The Rationality of Mystery

25 01 2010

Being in a college environment, it’s sometimes not appropriate to fall back onto “well it’s a mystery” when explaining a doctrine. In dealing with theology and philosophy students, it appears that everything and anything about God must be explained and must be rational. Thus, when I find myself turning to mystery, I’m told that it’s a “cop-out” or that I’m simply being lazy in my study.

However, without going into too much detail, I readily believe that the most reasonable aspect of Christianity is its mystery. Even Paul calls the Gospel a mystery (Ephesians 6:19). But why would He do so and why is mystery actually rational?

For one, God declares in Isaiah 55 that His thoughts and ways are above our own; this indicates that He is beyond comprehension. Anything that is beyond comprehension is, by definition, a mystery. To look at this logically:

(1) Anything beyond comprehension is a mystery

(2) God is beyond comprehension

(3) Therefore, God is a mystery

When people try to rationally explain every aspect of God’s being, they attempt to pull Him within the realm of comprehension. However, isn’t this always the sign of an idol? The Hebrews didn’t understand why God had abandoned them at the base of a mountain, so they created a false image of God, an image of gold, one they could comprehend. Think of all the false religions of old and present where the gods are more than human, but still close to humans. They can be comprehended, predicted, and understood just as clearly as any other human being is understood.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Philosophy, Theology

Christianity is more than sharing the Gospel

18 01 2010

Today I was listening to a professor talk about how our worship of practicality has eroded much in the church. He pointed out that in many Christian churches, segregation is common practice. He talked about how he visited a church where he was told they were casual. So he showed up in his shorts and a t-shirt. He then realized what “casual” meant at this church – $50 shorts, $60 polo shirts, and $150 sandals. And everyone was that way and he, being half Japanese, stood out in the all white congregation. He then stated that our love of the practical in Christianity has forced us into segregation over cultures, languages, and economic status.

The above is something that I hope many Christians can agree upon. Unfortunately, someone in the class asked the question, “But if segregation increases our ability to share the Gospel, isn’t segregation a good thing?” The professor, being far more civil than I could have been, simply said, “No, it’s still wrong.”

One of the problems with conservative Christianity is its love affair with all things practical. Having elaborate services with professional-style music, a dynamic preacher, and ministries for the family and even the family pet are all practical because they can help increase attendance numbers. After all, what is more likely to get a person into the pew; a church where they still sing “Holy, Holy, Holy” and the sermon is basically the preacher throwing raw chunks of theology at the crowd (and this doesn’t have to be done in a high-brow fashion), or the church that ministers to every need of the person for the “sake of the Gospel”?

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 12 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Church Related, Theology

A new Bible version

14 01 2010

This looks like an interesting interpretation and one that I look forward to reading.

The sad thing is, this might as well sum up liberation theology.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Off Topic

Dealing with Judith Jarvis Thompson

10 01 2010

The other day I came across this post and found it quite interesting. What was more interesting was one of the comments given by someone with the handle of “Operation Counterstrike”:

Yes, abortion is homicide. But abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE homicide.

If something is inside your body, then you’re entitled to have it killed. No exceptions. Even if it’s an “innocent” person. If you were inside my body, then I’d be entitled to kill you, and if I were inside your body, you’d be entitled to kill me. In fact if ALL the people in the WHOLE HUMPING WORLD, including the innocent ones, the pregnant ones, and the unborn ones, were inside your body, then you’d be entitled to holocaust them. That’s part of the meaning of the word “your” in the phrase “your body”.

This is really a sophomoric version of Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “body ownership” argument. Though he approaches the argument in a childish and immature manner, it is a real argument. I offered up the following as a response:

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Philosophy

New Approach to Theories on the Origins of the Universe

10 01 2010

Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking have been instrumental in supplying alternative theories to the creation of matter. The late Sagan proposed the idea of an eternal universe and Hawking has supplied his own theories on how the Big Bang is not actually the beginning of the universe. Of course, due to recent evidence, it’s becoming more and more clear that the universe does in fact have a finite beginning. This poses a problem because it inevitably raises the question of God.

It seems proponents of an eternal universe, or one that doesn’t have a finite beginning, have found a new way to teach their methods…via T-Pain (yes, I know the video is a joke, an absolutely hilarious one that needed a serious introduction):


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Off Topic

Moral Majority?

4 01 2010

As I sit here flipping through the articles of the day, I came across one article condemning the new health care bill. Due to the health care bill, there’s been quite a bit of discussions among Republicans that the era of the moral majority is back. Unfortunately, I don’t find this to be the case.

Look at the main opposition to the health care bill – the cost and loss of liberty. Granted, these are big issues that should be dealt with, but conservatives were generally quiet about the fact that the health care bill is going to support abortions (there are notable exceptions, such as Rep. Tom Coburn). By ignoring this fact and focusing on the others, conservatives seemingly placed money ahead of life.

This is not the only example. When President Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act, there were no Tea Parties or major protests. Certainly conservatives protested such an act in their minds, but they did not take to the streets. No, only when their pocket books were threatened did conservatives raise their voices against a tyrannical government. Though justified in raising their voices against this government, they unwittingly showed where they stand on the morality of human life; overturn state laws to kill children on demand and we’ll shake a fist, mess with our income and we’ll come after you.

This upsets me quite a bit because it tells me that the government sanctioned murdering of innocent human beings is valued less than taxation. The irony is that for most conservatives, who do happen to be Christians of some form of the other, have a Biblical command to follow in paying taxes. This doesn’t mean we can’t complain about taxes or realize that we’re being over-taxed, but at the end of the day taxes exist and we’re told by God to pay them. The killing of innocent life, however, is something the Bible is not too keen on. Yet, where is our moral outrage over the most pro-abortion president in the history of America?

Why aren’t we taking to the streets to support a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits at-will abortions (with exceptions to the mother’s health) or one that protects the sanctity of human life (by prohibiting euthanasia)? Where are the tea parties for this? Even if Congress won’t listen, so long as we are out there, we cannot be ignored forever.

So long as conservatives protest over lost money, but remain relatively silent on the issue of abortion and human life, they will continue to lose their moral ground.


Comments : 11 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Philosophy, Secular Culture

A New Year’s Resolution…Of Sorts

3 01 2010

My goal for this year, or for at least the first half of the year, is to develop more on the theory that a belief in the Trinity is the foundation of a proper spiritual life. For whatever reason (possibly due to Peter Lombard and scholasticism), the doctrine of the Trinity has been treated as something for the intellects. After all, when was the last time you heard a sermon on the Trinity, not just how we describe this aspect of God, but how the Trinity is central to a proper spiritual life?

What bothers me is how often I hear the innumerable analogies shelled out to describe the Trinity (I myself have been guilty of such analogies). There are some who say, “Well, I am a father, brother, and son, but still one person,” but this analogy fails because it describes the heresy of modalism, or that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply roles instead of distinct persons. Others try to say, “Well, I am body, soul, and spirit, just like God is Father, Son, and Spirit,” (which, we are not tripartite beings; we are only two substances, material and immaterial, so the analogy fails from the get-go), but this too is a heresy. It teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit are substances of God and not persons of God. No matter how we cut it, any analogy we use will only analogize a heretical view of God, but will never come close to describing what the Trinity is like.

One of the most difficult thing for Westerners to understand is that there is nothing in all of creation that is analogous to God’s essence. The Trinity is truly unique, but He still provides a lesson for us in His nature. Though He is one in essence, He is three in persons, thus God is truly a “He/They” which is a mystery. Being a mystery, however, does not exclude this doctrine from being essential to the Christian life.

I hope to show that our misunderstanding of the Trinity in the modern era is most likely what lies at the root of our problems as a Church. If we were to truly understand the Trinity and the role of the Incarnation in our relationship to the Trinity and then act upon such knowledge, then I believe many problems within the Church would disappear. I believe that it is not only necessary to embrace the Trinity (even in a most primitive teaching) in order to have salvation, I believe one cannot properly live as a Christian without accepting the doctrine of the Trinity.

To ensure I follow through on this resolution, I am currently reading Augustines De Trinitate (“The Trinity”) where he proposes the theory that the Trinity is central to all Christian doctrine; without the Trinity, Christianity begins to fall apart. My hope is that later this year I can post a paper discussing what I have discovered and the conclusions I have come to.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Theology