This is a fascinating and thought-provoking article...

http://www.dioceseofraleigh.org/content/raleigh-seminarian-terminal-brain-cancer-responds-brittany-maynard

Here are some more book reviews from recently-read (or not-so-recently-read) books. For my previous reviews, look at here or here or the "book reviews" category on this blog.

---------

Evolution's Achilles Heels - edited by Robert Carter - Nine creationist PhD's discuss the latest (2014) scientific and philosophical case against evolution. It is technical, but also well-written and clear. It has chapters about the fossil record, the origin of life, natural selection, the geologic record, cosmology, genetics, radiometric dating, and morality. I would compare this book as a rough equivalent to Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt", with the following differences: (1) EAH is written by 9 people rather than 1, so it is slightly less coherently written (but still good), (2) EAH is much shorter (260 pages rather than 1100 pages for Meyers' books combined) so it's easier to read quickly, but it's also a little more concise/dense than Meyer's books (he's a bit more verbose), (3) EAH is written from a young-earth creationist perspective, which is farther outside the mainstream than Meyer's age-agnostic or old-earth Intelligent Design perspective (but of course I fully agree with EAH's perspective), and (4) EAH is even more up-to-date scientifically than Stephen Meyers' books. For the best up-to-date perspective on the paucity of evolution and the strength of the ID (and/or creationist) view, one should read BOTH EAH and Meyers' books.

The Insanity of God, by Nik Ripken - Great book... he begins by telling about his own humanitarian/mission work in Somalia several years ago immediately after the war finished, and how things got more and more difficult for Christian work there. Then their son died. At that point, stricken with grief and somewhat disillusioned with missions work (where was the fruit, the conversions, that they were hoping/laboring for?), they went home. But then Nik decided to travel around the world and interview Christians in other nations who had faced persecution, to learn how they had come through it. His secondhand recorded stories from these interviews (Russia, Ukraine, China, Middle-eastern countries, etc) are very powerful and encouraging. Many persecuted Christians around the world consider persecution a matter of course, not anything unusual. This encouraged Nik, and he published this book. He next started writing The Insanity of Obedience, which is also good (I just started reading it). By "insanity", Nik means that God's ways are not our ways... and God uses our weakness to display His strength, and grow His church despite/through suffering.

Footprints in the Ash, by John Morris and Steven Austin - this is a book about the 1980 Mt St Helens eruption, and all the geological lessons learned from it, and the implications of those lessons for dating other features (such as the Grand Canyon). It is a great book, with clear illustrations and many amazing photos. It points out that many rocks from historic volcanic eruptions are dated by radiometric techniques to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old, illustrating that the radiometric techniques are quite inaccurate. It has a brief application / sermon-type section at the end where it applies the lessons to our spiritual lives. Highly recommended.

Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Qureshi - Powerful, gentle, authentic, sincere, well-written, well-paced autobiographical account of a devout young Muslim (from the Ahmadiyya sect) who eventually came to believe in Jesus Christ (of the Bible, not the Quran) in his 20's. Along the way he has a lot of explanation of Muslim culture and terminology to help other culture understand Islam better. Nabeel chronicles the very painful and arduous journey he traveled, most of the time thinking he was 'refuting' and 'disproving' Christianity, but eventually he could no longer deny the truth. He described the heartbreak that came between him and his family when he left Islam and followed Jesus. But the way he writes about them, you can sense how much he loves them. Nabeel is now a speaker with Ravi Zacharias' organization. Highly recommended.

In Six Days, by John Ashton
On the Seventh Day, by John Ashton - both of these books are great reads. Each book has short articles from 40 or 50 scientists about why they believe in God and/or God's creation of the world (not evolution). Even though not every article is as 'powerful' as the others, it is a very 'genuine' book that gives a snapshot of the thought patterns of many different people - some more scientific, others more intuitive. Many of them were previously evolutionists and sometimes atheists. It is an encouraging book, and demonstrates that it is easily possible to be a scientist who believes in God and in the Biblical young-earth creation.

Dear Muslim Friend - by Jerry Mattix - Short, 120-page booklet, "explaining Christianity to a Muslim". Very excellent. It is gentle, yet firm, answering objections Muslims have to the Bible ("was it 'corrupted'?") and "Christianity"/Crusades/politics/etc, and showing clearly the Jesus of the Bible.

Money, Greed, and God by Jay Richards - He writes about how capitalism has roots in the Biblical worldview (but of course it is not the perfect solution)... and he writes as a former socialist! So he deeply empathizes with socialism, but shows how capitalism is a 'less bad' solution out of all imperfect approaches. Well written.

Follow Me, by David Platt - This is an intentionally "challenge"-oriented book, like Francis Chan's books. It's an exhortation to follow Jesus into the uncomfortable obedience, wherever/whatever that is.

The Practice of the Presence of God, Brother Lawrence - This is a collection of letters by a monk from the middle ages. He went into a monastery when a young man, anxious about his soul. After many years, he came to know God well, and became an example to other people of the peace of God. As the title implies, Lawrence continued to live in close fellowship with God, in constant prayer, etc. His main duties were in dishwashing and gardening, and he gradually came to understand that he could be just as close to God while dishwashing and cooking as in a prayer service.  I don't agree with everything in the book, but it does sound like Lawrence was a true believer in God, and we can learn some things from him.

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, volume 3, Michael Brown - More excellent work.. this volume focuses on the messianic prophecies, and deftly demonstrates that Jesus fulfills them marvelously. It is a great read, because it cuts through the simplistic 'foretelling' approach which skeptics like to skewer. For example, "the virgin shall be with child" in Isaiah 7:14- some people simplistically claim that this was a prophecy of a virgin birth, which Matthew then quotes. The skeptics point out that the Hebrew word 'almah' does not necessarily mean virgin, so Matthew was (according to them) misquoting. However, serious scholars have always known that there are deeper aspects to Matthew's usage, and in fact he was not just focusing on the virgin-birth aspect, but using the prophecy in typological ways which are more in-line with the Jewish mindset regarding prophecies. If you like the articles at www.christianthinktank.com , you will like Brown's book too.

Mission Drift, Peter Greer - A great short book examining certain ministries that stayed true to their original Christian mission, and many others that gradually drifted away, and summarizing principles that help to stay "mission-true".

Divided by Faith, by Michael Emerson and Christian Smith - The authors summarize some history of evangelical attitudes toward race (and slavery) in America, and then try to make the point that white evangelicals in America tend to focus only on restoring personal relationships between races but ignore the "larger, systemic issues of injustice" like police profiling and enforced neighborhood segregation. They base much of their book on interviews conducted with evangelicals. Some points they make are correct, like the fact that many cities today are still quite segregated, and many churches are too. Other points they make are suspect. I took a lot of notes on this book, and I may publish a longer review later if I have time. One big critique of this book is that they spend 170 pages describing the problems as they see it, and then less than 1/2 page describing the solutions, and their solutions are extremely vague. I do not necessarily recommend this book.

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering - Tim Keller - TOP QUALITY, He does a good job explaining how to handle suffering, and why God allows it.  He shares many stories from people in his church who have been through extreme suffering.  Well worth reading multiple times.

Don't Let the Goats Eat the Loquat Trees, by Thomas Hale - EXCELLENT fun-to-read account of his time working as a missionary surgeon in Nepal with his family. He mixes in informative and funny stories with info about Nepal and insights about walking with God in missions work. The only problem is that this book is a little old (~30 years ago), so the info about Nepal/etc is dated. Well worth reading.

The Pineapple Story, by Otto Konig - Actually, it's better to listen to the audio sermons by Konig rather than to read the abridged book. He has an amazing ability as a humorist, and also a lot of good insights about walking with God (basically - surrender everything to God, don't hold anything back - it's the best way to live). The one caveat is that he sometimes falls into an oversimplified theology, in which if I have a problem in my life it is because I'm withholding something from God... simply surrender it (or start praising God) and *presto*, God will remove the problem. But overall his insights and experiences are worth listening to.

The Great Divorce, by C.S.Lewis - I finally got around to reading the whole of this wonderful book. It tells of a man who (in a dream) visits Hell and Heaven, and came to understand that those in Hell really WANT to be in Hell... they do not want to admit that they are sinners and that God is good and right and loving. It has a lot of good thoughts. A drawback is that C.S.Lewis leaves the door open to universalism, but at least he doesn't push it. Highly recommended story. One of several famous quotes from the book:
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened."

 

Here's a interesting quote from Greg Koukl: (relevant to many current news stories)

"The great 20th century atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russell wondered how anyone could talk of God when kneeling at the bed of a dying child.  His challenge has powerful rhetorical force.  How can anyone cling to the hope of a benevolent, powerful sovereign in the face of such tragedy?

"Then Christian philospher William Lane Craig offered this response: 'What is the atheist Bertrand Russell going to say when kneeling at the bed of a dying child? "Too bad"? "Tough luck"? "That's the way it goes"?' No happy ending? No silver lining? Nothing but devastating, senseless evil?

"They cannot speak of the patience and mercy of God.  They cannot mention the future perfection that awaits all who trust in Christ.  They cannot offer the comfort that a redemptive God is working to cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.  They have no "good news" of hope for a broken world."  

 

In contrast, those of us who know Jesus Christ do have hope....  He is both powerful enough to bring a complete restoration of the world (Revelation 21:3-4), and sympathetic to us during this intermediate period ("Jesus wept." John 11:35).

Revelation 21:3-4 "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."

 

Interesting article about an veteran army psychologist who, after many years of counseling others through the stress and shock of wartime horrors, couldn't handle the stress in his own life any more.  http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130316/DA52C2OG1.html

One phrase stood out to me as I was reading about his life - "He used irreverence as a balm."  

And it didn't work.

 

By contrast, Psalm 37 relates the thoughts of David, the Israelite warrior king of 3000 years ago, who took the opposite approach.  When he saw evil plots and atrocities, David reminded himself that the wicked seem to be winning for a short time, but God is real and will bring just judgement / retribution / restitution at the end of time, which is really the Beginning of the true life, the Kingdom of God.

How to handle hearing about daily events of random horror and oppression?   Don't use the "balm of irreverence."  Instead,

 

1 Do not fret because of those who are evil     or be envious of those who do wrong; 2 for like the grass they will soon wither,     like green plants they will soon die away.  

3 Trust in the Lord and do good;     dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. 4 Take delight in the Lord,     and he will give you the desires of your heart.  

5 Commit your way to the Lord;     trust in him and he will do this: 6 He will make your righteous reward shine like the dawn,     your vindication like the noonday sun.  

7 Be still before the Lord     and wait patiently for him; do not fret when people succeed in their ways,     when they carry out their wicked schemes.  

8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;     do not fret—it leads only to evil. 9 For those who are evil will be destroyed,     but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land.  

10 A little while, and the wicked will be no more;     though you look for them, they will not be found. 11 But the meek will inherit the land     and enjoy peace and prosperity.  

12 The wicked plot against the righteous     and gnash their teeth at them; 13 but the Lord laughs at the wicked,     for he knows their day is coming.  

14 The wicked draw the sword     and bend the bow to bring down the poor and needy,     to slay those whose ways are upright. 15 But their swords will pierce their own hearts,     and their bows will be broken.  

16 Better the little that the righteous have     than the wealth of many wicked; 17 for the power of the wicked will be broken,     but the Lord upholds the righteous.  

18 The blameless spend their days under the Lord’s care,     and their inheritance will endure forever. 19 In times of disaster they will not wither;     in days of famine they will enjoy plenty.  

20 But the wicked will perish:     Though the Lord’s enemies are like the flowers of the field,     they will be consumed, they will go up in smoke.  

21 The wicked borrow and do not repay,     but the righteous give generously; 22 those the Lord blesses will inherit the land,     but those he curses will be destroyed.  

23 The Lord makes firm the steps     of the one who delights in him; 24 though he may stumble, he will not fall,     for the Lord upholds him with his hand.  

25 I was young and now I am old,     yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken     or their children begging bread. 26 They are always generous and lend freely;     their children will be a blessing.  

27 Turn from evil and do good;     then you will dwell in the land forever. 28 For the Lord loves the just     and will not forsake his faithful ones.

Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed;     the offspring of the wicked will perish. 29 The righteous will inherit the land     and dwell in it forever.  

30 The mouths of the righteous utter wisdom,     and their tongues speak what is just. 31 The law of their God is in their hearts;     their feet do not slip.  

32 The wicked lie in wait for the righteous,     intent on putting them to death; 33 but the Lord will not leave them in the power of the wicked     or let them be condemned when brought to trial.  

34 Hope in the Lord     and keep his way. He will exalt you to inherit the land;     when the wicked are destroyed, you will see it.  

35 I have seen a wicked and ruthless man     flourishing like a luxuriant native tree, 36 but he soon passed away and was no more;     though I looked for him, he could not be found.  

37 Consider the blameless, observe the upright;     a future awaits those who seek peace. 38 But all sinners will be destroyed;     there will be no future for the wicked.  

39 The salvation of the righteous comes from the Lord;     he is their stronghold in time of trouble. 40 The Lord helps them and delivers them;     he delivers them from the wicked and saves them,     because they take refuge in him.

 

(Continuation of the "discussion with a scientist friend series", see  http://tim223.xanga.com/770288549/dialog-with-a-scientist-friend-part-1/  )

 

Sue: Last week you said that you had several reasons why you believe in an invisible God.  You mentioned one of them: the fact that there is matter/energy and order in the universe.  What are some of your other reasons?

Tim: Sure.  Another reason that I believe in God stems from the question of how life began.  The Bible says that God created all the plants and animals in various "kinds", or families.  These then gradually experienced genetic variation over the years.  For example, Rottweilers and Chihuahuas would both come from a single "dog" kind created by God in the beginning. On the other hand, the naturalistic explanation for how life began is... well... there actually is no accepted explanation.  There are four or five theories, but scientists are divided about them, and there are major problems with each of them.

Sue: So you're saying that you believe in God because scientists have not yet figured out how life began?

Tim: Well, there are these two main explanations for how life began: either God created life, or somehow a living cell formed by chance (called "abiogenesis") and then evolved into all life we see around us today.  After more than a hundred years of investigating different scenarios for how a living cell could have formed by chance, scientists still have no plausible theory.  So I conclude that the Bible's account is more scientifically viable.

Sue: What are the different scientific theories of abiogenesis that you find hard to believe?

Tim: It seems to me that there are two basic ways in which naturalists have tried to answer the abiogenesis question.  One is to say that "the origin of life was a very lucky accident", the other is to say "the origin of life was very easy and straightforward and bound to happen sooner or later".  This latter idea is called self-organizing complexity, and suggests that there might be simple scientific principles such that life would be 'guaranteed' to eventually arise.  For example, hurricane cloud formations spontaneously form a complicated-looking spiral shape, but this shape is not designed... it is simply due to Coriolis forces.  The problem is that such spontaneous self-organization has never been seen to happen for cells and cellular components in the lab.  This is because cellular parts are truly complicated and need a complex sequence of precisely arranged proteins and nucleotides to work properly. In contrast, hurricane spirals or rock crystals or other self-organizing patterns have a very simple pattern.  So very few scientists believe that life self-organized anymore.

Sue: Didn't the Miller-Urey experiment prove that the basic building blocks for cells can arise spontaneously given some lightning in a prebiotic soup?

Tim: The Miller-Urey experiment showed that very small amounts of amino acids would form, in very carefully controlled conditions where the compounds were continuously removed from the apparatus to prevent them from being broken down.  Actually, only 7 of the 20 amino acids necessary for life were ever found, and of those 7, it was always a racemic mixture, whereas cellular proteins require purely homochiral amino acids. http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem   So really their experiment showed how improbable it is that even the building blocks for proteins could form by chance chemical conditions (much less the proteins themselves). http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Sue: Ok, what about the 'RNA-world' hypothesis?  I've heard that it is a popular explanation for abiogenesis.  Also there are 'DNA-first', 'protein-first', and 'metabolism-first' hypotheses.

Tim: Right. The 'RNA-world' hypothesis is that somehow an RNA molecule formed which had the ability to catalyze the formation of copies of itself.  Once this "self-replication" process began, eventually mutations began to occur and the "fitter" molecules (more resistant to degradation) survived, and over time it turned into a living cell.  Unfortunately, the lab experiments for this have only shown RNA molecules which can catalyze already-existing pieces of itself (e.g. it can catalyze the polymerization of a 15-base-pair fragment of itself and a 17-base-pair fragment of itself into the full 32-base-pair molecule, as long as the fragments are purely homochiral)... such molecules are not able to build themselves up gradually. Likewise the DNA-first hypothesis has seen even less laboratory evidence for successful self-polymerization (no more than 4 or 5 base-pairs have ever been seen to spontaneously self-polymerize) or self-replication, or spontaneously generating a working DNA/RNA system.  Both DNA and RNA need special chaperone and handler proteins when they are in solution together, otherwise they will stick to each other and prevent creation of a working translation system.  http://crev.info/2011/08/110802-cell_chaperones/  A single DNA gene would be unlikely to have been formed by chance, but even an assumed "simplest-possible cell" would need at least 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes. http://creation.com/how-simple-can-life-be The protein-first hypothesis is equally unlikely, for at least three reasons.  First, the peptide bonds are thermodynamically unfavorable, and thus do not spontaneously occur.  Second, even if a protein was to spontaneously polymerize, only a very small percentage of random amino acid sequences produce stable folded proteins (for example, a short 150-aa protein has only a 10^-75 chance of folding stably).  Third, even if a protein happens to form and stably fold, it is even less likely that the sequence happens to form the correct shape for the appropriate biological function needed (probability on the order of 10^-164, according to Stephen Meyer, "Signature in the Cell", page 217). http://tim223.xanga.com/753422666/god---imaginary-friend/?nextdate=1522396684&direction=n#1522396684 http://creation.com/loopholes-in-the-evolutionary-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-summary The metabolism-first hypothesis suggests that a steady system of chemical reactions developed first, and gradually over time this system began to become more complicated, until eventually DNA and RNA arose in the process (since the energy gradient was already there).  While chemical reaction systems can certainly arise, any gradual change in the reactions is not able to accurately preserve the 'information' of the reaction chain... it is unable to pass-along the information accurately to future metabolic reaction systems.  So this approach doesn't work either.  Some kind of information-carrying molecules are needed. http://crev.info/2010/01/metabolismfirst_origin_of_life_won146t_work/

Sue: Why does the first cell have to arise fully formed, by "random chance"?  Couldn't it have first formed in a simplified version, and then gradually evolved to become more complex, like the cells we see today?

Tim: Well, for 'evolution' to occur, there is a lot that is necessary inside this first 'proto-cell'.  It would need to have a way of accurately passing along its genetic information to its progeny, and methods of acquiring nutrients, inter-cellular communication, and especially mechanisms for replicating itself.  Although many scientists hope that someday a 'proto-cell' like you're describing will be shown in the lab, the scientific knowledge we currently have suggests that it will never happen.  Constructs are either too simple to live and reproduce, or too complicated to have been formed by chance... there doesn't seem to be anything in between.

Sue: But given enough time, just about anything could happen!   I mean, even if it took a billion years, and a billion galaxies, there is so much time and so many opportunities for life to have arisen, that it's just bound to have happened.  Actually, the very fact that we're here talking about it proves that it did happen!

Tim: Actually, no, that would be circular reasoning, to say that the first life "must have arisen by chance, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it."  I could say just the same thing about God creating life.

Sue: Alright, but given enough time, surely it could have happened somewhere in the universe.

Tim: Let's do a thought-experiment for a moment.  If you found a note on the lab bench saying "Hi Sue", and I told you that I thought it had been produced by random natural processes, how would you respond?  Let's say I proposed that the air-conditioning fan happening to blow a pencil off the shelf onto a nearby piece of paper, and then blew the paper onto your bench.

Sue: I would say that's a silly hypothesis.  Of course it must have been written by a human.

Tim: Why?

Sue: Well, whenever I've found written notes in the past, they've always been written by humans.

Tim: But what if I told you that this note was really from a random non-intelligent source, and I said to you "even though it sounds improbable, consider how much time has elapsed in the universe, and how many galaxies there are... so surely it is possible that in at least one location and time, exactly this random event has occurred..."?

Sue: Ha ha.  So you're saying that my objection about the first cell falls into the same category?

Tim: Yes... You're correct that we need to consider not only the "unlikelihood" of an unlikely event happening, but also the "probablilistic resources" available.  If there were a billion fans blowing a billion pencils onto a billion pieces of paper, in a huge building right next door, it might be more plausible.  But with just one fan, it is not plausible.  In this case, the probabilistic resources are still smaller than the unlikelihood.  Along the same lines, various mathematicians have suggested "upper bounds" to rule out impossibly improbable events.  For example, Dembski suggested that if the number of elementary particles in the universe (~10^80) could interact with each other continuously as fast as possible (the Planck time, 10^-43 seconds) for the amount of time since the (alleged) Big Bang (10^16 seconds ago), this would give a limit of 10^139 maximum possible interactions.  Thus, any event or chance molecule formation which was less probable than 10^-139 should be considered impossible.  The formation of even one functional protein by chance is less likely than that.  So we ought not to believe that it formed by chance.

Sue: So that leads you to believe that God created life?

Tim: Yes, it is another piece of evidence...  Scientifically-speaking, there is no plausible theory for how the first cell could have arisen.  On the other hand, the Bible explains that God created all kinds of life, in the beginning.  Just like you should legitimately conclude that a person wrote a note on your bench, we should conclude that our origins are not random... we are from God.  As the Bible says, "We are His people, the sheep of His pastures."

Sue: But I can't believe that, because it's not scientific.  It's not scientific to say that "God created life".  God is invisible.  He is not measureable or observable.

Tim: If you found a penciled note on your desk, would it be 'scientific' to conclude that it was written by an intelligent person rather than formed by blind random chance processes?

Sue: That's different, because humans are observable.

Tim: How would you define "scientific"?

Sue: The study of physical, observable objects through repeatable, empirically-verifiable experimentation.

Tim: So you're saying that you can't believe in God, because he is not scientific... by which you mean, not currently observable...?

Sue: Yes.

Tim: It turns out that God has made Himself observable, through certain historical interactions. But also, why should you assume that if you can't observe God, that means He doesn't exist?  That's like saying, "I didn't see anybody write that note on my bench; therefore I believe it must have had a chance origin."

Sue: No, it's different in principle.  The author of the hypothetical note on my bench would be visible, so I can believe in him or her.  But God is invisible.

Tim: I'm not following your logic.  I agree with you that we should not believe in things that we have no evidence for.  But what if there is evidence that an invisible, unobservable God does exist?  For example, the presence of life on earth, which all of our naturalistic scientific theories can't explain?  Not to mention the existence of matter/energy and order, that we discussed last time... and several other reasons to believe in God which I can share in the future.  Why should God's being "unscientific" (invisible) force us to conclude that He doesn't exist?  Isn't it possible that a Being could exist who might not be accessible to our scientific methods?

Sue: Well, I prefer to only believe in things that I can see and verify scientifically, repeatedly, in the lab.

Tim: Like abiogenesis?

Sue: Even though it hasn't yet been shown in the lab, in principle it could be, some day.  So I would rather believe in abiogenesis than in God, because I prefer to stick with the visible world.  Besides, I think that you are committing a "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy by believing that since we haven't yet figured out exactly how random physical processes could create the first cell, therefore God did it.

Tim: Have you considered that you might be committing a "chance-of-the-gaps" fallacy in the same way?  It sounds to me like you are saying, "No matter how improbable, I will continue to believe that somehow, time and chance produced the first living cell."  This is essentially assigning infinite powers to 'Chance', to do anything and everything.

Sue: Ha ha.  Well, ok, I'm committing the chance-of-the-gaps fallacy, and you're committing the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.  Is there any way to break out of our presuppositional lockdown?  Also, I am running out of time here, but maybe we can continue this discussion in the future.

Tim: Sure... there are three more main reasons why I believe in God, which I'd be glad to share more about in the future: (1) evolution can't explain the origin of genetic information, (2) Jesus' life, death, and resurrection from the dead, and (3) the existence of objective morality.  I think that the history surrounding Jesus in particular is able to break us out of our 'presuppositional lockdown'... because in Jesus, the invisible God made Himself known in tangible human flesh...   Until next time then!

 

To be continued...

Sue: I wish I could believe in God and all, but as a scientist I can't.   I see how your beliefs makes you Christians really happy and peaceful because you think that God is taking care of you, but as a scientist I have to be honest and follow only whatever I can measure and see.

Tim: So what parts of the Bible in particular do you think you can't believe, as a scientist?

Sue: Well, the whole idea of believing in an invisible God up there somewhere, that you can't see or hear or touch or measure... I can't do that.  And miracles... you know, the Bible talks about Jesus walking on water and raising people from the dead, and even raising himself from the dead... As a scientist, I can't believe that stuff.  It goes against everything we know from modern medicine and science.

Tim: Actually, I completely agree with you that we should follow wherever the evidence leads.  The Bible doesn't ask us to believe anything blindly without evidence.  I think the evidence is actually much stronger that the God of the Bible exists, than that He doesn't.

Sue: Well, that's fine for you, Tim.  Those beliefs just don't work for me.

Tim: Have you ever actually read the Bible?

Sue: Only little bits of it... I'd like to read the whole thing, one of these days... but I haven't yet gotten around to it... I'm so busy with all my lab experiments and writing of grants and papers, etc.

Tim: I think there are several areas in which it's actually MORE scientifically-reasonable to believe in the God of the Bible than to disbelieve in Him.

Sue: Like what?

Tim: First, let's ask about how we might "know" about different types of things.  If I want to know about an atom, or a rock, or a chunk of metal, I can take it into a lab and do all kinds of experiments on it.  I can heat it up, and cool it down, and react it with various types of chemicals, and find out all about its physical properties.  Right?

Sue: Sure.

Tim: A piece of metal generally always behaves the same way, every time I do an experiment on it.  It is inanimate... it does 'whatever I tell it to do'.  I have full control over finding out whatever information I want to know about it.  By contrast, a living cell is a little different. If I want to find out about how a particular type of cell works, I have to be more gentle... I have to give it just the right culture media, and temperature, and gasses, and then I can carefully probe around with a microscope and introduce various micro-concentrations of chemicals into its environment to try to get it to act a certain manner in repeatable ways.  But if the cell dies, I can no longer answer the question of how that living cell works... I could then only ask about its constituent molecules.  Right?

Sue: True.

Tim: How about another step up.  If I want to find out "all about a particular person", like yourself, laboratory methods are no longer the approach to take!  Instead, I must try to get to know you through observing how you act in different circumstances, or asking you questions and listening to how you answer.  If I want to find out your favorite foods, for example, the fastest and most accurate way would be to simply ask you.  But notice that it is now possible that you could withold information from me.  If you don't want to answer my question, you could keep silent, or you could give me a false answer.  In the case of the rock, it has no choice about whether to be known by me.  But in the case of a person, I must humbly ask, and the person may or may not reveal information about herself or himself, and it may or may not be accurate.  But I can also observe how the person acts, and get some information that way.

Sue: Sure.  But what does all this have to do with the existence of God?

Tim: The God of the Bible, if He exists, is much "higher" and more complicated than you or I, just like we are more complicated than rocks.  In the case of God, since He is a spirit and is generally invisible, there is no possible way for you or I to get to know Him, UNLESS He chooses to make Himself known to us.   We cannot put God into a test-tube and perform experiments on Him to see what He is like.  We can't sit him down in a chair across from us and ask him questions to find out what He is like.  We can't even see Him!  The only way we could get to know about God is if He somehow made Himself visible, or left some kind of message for us to read, or something like that.  It so happens that He has done exactly this... the Bible is the written message which He has caused men to write by His guidance, and Jesus Christ is the human being in whom the invisible God made Himself known in our world, so that we could get to know Him.

Sue: Interesting. But all of this is predicated on the assumption that God exists.  How do you know that God exists?

Tim: Sure.  Here's a question for you - Do you believe in perpetual motion machines?  Or let me ask it another way.  If some person came to you with a black box and said, "This box puts out twice as much energy as you put into it.  If you put in 100 watts of electrical power, it will put out 200 watts of electrical power.  This box will make you rich.  I will sell you this box for only $99."  Would you believe it?  Would you buy the box?

Sue: Probably not.

Tim: Why not?

Sue: It is well known scientifically that in the long termyou can't get out more power than you put into something, in an otherwise closed system.  It's related to the first law of thermodynamics.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics)

Tim: Ok, I would agree with you.  I wouldn't buy the box either.  So what does this principle mean about the universe?  If we say that energy/matter cannot spontaneously arise out of nothing, then how did the universe spontaneously arise out of nothing?   The Bible says that in the beginning, God created the universe.  But if there is no God, how did the matter/energy universe begin to exist?

Sue: What if the universe is eternal?  Why are you so sure the universe had a beginning?

Tim: Well, doesn't the second law of thermodynamics say that entropy is constantly increasing in any closed system, such as our universe?  That means that the usable energy is constantly decreasing.  Since there is still usable energy available (that's why we're still alive), that means the universe must have been "wound up" with energy and order, a finite time ago.

Sue: Ok, well, who knows, the laws of physics might have been different back then, before the Planck time and the Big Bang.  Dr. Hawking thinks that there are imaginary time dimensions, meaning that the universe is essentially repeating itself in an endless loop. Some scientists think there might be an infinite number of parallel universes in a 'multiverse', constantly appearing and disappearing with balancing energies and entropies, and we just happen to live in this particular one.  Anyway, it's impossible to know exactly what the laws of physics were back then.

Tim: Notice what you're saying... you're saying that if God doesn't exist, the physical laws and processes which we can observe today in the lab are unable to explain how our universe came into existence.  There are all sorts of hypothetical speculations about how it might have occurred without God as the Creator, but there are no ways to measure or verify any of these speculations in the lab.  They are, in fact, unscientific speculations.  That is why I think that it is more scientific to believe that God created the universe than to believe that it popped into existence out of nothing.

Sue: Let me get this straight.  You're saying that it is "more scientific" to believe in an invisible spirit-person, whom you can't see, or touch, or hear, or measure?

Tim: I'm saying that there are really only two explanations for how we came to be here.  Either it all arose spontaneously out of nothing, or God created it all as the Bible describes.  And I'm saying that the physical laws we can see and measure in the lab today are not consistent with the idea that it all popped into existence out of nothing.  So the only alternative is to conclude, scientifically, that Someone outside of this physical universe created us.

Sue: That's hard to believe.  It's a lot easier to believe that scientists will soon figure out how the universe came into existence without God.  You know, there are a lot of physicists who are working on this very question right now.

Tim: Yes, but I'd rather believe what I have evidence for right now, rather than saying "someone, someday, might discover something which would justify my current belief".  Don't you think this is more reasonable?

Sue: It depends.

Tim: Actually, this problem goes even further.  If the physical laws were fundamentally different back then, and the universe truly popped into existence out of nothing, that actually destroys the whole rationale for science!

Sue: How so?

Tim: If we assume that the fundamental laws of the universe could drastically change at any moment, and matter/energy could be arising out of nothing in our scientific experiements, we would have no good reason to do experiments.  The whole basis for experimentation and the scientific method assumes a stable, orderly universe, established by God, that we can asymptotically know.  Think about it, Sue.  If you were about to perform a scientific experiment, and the laws of physics do sometimes spontaneously fluctuate, why would you trust the results of your experiment?

Sue: Well, if it works the same way every time, then it is reliable.  If I've done the same experiment 50 times in a row and it gave me the same results, I can trust that it will give me the same result on the 51st time... and I can publish the results so that other scientists can try it too.

Tim: I think there are two problems with that logic.  First, you only THINK that your experiment gave you the same results 50 times in a row.  What if the physical laws happened to fluctuate such that actually the results of your experiment were all over the place, but your equipment just so happened to malfunction as the laws were fluctuating so that it gave you the same readings each time?  Second, even if the laws of the universe stayed the same for 50 experiments in a row, what's to stop them from suddenly fluctuating on the 51st time?  It turns out that if we say "the laws were different back then" in our explanation of how the universe arose, that completely destroys the foundational assumptions necessary to perform science today.

Sue: Well, I hear what you're saying, Tim.  I don't really agree, but I'll think about it.  Actually, to be honest, there are other reasons why I can't believe in God, not just scientific and philosophical reasons.

Tim: Do you mind if I ask you what those reasons are?

Sue: Well... all my colleagues and scientist friends would think I'm crazy if they were to find out that I'd started believing in God.  They would secretly laugh at me and think I've become kooky.  And I couldn't publish this stuff about God in journals like Science or Nature... they would turn down my papers, and the scientific community would hear that I've started believing crazy stuff like invisible spirits and gods, and I would stop getting my grants funded.  It would completely ruin my career, Tim.  Sorry, but it's just not an option.

Tim: I hear you.

Sue: And my family... my family would be ashamed of me... they've sacrificed so much to help me reach this point in my career, as a scientist... and now for me to turn my back on all of my training and start believing in an invisible God just because some book talks about Him... I can't disappoint my family like that, Tim.  I'm sorry.

Tim: I know it would be very hard.  All I'm saying is to be honest.  Follow where the evidence leads.  It may be painful, but in the long run it is always better to follow the truth.

Sue: I've got to go now.  Maybe we can talk again some other time about this.

Tim: Sounds good.

 

To Be Continued...

 

("Sue" is definitely a real person... actually there are about 30 friends with whom I've had similar conversations... this article series is for all of them... and everyone else... I hope others will benefit from this fictional dialog... and if you have points you'd like to see addressed, let me know in the comments section!  Also, I'm trying not to give the agnostic/atheist friend any "straw-man" arguments... but if you think I accidentally did, let me know.)

Here's a great post linking to other posts about a physics conference last week in which secular physicists were dismayed about the fact that they still can't figure out how the universe could have popped into existence from nothing.  Physicists are now admitting that "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."   And they don't know what started this beginning.

http://crev.info/2012/01/cosmologists-forced-to-in-the-beginning/

For those of us who have read the Bible and know the God of the Bible, the answer is quite simple.   God started it.

This is not a "God of the gaps" argument; rather, it is a testimonial inference (and/or "inference-to-the-best-explanation") which fits perfectly with all known scientific evidence.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  Genesis 1:1

A couple weeks ago I watched "Kung Fu Panda 2".   Fun movie, worth watching in my opinion.

In that movie, Po could not defeat certain opponents because he was too troubled by his past....  he was told that his problem was that he needed to find "inner peace".   Eventually, after involuntarily arriving at a monastery, meditating for a long time, and finally understanding his origins and the fact that his parents really did love him, he acquired "inner peace".  This allowed him to focus and hone his kung-fu skills and eventually defeat his opponents.

My question is:  To what extent does this apply to our lives?   Do we need "inner peace?"   If so, how do we get it?

I think inner peace is indeed important.   I see so many of my friends trying to find inner peace in various ways... through romantic relationship... through trying to acquire lots of money... through trying to become powerful or prestigious...  through workaholism...  through philosophy and yoga and eastern meditation... through classical music or jazz music or art... through social events...  and it seems for many that the "peace" they find is only temporary.

This shows the difference the difference between "circumstantial peace" and real, true, inner peace.   "Circumstantial peace" means that you are peaceful when external circumstances are going well... but when trouble and stress comes, peace flits away.

In "Death of a Guru", Rabindranath Maharaj shared how he sought inner peace through yoga and meditation.  He would go deep into a trance, and finally feel relaxed and peaceful.  But after finishing his session, he would immediately lose the peace and be filled again with stress and worry and anger.

Fortunately however, Rabindranath Maharaj eventually found Jesus Christ, and began to experience true, permanent, inner peace.  As Jesus said to his disciples in John 14:27, "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you."

Not circumstantial peace that only lasts while the music plays or while the compliments are flowing or while the bank account is high.  Permanent, rock-solid, eternal, true, inner peace...  it comes only from Jesus Christ.

Why?  Why can no other religion or hobby on earth provide lasting peace?  It is because only the true God described in the Bible deals with the sin problem that we all have.  Hobbies are mere temporary/escapism, and all the other world religions and philosophies are essentially "self-help" systems.   They all say that if only you can be a good enough person, you will acquire peace (and achieve heaven, or nirvana, or godhood, or similar state).  The other religions all essentially say, "If only you can relax and realize that you are basically good at heart, you will have inner peace; if only you can think positive thoughts and 'wage peace with your breath', all will be well."

Only the Bible tells us the truth: that we are desperately evil at heart, (and are only prevented from expressing it out by societal constraints and parental-type training).  Only the God of the Bible tells us honestly how serious our sin problem is: we cannot fix it ourselves or compensate for it by doing good works... 'the soul that sins will die' - either I must die, or else someone must volunteer to die in my place.  Jesus Christ died in my place... the legal guilt of my sin was completely transferred to Him... now I am legally free... innocent... pure... righteous!  And my outer life will some day (when I temporarily physically die) match up with my new perfectly-good inner spirit.

Only when I see the depth of my sin and when I see how Jesus Christ has taken it all away, can I (and other people) be truly at peace.  Any other approach is merely a bandaid, temporarily covering over a cancerous wound which continues to fester, because the basic problem is not removed.

Hooray!  Inner peace is possible!  And from personal experience, it is wonderful!   I wish that all my friends would eventually believe in Jesus Christ and come to experience the true peace and eternal life too!

The LORD will give strength to His people; The LORD will bless His people with peace. Psalm 29:11
 

Three topics for tonight: (1) Buddhism vs Christianity, (2) Ruth/Boaz, and (3) "Human zoos" exhibit.

 

 

1. Buddhism vs Christianity:  (if I am mischaracterizing anything, please let me know!)

- Buddhism is a philosophical system, so its success is unaffected by the historical genesis of the movement.  Christianity is just the opposite: it is based in the historical life, teachings, claims, death, and resurrection of its central figure, Jesus Christ.  If  the alleged historical facts surrounding Jesus are false, then Christianity crumbles.  But if the facts are true, then Christianity completely destroys the Buddhist philosophical worldview... not because Buddhism/Buddhists are stupid (in fact they are often very intelligent), but because they are misinformed... they do not have the crucial historical information which, if only they knew it, demonstrates their beliefs to be false.

- Buddhism teaches that everything is linked in a cause-and-effect/karmic relationship, meaning that there is no separate "God" "out there" who created the Universe, rather, everything proceeds like clockwork.  Further, Buddhism says that DESIRE is the source of all unrest and striving... and that if only people could REALIZE (get 'enlightened') this 'truth' (that the fully-causally-connected universe is all that there is), they would begin to relax and stop craving and acquire inner peace.  Meditation/etc (and the other various 'steps'), says Buddhism, are the path toward that peace.  Eventually, after several reincarnations, one can achieve total 'oneness' with the universe and dissolution of (the illusion of) self, achieving complete peace/harmony.

- Buddhism is PARTIALLY RIGHT according to the Bible, in that "lust" (literally "over-desire", craving) is the source of much discord.  Notice these Bible texts:
James 4:1-2 "What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask."

Up to that last sentence, a Buddhist could agree.  But that last sentence???   "Ask" WHO? 
A Buddhist would say, faced with need or sorrow, "I just need to understand that there is no ultimate good or evil; it's all merely an illusion; it's all merely a cause-and-effect mechanistic universe",... not, as the Bible recommends, "I just need to ask God for His help".

2 Peter 1:2-4
"Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust."

A Buddhist could agree on that last phrase, that lust causes corruption, but would immediately disagree on the best way to remedy the situation.  The Bible clearly states that it is the "TRUE" "knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" which sets one free from lust and corruption.  Ultimate reality is not a cold impersonal clockwork cause-and-effect universe, but a living, loving, wise, omnipotent, (tri-)personal, God, who has created the universe and us, and who offers us eternal happiness with him.

1 Peter 1:13b
"...fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Psalm 37:4
"Delight yourself in the LORD; And He will give you the desires of your heart."

Unlike Buddhism, which recommends ceasing from all desire, Christianity recommends DESIRING GOD with all one's heart.   Christianity / the Bible says that DESIRING GOD is the best way to become truly happy... because only God can truly satisfy the human heart.

So it is established that Buddhism and Christianity are "different" and cannot possibly both be true.  But is it possible to know whether one or the other is "correct"?

A Buddhist or Hindu might say (and I have heard them say), "there are so many religions and philosophies out there... how do you know what's right?"  or  "..there is no way to know which one of them is correct."   From their perspective, that makes sense, because it's all philosophy-based, and although one can say "I like this philosophy better than that philosophy", there's no objectively 'true', cross-personal, philosophy which is demonstrably better than all others.

But Christianity is true, and Buddhism and Hinduism are false... and demonstrably so!  ...not because the philosophies of Christianity are better than the philosophies of Buddhism or Hinduism... not because Christians are nicer or smarter people than Buddhists or Hindus...   simply because of the historical revelation of God (the one, true, Creator God) (the God of the Bible), primarily in Jesus Christ.  God came down to earth (celebrated at Christmas), walked around, taught, lived, died, and rose again... and it is because of that historical fact that we can know that the pantheistic/atheistic philosophies such as Buddhism are false...

 

 

 

2. I recently re-read the book of Ruth, and as always it was delightful.  Here are some thoughts about Boaz (etc), one of the main characters.

Notice, as you read the excerpt below, Boaz's generosity to those who do not seem to have any claim upon it...

 Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and with her Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the land of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest.
 2:1 Now Naomi had a kinsman of her husband, a man of great wealth, of the family of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz. 2 And Ruth the Moabitess said to Naomi, "Please let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain after one in whose sight I may find favor." And she said to her, "Go, my daughter." 3 So she departed and went and gleaned in the field after the reapers; and she happened to come to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech. 4 Now behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, "May the LORD be with you." And they said to him, "May the LORD bless you." 5 Then Boaz said to his servant who was in charge of the reapers, "Whose young woman is this?" 6 The servant in charge of the reapers replied, "She is the young Moabite woman who returned with Naomi from the land of Moab. 7 And she said, ‘Please let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves.’ Thus she came and has remained from the morning until now; she has been sitting in the house for a little while."
 8 Then Boaz said to Ruth, "Listen carefully, my daughter. Do not go to glean in another field; furthermore, do not go on from this one, but stay here with my maids. 9 Let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them. Indeed, I have commanded the servants not to touch you. When you are thirsty, go to the water jars and drink from what the servants draw." 10 Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground and said to him, "Why have I found favor in your sight that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?" 11 Boaz replied to her, "All that you have done for your mother-in-law after the death of your husband has been fully reported to me, and how you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and came to a people that you did not previously know. 12 May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge." 13 Then she said, "I have found favor in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me and indeed have spoken kindly to your maidservant, though I am not like one of your maidservants."

Some thoughts / discussion questions - 
- Do you think Boaz's generosity was to all "outsiders", or only to Ruth?  (more on this soon)
- Notice that "she HAPPENED to come to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz"...  Cf. Romans 8:28, nothing happens by chance... especially to those who are seeking God...
- Notice Ruth's apparent very high reputation ("has been fully reported to me...") (cf. 3:11 "all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence"), even as a Moabitess (an 'outsider', a 'heathen' by birth/culture, one who would normally be disdained within Israel's culture)... 
- Notice in v. 12, that coming to live within Israel was roughly equivalent to believing in the LORD (the God of the Israelites) as the true God / the most powerful God.  In Ruth's case this was especially true because she specifically stated her belief in God in chapter 1, and left behind all her family and opportunity for remarriage/financial security in order to learn more about God.  Ruth's choice was the exact opposite of the choice described in Tim Keller's book "Counterfeit Gods"...  her choice was the one recommended by Otto Konig's messages about surrender... she left "everything" behind (except Naomi, but Naomi was more of a burden on Ruth than vice versa) in order to seek God.  Hence, one of the points of Ruth is that the "wages"/"refuge"/reward of the LORD is huge and well worth leaving everything behind for.
- Ruth 1:1, 2:9, 2:22, etc - it was a dangerous time to be without a male protector in Israel.  Like today's Congo and other places.  Ruth chose this life voluntarily to follow God and help Naomi, instead of moving back in with her father like her sister did.
- Regarding gleaning - there was no "welfare" system back then... instead, there was something better: God's law instructed that landowner farmers were to leave the corners of their sown fields for the poor to harvest.  In this way the problem of poverty was addressed, and also the problem of indigence (the poor had to work for their food too... it was not simply given to them).  In this case Ruth worked all day.
- But the landowners obviously had quite a bit of leeway in how they implemented God's command.  In this case Boaz went out of his way... see verse 16 below...

Ruth 2:14 At mealtime Boaz said to her, "Come here, that you may eat of the bread and dip your piece of bread in the vinegar." So she sat beside the reapers; and he served her roasted grain, and she ate and was satisfied and had some left. 15 When she rose to glean, Boaz commanded his servants, saying, "Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not insult her. 16 Also you shall purposely pull out for her some grain from the bundles and leave it that she may glean, and do not rebuke her."

 17 So she gleaned in the field until evening. Then she beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley. 18 She took it up and went into the city, and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. She also took it out and gave Naomi what she had left after she was satisfied. 19 Her mother-in-law then said to her, "Where did you glean today and where did you work? May he who took notice of you be blessed."

- 22 liters of barley grain in one day...
- Boaz apparently had a similar heart as Job, as follows:

        29:11 For when the ear heard, it called me blessed,
        And when the eye saw, it gave witness of me,
        12 Because I delivered the poor who cried for help,
        And the orphan who had no helper.
        13 The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me,
        And I made the widows heart sing for joy.
        14 I put on righteousness, and it clothed me;
        My justice was like a robe and a turban.
        15 I was eyes to the blind
        And feet to the lame.
        16 I was a father to the needy,
        And I investigated the case which I did not know.
        17 I broke the jaws of the wicked
        And snatched the prey from his teeth.
       
        30:25 Have I not wept for the one whose life is hard?
        Was not my soul grieved for the needy?
       
        31: 16 If I have kept the poor from their desire,
        Or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail,
        17 Or have eaten my morsel alone,
        And the orphan has not shared it
        18 (But from my youth he grew up with me as with a father,
        And from infancy I guided her),
        19 If I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing,
        Or that the needy had no covering,
        20 If his loins have not thanked me,
        And if he has not been warmed with the fleece of my sheep,
        21 If I have lifted up my hand against the orphan,
        Because I saw I had support in the gate,
        22 Let my shoulder fall from the socket,
        And my arm be broken off at the elbow.
        23 For calamity from God is a terror to me,
        And because of His majesty I can do nothing.
       
        31:32 The alien has not lodged outside,
        For I have opened my doors to the traveler.

Back to Ruth: 2:19: So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked and said, "The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz." 20 Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, "May he be blessed of the LORD who has not withdrawn his kindness to the living and to the dead." Again Naomi said to her, "The man is our relative, he is one of our closest relatives." 21 Then Ruth the Moabitess said, "Furthermore, he said to me, ‘You should stay close to my servants until they have finished all my harvest.’" 22 Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, "It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maids, so that others do not fall upon you in another field." 23 So she stayed close by the maids of Boaz in order to glean until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest. And she lived with her mother-in-law.
Ruth 3:1 Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, "My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? 2 Now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maids you were? Behold, he winnows barley at the threshing floor tonight. 3 Wash yourself therefore, and anoint yourself and put on your best clothes, and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; then he will tell you what you shall do." 5 She said to her, "All that you say I will do."
 6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did according to all that her mother-in-law had commanded her. 7 When Boaz had eaten and drunk and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain; and she came secretly, and uncovered his feet and lay down. 8 It happened in the middle of the night that the man was startled and bent forward; and behold, a woman was lying at his feet. 9 He said, "Who are you?" And she answered, "I am Ruth your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative." 10 Then he said, "May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich. 11 Now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask, for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence. 12 Now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I. 13 Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives. Lie down until morning."

- Ruth was apparently very submissive or obedient (to Naomi)
- The custom described in 3:4-13, of levirate marriage, is another good invention (sanctioned by God in the Mosaic Law) for how that particular theocratic agrarian society could cope with the death of a husband (primary breadwinner in the agrarian culture)
- Yet, Boaz could have said 'No'...  as did the un-named "closer-relative"...  Why did Boaz not worry about "jeopardizing his sons' inheritance"? (4:6 below)  Was Boaz unmarried?  The text neither confirms nor denies this...?
- Boaz, in saying yes, is promising far more than grain or financial assistance to Ruth...  He is promising himself... everything he owns...
- Yet it was Naomi who initiated this!  Not Ruth, and not even Boaz...
- What in the world does Boaz mean by "You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first"???   What was the first "kindness"-- Ruth's decision to glean in Boaz's field???  Apparently so.  This reveals the almost rediculously generous and humble heart of Boaz...  (The beggar decides to accept aid from him --> "Wow, you (beggar) are so kind to have done so!")...  or perhaps, revealing a shy love for Ruth?  A secret hope that she (probably between 15-20 years old) might ask Boaz to redeem her instead of the closer relative or instead of getting married to some young guy?  "You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich."

3:14 So she lay at his feet until morning and rose before one could recognize another; and he said, "Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor." 15 Again he said, "Give me the cloak that is on you and hold it." So she held it, and he measured six measures of barley and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. 16 When she came to her mother-in-law, she said, "How did it go, my daughter?" And she told her all that the man had done for her. 17 She said, "These six measures of barley he gave to me, for he said, ‘Do not go to your mother-in-law empty-handed.’" 18 Then she said, "Wait, my daughter, until you know how the matter turns out; for the man will not rest until he has settled it today."

- Boaz apparently never let an opportunity pass, to give generously to someone in need!  "Do not go to your mother-in-law empty-handed" --> "six measures of barley"...!!   Was this how he treated every needy person?  Or was there already a special dose of generosity in his heart toward Ruth?

Ruth 4:9 Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, "You are witnesses today that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. 10 Moreover, I have acquired Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, to be my wife in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased will not be cut off from his brothers or from the court of his birth place; you are witnesses today." 11 All the people who were in the court, and the elders, said, "We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built the house of Israel; and may you achieve wealth in Ephrathah and become famous in Bethlehem. 12 Moreover, may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah, through the offspring which the LORD will give you by this young woman."
 13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife, and he went in to her. And the LORD enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. 14 Then the women said to Naomi, "Blessed is the LORD who has not left you without a redeemer today, and may his name become famous in Israel. 15 May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him."
 16 Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her lap, and became his nurse. 17 The neighbor women gave him a name, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi!" So they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
 18 Now these are the generations of Perez: to Perez was born Hezron, 19 and to Hezron was born Ram, and to Ram, Amminadab, 20 and to Amminadab was born Nahshon, and to Nahshon, Salmon, 21 and to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed, 22 and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.

- Many scholars think that the book of Ruth was edited into its final form during the reign of King David, putting down in writing the family history of the great king.  Matthew brings out the fact in his genealogy (Matthew 1) that at least 4 of the women in King Jesus' genealogy came from "dubious" backgrounds, and Ruth as a foreigner fits the pattern.  But she was a godly foreigner, who sought the God of Israel.
- Matthew also makes known that Boaz's mother was Rahab, the prostitute from Jericho!   Perhaps this was an unusual family heritage for Boaz?  Did he have a normal childhood, or was he disdained by his peers?  More speculation: was Salmon one of the two spies who entered Jericho and first met Rahab?  What would it be like to have a top-ranked soldier/intelligence officer as a father?   Did Boaz know Joshua?  Did Boaz serve in the army during the actual Canaanite conquest?  Interesting, that Boaz's mother AND wife were both non-Israelites who 'converted' / sought out the God of Israel (while many of Boaz' peers were converting in the other direction, seeking out the Caananite gods).

- Finally, consider how Boaz's character is a 'type' or 'picture' or 'foreshadowing' of Christ... in extreme generosity, in reaching out to those 'outside' the flock of God, in becoming a 'redeemer' and supporter and husband of a 'foreigner', who had no claim or rights to God's love or the family of God (the Israelite nation, at that time).  An honorable, esteemed, man of integrity, whose name means "Strength", a "man of great wealth", willing to 'go all-in' and 'jeopardize his own inheritance'...  why?  out of pity?  out of romantic love?  out of 'agape' love?  A mixture of all of those motives?
The analogy breaks down because Ruth was by all accounts a high quality, godly, woman.  In our case, by contrast, Jesus Christ loved us and sought us out and died for us and prepared an inheritance for us "while we were still sinners", totally undeserving of love or favor.  Christ's love is far higher, greater, better, than Boaz's.

 

(I'm running out of time so this entry will be much shorter for now.)

3. Regarding this article about "Human Zoos" of 150 years ago ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16295827 ), the article tries to tie it to "Christian evangelism and cultural superiority".  Ha!  What a quote.. what a misleading linkage of words.  The museum tries to tie these Zoos to "othering", a concept from literary studies in which one culture emphasizes the difference between itself and another culture. 
However, many questions arise, like: "Does the museum consider its own perspective (and culturally-conditioned postmodern beliefs) superior to the culture of 150 years ago?  If so, on what basis?"
If one examines the literature more closely, these zoos and the milieu of that time were based NOT on "Christian evangelism", but on Darwinism and its precursors!  On the theory of evolution.   For more details, see http://creation.com/evolutionary-racism and http://creation.com/racism-questions-and-answers .

 

I once came across this thought-provoking question:  "What evidence do you have for God in your life that couldn't be explained as God being your 'imaginary friend'?

For example, some people say "I used to be sad and depressed and my life didn't have meaning, but now that I have God and talk to Him every day, my life is full of meaning and joy and peace."  There's nothing wrong with that, for them (and indeed I've experienced God's joy and peace and love in my own life), but it's not very convincing in an objective way to other people who don't already believe in God... it can easily be explained as God being one's 'imaginary friend' or 'imaginary confidante', who helps one to get through the emotional hurdles of life, while actually being a figment of one's own imagination.

Or, consider the popular Christian hymn "He Lives" by Alfred Ackley, which ends: "...you ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart!"  Basically this hymn is saying that one's main reason for believing that Jesus rose from the dead is a subjective, personal, emotional experience or feeling.  While Alfred may have felt this way (at least sometimes), and that to him this may have seemed quite convincing, to other people it is not  convincing. 

Likewise I have had missionaries from other religious groups tell me fervently that the reason they know their doctrines are correct are that they felt a 'burning in their bosom', a psychological/emotional feeling of certainty.  Unfortunately, since I have reason to believe that these missionary friends were mistaken in their beliefs, their emotional feelings do not carry much objective weight for me (or other people).   I have also heard people saying that when talking about God to other people, it is best to "tell your story", because "people can argue with facts, but they can't argue with your own personal experience or testimony."  The same problem arises - sure, maybe people won't argue with you about your personal experience, but neither do they have any solid objective reason to believe either.

So I think there are much better ways to answer the question "What evidence do you have for God in your life that couldn't be explained as God being your 'imaginary friend'?

The three strongest pieces of evidence that God exists, in my opinion are:

1. Creation
2. Jesus' Resurrection
3. Morality

1. Creation - where did we come from?  There seem to be three main questions here: (1) Where did matter/energy come from originally?  (2) How did life start?  (3) Where did the genetic information comprising the diverse myriads of living animal kinds/species come from? 

Interestingly enough, there seem to be only two major contenders for the answer to this question: either (A) God created the world and all life, or (B) (B1) matter/energy spontaneously popped into existence out of nothing, (B2) life somehow arose from nonliving chemicals in a warm muddy prebiotic puddle somewhere billions of years ago, and (B3) random mutations coupled with natural selection and associated mechanisms (gene duplication, endosymbiosis, etc) produced all the life forms we now see.

Unfortunately, both of these contenders are difficult to accept.  (A) is difficult for many people to accept because it involves a 'miracle', or an unpredictable/unique event which is not currently observed or describable using natural laws, and thus it makes people nervous.  Also, if such a God exists and created us, He might very well be in a position of authority over us, which is galling.

Richard Lewontin describes the fear regarding (A):  "Either the world of phenomena is a consequence of the regular operation of repeatable causes and their repeatable effects, operating roughly along the lines of known physical law, or else at every instant all physical regularities may be ruptured and a totally unforeseeable set of events may occur.... We can not live simultaneously in a world of natural causation and of miracles, for if one miracle can occur, there is no limit."
Richard Lewontin, Scientists Confront Creationism [New York: Norton, 1983], p. xxvi

On the other hand, (B) is difficult for many people (including me) to accept because scientific evidence strongly implies that these things (B1, B2, and B3) are impossible or have vanishingly small probability of having occurred.  Regarding (B1), we do not see matter/energy spontaneously popping into or out of existence in our daily lives or in laboratory experiments, thus it is problematic to handwave and say it occurred in the beginning.  (Some people point to the 'spontaneous appearance' of subatomic particles in particle accelerator 'quantum vacuums', but a high-energy 'quantum vacuum' of particles and anti-particles is quite different than the literally "nothing" that supposedly existed before the Big Bang.)   And if we really believed (B1), then Lewontin's fear would be even more applicable - at any instant all physical regularities would be expected to suddenly change; we would live in a completely unpredictable world.  We can not live simultaneously in a world of spontaneously-appearing universes and of normal, predictable, everyday life, for if one spontaneous uncaused Big Bang can suddenly occur for no reason, there is no limit.

Regarding B2, there is still no explanation (much less demonstration!) of how life could arise from nonliving chemicals.  "We're working on it," the evolutionary theorists say, "just give us a few more years, and we'll eventually figure out how it could have happened."  (See my previous post at http://tim223.xanga.com/743479966/dont-tell-the-creationists/ )  Another quote from Lewontin -
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.  We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Lewontin, Richard, "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review, 1/9/1997, p31
Why can't you, Richard?  Rather arbitrary and problematic.

Regarding B3, the problem is that mutations can readily be shown in the lab to 'break' the genetic code, but not to add more functional information to it.  Just as splattering ink onto a newspaper page has a tiny chance of adding readable, coherent, and accurate news information (but a larger chance of making the newsprint unreadable), random mutations have been shown to degrade the working of cells, but not to add genetic code for new functional proteins.

Thus the consideration of origins is a strong piece of objective data pointing to the fact that God is very real, and that He created us.

2. Jesus' Resurrection - This is the most powerful piece of real-world, tangible, evidence that the God of the Bible truly exists.  If Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead three days after his crucifixion as he predicted he would, his teachings about the God of the Bible would be fully confirmed.  And the accounts of his resurrection are so early and historically corroborated that it becomes difficult to believe any other conclusion, after examining the evidence.  Paul considered the Resurrection so crucial to Christianity that he said "if Christ has not been raised from the dead, ... your faith is in vain... [and] we are above all men most to be pitied"!

For a quick intro to why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are accurate, see http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html .  The key is that the accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) about Jesus were written and distributed within the lifetimes of people who knew Jesus, so they would not have been believed if they contained falsehoods or exaggerations.  Also, the news of Jesus' resurrection was being widely proclaimed in Jerusalem within just a few days and months after the event, which was why the Christian church started in Jerusalem even under heavy persecution.  The question is worth considering: "Would someone be willing to die for something they knew to be a lie?"  The eleven (and hundreds more) disciples of Jesus were all thrown in jail, beaten, and eventually killed in various locations for their insistence that they had seen Jesus after he had died and then risen from the dead, proving that He was indeed the divine Son of God that He claimed to be.  Many people have been willing to die for their faith, but that is not the same as asking whether someone would be willing to die for something they knew to be a lie. 

Thus the historical evidence that Jesus lived, taught about God, died, and came back from the dead is extremely strong, and shows that God is very real, and has provided tangible, physical, real-world evidence to help those of us who are naturally skeptical to believe in Him.

3. Morality - As developed well by C.S.Lewis in "Mere Christianity" and Tim Keller in "The Reason For God", the fact that we all tend to live as if we believed in a real objective moral standard is evidence that such a standard does exist, and that a divine transcendent Moral Lawgiver (God) indeed exists.

For example, if you're in line at the checkout counter and someone suddenly jumps in front of you in line, you naturally feel a twinge of moral outrage.  "That's not right!"  This outrage is much larger for worse crimes, such as murder, rape, or genocide.  We all have moral impulses - we believe instinctively that some things are right and other things are wrong.  Furthermore, we do not treat these as mere "preferences", but as objective standards.

The most popular explanation by naturalists is to simply deny that morality objectively exists (cf. Michael Shermer in his debate last year with Greg Koukl, and Michael Ruse and others), and say that they are merely biological/neurological impulses that have evolved evolutionarily to help the human race survive.  That is to say, objective morality does not exist; moral statements are simply statements of personal preference, at which individuals have been genetically predisposed to arrive.  There is no transcendent "ought", there is only "is", although that "is" might take different forms.  It might take the form of "morality means you are programmed to perform acts of altruism to enhance the survival of your genes/species" (Richard Dawkins), or "morality entails the optimal 'flourishing' of mankind and can be 'discovered' by scientific observation" (Sam Harris), or "morality is simply an illusion" (Michael Ruse, Edward Wilson, etc).  See this excellent review for details - http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality

The problem is that all people live as if morality is objective, transcendent, and cross-personal.  But in order to coherently justify this belief, a transcendent objective Moral Lawgiver must exist.  Not simply because "He will punish you if you do wrong" (though that is true), but in order to have a basis for WHY one OUGHT to do what is right.  Some object (cf Plato's "Euthyphro") that in order to say that "God is good", there must either exist some standard of goodness outside of God to measure Him by, or else one must adopt "divine command theory" and claim that "whatever God says/does is right by definition."  But there is another view which avoids those two positions - namely that God's character defines what is good.  He IS good; His character defines goodness, and He also naturally always acts and speaks in accordance with His good character, so that we can say his actions and words are also good.

Thus, if you believe that some things are truly objectively "right" and other things are truly objectively "wrong", your belief only makes sense if God exists (and is not simply an "imaginary friend").

Your thoughts are welcome as always...