Soul Survivor: Why I Won't Be Going

Soul Survivor is an organisation which 'Soul Survivor runs events to help people get to know and follow Jesus better.' It is one of the annual events of the church I attend to embark on one of these trips, camping in a muddy field worshipping God and listening to powerful sermons. Many of my friends find a renewed sense of vibrancy and trust in their relationship with Jesus after such events, and find the Christian community there wonderful. For a number of weeks now, people have persistently asked why I have decided not to attend such an event. In this article, I shall argue that the lax approach to spiritual gifts this charismatic movement has shall provide a dangerous precedence among Christians, leaning towards a purely existential approach to the Gospel without intellectual engagement, and thus my refusal to go is justified.

Firstly, I want to emphasise that Soul Survivor does a lot of good work for young Christians. Whilst it may share its name with a Rolling Stones song about worshipping the devil, the events held by Soul Survivor do encourage re-dedication to Christ. They help the relationships people have with God to be renewed, embrace vibrant, enthusiastic living for Jesus and really enliven people's faith. In a way, they are like going to the petrol station: if you faith is waning in its practical application, Soul Survivor will fill your tank up and you will be re-energised to follow Jesus. The existential side of the events is fantastic, encapsulating what it means to build faith, hope and love with the Lord in our personal lives. As Martin Luther believed, justification unites the sinner to Christ, and Soul Survivor brings that out wonderfully.

However, these existential concerns seem to overpower the need for intellectual rigour in the Church. The leaders and founders of Soul Survivor, in particular Mike Pilavachi, are charismatics, and as such are heavily devoted to the persuasion of others that the 'Charismata', better known as the spiritual gifts, should be more readily sought out by Christians in pursuit of God. Whilst I am not a Cessationist, that is, someone who believes the spiritual gifts were no longer needed after the Bible was put together, I do think a degree of investigation and intellectual scrutiny should be used when someone claims to be using a spiritual gift, which Mike Pilavachi and others do not.

Spiritual Gifts are defined by the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible in the following passage: 'Endowments given by the Spirit. All Christians should show the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5: 22-3) but the gifts bestowed by the spirit are adapted to each individual, and are listed by Paul in Romans 12: 6-8 and in 1 Corinthians 12: 8-10, 28-30. They comprise gifts of speech, both coherent utterance and also the unintelligible speaking in tongues (though some present might have the complementary gift of interpretation); gifts of service and administration; and gifts of healing. A further gift mentioned by Paul is apostleship, which builds up the Church by leadership and pastoral care. In later epistles (Ephesians 4: 11 and 1 Peter 4: 10-11) the gift of speaking in tongues is omitted, possibly because experience taught the Church that words understood by all were preferable to sounds intelligible only to God (1 Corinthians 14: 1-5).

Now at this point, I want to introduce the idea of revelation. This is defined as:
(S) M reveals A to N by means of K
 An example might be:
(S) God reveals something about Himself to Fred by means of Tongues
So we can see, spiritual gifts are a means of revelation for God.

Unlike most religions, revelation is the corner stone of Christianity, along with Judaism and Islam. As such, all three recognise that it is vital to establish the which revelations are genuine and which are not, for how we follow God, and thus ultimately are salvation, could depend upon it. Whilst the initial revelations to ancient people are fascinating, and are essential to establishing the truth of each religion, for the purposes of this article I will just focus on the credentials of modern revelation, and how the Christian religion assesses the truth claims of purported religious experiences.

William Alston, a famous Christian philosopher of the 20th Century and the father of reformed epistemology, noted that the way we provide justification for trusting experiences is not via arguments and experiments but by what is called a 'doxastic practice', a belief forming mechanism. What it does is it takes inputs (such as sense data) and turns them into outputs (beliefs about the external world). Each practise has its own set of criteria for what is a valid input. For example, the doxastic practises for sensory experience would determine that valid inputs are those which are logically coherent and consistent with are other sensory beliefs. If a belief is formed of valid inputs, the practise bestows prima facie justification on the belief. That is, we are justified in holding that belief until proven otherwise. Alston's point is that both are normal experiences and religious ones use this process, and so both types of belief's are valid until proven otherwise. To deny religious experience the same status as sensory experience is a double standard, for they both use the doxastic practise for epistemic justification. Therefore, as the Christian doxastic practise has the same status as an equal status to sensory practise (which we all trust) if we can establish which claims of revelation are true, we are initially justified in believing them, which could greatly effect the decisions we make and the lives we lead.

Thus, trusting a modern revelation, via the spiritual gifts, requires us to use the Christian doxastic practise in assessing whether it is a valid input. This means that when someone claims to have a spiritual gift, the evidence or experience put forward must be subjected to the criteria of a valid input. If it does not meet the expected norm, the Christian religion rejects this instance as a true example of the gift. For an illustration, lets look at the gift of prophecy.

Someone who has the gift of prophecy is by definition a prophet. A prophet is neither a soothsayer, nor a fortune teller. Rather, a prophet is someone who 'shows us the face of God, and in so doing he shows us the path we must take' (Pope Benedict XVI). This distinguishes a prophet from society, religion and institutions: he represents the word of God alone. There are a number of criteria the Bible states for determining who is a prophet, although they are not applicable in all cases. They are:

*Being inspired to fortell future events (Deuteronomy 18:18, 22 and Jeremiah 28:1-17)
*Miracles, signs and wonders wrought by the prophet are further authentication (Deuteronomy 34: 9-12)
*The prophecy (A) corresponds with God's word (1 Kings 22:17 and 1 John 4: 1-3)
*The prophet lives a God-fearing life (Jeremiah 23:9-18 and 2 Peter 2:1-2, 13-18)

St. Thomas Aquinas also provided further criteria, which distinguish between the person who has had a potential revelation and those who have the gift of prophecy:

*A prophet must reveal information which 'transcends human knowledge.' If this was not the case, we could just work out using our cognitive faculties the truth of what the prophet says, and thus God would not be required for us to learn this truth. As prophecy is the revelation of unknown information (such as future events), it cannot just be that which we could work out via reason.
*Second, the prophet must have an understanding of what he or she has received. He gives the example of pagan rulers in the Bible (Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar) who received revelation in dreams and visions but who were not prophets because they did not grasp the revelation.
*Third, the prophet must not mistake the symbol for the symbolised. If he did, we would not know what is real or false, metaphor and literal in God's revelation.
*Fourth, the prophet must perceive the revelation as though through demonstration.
*Fifth, the prophet must be able to communicate the revelation in an expressible way.
*Sixth, and most importantly, nothing false can come under prophecy.

These criteria have long been accepted by major theologians and philosophers for centuries, including titans such as John Locke, Wolfhart Pannenberg and John Paul II. As such, I think it is reasonable to take them as the doxastic practise within Christianity which validates whether an act of prophecy is an input, and confirm who has the gift of prophecy.

My problem with Soul Survivor is that they abandon the criteria for revelation, thus allowing nearly anything to count as a spiritual gift, religious experience or miracle. Take prophecy. Mike Pilavachi of Soul Survivor tells a story of practising prophecy. He was very nervous and felt very nonspiritual. He decided he would be more holy before the day so he could hear from God clearly. In fact, he forgot about the day which came around suddenly. On the day, in the room, in front of a couple, he listened as his friend who had a gift of prophecy gave words to the couple. Then came Mike's turn. However, the only thing he could hear or see in his head was Abba singing 'Dancing Queen'. He hoped the ground would swallow him up or that Jesus would return. Neither happened so he duly gave his 'word'. 'In the words of Abba, you can dance, you can dance, having the time of your lives.' There was a silence and then giggles from the couple. 'Do you want to know why we're laughing?' asked the woman. Mike, nervously agreed. 'Well, I started running a dance class at church a couple of weeks ago and I was wondering whether I should carry on with it' came the reply.

When we apply the criteria for prophecy, it does not seem like a valid input. We can't test the verifiable nature of this case, as Mike neither offers a prediction nor a miraculous sign. We cannot tell whether it is in God's interest for the dance group to continue, and it does not evidently correspond to God's word. What Mike said neither transcends human knowledge nor was understood by him, and as far as we can tell he did not perceive the revelation as though through demonstration. It seems like this claim of prophecy is weak. Now I do not disagree that God may have inspired this man to say these words at a certain time to help this couple make a decision. What I do dispute is the epistemic justification for holding such a belief. And this is not just limited to prophecy. All the miraculous gifts are opened up by the Soul Survivor brand, so that if it vaguely seems to meet with the conceptions of revelation then that passes for a genuine experience of God. This is unbiblical to the highest degree.

The Early Church Fathers recognised that Christianity is a religion which is based on its truth, and that this truth could be demonstrated by argument and reason. If our love is not grounded in truth, what use is it? Abandoning intellectual engagement with religious experience and revelation allows almost anything, from a flickering eye to the effects of drugs, as reliable guides to our interaction with God. This is dangerous, for it allows false prophets and demonic revelations to cloud human judgement and distracts us from the path to God. Only by imposing criteria which are founded in prior revelation can we be sure prima facie what we have is revealed truth, and not some demonic deception. I cannot stress the importance of this enough: if we start accepting false revelations, spiritual gifts and religious experiences, ultimately are relationship with God will suffer through our false preconceptions, beliefs and ideas, no matter how good the intentions are. It is this which divides miracle from hoax, interaction with the divine from imagination and spiritual gift from mental phenomena. It is only by this that the early church was able to decide clear, absolute doctrine and not ambiguous, clouded views, which would be the dangerous result of the views Soul Survivor endorses. Indeed, it is these sorts of anti-rational views which allowed gnostics, arians and other sects to develop. Due to the prevailing danger such a position holds, I feel my stand against this by not attending is justified, despite the existential benefits of going.

In conclusion, I won't go to Soul Survivor as it sacrifices the intellectual integrity of Christianity for existential concerns. I can see why: if you allow almost anything to be a revelatory instance, then everyone can feel included and a developed relationship with Jesus. However, the danger this poses is that we allow ourselves, group hysteria and false experiences to shape our Christian beliefs, and in doing so jeopardise our conception, and thus relationship, with God. Never forget that if you are a Christian, it is not because you feel existentially good about it, but because you think it is true. Truth is of the utmost importance. For Jesus himself is the eternal Logos, word and reason. He is the Truth, and to allow false experiences to taint our faith is to abandon him. Therefore, as one who realises that the foundations of what I believe were created by men like St. Irenaeus, St Athanasius and St Augustine, pioneers of sound doctrine and an uncompromising value of the truth, I cannot attend Soul Survivor. For those who do go, I hope your faith is renewed and you walk with Jesus, in the truth. Just be wary of the falsities one may be led into by the dominating rejection of the Christian doxastic practise at such an event.

'Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.' 1 John 3:18

P.S. I recently wrote a blog post essentially rejecting the whole premise of this one, which you can read here
http://ratio-et-fide.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/speaking-in-tongues-how-i-went-from.html

Is Jesus a Myth?

Christianity is a religion which either triumphs or falls on its historical accuracy. It makes the radical claim that God, in the person of Jesus, entered history. For a Christian, the Gospels give us the best account of who the divine is, through the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus. Thus, a debate between believers and sceptics has ensued as to how much we can truly know about the historical figure of Christ. However, some have argued that in fact the whole of Christianity is a fraud, which finds its origins not in history but in pagan myths. By demonstrating the parallels the story of Jesus shares with other deities, people like Robert Price, Dorothy Murdock and even Christopher Hitchens have sought to show that the Gospels make no historical claims, and are just mythically inspired literature. Indeed, the film Zeitgeist proposed this as the truth. I will argue that any such arguments are replete with poor reasoning and they do not hold up to close scrutiny.

The claim is that biblical narratives of Christ's life and teachings are mythological in origin and bare no relation to historical accounts. This often known as the copycat theory. To support this claim, proponents often supply a list of parallels between pagan religions and Christianity. The movie Zeitgeist gives the following examples:

'Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born saviour. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptised by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled around with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.'

'Attis, of Phrygia, born of a virgin Nana on December the 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after three days, resurrected. Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected. Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin of December the 25th, was a travelling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the King of Kings, God's only Begotten Son... and upon his death, was resurrected. Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had twelve disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for three days and thus resurrected.'

At first glance, this looks like a devastating attack on Christianity's claim to be rooted in history. After all, these other pagan religions seem to make the same claims about their Gods. However, to assess the argument put forward, we will have to engage with the primary sources, actual and original texts, where these myths came from. The biggest fallacy the copycat proponent makes is that of terminology. They specifically use Christian terminology, such as born of a virgin, crucified and resurrection, when describing pagan myths. However, such lexicon involves assertions without evidence and are ripped out of context, or are obtained from post-first century texts. A few examples will suffice.

Zeitgeist argues that Horus was born of a virgin. From the primary sources available, Horus was either: 1) the result of intercourse between Isis and Osiris in their mother's womb 2) concieved by Isis's sexual intercourse with Osiris's dead body 3) Isis is impregnated by Osiris after his death and after a loss of his genitalia 4) Isis is impregnated by a flash of lightening. This is nothing like the virgin birth of Jesus, where no physical agent or force impregnates Mary.

Likewise, Attis is conceived when Zeus spilled his sperm on a mountain side which grew into a pomegranate tree. When Nana, mother of Attis, was sitting under the tree, a fruit fell into her lap and this made her pregnant with Zeus' child. Devaki, the mother of Krishna, has seven children before Krishna. Semele, the mother of Dionysius, conceived him via sexual intercourse with Zeus. None of these supposed parallels are anything like the 'virginal' conception that scripture claims of Jesus.

Does the copycat theory do any better on the allegation that the crucifixion originates in pagan myths? Not at all. Krishna was killed from an arrow shot in the foot. Attis, due to jealousy, castrated himself, fled into the wilderness and died. Depending which source you read, Horus either: 1) did not die 2) was stung by a scorpion 3) had his death conflated with Osiris's. Mithra just doesn't die. None of these bare much resemblance to the death of Jesus, who died by crucifixion.

How about resurrection? Again, the term is falsely applied. Horus was revived by magical incantations by another God. Post-death, Attis turned into a pine tree. Most of the claims of resurrection were written many years after the first-century sources for Christianity, such as the Gospels and Paul's letters. A second century source informs us of the resurrection of Adonis. The appearence of Krishna's resurrection only emerge in the sixth century! Again, the prior resurrections are nothing like the distinctly Jewish nature of Jesus's return to life.

Another fallacy these arguments make is the nonbiblical fallacy. This is where a parallel is made about Jesus's life which is not even in the Gospel accounts. For example, it is often claimed that Jesus shares his birth date, the 25th December, with other deities. However, nowhere in the bible does it say he was born on this day. This results from the selective reading and lack of engagement proponents of the Jesus-myth have to do.

A further flaw in the copycat theory is that it it commits the difference fallacy. It makes an overemphasis on supposed similarities, whilst ignoring the large number of relevant differences. The variations between Christianity and pagan religions are enormous. For example, whereas all mystery religions believe in a birth-death-rebirth cycle, Christianity is linear, with history culminating in God's transformation of creation into His kingdom. Another point is that in pagan mystery sects, doctrine is unimportant, for they emphasise feeling and emotion over belief. By contrast, Christianity's heart and soul lies in the creeds and doctrinces. This is why the Romans so highly persecuted them, for they held there was only one God.

Finally, and most importantly, the pagan myths we have investigated have little to ground their stories in history. By contrast, the story of Jesus includes many historical dates, places, people and events. For example, Luke 3:1-2 reads:

'In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar - when Pontius Pilate was governer of Judeag, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene - during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.'

These two verses offer a specific time and place in history which we can use to validate historical events. No such material is found in pagan stories. A few places and geographical locations may be mentioned, but most events have no date and nearly all the participants are gods. A comparison with the New Testament dates, locations, places and people will show the gulf there is between Christianity and pagan myths in regards to historical grounding.  This is because pagan myths are cosmic epics, which reference earth infrequently. Whilst I am not arguing the New Testament is reliable, the marked difference in historical emphasis is a clear indication it's origins are not found in pagan myths. Metzger states:

'Unlike the deities of the Mysteries, who were nebulous figures of an imaginary past, the Divine being who the Christian worshipped as Lord was known as a real Person on earth only a short time before the earlies documents of the New Testament were written.'

Thus, it is the historicity of Jesus's life, teachings and deeds which make Christianity truly anti-pagan.

To conclude, the claim that the story of Jesus is a myth is a weak argument, relying on false application of terminology, highly selective reading and choosing to ignore the prominence of historicity in the Gospels as compared to pagan myths. The parallels are most of the time not even parallels. However, I think the final refutation of the theory should be left to Adolf von Harnack:

'We must reject the comparative mythology which finds causal connection between everything and everything else, which tears down solid barriers, bridges chasms as though it were child's play, and spins combinations from superficial similarities... By such methods one can turn Christ into a sun god in the twinkling of an eye, or transform the Apostles into the twelve months; in connection with Christ's nativity one can bring up the legends attending the birth of every conceivable god or one can catch all sorts of mythological doves to keep company with the baptismal dove; and find any number of celebrated asses to follow the ass on which Jesus rode into Jerusalem; and thus with the magic wand of 'comparative religion' triumphantly eliminate every spontaneous trait in any religion.'

Bibliography

Challenging the Zeitgeist Movie Mark Foreman

Does the Story of Jesus Mimic Pagan Mystery Stories Mary Jo Sharp

Concerning Isis and Osiris Plutarch

Book of the Dead Translation by Wallace

The Mythic Image Joseph Campbell

The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief Rodney Stark

The Mysteries of Mithras Roger Beck

Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity Bruce Metzger

Wissenschaft und Leben Adolf von Harnack

Does Following Jesus Equal Following Rules?

One of the most important questions a Christian could ask is 'what does it mean to follow Christ?' As the object of our faith, it is essential we work out what it means to devote our lives to him. Recently, I attended a church meeting where the sermon offered the view that following Jesus is not the same as adhering to a set of rules as is commonly thought, but is primarily focused on encouraging a relationship with God. However, I think this argument has created a false dichotomy, for it attempts to portray following Jesus as either consisting of rules and regulations or a loving bond of fellowship. I will argue the two are heavily intertwined in bringing the believer to God, with both being synonymous in the enterprise of union with Christ.

The sermon was advertised as advancing the following position:

'This one will see us tackle one of the BIGGEST myths about faith in God - that following Jesus is the same as following a bunch of stupid rules.'

According to the preacher, following Jesus is about having a relationship of love and devotion with him. This happens through a 'life of grace', which God has offered to us by sacrificing Jesus on the cross to pay for our sins. This in turn allows us to embrace a loving relationship with him. But to love someone means you do things for them because you want to do them. We as Christians are expected to 'change our lives' because we want to follow the Lord's commands. For as Jesus himself says, 'If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching'. (John 14:23) This relationship will be founded on the two greatest commandments, summarised as loving God and your fellow man. This results in a 'changed life', where one follows God's commands not out of fear but out of love. Therefore, following Jesus isn't just about obeying commands, but is primarily a relationship with the divine. The argument of the sermon that a relationship with God is key to following Christ, not the rules and regulations you find in the Bible.

I agree that fundamentally that the essence of Christianity is not an assent to a set of propositions nor a set of moral codes, but is a full commitment and devotion, with one's heart and soul virtually consumed by a deep reverence and love of God. As the Jewish philosopher Maimonides wrote:

'What is proper love of God? It is the love of the Lord with a great and very strong love so that one's soul shall be tied to the love of the Lord, and one should be continually enraptured by it, like a lovesick individual.'

The question we need to ask is by what means do we achieve this state of mind? Belief in God may be obtained by compelling arguments and credible evidence, but love of God cannot be planted in the heart by the methodological rules of knowledge acquisition. One cannot force themselves to bare certain sentiments? So how can we build a relationship of love with God?

The sagacious Hillel hinted at the answer who, as the famous story goes, was approached by someone demanding to be taught the whole Law while standing on one foot. Hillel agreed and told the man in one sentence, 'Whatever is hateful to you do not do it to your fellow human.' Hillel's fascinating precis of the Law raises many issues. One of them is in Leviticus 19:18, 'You all love your fellow human as yourself.' Why did he change the wording of the scriptures? Hillel realised that one cannot be commanded to have certain sentiments; I could be ordered to act or refrain from doing something, but I cannot be ordered to love someone I happen to dislike. Therefore, to love God and thus build a relationship with him, we have to begin with the behaviour that is always associated with such a sentiment, which is embodied in the eternal rules and regulations of the Old and New Testaments. For desirable behaviour is assumed to generate desirable feelings.

The twelfth-century poet-philosopher Judah Halevi was quite explicit on this point, 'Man can reach God only by doing His commands.' (Cuzari 2:46). Good thoughts, intentions and even prayers can be too fleeting and insubstantial on their own, whereas physical acts are concrete; when one has trained oneself to act in accordance with the rules and regulations of Christianity and actual behaviour closely resembles of those who truly possess love of God, then one has provided proper grounds on which fervent fellowship with Jesus may grow. This theory may be compared with what is called today 'Behaviour Modification'. This therapy induces feelings through adopting certain patterns of behaviour. On the more extreme end of this view it is not merely possible but essential to try to fulfil the relevant rules and regulations set out by Jesus to achieve a genuine relationship with God. Thus, to argue that following Jesus is either attempting to uphold rules or having a  relationship is a false dichotomy, for to create sentiments of love and exaltation for Jesus, one must try to exhibit the behaviour associated with such emotions to allow them to flourish, encapsulated in the laws set out by God. Therefore, whilst the main principle of the sermon that to follow Christ is to engage in a relationship with him is correct, to separate this from the ethical and moral system of commands, orders and rules of the bible is to undermine the formers enterprise, and thus endangering a relationship with God.

I think in essence the preacher at hand and I agree on a lot. She affirmed the position that we should follow Jesus by loving him and loving our neighbours. Moreover, she would also accept that to love God requires a devotion and trust in his word, which entails acting in a way that pleases him. However, to claim that following Jesus is having a relationship with God and not following 'a bunch of stupid rules' misses the point entirely: the former requires the latter to flourish. The two are intertwined, they harmonise together. This alone would explain why God bothered to inspire books such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus: if the two greatest commands told by Jesus are all there is to following him, we would not need such texts to inform us of eternal rules and regulations which we can follow to help us build a platform where love and similar sentiments can grow. Having a relationship with Christ is embodied in the commands and teachings of the bible.

To conclude, this article is not a contumacious jibe at a sermon out of pride, jealousy or any other vice. Rather, I have written this article because I strongly believe a clarification of the truth, which must be a primary factor in any discussion, was required after that sermon, despite the risk of undermining the positive effects it may have had. The attempts to present the view that following Jesus is following rules and regulations as at odds with the idea that being a Christian is foremost a relationship with God is false. Rather, the commands we are given allow us to perform behaviour which provides a foundation for which the sentiments required for a meaningful relationship can be built. Thus, to follow Jesus is to both have a relationship with God and follow rules and regulations, for the two are integral parts of the same enterprise.

Bibliography
Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Teshuvah
Shabbat 31b
A Central Theistic Argument George Schlesinger

How can a loving God send anyone to Hell?

Hell. Literally the bogeyman of Christianity. A place of torment, darkness and eternal damnation, far away from the paradise which is Heaven. A realm of the unfaithful, those who did not think the evidences provided were sufficient grounds to base their lives on one of millions of religions. Traditional Christianity believes that Hell, in all its horror, is real, yet claims the being who they worship is all loving. But how can this be so? Surely any being worthy of the title omnibenevolent would spare his creation the suffering of Hell? This controversial subject is swept under the carpet by many Christian institutions, with congregations never taught the true nature of Hell and thus leading  many of them to flounder in the face of questions by non-believers. Whilst I cannot offer a definitive point of view on such a vast topic, what I hope to do in this article is dis-spell prevalent myths about what Hell is in Christianity, and that both Hell and an all loving God are compatible.

The first thing to point out is that even if the sceptic demonstrates that the doctrine of Hell is incompatible with an all loving God, then it would show that the classical view of Hell is mistaken, not that of an all loving being existing. For example, eminent theologians such as Karl Barth, Marilyn Adams and Rob Bell have all claimed that in one way or another that God sends nobody to Hell, for they see it as somehow defying the all loving nature of God. So this is not an argument for non-belief, but rather an argument about whether traditional interpretations of Hell are consistent with Christian beliefs, which would still be secure if the doctrine of Hell is found inadequate.

Before examining whether Hell is incompatible with the Christian God, we need to define what it is. Since the middle ages, Hell has been portrayed as a fiery inferno, where after one dies, if you have been unfaithful to God you will be tortured for an eternity. Here's an illustration:

Not a nice place at all. I can't imagine one minute being nice, never mind all of time! And yet, God apparently sends people to this place of nightmares.

However, as many modern scholars have discovered, the English word Hell is a poor translation for the Hebrew word Sheol, the Aramaic Gehenna and the Greek Hades. Each are all different from the modern word Hell, and yet our the words used by the New Testament authors. Thus, an exposition of each will be helpful.

Sheol is a Hebrew term for the lower parts of the Earth or underworld where the departed are consigned (Proverbs 9:18) There they continue in a gloomy insubstantiality (Ecclesiastes 17:27-8) due to the human form being weakened by the separation of body and soul. Here they wait until judgement day, where the soul is reunited with a resurrection body.

Gehenna was a valley outside Jerusalem through which the road to Bethlehem runs. Children were once sacrificed there to the god Molech (Jeremiah 7:13) and later there was a continuous burning dump. Hence, it became to be an image for a place where the wicked would be condemned.

Hades is the Greek translation for the word Sheol, but has added connotations. It too was seen as a resting place for the dead in a shadowy existence (Ecclesiastes 9:10). Hades is not a place of torment in the Old Testament, except for its eternal boredom (Psalm 88:12) but in the New Testament, due to Hellenistic conceptions of Hades infiltrating Jewish thought, physical pain seems to be envisaged post-death for some (Luke 16:23) and for unrepentant sinners (Mark 9:48). However, when the purpose of God is fully achieved, both Death, the last enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26,54) and Hades, where the already dead repose, will surrender their populations, with the establishment of the eternal reign of God.

So how does this all fit in with our subject area? Well, most people believe that on a Christian world view you die and then go to either Heaven or Hell. However, it is apparent that Christian doctrine does not agree. First, you go to Sheol, a place of weariness and forgetfulness, not of punishment of retribution. Rather, it is only after the judgement day, when souls are reunited with resurrection bodies that people will enter the realms of paradise of damnation. So a person still has time in the afterlife, and indeed, on judgement day, to affirm servitude to God. Thus, modern interpretations of Hell do not do justice to biblical thoughts on this issue, confusing Sheol, Gehenna and Hades  as one and the same.

But even if the doctrine of Hell is misunderstood and confused with Sheol, that still doesn't avoid the problem that on judgement day, even if many people convert to Christianity after seeing God's glory revealed, some will still reject him, and subsequently be placed in eternal damnation, suffering and torture. How can God, who is apparently all loving, allow this to happen?

Whether God is all loving or not, He is king of all creation. As a divine being, God is altogether unique compared to other objects and entities: He alone has omnipotence and omniscience, and is the source and sustainer of all things. Without Him, we would not exist at all. Thus, He has the divine right to will what He pleases and commands obedience from us. In virtue of the amount we owe Him, we should serve this being, regardless of what our thoughts and feelings are about His ethical practices. Just as the peasant repays the nobleman for letting him land through service, so too should we to the almighty force which sustains are very being. Creation is His domain, and we are privy to his wishes.

However, nobody, not even the most righteous of men and women, truly serve the divine authority. We all disobey His commands and laws, rebelling against his kingship by asserting our will over His. We act in a way which we want to, not in accordance with Him or any of His desires. Since we rebel against God, we have no right to the liberties, benefits and gifts he offers us through His kingdom, for to challenge his Kingship is to attack the domain which God rules. And as we have no right to God's Heaven, we deserve to abide in Hell, outside the kingdom of the divine.

An illustration is as follows: when William Wallace rebelled against Edward I of England, he forfeited the liberties Edward's kingdom offered him, seeking to replace it with his own. Therefore, Wallace forfeited his rights to the pleasures the English rule gave him by opposing it through rebellion. As such, he was denied those rights, in the case of medieval England, the right to life. In the same way, we have rebelled against God, seeking to destroy His authority and replace it with our own desires. This means that no human has a right to enter God's kingdom, Heaven, for we have rejected it: thus, we should be stripped of its riches and condemned to Hell, a fate we chose for ourselves by rebelling against the King of creation. Heaven is God's kingdom, and as rebels, there is no reason why we deserve to be let in, when we have rejected its very king. By rights, we should all be in Hell right now.


However, the Christian faith argues God has not abandoned us to this bleak and dismal fate. He, in an ultimate sacrifice, has given us a gift of grace which spares us this punishment. In effect, this is the crucifiction of Jesus: God's only Son sent to die for our sins. All we must do is affirm that God is king, and we will have accepted the offering of salvation and the gift of Jesus taking our deserved punishment and exile from God's kingdom for us. And this requires us to do no actions, no things of our own power, but just accept Jesus' sacrifice for us. The point is, whilst we all deserve to be in Hell, God has offered to take our punishment for us if we recant on our past claims to authority and respect his kingship over creation, and thus once more be allowed to reap the joys of Heaven. Repentance, trust in Christ and following God's moral commands are all acceptances of His rule over us, that we were wrong to flaunt his authority for our own. The death of Jesus was the greatest gift God has given us, for it is the chance to rejoin the kingdom and exist in Heaven, despite our open rebellion to the divine.

In conclusion, Hell is where we deserve to go, for rejecting God's authority over us. Through our sin, we have deliberately chosen to separate ourselves from Heaven and all its wealth and wonder. However, des[ite the fact God owes us nothing at all, He was willing to sacrifice Himself in the person of Jesus to allow the millions and billions of damned people throughout history a chance to reenter God's kingdom. He openly takes our punishment, if we are but happy to accept that He is King. And what's more, not only are there a multitude of convincing evidences for God's divine rule over humanity, but even in Sheol and at the judgement, when the evidence will clearly point towards God existing (for if judgement day happens, clearly atheism is false) men and women will still have the opportunity to repent of their rebellion and choose God as their king. As such, the only people who will reject God will do so for non-evidential reasons. Thus, the view that an all loving being cannot coexist with Hell is false, for God has shown himself to be all loving by being prepared to take on our punishments and exile from His kingdom in the person of Jesus, offer us Heaven and all we must do is accept this gift. Salvation could not be simpler or easier to attain, despite our sin. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the Christian God and the Doctrine of Hell, for rather than sending people there, God saves them from such a place.

All definitions are from the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible.
This blog is not arguing Christianity is true, but rather seeks to demonstrate that the Christian beliefs of God being all loving and Hell existing as coherent.

Faith: belief without evidence?

Faith. A five letter word which is treated with disdain in 21st Century Britain. Having faith is often compared to having a delusion. People who have faith are those that believe in God, fairies, trolls, hobgoblins, and other mythical creatures. Its a belief which has no evidence for it. Or at least, that is how it is commonly characterised. However, I intend to argue that faith is by its very definition reliant on reason, and thus belief in God is unlike mythical creatures in principle due to this clarification of faith and thus distinction.

Firstly, I will outline how many atheists and secularists have tried to characterise faith. Here is just a few definitions given:

Mark Twain defined faith as “believing what you know ain’t true.”

Sam Harris: "Faith is the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail."

In the documentary Religulous, Bill Maher said “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.”

Richard Dawkins: “The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification. The rest of us are expected to defend our prejudices.”

For more, go to http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/faith-and-reason-are-mutually-exclusive.html

Essentially, the claim is that faith is the absence of evidence. It is a belief which does not have rational grounds as opposed to other ones, usually said to be 'based on science'. W. K. Clifford once argued that 'It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.' (The Ethics of Belief (1879)). Thus, the position those like Dawkins, Harris and other New Atheists take, is that based on this princple, faith is an irrational belief, for it does not have any evidence whatsoever.

Whilst this view is popular amongst the youth of today, when one digs beneath the surface, it is apparent that as a thesis it is highly flawed. I want to look specifically at what Martin Luther, the great protestant reformer, thought faith was, and this is the foundation of much Protestant and Christian thought, interacted with by many key theologians such as John Calvin and Birmingham's very own Cardinal John Henry Newman. Luther's thoughts on faith as trust will be the focus of this next part.

The root of the word faith is the Latin 'fiducia', which means trust. Trust is defined as  'Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.' Luther describes the relationship of trust and belief in God in the following passage:

'The person who does not have faith is like someone who has to cross the sea, but is so frightened that he does not trust the ship. And so he stays where he is, and is never saved, because he will not get on board and cross over.' Faith is not merely believeing something is true, it is being prepared to act on that belief. To use Luther's analogy, faith is not simply about believing that a ship exists; it is about stepping into it and entrusting ourselves to it.

Now this has implications for the New Atheist's definition of faith. Whereas faith for them is based on a lack of evidence, a Lutheran interpretation would be grounded in reason. Why is this? Well, when you trust someone, it is not because there is an absence of evidence of arguments for doing so, but because you have good inductive reasons for believing in them. You trust your friends not because you have no evidence for it, but because past experience indicates they are trustworthy, other people testify to their reliability and they don't appear to be treating you badly in their overall actions. Of course, you may be wrong, and the person you trust could be stabbing you in the back without any of the evidence indicating it: however, if the evidence points in the other direction, then it is rational to trust that person.

And so it is with faith. Proffessor John Lennox of Mathematics at Oxford once asked Richard Dawkins 'Do you have faith in your wife', which he replied 'Of course I do.' 'Is there any evidence for that', 'Yes, there is plenty of evidence'. Faith is a commitment based upon evidence, or rather, what is percieved by the believer as good reasons for trusting another.

Now lets apply this to belief in God. Understanding that faith is trust means entails that faith in God is based upon very good evidence. It is a commitment made on the fact that there are very good reasons to believe in God. It is not, like belief in fairies, something where there is very limited arguments. Faith in God, for the believer, is founded upon good reasons for trust in God.

Thus, faith is not a belief which has no evidence, or is irrational. Rather, faith is rational, based upon arguments and evidence. The job of the sceptic is to demonstrate that belief in God is not faith, that it is on a lack of evidence, that the reasons a person such as myself gives, they are not sufficient to show the rationality of belief in God, whether that is trust in God or the existence of God. The way the New Atheists characterise faith should actually be called 'anti-faith', for that would be trust in God without evidence. So I think faith is intertwined quite heavily with reason.

Now I don't pretend that most theists have good reasons for their faith. However, when interacting with an ideology hostile to your own, one should always assess a view on its strongest position, which I try to do (not always succeeding!) This would then be demonstrating the reasons provided by natural theology for belief in God, such as the Ontological argument, Argument from Meaning, the Infinity of God and Pascal's Wager, are all insufficient evidence for trust in God's existence to be rational. If that is achieved, then religion is based on anti-faith, not faith. As it happens, I don't think anyone has done that yet, and thus, faith in God is one of the most rational of things.

I want to stress that this article does not attempt to show God does exist. Rather, it is clarifying whether faith is based on reason, or are they in conflict. By definition it is not, but the burden of proof is to show belief in God is not faith.

Slags, Lads and Sex

Slags. We all know one. If you don't, I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but you are probably one yourself. People dismiss them as needy, cheap, promiscuous women who will just sleep with anyone and anything. They are the butt of our jokes, the centre of gossip and a target of hate which people can rally against. But is this fair? Should we critisise people for embracing their liberties, throwing off the shackles placed upon us by the backward societies of the past? Are we just jealous of their sexual success? Can we really judge a woman who, according to the Urban Dictionary, just has the morals of a man? The following article will almost certainly get my blog banned from Facebook again, but nonetheless, let us proceed with the dirty business of evaluating the moral justifications for being a slag.

To begin, I want to tell a short story, which will be the focus of our inquiry. One night, person X, who is decent looking, went out, wearing skimpily clad clothes, revealing their physical features, with the intention of getting laid and having a good time. X went to all the best clubs, partying with strangers and pulling quite a few in the toilets of each respective place. X did this weekly, getting quite a reputation for it. A lot of the discussions at school were about X and their antics.

Now I want you to suppose that person X is a girl. What's your initial impression? Is she a bit cheap, leaving nothing to the imagination? I would hazard a guess that a lot of people will judge her as living a low form of life, allowing any guy she can find to have sex with her, devaluing the very act of it, and pursuing a way of living which focuses only on the physical. We would call her derogatory terms like slut, whore, slag and many more negative terms.

In fact, it turns out person X is actually a man. What do you think now? Is he a player, just fulfilling his desires, being the ideal of every man out there? Among men, there is a prevailing culture to be a 'lad', getting laid every night, living the high life and generally absorbing a materialistic culture. We would call this guy a pimp, player, lad and other positive names.

The point is, the man who lives as person X does will be treated far better than the woman who acts like X. And this to me seems grossly unfair. Either we should see both as great or both as bad. So which are they?

I think a large part of this is the fact that both lads and slags are embracing their carnal desires. It is within us most people the urge to have sex (though not all, as my friend Rob pointed out). Most of us suppress this, due to an expected standard society and religion has placed upon us not to be sexually immoral. When we see others acting upon these lusts, the animal inside of us cries out for the same thing, urging us on to complete similar acts. As such, we have an instinctual jealousy of them. Thus, we live in a paradox where we want to live a similar lifestyle yet despise the people living it due to this envy we also have of them. Unfortunately, the woman bares the negative aspect of this, whilst the man does not. So in some respects, my sympathies lie with these people, having to bare with everyone else's jealousy, especially women.

But whilst the justification for sexual promiscuity maybe to satisfy one's animal nature, I myself find this a very weak ethical system. For while I accept that being partly animal is a property of being human, I also think it is the quest for meaning which differentiates us as a species from all other life on Earth. Searching for meaning in all we do is definitive of who we are, it is the driving force of all the great achievements ever made. In the sciences, in the humanities, in the arts, all things have been done in an attempt to discover a hidden meaning in our experience. The dog, he experiences the world, but he does not ask what the meaning is of anything, whereas the human asks why something is the case, or how things work, or what needs to happen for so and so. Applying and yearning for meaning equates to being human.

And it is this which leads me to feel a great sense of sorrow for the life the sexually forward lead. For whilst they find a short lived joy in their revealing clothes and raunchy nights, they in the process abandon the meaning of sex. Sex is primarily a celebration of the love two people have for each other. This is why it is so precious, it is for a private, enclosed affair. For a human being, it is special. But the forwardness of the man or woman who lives like person X is taking an zoomorphic system of morals. They are ruining their own humanity, which is such a shame, because every human is an important person who we, as a community, should care about. It seems like they are destroying the very thing which identifies them. What makes it worse, is that the joy of discovering a meaningful thing like love is longer lasting and transcending anything like the short lived fun that a physical act can offer. So whilst life as a lad or a slag is quite appealing on an animal level, as a human, it denies the very thing which defines us; our sense of meaning in situations.

I don't want to come across like I judge these people as somehow worse than myself. It is a basic principle of mine, and of the Christian faith that we should try to divide the individual from their actions, as without doing this, forgiveness can never occur, and communities can never grow in love and fellowship. I am not attacking the people who live this way, for they are entitled to that if they wish, and many of them are genuinely nice. Rather, I am suggesting the way of life they want to uphold is wrong, as it is based on a primal system, which as humans we cannot accept if we want to maintain our identity as meaning seeking creatures. In saying that, I think it is clear the gossiping, derision and outright hostility to such a life is unjustified. Yes, some girls may wear skirts which look like belts, and yes they may get off with more blokes than a person has fingers, but we should not be mean or nasty to them through malevolent jealousy and hatred. Rather, help that person to see that they are beautiful without the need to reveal large amounts of flesh, that they can enjoy a more joyful life through not falling to the basic desires we all share, and that they should embrace a meaningful existence.

Pascal's Wager: Why you should bet on God

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) was a brilliant man. He made significant contributions in Mathematics (Pascal's Triangle), in the Sciences (maintaining that there are Vacuums) and was an inventor (the hydraulic press and the syringe). However, it his contribution to the debate about whether one should believe in God is what shall be examined in this article. His idea is called 'Pascal's Wager', and it has been accepted, rejected, reborn many times over. It is something which just never goes away, for it so simple to understand. I hope to illustrate its main components, then offer some objections, and then I will deal with them.

Some preliminary comments are needed before we delve into the argument itself. The Wager is not designed to prove God's existence, or give any reason why God might exist. Rather, it tries to show why we should believe in the existence of God. Whilst it is a subtle distinction, it is of great significance to understanding the argument. It is trying to give us a reason why it is 'utility maximising' (improving our chances of attaining the best possible circumstances for our persons) to believe in God.

Pascal's argument centres around a wager over whether it is better to believe in God or not. It follows the principle of 'I have nothing to lose and everything to gain from such and such', which if it is successful, is a very powerful argument. Pascal argues the following:

(1) It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.

(2) If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.

(3) If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.

(4) It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.

Therefore:

(5) It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.

(6) If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and 

irrational to follow the other.

Therefore:

(7) It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

We can illustrate this succinctly in the following diagram.

This at first glance looks quite convincing. You don't seem to lose anything from believing in God and being wrong, but you can gain everything if you are right, whilst if you don't believe, you gain nothing and can go to hell! This would be a powerful reason to believe if it is sound reasoning. However, many sceptics have offered reasons why we should not trust the wager.

Firstly, the wager seems to devalue and outright contradict religious sentiments. The essence of religion is perceived as the conviction that all profane, self-seeking ambitions are incompatible with the quest for piety and total commitment to love of God. Self-indulgent shams, which are attempts to fool God and are selfish are morally repugnant, and tears down the whole religious, and specifically Christian life. Noble ends are undermined by ignoble means after all.

Furthermore, just believing in God doesn't seem like it will get you into heaven. True religion is not just an assent to a set of propositions, but a full commitment of devotion, having one's heart and soul virtually consumed by a deep reverence and love of God. The wager seems to provide us only with a shallow, thin version of religious belief, which is not really worth considering.

Whilst these criticisms have no logical force, they have considerable psychological weight. But they seem to have misunderstood Pascal's intention. Firstly, the view that altruistic actions should have no motives which are beneficial to the self is simply not biblical, but actually a secular invention. Professor Barclay of Theology at Durham University has argued that St Paul (the foremost thinker in Christianity behind Jesus) believed that doing good actions and assenting to certain beliefs is not to be condoned due to self-reward. If someone can benefit by giving you help, that is not a bad thing, but good, for the diffusion of good from any situation increases, which is always something to aim for. In the same way, Pascal is arguing that belief in God is good, because not only do you benefit in the knowledge and love of God, but you avoid hell and gain heaven. It is almost an early form of utilitarianism, where the greatest good should be performed for the greatest number of people. It is only after the enlightenment does this belief arise that for it to be pious the action at hand should have no gains for the self. So to argue because it is selfish it is not worth following is to adopt a set of principles which are not within the Christian religion.

Moreover, Pascal's argument helps one to start the process of loving God. Hillel recognised that desirable behaviour is assumed to generate eventually desirable feelings. Being commanded to love a neighbour or God is too difficult by itself. I cannot choose to make myself love a man I hate. However, by practising the behaviour associated with a sentiment, it helps one develop that emotion too. This is the foundation of 'behaviour modification', a type of therapy which aims to induce feelings through repetition of actions. The relevance of this is that the wager demands a commitment to God through action: if I wager God exists, I must act in a way which God finds is good. So only acting in a way which I would like to be treated, will over time help me to love my fellow human. In the same way, dedicating your actions to respecting God and his commands will develop a love for him too. So the wager is the first step for salvation, and one must go past it to fulfill the wager, and develop true belief and trust in God.

Another, more powerful objection, is the idea that Pascal assumes a Christian worldview, and there is no reason to suppose that we shouldn't bet on Allah, Vishnu, Osiris, Thor, Zeus, Ra, Baal etc. In short, there are so many God's we could wager on, and as we don't know which one to wager on, it seems unreasonable to wager on any of them. The 'many-gods' argument maybe extended further in saying that there may even be a god who rewards those who deny his existence and punishes those who do believe in him, reversing the wager completely.

But does this objection work? Well the first thing to point out is that it has conceded that Pascal is right to assert the view that we should wager on some supernatural power. It accepts the general reasoning of the argument, it just wants a reason why it should wager on the Christian God, not some other one. We can do this by showing the plausibility of each God is not equal.

To start with, the theistic God is more plausible than other gods because we can use Ockham's Razor to discard them. Whereas the theistic God can be described by one predicate (perfect), whereas a God like Zeus is infinitely more complex to describe. For example, Zeus sometimes slept, but we have no idea how long he needed to sleep and how it effected him. He ate and drank, but whether he overate or how long he could go without food is another question we do not know the answer too. In short, the lesser gods are limited and complex to explain, the theistic God is unlimited and a simple hypothesis, it follows that theistic God's are more plausible to wager on than non-theistic God's.

Having narrowed it down to just theistic God's, we must now assess the specific evidence for each description of God's nature (Allah, Triune, Yahweh etc.) and assess the evidence for this. I am convinced that the Christian one is the most plausible given the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. For a detailed argument of this, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHofTmolbi0 Furthermore, even if you find this uncompelling, the other theistic religions seem to boast even less evidence than Christianity (I don't have room to comment here, but if you want to raise anything please feel free), and as such a the Christian God is the most plausible. Thus, we have reasons why Pascal specifically tells us to wager on the Christian God rather than another one; the evidence suggests that it is the most plausible God to exist.

With these two major stumbling blocks dealt with, I think it is at least rational to think Pascal's Wager is a good reason to believe in God. Whilst there are other objections, they are not as powerful or well known. However, if you would like to raise them, please feel free, I just don't have enough time to analyse them all.

Thus, whilst the public perception of the wager is very negative, if you dig beneath the surface level objections, you find a highly sophisticated reason for devoting your life to God. Misunderstanding the argument is common, but I believe that if you understand the view Pascal tries to convey of this being a stepping stone, and take into account the relevant plausibility of certain concepts of God, it is clear that this is a persuasive construct, and betting on God in light of this argument is a good move. With the soundness of the argument clarified, I hope you wager on belief in God: you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain!

I want to thank you all for showing your continued support in reading my blog, especially those not from the UK. If people would like me to comment on any particular topics, please leave a comment as to what the subject matter is, and I will try to post an article on it.