Everyone has their own opinion. Dawkins' opinion just happens to be partially incorrect and completely devoid of moral potency.

What is wrong with being violent? What is wrong with seeking glory? What is wrong with jealousy? What is wrong with establishing clear and inflexible rules? As far as I can, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of these. In fact, all of these seem to coincide quite nicely with the image of a president or a king. If there is any sort of claim that God is evil or malevolent, the claim is more a reflection of our own personal and cultural biases than it is a meritorious accusation against the God of the Bible.

Foreknowledge and Freewill - Mutually Exclusive?

There are many philosophical problems that seem to present major challenges to a Christian worldview. To some, any apparent inconsistencies invalidate the whole of Christianity, since it presents seemingly contradictory truths. God's foreknowledge and man's freewill are a prime example of such an ostensible contradiction. What is the alleged contradiction? Is there a solution to such a dilemma?

Except for those who subscribe to Calvinism, Reformed Theology, a generic belief in Omniderigence, or simply some other brand of determinism, it is commonly accepted that humans have freewill. For all practical purposes, it seems that people choose how they conduct their lives and what actions they take. This process of making choices to do or not do something is what we call freewill. The conflict is encountered when we consider the Biblical truth that God possesses foreknowledge. He clearly knows what will happen before it actually happens (hundreds of Biblical prophecies) and is specifically described as possessing foreknowledge. Romans 8:28-29 says, "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." Now, if God already knows that something is destined to happen, then since His knowledge is infallible, the foreknown event must come to pass. There is no way for something that God knows will happen to be prevented. This seems to be contrary to freewill.

For example, suppose that God foreknows that I will die in a car crash tomorrow. Supposing that God's knowledge is accurate (and it must be, else He is not God), then there will be no actions I can take to avert my demise. Though I can try to resist fate by staying in my apartment all day and hiding in my kitchen, the event must occur. Therefore, it would appear that I have no control over the matter. Fate has sealed my death and nothing can stop the sheer force of destiny. Similarly, suppose God foreknows that I will murder a prominent politician next year. God's foreknowledge of the event seems to render my freewill nonexistent. No matter how much I detest killing and no matter how hard I try to resist making such a choice, since God's knowledge is infallible, I have no ultimate choice in the matter. Inevitability renders all my efforts and intentions inert.

This is the apparent conflict. Superficially, it appears that God's foreknowledge and mankind's freewill are mutually exclusive truths. If God foreknows events then people have no choice in the matter, and if people do have freewill then God must be incapable of foreknowing their choices. It then appears that there are only three philosophically rational ideologies to choose from: Omniderigence, where God knows and predetermines every single event, Voliscience, where God is capable of knowing whatever He wishes to know at a given moment but does not know everything, or Open Theism, where God does not know what people will choose to do. Yet, this limitation to three worldviews is founded on one single logical error.

Freewill and foreknowledge appear mutually-exclusive because it seems that the knowledge causally determines the occurrence. This is a mistake. Though it is certainly possible that foreknowledge implies no free choice, it is also possible that this is backwards. Is it not possible that the event itself is the cause of the knowledge? Maybe it is not the knowledge of the future event that determines the future event, but instead the future event that determines the foreknowledge. Maybe God knows what will happen because of the choice that will be made. Perhaps my decision to drink a refreshing cup of ice water right now is foreknown by God exactly because I have chosen to drink it. In such a case whatever is foreknown is foreknown because of the choices that are actually made, in which case all knowledge is dependent upon freewill.

This is exactly how knowledge of the past works. Just because I know that my brother was in a car accident last week doesn't mean that the event couldn't have happened any other way. Instead, I know that my brother was in a car accident precisely because of the choices made and the actual occurrence. No one would ever suggest that my knowledge caused what is known; it is precisely the reverse. What is known is always caused by what is done.

The only possible objection to this is that future events cannot determine present knowledge because the future does not yet exist. If time were a universal constraint, then such an argument would render foreknowledge impossible since the future would be nonexistent. However, God is an eternal being and is not bound by time. To God there is no past, present or future. Instead, there is an eternal present. All earthly moments simultaneously exist to God. So, because of His eternal nature, He presently knows what choices are made by all people at all times. It is seen that God's timeless nature renders this objection powerless, since there is no future to an eternal being. Present knowledge is caused by present actions. No reverse causality occurs.

Therefore, foreknowledge and freewill can perfectly coincide if and only if events determine what is foreknown. In this way, God is sovereign, man has freewill, and God is still omniscient. Though this does not disprove Omniderigence, Open Theism or Voliscience, it certainly leaves one free to believe in the doctrines of the Bible and remain on philosophically defensible ground. If freewill exists, then Omniderigence is false. If God is omniscient, then Voliscience and Open Theism are false. If both God is omniscient and mankind possesses freewill, then metaphysical Libertarianism must be true.

Death In Adam, Life In Christ

The response to my last essay, "Are People Born Evil?" was quite overwhelming. There was some contentions over semantics, some contention over my thesis itself and some contentions over my interpretations of various passages. In this essay I hope to provide an in-depth analysis of the passages used to support the position that people are born sinners and are sinners even if they have not yet sinned. Personally, I find this to be an untenable and unbiblical position. In this essay I hope to put forth interpretations that do include the many nuances and subtleties of doctrine on human nature, while avoiding the pitfalls of jumping to conclusions or resorting to using "mysterious and mystical" doctrines to explain away the clear truths of Scripture.

Before I begin, I would like to address one misconception. In my last essay I wrote:

"Some would argue that all humans bear the guilt and penalty for Adam's sin. After all, speaking of Adam's sin, Romans 5:18 says, '...through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation...' However, this is not how God works. God's judgment is based on the actions of each individual person, and no person bears the guilt for another's sin."

A couple of people misread this and thought that I was contradicting the Bible by saying that God does not work the way He says He does. I quite agree that this would be heresy. However, when I said, "this is not how God works" I was not suggesting that the Bible was in error, but instead I was referring to those who argue that "all humans bear the guilt and penalty for Adam's sin" as being in error. I am a firm believer in the divine inspiration of Scripture, and it's complete truthfulness. If any human doctrine contradicts Scripiture, it is certain that the doctrine is in error, and not Scripture. That is my stance concerning those who claim that in Adam, all sinned. Though Scripture is infallible, I believe that there are many who misinterpret it out of ignorance, fear or denial.

Let us now consider various objections to the idea that people are not sinners until they have sinned.

Objection #1 - Sin cannot be reduced to actions. Sin is a state of being.
The support for this objection comes from Ephesians. "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." (Eph. 2:1-3) There is a legitimate point in this objection. A sinful nature is something that is clearly more than just a sinful action, or even a series of sinful actions. If, when we say that someone is a sinner, we simply mean that such a person committed one or more sins at some point in their life, then such a statement does not mean much at all. Maybe Bob is a sinner just because he stole a couple cookies from a jar when he was young and has lived a perfectly moral life ever since. Obviously, sinner is a very weak word in such a context. However, if by sinner, we mean that a person IS sinful and regularly engages in sinful actions because of a twisted and defiled nature, then we are making quite a strong statement. Likewise, we may call someone an adulterer if they have committed a single act of adultery. But there is quite a difference between a righteous man who made one wrong decision and someone who is a committed adulterer, who has honed his skills of seduction and makes a practice of committing adultery as frequently as possible. In the first case, adulterer merely refers to an action, in the second case adulterer describes a person's state of being; this man practices adultery. Likewise, there is quite a difference between someone who killed his neighbor in a fit of rage, and a contract killer who has honed his art of killing, is skilled at taking human lives, enjoys the scheming and execution of a hit, and is quite knowledgeable about various methods of murder. In the first case we are refer to murder simply as an action, in the second case we are referring to a killer as someone whose very livelihood and life revolves around killing. He is not just someone who has killed; he is, by nature, a killer!

This is the distinction that this objection seeks to raise. There is a difference between simply committing a sin, and being a sinner. The Bible clearly teaches that all people not only have committed sins, but practice sin. We are skilled at it. Though the manifestation of sin varies from person to person, all people are skilled at their own particular brand of sin. Some engage in the ordinary sorts of vices Christians condemn: fornication, thievery, alcoholism, drug abuse, witchcraft, violence, rebellion, greediness and other such sins. While in other people sin manifests itself as self-righteousness, self-sufficiency, legalism and pride. People not only commit sins, but are sinners by nature. With this, I quite agree.

However, though sin cannot be reduced to mere actions, it cannot possibly be less than actions. When we say someone is an adulterer, we do not mean merely that he or she might have a propensity for adultery. Instead, we must mean that such a person has actually committed adultery. In the stronger case, we mean that a person habitually commits adultery and is quite skilled at it. But, we certainly do not mean that no actions are involved. Likewise, when we say that a person is a sinner we cannot mean that a person merely has a propensity for sin. Unless we mean that a person has actually committed a sin, we mean nothing at all. Anything else makes a perfect mockery of language and common sense. And this is exactly the point that I made in my previous essay. To be a sinner, you must have committed at least one sin, or else it means nothing to be a sinner. Now, you may be a sinner and have committed 10 million sins, but you certainly cannot be called a sinner if you have committed zero. Also me to illustrate the raw absurdity of using the word sinner, murderer, liar, painter or runner to simply mean that one might have the propensity to do such an action.

Example 1:
Father, to teenage daughter: You better stay away from Charlie. He's a lying murderer.
Daughter: How do you know, did he kill someone?
Father: No. But sometime he might kill someone, so you need to keep away from him.

Example 2:
Friend, to a buddy: Hey George is a pretty good painter, you should hang out with him some time, since you're artistic, too
Buddy: Really? What sort of stuff does he paint?
Friend: Well, he doesn't actually paint. But he might have the propensity to paint.

Example 3:
Mother, concerning her new baby: Little Joey is such a sinner!
Friend: Why? What did he do?
Mother: Oh, nothing yet. But I just know that he is a big-time sinner!

See? This usage of language is quite absurd! To say that one has the possibility of doing something or the propensity for a certain kind of action says nothing at all about what will actually be done. In the passage itself we see a lot of action verbs: walked, lived, conducted and fulfilling. We were dead in the trespasses and sins that we walked in. We were children of wrath because we conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh. The state of being descriptions are inseparable from the descriptions of actions. Because you walked in sins, you were dead. The two are intertwined and inseparable. Therefore, we can clearly make a Scriptural case for people being dead in sins. And, we can make a case for people conducting their lives in wrong ways. But, there is no clear Scriptural case for suggest that we sin because we are dead. Since there is no case to be made against the common sense usage of the word sinner or sinned, it would be unreasonable to jump to an unsupported conclusion.

Objection #2: Scripture says that people are born sinners
There are couple of passages that people cite to suggest that people are born sinners. Yet, I cannot fathom how such a conclusion is reached, when actually reading such passages. Romans 3:10 says, "As it is written: there is none righteous, no not one." Yet this passage never expressed why there are none righteous, or whether people start out righteous or not. Psalm 51:5 says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." To me this is not saying that David himself was born sinful but simply that his mother was a sinner and that, since David was born to his mother, he was born into a sinful family, by a sinful mother. I don't really see that it can be conclusively interpreted otherwise. Genesis 6:5 says, "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." I quite agree that wickedness is pervasive and that all people act sinfully. But this verse doesn't say whether men were born that way or whether they choose to act that way. It simply describes the present condition of those evil-doers. Genesis 8:21 says, "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Sure, from youthhood onwards, people are sinful, but this passage still does not speak about anything before youthhood. No matter what Scriptures you look at, you can make a clear case for arguing that all people are inherently sinful, but you simply cannot provide a verse that says babies are born as sinners.

Objection #3: Adam's sin is imputed to all people, therefore all have sinned, even before birth
This is one of the most cohesive and rational arguments against my position that people are not born sinners. There is certainly a plausible case to be made for all humans having a mystical union with Adam. Just to give the full context of the passage, I am going to quote the whole of Romans 5:12-21 and then break it down and look at what the passage is really saying.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Here are simple observations that we can state with 100% certainty:
- Sin entered the world through one man, Adam
- Death entered the world through sin
- All men sinned
- Death spread to all men because all sinned
- Judgment which came from one sin resulted in condemnation
- This judgment came to all men
- By one man's disobedience many became sinners

There are a few other observations that can be made, but these are some of the major ones we can make concerning the condemnation that comes through Adam. In between these clear statements there are several different ways to connect the dots. John Piper and others suggest that there is a mystical union with Adam which results in Adam's sin being imputed to all people. In his own words:

I believe the answer is that Paul means we all sinned in Adam, that his sin is imputed to us, and that universal human death and condemnation is God's judgment and penalty on all of us because we were in some deep and mysterious way we were united to Adam in his sinning.

This is certainly one possible explanation. It is certainly plausible and cohesive. However, simply because something is plausible and cohesive does not make it true. Allow me to illustrate. Sometimes when kids are young they are told that babies are brought by storks. This is a plausible explanation. I never saw my parents conceive me. In fact, I have never seen anyone's parents conceive them. I also have never seen storks carrying babies. However, it is certainly plausible (to the uninformed mind) that maybe storks are very stealthy and bring babies whenever we're sleeping. Or maybe parents arrange to meet the storks in a predefined location to receive the baby. To a young mind, storks bringing babies is plausible. It would account for why babies who weren't there a week ago are now in your house. But, it completely lacks supporting evidence. Plausibility alone is not enough to support a position.

I have an alternate interpretation of Romans 5 to present. Quite clearly, Adam was the first man to sin. Sin entered the world through Adam. And yet, perhaps when Adam and Eve sinned, only Adam and Eve sinned. Maybe there is no odd mystical connection between Adam and your second cousin's best friend. Since death is the penalty for sin, death entered the world along with sin, much like jumping off a cliff necessarily entails a little bit of free-fall. The two are intertwined and inseparable. Perhaps all men do sin separately. Just because Adam ate an apple doesn't mean that every future human also ate an apple. Just because Adam walked around naked in a garden doesn't mean everyone has. Just because Adam sinned, there is no natural reason to assume that everyone did. Since sin still carries with it that death penalty, perhaps everyone who sins does deserve death individually.

Concerning the judgment that came through Adam, I don't doubt that the sins of one person effect other people. After all, Exodus 20:5 says, "For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Scripture does suggest that the consequences of sins will effect people beyond the sinner. Children whose parents rebel against God by getting divorced still are harmed by their parents' actions, though they bear no responsibility for such actions. When a good friend dies because of a random gang shooting, his family and friends are effected by the evil actions of the gangster, even though they bear no responsibility for his actions. Likewise, it would make sense that Adam's sin would result in his children being forced to endure consequences of his sin (death and a tendency to sin) even though they bear no responsibility for his actions. Therefore, it would make sense that with each generation of sinners that is born and rebels against God, the death penalty and sin nature is continually passed on to every new generation.

By one man's disobedience all became sinners. Perhaps this was not something that happened instantaneously, but was a natural consequence of having sin in the world. For example, through Thomas Edison lightbulbs entered the world. Before Thomas Edison invented lightbulbs there were no lightbulb users in the world. After lightbulbs entered the world, many people became lightbulb users. This certainly doesn't mean that all people had a mystical union with Thomas Edison such that his lightbulb using was imputed to them. Instead, since lightbulbs became plentiful, many people chose to buy them and install them in their homes. Thomas Edison is the indirect causes of many people becoming lightbulb users. He is not the direct cause. Likewise, if sin never entered the world, there would be no sinners. But since sin entered the world, people are now capable of choosing to sin. We may even go so far as to say that because of Adam people have a propensity to choose to sin.

This interpretation makes sense of all the facts stated in the passage without resorting to any mystical answers or mysterious workings. It is a plausible and simple explanation of the facts. When we compare my interpretation with John Piper's interpretation of the passage, both provide plausible explanations of the facts. Occam's Razor states that, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is better." Unless my interpretation is neglecting to account for clear Scriptural truths, it is more reasonable to accept it than to believe in some mystical union with Adam's sin which causes 12 billion and 1 people to sin at exactly the same instant. If we're going to opt for unnecessary fantasy theories then we might as well believe in storks, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

A correct interpretation of Scripture is simply that Adam brought sin into the world, and that since Adam, all people choose to sin, causing them to become sinners, themselves. All people do receive a measure of judgment resulting from Adam's sin, even though they bear no personal guilt for his actions.

Summary
Having looked at Scripture itself and examined the various objections to my previous essay, I have yet to see an compelling argument proving that people are born sinners. First of all, though being a sinner is not simply a description of actions but is a state of being, one certainly cannot suggest that being a sinner can be reduced to exclude actions. This would result in semantic nonsense. Secondly, there is no Scripture that specifically states that people are born evil or born sinners. Third, the doctrine of imputed sin in Adam seems to go much further than Scripture and necessarily includes some assumptions that both contradict common sense and lack substantive Scriptural support of their own. While I happen to quite enjoy fiction, mythology and complicated accounts of things, when it comes to the Bible I refuse to accept anything that seems to bear more resemblance to fantasy than biblical truth.