Hard But Worth It

Is life easy? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I wrote about the Dutch woman wanting to have herself euthanized next month. The story can present a variety of responses. There is sadness in thinking this woman wants to throw away her life like this. There is anger at the people wanting to do this. There could be anger towards her even thinking that she does not appreciate what she has.

Since she is on the spectrum, I figure I can share my own thoughts on the matter as to what life is like on the spectrum. Is it hard? Yep. Sure is. Yet as a lifelong gamer, something I notice is that most things that bring the most joy are the hardest. There is a great satisfaction in trying to defeat an enemy over and over again and failing and then one time completing the task. The challenge makes the overcoming all the sweeter.

Also, April is Autism Awareness Month so why not give some insight?

So let’s start with the negatives. There are people all around me and many times, it can seem like people are speaking in a language I don’t understand. It’s the language of tone and body. I am someone who can speak sarcasm fluently, but I can’t understand it well in others. I relate greatly to Sheldon Cooper.

Wanting to express myself can be difficult. Usually, if someone comes to the post office I work at and want to put some letters in the slip to mail out, I find it hard to say if I’m sitting there “I’ll take those.” Instead, I usually just hold my hands out. If I can speak without having to use words, all the better. Unfortunately, that’s a struggle when people don’t notice.

For an example where it’s harder, imagine going to the grocery store. You’re in the checkout line and behind someone and there’s a barrier there to separate your orders. You can’t reach it and so you want to tell the person in front of you to hand it to you.

I instead wind up gesturing wildly hoping they will notice me and hand it to me. The words are there, but I can’t seem to verbalize them. Sadly, this method has never worked.

I also tend to live a life in quite regimented order. On days that I work as an example, I go and get a hot tea from the cafe at 3:30 and I don’t start drinking it until 4. I was watching the time on my phone one day and my boss said “You could just go and get it early.”

I looked at her like she practically had two heads.

I have two pairs of shoes that I wear and I follow the same order with them. On the days I wear my white shoes, well those are days that when I take a shower in the evening, I will be washing my hair. I will also be having something besides a pizza for dinner that evening. The system works well in that regard.

Speaking of food situations, those I don’t care for. If I’m at an event with a lot of people and I don’t know them well and I think the food looks messy to me, I get extremely nervous. I can’t explain why, but I know when Crawfest comes along, most students here love it. I’m probably the only student who wants to run screaming.

When I joined my church, I did it with three other single men and I tell my pastor that to this day, I remember how he said what these men would appreciate most is to have someone invite them over to their house for a nice meal.

I was standing there thinking, “Darn. I was hoping you would say introduce us to some nice single ladies. Please don’t have me over to your house for a meal.”

Speaking of single women, that’s also a struggle. I get it. Most men are oblivious to when a woman is flirting to them and we can’t read signals all that well. I suspect I’m worse. It’s also a struggle to express myself to a woman and let her know I am interested in her. It’s one reason I’m in therapy here.

That is also because I am working through the divorce which is still painful. It really stings when you put your trust in someone and give them all of you in every way and they reject you in the end. That gets to what is probably the biggest struggle I have.

I fear that in the day and age of the internet, we’re more globally connected, but we’re less locally connected, and thus it’s loneliness. I come home and it’s just me and Shiro at the end of the day. This is not to say I don’t have friends around here. I remember when my first birthday came around, I wondered if anyone would know on campus. I opened my apartment door and there were gold streamers outside with a gift card, some cookies, and other decorations. I don’t remember everything that was there, but my RA and her husband had decided to do something. That was a huge blessing to me. The gifts were nice, but nicer still were people showing they took an interest in me.

Loneliness is the real struggle though. I notice that it seems like when we all get done at the end of the day, everyone goes out to their own place and that’s it. I have some friends I meet for tabletop gaming and that’s every couple of weeks. I go out with some of the professors at the end of many months for a trivia night. I also see students at the Post Office and I think they know me as a cut-up and someone who tries to make everyone laugh.

It would be a mistake to say people on the spectrum don’t have emotions. We do. We don’t always express them well or have them the same way. Church services that seem to be geared towards getting people towards an emotional high don’t work on me. I have to be doing something else while I’m in a service or else I will zone out. Something interesting for me at least on the spectrum is that this can often help me focus.

It also means we can hurt just like anyone else. I take rejection since my divorce extremely seriously. My apartment is a mess, but in my own way, I need order in my life and I think things should be a certain way and it’s hard to focus when they are not.

That all sounds hard.

It is.

But I’ve only told you the hard side.

I like though that I have a very strong memory that can pull up random bits of information when needed. I can remember facts I know of for trivia night. I can play games and know where I need to go much easier. I can tell you what’s going on in many passages of the Bible. I rarely have to study for a class.

I have a Greek tutor who says that I can sight=read Greek which he says is quite rare. In my symbolic logic class which is a rare class I am having to work at, my professor says I seem to be going through the fog area quickly and I’m even asking questions about the material that shows I’m really thinking about it. It’s great to be in an apologetics debate and have the knowledge mentally that I need to have.

I enjoy making people laugh. I figure if being on the spectrum, I take things literalistically for the most part, why not have some fun with that? I have a professor who came to me in the Post Office once and said “Can you check my mailbox?”

“Yep.”

I just sit there for awhile doing what I was doing and he notices what happened and then says “Will you check it?” That’s when I get up. Even then, I can still have some fun going and coming back and saying “It’s still there.”

“Is there any mail in it?’

“Yes.”

“Will you get it?”

Usually, I already have it with me, but it is a game that I play.

Sometimes students see me on campus and ask “What’s up?”

“The sky. Birds in flight. The opposite of down. A two-letter word that starts with a U and ends with a P. A preposition. Elevators rising. A quark. A Pixar movie.”

Naturally also, students and professors regularly assure me that they affirm the virgin birth, which I do affirm, and I likewise assure them that I affirm the virgin birth, which I do affirm. If I start a joke with you, you’d better get used to it. It’s not dying. If I stop joking with you, that’s the time to be concerned. That means something has shifted in our relationship.

I love being able to do math in my head. I do a birthday game as well where I tell someone what day of the week they were born on by knowing their birthday. Numbers are just fun things to play with.

I have a group I get together with every Thursday night via Zoom that I enjoy. It’s a Thomas Aquinas group and I’m one of the token Protestants. They know they can turn to me for Bible questions and I joke I’m here to make sure they understand Aquinas right.

Right now, I’m hoping to either find someone who can show me how to make YouTube videos or just make them for me if I can supply the ideas and my speaking that I want to have done. It is for my Gaming Theologian channel. I am also trying to raise money to help me with my ongoing expenses as I work on my Master’s and then PhD. You can help out with that here.

Naturally, I’m trying to find a good Christian girl. I have said before that in many ways, I am like Monk and I am looking for my Trudy. I would love to have someone I could just cherish and adore.

Is life hard sometimes still? Absolutely. There can still be times of great sadness. I am on medication for anxiety and depression still. However, at the end of the day, it’s worth it. I love going out and walking on campus and seeing people I know. I enjoy going through my books and then having a relaxing evening playing games and watching YouTube videos and whatever TV show I am going through. (Currently, Young Sheldon.) I have friends and I have family. Tomorrow, I plan on writing about the battle to get here.

If I struggle, which I still do, well that just makes the quest all the more exciting in the end, even if it doesn’t seem like it at the time. It’s another step I am taking on the path to making a difference in the world. I also pray it’s a testimony to other people on the spectrum to not give up, like this poor girl.

I pray every night she will find Jesus. I hope you will too. It is ultimately my trust in Christ that keeps me going. It tells me there is a cause greater than myself not just worth dying for, but worth living for.

It’s hard.

Hard, but worth it.

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

The Culture Of Death

Is hope found in death? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Her name is Zoraya Ter Beek. She’s a beautiful woman at a young age of 28. She has a boyfriend who is forty years old. She has a pair of cats.

She’s also due to die in May of this year.

She has Autism, Borderline Personality Disorder, and depression. Her psychiatrist has told her that it will never get better. She doesn’t want to bear with it anymore, so she’s going to be “Euthanized” in May.

I am on the spectrum as readers know. Since my divorce, I also take medication for anxiety and depression. So how do I approach this story?

First off, let’s say that I and many others understand being in a place where you are under the impression you’d be better off dead. I don’t care if you think it or feel it or both. I’ve been there, There were times of temptation after my divorce. It’s a pain that still hurts to this day, but I have also known if I did that, it would hurt everyone around me, and she would win.

I have been there because life is hard. We have never been promised a rose garden. There are times of suffering that we must all go through. Some times are worse than others. Some people have lives that are overall harder than others do. At least, that’s how it can look to us.

That being said, we live in a culture now that devalues life thinking that death is the answer. Rather than do the hard work of treating and/or curing a patient, it can be easier to just send them to their demise.

Easier does not mean right.

Suicide is automatically a way of saying that absolutely nothing in this world is worth it. Not her boyfriend. Not her family. Not her cats. Not beautiful sunsets or cool breezes in the afternoon or a favorite food. Nothing. It is an insult to all creation.

Also, I would love to know how this psychiatrist knows the future since I know several people who have thought their lives would never get better and lo and behold, they did. I also wonder about a boyfriend who is just fine apparently with letting a girlfriend kill herself. Warning women. Don’t date a guy who can tell you he let his last girlfriend kill herself knowingly.

Everyone involved in this story is guilty of a form of murder to some extent. You can say it is legal so it’s okay, but legal doesn’t mean right. This girl’s life is worth it. I’m not saying it’s easy. I’m just saying it is worth it. It is worth it because she is in the image of God and Jesus loves her and died for her.

Can someone introduce this girl to Jesus before it’s too late?

We live in a culture that seems to worship death and if a life becomes inconvenient to us, we snuff it out and call it compassion. “That child will grow up with a disability! That child will grow up in poverty! Better to have an abortion!” “That person is going through such sorrow! They’re better off dead!” Is it really thought that the person who is being murdered is helped or is it more that we are trying to lighten our burden by removing those that remind us of suffering and having to fight and struggle to succeed in life?

It doesn’t help that we have a one-size-fits-all approach to eschatology. Either everyone just becomes worm food, or everyone goes to Heaven because a God of grace would never do otherwise! Unfortunately, what if He does? What if the moment this girl dies, she dies without Jesus and is in a position where she would give anything to not have made this decision?

It’s a scary thought.

We can try to be nice with it and call it “Euthanasia” meaning a good death, but this is not a good death. This is murder. It is the wrongful taking of life when we have no business taking it. We are telling this woman she is a hopeless case and society will be better off. She has nothing to contribute then.

How much do you have to hate someone to tell them that?

It’s also strange that conservatives like myself are told we are responsible for the deaths of so many people who kill themselves, but when someone else like this kills themselves, well that’s met by cheers and shouts of bravery. It’s been said that people become what they worship. What happens if we treat death as the greatest good that there is? What will we become?

We will become a culture of death.

Or maybe we already have.

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

 

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 5

Does Jesus just represent the Father? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this section, Perry claims that the best way to speak of Jesus is as one who has the name of YHWH not because He is YHWH, but because He is representing YHWH.

The best sense for ‘included within the divine identity’ is representative identity – i.e. where someone
represents (acts for) someone else.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things
under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is kyrios, to the glory of God
the Father. Phil 2:9-11 (KJV revised); cf. Rom 14:1

First off, it’s noteworthy that in this passage, everything bows down to Jesus and to God, meaning that there is a differentiation going on between Jesus and everything else save the Father. Some of you astute readers will be thinking that Paul is quoting Isaiah here. We are about to get to that.

The name given to Jesus that is above every name is not the common Jewish name of ‘Jesus’ but that of
‘Yhwh’. As we have noted above, the type for this is the giving of the name to the Angel of the Lord.
This framework of name-bearing is indicative of representation (acting/speaking50 in someone’s name).
This is clear from the example of the Angel of the Lord where God instructs that the people were to obey
his voice because “my name is in/with him” (Exod 23:21). The identity here is representative, one in
which someone represents the authority and the will of another. As such, it does not confuse the persons
of God and the Angel of the Lord. We can, if we want, gloss this kind of identity as an ‘inclusive’ identity:
the representative is part of the identity of the one represented.

Nothing is said of what if someone does think the Angel of the Lord is the preincarnate Christ and actually an appearance of YHWH? There are numerous occasions in the Old Testament where someone talks to the Angel of the Lord and it is as if they are speaking to God. There are also times the Angel speaks as if He is God, notably in Exodus 3. Perry in a footnote says the prophets represented God, which is true, but no one ever confused Isaiah for YHWH.

Paul quotes Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:9-11 which, while ‘anthropomorphic’, is quite specific in its personal
language: ‘my mouth’ and ‘unto me’ – this singular language doesn’t seem to offer much room for others
to receive obeisance.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return,
that unto me (yl yk) every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isa 45:23 KJV)
Commentators assume that bowing ‘at the name of Jesus’ is equivalent to bowing before Jesus alone. It is
as if their exegesis drops ‘the name’ from their consideration of what Paul is saying. However, if you bow
‘at the name’ and that name is ‘Yhwh’, then Yahweh is involved as an indirect recipient of the obeisance
when the one being bowed to is a representative.

Absent is any mention of “I will not share my glory with another” from Isaiah 42:8. However, if Philippians says everyone bows at the name of Jesus and everyone is to bow to YHWH, it’s easy to make that parallel. It’s practically hard to avoid it.

In general, insofar as Christ does the same thing his Father does, the same action predicates are applied to
them both. For example,
To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. 1 Thess 3:13 (KJV)
…and kyrios my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. Zech 14:5 (KJV)

Yet this is not saying Jesus is doing the same action of YHWH. YHWH never comes to the Earth except at the end of Revelation and then it is the marriage of Heaven and Earth. It is Jesus that is coming to the Earth. Again, Paul is making a one-to-one parallel.

This allusion is an example of Yhwh texts that describe God acting on behalf of his people in the land.
The language of Yahweh coming in the person of another is seen, for example, in the case of the Arm of
the Lord (Isa 40:3; 10; 51:9; 53:1; John 12:38). This is God being manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16) and
fulfilling his own declaration, ‘I will be who I will be’ (Exod 3:1460). That God is manifest in someone on
the ground is indicated by the prediction that ‘his feet’ would stand on the Mount of Olives. As Adey
observes, “A Biblical criterion of being the true God is that God’s identity can be depicted by another”.
The predicates of action are equally applicable to Yahweh as they are to the person on the ground.
There are criteria of application for these predicates which are satisfied by Yahweh and the person on
the ground. The point here is not that the person bears the name ‘Yhwh’, nor that they necessarily
represent Yahweh (pace foreign potentates brought against Israel), though this may be true: the point is
that God is manifesting himself in someone through the Spirit – their actions are the actions of God. In
this sense, that person is included in an identity with God (and vice-versa) but without any confusion of
persons.

The fact that some people can possibly have a confusion of persons shows why Paul wrote the way he did, regularly saying theos for the Father and kurios for the Lord Jesus. Of course, it would be difficult to describe in many ways, but the solution is not to change the doctrine, but to change the language the best we can. Yet what happens if someone says contrary to what Perry thinks about this?

Fletcher-Louis states, “Time and again we find divine action or functions ascribed to Christ in a way that
now makes sense if Christ belongs within the divine identity and if he fully participates in the divine
nature.” What we need to question here is the ‘fully participates in the divine nature’. This sounds like
theologically motivated eisegesis designed to support later church doctrine.

Unfortunately, Perry doesn’t question it. It is fine to question what it means and that would be a great discussion to have, but his response is “It sounds like theologically motivated eisegesis designed to support later church doctrine.” Obviously, Perry is free from any theological motivations whatsoever. Suppose I said “Perry’s writing sounds like theologically motivated eisegesis in order to avoid a doctrine he disagrees with.” Could I be right? Sure. Is that an argument to reject Perry? Not at all. The motivations don’t matter. The data does.

The framework for understanding the same divine action being attributed to God and to Christ is
representative. This is clear from the use of ‘parentheses’ in Paul,
Now God himself and our Father, (even our Lord Jesus Christ), direct our way unto you. 1 Thess
3:11 (KJV revised); cf. 2 Thess 3:5
The singular verb ‘to direct’ is attached to the subject ‘God’ as shown by the emphasis ‘himself’, but the
guidance is through the Lord Jesus, as shown by the ‘even’ sense of the conjunction. Paul uses the same
construction for emphasis in 1 Thess 5:23, “May the God of peace himself (Auvto.j de. o` qeo.j) sanctify you
wholly”, and 1 Cor 8:6 makes the relationship clear: spiritual things are of the Father but through the Son
(see below).

When I look at 2 Thess. 3:5, it’s hard to find a translation besides the KJV that translates it this way. The majority don’t have a problem. Looking at the other translations, it looks that Paul is asking that the audience be directed to qualities of the Father and of the Son, but it would not be as if these were mutually exclusive to one or the other. Consider this for an example:

May the Lord direct your hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance.

Are we to think that if you want love, you go to the Father, but if you want perseverance, you go to the Son? Now granted, the Son is the only one who has been incarnate and persevered in suffering, but we are also told that God is patient with us. I doubt Perry would also question that the Son has love for us.

As for from the Father and through the Son, I agree with this. This is because I see Jesus as God’s Wisdom. This does not remove Jesus from the divine nature.

The singular verb attaches to the emphasized subject, God the Father, but the parenthesis provides a
substitution for the reader, a device which therefore does not contravene the normal grammar of noun-verb agreement.66 Fletcher-Louis’ grammatical analysis is therefore wrong “two persons grammatically
expressed as one acting subject”. It is rather, two grammatical subjects (one primary, one secondary)
available for one action verb.

And Perry can win this battle and lose the war. I don’t have a problem with this in my view of Jesus. It’s also something that really makes sense to me seeing as I don’t hold to unipersonalism.

Next time, we will discuss typological identity.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Gaming Doesn’t Need Sweet Babies

What happens when woke comes to gaming? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When I was out sick last week and recovering, I spent a lot of time watching YouTube videos while resting. I am quite interested in politics and of course, in gaming. I have noticed that a lot of popular franchises have gone woke. I know it sounds heretical, but I never really got into Star Wars, and unfortunately now, the series is dead. Woke has destroyed it. What you grew up with is not what is being produced today.

All of this is done in the name of what the Critical Drinker calls

“THE MESSAGE!”

Now it has come to gaming with a company called Sweet Baby Inc. This is all about the whole sensitivity movement and equity and everything else. This is resulting in games where women are not allowed to look feminine lest they bring about “the male gaze” and men are turned into highly emotional creatures.

News flash. The male gaze as it is put is not going away. Men tend universally to like to look at beautiful women. That’s not a bug. It’s a feature. Not only that, but there are plenty of female gamers out there and they would prefer to play as an attractive woman.

The problem with the Woke movement is not that they want to have characters, movies, video games, TV shows, etc. that include characters that are LGBTQ. For me, that’s the thing with freedom. They are allowed to do things that I don’t delight in, but that’s the way the market works.

My problem is that generally, instead of doing the hard work of making their own characters and series and establishing them, they instead co-opt characters that have a history already and try to force them into the LGBTQ group. The woke crowd doesn’t just want to make material that they want made. They want others to not make material they deem offensive and they want to force others to make games according to their standards.

These people are not doing this also because they really care about making good games. Instead, they hate people like myself who are gamers. They want a purge from the community to remove all the people that they deem to be unfit for the community. Naturally, this will be all the people they deem to be homophobic, sexist, racist, transphobic, etc.

In reality, the gaming community is really one of the most open communities there is. We have had female heroes from the beginning, such a Samus Aran of Metroid. It was a major shock for many when at the end of the game, provided you played it well finishing it in x time, that you found out the character who you were playing all along was a woman.

Another video I saw made a claim about Barrett from Final Fantasy VII being a typical stereotypical black guy. Most people were saying “Thanks for telling us you never played the game.” Barrett is a rough and tough guy, but he’s also deeply sensitive taking care of his late friend’s daughter who he took in as his own and with a deep love for the planet in his missions.

Something amusing I like to point out with this is that group like Sweet Baby Inc, is that they want to go after a group of people that spend hours playing games where they took on hostile forces and evil empires and face impossible odds and think everything will work out fine.

It won’t.

Gamers are a dedicated group and we don’t just sit back and roll over when it comes to the games that we love. Gamers all over the world have teamed up to reach goals before. We’re prepared to do it again.

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

The Reality of Beauty

Does it matter that we picture women as beautiful? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was glad Tifa wasn’t flattened.

I know many of you aren’t gamers, but the Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. What is happening here is happening everywhere else. When evil declares war, it leaves nothing untouched. Even if you never pick up a controller in your life, you should care about this because your friends and family do pick them up.

So Tifa Lockhart is a character in the game Final Fantasy VII. A bunch of guys (And girls) noticed when the game came out on the original Playstation 1 that Tifa was quite well-endowed. This could be because of the way the polygonal graphics looked on the system. Either way, it was something she got known for.

So a few years ago when the remake came out, I got concerned. Would they change this? Why was I concerned? Because I’m just a guy and I just care about women looking hot? No. I was concerned because if they did this, it would mean they were caving in to political pressure, a goal to masculinize women and make them less attractive. Why? To avoid the male gaze.

As I said yesterday, men like looking at beautiful women. Heck. Women like looking at beautiful women. The problem is our society treats this like it’s a problem.

You all do realize that if men weren’t interested in beautiful women the human race would have died out a long time ago. Right?

You can say that’s shallow, but in reality, beauty is the draw. Beauty is something that leads men to love. They see a beauty and they want to treasure that beauty and pursue it.

Women. You sell yourself short when you shortcut that pursuit of men. Men will often do enough to get the beauty, and then when they have the beauty, well that’s the peak. I am not saying all men do this, but many do.

So what happens if you go to dinner and a movie with a guy and you wind up sleeping with him? You have taught him that’s all it takes. You put your price on what your beauty is worth.

On the other hand also, if you say “You need to make a lifetime commitment to me” then if that man really wants you, he will make that commitment. If he doesn’t, then he told you what he thinks you’re worth and you dodged a bullet. By the way ladies, when he makes that commitment, honor it. Let him treasure your beauty and you will have a happy man indeed. A man who will keep wanting to please you as well.

For men, this also means that engagement with pornography doesn’t just speak lowly of women, but it speaks lowly of men. A man engaging in pornography is taking a coward’s way out that will keep him from having to engage with a real woman. The woman on the screen can’t say no after all. She requires nothing of him. He doesn’t have to do anything that is a risk. He just shows up.

Of course, she also doesn’t really care about him and doesn’t think he’s sexy. She doesn’t want to be the mother of his children. She won’t be there to grow old with him years down the road.

The man will not grow in love and also, when a real woman comes along, he very well could be unable to perform because he’s trained his mind to work on fake women. What man wants that when it’s time to perform? Why even risk it?

This is also why Christians should never say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is a reality. It is as real as truth and goodness. If beauty is relative, then there is nothing truly beautiful, but thinking makes it so. Do you think you live in a world where nothing is truly beautiful or even truly ugly?

One can say beautiful women can intimidate some women, but they can also be an inspiration. We know some portrayals, such as in anime, are unrealistic, but not all are. There is debate going on saying the main character of a game called Stellar Blade has an unrealistic image of a woman.

The image is based on a 3D model of an actual woman.

We should not try to remove beauty from women because women are meant to be beautiful. We should not try to remove masculinity from men because men are meant to be men. Our culture is in a war against reality. It is a new Gnosticism and it must be won.

Celebrate beauty today and honor beauty properly.

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

How Not To Handle Doubters

What do you not do with a doubter in your congregation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Last week, I came down with a virus and was experiencing extreme fatigue. I’m fine for the most part, but I do have a lasting cough that will probably stick with me for awhile. There have been a few nights I have got up in the middle of the night and just sucked on a cough drop until it was done and then I returned to sleep.

So during the week, I also saw someone share this on their post that a pastor shared. Granted, we don’t know all that went on before. The pastor claims there were several cordial DMs that he had with this person, and then decided to share this as something that you just have to do some time. Again, I don’t know all the context, but I am going on what the pastor shared, not the person he was dialoguing with.

Pastors. Please please please don’t do this.

I can see myself easily as the young man in this picture. If someone you trust sees a message and doesn’t say anything, it’s hard to know what’s going on on the other end. He feels ignored. Now is that a potshot possibly taken at the end? Perhaps, but hurt people hurt people, and I do suspect this man has been deeply hurt.

You all know I don’t think God speaking today is normative, but if you do and God seems to be silent and you look to the person you think best represents him and that person lets you down, what else is to be thought? God has totally abandoned you. It’s an easy conclusion to make.

So let’s look at this unnamed pastor for now. I know who he is and where he pastors, but I’m not going to share it. I want to note one thing he says.

He has a church with 400+ people in it.

Could you not find a man among one of them who can help you out? Is there not someone who understands enough apologetics to help this person? If there is not, then pastor, your biggest problem is not this person coming and taking “your time.” Your problem is that you haven’t prepared your flock. If you are teaching the flock the truths of the gospel, finding one person who can do this should be simple.

By the way, I also say a man because I think a man experiencing doubt like this who is going to be spoken to on a personal level needs it to be another man. Forming an emotional connection like that with a woman could easily lead to forming other connections. It is not to say women aren’t needed in apologetics. They definitely are.

This pastor has instead told me more about himself. I know more about what this pastor does, but I don’t know what is going on with the person who is asking for help. I know more about how important what this person does is.

Or rather, how important he thinks it is.

Instead, all I see given back are a bunch of cliches. These sound good, but they don’t work with a doubter. Could some of the claims be true? Possibly. Could it be that this person thinks the world revolves around them? Possibly. Still, the pastor shared this photo and shared it as an example of what to do.

It is exactly the opposite. It is a failure of leadership. It is someone who didn’t delegate and let someone else answer the questions. I hope this young man isn’t a casualty of what you did.

And if the young man who was in dialogue sees this, reach out to me. I’ll answer your questions the best I can and if I can’t answer a question, well, I don’t have a problem reaching out to people I trust to be experts in those fields to answer such questions.

It’s not about me and my time after all.

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

Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Conclusion

Any final comments? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It is always something good to finish off another poorly argued book. So how does this chapter end?

As I embarked on this endeavor, I aimed to prove to myself that such unbelief was warranted; that such doctrine held so dear by many was nothing more than wishful thinking. I once wanted to believe in a higher power and that an unseen force perhaps carried my being along as I moved along this life that I am currently living – that the pain that I’ve experienced as a child wasn’t all in vain. I was ignorant of the beauty and mystery that existed, without the need to believe that God was the one responsible. I found that I had the ability to learn and see for myself that such a view was obtainable, and that a belief system built on nothing but fanciful tales offered nothing that could answer the questions I had. I know such a way of thinking is possible, and as such I know this is possible for anyone. We are all humans, and with that, we all have the chance to look at the evidence, admit when we have been wrong and work towards a better understanding of this world. My final realization was a simple one.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 136). Kindle Edition.

It’s always amazing how these people still cling to a personal testimony years later. Amazing. As for answering the questions Brucker had, I found it to be pretty simple for the most part. The ones I can say I don’t know to, such as the scientific ones, don’t matter to the ultimate claims of theism and Christianity anyway.

One obvious problem is that Brucker was answering questions, which is fine, but his questions were being ignored. He recounts some stories of this happening in Sunday School and other such events. Pastors and youth leaders. Hear this. If you have a student who is asking questions, never silence or ignore them. If that means you have to do extra work to answer their questions, then do it. Avoid it and you are on the fast track to creating an atheist.

What got my curiosity going was perhaps spurred by my grandfather – an avid fan of Real Time with Bill Maher. While watching the HBO program with my grandfather one night, Maher advertised his then-upcoming documentary Religulous. It sounded like an interesting piece at that time, so once it was released, I purchased a copy and watched it with grandfather. We had a few laughs, but most of all it sparked something inside of me, constructing a question that I still struggle to answer today – Is this popular belief as warranted as was once portrayed to me?

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 137-138). Kindle Edition.

I went to see Religulous shortly after it came out. It sparked a lot of questions in me. Namely, how ignorant does someone have to be to think that this is a powerful critique of religion? You can find my review here.

Brucker goes on to describe struggling in AA because people would attribute so much of their success to God. I find it more concerning that Brucker sees people succeeding all around him and is complaining because of God. Perhaps he could have said “Maybe there is something to this if it leads to so many people leading better lives?” That doesn’t make it true, but it is still evidence to consider.

From my memory, I recall a particular quote which effectively ended the notion that God – as he’s been described – may exist; and if he does in fact exist, almost every monotheist religion that’s supported him has failed remarkably. The particular quote was one of Epicurus – a Greek philosopher – and as do most atheists, I regard this as one of my most favorite. It goes as such: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 139-140). Kindle Edition.

The problem is this kind of statement is not even really used by atheistic philosophers anymore. It’s the logical problem of evil and it doesn’t work. That’s not to say all forms of the argument from evil fail, but this one does, and had Brucker just done basic reading on the topic, he would have known that.

Religious faith requires its adherents to relinquish their ability to freely question – perhaps the most beautiful aspect of who we are as human beings.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 140). Kindle Edition.

No. That’s fundamentalism. I freely question and I celebrate anyone who asks questions. Questions are incredible and wonderful and worth exploring.

At any rate, this book is not worth your time and money. I read this stuff so you don’t have to.

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

 

 

Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Part 7

Is Jesus a myth? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It’s always amazing to me when someone like Brucker mocks Christians for going against the reigning orthodoxy in science which is evolution. Now whether you agree with it or not, it is absolutely true that evolution is the reigning scientific theory now. If someone goes against it, they need strong evidence. Brucker would accept that, but then he goes against the hugely overwhelming number of New Testament scholars of all theological viewpoints.

He can do that, but he needs really good evidence. While Moses is covered, I am going to focus on Jesus.

If such men were to have existed and the fantastic powers that are described of them were to have happened, then the historical data ought to match up without a doubt. When comparing these individuals with what the historical data represents, there exists nothing but doubt.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 119). Kindle Edition.

This assumes that everyone would have believed the claims of miracle working and then that those people who would be capable of writing would write it. Never mind also that there are plenty of historical figures that were written about much later than their time, such as Hannibal, Queen Boudica, or the German general Arminius. When Vesuvius erupted, we have only an off-the-cuff remark in a dialogue between Pliny and Tacitus. There are allusions, but historians aren’t writing about it. It’s not until we get to Cassius Dio that we learn that Herculaneum was also destroyed. Who wrote about the destruction of Jerusalem, a major event? Josephus.

Brucker just doesn’t know how history works.

The very idea that a supernatural and all-knowing creator must send his very son – who is also himself – to relinquish the born-in-sin from people whom he prescribed, absolutely seems irrational once analyzed objectively.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 124-125). Kindle Edition.

Since that hasn’t been analyzed objectively by Brucker, it’s a wonder how he would know. Also, if Brucker wants to talk about the Trinity, he should learn about the topic. Brucker would not put up with any Christian speaking on evolution who hasn’t studied it, and he shouldn’t, but he will speak freely on matters he knows nothing about.

The story abruptly ends with that, but in the book of Luke, it is described that, as a boy, Jesus visits the holy temple to sacrifice simply two doves as an offering to their God. After that, he returns home with Mary and Joseph where again, the story ends.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 126). Kindle Edition.

What a bizarre story! Did he not look at the text? The visit to the temple was the circumcision of Jesus and yet Jesus is the one offering the two doves? Jesus is also a their now? Did Brucker not edit this work at all? Did he not study the text at all?

Three of the four gospels again pick up with Jesus’ baptism being performed by the conspicuously-named John the Baptist.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 126). Kindle Edition.

Ah yes. Conspicuously named. It never occurs to Brucker that maybe he was called John the Baptist because he, I don’t know, baptized. Brucker must think any title or nickname was a conspicuous name. This is not someone who is an intellectual at all. He really seems to think that his parents nicknamed him “The Baptist” and he just started baptizing people. (No word on if he prepared casseroles or ate fried chicken.)

It’s apparent that not all four have corroborating accounts, which is in and of itself problematic.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 128). Kindle Edition.

Which actually means that they didn’t collude and didn’t try to work out the edges. That would mean that we have independent accounts which is somehow a problem? Go to most any event in history and you will find supposed inconsistencies between the accounts. The central core is still there regardless.

So now, let’s look at Brucker’s four main points.

1. The events, including miracle work, would have found their way into secular writing. 2. The Epistles written by Paul would have corroborated such events. 3. The Gospels were written much later than the Epistles were written by Paul, suggesting that many elements could have been fabricated. 4. Jesus resembles other demigods from that period of history.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 129). Kindle Edition.

For 1, Brucker gives us no reason to think this. I have written about why this is not the case.

For 2, Paul’s letter were situational and assumed high background knowledge on the part of the listeners. He was not writing to give a biography.

For 3, they could be fabricated, but he needs to show that. For instance, why do the Gospels consistently use the term “Son of Man” when it doesn’t show up abundantly in the epistles or even the church fathers? Why do they not talk about issues so often that Gentile Christians were concerned with? Why do the resurrection accounts not contain any Scriptural citations explaining the doctrine of the atonement?

For 4, this is simply not the case. The largest collection I know of online can be found here. Most scholars today don’t really take this hypothesis seriously and even Ehrman argues against it in Did Jesus Exist?

There exists only one some-what contemporary account of John the Baptist outside of New Testament writings, done so by the Jewish scholar Josephus from the first century CE. In his work Antiquities of the Jews, he claims John the Baptist may have in fact been killed as a result of his growing popularity among the Jewish community. If this was true, it most certainly disputes the Biblical claim presented.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 130). Kindle Edition.

Why? Let’s consider both claims are true. Herod arrested John because he was popular and wanted to silence them, came to like him, and then reluctantly put him to death based on his foolish oath. Problem resolved. Can I prove this is what happened? No, but if it could have happened that way and it’s easy to picture, then the burden is on Brucker.

Of course, Brucker writes about miracles and how they violate science. It’s as if he thinks ancient people didn’t understand how the world worked. Brucker assumes an approach that says miracles can’t happen without giving an argument for it.

Little evidence has been discovered linking his presence in Jerusalem during what would have been Jesus’ court appearance. Though not much is known of the man, historians and literature experts do believe he may have been an important figure in Judea during that time. From a stone tablet found in Judea in 1961 bearing the phrase “Pontius Pilate…Prefect of Judea…Has Dedicated”, it’s been common knowledge he reigned over Jerusalem, but most of the details remain unclear as much of it has been clouded in mystery.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 131). Kindle Edition.

I have never read of anyone doubting that Pilate was there. Maybe some have, but I haven’t read it. There can be no doubt that Pilate is a historical figure mentioned by others. (By the way, Tacitus mentions him one time and that is the same place he mentions Jesus, and this is someone Brucker doesn’t interact with.)

For that matter, he doesn’t interact with ANY extra-biblical references to the historical Jesus.

Finally, speaking about Moses and Jesus, he says:

Accepting the existence of such men has spawned nothing but hatred, bloodshed, bigotry, and ignorance.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 134). Kindle Edition.

Jesus presented the world with the greatest moral code we have ever had and the greatest incentive. He has provided hope and freedom to many. He has sponsored great artwork and literature and learning. True, some people have misused His life and message, but overall, the world is the better because of Jesus.

Brucker certainly has a chip on his shoulder quite likely driving his approach to the data.

Next time, we will conclude.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Part 6

Is the Bible history? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book is one that seems to get worse as it goes along. So this chapter is talking about history. Let’s see what we have.

Throughout the Old Testament, when God is being quoted he’s often speaking in plurality – flying in the face of most religious apologists who adamantly insist on there being only one God.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 104). Kindle Edition.

Right. Right. Obviously, every apologist has a problem with this. There are plenty of reasons for plurality.

One is the Trinity is speaking.

Two is the royal three is being used.

Three is that God is speaking to the Divine Council.

Any of these would work. It’s hard to imagine why Brucker doesn’t know about these. Nah! It’s easy to! Brucker just hates contrary thought!

I will touch on the existence of Jesus later in this work, but it is understood by historians that the following who claimed Jesus as their Messiah believed in a very different Jesus than the man whom Paul would eventually describe. He was not God-made-man, and he did not die for our sins – merely a self-described prophet who rose from the dead after death. It wasn’t until Paul and others elaborated on those beliefs and carried on with such did there become a distinction between Judaism and Christianity. It is very possible that the Jesus as we commonly understand today is only the product of the human imagination.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 109). Kindle Edition.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t tell us who these historians are. The idea of Paul inventing Christianity was dealt a death blow years ago by E.P. Sanders. Since then, we know Paul fit in just fine with the Judaism of his time.

Jesus is said to have died roughly 33 CE, and Paul is said to have converted approximately 36 CE, but history tells us that Jewish and Judeo-Christians coexisted without quarrel for much longer than described.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 111). Kindle Edition.

It would be great to know which history this is. Does Brucker have one of Jews and Christians meeting together and holding hands and singing Kum-Bu-Yah?

Most who support the Christian faith may not know that the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – were not written by those who’ve been given the credit. In fact, most contemporary Biblical scholars would also agree with me on this point, alluding to the fact that the stories of Jesus may have only been an oral tradition for fifty to 100 years. I find it impossible to believe that the story of Jesus remained the same as it was when he supposedly lived until it was first written down.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 111-112). Kindle Edition.

Brucker again doesn’t name any of these historians or why they think the way that they do. We accept authorship for other works on far weaker grounds than we do for the Gospels. Brucker can also say he finds it hard to believe a story remained the same. His disbelief is not an argument. (I plan on sometime soon doing a series on the Gospels with dating and authorship.)

If Christianity was true, and what is being taught today is meant to be believed as the word of God, why would it take such time to formulate the Gospels? If Jesus’ apostles were real, why would history suggest they weren’t the likely authors?

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 112). Kindle Edition.

First, history doesn’t suggest that.

Second, writing was a laborious process, took a long time, cost a lot of money, and could only reach the people who could read and their audience. Oral tradition was free, reliable, quick, and could reach anyone who spoke. On the surface, Brucker’s question is understandable, but alas, it totally ignores the fact that this was a pre-Gutenberg society.

Next time, we look at the historicity of Jesus. Brucker does talk some about Moses, but I will choose to focus on Jesus.

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

Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Part 5

Is the universe Godless? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this one, we’re asking the question of if the universe is godless or not. Brucker starts off with a clear position on the matter.

But ever since God was the most plausible option, scientific thought and exploration have demonstrably proven those archaic beliefs as false. In the past, these hasty speculations were accepted rather quickly amongst these populations because there hadn’t existed differing and testable facts.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 83). Kindle Edition.

How these beliefs have been proven to be false is not shown. Also, scientific work had been going on for quite some time. Had Brucker just read some ancient works and some medieval works, he might have learned something.

As I’ve suggested and offered as an objective criticism, I would postulate the idea that if God were, in fact, the author of truth and that the writings he inspired were literal, what has been established throughout the centuries would be an accurate representation of reality as God is the creator of all and the Abrahamic texts would correspondingly agree.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 84). Kindle Edition.

What is the hang-up with literalism? It is a modern way of thinking and certainly not the way Jews and Christians always interpreted. The Jewish people had a number of ways of reading the text as did the early church fathers.

I find it humbling that my purpose in life is what I make of it, and the reason I’m here is a miracle, not in a metaphysical sense but because of the sheer odds that were trumped for my presence to exist.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 90). Kindle Edition.

Which is a quite scary statement. We could say that any mass-murderer in history said that their purpose in life was what they made of it. On what grounds could he said to be wrong? That would assume that there is some objective purpose to life, but that’s a teleology that atheism has to deny.

Not a single article of scripture suggests that each star has its solar system, or that there are close to 1,000,000,000,000 stars within each galaxy. In our universe, it is believed to contain roughly 1,000,000,000,000 galaxies, bringing the total number of stars to an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Also, let us refer to the scale of known planetary and solar objects. A neutron star, essentially a star to have already exhausted its internal resources after a supernova has occurred, is roughly 10,000 times bigger than a human. The Earth is approximately 1,500,000 times larger than the average human. The sun is roughly 10,000 times larger than the Earth.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 91). Kindle Edition.

And why should they? What would anyone care? How could anyone find this out? What would it mean to anyone who read that?

The largest know star, VY Canis Majoris is almost 100,000 times larger than our sun, making it 1,500,000,000,000 times larger than ourselves. I find it impossible to imagine that this universe was designed specifically for us, as this star is almost 5,000 light-years away with a circumference so great that it would take a Boeing jet 1,200 years to complete a full circle, which doesn’t allude to an intentionally created universe. I can agree it is a very daunting proposition, that we are significantly unimportant and that we may not have an absolute purpose. But to arrogantly claim that it was created for us is undeniably wrong.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 91). Kindle Edition.

There is no connection between the data and the conclusion. “We live in a big universe, therefore it wasn’t made for us to inhabit.” How does that follow? He can say that to claim it was made for us to inhabit is undeniably wrong since I do deny it as do and would several others.

But what about arguments for God? We all know where this is going.

1. Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe exists and began to exist. 3. The universe must have a cause. 4. The cause of the universe is God.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 94). Kindle Edition.

No one has ever defended the idea that “Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause.” Somehow, atheists think the argument is “Everything that exists has a cause.” To this, Edward Feser’s post is still essential. As Feser says:

Here’s the funny thing, though.  People who attack this argument never tell you where they got it from.  They never quote anyone defending it.  There’s a reason for that.  The reason is that none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument.  Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne.  And not anyone else either, as far as I know.  (Your Pastor Bob doesn’t count.  I mean no one among prominent philosophers.)  And yet it is constantly presented, not only by popular writers but even by some professional philosophers, as if it were “the” “basic” version of the cosmological argument, and as if every other version were essentially just a variation on it.

But now let’s get back to Brucker:

What I find troubling about this is that the essence of God is often left alone, believed that God is outside the realm of creation as he has always been. This, of course, fits well within the line of reasoning held by the monotheistic individual, but if they wish to argue such a claim they must first prove that this creator exists; and if he does exist, they must also demonstrate how he can exist without the need of a first cause.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 94-95). Kindle Edition.

So in order to make an argument for the existing of God, you first have to show that God exists. To this, I’m only going to accept arguments for atheism if Brucker can first show that atheism is true.

All of which must be answered or else the cosmological argument holds little weight. There is also nothing to suggest that if the cause was a supreme being, that it, in fact, is the God of Abraham behind the conception of the universe. When I’m faced with an argument of this sort, I often attempt to stress the fact that while the first cause for matter may hold weight, there is nothing to suggest that it was any specific deity; nothing about the argument carries any defining traits of the Abrahamic deity.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 95). Kindle Edition.

Let’s go back to Feser:

People who make this claim – like, again, Dawkins in The God Delusion – show thereby that they haven’t actually read the writers they are criticizing.  They are typically relying on what other uninformed people have said about the argument, or at most relying on excerpts ripped from context and stuck into some anthology (as Aquinas’s Five Ways so often are).  Aquinas in fact devotes hundreds of pages across various works to showing that a First Cause of things would have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and so on and so forth.  Other Scholastic writers and modern writers like Leibniz and Samuel Clarke also devote detailed argumentation to establishing that the First Cause would have to have the various divine attributes.

Of course, an atheist might try to rebut these various arguments.  But to pretend that they don’t exist – that is to say, to pretend, as so many do, that defenders of the cosmological argument typically make an undefended leap from “There is a First Cause” to “There is a cause of the world that is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.” – is, once again, simply to show that one doesn’t know what one is talking about.

Also, no one who made the argument ever said it gets you to one particular religion. Maimonides, Avicenna, and Aquinas in the middle ages, the Jew, the Muslim, and the Christian, could all use the argument to establish a first cause. Then they would use other data to debate who the first cause is. What He is was not the question so much as who He is.

Now the question comes: How could energy spontaneously exist without cause for its existence? First of all, the idea of causation – as we understand it – must be erased, as Lawrence Krauss has explained that what we assume to be “logical” may not apply to the universe because the universe existed long before our brains developed the ability to decide what was logical and what was not. After years of dedication, scientists have found the evidence in our universe that suggests that the formation of energy, both negative and positive, happens without intention or guidance. All matter is consisted of positive energy as it is needed to maintain the integrity of the atoms, of which an object consists.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 96). Kindle Edition.

You gotta love it. Here we have the one saying he is championing rationality saying the universe might not be logical at its start. So God can’t be accepted if He has a logical contradiction, which is true, but if the universe has that, it’s cool. The argument doesn’t even make sense. Logic doesn’t apply until humans show up?

What a train wreck.

Next time, we’ll start looking at history.

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