(Quora Question) As a Christian, what is something that God has said (in the Bible) that you disagree with?:
In Song of Solomon, which can be seen partly as an allegory to the relationship of Christ and the Church (*1), it is written
You are altogether beautiful, my love; there is no flaw in you (4:7)
We are caught, as Christians, in what is referred to as the “already/not yet” of history.
While God looks at me and sees only Christ’s righteousness (Rom 5:9, Phil 3:9, Rom 5:18, Rom 9:30, Rom 4:5, Gal 3:6-7). “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21)…
…yet I look at myself and do not see this. I feel like Paul in Romans 7:
For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing….So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am!
So my greatest disagreement, because of this already/not yet, has to do with my dissatisfaction with the unholiness surrounding me, in my thoughts, in my actions, in my plans and ambitions. While God sees that I am “clothed in the righteousness of Christ,” I see the not-yet.
But this is what fuels my hope, my greatest desire. It is what propels me through this world, facing what comes. As John said—John who was the “last to go” of the apostles, who had to wait the longest of the 11 for that which was promised—
“Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:2
Can a changed life provide evidence that
a proported event has happened?
In the case below, this college professor on his death-bed experiences some of the pains of what he says was hell. The change in his life shows that SOMETHING happened. What would a scientist say to these claims? How would the scientist explain this experience?
It’s science week. How do we approach this from a scientific perspective? A scientist sets up the observation. Looks at the evidence. Considers the laws at work, and looks for the best explanation. Then the scientist tests their theory.
Looking at the Evidence
We have watched the videos. The man says he was an athiest. He got sick and died/almost died. During this time he had a horrifying experience which he called hell. His experience in “hell” changed when he called out,
“Jesus, please help me!”
Then positive things happened, resulting in his coming back to this life and being healed by the doctors.
Considering the Laws at Work
& Looking for the Best Explanation
This is an issue in the mental-psychological realm
Either he saw something. (Truth-teller)
Or thought he saw something. (Self-deceived/delusional)
Or did not see anything, but said he saw something. (Liar)
From the change in his life we can probably rule out the Liar option, since many years passed between the experience and the recording, yet he did not change his story. It appears he obviously believes in his own story. So either he is delusional or telling the truth.
How can science help us know if he is telling the truth or not? Do we need to determine our boundaries?
…would say that the answer has to lie in the physical world. It could not be true that he experienced something in the supernatural. It was in his mind, and something he saw flipped his view of reality. So he would be delusional, somehow. They would run a battery of tests to find out what kind of psychological problems he has. Simple.
A Theistic Explanation
…would not automatically reduce the possibilities to physical world, so the option of super-nature is still on the table. He might have seen something, and that something might be supernatural.
Testing the Theory
How can we test if he is telling the truth about what he said?
We could test for delusional psychology. Test how he interacts outside of this recording. Is his lifestyle consistent with his profession of faith in God? (Or does he speak on contrary topics elsewhere, for example). We’d need to check his life. To see if he is a habitual liar, or if his actions reflect someone who is not in touch with reality.
If his lifestyle is consistent with his profession of faith in God, we could test if he speaks in accordance with theistic laws.
When I listened to him, I was keenly aware of each point he said, and compared it with what the Bible says. Why the Bible? Because through other reasoning I have come to the confidence in the reliability of the Bible in matters of supernature.
I measured his words against the Bible. It didn’t seem to contradict…
Unfortunately, the “afterlife travelogue” presented above is firstly questionable because it has dangerous implications. If we believe he went to actual hell, he would be disproving the existence of hell.
What I mean is, we understand hell, and the power of the name of Jesus, from Scripture.
The Bible says,“man is destined to die once and after that to face judgment.” Heb 9:27
If his experience was actually hell, one man’s experience would be disproving the book of Hebrews.
And if he disproves Hebrews, all of Scripture is suspect. And if Scripture is suspect, his being saved by the name of Jesus is suspect. Meaning that if he were actually in the hell Christ spoke of, he was not where he thought he was, and he could not have been rescued by the one he thought rescued him. It’s self-contradicting.
Experience must bow to Scripture. If your experience tells you something contrary to the Bible, your INTERPRETATION of your experience is wrong.
It [the afterlife-story phenomena] is not harmless. It denigrates the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. It confounds faith with superstition. It subtly elevates human experience to a higher level than the Word of God. It purports to reveal things about God and the heavenly realm that are not taught in Scripture. And it repeatedly insinuates that the testimony of someone who has been mystically enlightened can be a more effective stimulant to faith than Scripture alone…
This is just one example of a large and growing subgenre of afterlife travelogues popular today—a genre that includes at least two mega-best-selling titles from evangelical publishers. The authors of these stories—and evidently millions of readers as well—regard these testimonies as authoritative, reliable, and full of superior insights that can take readers to a higher level of understanding and enlightenment beyond what we can get from the Bible.
In other words, all of these books take a similarly protognostic stance on heaven and the afterlife. All of them are dangerous and misleading. That includes the ones that seem fairly benign as well as the ones that are clearly steeped in occult superstition. All of them stand as reminders to us that Scripture and Scripture alone is the only safe place for Christians to learn anything about the immortality of human souls, what happens to a person after death, what heaven is like, what awaits the unrighteous in hell, and what we can expect in the judgment to come.
So my final conclusion (after testing his life/mental state) might be that he saw something. Maybe a dream or something dream-like. But he did see something.
But he did not go to hell.
Because his life changed drastically, 180*, I know a frightening experience happened to him. He had a supernatural, near-death experience that shook his foundations. But according to Scripture, he did not die and he did not go to hell. He got a chance to make things right. Good for him.
Neil deGrasse Tyson: It is not good for earthquakes to happen. It proves that there is no “good” God who made this system.
Facts: Lisbon, Portugal. Date 1755. An earthquake happens on All Saints Day. 80,000 people die in church. MORE INFO
Six premises, all tied up into one conclusion:
A: Good is defined as interested in mankind’s health and longevity.
B. Either God is not all powerful or God is not all good.
C: A powerful God could have kept the earthquake from happening.
D: It is not good for people to die in church.
E. A good God would have wanted an earthquake to not happen.
F: The earthquake was not stopped and people died in a church.
Written in simplified logic form this would be:
If x is q, then p is q and if x is ~q then p is ~q.
Either p is q or p is ~q
q is r
therefore either p is r or p is ~r
Either p is r or p is ~r
~r is ~q
therefore either p is r or p is ~q
Either p is r or p is ~q
r is ~s
therefore either p is ~s or p is ~q
Either p is ~s or p is ~q
Not ~s, therefore s
Therefore p is ~q
Therefore x is ~q
q-to be good
r-to be concerned about health and life of man
s- an earthquake happening
I.So with the premises filled in, it looks like this:
If God is good, his will is good and if God is not good, his will is not good.
Either God’s will is good, or God’s will is not good.
It is good to be concerned about health and life of man
Therefore either God’s will is to be concerned about health and life of man, or Gods will is not to be concerned about the health and life of man.
Either God’s will is to be concerned about health and life of man, or God’s will is not to be concerned about the health and life of man.
To be not concerned about health and life of man is not good.
Therefore either God’s will is to be concerned about health and life of man, or God’s will is not good.
Either God’s will is to be concerned about health and life of man, or God is not good.
To be concerned about health and life of man means there will be no earthquake.
Therefore God’s will is that there will be no earthquake, or God’s will is not good.
Either God’s will is that there will be no earthquake, or God is not good.
It is not the case that there was not an earthquake and there was an earthquake.
Therefore God’s will is not good.
Therefore God is not good.
Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-good God.
The “Self-evident” Premises
q is r
~r is ~q
r is ~s
These were never proven. Let us look at them briefly.
p-God’s will // q-to be good // r-to be concerned about health and life of man // s- an earthquake happening
To be good means to be concerned about health and life of man.
To be not concerned about health and life of man is not good.
To be concerned about health and life of man requires an earthquake not happening.
Is it true, though?
If God’s goodness requires his only consideration to be the health and life of man, that would require him to pause every other consideration to enable man to continue in the way he is going. To be an “air bag” so to speak, or a slave to the cause of mankind’s health and life. Is that true? Must there be a being whose only definition is the welfare of man? No.
Of course we’d like him to be only concerned about that, but maybe his consideration for man is higher and greater than just health and life that can be stopped with an earthquake. If there is some greater truth to consider, say perhaps a bigger benefit for man, then he would be ‘required’ by that same goodness to not stop the earthquake.
So our new self-evident premise would have to be
y-a bigger concern is good
q is r unless y is q
If we put that into the equation, the conclusion would be:
Therefore p is ~q unless y is q
Therefore x is ~q unless y is q
Without taking into consideration what “y” could be, we might be led to the conclusion Neil deGrasse Tyson comes to. But what could the “y” be?
Can we make a self-evident premise that says ~y? That he “has no bigger concern.” We cannot. If God is that Being we are considering, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good.
We can only either suppose he must conform to our human-centered view of what his goodness requires, or delve into that y.
The Bible does claim, in God’s words,
“I do not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that they would turn from their ways and live.” Ezekiel 33:11
Even if those in church were “wicked,” it would not have pleased God for them to die.
So how could something happen that does not please God? Because of the “y-factor.”
The Y Factor:
Y is a BROKEN SYSTEM That is Being Fixed.
The only way to reconcile this is to see that something that is Good was broken, and goodness requires that the method of fixing it does not save those people from the earthquake.
The world strikes us as a place that SHOULD be good. The fact that we want good (no death, no earthquakes, no tsunamis, no disease) tells us that it fits the system for things to move in a positive way.
If something is broken, we would hope it would be the duty of an all-powerful, all-good God to fix it.
Complicating factor: He is also all-just, and put in us an alarm that stuns us when we cross the line. Namely, conscience.
God did do something to fix it, namely send Christ and a way for us to enter into a new and fixed system. Through death. I think that welcoming his faithful, who will die anyway, into a new system that is wholly GOOD is much better than letting them stay in a broken, sad, heartbreaking system.
Especially if those people are already aware of his ‘secret passage’ to this new dimension, namely through the bond of faith in Christ.
Objectively Verifiable Truths
Neil deGrasse Tyson says,
“Objectively verifiable truths are needed.”
Which is only difficult for us because we no longer have the sample available to prove the claims of research done in the past. But we have four verified research reports by four different researchers finding the same conclusion regarding the sample. We had skeptics test the hypothesis and change their theories after testing.
The problem is, the sample is no longer available for direct test. If it were, perhaps DNA testing and video recording would have been used to verify what eye-witnesses attested to.
What we do not have is counter-examples, or proofs from the time against the test. Certainly there were people who did not like the conclusions. And yet the only writer/researcher who attempted to stop the theory, converted to the theory himself.
How can we test?
There are four dimensions in this five-sense testable world
There are also several other dimensions that I am aware of, which we sense without our eyes and ears, without this four dimensional world.
The world of mind. (calculates, figures, reasons)
The world of passion. (feels, hates, loves)
The world of dreams. (imagines while I’m awake and asleep)
The world of soul. (senses the holy, feels guilt, understands contact with the Creator)
The world of memory. (recalls in often vivid detail the moments I have lived)
The world of angels and demons. (often it can be breached, especially by those who call upon it)
The world of heaven. (I am aware that those who have died have moved on, a dimension NDE’ers speak of)
Today we can test the validity of the sample (Jesus of Nazareth), from the evidence we have before us, as historians. If we objectively approach the testimony of Dr Luke, Matthew, Mark and John we find that something happened that changed their lives. And they wrote down what happened to them.
What does it mean to be OBJECTIVE?
Objective. adj. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: “Historians try to be objective and impartial.” • not dependent on the mind for existence; actual (Apple Dictionary).
NO ONE can be objective about anything they observed. The fact that the ‘gospel writers’ are not objective, but that their testimonies corroborate as to the miracles and claims and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, speaks into the dynamic experience they had.
Denying the testimony of these eye-witnesses, because we do not like what they say, would be like some leader denying that anything happened to the Armenian Orthodox people of Turkey in the early 1900, because he does not like what they say. Something happened, in both cases, and the non-objective testimony of eye-witnesses speaks loudly.
It was hard to believe, during WWII, that such a thing as a place like Auschwitz could exist. People who heard, immediately denied it could be true. But history has shown that things that go against reason have in fact happened. For their own reasons.
Dr. Tyson is correct in saying that there is an aspect of this that leans on evidence not visible equally to everyone. This awareness is not attained through speculation, logic, and reason. As in the quantum-world, things are not universally observed. Unfortunately for some, this plain-view “Atlantis” is hidden from eyes of some.
2 Kings 6:17 Then Elisha prayed and said, “O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see.” So the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.
In Trunk of Scrolls, the problem of suffering is delved into as Christians face the God of the Earthquake, asking the same questions Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson asked, of how a good God could allow evil to happen to his followers.
God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. And God said, “Let there be Light.” Gen 1:1
Was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him, without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was Life and that Life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. John 1:1
This is a beginning of a new phase in my life, a time when a dream of mine is close to fulfillment. Becoming an author of historical fiction books. I have always had a love relationship with history, most particular ancient history. I know the exact moment I fell in love.
Second grade. Teacher’s name escapes me (I’m sorry!) but she used to call me “darling Darlene” on my papers. We learned Ben Franklin’s proverbs that year, we kept a daily diary and there was a boy named Dustin and a boy named Brian in the class. We had a class bunny, and I loved playing with Playschool people outside after school with my neighbor named Kirk. The feelings of freedom, of play, of innocence, of joy at life. I was in America again, after growing up in Japan. I could understand people and was finally learning to read.
Then the teacher read to us the story of Pompeii. It was my first time time-traveling.
She read to us of the daily life of the people of Heraculum and Pompeii. Of the earthquakes and the steaming volcano. Of the eruption of smoke, and the overflow of lava. Of the people running to the sea. Of the ash that covered the people. Then, she read of the archaeologists and anthropologists who uncovered those people. Of how the ash had solidified around the poor people who could not escape Nature. Of how they used plaster to fill in the cavities, and the faces of those people came to light again.
The awe at science, at history, at new knowledge started in me that day and has continued without ceasing.
Saint Augustine said, Credo ut intelligam. This means, “I believe in order that I may understand.” Knowledge is inextricably tied to faith. Faith is the recognition that our senses do not completely tell us everything there is to know about the world.
QUESTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS
First of all, the whole question of consciousness is a mystery that no one has yet explained. It is simply jumped to in explanations of how the mind works.
Reason can explain to us three things related to this.
1) Creation We look at creation, and common sense shows us that such an amazing variety and complexity had to originate from laws and rules. In our world, we would not think an iPad could appear out of nothing without reasons for its existence, so it takes less faith to believe in Creator than a random assemblage of molecules creating trees and planets and bacteria and DNA.
2) The Cause The second thing reason explains to us is that either the Cause is personal or impersonal. If the Cause is personal, and we matter, it would communicate with us, since we have a consciousness of that dilemma in the first place.
3) Perfection Reason also leads us to recognize that if there is a Cause and Creator, “IT” would have to be the SOURCE of perfection. Logically “IT” could not be both good and evil, both truth and falsehood, both powerful and weak. So is “IT” all evil, all falsehood, all weak? Or is “IT” all good, all truth, all powerful? We have in us the ideal that strives for the good, the value written into our human consciousness, REGARDLESS OF OUR CULTURE OR RELIGION, is that there is such a thing as PERFECT GOOD. Of course, we strive for it with different standards and rules, but it is a commonly shared part of human consciousness. We commend those who are “good” and shun those who are “evil.”
Without creation, we would see no cause, without the cause we could consider no perfection.
Big Questions: So do we matter? Has the Cause communicated? Is the Cause personal? Is “IT” a “HE”?
QUESTION OF PERCEPTION
The second question to consider, is: can our senses be trusted to guide us into all knowledge?
Watch this video, which shows us just how amazingly accurate our senses are (not)
Back to St. Augustine’s saying, “I believe in order that I may understand.” If we limit ourselves to our own perception of the world, we limit our ability to understand the world of unseen things.
If this CAUSE is personal, if mankind MATTERS, the Creator Cause would communicate to us in a way that defines Himself with all the perfection that Reason proves he must be. So, is there such a communication?
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning was the Word. The Word became flesh.
By what name does HE call Himself? This in itself shows us that He encompasses all of what reason says He must be.