Schooloffish’s Weblog

So let’s talk world views. Everyone has a world view, which is best described as the way you see the world. There are as many world views as there are people, but in general, there are three specific world views that I will be analysing with this article. These three world view categories are religious, naturalistic, andrelativistic world views. Of course there are many subcategories within these three categories that we will cover as well.

A NATURALISTIC WORLD VIEW

A person who has a naturalistic world view generally rejects all caused causes and instead tends to embrace a view that the world was made by chance through the process of general evolution with absolutely no interference from a created being. In a nutshell, these people believe that what we see is all that there is. No GOD, or if there is a God he/she/it/they do not interfere in the world.

A large percentage of the scientific community holds this world view as do most atheists

RELIGIOUS WORLD VIEW

In general a religious world view embraces that there is something greater than man. That a GOD in some form is responsible for creation, morals & an afterlife (in some form). This world views is much more broad than the naturalistic world view as there are many different religious positions. Within this category, we will test a few different world view subcategories these categories are:

1. Christan World View
2. Hindu World View
3. Muslim World View
4. Pantheistic/Pagan World View

RELATIVISTIC WORLD VIEW

The last category to be discussed is a relativistic world view. This has become a very popular world view as of late. In general this world view believes that all world views are true for the individual and therefore all are right as long as it right for YOU. In a relativistic world view, the word truth, right and wrong are subjective as opposed to objective truth as the world would be used by the other two categories.

HOW TO TEST A WORLD VIEW

When testing a world view, you need to take into account three things. Even if you are not familiar with all the aspects of a world view, if any one of these three test proves to be false, then the entire world view must - necessarily - be false. These tests are:

1. Is the world view contradictory within it’s own view?
2. Does the world view actually align with reality?
3. What do expects and eye witness have to say about the world view?

Applying these tests, we will attempt to test the truth of the three world views addressed above.

TESTING THE RELATIVISTIC WORLD VIEW

Relativism believes in subjective truth. If it’s true for you, then it’s true. Basically, relativists believe that there is a neutral moral ground where no one is to make any judgements as to someone else’s truths. This neutral moral ground is called “tolerance”. The question is, does a relativistic world view hold up to the three tests?

First and foremost, relativism fails the test of contradiction. There simply can’t be any morally neutral ground. If I (with a Christan world view) went up to a relativist and stated that I thought Homosexuality was immoral, the relativist would call me intolerant, arrogant, and wrong. They would likely tell me that my view is wrong and I should change it. Does this language seem like neutrally moral ground? Does this language seem to allow me to have my beliefs as true for me or can the language better be described as my beliefs are objectively wrong? The fact is, the second that a relativist makes any judgement at all they have created a contradiction and thus the view is necessarily false. The relativistic world view fails the law of non-contradiction.

Does relativism pass the test of coherence (how the world actually seems to be)? Ask yourself this question, “Does there seem to be anything that is wrong for everyone?” Can you think of any reason in any culture where touching babies for the pleasure it brings you is OK? If you can simply think of a single situation where something is wrong for all then relativism is false. It must be because relativism does not allow for objective (universal) truth. Clearly anyone with this world view (to it’s extreme) has a major malfunction as taken to it’s absurd conclusion there is absolutely no right or wrong and no justification of punishment or justice.

Lastly, what do experts say about a relativistic world view? First college professors seems to love relativism as a world view. It allows them to teach anything without any consequence for the teaching. So it seems, on surface, that experts have embraced it. However, this is simply not the case. First science doesn’t hold to this view. How could they? Science is about observation and what they observe is objective in it’s analysis. If a scientist holds to this world view they would be unable to report that one medicine works to cure cancer and another does not. This is best described as the insulin versus ice cream argument. Relativism believes that the world is made up of ice cream. All you have to do is select the flavor that you “like” and reject the flavors you don’t. Insulin on the other hand is objective. If you have diabetes, you NEED insulin, ice cream simply won’t do. Furthermore, psychologists would reject relativism as well. A physiologist would call a person who believes that are is no moral truth as a psychopath. Psychologists would try to “fix” him or her by curing the malfunction.

I believe the best proof against this world view is that no one actually lives by it. If someone thinks they do, steal there car and see if they tell you that you were wrong for doing so. If they say you are wrong or that there should be justice, then they are living a contradiction.

I think it is clear that without a huge analysis of a relativistic world view, we can show that the view is necessarily false. It doesn’t hold up to any of the three tests, and therefore MUST be rejected.

TESTING THE NATURALISTIC WORLD VIEW

Does naturalism stand up to the three tests? Are there contradiction in this view? I think there are. Since I am far from an expert on everything that naturalists hold, I will focus on only the most obvious contradiction. Naturalism by name believes that what one sees or observes is true. I must say the statement paints naturalists with a broad brush, and I would not be surprised if I get comments on my global assumption of this category. In my defense I am basing this on my observation and communication with naturalists, so it is based (at least in part) on truth. The problem is that science (the poster child for naturalism) is based nearly entirely on hypothesis or educated assumptions. Many of these hypothesis CAN be tested, but many cannot. We can’t test consciousness, intuition, or morality for instance. We know that these things exist, but we simply don’t know why or how and since things like consciousness can only be attested to by the individually conscious person, no independent test can be produced to test such a thing. Another way of stating this is. The test of intimate knowledge. Only the person feeling or thinking something has intimate knowledge of the truth and no test can allow others into my intimate knowledge of something. This doesn’t mean that the information is NOT true just that it can’t be tested. For instance we can test memory but we can’t testconsciousness or the existence of a soul.

The big test of naturalism is the test of coherence. Science would have us believe that the world happened by chance with no help from an invisible GOD. After all, we can’t see GOD and therefore he can’t exist. First and foremost, just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exist. We can see love but we know it exists. We can’t see logic but clearly it exists.

Evolution and the creation of the cosmos simply doesn’t support the Naturalistic world view either. The general theory of evolution is all about change over time from one species to another. However, is this what we actually observe the world to be? Of course not. What we see is an orderly Universe where everything is in a perfect location to allow for humanity to thrive. If the sun was just a little hotter, or colder, life could not exist. If the continents were a little bit out of alignment, the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn would seize to flow and the world would be covered with ice. If our sun was just a little bit younger or older, our orbit would be such that the planet would be unable to sustain life. The fact is the Universe seems to be ordered, not in chaos as Darwin would have had us believe. In addition to this, the complexity of organisms is so great that it is nearly impossible to see a naturalistic cause for it. Since evolution postulates that things evolve from simple cell organisms into complex ones, there should never be a stage where the complexity of an organism cannot be reduced to a less complex stage (calledirreducible complexity). Has any one ever wondered how the heart could have continued to work as it mutated from two chambers to four? How could such a defect still keep the mutated creature alive? How could an animal with a half flipper and half leg survive? It seems logical to assume that a half flipper would not allow the organism to swim and the half leg wold make hunting on land impossible as well. It seems that the organism would starve to death of be a perfect meal for a non-defective creature. Lastly, how can abiogensis occur? How did a rock turn into DNA? These questions have been largely ignored because they show that the naturalistic world view should only be rejected as false.

What do expects say about this world view? Many of the experts that reject naturalism from within the scientific community are blacklisted so scientific experts are hard to find, but they do exist. In addition to this, the actions of the experts within the field speak volumes. It seems interesting to me that science has started looking at other planets for life. The naturalist knows that life simply could not have happened in such a short span of time here on earth, so they are looking at other planets for evidence that itoccurred elsewhere and was deposited here. This is a silent admission that evolution is in trouble.

Naturalism simply doesn’t hold up to the three tests, and though there are many things that can (and perhaps should) be proved by a naturalistic cause, the big holes in the theory of evolution point to a cause and if only one cause can be demonstrated, then naturalism is necessarily false.

THE RELIGIOUS WORLD VIEW

Religious world views are too broad to describe in a single category as with the other world views. I will discuss them by individual religions and ending with Christianity.

Hinduism holds that the world is an illusion. That there is no good or evil but that good and evil are just an illusion (called Maya). Does the concept of Maya hold up to a test of contradiction? Obviously not. If the world is just an illusion, then we, as part of the illusion, would only have access to the information given us by the person creating the illusion. So the question is, how do Hindus “KNOW” such a thing? For a Hindu to know that we are illusions would be like Homer Simpson knowing that he is a cartoon. Clearly a cartoon has no knowledge of such things, because they can’t know anything, they are an illusion. So the vary act of knowing by the Hindus falsifies to the falseness of the world view.

The second question is does this align with the way the world actually is? Do you have any reason to believe that you exist? If you seem to exist, then the world view doesn’t align with reality and thus it is false. I once had a Hindu respond to this argument by stating, “Prove you exist”. I answered back with, “Who are you talking to?” She said,“You”. I then told her not only do have reason to believe I exist but I have an independent witness to my existence..YOU! She testified to my existence by asking me the question! She clearly thought I existed too.

Across the board most experts in no matter what category would agree that Hinduism is false. It would be ridiculous for a scientist to partake in the act of testing if we were an illusion. The results would be meaningless and there would be no truth in them. The only expert that might support Hinduism would be the relativist as the relativist would say as long as it’s true for the Hindu than it’s OK. An obviously ridiculous argument.

Pantheism, and perhaps paganism (witches) would hold that all things are GOD or have GOD in them. Pantheist generally have a high respect for life as all life is GOD. The question of contradiction is based more on definition then everything but there are still contradictions within the world view. The most apparent contradiction is that if everything is GOD than nothing is GOD. Even if you define GOD in a very general term as say a life force (The Jedi God), the religion can not account for anything because the life force GOD has no power to create. Therefore the pantheistic god is unimportant and totally meaningless. In a nutshell pantheists stating that everything is god is a meaningless statement and meaningless as a world view.

Does pantheism align with a real world? Simply, it has been demonstrated that the would was created from some cause. The cause may still be in dispute but most world views support some type of cause (natural or not). As demonstrated above if everything is god, then god simply has no power to create. God also seems to be a personal creator who had man in mind when creating. The Pantheistic gods cannot be personal and cannot have anything in mind when creating. Lastly, animals have gone extinct over time. Are we to assume that god can die and go extinct? These arguments shows how ridiculous this world view actually is. In fact it is not even a world view as it doesn’t really answer anything.

Simply no expert would support such unrealistic assertions about a god without power. MY argument for Christianity will give a presuppositional refutation to this as well as other religions points of view.

The argument against Islam can be described by presenting the argument for Christianity. The fact is Christianity and Islam are in harmony is many ways.

Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and a very respected prophet at that, so using Jesus credibility is the best way to show that Islam is false. Muslims believe that Jesus was not GOD and that passages in the Bible that show him to be were either misinterpreted or were added later. They believe that Mohammad had the accurate representation of who Jesus was. The question is whom are we to believe?

The New Testament was written from AD 45 to AD 140 some 13 to 100 years after Jesus’ death (conservatively). We have around 5000 copies of early manuscripts to compare the writing to insure accuracy. It is reasonable that we have a fairly accurate picture of what Jesus taught. On the other hand Muhammad, who Muslims believe has the accurate picture of Jesus, was born around 570 AD, hundreds of years after the New Testament was written. Is it reasonable to assume that Muhammad had it right, but those who walked the earth during Jesus’ time didn’t? Of course NOT. Think of it this way. Who would have a more accurate description of my wife? You, who have never met my wife, or me, who has intimate knowledge of her? Clearly an expert opinion of Jesus would be a better opinion and though this may not prove Islam false, it does show that there are inconsistencies in the religion at least. How about the number of early copies of Koran? How many do the Muslims have floating around? According to Dr James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries), the Koran was consolidated after Muhammad’s death and all copies were destroyed. So we have no copies to compare to. We have no way to scrutinizing the apparent historical accuracy of the works. This is a big problem and it calls into question the motives of the religious world view.

I believe it is reasonable to reject Islam as a true religion, and instead accept the the most consistent religion to ever be. Christianity.

WHY I AM A FOLLOWER OF CHRIST

Christianity, like all world views, should be tested with the same three tests as all other world views. How does Christianity hold up to scrutiny?

The bible holds up very nicely to the tests. The Bible provides this in several ways.

1. PROPHECY in the Old Testament is seen fulfilled in the New Testament and other part of the Old.
2. The books are UNIFIED. You see the same redemptive message throughout the book. In the Old Testament the penalty for sin was death carried out through animal sacrifice and in the New Testament the penalty for our sins is also death redeemed through the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
3. The Bible answers the BIG QUESTIONS. It gives account for the creation of the Universe and the things in it. Painting an accurate picture of reality. There are certainly secondary questions as to what the Bible says about creation (I personally hold to an old earth theology), but creation itself is not called into question.
4. It is an INDEX TO HISTORY. The Bible is a historical account of the world as it was during the times in questions. Archeology continues to show the accuracy of the historical accounts.
5. It CHANGES PEOPLE’S LIVES. Followers of Jesus hold the power of change. Not only have Christians changed personally but they have been instrumental in changing the world. Can Pantheism or Islam make the same claim?
6. The Bible & Christianity are a FIGHTERS. It has held up the test of time, including attacks and scrutiny like no other. Included in this was the persecution of the early church which continued to thrive even under horrible persecution.

Though these points alone cannot prove Christianity to be TRUE, it does seem reasonable to accept that Christianity is more likely to be true than other world views. Many would say that religion is based on faith, and to that I would agree, however it is not based on blind faith as blind faith is not only useless but harmful as faithfully believing something without reasonable proof has lead to just about every false world view around. Simply put, it takes more faith to believe in Naturalism and Relativism than it does Christianity.

Let me make this short and sweet. Anyone can say anything! I have found that defending the Christian position usually stalls, not because of a lucid argument, but because our opponents are left with the ability to make some assertion that we feel compelled to answer. Many believe that if we don’t answer an assertion, we are losing the argument. This is absurd, and I intend, with this message, to show you the proper way to answer these questions.

First, an assertion is a statement without proof. An example of this would be, “Reincarnation was taken out of the Bible”. Human nature would be to try to “prove” that it wasn’t but this puts you on the defensive and in any argument you want to say ont eh offensive. When you get an assertion like this, don’t feel as though you need to respond. Instead of answering the assertion, try questioning instead. Using the example above, you might ask: “Do you have knowledge of how reincarnation could have been removed from thousands of copies of biblical texts circulating since the 2^nd century?” Of course no one has this proof and I am confident they never will. In a recent post, I was victim of such as assertion. A very educated reader (much more educated then myself) makes several assertions that have yet to be answered. He states that polytheism was removed from the New and Old Testaments. When I requested proof and reminded him that he bares the burden of proving this position, he responded by stating: “That’s the problem with my argument, I don’t believe that polytheism was removed from the Bible” If I did, I would have the same position as himself. Frankly this answer is absurd and I expected more. As educated as he is, his decision not to answer the question actually answers the question. THERE IS NO PROOF.

Let’s say for a minute he does come up with some proof. What do we do then? First, we need to find out exactly how trust worthy the proof is. Is the resource more trust worthy than ours? Let’s say for the sake of argument that is it. We then need to see if this proof actually negates our position. In the example of reincarnation, it would seriously damage the Christian position if credible proof exists to show a conspiracy of removing reincarnation from the Bible. In the case of historical revisionism (polytheism), it wouldn’t do much at all. The question that would need to be answered is weather or not the Bible teaches polytheism. This is certainly NOT the case, so even if (and it is likely) some Jews and Christians are polytheists. This doesn’t constitute historical revisionism.

(Read the Comments in Reference Click Here)

So in an attempt to keep this short and sweet, here’s my advice. Don’t let people get away with anything. If someone makes an assertion, no matter how smart they seem, ask questions to show that they really have no case at all.

ASK QUESTIONS TO COME TO THE TRUTH, NOT JUST TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. ANYONE CAN SAY ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT, BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE!

I am personally a huge fan of the show “Ghost Hunters” on the SiFi Channel. I spend at least an hour of day watching it on Hulu while a work in my office. Like most people, I am fascinated with the afterlife and any evidence for an afterlife should be edifying for humankind. As the evidence mounts for some type of paranormal, I find myself trying to fit this evidence into my biblical box.

Before sharing my position, let me first add a disclaimer. “The Ghost Hunters” TV show is just that, a TV show, so it should be mentioned that fraudulent evidence, and hoaxing are not out of the question. At least on two different occasions on the show, hoaxing is evident. To be more specific, during the episode on the Queen Mary, the camera was turned off while someone hid behind the bed. The camera was then restarted and the hidden person pulled the bed sheets down making it look like the sheets magically moved. On another occasion, while in Georgia, someone hid behind a glass door and got up and ran. Since the person was on the outside of the door, it appeared to be a spirit. Since Inferred camera can’t penetrate glass, it appeared to be black and ghostly as it didn’t put off any heat. Both were clearly hoaxes. In addition to this most of the evidence is weak at best. Apparent knocking, lights moving across the room, cold spots, odd sounds on a recorder, and spikes in magnetic fields are up to the interpretation of the “hunter”, and frankly can’t be looked at as evidence at all. Given that the Ghost hunters are believers in paranormal they will definitely have a paranormal bias in interpreting the evidence. Simply put, more research would have to be done to scientifically come to the conclusion of paranormal activity. In defense of T.A.P.S. the hosts of “Ghost Hunters”, they make this very disclaimer stating the 85% of all apparent paranormal activities can be explained.

However, there are some things that seem to be compelling as well. On many occasions the inferred camera picks up human shapes in the same room as the hunter, but when light is placed on the same spot there is nothing there. Moving tables and balls, breaking classes, ropes untying, and people flying off there feet for no apparent reason are all good examples of this evidence. Again, all of this could be a fraud, but putting an open mind to these proofs is the fair thing to do. We should give the Ghost Hunter the benefit of the doubt unless we have reason to suspect otherwise. I believe that we should analyze the evidence with charity, and hope that people would be as charitable in analyzing the evidence for Christianity as well.

I have no doubt that Christianity is true. I believe that the evidence for Christianity is profound, so where does that leave me when analyzing the evidence for “The Ghost Hunters”? Am I to dismiss what I see so that it lines up with my belief? Are we as Christians really willing to have faith for the sake of faith even if the evidence points in a different direction? Or is it better to see if our faith in Christ lines up with the evidence presented? Simply put, does the Bible leave room for ghosts, spirits, demons, and apparitions? I think it does

The traditional view of the Christian position is that when you die you go to Heaven or you go to Hell. So it seems that ghosts would be unlikely. However, according to Revelations, Hell is empty. Hell is the prison in which God will throw Satan and his minions after the second coming of Christ after his victory over evil. So the Bible doesn’t teach that non-believers are in hell, but rather in a place called Hades. Hades is best described as a holding cell for those destined to Hell. So in a nutshell, Hell is empty at least for awhile. This is not proof for ghosts running all over the earth, but it at least shows that Christianity doesn’t actually teach what most people think it teaches in regards to the dead. The question is, can people be removed from either Heaven or Hades and appear as a ghost? I think we have biblical proof for this position. In 1 Samuel Chapter 28, Saul, the king of Israel, is at war with the Philistines. He is distressed because God was turned his back on him. So Saul hires a medium to bring up the spirit of Samuel. She is successful in doing so, and Samuel prophesied that Saul and his son Jonathan would be dead and Israel would be defeated. How do we reconcile this? It seems that this is conclusive proof of the dead communicating with the living and it seems that it was ordained by God as Samuel directly foretold the future, and only an omniscient being (God) can foretell the future. Satan is not omniscient so this couldn’t have been a demon acting as Samuel. So assuming Saul is in Heaven, he would have to have left to make the trip back to Earth.

Are there examples of ghosts in the New Testament? Yes and no. We don’t have any examples of a ghosts actually appearing to anyone in the New Testament, but we do have a references from both the disciples and Jesus himself to the existence of Ghosts. Matthew 14:26 states, When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. These were traditional Jewish people who were at least open to the possibility of Ghosts. Even more compelling proof are Jesus’ own words. In Luke 24, (referring to the resurrection of Jesus) versus 36-39, it states:

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

Jesus says, “a ghost doesn’t have flesh and bones”. This seems to me to show that Jesus believed in ghosts. If there were no such thing as ghosts, wouldn’t he have said so? Instead he described what ghosts look like!

In addition to ghosts, the Bible has many descriptions of contact with the paranormal. Jesus and the disciples cast out demons all the time. Angles appear to people time and again, we even have a physical spirit living within us (the Holy Spirit).

This evidence points towards a paranormal. Samuel was not a physical being, he was not resurrected or resuscitated. He was called up by a medium. Jesus himself attested to the existence of paranormal, spirits and even ghosts! So Christianity and the Ghost Hunters can live in harmony. However, we need to look at the evidence presented on the TV show from a skeptical eye, but if presented with overwhelming evidence, we should see if it can be explained within the truth of the Bible.

With that said, it should be noted that the Bible if VERY clear as to what happens to people when they die.  “They die ONCE and then comes the judgment” Coupled with the fact that the Bible teaches that God is NOT the author of confusion, we should likely conclude that, though ghosts may exist, they are probebly NOT children of GOD, but rather children of the author of confusion also known as Satan.

As a Christian, I look at the possibility of paranormal as a little evidences for a life beyond this one even of if the evidence comes from Satan.  Think of if this way, there is no better proof for the existence of good than the existence of evil (you can’t have one without the other). As Christians, we should be using this popular show as a point of dialog with non-believers. If someone believes in an afterlife and has apparent proof of one, they are at least half way to the truth, so instead of fighting an uphill battle, why not reconcile their view with ours? As long as we can fit that belief with the pale of orthodox Christianity, we have no problem. The belief in ghosts does not deny the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, the fall of man, the work of the cross, the nature of the Church, the nature of revelation (the Bible), or the resurrection of Christ.  So in my mind, fighting people’s belief in paranormal is not a battle worth fighting.
Happy Ghost Hunting…

IMPORTANT POINTS

• USE GHOST HUNTERS TO OPEN PEOPLE’S MINDS TO THE POSSIBLITY THAT GOD TRULY EXISTS AND THAT EVEN GHOSTS CAN BE A CLUE TO HIS EXISTANCE.  
• BE CHARITABLE AND UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE PEOPLE’S MINDS.  INSTEAD ASK COMPELLING QUESTIONS TO HELP THEM SEE THE TRUTH.
  
• USE YOUR HEAD AND MAKE YOUR POINT.  DON’T JUST SAY “I DON’T BELIEVE IN GHOSTS”
• ASK QUESTIONS LIKE: “WHERE DO YOU BELIEVE GHOSTS COME FROM”  OR “DOES THE EXISTENCE OF GHOSTS MEAN THERE IS AN AFTER LIFE?” ANOTHER GOOD QUESTION MIGHT BE, “HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN KEEP FROM BECOMING A GHOST IN THE AFTER LIFE?”
  
• KEEP UP WITH THE CURRENT FADS, CULTURES, AND BELIEFS AND BUILD YOUR STORY AROUND THEM
• NEVER SACRIFICE THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE TO MAKE YOUR POINT.  THE BIBLE COMES FIRST.
  
• TRUTH IS ON YOUR SIDE!
• HAPPY HUNTING

Last week, my wife and I attended the annual Christmas Pot Luck for our church. Yes, a potluck. Us Christians love our potlucks. After all we have no other outlets, clubbing is certainly out of the question so the potluck will have to do. While at the potluck the Christmas Menus Santa Clause made an appearance. The church had no idea that Santa would be making an appearance as it turns out that a well meaning member of the church thought he’d bless the children by dressing up in costume. The children were out of their minds with excitement. They couldn’t believe they were receiving an early, personal visit from Santa.

Unfortunately, Santa didn’t go over so hot with some of the parents. You see it has become fashionable amongst Christians to boycott Santa. After all the holiday is about Jesus’ birth right? I personally am all for Santa, but many have a so called personal conviction that says there is no room for Santa in the holiday. One of my friends stated that they just want to have an “old fashion Christmas and there is no room for Santa just Christ”. Now I let that statement go at the time, but in my mind I wanted to ask:

“What do you think an old fashion Christmas is?”

I am not an expert in the history of Christmas, but I do have enough knowledge to give a taste of a true old fashion Christmas.

Before Christmas was a holiday, the holiday was known as Saturnalia. Saturnalia was a celebration to the name sake god (little g) Saturn. Saturnalia became one of the most popular Roman festivals. It was marked by tomfoolery and reversal of social roles, in which slaves and masters ostensibly switched places. It is not uncommon for the Church to mimic Pagan holidays. Halloween, Easter and yes, Christmas all have pagan roots. When the Church was looking for an official day to celebrate Jesus’ birth, they choose Saturnalia. Unfortunately, Saturnalia was much too popular and people were reluctant to change to a more moderate holiday like Christmas. So Pagans and Christians alike continued to celebrate Christmas with the same drunkenness and tomfoolery as before. The early Christmas celebrations were celebrated much like modern day Mardi Gras with a hint of Canadian Boxing Day. As time pasted, the debauchery became worse and even included breaking into the homes of rich people and stealing things. It was a citywide brawl that got so bad that women and children didn’t dare leave there homes. The old fashion Christmas was one of heavy drinking, fights, and fear amongst children. This rowdy behavior amongst Christians and Pagans continued for nearly eighteen centuries. In fact, Christmas was made illegal in the conservative United States as the church tried to put a stop to the behavior. Illegal or not, people still celebrated “Christmas” in the USA in the tradition of Saturnalia. In the 1800’s during the reformation, things started to change in Germany and when Queen Elizabeth married her German cousin, the holiday changed in England as well to a holiday centered around family, the Christmas tree, giving presents and eating turkey. It was no longer centered around drunkenness and fighting. Unfortunately, Americans preferred the holiday celebrated as Saturnalia, for quite a bit longer. It wasn’t until a poem called “A Visit from Saint Nicholas”, known in modern day as “A Night Before Christmas”, was published in the Saturday Evening Post and the Creation of “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens that we saw Christmas change from a holiday of fear to a holiday of family. So we have the “minus”, Santa Claus, and the “miser”, Scrooge, to thank for Christmas as it is now celebrated in the United States.

I doubt seriously that my friend wants an old fashion Christmas.

A MESSAGE TO SANTA BASHING CHRISTIANS

Now let me talk to the Christians who are persecuting Santa. Most often than not you use the verses are found in Romans 14.

(NLT) Accept Christians who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. 2 For instance, one person believes it is all right to eat anything. But another believer who has a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. 3 Those who think it is all right to eat anything must not look down on those who won’t. And those who won’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to condemn God’s servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him tell them whether they are right or wrong. The Lord’s power will help them do as they should.

Some are very quick to jump on those who celebrate Christmas with Santa. More then once I have been told that “Christmas is about Christ and there’s no room for Santa”. My wife’s cousin even went as far as to throw out Santa decorations that were hanging in her Grandmother’s house. Without permission she threw out decoration and even an expensive snow globe that had a picture of Santa on it! It seems to me that this is a direct violation Romans 14.

Romans 14 is referring to those who feel convicted about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Some feel this is wrong and they shouldn’t eat it. However, Paul is clear that it ISN’T actually wrong to eat the meat. He calls those, who cannot eat the meat because of a misguided conscious, people of weaker faith. He states that those who can eat the meat should not look down upon those who can’t and VISE VERSA. This same principle can be applied to Santa. Is it wrong to believe in Santa?

First, Santa was created to give Children a role model that displays the importance of giving and sacrificing in terms that they can understand. Sometimes, Jesus Christ is a lot for a small child to wrap their developing minds around. Santa, on the other hand is much easier for them to swallow. Santa is a “person” whose never seen, who seems to be everywhere, who gives without asking anything in return accept belief and good behavior. Sound like anyone you know? So Santa is not, fundamentally, wrong. If you worship Santa like a GOD then you’ve got a problem, but the fundamental character of Santa is the same as the fundamental character of Christ, and this is a GOOD thing.

Paul is stating that those with a greater conviction have a misguided conscious and weaker faith. It seems to me that if I were one of these people I would try to use education to guide my faith better. For this reason, I started this article with a brief history of a good old fashion Christmas. I have found that many of my misguided convictions are based on lack of education and once educated, my conscious has aligned with reality. If it were me I would be seeking the truth as opposed to being a slave to my misguided feelings. Lastly, all of us should try to remember that our biggest battle should not be Santa but that there are billions who are not covered by the blood of the one whose birth we truly celebrate. Jesus Christ. This is an opportunity to share Christ and we should share Christ in a loving way and NOT by throwing out snow globes and boycotting Santa.

Happy Christmas…

This video talks about the spirit of Christmas better then I can.

            Not a day passes where I don’t receive a comment from someone making the claim that we can’t trust the scriptures as it is loaded with inaccuracies, miss copies and myth. Though, on the surface, some apparent discrepancies DO exist, the issue doesn’t seem to be in the discrepancies, but that Christians believe that the Bible was written by GOD and therefore, the Bible should be held at a higher standard then other writings. This writing will try it answer some of the criticisms of the Holy Scriptures with the goal of proving inerrancy or at least reliability.

One valid issue brought up by critics is the apparent errors in translations. Frankly, only an idiot would believe that the translations are without error as translations are limited by human error and nuances in the languages in with they are translated. So I would be ignorant to state (as some have) that translations are perfect. There are thousands upon thousands of variants (differences) in the translations. All, are minor and in no way change the overall meaning. In fact many of the variants actually improve the ability of the reader to understand the bible. These variants are figures of speech, changes in spelling, and removal of words that are no longer needed based on the evolution of language. When a Christian says that the bible is without error, they mean the original manuscript. The biggest glaring error in translation is in the King James Version in Act 12:4 where it states:

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after EASTER to bring him forth to the people.

The minor mistake is in using the word “Easter”. Easter as a holiday was not even thought of until around 100 of years after Acts was written. This error is one of judgment more than context. In 1604 when the King James Version was translated from the Textus Receptus Greek Texts, the holiday of Easter would have been easier for European Christian readers to understand as they had been regularly celebrating it. The TRUE holiday in question was, of course, the Jewish Passover. As Christians and Jewish became more and more separated in traditions many of the Jewish holidays had been forgotten of at least misunderstood. It is also possible that the early Christians, who blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus, despised all things Jewish and simply changed the word to Easter in order to remove Jesus’ Jewishness. This is only my plausible opinion, but considering the violent treatment of the Jews by Christian Crusaders, it is very plausible (but shameful).

It seems I’ve painted myself into a corner. At one moment I am defending the transcripts and on the other I am giving proof that we can’t trust them. The fact is all translations have flaws, but we know what the flaws are because we have such a huge number of manuscripts. Granted, we do not have the original manuscript written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but we do have thousands of original copies made between 25 and 100 years from the original writings. So how do these proof texts hold up in relation to other ancient writings? The chart below will help put the biblical manuscripts in focus.

In a nutshell, we know what the originals said because we have so many copies to pull from. So the reason why the Bible has so many variants is that we have so much information to compare to in order to find out where the copying errors are. The fact is, no other ancient writing has so much proof of as to the original and therefore has fewer variants. In fact, the evidence is so great for biblical accuracy from the original that scholars don’t doubt the reliability at all. They doubt that the book’s supernatural accounts are true, but not that what we have is what was originally written or very close to it. However if you surf the internet you will find plenty of psudo-scholors (usually a college student with an axe to grind) stating that we can’t trust what is written because it’s been translated so many times. How many times has the Bible been translated? ONCE! The original was coped from the Septuagint (OT), Peshitta, or Vulgate (NT) and once to our modern translations. Some think that the Septuagint was translated to the King James, and the New American Standard was translated from the King James, and the New Living Translation was translated from the New American Standard. Sorry, all were translated from the earliest copies and not from one another. In fact all were translated from several of the earliest copies to insure the most accurate copy. The early translation used for the modern translation may be from a different course but none were made from another copy.

The second issue that seems problem for the bible is oral tradition. Many wrongly liken the oral tradition of the Old Testament with the Telephone Game that many of us played in school. They conclude that even in ten minutes of passing on a message consisting of only one line. The message gets so messed up that you can hardly know the original. How can we trust the Jewish oral tradition of passing on millions of lines over a period of ten thousand years? Simply put, if the oral tradition of the Jews was passed on in secret from one person to another, I would say that the criticism is valid. But the telephone game is not comparing apples to apples. First, the message was delivered to entire villages and not just one person and it wasn’t done in secret so the entire village was responsible for insuring the tradition was kept as accurately as possible. Like the New Testament there are variants, so we can conclude that the oral tradition did change the words, but not the details. Secondly, Jewish culture was built around paying attention to details and from a young age Jewish men were trained to insure they paid attention and copy things right. In fact one of the biggest stereotypes that we see about the Jews to this day is that they are savvy businessmen. This stereotype is based on being detail orientated, a trait that is instilled from generation to generation for thousands of years.

We do have some problems with the Old Testament that have to be addresses. First, what about the details where scripture and God’s General Revelation (the Cosmos) don’t line up? Is the earth actually only 10,000 years old? Obviously the earth is not 10,000 years old and in fact the Bible doesn’t teach this. The age of the earth is based on human inference and counting the timeline from the early humans described in Genesis and not actual teaching. Many good Christian people want to stick to the literal 10,000 year old earth theory (called young earth theory), I personally believe you have to ignore billions of years of evidence or call GOD a liar for making the earth seem older then it actually is. I don’t intend on going into great detail on this issue as it is another long article that is better written by a geologist or physicist. I am neither so I will avoid the topic. Briefly, the problem is not in the scripture but our interpretation of the intended message. Reading each day as a day age is perfectly acceptable translation of the wording. The scripture supports such a reading and in fact even the New Testament states that we are living in the last day. Obviously the writer didn’t mean this as an actually day but a day age. If we are to believe that the Bible teaches a literal 10000 year old earth, then we might as well stop here, and the Bible, common sense, and science part ways and we’ve found a contradiction.

Probably the biggest proof for the reliability of the Old Testament is Jesus. Since we have ample proof for Jesus and proof of his miracles, death, and resurrection we can conclude that Jesus was GOD in the flesh (I will prove this point in more detail later). Jesus quoted the Old Testament on several occasions including Genesis and Adam and Eve. A problem that might arise from this manner of reasoning is that in order for someone to believe the Bible is true they must first believe in supernatural occurrences. Since science (and most non-believers for that matter) don’t believe in supernatural occurrences meaning they have a supernatural bias, it is impossible to prove that the miracles occurred and thus the parts of the story that are miraculous are myth or story telling. Simply put, that’s not my problem, but yours. Short of playing back the DVD of Jesus’ resurrection you will likely never remove a YOUR supernatural bias. However that doesn’t change the validity of my proof. For those of us who are intellectually honest enough to consider a supernatural option, the proof is overwhelming. If you are not one who can honestly step out of your bias, then you will not accept the proof and THAT is your problem not mine. Bias is simply not scientific on any level and it is impossible to convenience anyone of anything who has a bias. You might say that I too have a bias, and to that I would respond that I do, however, my bias is acceptance of the biblical accounts unless such accounts are proven false by another medium (science) that is in the business of proving or disproving something. So it is not fair to conclude that my bias is unchangeable. I am working in the realm of plausibility. Once plausibility disappears so goes my faith and Christianity has been proven false as a whole. This can’t be said for a supernatural bias as some scientists have stacked the deck against religion. These scientists remove supernatural as an option and than challenge us to prove that what we believe is true. Faith can’t be proven, not because there isn’t proof, but because those with a supernatural bias have changed the rules so that we can’t compete. It is like asking someone to describe what cold is but telling them that they can’t talk about heat, or thermometers. Since cold is nothing but the absence of heat, the exercise can not be completed. This doesn’t mean cold can’t be proven, just that the rules of the game don’t make it possible. This type of bias (unlike mine) is unfair and destructive to reaching the truth whatever it may be. With that said, there are many Christians that hold a non-scientific bias and that IS just as destructive. These “The Bible teaches it, I believe it and that settles it” Christians are equally destructive to the cause as they look as though proof is not a necessary element of faith. This is simply not the case. Christianity, unlike other religions, is based on evidence and it is evidence that makes Christianity the fastest growing religion in the world and not blind faith.

So does the New Testament hold up to scrutiny if no bias is applied? Firstly, I find it interesting that the same people who have a supernatural bias against the Bible like to pick it apart. It seems to me that a more intellectually honest approach would be to denounce it as myth. If it’s only myth then the writers have no obligation to stay consistent from one book to another. After all the stories are independent accounts and they have no reason to be the same. After all, no one would fault J.K. Rowling for changing the detail of the castle in her popular series, Harry Potter (not to say she did). So in a sense, the reason why these people want to pick apart the bible is to prove that it’s mythical not inaccurate. Another words, they are NOT claiming that the book has been copied down incorrectly; rather they are stating that the events simply did not occur. This is a placid testimony to the accuracy of the texts.

It would be more likely that these people could prove that the Bible is loaded with errors but, of course, we see from the number of copies and the pettiness of the variants that this simply isn’t the case. So the big issue is not coping errors, but weather or not the independent accounts are accurate enough to get us to the truth even if the Bible includes such errors. Even though I believe the scriptures are inerrant (without error), I don’t think it is necessary to believe this to prove the existence of Jesus as GOD thus removing the myth argument. All I have to prove is that the book gives us an accurate, if not perfect, representation of the facts. This is the same standard you would find in a court of law and this is the standard I will use to prove my argument. In other words what are the FACTS of the case without bias? A standard a jury would use to find someone guilty of innocent.

WHAT IS THE OVERALL MESSAGE?

The overall message of the New Testament is that Jesus was born of a virgin, he performed miracles, he told everyone he was GOD which pissed off the Jewish leadership, so they murdered him with the help of the Romans on a cross for making these claims. He was subsequently buried in a tomb that was guarded by a rock and a bunch of Roman guards. On the third day of his death, he rose out of the tomb and appeared to at least 5000 people and then rose into heaven where he sits at the “right hand” of the father. All of the gospels teach this message. Some are silent about certain facts, but none contradict this message.

Some disbelievers try to muster up a case for the Gnostic gospels in order to show a contradictory message of Jesus. This is simply a weak argument at best. Anyone who does even a little homework beyond watching the Di Vinci Code can discount the Gnostic gospels. The Gnostic gospels were written about as being heresy as early as 150 A.D. and the early church NEVER accepted them as truly inspired. So to use them in your argument would be the same as telling me that the Koran has a different account of Jesus or that the Cat in the Hat disproves the gospel because it doesn’t mention Jesus. Since the Koran and Dr Seuss are not accepted by Christians as inspired words, that argument simply doesn’t stand up. In other words, we are only responsible to defend what we consider inspired words by GOD. If you believe there are other inspired words, then you and not I have the burden of proof to prove otherwise.

So based on what Christians believe is inspired, we have a consistent message about the nature of Jesus Christ. All biblical accounts support this message even if there seems to be some details that are not consistent. For instance, some gospels state the Jesus met with his disciples before he went to Galilee others seem to support the opposite. This might be an inaccuracy, but the point is he still met his disciples, so the nature and message is exactly the same and perhaps there is another plausible explanation for the messages.

MY BURDEN OF PROOF

So what is my burden of proof? I must prove that the scripture are (at least in the original) perfect in scope. What I mean is that I have to prove that they are perfect in the manner in which there were intended. This doesn’t mean the stories have to be exactly the same but that based on the intended reader, and the intended message the scripture tells the same story.

The detailed chart below shows the similarities in each story in the Gospels.