Book Plunge: The Greatest Stories Ever Played

What do I think of Dustin Hansen’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

People love stories. Whatever the medium is, you will find a story behind it. I suspect a lot of cave drawings are rudimentary tellings of stories. Whether we are reading Genesis or Gilgamesh from the ancient world, whatever you think of these accounts, they are at least stories. Now in the case of Genesis, I naturally think it’s true, but we can all agree that it is still telling a story.

Then the Greeks come along with their plays and lo and behold, stories. While my philosophy is Aristotlean-Thomistic, I have to say the way Plato taught his philosophy, wrong though it be, is more entertaining. They were dialogues, aka, stories.

We move to more modern times and what do we see but films and television and lo and behold, we tell stories. Comic books give a new form of writing that tells stories. This time, you had pictures and words both and the page would turn at opportune times so that you couldn’t just easily look and see what would happen next.

Now we have video games and we have radically changed stories. We’re not just passive in stories. We are active in them. Pick up the Lord of the Rings and if you read it all the way to the end, Sauron is going to be defeated and the ring will be destroyed in Mt. Doom every time. If you play a game based on that, it might not happen. You might die along the way.

Having you make the choices also gets you caught up in the lives of your characters. Hansen writes about how he played Red Dead Redemption for instance, and ended up talking like a cowboy. Many people today can tell you where they were when they heard about the JFK assassination, Challenger exploding, or 9-11. While certainly not on the same level, many a gamer can tell you about their first memory of Sephiroth killing Aerith.

Hansen goes through a number of games, with spoiler warning of course, and tells about the stories and how the stories work. Some of them are really in-depth looks at the games. Some of them are short snippets known as book reports. Issues are discussed related to morality and how you make decisions in games. You’ll find classics covered here like Final Fantasy VII, Chronotrigger, Bioshock, and Psychonauts. Sometimes, I was tempted to look up games on the Switch Eshop library and see about getting them. I gave in and some are now on my wish list, and I will get notifications if the prices drop.

Gaming is the most interactive medium I suspect for telling stories. In it, players have the option to make real choices and can step aside from the story, if they do so desire, and go on side quests in a number of games. They can return to the story and do things they never had before and find new aspects. As I write this, we are awaiting the remake of Super Mario RPG which came out around 25 years ago and yet even still people are finding new things about the game. Now they’ll get to start all anew with that.

If you’re someone who enjoys stories, you should read this book to see how stories work in a new medium. If you’re someone who enjoys video games, you should read this book to learn to better experience games as stories. If you’re someone who enjoys both, you will be very happy indeed.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus. Paul vs. Judaism

Did the beliefs of Paul go against Judaism’s central beliefs? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sometimes it’s hard to come back to this book because while these claims need to be answered, it can get tiresome to see the same kinds of things show up. Granted, Campbell is not as much a fundamentalist as many others are, he still is one in his approach. Nevertheless, let’s leap back into the matter. This time, we’ll see if Paul went against core beliefs of Judaism.

Obviously, the Christians would disagree with some beliefs of Judaism of their day, such as the role of the Law and if the Messiah had come, but there would be a lot of overlap. Christians use the same Old Testament that Jews see as their Scriptures today. Despite what many non-Christians would tell you, Christianity, which includes belief in the Trinity, is monotheistic. We do believe a good God created all things as well.

Campbell tells us that the Tanakh says repeatedly that God will not take human form. He gives four references. Let’s look at them. The first is Numbers 23:19.

God is not human, that he should lie,
    not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
    Does he promise and not fulfill?

Next is Exodus 33:20

But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Followed by 1 Samuel 15:29:

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

And last is 1 Kings 8:27

“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

Now maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t see anywhere in those God saying “I will never dwell in human form among you.” It’s apparent that Campbell didn’t bother looking up any Christian scholarship on this. I don’t say that because Christian scholarship is unbiased, but if you’re going to say the Christian position can’t handle these verses, you need to at least look and see what they say about it.

With the Numbers reference:

God is different and separate from mankind, transcendent beyond the realm of humanity with all of its tendencies toward falsehood, deceit, misfortune, and calamity. Therefore he has no need to repent of any moral or ethical turpitude or misdeed. God is immutable, and his word bespeaks his incomparable integrity. On the other hand, Balaam and Balak were the antithesis of God, men of banal character. Concerning this pagan prophet Allen remarks, “He is himself the prime example of the distinction between God and man.” Balaam’s words were ineffective before God, for as the prophet often explained, “I can speak only what Yahweh speaks to me!” On the other hand, God’s word is entirely efficacious; what he says he will do, what he speaks he will accomplish.” His word is never uttered into the void and never fails to produce what he intends (Isa 55:11).
The word for God used here for the first of three times in this oracle is ʾēl, which derives from the basic word for deity in Semitic languages. Most often in the Hebrew Bible the term occurs in the plural form Elohim, denoting the power or majesty of the One True God (though occasionally of the multiple gods of the nations), or ʾēlîm, the plural form often used in reference to the plethora of gods and goddesses of the nations. The short form ʾēl often occurs in epithets that highlight some aspect of the relationship between God and his people, such as ʾēl-šadday (“God Almighty,” Gen 17:1), ʾēl-ʾĕmet (“God of Truth,” Ps 31:6). The present form ʾēl occurs by itself most often in the poetic materials of the wisdom, hymnic, and prophetic literature such as the Books of Job, Psalms, and Isaiah.

R. Dennis Cole, Numbers (vol. 3B; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 411.

The point in Numbers is about the behavior of God. Men lie and cheat and change their minds. God does not do that. His behavior is not like that of a man. It does not mean that God cannot take on the nature of a man. Man is not essentially a fallen creature. Man is fallen by virtue of Adam’s fall.

For Exodus:

God will only partially fulfill Moses’ request; he will let his goodness pass before him (v. 19) for no man can see God’s face and live. God further says that when his goodness passes before Moses, the name Yahweh will be proclaimed as part of the theophany. The proclamation of the divine name might hint that something of God’s eternal qualities are revealed to Moses. But even in this manifestation Moses has to be protected (vv. 21–22). God’s glory is to be more fully revealed in Jesus Christ: “we have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father” (John 1:14).

James K. Hoffmeier, “Exodus,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (vol. 3; Baker reference library; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 361.

God’s glory always comes veiled. There are theophanies in the Old Testament as well where people are said to see God. In the incarnation, there was a veil as well. 1 Samuel 15:29 is much akin to Numbers 23 so there’s no need to expand there further. The difference that is worthwhile is that this is a judgment God has made and God is not going to change His mind in it.

And for 1 Kings:

A crucial theological issue emerges before Solomon begins his specific petitions. If God is unique “in heaven above or on earth below” (8:23), and if “even the highest heaven cannot contain” the Lord, then Solomon correctly exclaims, “How much less this temple I have built!” Though Moses was a man “whom the LORD knew face to face” (Deut 34:10), he was not allowed to see all God’s glory (Exod 33:7–23). God’s magnitude would simply overwhelm a human’s capacity to grasp it. Tokens of the Lord’s presence, such as clouds and pillars of fire (Exod 40:34–38; 1 Kgs 8:10–11), appear, of course, and people cannot stay near them. On what basis, then, can Solomon hope that God will dwell on earth, in this temple? How will the Lord “live among the Israelites and … not abandon” (1 Kgs 6:13) them?
Solomon’s confidence in God’s willingness to condescend to human level must ultimately emerge from four principles. First, he knows God has revealed himself in the past, particularly in the lives of Moses, Joshua, and David (cf. 1 Kgs 8:21–26). Thus, Solomon does not pray for a brand new occurrence. Second, the king understands that the covenant described in written Scripture, in the Pentateuch, teaches that God desires a relationship with Israel as a nation and with individual Israelites (cf. Deut 7:7–9; 1 Kgs 8:23). He can approach God in prayer because he is the Lord’s “servant” and because Israel is the Lord’s people (8:30). Such assurance comes from the covenant itself.
Third, Solomon can expect God to fulfill the promise made in Deut 12:4–11 to “put his Name” (Deut 12:5) in a central worship site. Fourth, he can hope for God’s presence because of what he knows about God’s character. Since God is loving (1 Kgs 8:23), faithful (8:24), consistent (8:25), and relational (8:30), it is reasonable to assume that he will continue to meet human beings where they live. God is lofty, holy, and mysterious, yet approachable and personal at the same time. The temple will serve as the physical symbol of these divine realities. Here the unapproachable Lord becomes approachable and ready to help those who worship, sacrifice, and pray.

Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings (vol. 8; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 143–144.

The point here is Solomon knows God will dwell with man, but he can’t believe it will happen. How can it be? This God who cannot be contained by the heavens will dwell with men? Solomon’s mind would be blown by the revelation in Christ.

Let’s give one final quote from Campbell.

Paul considers his authority from the visionary Christ so great that Paul can even contradict Moses. In Romans, Paul states that Moses was wrong when writing “the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the Law shall live by that righteousness.” Rom. 10:5-13. The passages Paul references, Lev. 18:1-5 and Deut. 6:24-25, clearly state that if a man keeps God’s laws he shall be righteous. But Paul vehemently disagreed. Paul even claimed the teaching of Moses brought death by leading people away from “the Spirit of the Lord.” 2 Cor. 3:7-18. Because Moses is, according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy , speaking on God’s behalf, Paul is saying that God was wrong too, and that Paul’s authority is greater than that of God. Not surprisingly, Paul’s message was poorly received by the Jews of his day.

Let’s just say this. If you are interpreting this passage and you think you have interpreted it right so that Paul is not only saying Moses was wrong, but God is wrong, you need to recheck your interpretation.

We shall continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Thoughts On Reformation Day

Is Reformation Day a day to celebrate? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sometimes it seems odd to me to celebrate Reformation Day. Don’t get me wrong on this. I’m happy to be a Protestant Christian. I do have points I disagree with with both the Catholic and the Orthodox branches. At the same time, I see them as my brothers and sisters in Christ. My ex-wife used to attend an Orthodox Church and I’m sure if I went back to Georgia and visited them, they would recognize me and welcome me with open arms. I was always a friendly face at the Bible studies and other things that would take place.

On the other side, I have several Catholic friends I more regularly get to interact with because we have a Zoom meeting every Thursday night. It’s a group to discuss especially Thomas Aquinas. I’m one of the token Protestants in the group who does know Aquinas well and my running joke is I am there to make sure everyone gets their doctrine and their Bible correct, especially when I answer a question many seem stumped on or have to explain a point of Thomism. Last Thursday, I even commented on Luke 1:35 and how I would exegete it, certainly not a contentious verse between us.

I am a member of a debate group on Facebook for all three branches, but when I see something, rarely do I say how one group is wrong in their doctrine. I have no interest in that. Instead, I comment when one group is I think misrepresenting another group. I would hope that over the years, people would know I want to make sure any position is represented accurately and that even my Catholic and Orthodox friends who disagree with me will say I am still fair with them and don’t have a chip on my shoulder against them.

Now I do appreciate that the Reformation took place. At the same time, it’s a sad state of human affairs that we couldn’t have everything worked out. As is the case in most any human affair, I suspect there were bad moves played on both sides. I’m not about to claim Martin Luther is the holiest man who ever lived, nor am I to say he’s a total villain.

I also am sure everyone can agree there were problems in the Catholic Church at the time. Even if one doesn’t agree with all that happened, it can be said that Luther did raise up some valid concerns that needed to be addressed. If he hadn’t, then why was there ever a Counter-Reformation?

I do think there was good that came out as we had a renewed look at exploring the traditions that the Catholic Church held to to see which were likely to be true and which were not. Naturally, there are some I disagree with or else I would be Catholic today. There was a renewed interest in Bible study and a push to let everyone have access to the Bible.

These are good, though I won’t deny there are some downsides, like again any human endeavor, as when great minds who have great respect for the Bible and its culture read it, we get some great insights. Unfortunately, there are a number of people who are convinced the Holy Spirit is telling them stuff that’s absolutely nonsense and no need to study. Consider it like the internet. Put great information in the hands of the populace and a lot of people will misuse it.

One of the greatest areas of sadness with this to me is the Lord’s Supper. (Which the way we do it is hardly a supper anyway and I think the majority of churches just giving out a piece of bread or a cracker and a drink of wine or juice are doing it wrong anyway then) This was meant to be a time of unity where we were all to gather together and celebrate. Instead, it’s now a reminder of disunity. I am remembering going up in the Orthodox Church and I could get a blessing from Father B who led it, but he could never give me a piece of the bread. (Although I did come up afterwards when extra were handed out and it was okay.) I wonder if there were times he wanted to give me some of the bread as well anyway.

I celebrate many of the doctrines that came out of the Reformation, but I don’t celebrate the disunity. I look forward to celebrating at the throne one day with all my Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox brothers and sisters. I suspect we won’t spend eternity going on and on about who was right. (Some of you better hope not because you know me and if it’s me, I will never let it go!)

So yes, I did celebrate in some sense, but I will celebrate even more when we can all worship together.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Our Need For Stories

What in us drives us to create stories? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have my own section at TheologyWeb.com and I invite you to check it out. A few days ago, I made a post about the problem of good vampires. What I am finding amazing about this is that there is a real discussion going on. Sometimes, it’s incredible to see what people comment on.

Just now I was watching The Big Bang Theory with one character asking about zombies. What happens if they don’t get human flesh to eat? They can’t starve to death because they’re already dead. I’m also going through Smallville again. This is my favorite series and started with two guys saying “Let’s tell an origins story of Superman.”

Comic books are well-known for creating massive universes as well and how many times have we had movies about the origin of Batman? These stories have so many installments to them that fans debate amongst themselves for each franchise what is and isn’t canon. You can have contradictory things happen in the stories so much so that DC created the Multiverse which led to several of its own problems.

In the gaming world, I am listening to the audiobook The Greatest Stories Every Played. Talk to some of my fellow gamers and what do we remember about a lot of our favorite games? The story behind them. Would that I could have my memory wiped and go through Final Fantasy IV again for the first time.

Why do we do this? Why do we debate about things that we all know don’t exist? People debating the Legend of Zelda franchise or Marvel comics or vampires aren’t doing so because they believe these exist. Despite that, they debate them and the debates can get awfully heated. Philosophy papers can easily be written on these topics. Indeed, if you want to see some of this, just go to Amazon and type in Pop Culture and Philosophy and see all the books that come up.

As far as I am aware, we are the only species that creates stories. Do we really do that for survival? Doubtful. It is possible to survive without stories, though most of us would consider that an impoverished life. You don’t need to read fiction, but many of us spend our time investing in a world of fiction. How many people can tell you every facet of The Lord of the Rings, for instance?

Lord of the Rings also led to popular role-playing games, including Dungeons and Dragons. Why do we play these? Because we like to use our imaginations and tell stories, but not only that, we want to be in on the story ourselves sometimes. We want to think about what we would do if we were in that situation. It’s easy to watch a movie or TV show or read a book and say to the character from the comfort of our homes, “Don’t go there! Don’t open that door! Don’t trust that guy!” Role-playing games can sometimes be the closest we get to making the choice ourselves and in the case of a game like D&D, if we’re playing with friends and not an electronic version, we can’t think of what we did the last time we played the game. Every time is new.

Today, I was telling another student about my research into video games and Christianity and how I think I am going to focus on stories and quests. Most people who are gamers like myself, we enjoy our hobby, but we also want more. We want real-life adventures more. I suspect this is why men watch the movies we do. We want to be the Avengers or we want to be James Bond.

Here’s another reason I suspect we make stories, which have been going on as long as we know of. Deep down, I think we all know that there is more than just this world. We do make some stories to explain reality, like the Just So stories, but we also make stories to tell for a longing that we have that reality is greater than what we see. A materialistic world is boring. We want a world of life.

I wonder if this could be behind the end-times hysteria many people have. Could it be we so much want to be a part of a greater story that we are convinced we are living in the last generation, even though numerous generations before us said that? Surely we must play a part in this? Could it also be why the belief is so prevalent that God speaks to us individually regularly? Surely I must play a part in all of this! Surely God has something for me and I need to find out what it is.

We can say social media contributes to this by making so many of us narcissists, but social media doesn’t create the idea. It just gives it a place to shine more prevalently. Social media too often just reveals who we really already are. Why do many of us do and say things that we wouldn’t do in person? Because on social media, it’s easy to put on a mask.

Everyone already has a story. I have said before that I think you could make a major motion picture of anyone’s life, and if you have a good director and cast, it would be a major hit. It’s incredible to think how much we are spending every year making games and movies and TV shows all because people love stories!

So I will be watching the debate on vampires and the discussion back and forth and enjoying it. I will continue playing some great new stories waiting to see what happens. However, I hope to continue living out my story and remembering that the story is not about me. It’s really His story. I just play a small part in His story, but I hope it’s a contribution that will make it better.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Paul’s Appearance and Muhammad’s Night Flight

How do the two compare? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have been going through the Hadiths of Al-Bukhari lately where he narrates what people said about the life of Muhammand, the prophet of Islam. Tonight, I read about the Night Flight, which is the time that Muhammad says that he went to heaven. I have already written about that in comparison to the resurrection. Now I would like to compare it to the accounts of Paul’s Damascus Road experience.

“Sure. I can easily open up the Bible online, but where am I suppose to find the account of the journey in the night? No problem. I already did it for you. The Biblical references we are using meanwhile are in Acts 9, 22, and 26.

Let’s start by first comparing where these two people were socially. Paul was on the up and up. He was trained by the best of his time, was a Roman citizen, highly knowledgeable in Judaism and the pagan thought of his day, and would have been on the path to more and more greatness in his field.

Muhammad was a merchant. Nothing against merchants, but most of them don’t reach fame and glory as merchants.

What Paul got for his accounts is told in 2 Cor. 11. The list is not a good one to go through. What did Muhammad get? He fought in a lot of battles, received honor as being called Allah’s apostle, got a lot of booty in the form of wealth, and we can say he got a lot in another way in having multiple wives.

Paul went from being a somebody recognized by the leading officials of his day, a place of honor, to being an outcast and tying himself to one of the most despised if not the most despised movement of his day, never received great wealth or women, and was beheaded in prison.

From a purely social perspective, one of these men benefitted a lot more than the other.

Looking at the accounts of Paul, the first one in Acts 9 has it being said about him how much he must suffer for the name of Jesus. He is rendered blind and has to be led by the hand by those he formerly persecuted. These accounts do not really glorify Paul. From 2 Cor. 12, we also know Paul didn’t glorify himself. When he gave an account of what happened to him, he didn’t even say it was him directly and he says to avoid arrogance, he was given a thorn in the flesh and pleaded for it to be taken from him three times. This was done to make sure Paul would be humble.

Meanwhile, in Muhammad’s account, he is personally guided by the angel Gabriel, and at every step on the journey he is told how excellent his visit is and he gets to meet the who’s who of prophetic history and get the right hand of fellowship. He then becomes the advocate before Allah pleading for his people. Who does he go back and report to in this but Moses over and over.

One of these accounts has the main person looking awfully good.

Both accounts are subjective, but to be fair, there are some aspects of Paul’s account said to be objective, such as what his companions could have said or his being rendered blind. His change from persecutor to preacher is much better known. We don’t have this for Muhammad. All we have is his word.

So in the end, even if we can’t demonstrate one of them is definitely historical, I have to say the odds seem more in Paul’s favor. He would gain nothing from a worldly perspective and he was incredibly humbled in the accounts. From Muhammad, we have the opposite.

Make your choice which one you think is more likely to be true.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

What Can Be Proven?

Is Philosophy a weaker form of argumentation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I asked the atheist on the page why Aristotle should be rejected. Well, he wrote over 2,000 years ago and we have learned a lot since then. Surely we have, but what have we learned that disproved his arguments? In response to that, his arguments are philosophical and cannot be proven.

This is a rather strange argument. For one thing, it’s a philosophical argument (Which means by its own standards it’s unproven) that says that we shouldn’t accept a philosophical argument that can’t be proven. Second, it is quite likely that this is a person who would choose to trust in science. Nothing against science, but proof doesn’t not exist in science. Instead, there is extremely high probability. There are some matters that we could say are practically certain, but today’s reigning science could be tomorrow’s junk science.

By the way, that also applies to history, a subject I prefer much more to talk about. In history, our knowledge is inductive as well. There are some matters that are so probable that we say they are practically certain. One such example in my field is that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Actually, if we only believed things in our lives that we could prove, we would believe very little. I don’t know how I could begin to prove to you what I had for breakfast this morning. Now we are getting to the point where you could start wondering if a blog is by me or an AI. How could I prove either one?

There are plenty of things out there that we cannot prove, but we would be crazy to even question those things. I have never been to London, but my Dad has and I know people at the Seminary who have. Now I could say that there are people involved in a grand conspiracy, including the media, to get me to believe that a place called London exists, but that would be crazy. (Although to be fair, the media being involved in a conspiracy in itself is not necessarily crazy.)

Some of you are waiting for me to get to the areas where there is proof. Those areas are logic and mathematics. Actually, both of them are highly philosophical in dealing with abstract objects and things that don’t depend on material reality for their being. Perhaps there is something to that, but that is something to ponder for another blog.

Let’s consider the classic syllogism.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.

If the premises are true, and they are, and the form is valid, and it is, then the conclusion follows with certainty. There is no getting around it. Consider this.

All cats have six legs.
Scooby-Doo is a cat.
Scooby-Doo has six legs.

In this case, the premises are wrong, but the form is valid. If the premises are true, the conclusion would be.

All men are rational.
Linda is rational.
Linda is a man.

In this case, both premises are true, but unless someone has an odd name for a guy, Linda is not a man. Linda is a woman. The form in this case is not valid. There are invalid and valid syllogisms. The point is simply that if we have good data and good form, we can have conclusions.

Then there is Math. It could be something as simple as 2 + 2 = 4 or Fermat’s Last Theorem. Either way, these are things that can be proven or in some cases, disproven.

Once again, I find it odd the way atheists online interact in talking about proof and neglecting the best areas of proof and placing greatest trust in the areas where there is no proof.

Maybe all men are not rational….

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Disvaluing The Elderly

Do we really care about them anymore? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was reading a Carl Trueman essay yesterday about a dangerous gift for his wife. In this case, it was some anti-aging material. As he writes about it, which he did wind up buying anyway, he does say our culture seems to want to live in a denial of our age. Youth is glorified. The elderly are cast aside.

If you read the book of Job, you will find Eliphaz at one point making an interesting statement. He tells Job that men with grey hair are on his side and that they are older than Job’s father.” If it was said today, it would be seen as an extremely weak point. What do they know?

Working at a seminary, there are many students here that are twenty years or more younger than I am. Something I notice about many of them is that they are not aware of events that took place before their time. I still remember working at the Wal-Mart in Tennessee and having to explain to one of the younger people there who the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was.

Okay. There aren’t many major consequences from not knowing pop culture references, but too many times our young people don’t even really know about history before our time. Events like Challenger and 9-11 were the defining moments for my generation, but I knew about past events such as the assassination of Kennedy that also defined a generation.

Part of this goes with the denial of death that I wrote about yesterday. Youth is seen as the glorious time. We even think our youth at even extremely young ages can truly say that they know that they are the wrong gender. A teenage girl is supposed to decide that she can’t handle a baby in her womb when she has a hard enough time deciding what to wear in the morning.

And what do we do with our elderly? Well, we put them in nursing homes and other places and in many cases, they struggle with loneliness. My parents, being elderly now, tell me of many friends they have where their own children don’t even bother interacting with them anymore. The elderly are a goldmine of wisdom and great experiences of the past if we will but listen to them.

I don’t claim to be the best at this either. Could it be we don’t like to be around the elderly many times because it reminds us that one day, we will be them? Sure, grandpa might not understand how to work an iPhone and your great aunt Susie might post a personal post to you on your Facebook wall instead of sending it through a private message, but could it be that maybe one day, you will be the one not understanding the new technology someday?

Contrast this with the ancient societies. When we read about Jesus in the Gospels, many people often ask why so little was said about His childhood. These are people who have never read any other ancient biographies. Hardly anything was said about childhood. No one cared. It was the elderly that were the most respected.

Now I am not at all suggesting childhood doesn’t matter. It is important to recognize that youth is a gift from God just as much as old age is. It should be treasured. However, old age should be honored as well. The extremes of denying childhood any validity and treating old age like a disease to avoid are both wrong.

By the way to those of you out there who are elderly, here’s something I want to share as an idea. Start an online blog. What will you write about? Yourself. Write about you and your life and leave it for your future descendants who you will never see. You can also record online videos on YouTube. One of your children will likely be glad to show you how to do it. Leave a video diary for them. Talk about even the most mundane things going on in your day. What music are you listening to? What movies are you watching? If you play games, and some elderly people do play video games, what games are they? What did you do when you were their age?

By the way, if you have your children and grandchildren help you with this, that will be time you spend with them as well and they can hear about it from you. It’s a win-win. Give it a try.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Death Denial

Do we act like it’s no longer real? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Several years ago, a man named John Boswell wrote a book on Christianity, tolerance, and homosexuality. His thesis was that in Christian history, homosexuality really wasn’t viewed as that big of a deal and that Scripture could not be used to make a case against it. Boswell was himself a homosexual and claimed Roman Catholic (I say claimed since many Roman Catholics would not really accept someone approving of and practicing same-sex sexual relationships). There was certainly a lot of information put in the book and I thought I remembered him being on Unbelievable? one time to debate it.

So I looked it up and found out that since Boswell died in 1994, that I was probably wrong. However, I have to say I was not surprised that he died of AIDS. It’s my understanding that we have better treatments for AIDS now, but when it came out, it was a killer in the community of the same-sex attracted. It was originally even known as GRID for Gay-Related Immuno Deficiency.

That got me thinking about how this man spent so much of his life defending a practice that led to his death and not only his death, but the deaths of many others. For a look at how this can happen, look at And The Band Played On by Randy Shilts. Shilts was himself someone with same-sex attraction who died of AIDS.

It’s part of our culture that we always think that this won’t happen to us. Many of us remember growing up and thinking somehow we would escape death. Some potion of immortality or something would be found in our lifetime. I somewhere suspect that many Christians think that we are “The generation” because surely their time won’t come. Surely God won’t allow us to suffer.

We all do this. We know it because we do many things that are unhealthy every day. This is especially prevalent in our sex culture. People sleep around as if the action won’t have any consequences, and when they come, such as pregnancy, STDS, failed relationships, guilt, etc., they’re shocked. Our age is an age that thinks somehow we can shun personal responsibility and not suffer consequences. Watch a sitcom or a movie. No one gets an STD. I used to tell men about to marry that when they were preparing for sex for the first time, to think about everything they had seen in movies and TV and then throw it out because it’s completely unrealistic.

Death comes in like something of a shock to us even though it has been a companion with us for the longest time. One can play a game where the character gets several extra lives, and indeed, we need to have that suspended disbelief because frankly, none of us would play many games where if you died, that was it and you had to start all the way from the beginning.

My ex-wife and I used to know someone named Steve. Steve was a big and tough biker type dude, but someone as gentle as can be. You could see a picture of him cuddling a kitten. He got esophageal cancer and he was shriveled up in the end. How much so? I would look tougher than he did at that point. I hate saying it, but such was the case.

When he died, I remember being at the funeral home. I remember walking around at one point while others were socializing and I went to the room where the casket was and I was thinking this had to be a mistake. Death came for the wrong man. In a gaming mindset, part of me wished I could have had an RPG battle with death then and get my friend back. Completely unrealistic to think about? Yep. I think we can all relate somehow though.

We often react to not just death, but any suffering, as if there is something unusual in the world. Shouldn’t our lives be happy and joyous always? If anything, the level of freedom that we can have in this country (Living in America) would be astounding to our ancestors of the past. As I write this, I think that I do have scoliosis. Today, I walk straight because I was treated with the unbelievable treatment of a steel rod on my spine. Who would have thought of such a thing in the past, and yet here it is a reality. Me 100 years ago would be walking like Quasimodo instead.

Our challenge is not to defeat death. We can’t. Not only that, we don’t need to. It’s already been done. Christ conquered it on the cross. We can realize it as an intruder still, but we also need to learn to accept it as real. Denying death won’t make it go away. We can try to fight against reality all we want, but in the end, reality will always win.

However, once again, as Christians, that’s a good thing. Reality is Jesus Christ conquered death and rose again. I remember years ago working with a friend who is a devout Christian now, but was severely doubting and sometimes it was exhausting. One day I went to my emails and saw one from him with the subject line “Jesus of Nazareth.” I braced myself for an onslaught of questions.

Instead, I saw this.

“He really did walk out of that grave, didn’t He?”

I still smile even as I think about that and write it out.

Yes, He did.

In a temporal sense, sometimes we hate reality.

But in the end, the real God revealed in the real Jesus who walked out of that real grave will give us a reality we can all enjoy and love.

I look forward to it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Problem of Good Vampires

Is it a concern when vampires become good? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m going through a fantasy series right now and in the last book, the main character is up against a contingent of vampires. I am quite enjoying the series and eager to see how it turns out. Vampires happen to be quite popular in our culture and Halloween time seems like a good time to talk about them.

Many of my generation know about vampires from playing the Castlevania games. Had Emil Hamilton not jumped in, they would have been called “Dracula Satanic Castle”, which means most of us would have never played them because our parents would have never bought such a game for us. Definitely a wise move since it has been a staple series.

The game traditionally involves a member of the Belmont clan who has a whip and sets out on a journey to slay Dracula. Later games didn’t always follow this rule, but at the start, this happened. In the third game, you could also switch between other characters, one of whom was Alucard, the son of Dracula. (Read his name backwards.) Alucard was also a vampire, but didn’t care for Dear Old Dad’s ways.

We can think of many other vampires in popular culture today. The Blade movies come to mind. There are a number of animes that have characters that are vampires. Then, there is obviously the Twilight saga.

An interesting concept to be sure to have a redeemed vampire, but could that also be a problem? Years ago, my ex-wife and I tried going through a book together that we never got around to finishing, but I really enjoyed. I don’t know where it is now or if I even still have it, but it’s called The Vampire Defanged by Susannah Clements.

From what I remember, the thesis was that originally, the vampire was an embodiment of sin. If you wanted to know what evil was, look at Dracula. As the book I am reading says now about the main vampire villain, he is the antithesis of life itself. He is an undead creature that chooses to live despite that he should be dead. He does not give life, but he takes it and spreads his death by turning the living into vampires. He cannot live in the light. He can bend others to his will and has no morals at all.

This is an evil indeed.

There is a benefit to evil being seen as truly evil. We need to see the vampire in these stories as the epitome of darkness. In Stoker’s work, he would be one that would be a fulfillment of the seven deadly sins. He would also not be defeated just by someone who was really tough and capable. They would have to be holy as well and have equipment that was holy. It wasn’t power that defeated the vampire so much as holiness.

Clements’s main thesis as I remember it was that the more we took sin seriously, the more the vampire was truly evil. The less we take sin seriously, the more we tame the vampire. Eventually, sunlight just makes them sparkle and they drink animal blood only to survive.

There is something cool about vampires being redeemed and becoming forces for good, but I can’t help but be concerned. Have we lost sight of evil? We could say that we are having true redemption, but perhaps we should consider.

Feel free to share your thoughts.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — The Self-Appointed Apostle

Did Paul appoint himself as apostle? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am returning to this one again to continue looking at the question of Paul. Campbell considers it dubious since Paul is the only one privy to his vision and we have no one else outside of Luke referring to Paul as an apostle. However, if Paul really believed he had this encounter with Jesus, rightly or wrongly, then it’s hard to see how he is self-appointed. In his mind, he is, rightly or wrongly, following the orders of a higher authority.

However, Campbell goes on to list this as self-serving. How, he never explains. What benefits did Paul gain from the Jesus movement? If he was wrong, he had forfeited an incredible position and career in Judaism, taken a position that would be blasphemous to YHWH if Jesus did not rise from the dead, and took on a position that resulted in the many trials that he underwent as described in 2 Cor. 11. The benefits certainly do not weigh out the costs, unless, of course, Christianity is true.

He also tells us Jesus only chose as apostles those who had been with him from the beginning, heard his teachings, witnessed his miracles, and been with him through his trials. He stresses that it was very important to Jesus that His disciples meet this criteria since they would be passing along His teachings.

Never mind that the first apostles Jesus chose hadn’t had any of these experiences at all. Never mind also that we only see these criteria being used in Acts 1 and we never see a divine word choosing another apostle. I am not saying they were wrong to do so, but this is never something that is said to be spelled out by Jesus. The requirements for being an apostle are simply being sent by Jesus and if Paul’s encounter is true, then Paul is an apostle. Also, there were others called apostles, such as Junia and her husband in Romans 16.

Campbell also says that when the eleven chose a replacement for Jesus, they pointedly did not choose Paul. Geez. Why could that be? Could it be because Paul was not a part of the Jesus movement then and it would be ridiculous to choose an outsider who had not embraced the message? Of course, if Jesus wants to do this, He can do so. Campbell acts like this was a deliberate rejection on the part of the apostles when it was that Paul wasn’t in the running at the time. Somehow, this translates to later times as if to show that the apostles were always suspicious of Paul.

Much of the material from here on is the same kind of material that you can find in a lot of anti-Paul materials that assumes an intense warfare going on between Paul and the apostles, something never mentioned by them or their own students, the early church fathers. (If 2 Peter is authentic, Peter did accept Paul, but of course, Campbell never bothers to look at this question.)

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)