Response to Comments

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - An anonymous passerby left some really cool comments yesterday.. I figured I'd respond as a new post and maybe get some dialogue going, as these really were very good questions.

Question 1 -

Why did God give us free will so that we can make choices (because we do not want to be robots) yet, when the earth & heavens are destroyed, and those who will go on to live with Him in heaven will be back to square one (in the beginning). Won't heaven be a place where we all worship God, no evil thoughts will come to mind, it will all be for His praise & glory? Then why would He create the heavens & earth, man, free will in the first place if we will be back to the Alpha (square one) some day?

I've wondered the same thing.. Here's my shot at it in a roundabout way.. First, it seems very peculiar to me the way our universe is set up - especially with regards to our physical laws. Were gravity the slightest bit stronger stars would burn out quicker than planets could form - we would not exist. Were it the slightest bit weaker gases would not compact in on themselves in order to create stars, thus planets would have no heat in which to sustain life - we would not exist. The same goes with our nuclear laws and laws of thermodynamics - the so-called "Fine Tuning" of the universe - you may have already heard of all this already..

In any case though, maybe a physical universe - the one we know as our current reality - is the only type of universe in which creatures can have true, free will? That's my thought; of course it's speculation. But this subtly seems to be scripture's answer. It seems to explain that the next existence we enter into is somehow different; I take this to mean that natural laws are different in this universe. Scripture also seems to hint at the idea that our free will is somehow modified (though not necessarily removed) in this next universe. The creatures that want to exist eternally with God make that choice in universe #1, then move on to their desired door #2 - where the idea of free will as we know it is not as necessary anymore. How else would God know who to allow into His presence without this testing of our hearts?

Question 2 -

If heaven is a place of purity (no unclean thoughts, words, or actions) how could Lucifer (if he was indeed an angel in heaven) ever plot to pull one over on God?
Awesome question.. There are many things regarding Satan and God that I struggle with to be honest. I think in your question though, we could probably both agree that the creator of our universe cannot be out-done. Scripture would answer your question with something that has a little to do with your previous question - that God allows Satan to exist purely for His own purposes.. To refine his creation through testing, and to weed out unbelievers from true believers in preparation for the next universe.

Question 3 -

In the ten commandments God states that we should have no other gods before us because HE IS A JEALOUS GOD...yet, there are passages in the Bible that states He is a jealous God...Jealousy is an unhealthy emotion...one that seems very human...how could this be?

Those verses describing God as a "jealous God" bothered me plenty the first time I read them.. It does seem very human, not divine. The word "jealous" we've come to know generally only has 1 connotation - a negative one. Check out 2 Corinthians 11:2, Paul makes it clear that there is such a thing as a "godly jealousy" - something basically foreign to us English speakers. The original world in which these were written had other uses for "jealous" than just negative. An example I've seen supposes a husband seeing another man flirting with his wife. He has a right to be jealous - simply in that the proper relationship belongs only with the husband and wife. And in fact, God is only "jealous" in regards to idolatry - something to which God literally compares to committing adultery.

Check out this article for a little more on it: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/jealous_god.html

Final Comment -
You see, I beleive in God,Jesus, and I am seeking to know just how much of the "HOLY"Bible was indeed God-inspired or human-interpreted. I don't want to ever feel as though I'm going against God's word yet some of the things I read are contradicting.
In my opinion, this is the only way to develop a true faith - especially one that can be defended. Asking tough questions, and more importantly, seeking answers to them, can only result in something pure and true. You are also doing it in a very respectful way. Answers are out there. I hope, whoever you are, that you continue seeking. And feel free to drop by whenever!

Theodicy

"Theodicy" is a branch of theology that attempts to answer the question of suffering in a universe created by an all-good, all-powerful God. There's a somewhat famous quote "Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"

I recently read an article that I felt answers this question quite nicely. The run of the logic will follow as such.

1. Natural laws are fixed & unchanging. Both science and the biblical text (Jeremiah 31:35-36) state this. For further evidence, note that the beliefs of scientists that have made the largest contributions to their fields ascribe to a picture of the universe as one with fixed natural laws.
2. Why not create a world in which "natural evil" such as earthquakes, hurricanes, or tsunamis didn't occur? To remove any of these "natural evils" would always ultimately preclude our very own existence. Just a few examples (many more can be found within the article)
- The root cause of earthquakes are tectonic movements ontop of a liquid core. Removing the liquid core removes our magnetosphere, which removes our protection from radiation bombardment, which precludes us from ever existing.
- Remove radiation then. Unfortunately, to remove radiation from the universe removes the mechanism that heats stars, which again, precludes us from ever existing.
- Remove hurricanes. Hurricanes exist due to uneven heating around the globe, which is due to the tilt of our planet on it's axis. To "correct" this tilt to a perfect 90 degrees would result in constant cooling at the poles, which would ultimately accumulate ice at the poles until the oceans were gone, again, precluding our existence.

So the question must be asked, which would be worse? Natural evils, or none of us ever existing to be able to ask this question?

3. Ok, so why not intervene to prevent bad things from happening? Couldn't God dissipate a hurricane? Or stop an earthquake from rumbling? This violates #1 above, and creates an unstable environment in which we cannot properly observe, measure, or understand our own environment. Science would no longer exist without fixed, natural laws remaining constant.
4. Why not create a "perfect" universe then? To do so would require the removal of evil, obviously. Removing evil removes free will, as one no longer has a choice to make. All beings would then basically be programmed computers. What's wrong with this? Biblical texts give an answer all throughout: love. If I program a computer to prompt out "I love you!", does it really? Of course not.
5. Conclusion: it appears that this universe was created for the purpose of free will (which in itself is a flaw, as evil must be present for free will to work).

Virtually every process that makes human beings unique require the operation of thermodynamic laws. However, these laws also result in almost all natural evil. So, it is unclear how the laws of physics could be substantially different from what they are and yet still produce a universe in which sentient creatures would be allowed to make moral choices.

A book for athiests

7/21/2008 - Ever talked to a grandparent, or at least someone significantly older than you and realized how much more they know than you? And not necessarily because they're smarter, but simply because they've experienced more than you. It's only natural that you can learn from elders, simply because they've done more than you and lived more of a lifetime than you. Have you raised kids yet? No? Then talk to someone that has. Have you grieved the death of a spouse? No? Then talk to someone that has. Etc. They know more about these things, simply because they've gone through something you haven't.

At it's most bare form, this is how I view the Biblical text; but multiplied by like a thousand. Why? Let's for a moment suppose that there is no God of the universe, and that the Bible is completely man-made. What nutritional value does the Bible then provide? It's still generation upon generation upon generation of people that lived a full life, and at the end of it said "This is what I've learned to live a happy life. Do this, and don't do this.." And this knowledge is compounded ontop of their priors' knowledge - a horribly powerful idea, regardless of your religious orientation.

Because of it's sacred status, it's one of the only texts that has survived this long and this accurately (and it has, by the way, been proved to be historically, archaeologically, and internally more accurate than any other text of antiquity). When you stop to think about this tool at our fingertips, regardless of the existence of a divine creator, this is a horribly powerful tool for living a happier life.

Theophoric Names

It's quite incredible how much the ancient near east (ANE) has shaped our part of the world, much to the unawareness of most. In the ANE, it was common to name a son or daughter after the god the parents worshipped. Take Nebuchadnezzar for example, a Babylonian ruler reigning from 605-562BC. His name literally means "O Nabu, defend my kudurru (an Akkadian name for a deed of property)". Nabu was one of many gods the Babylonians worshipped; in this case the god of wisdom and writing. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar.

The Jews had many names for God - primarily stemming from the name El (El Adonai, Elohim, etc), or Yahweh. The Jews did the same as the Babylonians in the above example, so that each of their names was basically a Hebrew phrase dedicated to God. Take for example the name Daniel (also a book of the Bible). Dan is Hebrew for "judge". Dan+i = "My judge". Now add "El" - Dan+i+El = "My judge is God". Respectively, the Jews did the same with the name Yahweh, however they used the shortened version - Yah; also spelt Iah. You see this in names like Jeremiah (meaning "The Lord will raise"), Zachariah (meaning "The Lord has remembered"), Isaiah (meaning "Salvation of The Lord").

See if you can get this one. One of the prophets of the Bible was Micah (also spelled Micaiah), which means "Who is like Yahweh?". Try transposing the iah in this name with the other extension (El) and see what you get.

In general, when you see "el" or "iah" in a person's name nowadays - even here in America - it's a name that goes back to the ancient near east and the name itself is a reference to God. Some examples are Michael, Elizabeth, Joel, Daniel, Samuel, and on. Each of these is a Hebrew dedication to God. Many times people, even the bearer of the name itself, just aren't aware.

Origins - The Alphabet

It's debated as to where the alphabet originated, and which culture was responsible for creating and using the first one. Egypt is typically credited with creating the first alphabetic writing system. However some contend the first alphabetic system was Hebrew.

Let's look at the first 2 letters of the Hebrew alphabet: א-aleph, and ב-bet. It's believed that these first two letters of the Hebrew alphabet were later converted to Alpha and Beta (respectively) in the Greek alphabet. Put these two letters together and you get "Alphabeta". Look familiar? I personally never really questioned where the word "Alphabet" came from, but this makes sense.

Furthermore, it's interesting to note that the presumably oldest alphabetic cave writing is found in Egypt, however the writing is Hebrew. The next oldest alphabetic cave writing is found in the Sanai region, again in Hebrew. And the next oldest alphabetic cave writing is found in the (then) Canaanite region, again in Hebrew. Does this route sound familiar? Can you say... Exodus?!

Origins - Aramaic

I've come across many interesting origins in studying, and jot them down here for future review. One worth mentioning is that of the Aramaic language. This was a dominant language spoken during Jesus' time. The dialogue of the movie "The Passion" was in Aramaic with english subtitles.

Aram was a region located in what is now Syria. What is interesting, however, is that Aram was actually a person mentioned in the Bible. Noah had three sons - Shem (the origin of the word Semite), Ham, and Japheth. One of Shem's sons was Aram. So the current country of Syria actually traces all the way back to a grandson of Noah.

It is interesting to note how some current countries of the world actually descended from one person, and that lineage can often times be traced all the way back.

Messianic Prophecies

As Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah ("Messianic" prophecies) ultimately shape world religions, this subject can be a bit touchy. I'll preface this by saying I'm not looking to convince anyone of a certain religion, I'm just noting some observations I've made about Messianic prophecies.

My grandparents on my mother's side were Jewish (both of lineage as well as practicing Jews). My mother is of Jewish lineage, and was brought up practicing Judaism. She converted to Christianity, and though I am of Jewish lineage (ultimately my ancestry leads back to Jacob, or, Israel) I was brought up under the Christian religion.

The Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament have really shaped the 3 major "Abrahamic" religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. A major difference in each lies within interpretations of the Messianic prophecies. Why is this?

Basically, Christians believe the events recorded of Jesus fulfilled many of the Messianic prophecies, however many of the Messianic prophecies still have yet to be fulfilled. Christianity teaches that Jesus will return to fulfill the rest of the prophecies. Jews argue that the Old Testament prophets made no claims to separate comings. I personally see valid points to both views.

Let's view an example of a Messianic prophecy that appears to have been fulfilled: "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles" - Isaiah 42:6. This passage refers to the "Servant of the Lord" bringing knowledge of God to Gentiles (non-Jews). One must admit, the rise of Christianity after Constantine declared it the official religion of Rome certainly brought the God of the Hebrews out of obscurity and more available to the rest of the world than ever before.

Let's now look at an example of a Messianic prophecy has not yet been fulfilled: "In the last days ... Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train anymore." - Isaiah 2:2-5. This passage refers to the "Messianic Age", when there will be peace, and no more war. One must admit, though Christians believe Jesus was the prophesied Messiah, war still exists today.

So this brings us to one of two roads: either Jesus was not the Messiah, or prophets were referring to separate and distinct times when these events would play out. The former being the stance of Judaism, the latter the stance of Christianity.

I believe where a lot of the confusion comes from is that Old Testament prophets prefix many of their prophecies with the phrase "In that day, ..." or "The day of the Lord". This would most certainly appear to be a reference to 1 specific point in time. Moreover, nowhere do the prophets specifically say that any of the events "In that day" will occur at different times. Of course, nor do they necessarily state that they won't either.

This being the case, I had always felt quite compelled by the case that Judaism makes - that Jesus could not have been the Messiah as not all of the prophecies were fulfilled in His time. Until I read one specific chapter of Isaiah that completely changed my mind. "See, the LORD is going to lay waste the earth and devastate it; he will ruin its face and scatter its inhabitants ... The earth will be completely laid waste and totally plundered." - Isaiah 24:1-3. "In that day the LORD will punish the powers in the heavens above and the kings on the earth below... The moon will be abashed, the sun ashamed" - Isaiah 24:21-23. Isaiah is prophesying here the annihilation of the Earth as we know it. In fact, neither the sun or moon will shine "In that day".

Now let me refer to another prophesy of Isaiah - one I wrote about a couple weeks ago - the destruction of Babylon. "See, the day of the LORD is coming —a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light... Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms,the glory of the Babylonians’ pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah. She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations" - Isaiah 13:9-20. Again, as in the passage before, the sun and moon will no longer shine during the Day of the Lord. Adjacent to this passage is the prophecy of the destruction of Babylon.

Clearly, we can take as emperical fact that one prophecy has been fulfilled with striking accuracy (the complete destruction of Babylon), while the other has not (the destruction of Earth). Yet, while Isaiah does not specifically refer to the two prophecies as occuring in separate times, they in fact do. Thus in my opinion, Messianic prophecies need not necessarily be fulfilled all at once.

So what does this mean? I find this answer to be even more interesting. If you are a Christian, then you believe Jesus fulfilled some of these prophecies. Meaning, the "Day of the Lord" has begun. Moreover, as a Christian you would believe we are currently living "In that day", and these Messianic prophecies are referring to us, now.