22 July 2010

Can we talk about a world promised by Jesus Christ?

I always say, if you can dream something you can do it. Our ability to think of a state of affairs that is different and/or better than the current state of affairs, is truly miraculous. It always feels as if God is placing a spell over me, but then I realize that it is simply the fact that I am created in his image and my response should be to thank Him. Just think how wonderfully complex, beautiful and awesome God's dream for his creation is! Christ made it possible to dream and the Holy Spirit execute God's dream in our soul.



There are a few pertinent questions that I would like to ask about this dream of God, but before I do that I need to make a distinction between God's plan and the reality of our sinful, even hateful, acts in this world. God has given us a dream in our soul, but what is the state of our soul's influence on this world? How much of Christ's dream for all people on earth has we still alive in our soul? How much of the voice of the Holy Spirit do we still hear?


It has been some time now that I have been struggling with the idea that Christians have stopped dreaming about a better future with Jesus Christ. Our dreams stopped on two fronts:
  1. We stopped dreaming about a future with Christ in a restored creation in God's presence. i.e. the New Jerusalem.
  2. We also stopped dreaming about Christian's influencing the world for the better of all man kind. i.e. the task of the universal church of Christ on earth
I would like to call this "Christianity loosing its future optimism". This might very well have happened because most Christians subscribe to humanism in some form or another. This might be because:
  1. Christians have became obsessed with the successes that grew out of Western Civilization ,
  2. Christians being disillusioned by the plethora of world views outside the old bastion of Christianity,
  3. The astonishing success of logic and science, that were not consistently ascribed to Christian logic. (It should be well known that Christianity is the foundation of modern science and philosophy, but it's not...)
  4. and many more reasons.
To highlight these thoughts, let us look at it from Carroll Quigley's perspective, just to have a frame of reference not because it is an answer - which I don't think it is or intends to be:

"While Europe's traits were diffusing outward to the non-European world, Europe was also undergoing profound changes and facing difficult choices at home. These choices were associated with drastic changes, in some cases we might say reversals, of Europe's point of view. These changes maybe examined under eight headings. The nineteenth century was marked by (1) belief in the innate goodness of man; (2) secularism; (3) belief in progress; (4) liberalism; (5) capitalism; (6) faith in science; (7) democracy; (8) nationalism. In general, these eight factors went along together in the nineteenth century. They were generally regarded as being compatible with one another; the friends of one were generallythe friends of the others; and the enemies of one were generallythe enemies of the rest. Metternich and De Maistre were generally opposed to all eight; Thomas Jefferson and John StuartMill were generally in favor of all eight.."

Tragedy and Hope
A History ofthe World in Our Time By
Carroll Quigley Volumes 1-8
New York: The Macmillan Company 1966

The objective of this blog is not to get stuck on the reasons for Christianity loosing its future optimism, but rather to rediscover Christ's promises for our communities today.

17 comments:

Retha said...

Is jou blog splinternuut en ek die 1ste deelnemer, of is daar iets met my web browser verkeerd dat ek net een artikel hier sien?

Michael, as hierdie jou eerste inskrywing is, doen so voort. Help my weer droom. Help met wat jy skryf my om weer 'n passie te hĂȘ vir die regte dinge.

Michael said...

Hallo Retha,

Welkom! Ja, jy is die eerste om 'n opmerking op my “nuwe” blog te skryf. Ek het twee jaar laas my eie blog artikels geskryf, en het toe sommer skoon begin.

Om weer te begin droom is vir my ook 'n uitdaging en ek sal graag meer hieroor wil skryf. Jou insette sal verseker welkom wees.

Michael said...

Part of the reason I have been thinking about this subject is because there is a consistent pressure on me to belief that the secular future is far better than any option to select from.

Is the secular picture of the future consistently positive? Why would Christians prefer the secular future?

One clear difference between the Christian future and a secular future is a rational foundation for morality that only resides with Christianity. I trust every thinking person knows how important a founded morality is, and would therefore not try to expound on that. I would rather ask, ...what should we do with this Christian moral foundation we have?

Should be just persist, hidden in the catacombs of today, or should we actively live according to our grounded morality? Hiding in the catacombs is implied in any event where we don't dare to share with people why Christ is the source of all good things in human actions.

For this knowledge of Christ to be true in our actions we really need to live with Christ, not just know about Him. Living with Christ would explain His work from the creation of every thing, including objectively good moral behaviour, to the cross and to His second coming, which is our fundamental expectation as Christians.

Andrew said...

"One clear difference between the Christian future and a secular future is a rational foundation for morality that only resides with Christianity."

Michael, how on earth can you make such a ridiculous statement? It simply does not follow logically. As a self proclaimed expert on information systems and logic you should know this.

Michael said...

Andrew,

The only reason you might think that my statement is ridiculous would be that you have not seriously considered the secular foundation of morality.

I am not going to educate you because I do not know your back ground. What you can do is to explain to me what the ultimate foundation for secular morality is. If you manage to highlight any rational foundation for secular morality, then I will concede.

I will however give you something to think about:

Darwin's doubt and the EAAN (This link to a thoughtful blog discussion.)

AND

A very telling answer from William Lane Craig

Michael said...

For those interested in the "Moral Argument" for God's existence, this just a very short summary:

The Moral Argument. A number of ethicists, such as Robert Adams, William Alston, Mark Linville, Paul Copan, John Hare, Stephen Evans, and others have defended "divine command" theories of ethics, which support various moral arguments for God's existence. One such argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

By objective values and duties, one means values and duties that are valid and binding independent of human opinion. A good many atheists and theists alike concur with premise (1). For given a naturalistic worldview, human beings are just animals, and activity that we count as murder, torture, and rape is natural and amoral in the animal kingdom. Moreover, if there is no one to command or prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligations or prohibitions?

Premise (2) might seem more disputable, but it will probably come as a surprise to most laypeople to learn that (2) is widely accepted among philosophers. For any argument against objective morals will tend to be based on premises that are less evident than the reality of moral values themselves, as apprehended in our moral experience. Most philosophers therefore do recognize objective moral distinctions.

Non-theists will typically counter the moral argument with a dilemma: Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The first alternative makes good and evil arbitrary, whereas the second makes the good independent of God. Fortunately, the dilemma is a false one. Theists have traditionally taken a third alternative: God wills something because he is good. That is to say, what Plato called the Good is the moral nature of God himself. God is by nature loving, kind, impartial, and so on. He is the paradigm of goodness. Therefore the Good is not independent of God. Moreover, God's commandments are a necessary expression of his nature. His commands to us are therefore not arbitrary but are necessary reflections of his character. This gives us an adequate foundation for the affirmation of objective moral values and duties.


From: God Is Not Dead Yet

Andrew said...

Humans are social animals that benefit from being moral as it increases evolutionary success. Morality is based on instincts and intuitions that have been selected for in our evolutionary past. However I know from your past writings that you reject evolution outright and prefer playing mind games with philosophical arguments.

“I am not going to educate you because I do not know your back ground”

You’ve got that right.

Michael said...

Andrew,

Your position is very interesting and I like to ask a few questions:

1. What about your position exclude eugenics, seeing that it certainly has obvious benefits according to your suggested reason for morals?
2. Do you consider MEME theory as part of your notions of morals? If you do, why do you trust MEME theory to be logically consistent?
3. What about your position would condemn killing unwanted genes and "MEME's" outright? (Remember, by far the most cultures support killing for the greater good ...like WAR)
4. Have you considered the impact of Darwin's doubt?
5. If the chemistry in my brain is not exactly the same as those in yours why would I trust yours over mine? IOW how does the chemistry of morals look like?


I hope these questions proof that I don't want to disregard evolutionary notions of morality outright.

Andrew said...

1. What about your position exclude eugenics, seeing that it certainly has obvious benefits according to your suggested reason for morals?

I have no idea what you are asking.

2. Do you consider MEME theory as part of your notions of morals? If you do, why do you trust MEME theory to be logically consistent?

A meme is a philosophical analogy of information that is passed from one host to another. Morality ultimately has it’s origins in biology. Are you referring to cultural and social evolution?

3. What about your position would condemn killing unwanted genes and "MEME's" outright? (Remember, by far the most cultures support killing for the greater good ...like WAR)

What do morals questions have to do with the basis of morality?

4. Have you considered the impact of Darwin's doubt?

I couldn’t care less about doubts that Darwin had. Evolution is a fact supported by several scientific disciplines and supported by a massive amount of data. The evidence is so overwhelmingly great that there can be no rational reason to doubt it. What are you implying with your question?

5. If the chemistry in my brain is not exactly the same as those in yours why would I trust yours over mine? IOW how does the chemistry of morals look like?

You are being ridiculous. Morals are not chemical molecules.

Michael said...

Adrew,

I asked these questions so you can help me to overcome my scepticism. However the following needs some clarity:

You said:
Morality ultimately has it’s origins in biology.

and you said:
Morals are not chemical molecules.

But I am ok to ignore your inability to rationalise your position on morals and tell you about the rational foundation of morality in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ confirmed himself to be God the Creator of all consciousness, when he proclaimed himself, did miracles and rose from the dead. His message has been the most compelling and influential moral message ever to enter human consciousness.

If you only consider the following moral message:

"And He opened His mouth and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit! For theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are they that mourn! For they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek! For they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness! For they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful! For they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart! For they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers! For they shall be called the sons of God. Blessed are they who have been persecuted for righteousness sake! For theirs is the kingdom of Heaven."
(Matthew 5:2-10)

Without pointing fingers to any world-view... contrast these words of Jesus against a modern mindset of greed that managed to cause so much social and environmental misery.

Michael said...

Andrew,

...sorry for the typo in your name.

Andrew said...

“But I am ok to ignore your inability to rationalise your position on morals and tell you about the rational foundation of morality in Jesus Christ.”

Very well, let me hear how you rationalise the foundation of morality. Did your Triune God reveal himself to you through personal revelation? Perhaps you discovered this wisdom in a book. What was it Michael that convinced you that a super organism that resides somewhere in the dark expanses of the universe has the responsibility of deciding what the constituents of moral behaviour are.

Michael said...

Andrew,

It is clear that I will not be able to rationalise the concept of God that you concocted for yourself.

However:
I have already gave you the outline and links to enough about the Moral Argument. (If you cannot grasp objective moral absolutes then you should ask questions that show me what about it is problematic for you.)

God's attributes includes His interaction with created beings, through Jesus Christ. This include Christ's proclaimed divinity and creative power that brought us into existence. If moral attributes are in any sense part of our human attributes then it logically followed that God did create morals.

In fact God created our free will attributes as well giving us the ability to act according to his objective moral values or against it.

P.S.
Are you not going to clarify the fact that you contradicted yourself when you answered my questions?

Andrew said...

“ … His interaction with created beings,”

Your god has never interacted with anything. Tell me why you think He has.

“If moral attributes are in any sense part of our human attributes then it logically followed that God did create morals.”

No it doesn’t.

“In fact God created our free will attributes as well giving us the ability to act according to his objective moral values or against it.”

How do you know this?

Michael stop mucking about. I want to know from you why you believe in the existence of the god of the Bible.

Michael said...

Abductive reasoning

Andrew said...

Why do you refuse to answer my question? Could it be that you realize your position was not reached through rational thought?

Read your comment to me again and give it time to sink in.

“But I am ok to ignore your inability to rationalise your position on morals and tell you about the rational foundation of morality in Jesus Christ.”

Goodbye Michael and good luck spreading your ideology.

Michael said...

dissonance...

(A conflict of people's opinions, actions or characters...)

is known to end conversations.