Islam, the Bible, Apologetics, and Religious Conversion

Talking with my 12-year-old daughter (who has never met a Muslim--we live in a small town with no mosques) about Muslims...

Malea: You know Muslims??

Me: One of my best friends in graduate school was a Muslim.

Malea: How were you friends??

Me: We had a lot in common with respect to a lot of things that were important to us.

Malea: Did he become a Christian?

Me: Actually, "Did she become a Christian?"

Malea: OK.  Did she become a Christian?

Me: No.  Her whole family was Muslim.  Imagine what it would be like.  Your whole family is Christian and you suddenly think that Christianity might be wrong.  Imagine what it would take to convince you that everyone you know, love, and respect is wrong about your most fundamental beliefs.

Malea: That's a whole different scenario because we have a Book that tells us about Jesus.

Me:  Well, every religion has a book.

Malea: Do Muslims have the Bible?

Me: Not exactly.  Their main book is the Koran.

Malea: But we have proof.

Me: But they'll say the same thing.

Malea: Dad, are you saying that you don't believe in Christianity?!

Me: No.  I'm just saying that changing one's fundamental beliefs is complicated and it involves more than having proofs.

"Thou Shalt Not KILL?"

I was talking with a colleague who knows Hebrew more than I (i.e. he knows Hebrew and I don't) about the Hebrew meaning of the term "kill" in the Ten Commandments. I was curious if there were a good English equivalent of the term, since I either hear things like, "It says, 'Thou Shalt not Kill,' therefore, pacifism" or "Thou Shalt not Murder," hence manslaughter is permissible.  But I hear much more of the former.  I don't know how many times I've heard from the more pacifist crowd, "Thou Shalt not KILL" (even from professors who should know better) which take the verse to prohibit all killing.  Of course, if it prohibits killing in general, that's a prohibition against killing fish, bugs, and plant life.  This, of course, is absurd, since the Old Testament in surrounding contexts permits (and sometimes commands) some killings.

His response:  "[The Hebrew word] is ordinarily restricted to use with humans as the object.  It seems to be used for both voluntary and involuntary killing, so the commandment seems to be urging care not to kill as well as simple prohibition of murder.  In the culture of the time, of course, there was a whole class of sanctioned killing (capital punishment, war) that would not have been included here."


My response: There doesn’t seem to be a good, single English equivalent word, then, at least that I can think of off the top of my head.  “Kill” is far too broad.  “Manslaughter” is too narrow (it includes reckless killing but excludes intentional killing like murder.)  “Murder” is too narrow (since it includes only unjustified, intentional killing of an innocent.)  “Homicide” is too broad (since there are justifiable homicides in self-defense, etc.)    

However the legal term “negligent homicide” seems pretty close, though it’s a lesser offense than murder, so it’s still inexact.

The Latin Vulgate is “Non occides.”  Roughly, don’t kill/slay (but can mean don’t murder in certain contexts).  It might be broader, though, than “interficio.” This is speculation, but if “occides” has a broader semantic range perhaps the Vulgate use had some influence in the choice of the English word "kill." 

Why Does John the Baptist Eat Locusts and Honey?

Interesting:

I want to float an idea but don’t have time to develop it into a full-fledged argument. Still I want to propose a reading for an unusual text we find in the Synoptic Gospels. Since Mark is likely the first Gospel written, I’ll work from there recognizing that what is true for Mark is also true for Matthew and Luke.

For years I’ve puzzled over the description of the John the baptizer as eating locust and honey (Mark 1:6).   Translations differ. Some seem to underscore that John’s diet consisted of locust and honey as if that was all he could get in the wilderness (NLT, The Voice). Other versions don’t interpret it at all.   Many commentaries notice the statement but have little to say about it. I’ve wondered why we are given this bit of information in a hard-hitting, fast-moving Gospel like Mark’s. After all we’re not told Jesus’ diet, and he’s the main character in the story. Is the statement about John eating (present participle; Mark 1:6) designed to present him as a desert-dwelling ascetic with odd habits? If so, that seems to fail since locusts are kosher and though most westerners cringe at the thought of biting into one, it would not strike a person of John’s day as strange. Then there is honey, a desirable natural sweetener on everybody’s wish-list.

So what is the point? Well let me suggest a reason. The description of John and his activities (living in the wilderness, preaching, baptizing, and his manner of dress) are part of John’s prophetic message. Where he was, what he was doing and how he did it were key aspects of his person and mission.

[More below the fold.]

John Piper on Why not Everyone is Elect

Response by Dale Tuggy (interesting podcast at the top of the page)

John Walton's, "The Lost World of Genesis One"

Here is a very critical review of Walton's book on the first chapter of Genesis.  Though I think McGrew overplays her hand on a few points, having read the book myself several years ago (well, good portions of it), I find the review fairly compelling at points.  I had similar thoughts as this when reading the book:

Putting all of this together, it is difficult to figure out what Walton means by God's establishing functions and installing functionaries in a sense that has nothing to do with material origins! Perhaps the most charitable thing to do would be to throw up one's hands and conclude that the book is radically unclear. What could it mean for all the plants already to be growing, providing food for animals, the sun to be shining, etc., but for these entities nonetheless to lack functions prior to a set of specific 24-hour days in a specific week? Throwing up his hands in despair at interpreting Walton is what one scholarly critic, Vern Poythress, essentially does after an exchange with Walton.

Like McGrew, it was not clear to me that there is a coherent sense in which things are (or could be) "receiving functions" from God during the (literal) seven days.  That is, given that--on Walton's account--the material things (creatures and the like) already seem to be kinds of things prior to the seven day period (and thus have structures, capacities, abilities, etc.), it's not clear what giving functions could amount to during the seven day period.  One might hold, sensibly I think, that to be is to be a kind of thing; to be a kind of thing is to have a nature; and to have a nature is to have (a) characteristic function(s).

Walton makes an appearance in the comments section followed by an awkward exchange.  (MarcAnthony's over-the-top remark is a good example of what is problematic with open comment boxes).  Though I've had a couple run-ins with McGrew, I didn't take her review to be outside the bounds of the ethical norms of book reviewing.  I look forward to reading and listening to the other reviews to which she has linked.

In Church Today

Everyone in church was in church today, and we heard a Bible passage in the Bible that talked about the Son and says about the Son that without him nothing has been made that has been made.

An Argument that Canonization is Ongoing

These aren't fully digested thoughts and I retain the right to recant but here goes:

"With God All Things Are Possible." Is that true?

Matthew 19:25-26 reads:

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

What does "all things" refer to?  All actual things?  All possible things?  All impossible things?  Some take this verse to entail that God can do anything logically impossible.  God is such that he could have made it the case that he never existed.  For to make it the case that one never existed is to be such that one can both exist and do something such that one has never existed which would be to do the logically impossible.  God could make a square circle. He could make a perfect triangle the sum of the interior angels being zero degrees and fluffy.  Moreover, God could make it the case that he's always been a square circle and never been a square circle.  I fail to find such a view coherent.

To someone who holds such a view, I ask, "Has God done such a thing? Has God made it the case that he's an evil square circle?"

Answer: "No, for that's not in the Bible."

On John 1:3 and Many Questionable Translations

*UPDATE*  

John 1:3-4New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life,[a] and the life was the light of all people.

The NIV translates John 1:3 as follows: "Through Him [the Word] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Almost all translations translate John 1:3 like the NIV.  One of C.S. Lewis's predecessors, George MacDonald, challenges that translation and bases an entire sermon on a divergent translation here.

Look again at the second independent clause, particularly "nothing was made that has been made."  What does the "that has been made" add to the sentence?  Nothing of substance!  It's oxymoronic (and perhaps plain moronic) to say that nothing has been made that has been made, since all things that have been made are all and only the things that have been made!

As MacDonald would have it, we should translate verses 3 and 4 as follows:

"All things were made through Him and without Him was not one thing made. [Stop]  That which was made in Him was life, and the life was the light of men."

According to MacDonald, such a translation has much theological significance. Is MacDonald's principle of charity at work justifiable?  Should we prefer a translation which--all other things being equal--has a better theological upshot and is more linguistically felicitous?  I say, yes.

The Bible Teaches That David is God

This is clever and makes a nice point or two.  (I might add, the Bible also teaches pacifism, annihilationism, Tuggy's-subordinationism, modern-egalitarianism, and many other trendyisms).

The Bible holds many hidden wonders. In addition to its explicit teachings, by careful reasoning we can draw out many implications of what it says, by comparing various parts with others. Aided by various evangelical apologists and theologians, I’ve made a few discoveries which I am now privileged and humbled to share with the world.
Step 1: prove that Jesus is God
1. When the prophet Isaiah says “Prepare the way of the Lord” (Isaiah 40:3) the “Lord” there is God, Yahweh.
2. Mark applies this to Jesus; the “Lord” when he quotes Isaiah is Jesus. (Mark 1:3)
3. Therefore, Jesus is God. (1,2)

Step 2: prove that Jesus is David

Don't dish it unless you can take it. (Matthew 7:1)

Look bros, the real reason most of y'all shouldn't teach is because your feet would burn when held to the fire. (James 3:1)

David Platt and John MacArthur on Heaven and Near Death Experiences

A brief word about the arguments put forward here:
http://www.radical.net/blog/2014/04/heaven-is-for-real/
and here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v9/n2/visits-to-heaven

Platte and MacArthur (hereafter P&M) REALLY don't like all the books on near death experiences (NDE's) wherein people recount their alleged trips to heaven or hell.  I'm not a big fan either, but mostly for reasons other than theirs.  I'm skeptical primarily because some of the longer accounts I've encountered have internal inconsistencies (i.e., the story asserts one thing that is later implicitly or explicitly denied in the story) as well as external inconsistencies (e.g., with other NDE stories, with Christian doctrine, and so forth).   P&M, though, seem to think that there is something wrong (heretical?) in principle with claiming to know anything extra-Biblical about heaven (or hell).

For instance, M says this:
The New Testament adds much to our understanding of heaven (and hell), but we are still not permitted to add our own subjective ideas and experience-based conclusions to what God has specifically revealed through His inerrant Word. Indeed, we are forbidden in all spiritual matters to go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).

What does it mean to "go beyond what is written"?  What does it mean to be "not permitted to add our own subjective ideas and experience-based conclusions to what God has specifically revealed?"  It's not perfectly clear what exactly M means by those words, but what is clear from the context is that M thinks there is something wrong with the NDE books in principle.  You just shouldn't claim to know extra-Biblical stuff like these people are claiming.

But what is wrong with the following:  I believe (and believe I have excellent reason to believe) that God has performed miracles in my life and others that I know.  But, let's be honest, I'm not exactly in the Bible!!  Nor is there anything in the Bible that guarantees that such and such miracle today was caused by God.  There is some scriptural evidence (e.g. there's reason to believe from Scripture that God is in the business of healing), but I can't simply look in the Bible to see if God healed this person I know.  Yet there's nothing wrong with believing that God did such a thing. So why think that if I wrote a book about my life and included miracles by God that I'm somehow violating a Scriptural mandate?  I see no good reason to think this way.  But then why think reporting something about heaven is off limits?  If God heals my son, then it's true that God in heaven healed my son.  If I know God healed my son, then I know something true about heaven, namely, that God in heaven healed my son.

Let us also note that none of these books are thought to BE SCRIPTURE (which would be heretical) or to contain propositions which the authors advocate should BECOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.  There's no adding to doctrine or scripture being advocated in these books. The authors are reporting additional things they (purportedly) take to be true about heaven (which, nonetheless, we might have good reason to be skeptical about).  Perhaps some of these authors have illicit reasons for saying what they do (e.g., perhaps some are in it for the money), but perhaps some genuinely believe their experiences were veridical and think that these stories will help bolster the faith of others.  I get the impression that P&M think the only legitimate mode of theologizing is to open up a Bible (King James only?) and simply read it out loud.

Another reason P&M think there is something wrong with these books is because they think there's good evidence that no one has been to heaven except for Jesus.  For instance, M cites the following (P adds Proverbs 30:4 which is similar):
John 3:13 says, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” And John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time.”

I don't know exactly what to make of John 3:13, but Jesus can't be saying that he's already ascended into heaven, which a straightforward reading of the verse suggests.  So our interpretation can't be that straightforward. Still, suppose this passage rules out all bodily ascensions (adding curiosity about where the bodies of Elijah and Enoch went).  That's still not inconsistent with someone's soul being in heaven until the resurrection of the body (e.g., the one thief on the cross).  So if ascension can mean bodily ascension, then John 3 and 1 aren't obviously inconsistent with some assertions in these popular books.  But even if the souls of people aren't in heaven, it's still an open question whether they had visions of being in heaven without being materially or immaterially present.  I don't know what would rule that out in principle.

Much more needs to be said, but the matter is complicated.  It's more complicated than P&M let on.

Sprinkle's Book "Fight" and CHRISTIAN Pacifism

This is the fifth post on Sprinkle's book, Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence.

An alternative title which would have been just as fitting is Fight: A Case for Nonviolent Christians.  For Sprinkle's pacifism condemns violence for Christians, but he leaves open the possibility that certain acts of violence may be permissible for non-Christians.  Here are a few quotations to make good on that last claim:

"So far, I've argued that killing is wrong and therefore killing the attacker is wrong.  In other words, killing is a moral absolute: Christians should never do it" (p. 222).

"The big question, of course, is whether a Christian can use violence as a police officer.  No, I don't think he or she can" (p. 248).

 Now, some interpreters say that Jesus's Sermon doesn't apply to governments, only to individuals.  There is certainly some truth to this.  After all, Jesus doesn't preach His Sermon to the Roman Empire or the American government.  However, the Sermon does apply to all citizens of God's kingdom, and it should saturate all areas of life. It would make no sense to say that the Sermon on the Mount is fine for individual Christians--even better for the church--but that it doesn't apply to Christians in the government" (p. 140).

"Romans 13 does not speak of Rome's warfare policy against foreign nations, but of its police and judicial action toward its own citizens.  Paul's phrase "bear the sword" (v. 4) refers to police action within a government's jurisdiction, not warfare outside its territory (p. 167)...Paul says that God's wrath and vengeance are carried out through Rome, and he has just commanded the church not to carry out such wrath and vengeance.  Vengeance is God's business, not ours.  We don't need to avenge evil, because God will.  And one way that God will is through governing authorities" (p. 170).

"In Genesis 9:5, God seems to allow the death penalty for murder" (p. 42).

"While God allowed Israel to participate in some wars, He never allowed His people to revel in the carnage the way their neighbors did" (p. 68).

Now, I don't want to give the impression that Sprinkle has a settled view with respect to the morality of non-Christians killing (or committing acts of violence more generally).  He is pretty coy about this issue, and this is one of the places where I wish he would've been clearer and would've said whether he thinks some non-Christian violence is permissible, impermissible, or that he's agnostic about the matter.  At any rate, what is pretty clear is that he thinks that Christians are called to forego all violence even if, perhaps, non-Christians are not.

Why, though, should we think that such an important moral demand is not universal?  Child sacrifice, stealing what one doesn't need to survive, adultery, murder, and so forth are all universally impermissible--no one should commit such acts.  Why think that violence isn't permissible for Christians but might be permissible for non-Christians?

Sprinkle's Book "Fight" and Double Effect

This is the third post on Preston Sprinkle's book, Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence.

In a prior post I discussed how Sprinkle's definition of violence includes an intent to harm and I mentioned how he appears not to stick with this definition throughout.  I ended by briefly noting how a discussion of the "Principle of Double Effect" would have mitigated this problem.  Here I want to discuss that principle and how it bears on his book.

The Principle of Double Effect (its earliest robust formulation often attributed to Aquinas) holds that some action A that has some evil E as a consequence is (at least) permissible if and only if the (a) action is itself neutral or good (b) there is some good G intended (c) E is not disproportionately evil compared with the goodness of G and (d) E is not intended as an end or a means of bringing about G.

Clause (a) rules out actions which, by their very nature, are evil.  Clause (b) rules out there being no good intention.  Clause (c) rules out cases where the evil consequences of an action outweigh the good. And clause (d) specifies that an evil not be intended as the means to the good or an intended result of the action. This last clause, though, allows that E is the means (or a means) to bring about G, but E cannot be intended as a means of E.

Now consider the following two cases where the Principle is applied:

Case #1: Harvesting organs
Dr. Smith knows that Jones will not survive unless he has another heart and a liver.  Sally has a good heart and Mary has a good liver.  Dr. Smith murders Sally and Mary so that he can harvest the organs for Jones.  The action in this case was not permissible.  It violated clauses (c) and (d) and probably clause (a) as well (depending on how the action is to be described).

Case #2: Upping the Speed Limit
Governor Smith is considering whether to sign or veto a bill upping the speed limit on certain roads.  He receives good evidence that upping the speed limit from 60 mph to 65 mph will increase the state's economy.  In addition, 95% of the population are for it.  Nonetheless, he also has good evidence that upping the speed limit will result in 20-30 more traffic fatalities per year.  After weighing the costs and benefits, Governor Smith signs the bill, intending the effect of improving the economy and pleasing his constituents while foreseeing (in all likelihood) that there will be more traffic fatalities but not intending either those fatalities or that the legislation as a means to that end.  Governor Smith has acted in way that is at least permissible (but perhaps has also acted justly).

I believe in the Principle of Double Effect, in part because I'm a deontologist and think that one's intentions matter and not just the consequences.  In addition, because so many of our actions/inactions do have foreseeable evil effects (like the one above), rejecting the principle would seem to me to result in moral paralysis, wherein moral deliberation about whether to act or not would become darn near impossible.

Application to Sprinkle's "Fight":

Would Jesus Bake a Cake for a Gay Wedding?

Homofascist USA Today writer, Kirsten Powers, thinks so:

Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. Jesus calls his followers to be servants to all. Nor does the Bible call service to another an affirmation.

Adam Hamilton, pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, the largest church in Kansas, pointed out to me what all Christians should know: "Jesus routinely healed, fed and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with." This put Jesus at odds with religious leaders, who believed they were sullied by associating with the "wrong" people.

Let's set aside for a moment that in our country ruled by its leftist judicial oligarchy, a man could go to jail for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.  He said he'd bake one for the gay couple's birthday, for other holidays, etc. but he would not do it for their gay wedding.  And he could GO TO JAIL for NOT BAKING A CAKE.  And this MAKES SENSE to LIBERALS.  I repeat: a man could GO TO JAIL for NOT BAKING A CAKE.  ("It is not enough that you obey Big Brother, you must love him [by baking him a cake].")

Set that lunacy aside and  instead focus on the fact that "Jesus routinely healed, fed and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with."  Well then: what follows is that he disagreed with their lifestyle and treated them with basic human dignity.  Jesus did not aid and abet the tax collectors in ripping off the poor.  He did not miraculously make a condom out of dirt and give it to the prostitute telling her to be sure to practice safe sex next time.  When he did not sentence the adulterous woman to stoning he did not condone adultery--rather he told her to "go and sin no more."  Helping with the wedding arrangements for a gay "wedding" ceremony would be to help someone thought to be sinning in their sinning. It was a clear violation of the baker's conscience.  And unless you think the Bible, Christian tradition, and pretty much every great philosopher and thinker in every major religious tradition in the history of the world are wrong (and instead go with your own or our society's feelings from like, 5 minutes ago), the man's conscience was correct.

Jim Crow Laws for Gays and Lesbians?  Are you kidding me?  Jim Crow laws were laws mandating racial segregation.  The laws forced people to be segregated.  Those laws were a disgrace.  But so are the current laws mandating that businesses can't refuse service on grounds of sexual lifestyle.  Just as the government has no legitimate authority to mandate racial segregation, the government has no legitimate authority to mandate that a business can't discriminate on the basis of religious convictions.  Perhaps Christians would do well to go to jail, if they must, to wake our country from its dogmatic slumber.

Undesigned Coincidences in the Bible

Philosopher Timothy McGrew has a nice series of short articles on undesigned coincidences in the Bible.  A link to all six of them can be found in the middle of this webpage:
Apologetics 315

"[T]here is a third kind of evidence that lies within Scripture itself, a kind that requires only attention to one’s own Bible and a willingness to read thoughtfully. This is the evidence of undesigned coincidences.

The term itself, coined over two centuries ago, is perhaps not the best description for modern readers, since we rarely use the word “undesigned” today. But the meaning is not terribly difficult to grasp. Take two texts (for the sake of the argument one need assume nothing about them except that they both purport to recount some historical events) and compare them. Of course, they might have nothing in common; in that case, there is no material for this sort of argument. But they might touch on some of the same characters and events. If so, we may examine them to see whether the manner in which they discuss these things fits together obliquely, in ways not likely to have been deliberately chosen for that effect—undesignedly."

Biblical Paradox?

[UPDATE: This post suffers from some cyber leprosy that I cannot seem to get rid of without a Ph.D. in HTML.  Still, we are called to love the lepers even if hating the leprosy.]

Philippians 2:3 is an interesting verse, but the last part of it is difficult (for me) to understand, and, at least as it is often translated, could easily be interpreted as paradoxical.

NIV: Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, rather in humility value others above yourselves
ESV: ... count others more significant than yourselves
NASB: ...regard one another as more important than yourselves
KJB: ...let each esteem other better than themselves

Let us for the moment understand "regarding one as" as "believing one is". And let us suppose additionally that Paul is saying that humility consists in considering or believing another is more valuable, important, esteemed, and significant than oneself, and let us suppose that a Christian community should believe Philippians 2:3 and understand it in this way.  Then here is a paradox: