i've been thinking about evolution in relation to the idea of general revelation. general revelation, as i understand it, is God revealing himself in the created universe. "the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth is handiwork" and the part in acts where paul says that God has revealed himself in nature are two places in scripture that i know of that teach this idea.
creationists and intelligent design theorists point out that the design in creation reveals that the universe is the product of a designer. i've heard creationists talk at length about the eye, or bees, and how they demonstrate the extraordinary design found in creation. but what about evolution? even young earth creationists acknowledge the reality of some evolution, even if they refuse to acknowledge it from species to species. and everyone has to acknowledge evolution in general. everything evolves in some way. take the car for instance. the design of the car has evolved from what it was in the 1930's to what it is today. evolved? yes, evolved. developers and engineers, as time went by, were faced with different challenges and problems which caused them to create new technologies which caused the design of the car to evolve. most recently we've seen the hybrid and the plug in car designed in response to concerns about global warming and foreign oil. this is what evolution is: an organism, thing, design, whatever, is faced with an obstacle and it either dies or changes to continue on in its existence.
so what does this reality tell us about God? if all reality is created by God and said reality reveals who God is, then does the fact that matter tends to change, and when it changes transcends what it was before, tell us something about God? i think it does. this is how order comes from chaos, which is what the genesis creation story describes in its opening verses. or think about the hebrew people. God chose them, set them apart from the chaotic and destructive practices of their neighboring cultures and began forming them into his people. it didn't happen over night; it was a process. he took abram from the primordial, pagan, cultural soup he was in; and told him he would make him into a nation that would bless the nations.
i think the design and laws we see in the world around tell us something about God, but i also think that the way this design and these laws come about-- process and evolution-- also tell us about God. in my struggle with faith and doubt, evolution was something that shook me hard, and continues to shake young christians who grow up believing that evolution equals atheism. i disagree. evolution is everywhere and is something theists and christians should embrace.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
my thoughts and feelings on the bible
today i start my biblical perspectives class. for my first day i have to turn in a paper entitled "my thoughts and feelings on the bible." so here they are:
The Bible is a compilation of stories, histories, poems, letters and songs, inspired by God, creating an authoritative narrative. This narrative is God’s story, and answers the deepest metaphysical questions about God, humanity, creation and the future. It is a plan and a map guiding humans to the true way of being human, and to the place the human story will eventually arrive. Its narrative is God’s tool for empowering and directing his people to achieve his purposes of cosmic redemption. It describes what God has done, is doing and will ultimately do.
The Bible cannot simply be opened and read as if doing so will magically give the reader some sort of wisdom to benefit her life. Verses in the Bible, also, cannot simply be plucked out from their context, and be used to back up an argument. And while the Bible certainly can provide comfort and wisdom, it is not a book to enhance one’s lifestyle. The Bible is not our servant, and does not contain the secrets to health, wealth and success. It offers a glimpse at God’s intentions, but is not a crystal ball for which we can use to predict the future.
Saying that the Bible simply cannot be opened and read implies that the Bible must be interpreted. Many Christians assume that one can just crack open a Bible and extract the “plain meaning.” Those who make this claim fail to realize they are reading a Bible that has already been interpreted when it was translated into an English-language version; and that the “plain meaning” they extract is nothing more than their interpretation. And their interpretation is heavily influenced by their theology, upbringing, culture, and hundreds of years of church history. Furthermore, the fact that people have their own copy of the Bible, in their own language, is an idea unheard of when the Bible was written and for hundreds of years afterwards. Scripture was originally studied in communities, which were lead by trained teachers. This isn’t to say the modern reader is incapable of arriving at an accurate interpretation of scripture. But the reader must first be cognizant that he is making an interpretation, and his interpretation must employ good hermeneutics.
Good hermeneutics not only involves reading a verse in the context of its chapter, book and the rest of scripture itself; but also taking into account the historical and cultural contexts of the verse. A concordance should be used for interpreting difficult words. Understanding the literary genre a book is written in also enhances the interpretation, as apocalyptic or poetic styles of literature cannot be interpreted with rigid literalism. Lastly, it is always important to remain humble when interpreting scripture; biblical scholarship is always advancing and new scholarship can dramatically shed light onto previous interpretations.
The Bible is God’s word, but was recorded by human beings who were living in an ancient culture. These people lived in a real time and place, and had their own understanding of cosmology and the natural world. They also had their own agendas for writing down the words of scripture. The biblical authors did not live in a vacuum. Readers of the Bible, today, live in an era that is post-enlightenment. Many of us take our understanding of the universe, the planet and science for granted. Thus it is imperative for the modern reader to become familiar with the ancient world where the biblical authors lived. I think the importance of finding good pastors and Bible scholars to help one grasp the meaning of scripture is incredibly important. And lastly, while there is nothing wrong with doing personal devotions, it is important to remember that the Bible was originally studied in community, and I believe that setting remains the best environment for biblical study today.
The Bible is a compilation of stories, histories, poems, letters and songs, inspired by God, creating an authoritative narrative. This narrative is God’s story, and answers the deepest metaphysical questions about God, humanity, creation and the future. It is a plan and a map guiding humans to the true way of being human, and to the place the human story will eventually arrive. Its narrative is God’s tool for empowering and directing his people to achieve his purposes of cosmic redemption. It describes what God has done, is doing and will ultimately do.
The Bible cannot simply be opened and read as if doing so will magically give the reader some sort of wisdom to benefit her life. Verses in the Bible, also, cannot simply be plucked out from their context, and be used to back up an argument. And while the Bible certainly can provide comfort and wisdom, it is not a book to enhance one’s lifestyle. The Bible is not our servant, and does not contain the secrets to health, wealth and success. It offers a glimpse at God’s intentions, but is not a crystal ball for which we can use to predict the future.
Saying that the Bible simply cannot be opened and read implies that the Bible must be interpreted. Many Christians assume that one can just crack open a Bible and extract the “plain meaning.” Those who make this claim fail to realize they are reading a Bible that has already been interpreted when it was translated into an English-language version; and that the “plain meaning” they extract is nothing more than their interpretation. And their interpretation is heavily influenced by their theology, upbringing, culture, and hundreds of years of church history. Furthermore, the fact that people have their own copy of the Bible, in their own language, is an idea unheard of when the Bible was written and for hundreds of years afterwards. Scripture was originally studied in communities, which were lead by trained teachers. This isn’t to say the modern reader is incapable of arriving at an accurate interpretation of scripture. But the reader must first be cognizant that he is making an interpretation, and his interpretation must employ good hermeneutics.
Good hermeneutics not only involves reading a verse in the context of its chapter, book and the rest of scripture itself; but also taking into account the historical and cultural contexts of the verse. A concordance should be used for interpreting difficult words. Understanding the literary genre a book is written in also enhances the interpretation, as apocalyptic or poetic styles of literature cannot be interpreted with rigid literalism. Lastly, it is always important to remain humble when interpreting scripture; biblical scholarship is always advancing and new scholarship can dramatically shed light onto previous interpretations.
The Bible is God’s word, but was recorded by human beings who were living in an ancient culture. These people lived in a real time and place, and had their own understanding of cosmology and the natural world. They also had their own agendas for writing down the words of scripture. The biblical authors did not live in a vacuum. Readers of the Bible, today, live in an era that is post-enlightenment. Many of us take our understanding of the universe, the planet and science for granted. Thus it is imperative for the modern reader to become familiar with the ancient world where the biblical authors lived. I think the importance of finding good pastors and Bible scholars to help one grasp the meaning of scripture is incredibly important. And lastly, while there is nothing wrong with doing personal devotions, it is important to remember that the Bible was originally studied in community, and I believe that setting remains the best environment for biblical study today.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
memories of grcc
after i finished my surgical tech degree i couldn't wait to go to school to learn about something i was genuinely interested in. i couldn't wait to take history or sociology or political science. now that i have been at spring arbor for almost a year it seems like forever ago when i first set foot into grand rapids community college and took western civilization and social problems. i really enjoyed my time there and learned so much. i had some great profs who really challenged me and filled my head with all sorts of crazy liberal ideas. recently i went onto ratemyprofessor.com and found some of my grcc profs. i thought all three of these guys were great, but it was interesting to read some of the negative comments from people who were rubbed completely the wrong way. here are some of my favorites.
these quotes are about my western civ prof, roger schlossor. i remember going into grcc's library with these huge reading lists-- thucydides, plutarc, aristotle, plato, herodotdus, tacitus, popes, milton, erasmus-- you name it. the person at the front would just say "you're taking schlossor, huh?" it was hilarious. he was this cranky, foul-mouthed vietnam vet who would go on these long tangential stories, and just when you think he had completely lost his mind, he would come back to his original point and tie the story into his lecture. insane. he took no shit either. if you were talking or had to leave to use the bathroom he would get right in your face and let you know how rude you were. anyways, here's what others thought of him-
"HIS LECTURES ARE VERY LONG. MAKE SURE YOU DRINK ALOT OF COFFEE BEFORE YOU GO B/C HIS LECTURE CAN BE BORING. HE DOES HAVE ALOT OF INTERESTING STORIES. IF YOU DONT LIKE SWEARING THEN DONT TAKE HIS CLASS"
"Hated him, always shoving his beliefs on the class, didn't care if history told another story only told what he wanted you to hear. If you asked a question he always made you look stupid and then the class laughed at you, swears alot"
"Clear, concise, funny, brilliant. He has his own opinions and he's not afraid to share them, but he will present ALL the sides of the issue and let you make up your own mind- someting most GRCC student are incapable of doing."
"Should have dropped when i had the chance. The tests did not correspond to lecture material or readings. Constantly was making negative comments on politics and america. Lots of swearing. To old to care if he is doing a good job. Very hard to get a good grade. 2hrs lecture with no break! Do not take"
"The best teacher I have ever had. No other teacher compares to Roger. He has a reaistic and cynical view of History. Yes, he does lecture for two hours straight, but with no notes. Really knows his stuff, every History Major should take his classes. HS 101, 102 and PS 101. Easy class if dedicated."
these are comments on my race and ethnic relations prof, geoffrey simmons. one of my classmate at spring arbor is actually taking him right now. i learned a ton in his class. he genuinely cares about people on the underside of society, and it was eye-opening to learn american history from the side of the oppressed. i also learned a lot about marxism as a historical lense which i found very helpful.
"changed the way i see the world-great teacher"
"Big time Pinko-Nazi! hes a supporter of marxism, but hes still cool. really interesting if you like to know more about hoe the goverment is screwing us. *MAKE SURE YOU READ THE BOOK TOO*"
"Mr. Simmon is definitely a liberal hippie type, but he's super cool and very smart. His class isn't that hard if you listen in class and read the book. Expect to hear lots of fun stories!!"
and last but not least, mr. clyde poag. it was after mr. poag's class one day where i met the woman who designed ferris state university's BSW program who told me about spring arbor. i remember being pretty intimidated by mr. poag because he was black and i was taking a class on social problems. it was a great experience, however, and i'll never forget when i finished my final presentation for that class when he looked at me and said "i am so proud." his class was the beginning of my social work career, and it's somewhat frustrating for me to read comments like the ones below because his class was such a meaningful experience.
"Absolutely the worst professor ever. He makes you feel like the worst person alive if you are not an African-American. I dreaded going to that class because he is right and you are wrong."
"Not such a bad teacher...if you put in any effort whatsoever you'll get an A...he is very pro african american...seems to talk a lot of trash about white people...he is a good guy though, just do your work on time and you'll be fine"
anyways, i think it'd be fun to go back again someday after i get my masters. although i'm not sure how that works. i don't know if you can just go back to community college and take undergrad classes for fun once you've been to grad school. all these guys are way liberal, to say the least, but i loved that. after having conservative dogma pounded in my head for 25 years of my life, it was refreshing to get the other side of the story from some very seasoned intellectuals. i miss not knowing what's going to come next, as where spring arbor is very familiar to me. but anyways, i still have grad school at grand valley, and who knows what i'll be blogging about then.
these quotes are about my western civ prof, roger schlossor. i remember going into grcc's library with these huge reading lists-- thucydides, plutarc, aristotle, plato, herodotdus, tacitus, popes, milton, erasmus-- you name it. the person at the front would just say "you're taking schlossor, huh?" it was hilarious. he was this cranky, foul-mouthed vietnam vet who would go on these long tangential stories, and just when you think he had completely lost his mind, he would come back to his original point and tie the story into his lecture. insane. he took no shit either. if you were talking or had to leave to use the bathroom he would get right in your face and let you know how rude you were. anyways, here's what others thought of him-
"HIS LECTURES ARE VERY LONG. MAKE SURE YOU DRINK ALOT OF COFFEE BEFORE YOU GO B/C HIS LECTURE CAN BE BORING. HE DOES HAVE ALOT OF INTERESTING STORIES. IF YOU DONT LIKE SWEARING THEN DONT TAKE HIS CLASS"
"Hated him, always shoving his beliefs on the class, didn't care if history told another story only told what he wanted you to hear. If you asked a question he always made you look stupid and then the class laughed at you, swears alot"
"Clear, concise, funny, brilliant. He has his own opinions and he's not afraid to share them, but he will present ALL the sides of the issue and let you make up your own mind- someting most GRCC student are incapable of doing."
"Should have dropped when i had the chance. The tests did not correspond to lecture material or readings. Constantly was making negative comments on politics and america. Lots of swearing. To old to care if he is doing a good job. Very hard to get a good grade. 2hrs lecture with no break! Do not take"
"The best teacher I have ever had. No other teacher compares to Roger. He has a reaistic and cynical view of History. Yes, he does lecture for two hours straight, but with no notes. Really knows his stuff, every History Major should take his classes. HS 101, 102 and PS 101. Easy class if dedicated."
these are comments on my race and ethnic relations prof, geoffrey simmons. one of my classmate at spring arbor is actually taking him right now. i learned a ton in his class. he genuinely cares about people on the underside of society, and it was eye-opening to learn american history from the side of the oppressed. i also learned a lot about marxism as a historical lense which i found very helpful.
"changed the way i see the world-great teacher"
"Big time Pinko-Nazi! hes a supporter of marxism, but hes still cool. really interesting if you like to know more about hoe the goverment is screwing us. *MAKE SURE YOU READ THE BOOK TOO*"
"Mr. Simmon is definitely a liberal hippie type, but he's super cool and very smart. His class isn't that hard if you listen in class and read the book. Expect to hear lots of fun stories!!"
and last but not least, mr. clyde poag. it was after mr. poag's class one day where i met the woman who designed ferris state university's BSW program who told me about spring arbor. i remember being pretty intimidated by mr. poag because he was black and i was taking a class on social problems. it was a great experience, however, and i'll never forget when i finished my final presentation for that class when he looked at me and said "i am so proud." his class was the beginning of my social work career, and it's somewhat frustrating for me to read comments like the ones below because his class was such a meaningful experience.
"Absolutely the worst professor ever. He makes you feel like the worst person alive if you are not an African-American. I dreaded going to that class because he is right and you are wrong."
"Not such a bad teacher...if you put in any effort whatsoever you'll get an A...he is very pro african american...seems to talk a lot of trash about white people...he is a good guy though, just do your work on time and you'll be fine"
anyways, i think it'd be fun to go back again someday after i get my masters. although i'm not sure how that works. i don't know if you can just go back to community college and take undergrad classes for fun once you've been to grad school. all these guys are way liberal, to say the least, but i loved that. after having conservative dogma pounded in my head for 25 years of my life, it was refreshing to get the other side of the story from some very seasoned intellectuals. i miss not knowing what's going to come next, as where spring arbor is very familiar to me. but anyways, i still have grad school at grand valley, and who knows what i'll be blogging about then.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
thoughts on redemption
i began ESL tutoring this past monday. i use the word "tutoring" loosely, as i am pretty much teaching the refugee i am working with english from scratch. as of now we are learning our ABC's. i am pretty much trying to recall how i learned to read and write and teach him the same way. i, however, had one advantage: i could understand what my teacher was telling me! the most frustrating part of the night came at the end when i wanted to leave, but i also wanted him to understand that i was assigning homework for next time. what was so frustrating wasn't so much that he couldn't understand me, but that the woman who was also there tutoring his wife, who actually somewhat understands english, kept blowing me off when i asked for their assistance in communicating with him. she and his wife finally helped me tell him his homework, and it was an overall good experience. i have some ideas for next time and i'm looking forward to trying them out.
last wednesday i got to go to A.A. i had to write a paper for class on a treatment group. i was told that an A.A. meeting is more going to church than going to church is. i found this to be true. i noticed that the 12 steps mirror a conversion experience. it is essentially a bunch of people admitting how screwed up they are, openly sharing their stories, and helping one another quit drinking. there was complete openness and absolutely no judging. i couldn't help but to think that this was an example of people living how they were intended to live. at the end of the meeting everyone stood, joined hands, and said the lord's prayer together.
these two experiences are examples of God's redemptive work in the world. when we hear phrases like "God's redemptive work" we often get these super-natural images in our heads. we think the reconciliation of all things will come from God's super powers, or him bursting forth out of the sky or something. but instead it comes when we do things like teach a refugee english, or when a bunch of screwed up people come together and openly talk about how screwed up they are. that's what it looks like when christ makes all things new. i think some christians would read that and be disappointed, "but what about streets of gold and all the cool miracles?" they might say. i would say that it's time to get a new jesus.
last wednesday i got to go to A.A. i had to write a paper for class on a treatment group. i was told that an A.A. meeting is more going to church than going to church is. i found this to be true. i noticed that the 12 steps mirror a conversion experience. it is essentially a bunch of people admitting how screwed up they are, openly sharing their stories, and helping one another quit drinking. there was complete openness and absolutely no judging. i couldn't help but to think that this was an example of people living how they were intended to live. at the end of the meeting everyone stood, joined hands, and said the lord's prayer together.
these two experiences are examples of God's redemptive work in the world. when we hear phrases like "God's redemptive work" we often get these super-natural images in our heads. we think the reconciliation of all things will come from God's super powers, or him bursting forth out of the sky or something. but instead it comes when we do things like teach a refugee english, or when a bunch of screwed up people come together and openly talk about how screwed up they are. that's what it looks like when christ makes all things new. i think some christians would read that and be disappointed, "but what about streets of gold and all the cool miracles?" they might say. i would say that it's time to get a new jesus.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
random updates
things have been good and stressful. i hate when i get on these stretches where i don't blog, and in fact last weekend, anne and i, and some of our friends actually had a little discussion on why we blog. i blog because i want to be a better communicator and i believe blogging has contributed to be becoming one. and sometimes, like right now, i have to just force myself to write something because i know it will benefit me. and i also know that many times when i write a post, for whatever reason, it causes me to want to write more.
so life has been good lately. anne recently got a raise and, after she passes a test and receives some sort of insurance license, will get another one. at that point she'll become my sugar momma because she'll be officially making more than me. which i am fine with, because i know that someday, hopefully in the relatively near future, i'll be making more than her again :). which leads me to my next update which is i found out, yesterday, that i will probably be getting an internship at spectrum. interning there has been part of my plan all along because finding out about medical social work is what caused me to get into social work to begin with. this isn't to say that 20 years down the road i still want to be a medical social worker, but it's definatly a great place to begin a social work career, especially for a BSW. so finding that out made my day. it also gave me a boost of confidence.
my confidence in myself has been shaken ever since i decided not to pursue becoming a surgical technologist. for me, confidence is something that is very fragile. lately, i have been going through some serious doubting concerning my future because my interview with spectrum for my internship wasn't that great. i couldn't thoroughly answer some pretty easy questions. and spending all this time waiting to hear from them has made me doubt things even more. starting monday, i was about to embark on some serious internship hunting and take a spot where ever i could get one. thank God, that i won't have to, and hopefully things are all back on track.
so that's my life right now. i've been reading a lot. i knocked out the great gatsby right before christmas and i have been reading the jungle by upton sinclaire ever since. down the road, those two books are sure to give me a great post on capitalism. i've also been getting way into philosophy. hopefully i'll get some thoughts down in the near future. until then...
so life has been good lately. anne recently got a raise and, after she passes a test and receives some sort of insurance license, will get another one. at that point she'll become my sugar momma because she'll be officially making more than me. which i am fine with, because i know that someday, hopefully in the relatively near future, i'll be making more than her again :). which leads me to my next update which is i found out, yesterday, that i will probably be getting an internship at spectrum. interning there has been part of my plan all along because finding out about medical social work is what caused me to get into social work to begin with. this isn't to say that 20 years down the road i still want to be a medical social worker, but it's definatly a great place to begin a social work career, especially for a BSW. so finding that out made my day. it also gave me a boost of confidence.
my confidence in myself has been shaken ever since i decided not to pursue becoming a surgical technologist. for me, confidence is something that is very fragile. lately, i have been going through some serious doubting concerning my future because my interview with spectrum for my internship wasn't that great. i couldn't thoroughly answer some pretty easy questions. and spending all this time waiting to hear from them has made me doubt things even more. starting monday, i was about to embark on some serious internship hunting and take a spot where ever i could get one. thank God, that i won't have to, and hopefully things are all back on track.
so that's my life right now. i've been reading a lot. i knocked out the great gatsby right before christmas and i have been reading the jungle by upton sinclaire ever since. down the road, those two books are sure to give me a great post on capitalism. i've also been getting way into philosophy. hopefully i'll get some thoughts down in the near future. until then...
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
take the hell quiz
i found this quiz on the website of bible scholar edward fudge. i thought it was informative. check it out. for the answers click here
1. According to the Bible, the human being is:
a. a mortal body housing an immortal soul;
b. a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury;
c. a perishable creature wholly dependent on God for existence.
2. Two historical events which biblical writers use most often to illustrate God's
final judgment against the wicked are:
a. expulsion from Eden and the collapse of the Tower of Babel;
b. the fall of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Spanish Armada;
c. the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
3. Based on an actual event, the Bible uses the expression "eternal fire" to signify:
a. fire that destroys forever (Sodom and Gomorrah);
b. fire that cannot destroy what is put in it (Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego);
c. fire that continues to burn indefinitely (the Burning Bush of Moses).
4. The "brimstone" in "fire and brimstone" is:
a. a symbol of terrible torture;
b. burning sulfur that suffocates and destroys;
c. a preserving agent that keeps someone alive forever.
5. Throughout the Bible, "gnashing of teeth" denotes:
a. excruciating pain and agony;
b. gingivitis;
c. extreme anger and hostility.
6. When the Bible portrays "smoke rising" to warn of judgment,
we should think of:
a. people suffering horrible pain;
b. a completed desolation or annihilation;
c. a closed arena when cigarettes were still allowed.
7. When Scripture speaks of smoke rising "forever," it signifies:
a. a destruction that will be irreversible;
b. conscious torment that never ends;
c. a battery-powered rabbit that short circuited.
8. The "worm" in the expression "worm that dies not" is:
a. a maggot that feeds on something dead;
b. a symbol for a pained conscience;
c. a figure of speech standing for everlasting agony in torment.
9. Throughout the Bible, the expression "unquenchable fire" always signifies:
a. fire which burns forever but never burns up what is put in it;
b. fire which comes from a volcano;
c. fire which is irresistible and therefore consumes entirely.
10. The Old Testament's final description of the end of sinners states that:
a. God will put fire and worms in their flesh and they will feel their pain forever;
b. they will be ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous;
c. neither of the above.
11. John the Baptist warned of "unquenchable fire," by which Jesus would:
a. burn up the "chaff";
b. torment the lost forever and never let them die;
c. purge sinners of all evil and then send them to heaven.
12. Jesus compared the end of the wicked to:
a. someone burning chaff, dead trees or weeds;
b. a house destroyed by a hurricane or someone crushed under a boulder;
c. all the above.
13. Jesus personally described Gehenna (hell) as a place where:
a. God is able to destroy both soul and body;
b. God will perpetuate the soul in everlasting agony;
c. Satan reigns over his evil subjects and tortures damned humans.
14. The phrase "eternal punishment" signifies:
a. punishment which occurs in the Age to Come rather than during this life;
b. eternal life in horrible agony and pain;
c. punishment which has everlasting results;
d. (a) and (c) but not (b).
15. The context and "punch line" of the story of the Rich Man and
Lazarus talk about:
a. what happens to the wicked after resurrection and judgment;
b. the urgency of responding to God while there is opportunity;
c. details about the "intermediate state" between death and resurrection.
16. Throughout his writings, Paul says that the lost will:
a. go to hell and burn alive forever;
b. die, perish, and be punished with eternal destruction;
c. go to heaven but hate every minute of it.
17. The New Testament uses the adjective "immortal" to describe:
a. the soul of every person, good or evil;
b. the resurrection bodies of the saved but not of the lost;
c. no human being now or hereafter.
18. The Jewish-Christian books of Hebrews and James contrast salvation with:
a. unending conscious pain;
b. inescapable destruction;
c. going "gently into that good night."
19. Peter's epistles say that the lost will:
a. be burned to ashes like Sodom and Gomorrah;
b. perish like brute beasts;
c. both the above.
20. John interprets his vision in Revelation of a "lake of fire" as:
a. a picture of indescribable, everlasting torture;
b. a place Eskimos might like to visit;
c. the second death.
1. According to the Bible, the human being is:
a. a mortal body housing an immortal soul;
b. a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury;
c. a perishable creature wholly dependent on God for existence.
2. Two historical events which biblical writers use most often to illustrate God's
final judgment against the wicked are:
a. expulsion from Eden and the collapse of the Tower of Babel;
b. the fall of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Spanish Armada;
c. the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
3. Based on an actual event, the Bible uses the expression "eternal fire" to signify:
a. fire that destroys forever (Sodom and Gomorrah);
b. fire that cannot destroy what is put in it (Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego);
c. fire that continues to burn indefinitely (the Burning Bush of Moses).
4. The "brimstone" in "fire and brimstone" is:
a. a symbol of terrible torture;
b. burning sulfur that suffocates and destroys;
c. a preserving agent that keeps someone alive forever.
5. Throughout the Bible, "gnashing of teeth" denotes:
a. excruciating pain and agony;
b. gingivitis;
c. extreme anger and hostility.
6. When the Bible portrays "smoke rising" to warn of judgment,
we should think of:
a. people suffering horrible pain;
b. a completed desolation or annihilation;
c. a closed arena when cigarettes were still allowed.
7. When Scripture speaks of smoke rising "forever," it signifies:
a. a destruction that will be irreversible;
b. conscious torment that never ends;
c. a battery-powered rabbit that short circuited.
8. The "worm" in the expression "worm that dies not" is:
a. a maggot that feeds on something dead;
b. a symbol for a pained conscience;
c. a figure of speech standing for everlasting agony in torment.
9. Throughout the Bible, the expression "unquenchable fire" always signifies:
a. fire which burns forever but never burns up what is put in it;
b. fire which comes from a volcano;
c. fire which is irresistible and therefore consumes entirely.
10. The Old Testament's final description of the end of sinners states that:
a. God will put fire and worms in their flesh and they will feel their pain forever;
b. they will be ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous;
c. neither of the above.
11. John the Baptist warned of "unquenchable fire," by which Jesus would:
a. burn up the "chaff";
b. torment the lost forever and never let them die;
c. purge sinners of all evil and then send them to heaven.
12. Jesus compared the end of the wicked to:
a. someone burning chaff, dead trees or weeds;
b. a house destroyed by a hurricane or someone crushed under a boulder;
c. all the above.
13. Jesus personally described Gehenna (hell) as a place where:
a. God is able to destroy both soul and body;
b. God will perpetuate the soul in everlasting agony;
c. Satan reigns over his evil subjects and tortures damned humans.
14. The phrase "eternal punishment" signifies:
a. punishment which occurs in the Age to Come rather than during this life;
b. eternal life in horrible agony and pain;
c. punishment which has everlasting results;
d. (a) and (c) but not (b).
15. The context and "punch line" of the story of the Rich Man and
Lazarus talk about:
a. what happens to the wicked after resurrection and judgment;
b. the urgency of responding to God while there is opportunity;
c. details about the "intermediate state" between death and resurrection.
16. Throughout his writings, Paul says that the lost will:
a. go to hell and burn alive forever;
b. die, perish, and be punished with eternal destruction;
c. go to heaven but hate every minute of it.
17. The New Testament uses the adjective "immortal" to describe:
a. the soul of every person, good or evil;
b. the resurrection bodies of the saved but not of the lost;
c. no human being now or hereafter.
18. The Jewish-Christian books of Hebrews and James contrast salvation with:
a. unending conscious pain;
b. inescapable destruction;
c. going "gently into that good night."
19. Peter's epistles say that the lost will:
a. be burned to ashes like Sodom and Gomorrah;
b. perish like brute beasts;
c. both the above.
20. John interprets his vision in Revelation of a "lake of fire" as:
a. a picture of indescribable, everlasting torture;
b. a place Eskimos might like to visit;
c. the second death.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
on being a skeptical believer: beyond survival
everyone agrees that people are selfish, and that our basic instinct is survival and self-preservation. much of the time, the decisions we make are made so that we benefit in some way. in fact, the main driver of evolution is survival-- species adapt to survive. so a question i constantly find myself asking is: what if this is all just a survival mechanism? "this" meaning belief in God, and, in my case, christianity.
i've heard it argued that if one takes away the belief in God and the consequence of going to hell, then it would render all of life meaningless, and such a person could do whatever he or she wants. but this just isn't true is it? there are many atheists in this world, and probably most of them are quite moral people. but the argument is silly for other reasons as well. i've read somewhere that if a chimpanzee living, in whatever a chimpanzee community is called, starts going crazy and hurting other chimps, that the entire community will attack and kill the offending chimp. so apparently even chimps have a moral code. this is because we need morals or laws for our survival. if i want to live, one of the ways i can go about doing that is to make a deal with my fellow humans that i won't kill them if they won't kill me. that's called a law. yet humans aren't just individuals, humans are families, cultures, societies, nations, races, and a species. and survival is also driving the existence of the groups people live in, and ultimately the human race. families maintain their line; cultures are passed down; nations conquer other nations. and if humans want to survive as a whole, then humans must become organized and unified. one mechanism that accomplishes this task is religion. religion not only unifies, but it enhances laws. it turns laws into morals and values. if a person violates a law, then that person not only violates a law, but sins against the god of his people.
but the gospel of christ is different, right? the gospel is grounded in love, and not just any love, but agape. and agape is a self-sacrificial love. in other words, agape says we should give up our own happiness, and even our own survival, for others. jesus says, "greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." this would really seem to run counter to the idea that religion is just merely a survival mechanism. but in thinking about this, i wasn't so sure. what if this is really about the survival of the human species? that we all have to give up something, sometimes our own life, for the survival of the human race? i've read somewhere that some scientists theorize that love evolved in mammals from the instinct that a mother has to protect her young. and while this picture of a mother protecting her young is beautiful to us and seemingly selfless, it's really about the survival of that species. it's actually somewhat selfish. didn't somewhere jesus liken himself to a mother hen giving up her life to protect her chicks? it seemed that you could really make a strong case that christianity is just another religion, and like all religions, it is nothing more than a grand evolutionary survival mechanism. then yesterday, i started thinking about something.
in the adam and eve story, adam and eve already had survival; they had the opportunity to eat from a "tree of life." in the story, however, they choose to walk away from this life they had where they lived in shalom with God, one another and creation, and become autonomous. they choose this path where they stop depending upon God, and instead decide that they want to make the decision about what is good and what is evil. after they do this, God blocks them from eating of the tree of life. why? one theory is that if they continue to live forever, they will do so living in the destructive consequences of their sin. their life would extend infinitely into a perpetual death. thus, in allowing them to die, God is actually having mercy on them.
sometimes it's just better to die. sometimes survival just isn't worth it. that is why people fight for the right to die. what the gospel is about isn't survival; it's about eternal life. and eternal life isn't just about quantity-- living forever-- it's about quality. deep inside all of us, we have this remnant of eden. we have this notion that there is some sort of ultimate existence; this ultimate way to live. we are all striving not to just survive-- survival is just a layer; a first step-- we are striving to live a life we cannot even put into words. and the gospel, the kingdom of God, is a glimpse into that better way of living that extends infinitely into the presence of God, who is the ultimate source of life.
so that's where i am now in my journey of faith and doubt. i'll post more as i continue thinking.
i've heard it argued that if one takes away the belief in God and the consequence of going to hell, then it would render all of life meaningless, and such a person could do whatever he or she wants. but this just isn't true is it? there are many atheists in this world, and probably most of them are quite moral people. but the argument is silly for other reasons as well. i've read somewhere that if a chimpanzee living, in whatever a chimpanzee community is called, starts going crazy and hurting other chimps, that the entire community will attack and kill the offending chimp. so apparently even chimps have a moral code. this is because we need morals or laws for our survival. if i want to live, one of the ways i can go about doing that is to make a deal with my fellow humans that i won't kill them if they won't kill me. that's called a law. yet humans aren't just individuals, humans are families, cultures, societies, nations, races, and a species. and survival is also driving the existence of the groups people live in, and ultimately the human race. families maintain their line; cultures are passed down; nations conquer other nations. and if humans want to survive as a whole, then humans must become organized and unified. one mechanism that accomplishes this task is religion. religion not only unifies, but it enhances laws. it turns laws into morals and values. if a person violates a law, then that person not only violates a law, but sins against the god of his people.
but the gospel of christ is different, right? the gospel is grounded in love, and not just any love, but agape. and agape is a self-sacrificial love. in other words, agape says we should give up our own happiness, and even our own survival, for others. jesus says, "greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." this would really seem to run counter to the idea that religion is just merely a survival mechanism. but in thinking about this, i wasn't so sure. what if this is really about the survival of the human species? that we all have to give up something, sometimes our own life, for the survival of the human race? i've read somewhere that some scientists theorize that love evolved in mammals from the instinct that a mother has to protect her young. and while this picture of a mother protecting her young is beautiful to us and seemingly selfless, it's really about the survival of that species. it's actually somewhat selfish. didn't somewhere jesus liken himself to a mother hen giving up her life to protect her chicks? it seemed that you could really make a strong case that christianity is just another religion, and like all religions, it is nothing more than a grand evolutionary survival mechanism. then yesterday, i started thinking about something.
in the adam and eve story, adam and eve already had survival; they had the opportunity to eat from a "tree of life." in the story, however, they choose to walk away from this life they had where they lived in shalom with God, one another and creation, and become autonomous. they choose this path where they stop depending upon God, and instead decide that they want to make the decision about what is good and what is evil. after they do this, God blocks them from eating of the tree of life. why? one theory is that if they continue to live forever, they will do so living in the destructive consequences of their sin. their life would extend infinitely into a perpetual death. thus, in allowing them to die, God is actually having mercy on them.
sometimes it's just better to die. sometimes survival just isn't worth it. that is why people fight for the right to die. what the gospel is about isn't survival; it's about eternal life. and eternal life isn't just about quantity-- living forever-- it's about quality. deep inside all of us, we have this remnant of eden. we have this notion that there is some sort of ultimate existence; this ultimate way to live. we are all striving not to just survive-- survival is just a layer; a first step-- we are striving to live a life we cannot even put into words. and the gospel, the kingdom of God, is a glimpse into that better way of living that extends infinitely into the presence of God, who is the ultimate source of life.
so that's where i am now in my journey of faith and doubt. i'll post more as i continue thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
