I have often wondered why God chose to save human beings by sacrificing his son. Could he not have found a way that involved less suffering?
Imagining myself to be God, I realised that if I was all powerful and able do anything, I would quickly get bored playing with toys which did exactly as I programmed them. Stars, planets and all inanimate objects could keep my interest just so long. Plants would be more of a challenge because they could indefinitely procreate after their kind. Animals are even more interesting since they can have a "mind of their own". They are guided by the instinct built into them and by knowledge passed on from parents to their offspring.
Finally God decided to make someone like himself, in his own image. This creature was not to be directed by instinct like the animals, but by his own Spirit which he blew into Adam. One of the characteristics of Adam, due to his having "the image of God", was that he had a free will. Without it he would have been but a sophisticated robot, a clever animal. Such a creature would not be capable of giving or receiving love. Since God is love, his image had to be able to love freely. This would only be realistic if it was possible for the man to choose the opposite. Choosing to love God and his fellow man was to be the chief aim of man.
How was God going to get man to love him? I believe he made it clear to Adam that an innocent animal had to die because of his sin. How else could he have made clothes for them? (Genesis 3:21) Abel seems to have got the message and God approved of his sacrifice. (Hebrews 11:4) But Cain did not appreciate this. His attitude was something in the line of "This is who I am and why should I change?" He was the first man to be born of a woman, which was the way God had designed it. But having God's image did not entitle him to give in to every emotion he experienced, in this case anger. (Genesis 4:5) By allowing his anger to guide his deeds he acted in direct contradiction to what God had intended. In stead of loving his brother he murdered him in cold blood. (Genesis 4:8) If he had thought about it clearly he would have realised that he could not ignore his Creator forever. Also, since he carried God's image, his conscience would not allow him to forget about his sin. If his pride was to determine his behaviour, he would not receive forgiveness. Judas faced this same dilemma.
The Lord gave the nation of Israel his commandments which can be summed up in "love the Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:5) and "love your neighbour" (Leviticus 19:18). The more expanded version (the ten commandments) starts of with the reason why they should love him, namely because he delivered them. (Exodus 20:2) Loving God is not something which is natural to fallen man. To nations other than Israel this was a foreign concept. One could dread God or the gods for what they could do, but to my knowledge, the idea of loving God is exclusive to the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he had to do to inherit eternal life, the Lord recited the "second tablet" of the ten commandments to him. These are the commands which can be summed up in "love your neighbour as yourself". Jesus also commented on how the man had greeted him since he had addressed the Lord with the words "Good teacher". By accepting this compliment and stating that no one was good but God, Jesus was subtly revealing his identity. (Luke 18:18-20) A more direct answer to the ruler's question would have been: "Look, I am God, and if you really loved me and money was not an idol to you, you would get rid of your earthly possessions and follow me".
By pretending to keep 613 laws the Pharisees wanted to be seen as lovers of God. Like Cain, they missed the point. They meticulously kept to the letter of the law since in their heart of hearts they did not trust the Lawgiver and regarded him as unfair. (Luke 19:20-21) They never understood the spirit behind the law. (Matthew 23:23) When they met the one who had given it and kept the law perfectly, they did not recognise him and handed him over to be crucified. (John 5:39-40)
The old covenant required the Jews to love God because he delivered them from slavery. Jesus inaugurated a better covenant which was intended to deliver them, and the whole world, from sin. (Hebrews 8:7-8; 8:13) That is more than enough reason for anyone to love him, since the invitation is extended to all mankind. (John 1:12) God's offer is so outrageously generous that most people find it too good to be true. (John 3:16)
Sunday 20 June 2010
Wednesday 16 June 2010
Science and insanity
Albert Einstein is purported to have said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". This statement makes perfect sense from a purely scientific point of view. The laws of natural science (except for aspects of Geology and Biology) are based on repeatable experiments.
There would be no science if the same experiment, done repeatedly, yielded different results. However, to apply this principle to all areas of life, is fallacious. Some examples from the Bible suggest the opposite to be true. Moses tended sheep day after day for 40 years. Then one day he saw a burning bush and his life was never the same. Day after day a lame man begged at the Gate Beautiful until one day he encountered Peter and John. His healing had all of Jerusalem stirred up. Another man, who had been lame for 38 years, spent his days at the pool of Bethesda until the day he was healed by Jesus. There are many examples of people who faithfully did their duties until one day something extraordinary happened to them.
To illustrate the narrow mindedness of a purely scientific world view, consider the following. Someone claims to have walked on water. From an exclusively scientific point of view the person cannot be believed, unless he could repeat the "experiment". By this paradigm the virgin birth and resurrection of the dead are impossibilities.
The absurdity of adopting a solely scientific world view as sufficient for all branches of knowledge becomes glaringly obvious in a subject like History. That Jesus rose from the dead is one of the best proven facts of history. However, since this fact is not based on a repeatable experiment, its veracity is denied by those who refuse to accept a world view wider than the scientific.
The irrationality of this approach is often compounded when its promoters regard themselves as "open minded". According to their logic those who deny the possibility of miracles are more open minded than those who permit miracles in their world view. Their logic is similar to that of atheists who claim to be more open minded than those who accept the possibility of the existence of a God. This logic compels them to believe in the theory of evolution which they then disseminate as fact.
As far as Einstein's quotations are concerned, hardly any law of Physics has suffered as much abuse at the hands of philosophers and social scientists as the Principle of Relativity. In the first place they have applied it to Ethics and Morality, areas in which its validity has no foundation. Secondly they have made it to mean exactly the opposite of what it means in Relativity Theory. The latter is based on the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers, whereas relativistic ethics propounds that right and wrong depends on the person and the situation.
There would be no science if the same experiment, done repeatedly, yielded different results. However, to apply this principle to all areas of life, is fallacious. Some examples from the Bible suggest the opposite to be true. Moses tended sheep day after day for 40 years. Then one day he saw a burning bush and his life was never the same. Day after day a lame man begged at the Gate Beautiful until one day he encountered Peter and John. His healing had all of Jerusalem stirred up. Another man, who had been lame for 38 years, spent his days at the pool of Bethesda until the day he was healed by Jesus. There are many examples of people who faithfully did their duties until one day something extraordinary happened to them.
To illustrate the narrow mindedness of a purely scientific world view, consider the following. Someone claims to have walked on water. From an exclusively scientific point of view the person cannot be believed, unless he could repeat the "experiment". By this paradigm the virgin birth and resurrection of the dead are impossibilities.
The absurdity of adopting a solely scientific world view as sufficient for all branches of knowledge becomes glaringly obvious in a subject like History. That Jesus rose from the dead is one of the best proven facts of history. However, since this fact is not based on a repeatable experiment, its veracity is denied by those who refuse to accept a world view wider than the scientific.
The irrationality of this approach is often compounded when its promoters regard themselves as "open minded". According to their logic those who deny the possibility of miracles are more open minded than those who permit miracles in their world view. Their logic is similar to that of atheists who claim to be more open minded than those who accept the possibility of the existence of a God. This logic compels them to believe in the theory of evolution which they then disseminate as fact.
As far as Einstein's quotations are concerned, hardly any law of Physics has suffered as much abuse at the hands of philosophers and social scientists as the Principle of Relativity. In the first place they have applied it to Ethics and Morality, areas in which its validity has no foundation. Secondly they have made it to mean exactly the opposite of what it means in Relativity Theory. The latter is based on the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers, whereas relativistic ethics propounds that right and wrong depends on the person and the situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
