Ichthus77

“‘If we take in our hand any volume: of divinity or school of metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames; For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.’ [Hume] If, in order to be meaningful, a statement must be either mathematically sustained or scientifically verifiable, then David Hume’s statement itself is meaningless. It is a philosophical solvent that dissolves itself. The emperor has no clothes, while boasting the finest threads,” (*p.63).

“…the statistical probability of forming even a single enzyme, the building block of the gene, which is in turn the building block of the cell, is 1 in 10^40,000. The translation of that figure is that it would require more attempts for the formation of one enzyme than there are atoms in all the stars of all the galaxies in the entire known universe,” (*p.65).

“How does a universe, which itself developed from nothing, impart into every human strand of DNA enough specific information to cover six hundred thousand pages of information from nothing?” (*p. 66).

“Think of this for a moment. In eighteen milliliters of water (about two swallows full), there are 6 x 10^23 molecules of H2O. How much is 6 x 10^23? A good computer can carry out ten million counts per second. It would take that computer two billion years to count to 6 x 10^23.

“Look at it another way. A stack of five hundred sheets of paper is two to three inches high. How high would the stack be if it had 6 x 10^23 sheets? That stack would reach from the earth to the sun, not once, but more than one million times,” (*p. 80-81).

*All quotes above from Ravi Zacharias’ “Jesus Among Other Gods” (Thomas Nelson, 2000).

Spiders know how to make webs, birds know how to make nests, salmon and other animals know how to migrate, and many other animals just know what they are supposed to do without having to learn — and we wonder at how they know…but nature knows how to make spiders, birds, and all the rest of the living, breathing animals…including human beings with all of our thoughts and art and science and… is it not reasonable to ask: “How does nature know?” Are not living things more awesome artifacts than webs and nests?

Webs for spiders and nests for birds, I understand. But what evolutionary purpose does the evolution of living things serve…. for nature?

Go here: http://goldennumber.net

[disclaimer: not equating God with scientifically manipulatable nature ]

Technically, nature doesn’t “know”. One could also say that birds and spiders also do not technically “know”. Nature is a being… many beings… like birds and spiders… but it is also just stuff like nests and webs… Or would you say birds and spiders are not beings, either… that they are also just stuff like nests and webs… the question still remains… how can nature do life… how can birds and spiders do nests and webs… especially if they don’t technically “know”?

To me the machinistic nature of nature is like the paint of a painter — and God is the painter, and we are His co-painters (maybe this is why there is randomness… to squeeze in all the creative efforts into the machinery… through the pores of randomness).

There is no rational explanation for a prophet receiving the future if both A) past, present, and future are fixed (necessary to accept when accepting fulfilled prophecy) and B) there is no God to inform the prophet of the future. Why? Because if the past, present, and future are fixed, they cannot “unfix” without God’s allowing it. Prophecy is a form of unfixing, in that a prophet is informed of the future, rather than the future being beyond the prophet. [And I am not talking about coincidences, good guesses or manipulating states of affairs so that they come about the way they are ‘predicted’ to come about.] This won’t have any meaning for you if you have never experienced fulfilled prophecy, or don’t have faith in the fulfilled prophecy of the Bible. But — if there is fulfilled prophecy (if you can grant that), that means the past, present, and future are fixed, and there is a God to inform the prophet of the future. If there is no God — then one is justified in asking for an explanation. If there IS a God, however, it makes perfect sense. And there is a God.

If the past still exists to the future, and the future still exists to the past — is the matter of the future the same matter of the past… does the ‘no energy is created or destroyed’ law apply to the whole universe… where does the past/future matter exist, or is the past matter also the now and future matter?

Everything said about fulfilled prophecy could and has been said about all “created somethings” — if there is no God, there is something missing from the picture that the picture implies by its mere existence. It is an absurdity to even think “if there is no God”.

The only thing left is to say the past, present, and future are not fixed, and explain how the future leaked into the past (present) (via the prophet’s mind)… and why, everytime it does that, it just somehow comes out sounding like a message from God!

If the universe always existed (and that is not proven), it doesn’t need a creator for its existence but it needs a creator for the fact that the past/present/future are mixed. Why it exists (whether or not it always existed or had a beginning) still seems to be a good question to me.

If stuff is spontaneously coming into existence to this day, there is the question of how (since it hasn’t always existed, it needs a creator). It would be kinda funny if the quirky results of all the experiments quantum physicists are doing are examples of God messing around… and them never being able to figure that out. Talk about hilarious.

Even if you insist the material universe always existed — the mixing (of past, present, future) is creative action on the part of the Creator. Therefore, the universe is created and needs a Creator… but the Creator is not created and therefore does not need a Creator. As the Transcendent, He is the “More beyond which there is no more,” [338, Introduction to Philosophy / A Christian Perspective (Geisler, Feinberg)]. We are commanded to examine everything and hold on to that which is good. God is “that which is good”. God is what you get at the end of all the examining. There comes a point when you rest in that.

***

I think it’s pretty cool that humans can’t make life from scratch, the way the universe can. We can only reproduce the already existent raw material, naturally or with technology (test tube, cloning) — but never once have we made life from scratch. We do not have tools tiny enough for such a big project.

And I wonder if any human has considered making conditions favorable in some part of space in order to birth a star? Yeah right, like we’ll ever be able to do that. All we can do is watch the Master.

This may come out sort of mumbled.

This morning the sermon focused on authenticity. I had no pen and no paper, which is unusual, so I’m having to write this from sleepy memory, and quickly.

But, basically the idea is that thinking of God’s truth as only for the seminary graduates and pastors, and only relevant on Sundays in church, is making the same mistake Plato makes about a higher world of Forms.

God’s truth is applicable in the everyday, and accessible to every person.

We can question it and test it, because it will stand up to the test, and we are commanded to test all things, and hold on to what is good. And we should live and proclaim God’s excellent, authentic truths everyday and to everyone, if we are to be authentic.

The message was backed up with verses out of 1 Peter 2, Acts 2, and somewhere else I forget. The ONE time I forget pen and paper…!!!

***

Well, fortunately Pastor had another go at the sermon, and fleshed it out a bit – and this time I had pen and paper.

The relevant verses were Acts 2:42-47; Matt 5:13-16 and 9:9-13.

Notes I took (not all of the words came out of the Pastor’s mouth… I reword things to fit with what I already know… I memorize it better that way):

Two sermons in the series that I missed:
Authentic truth – Jesus’ life interprets; bounce it off others, don’t be afraid to question
Authentic people – who we are in Christ

Where we are at in the series:
Authentic mission – proclaim excellencies (authentic truth) to God in worship, to believers in discipleship, and to unbelievers in evangelism

Plains of Plato (not good) – don’t leave authentic truth to “professionals”
Steeple mentality – “come to us” is wrong – GO… impact the culture… to whom did Jesus go?

Matthew 9:9-13 —
1. Matthew (dreaded tax collector, went on to write gospel of Matthew) at the top of “most unlikely to succeed” list (see “Lord calls the lowly” thread – this is how God works… a form of miracle)
2. Jesus kicked back with him on his own turf
3. Jesus took the disciples with Him
4. Jesus didn’t worry about what the churchy people thought
5. Matthew 9:13 go and learn what this means
6. religiosity misses the point, I desire your heart (love people)

Show mercy: take initiative to go to them and help… think of the baggage associated with Matthew. Look at the results of what happened in his life. Redemption.

Great Commission is faith building and we are commanded to do it.

Christianity is all about a personal relationship with our Savior… and, because the point is love, community is important. God’s truths are subject to (and stand up to) peer review in an authentic community…

“Authentic Community” notes

Luke 6:12-37; Acts 2:42-47

Problems with living missionally, without at the same time living in authentic community: corruption, not knowing all the answers yourself, persecution

Problems if you don’t live missionally in authentic community: become bored believer, in danger of drifting away

Living in authentic community: getting together around a common theme: Christ… transcends location. Only takes 2.

Jesus’ authentic community went from the 70 to the 12 disciples, to the closer disciples like John and Peter. After choosing the 12, he lays out the values of the community, which have a “one shoulder in/one shoulder out” mentality… an inward and an outward focus.

Without the outward focus, the community can become sectarian, a cult, and encounter all the problems of not living missionally (see above). Without the inward focus you have all the problems of living missionally without authentic community (see above).

One shoulder in: In the beatitudes it says blessed are you who acknowledge that you are weak, and woe to you who consider yourselves strong (see my “Lord calls the lowly” thread). Those who acknowledge their weakness open themselves to something greater – God and authentic community. Those who think they are strong, settle for less, rob themselves of God and authentic community. [ An aside to Satyr – in the ‘evil’ thread, you mention innocent/guilty are concepts invented by the weak. I’ve heard others say they are concepts invented by the strong to control the weak. What do you say about that? This sermon points out that an elite community is still community… still a type of herd. It seems like calling a larger herd a herd, while belonging to a smaller herd, is like calling a larger restaurant full of many people a restaurant, while eating in a smaller restaurant with less people in it. Make it sound like an insult, and people, if they don’t stop and think about it, will get all defensive over nothing. Saying, “Yeah, that’s just it, though…. They don’t stop and think,” misses the fact that you are the one pointing out a speck in their eye that is not a speck but a pupil, when you have in your own eye a log that is not a log. That is utterly pointless – more pointless than failing to stop and think. It is an abuse of thought. ]

One shoulder out: Also in the beatitudes it points out that even sinners lend/love to those who repay/love them back…. And Jesus says to go beyond that and lend/love expecting nothing in return – lend/love in a way that transcends this world. From where I sit, Nietzsche was saying “go back” not “go beyond”. If you disagree, say why.

In vv. 17-19 before beatitudes, you see Jesus living missionally and in authentic community at the same time.

SIGNS

I. Under What Conditions Does God Grant Signs?
II. Studying the Concordance on Signs
III. How Do We Know a Sign is Genuine or False?
IV. Various Camps Regarding Signs
V. Hume / Miracles
VI. Spinoza / Miracles
VII. Signs are Supernatural, not Unnatural
VIII. The Purpose of Signs

I. Under What Conditions Does God Grant Signs?

Following quotes taken from Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible, 1999.

1. God gives signs without us having to ask for one (note, not all verses
in this section illustrate the main point):

Exodus 3:12 NASB note: “sign” A visible proof or guarantee that what God
has promised, He would surely fulfill.

Exodus 4:8 NASB note: “sign” A supernatural event or phenomenon designed to demonstrate authority, provide assurance (Josh. 2:12-13), bear testimony (Is. 19:19-20), give warning (Num. 17:10) or encourage faith.

2. God gives signs when we ask:

Luke 1:18 NASB note: “How will I know this for certain?” Like Abraham (Gen. 15:8), Gideon (Judg. 6:11-40) and Hezekiah (2 Kin. 20:8), Zacharias asked for a sign (cf. 1 Cor. 1:22).

See Gen. 24:7, 40 – Abraham’s oldest servant asks for a sign when seeking wife for Isaac.

All of these who asked for a sign, were given a sign, if you count
Zacharias’ muteness (due to his disbelief) and regained speech as a sign.

3. God may not give signs if we ask with wrong motives:

Luke 11:29 NASB note: “seeks for a sign” On several occasions Jews asked for miraculous signs (v. 16, Matt. 12:38, Mark 8:11), but Jesus rejected their requests because they had wrong motives.

Mark 8:11 NASB note: The Pharisees wanted more compelling proof of Jesus’ divine authority than His miracles, but He refused to perform such a sign because the request came from unbelief. [ question: does this note imply there is a difference between signs and miracles? Or is it just saying the Pharisees were not satisfied with the wonders they were already witnessing, and wanted to see something even more wonderful? That’s my guess. ] Oh… I just read something else which answers my question! :0) Read on…

Luke 11:16 NASB note: Jesus had just healed a mute. Here was their sign, and they would not recognize it.

Note:

God has sovereignty over the lots cast by pagans in the Jonah narrative.

I don’t think we should be surprised that God talks to pagans, considering His heart for them (and His great commission to reach them). And I don’t think we should see signs and miracles, in and of themselves, as signs of evil and rebellion. After all, there were so many signs all throughout the Bible, and many still experience them (especially in the mission field).

But I do agree that the Pharisees who sought a sign… sign after sign after sign, never satisfied… they weren’t trying to “test the spirits” by demanding a sign from Jesus, who had already healed many and performed many miracles… they were only demanding a sign (who are you to convict us?) to escape facing the uncomfortable truth. You don’t have to have signs to face the truth.

But that does not rule out that God will use signs to reach some people, if it is His will. We wouldn’t be living in light of the resurrection (the sign of Jonah) otherwise.

II. Studying the Concordance on Signs

In Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible / Subject Index, look up: “Miracle” “Miracles of the Bible-Old Testament” “Miracles of the Bible-New Testament” “Miracles pretended, or false” (see below) “Sign-an outward token having spiritual significance” “Signify-to make known by signs”

In the Strong’s concordance, look up the occurrence of these words in verses: Miracle, Miracles, Signified, Signifieth, Signifying, Signs

“Miracles pretended, or false” (freebie)
Egyptian magicians (Ex. 7:11-22, NASB note: either through sleight of hand or by means of demonic power) (Ex. 8:18,19)

In support of false religions (Deut. 13:1-3) NASB note: Eventual fulfillment is one test of true prophecy (18:21-22), but the more stringent rule given here guards against intelligent foresight masquerading as prophecy and against coincidental fulfillment of the predictions of false prophets.

Witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28:9-12) NASB note: The episode has been understood in many different ways, among them the following: 1. God permitted the spirit of Samuel to appear to the woman. 2. The woman had contact with an evil or devilish spirit in the form of Samuel by whom she was deceived or controlled. 3. By using parapsychological powers such as telepathy or clairvoyance, the woman was able to discern Saul’s thoughts and picture Samuel in her own mind. Whatever the explanation of this mysterious affair, the medium was used in some way to convey to Saul that the impending battle would bring death, would dash his hopes for a dynasty and would conclude his reign with a devastating defeat of Israel that would leave the nation at the mercy of the Philistines, the very people against whom he had struggled all his years as king. And this would come, as Samuel had previously announced (15:26,28), because of his unfaithfulness to the Lord.

False prophets (Matt. 7:22,23) (Matt 24:24)
False christs (Matt. 24:24)
Deceive the ungodly (Rev. 13:13) (Rev. 19:20)
Sign of apostasy (2 Thess. 2:3, 9 NASB note: Satan empowers him with miracles, signs and wonders) (Rev. 13:13)

III. How Do We Know a Sign is Genuine or False?

Today, we can say that if a sign contradicts what God has revealed of Himself, then you know that sign is false and not from God. But what about before God had revealed anything of Himself? Why trust the old miracles, signs, and wonders – considering Satan can appear as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14)… not to mention the reality of mental illness? Just remember Deuteronomy 13:1-4 – that is the litmus to keep from being deceived – that is the key. Remember it.

For example, I was asked recently in a philosophy chat forum, if I walked into my back yard and saw a burning bush and it started talking to me… would I have faith that it was God talking to me (as opposed to, say, just a delusion)? I answered that I would believe it was God if He told me the truth. They asked if that was how Moses knew the burning bush was God… because He told him the truth? It is really interesting to read that passage and think of all the doubts running through Moses’ mind, some that God was addressing before Moses even spoke them. Read it: Exodus 3:1-4:17. Moses was quite skeptical.

IV. Various Camps Regarding Signs

“People break down into two groups when they experience something lucky. Group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. [ Deep down ] they see it as a sign-evidence that [ whatever’s going to happen ] there’s someone out there watching out for them, [ someone there to help them ]. Group number two sees it as just pure luck, a happy turn of chance. Deep down, they feel that whatever happens, they’re on their own. So what you have to ask yourself is: What kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or put the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences?” – Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) from the M. Night Shyamalan movie “Signs”.

Which of the following options would you choose?

Option 1: All remarkable coincidences happen for no real reason at all. The imagination injects meaning — simply a case of self-suggestion. For example, you notice something out of your ordinary; its weirdness triggers your psyche to start automatically scanning for it everywhere (even if unaware) to make the potentially threatening ‘unknown’ into a benign ‘known’.

Option 2: Many events are acausally (as far as we can observe cause-and-effect) connected and are meaningfully coincident (rather than due to chance) – they are synchronic. The explanation lies in quantum mechanics – according to the way the universe is structured, the mind of the observer acausally affects the objective universe, without any control over it, and without requiring the assistance of a Middle Man.

Option 3: The real reason synchronicity occurs is due to an interaction between our minds and the Creator of the universe. Bringing about and directing us to notice a remarkable (highly improbable) coincidence [for example: the co-reoccurrence of multiple symbols that had been (re)occurring separately] is an artistic creation of meaningful communication (the essential communication being “I love you no matter what and I will never leave you or forget you”). Numbers 11:29, 1 Corinthians 14.

Option 4: What’s love got to do… got to do with it? (…aaaand we’re back – at option 1).

…

Having recently read Moby Dick (Melville) and Crime and Punishment (Dostoevsky) – I noticed they both drop the word “presentiment” into their novels (as well as monomania and a few other off-topic similarities). I find it curious that there are people in the world who experience miracles like this in real life – they do not just read it in novels – and they do not conclude that God authored it for them. This leads me to believe the phenomenon they experience is Satanic/demonic in origin, a counterfeit – or foreshadowing by God that they won’t realize until later in life. It would be very easy for a demon to deceive a person that they had received the future (and that God is not necessary for genuine foreknowledge to occur), if you consider that demons stalk, study and intimately know their humans’ habits and time-honored rationalizations. This is just a warning. Luke 11:35.

Important not to forget: the sign is not what is important – what the sign points to is important. If it points away from God, no matter how miraculous, it’s a false sign. Deuteronomy 13:1-4, Matthew 6:21-23.

V. Hume / Miracles

The following is the blending of two sections of Josh McDowell’s “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” (Thomas Nelson, 1999). The two sections are: 1. Chapter 12: The Presupposition of Anti-Supernaturalism / Science and Miracles / Hume’s Philosophical Argument (pp. 360-361), and 2. Chapter 39: Defending Miracles / Answering Objections to Miracles / David Hume Claims that Miracles Are Incredible (pp. 667-670). The only thing I excluded was a small quote by Westphal.

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. … Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior,” (Hume, ECHU, 126-127 or 144-146, 148).

Hume is not arguing that miracles are impossible because the laws of nature cannot be broken. That sort of argument, as we discovered with Spinoza, begs the question. Hume, as an empiricist, is limited to an inductive approach to reality, notwithstanding truisms. And induction yields, at best, probability, not absolute certainty. Rather, Hume is utilizing a particular argumentative style known as reduction ad absurdum. This form of argument seeks to establish that the opposing view results in absurdity. Thus, Hume first grants the theistic claim that miracles are rare events, and then he shows how improbable they are in light of the regularity of nature’s laws. That is, Hume argues that miracles are deemed highly improbable because the natural laws of which miracles must be exceptions inform us of the greater evidence.

Hume’s argument can be summarized as follows:

1. A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence.
2. Natural law is by definition a description of regular occurrence.
3. The evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare.
4. Wise individuals always base belief on the greater evidence.
5. Therefore, wise individuals should never believe in miracles. (Geisler, MMM, 27-28).

Hume’s notion of uniform experience either begs the question or is guilty of special pleading. As Geisler notes, “Hume speaks of ‘uniform’ experience in his argument against miracles, but this either begs the question or else is special pleading. It begs the question if Hume presumes to know the experience is uniform in advance of looking at the evidence. For how can we know that all possible experience will conform to naturalism, unless we have access to all possible experiences, including those in the future? If, on the other hand, Hume simply means by ‘uniform’ experience the select experiences of some persons (who have not encountered a miracle), then this is special pleading,” (Geisler, MMM, 28).

Instead of weighing the evidence in favor of miracles, Hume simply plays statistical games [adds evidence against them]. Geisler puts it this way:

“Hume does not really weigh evidence for miracles; rather, he adds evidence against them. Since death occurs over and over again and resurrection occurs only on rare occasions at best, Hume simply adds up all the deaths against the very few alleged resurrections and rejects the latter. … But this does not involve weighing the evidence to determine whether or not a given person, say Jesus of Nazareth … has been raised from the dead. It is simply adding up the evidence of all other occasions where people have died and have not been raised and using it to overwhelm any possible evidence that some person who died was brought back to life. … Second, this argument equates quantity of evidence and probability. It says, in effect, that we should always believe what is most probable (in the sense of “enjoying the highest odds”). But this is silly. On these grounds a dice player should not believe the dice show three sixes on the first roll, since the odds against it are 1,635,013,559,600 to 1! What Hume seems to overlook is that wise people base their belief on facts not simply on odds. Sometimes the “odds” against an event are high (based on past observation), but the evidence for the event is otherwise very good (based on current observation or reliable testimony). Hume’s argument confuses quantity of evidence with the quality of evidence. Evidence should be weighed, not added,” (Geisler, MMM, as cited in Geivett, IDM, 78-79).

Moreover, Hume confuses the probability of historical events with the way in which scientists employ probability to formulate scientific law (3rd paragraph) [and overlooks the importance of indirect evidence in support of miracles (2nd paragraph)]. As Nash explains:

“First, Hume cleverly manipulates the theist into admitting that he (the theist) must believe in natural order since without such an order, there cannot be any way of recognizing exceptions to the order. Then, Hume hammers the theist with the obvious fact that the probability for the theist’s alleged violations of natural laws must always be much less than the probability that the exception has not occurred. …

“Hume was wrong when he suggested that miracles are supported only by direct evidence cited in the testimony of people who claim to have witnessed them. There can also be important indirect evidence for miracles. Even if some person (Jones, let us say) did not observe some alleged miracle (thus making him dependent on the testimony of others who did), Jones may still be able to see abiding effects of the miracle. Suppose the miracle in questions concerns the healing of a person who has been blind for years. Jones may be dependent on the testimony of others that they saw the healing occur, but perhaps Jones is now able to discern for himself that the formerly blind person can now see. The situation is analogous to that of someone who hears the testimony that a tornado has ravaged his city. Since he was not an eyewitness to the storm, he is dependent on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were there. But when this person arrives on the scene and sees the incredible devastation—cars on top of houses, other houses blow apart, trees uprooted—all this functions as indirect evidence to confirm the eyewitness testimony of others. In this way, certain effects of a miracle that exist after the event can serve as indirect evidence that the event happened. …

“Critics of Hume have complained that his argument is based on a defective view of probability. For one thing, Hume treats the probability of events in history like miracles in the same way he treats the probability of the recurring events that give rise to the formulation of scientific laws. In the case of scientific laws, probability is tied into the frequency of occurrence; the more times scientists observe similar occurrences under similar conditions, the greater the probability that their formulation of the law is correct. But historical events including miracles are different; the events of history are unique and nonrepeatable. Therefore, treating historical events including miracles with the same notion of probability the scientist uses in formulating his laws ignore a fundamental difference between the two subject matters,” (Nash, FR, 230, 233-234).

British Philosopher C.D. Broad appealed to indirect evidence to support the cornerstone miracle of the Christian faith—the resurrection of Christ:

“We have testimony to the effect that the disciples were exceedingly depressed at the time of the Crucifixion; that they had extremely little faith in the future; and that, after a certain time, this depression disappeared, and they believed that they had evidence that their Master had risen from the dead Now none of these alleged facts is in the least odd or improbable, and we have therefore little ground for not accepting them on the testimony offered us. But having done this, we are faced with the problem of accounting for the facts which we have accepted. What caused the disciples to believe, contrary to their previous conviction, and in spite of their feeling of depression, that Christ had risen from the dead? Clearly, one explanation is that he actually had arisen. And this explanation accounts for the facts so well that we may at least say that the indirect evidence for the miracle is far and away stronger than the direct evidence,” (Broad, HTCM, 91-92).

Another strong rebuttal against Hume’s position that “nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature” is made by C.S. Lewis. Lewis cogently answers Hume’s assertion [exposes the circular character of Hume’s use of “uniform experience”]: “Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely ‘uniform experience’ against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle,” (Lewis, M, 102 or 105).

“The critical historian, confronted with some story of a miracle, will usually dismiss it out of hand … to justify his procedure, he will have to appeal to precisely the principle which Hume advanced: the ‘absolute impossibility of miraculous nature’ or the events attested must, ‘in the eyes of all reasonable people … alone be regarded as a sufficient refutation,’” (Flew, M, as cited in Edwards, EP, 351-352). In other words, it is a circular argument: If miracles are impossible, then the report of any miraculous event must be false, and therefore, miracles are impossible.”

VI. Spinoza / Miracles

The following is an excerpt from Josh McDowell’s “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” (Thomas Nelson, 1999). The excerpt is specifically the section Answering Objections to Miracles / Benedict Spinoza Claims that Miracles Are Impossible from Chapter 39: Defending Miracles.

Benedict Spinoza declares that “nature cannot be contravened, but … she preserves a fixed an immutable order.” In fact, “If anyone asserted that God acts in contravention to the laws of nature, he, ipso facto, would be compelled to assert that God acted against His own nature—an evident absurdity,” (Spinoza, ATPT, 82-83).

It is important to note that Spinoza’s rational pantheism determined his position on miracles. For Spinoza, transcendence is rejected because nature and God are ontologically identical. God is all; and all is God. Accordingly, if God is immutable and the laws of nature are a modal quality of God, then the laws of nature are immutable. Hence, a miracle is an absurdity, for it would entail a mutation (violation) of an immutable order, namely, God’s very essence.

Spinoza’s view can be summarized as follows:

“1. Miracles are violations of natural laws.
2. Natural laws are immutable.
3. It is impossible to violate immutable laws.
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible,” (Geisler, MMM, 15).

A miracle is not a contravention of nature, but an introduction of a new event into nature by a supernatural cause. Nature is not surprised when an event is caused by the supernatural, but hastens to accommodate the new event. As Lewis explains:

“If events ever come from beyond Nature altogether, she will be no more incommoded by them. Be sure she will rush to the point where she is invaded, as the defensive forces rush to a cut in our finger, and there hasten to accommodate the newcomer. … The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern. It does not violate the law’s proviso, “If A, then B”: it says, “But this time instead of A, A2,” and Nature, speaking through all her laws replies, “Then B2” and naturalizes the immigrant, as she well knows how. She is an accomplished hostess,” (Lewis, M, 60).

According to Stephen Evans, the description of miracle as a “break” or “interruption” with respect to natural law incorrectly presumes God’s absence from creation prior to His miraculous activity. But God is constantly present to His creation as the sustaining, necessary Being. Hence, whereas miracles entail special acts of God, nature is still held into being by the normal activity of God. As Evans explains:

“It is, however, somewhat incorrect to call such special actions “breaks” or “interruptions” in the natural order. Such terminology implies that God is not normally present in the natural order; but if God exists at all, then he must be regarded as responsible for the whole of that natural order. The contrast, then, is not between “nature” and the very unusual divine “interventions” into nature, but between God’s normal activity in upholding the natural order and some special activity on God’s part. Thus, when God does a miracle, he does not suddenly enter a created order from which he is normally absent. Rather, he acts in a special way in a natural order which he continually upholds and in which he is constantly present,” (Evans, WB, 88).

Moreover, Spinoza’s argument begs the question. Spinoza’s definition of the laws of nature (as immutable) necessarily precludes the possibility of miracles. Based on his rational method, rather than on empirical observation, Spinoza assumed a priori that nature is inviolable. As Normal Geisler explains: “Spinoza’s Euclidean (deductive) rationalism suffers from an acute case of petitio principii (begging the question). For, as David Hume notes, anything validly deducible from premises must have already been present in those premises from the beginning. But if the antisupernatural is already presupposed in Spinoza’s rationalistic premises, then it is no surprise to discover him attacking the miracles of the Bible.” Geisler adds, “What Spinoza needed to do, but did not, was to provide some sound argument for his rationalistic presuppositions.” Spinoza, “spins them out in the thin air of rational speculation, but they are never firmly attached to the firm ground of empirical observation,” (Geisler, MMM, 18, 21).

VII. Signs are Supernatural, not Unnatural

From God’s perspective, there are no miracles. It is unreasonable to call anything you experience unnatural, because if it really were, it would not be experienced in the natural universe. Therefore, supernatural does not equal unnatural — it means there is more to nature than our conceptual frameworks have allowed for previously. But if you’re saying God does not communicate with what to us seem as miracles — then you’re wrong.

I would call “business as usual” the standard miracle that people are so used to, they don’t consider it a miracle. Only when there is a radical break in “business as usual” do they label something a miracle…. but such breaks are just little blips of miracle within the giant unrecognized miracle…

“A miracle is an act of God in the natural world that confirms the message of God through His prophet or apostle (Heb. 2:3-4). Miracles are automatically possible in a theistic world where there is a sovereign God beyond the world in control of its processes and laws. Miracles are not contrary to nature; rather, they go beyond natural events. Natural law is the way God regularly operates in His world; miracles are the way He acts occasionally. Since God is all-powerful, He can do anything that is not a contradiction. Therefore, miracles are possible,” (380, Geisler and Feinberg, “Intro. to Philo. / A Christian Perspective”).

“Supernaturalism is a third implication of theism. The naturalist who does not believe in God considers the universe to be ‘the whole show.’ The theist, by contrast, believes that there is more—namely a supernatural realm. The theist believes that the world is radically dependent on an all-powerful God who created and who continually sustains the world. If this is true, it follows logically that such a God can also intervene in the world. This kind of special intervention in the world is called a miracle.
Theists do not believe that natural laws are fixed and immutable and, hence, inviolable. They believe that natural laws are descriptions of the regular way God works in His creation, not prescriptions of how He must work. Miracles, then, are events manifesting the irregular or special way God works in the world. It is essential to theism to maintain the possibility of miracles. In short, if there is a God who can act in the world, then it follows that there can be special acts of God (miracles) in the world,” (273, ibid).

“The deist’s strong view of scientific natural law is now discarded by modern science. Scientists no longer speak of unbreakable prescriptive ‘laws’ but of descriptive ‘maps’ or ‘models.’ The universe is no longer ‘closed’ but is open to the unusual and the irregular. Therefore, from the scientific point of view there is no reason that miraculous events cannot be a subclass of the ‘unusual’ in nature. To be sure miracles will be more than merely unusual; the will have moral and theological characteristics as well. But a miracle will be at least a scientifically unusual event. And in this sense miracles are not unscientific,” (277, ibid).

VIII. The Purpose of Signs

“Healing the World

“I don’t want to be too hard on people who struggle with the idea of God’s intervention in the natural order. Miracles are hard to believe in, and they should be. In Matthew 28 we are told that the apostles met the risen Jesus on a mountainside in Galilee. ‘When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted’ (verse 17). That is a remarkable admission. Here is the author of an early Christian document telling us that some of the founders of Christianity couldn’t believe the miracle of the resurrection, even when they were looking straight at him with their eyes and touching him with their hands. There is no other reason for this to be in the account unless it really happened.

“The passage shows us several things. It is a warning not to think that only we modern, scientific people have to struggle with the idea of the miraculous, while ancient, more primitive people did not. The apostles responded like any group of modern people—some believed their eyes and some didn’t. It is also an encouragement to patience. All the apostles ended up as great leaders in the church, but some had a lot more trouble believing than others.

“The most instructive thing about this text is, however, what it says about the purpose of Biblical miracles. They lead not simply to cognitive belief, but to worship, to awe and wonder. Jesus’ miracles in particular were never magic tricks, designed only to impress and coerce. You never see him say something like: ‘See that tree over there? Watch me make it burst into flames!” Instead, he used miraculous power to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and raise the dead. Why? We modern people think of miracles as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order. The Bible tells us that God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger, and death in it. Jesus has come to redeem where it is wrong and heal the world where it is broken. His miracles are not just proofs that he has power but also wonderful foretastes of what he is going to do with that power. Jesus’ miracles are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts, that the world we all want is coming,” (95-96, Keller, “The Reason for God / Belief in an Age of Skepticism”)

The selected reading shows how Christianity started out crossing class boundaries (as it does today), and suggests a better alternative to all-out revolution (as exemplified in modern aid programs funded with government and tithe money, and more so in the early church).

The Social Status of the Faith

Jesus himself and his first followers belonged to an essentially rural environment in Palestine, but within a decade of his death and resurrection, this culture had been largely left behind. Spreading out from Jerusalem, the gospel was planted primarily not in rural areas but in cities and towns. In a number of ways, this urban context was crucial to the expansion of the faith. In cities, people typically lived in very close proximity to one another; ideas traveled fast, and ways of living were closely observable. Given the very poor conditions in which the great majority of city-dwellers were housed, ill-health, disease, and death were constant realities, and every city contained large numbers of widows, orphans, and needy individuals. To many such people, the story of Jesus offered not only spiritual consolation and hope but also the present assistance of charity and the assurance of belonging within a family network.

It would be quite wrong to imagine, however, that the Jesus movement was essentially proletarian, made up primarily of the poor, the dispossessed, and the vulnerable. The charge that Christianity attracted only the weak, the vulgar, and the ignorant (or “women, children, slaves, and fools”) was commonly made by pagan critics in the second century and beyond, and this interpretation has had plenty of supporters in modern times, not least among scholars influenced by Marxist approaches to sociology. The evidence, however, is against it. Certainly the Nazarenes did not for the most part engage the attentions of the landed aristocrats, the senatorial class, or the rich equestrians of the Roman world. They, however, made up only a very small proportion of the ancient populace, and compared with them, more or less everyone was subject in some measure to the vagaries of economic circumstances. Very probably the Jesus movement did have some appeal for unskilled manual workers, hired menials, and laborers, and there were certainly constituencies of vulnerable believers for whom charitable collections and distribution of aid were necessary (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-9:15). The Pauline letters also give some instruction to slaves (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; cf. 1 Cor. 7:20-24). But the gospel appealed not only to the vulnerable; in fact, we have a greater degree of evidence of its effects upon those who represented what we might very loosely call the “middle” or “lower middle” classes than we have of conversions at the lowest levels on the social scale.

It is thus mistaken to suppose that those at the edges of society made up the core of Christianity’s followers. Although Paul states that “not many” of his converts in Corinth were “wise by human standard,” or “influential,” or “of noble birth” (1 Cor. 1:26), he also mentions in the same context other significant facts. Among the very few individuals he had baptized in the city were Crispus and Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14). Crispus, as the Jewish synagogue leader (Acts 18:8), was a man of some standing in his community, and Gaius was evidently of sufficient wealth to offer hospitality not only to Paul but to all the believers in Corinth (Rom. 16:23). Erastus, the city’s director of public works, a wealthy individual capable of financing civic schemes out of his own resources, is also notably cited among the Corinthian Christians (Rom. 16:23). It is in fact quite likely that some of the problems in the Corinthian church were attributable to tensions between individuals of different social strata, with different expectations about appropriate moral conduct. Even if they were not in a majority, the well-off or the successful in worldly terms were not entirely absent from the local body, and their attitudes may well have been a cause of resentment among more lowly members.

In Acts, we see the gospel achieving success or at least a sympathetic hearing from a number of figures broadly representative of the military, political, and economic elite, such as the Ethiopian treasurer (Acts 8:26-39), the centurion Cornelius (10:1-48), Manaen, “who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch” (13:1), Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus (13:7), and certain Greek women and men of prominent standing in Berea (17:12). Asian officials are described as Paul’s friends in Acts 19:31, and Paul is at home conversing with those in powerful positions, even if he does not persuade them of his message (24:24-26; 26:1-31). Although the proportion of socially prominent persons within the Jesus movement as a whole may have been small, it was not nonexistent.

The supposition that the poor and the uneducated are naturally more inclined to religious belief is in any case not borne out by the findings of more recent scholarship in the social sciences. Like every other movement that has emerged out of an existing religious culture, faith in Jesus must generally have taken root among those who were privileged enough in socioeconomic terms to be capable of giving serious consideration to the possibilities of immersing themselves in a new lifestyle. The privilege in question, of course, is relative: those who convert to a new faith need to be both in a position to understand the demands and opportunities it represents and at the same time sufficiently disaffected by their existing position within their inherited culture to be prepared to make a change. They will not be so lacking in physical security that they can give no thought to any religious message because they are preoccupied with the more pressing question of how they are going to stay alive, but they will also perceive that their present condition fails to satisfy their longings and needs. Had early Christianity been obviously a movement spearheaded by a restless proletariat or those with no sense of social belonging, it would almost certainly have been crushed by Rome at a very early date as a political threat. The fact that it was not suggests that it drew its converts from a wider cross-section of society.

Overall, the typical believer was in fact neither at the bottom nor at the top of the social pyramid but was likely to be an artisan, small trader, or skilled manual worker. Some such individuals were persons of reasonable wealth, as was probably the case with the tentmakers Priscilla and Aquila, who were able to move from city to city and act as patrons for both local believers and visiting evangelists (Rom. 16:3-4; 1 Cor. 16:19). Lydia, the first convert in Europe, was by background a merchant from Thyatira, dealing in luxury purple fabric, and she was of sufficient means to put up Paul, Silas, and their friends in her house in Philippi (Acts 16:13-15). The majority, however, were probably of more modest means—small-scale merchants, shopkeepers, and trades people with free status and adequate resources to manage some kind of reasonable life most of the time, barring disasters such as famines or the collapse of their local economies (the effects of which reached all but the very wealthiest)—but usually not people of significance or prestige within their society.

It may be that a greater degree of social mobility in cities such as the Roman colonies of Corinth and Philippi meant that in such places there were higher numbers of wealthy believers than elsewhere, and in the Hellenized cities of the East there were often significant numbers of prosperous Jews from whose ranks some converts were made. Figures such as the educated Jew of Alexandria, Apollos, were seemingly able to travel independently (Acts 18:24-28); Paul’s friend Barnabas, a Levite, had owned property in his native Cyprus (Acts 4:36-37). Like other believers (Acts 4:34), Barnabas had sold his land and donated the profits to the apostles. On his missionary endeavors he engaged, like Paul, in manual work in order to support himself (1 Cor. 9:6). But notably Paul says that he and Barnabas were unusual in that regard; the other apostles were apparently able to rely on the generosity of others. Wherever the economic resources of early Christianity came from, the movement was not confined to the meager assets of those who lived at the margins.

– pp.102-105 of Ivor J. Davidson’s “The Birth of the Church: from Jesus to Constantine, A.D. 30-312” (Baker Books, 2004).

[ Btw, Barnabas is a fascinating person to study. Besides his generosity and excellent work ethic noted above, he stood up for Paul when the apostles were too afraid of him, he is the cousin of John Mark, who wrote the gospel of Mark and over whom Barnabas and Paul had a temporary disagreement; he was mistaken for Zeus in Lystra, is a possible author of the New Testament book of Hebrews, and he was a big-time missionary – approved by the apostles to go to the gentiles with Paul. There’s more, but this is an aside. ]

An economically-relevant fact that is absolutely fascinating about the early church: because they were one in heart and soul, they shared common property:

Acts 2:41-45 — “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.”

Acts 4:32-37 — “And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need. Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”

It would be nice if everyone of wealth converted and gave their excess to fund the treatment and prevention of things like poverty, unemployment, hunger, disease, pollution, abuse, addiction, etcetera.

It would also be nice if certain (not all) people who are not filthy rich but do have all their physical needs met, would stop spreading the infection of greed by whining about revolution, and start helping out those who are truly in need. For me the motivation for that did not come until God saved me.

Contact your lawmakers on important issues:
http://vocusgr.vocus.com/GRSPACE2/WebPublish/controller.aspx?SiteName=FOTF&Definition=Home&XSL=Home&SV_Section=Home

Donate or volunteer:
http://www.networkforgood.org/volunteer

People decide their sexual preference depending on how aware they are of their options and of their ability to choose, with social norms and biological predispositions playing an influential, but not a determinate, role in the decision.

Arousal, subject to biological predispositions, is involuntary, but a conceptual framework shapes the way input is interpreted, and accepted or rejected due to volition. All humans have the capability of being aroused by either sex**. This does not mean we are all bisexual by default (by nature, at birth). Bisexuality is a developed preference. By default we have not yet developed preference. A conceptual framework or attitude or schemas which includes sexual preference is not present at birth, but is acquired over time after many experiences. How a human’s experience is different from the experience of other organisms, including other humans, is determined by how a human is biologically different from other organisms, including other humans, and by their environmental differences and the resulting differences in their conceptual frameworks (if the organism is capable of developing a conceptual framework). Social norms influence a person’s conceptual framework. The more we see homosexuality and bisexuality become socially accepted, and the more that information is integrated into the conceptual frameworks of individuals, the more likely a person will make a homosexual or bisexual interpretation if arousal results from input, and the less likely they will reject input interpreted as homosexual or bisexual, especially if they have been taught that their preference is determined biologically, though it is not. Different cultures can develop preferences for extremely different tasting foods, and individuals within such cultures are not bound to those preferences, but instead can acquire the preferences of other cultures, and the same is true of sexual preference.

If certain input (grasshopper) is interpreted as nonsexual (not for food), even though it causes arousal (hunger pangs in someone who has very little access to food), because there is no sexual conceptual framework within which to interpret it as sexual (the person and the person’s culture has never considered grasshoppers to be food), the arousal will most likely not factor as sexual attraction (the grasshopper will most likely conceptually remain non-food to the person, unless they are some sort of culinary genius). On the other hand, if certain input (grasshopper) results in arousal (hunger) and is interpreted as sexual (for food), because it is recognized as such in accordance with one’s background information (the person and the person’s culture consider it food), but within a sexual conceptual framework that rejects that certain type of sexual input (the person and the person’s culture consider it repulsive food reserved for those being tortured), the arousal will not be considered preferred sexual “attraction” (if the person eats it as a last resort or because they are forced, they won’t like it, though they may acquire a preference for it over time, considering it appeases their hunger pangs – then again, they may come to hate it even worse, as in the case of p.o.w.s who hate rice).

Regardless what input a person receives from their body, they have the ultimate decision on whether to accept or reject that input. It is not wise to ignore hunger pangs (the need to affiliate very closely) indefinitely, but it is possible to make your body wait until it is more convenient for you to eat (practice sexual discretion). It is also possible to choose healthy food (sex within a lifelong relationship) over junk food (casual sex), though one’s body may crave junk food over health food. One can sarcastically say to one’s body “You may want that, but I don’t want that because it is bad for me.” Another example is alcoholism. Genetically, some are more prone to alcoholism than others, but that does not determine that they will choose to become alcoholics and surrender willingly to their predisposition.

Social norms and biological factors, though they may influence sexual preference, do not necessarily determine it. As is the case in all other preferences, each individual is capable of exercising volition in their sexual preferences, despite genetic factors and social norms, as far as they are aware of their options and their ability to choose.

** “… Bem maintains, …every child, whether conforming or nonconforming, experiences ‘heightened physiological arousal in the presence of peers from whom he or she feels different.’” [Bem, D.J., Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103(2), 320-335)]. Note: Though the theory agrees preference is developed, it does not factor choice into the development. I therefore do not adopt it as-is. Source of quote (which I do not endorse): http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/96/8.29.96/sex_orientation.html

Christians consider homosexuality to be “junk food” (more like rat poisoning inside the junk food). Junk food isn’t bad because our bodies crave it (drives and cravings are not bad, the lack of controlling them is bad). Junk food is bad because it is loaded with stuff that has negative health effects and few positive health effects. This whole conversation is kind of a bummer. I prefer to look at the positive when I can — if you focus on that, there’s no room for the negative to spoil the view. I prefer to focus on how blessed I am in my marriage, and cultivate that relationship, rather than pondering all the mud-wallowing that messes up healthy marriages. Rather than focus on junk food, focus on healthy food. The Spartans, a warring society, practiced homosexuality between warriors, and, what’s worse, trained up their young boys in it. They actually thought it made them stronger.

But, are they around to boast about it now? Nope. But that’s not really the point. The point is love, which is a strength more important (in an eternal sense) than any other kind of strength.

Naturally and spiritually we function normally when we keep sex within the bounds of heterosexual marriage, and self-destruct (individually and as a society) when we go out of bounds. It’s like following the rules on the bottle of a prescription drug. If you need it, take it, and enjoy the benefits. If you don’t need it, stay celibate. If you take too much, there will be side effects — regardless if you think you can handle it.

This is an excerpt from Ravi Zacharias’ “Jesus Among Other Gods” (p. 149-150, Thomas Nelson, 2000) —

I was on the verge of quoting what Aleksander Solzhenitsyn once said, that the thin line between good and evil does not run through states or ideologies, but through the heart of every man and woman. … It is ironic, I think, that the city of Moscow bears the scars of the brutality of both Nazism and Napoleon’s exploits. There are reminders of what the Nazis did and markers of how far Napoleon came in his attempt to defeat Russia. Their names symbolize terror and war to the huge Soviet Empire. The still-vivid memories of their savageries make the Russian people ever skeptical of any power that threatens.

Yet, in an extraordinarily staggering statement about Jesus Christ, Napoleon said something that is almost unexcelled by any political leader. I quote it at length because of its incredible insight. … Napoleon expressed these thoughts while he was exiled on the rock of St. Helena. There, the conqueror of civilized Europe had time to reflect on the measure of his accomplishments. He called Count Montholon to his side and asked him, “Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?” The count declined to respond. Napoleon countered:

“Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him. … I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than a man. … I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me … but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts. … Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man’s creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This it is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ.”**

Whatever else one may say in response, it is difficult to explain this away as mere eloquence. In fact, it was to counter mere eloquence and such artificial power that Napoleon said what he did. With unbelievable insight, he saw how Jesus Christ conquered. It was not by force, but by winning the heart.

Napoleon understood Jesus better than Pilate did. Pilate probably had no clue what Jesus meant when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” or how far into the future this Christ would conquer–and that, without the methods by which empires are normally expanded, of which Rome was a prime example.

**Ravi Zacharias’ endnote on that quote reads “Quoted in Henry Parry Liddon, Liddon’s Bampton Lectures 1866 (London: Rivingtons, 1869), 148.”

This is just an excerpt from my final biology project. My goal was to describe how the organ systems of the body work together to maintain homeostasis, putting into practice all the known types of intelligence according to Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Here’s the excerpt from the “existentialist intelligence” exercise —

Healthy choices: How can we freely choose, despite being subject to so many biological mechanisms beyond our control, to help maintain our own homeostasis? The most obvious answer would be to eat a nutritious diet that avoids too much fat, sugar and sodium, drink plenty of water, abstain from drug use (including legal drugs like nicotine and alcohol), have sexual intercourse only with one’s faithful spouse, maintain a regular exercise program, get the required amount of sleep, avoid living in an area of high pollution, and avoid too much stress. Can you think of others? Avoiding too much stress, as well as all the other healthy choices, provides a link between biological and spiritual homeostasis. After all, biological homeostasis is a means to our existence, and not the end. Unhealthy choices with biological consequences are a symptom of a breakdown in spiritual homeostasis. There is an objective definition for biological and spiritual homeostasis and objective ways of maintaining them. Spiritual homeostasis is a loving relationship with God and eachother, and He has shown us that He loves us, warts and all, by taking our place on the cross. Spiritual homeostasis, if we accept it, produces Golden Rule choices between ourselves and eachother – healthy choices which result in biological homeostasis. Recall in the musical exercise, the question: If your state of homeostasis were a song – what would it be? Perhaps you would have to compose a new tune, or a collection of new tunes, for the occasion? Perhaps you are not in a state of homeostasis – is there an appropriate tune floating in the background music of your mind? Now apply that question to your spiritual state.