Alternative Culture: The attempted assassination of Donald Trump

 

After the shooting, Trump raises his hand to encourage his base

On 13 July 2024, a person opened fire at presidential candidate Donald Trump at a Trump Rally in Pennsylvania. While Trump survived, two others (David Dutch and James Copenhaver) were wounded and one (Corey Comperatore) was killed. The secret service opened fire and killed the shooter. Trump later would attribute his safety to a chart (Trump shifted his head to look at it, causing the shooter to hit Trump's ear), the secret service, and God.

The purpose of this post is not to talk about the politics, security or even any conspiracy regarding the incident. This blog is a theological blog, and I will give my theological thoughts on this.

Is Trump the anti-Christ or the chosen one?
As with any major public event, there many Christians who are too hasty to condemn or praise Trump. 

Because of Trump surviving a head wound and Revelations 13, some point out that that he could be the anti-Christ, or the beast of the anti-Christ. 

One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast. - Rev 13:3

On the other extreme end, some supporters see him as divinely chosen as he was shot at 6:11 pm. 

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil - Ephesians 6:11

As with any interpretation, Christians ought to be open but cautious. In fact, the Bible itself encourages believers to be wary of following such trends.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. - 1 John 4: 1-3

In my sceptical mind, I reject notions him being the anti-Christ because his wound was obviously not fatal. And I also reject the use of Ephesians 6:11 to support Trump as it is obliviously arbitrarily chosen. Why not John 6:11 or Hosea 6:11?

Was his survival the luck of the draw?

How did Trump see his survival?
On 19 July 2024, Trump gave a speech at the Republican National Convention. As part of his speech, he covered the assassination attempt from his point of view. I put a few quotes below:

"There was blood pouring everywhere, and yet in a certain way I felt very safe because I had God on my side."

"I stand before you in this arena only by the grace of almighty God."

"But if the events of last Saturday make anything clear, it is that every single moment we have on Earth is a gift from God. "

Trump felt that his survival was due to the intervention of God. In my opinion, his speech at the RNC surprisingly showed much humility as he thanked the Secret Service for protecting him and his supporters for not panicking at the event.

"Bullets were continuing to fly as very brave Secret Service agents rushed to the stage. And they really did. They rushed to the stage."

"This massive crowd of tens of thousands of people stood by and didn’t move an inch. In fact, many of them bravely but automatically stood up, looking for where the sniper would be. They knew immediately that it was a sniper. And then began pointing at him. You can see that if you look at the group behind me. That was just a small group compared to what was in front. Nobody ran and, by not stampeding, many lives were saved."

He also provided a moment of silence for Corey Comperatore, a retired fireman who was killed, shielding his family from the bullets.

His speech was also more unifying than usual.

"As Americans, we are bound together by a single fate and a shared destiny. We rise together. Or we fall apart. I am running to be president for all of America, not half of America, because there is no victory in winning for half of America."

Now I do not know how much God intervened for Trump's survival, but I do know that whatever happens, God is in charge. 

"The lot is cast into the lap,
    but its every decision is from the Lord." - Proverbs 16:33

Looking ahead
Now whether America becomes more or less divisive from this incident, or whether Trump goes back on his speech of unity remains to be seen.

Regardless of outcome, know that God is ultimately in control.

Do you not know? Do you not hear?
    Has it not been told you from the beginning?
    Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
    and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
    and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
 who brings princes to nothing,
    and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. (Isaiah 40: 21-23)

My confession: Comparing the requests of Moses and Solomon and the Presence of God

 

Due to recent departures in my department and changes in my family, I can see a rapid increased in workload before me. As I prayed, I wondered what I should ask from God. 

Should I asked for strength to meet the challenges, or a reduced commitments?

At first I referred to what King Solomon asked for:

At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and God said, “Ask what I shall give you.” And Solomon said, “You have shown great and steadfast love to your servant David my father, because he walked before you in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart toward you. And you have kept for him this great and steadfast love and have given him a son to sit on his throne this day. And now, O Lord my God, you have made your servant king in place of David my father, although I am but a little child. I do not know how to go out or come in. And your servant is in the midst of your people whom you have chosen, a great people, too many to be numbered or counted for multitude. Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”

It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this. And God said to him, “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you. I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that no other king shall compare with you, all your days. And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.” - 1 Kings 3: 5-14, ESV

Ordinarily, I would have asked for wisdom and discernment to prioritize what is right and important. However, in a recent sermon on the presence of God by Pastor Francis Chan, I changed my perspective.

Moses said to the Lord, “See, you say to me, ‘Bring up this people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’ Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.” And he said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.” And he said to him, “If your presence will not go with me, do not bring us up from here. For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is it not in your going with us, so that we are distinct, I and your people, from every other people on the face of the earth?”

And the Lord said to Moses, “This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.” - Exodus 33: 12 -17, ESV

Moses had simply asked for God to accompany him through the journey to the Promised Land. He stated in "if your presence will not go with me, do not bring us up from here." (Exodus 33:15).

And I realised I want the same thing. Even if I relied on renewed intelligence and wisdom, I am prone to folly and flaws and sin. So this is what I pray for - for God to be with my family and I, till the end of time.

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
    I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
    your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.  -- Psalms 23:4

With Due Respect: Should we use gender-neutral pronouns for God?

 

To summarise, no. Let me elaborate:

God is revealed in Jesus Christ
He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross - Colossians 1: 15-20

For Christians, the best evidence for God is the personhood and Godhood of Jesus Christ. And Jesus was a man.

In ancient Hebrew, God is referred as male in the Bible
The Lord is my strength and my song,
    and he has become my salvation;
this is my God, and I will praise him,
    my father's God, and I will exalt him.
 The Lord is a man of war;
    the Lord is his name. - Exodus 15: 2-3

In the Bible, God chose to communicate using male pronouns, and is also exclusively described with male pronouns. In the instances where God uses female imagery, He uses them as an analogy rather than a description.

For a long time I have held my peace;
    I have kept still and restrained myself;
now I will cry out like a woman in labor;
    I will gasp and pant. - Isaiah 42:14

Jesus was OK with God's pronouns
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
    and recovering of sight to the blind,
    to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” -- Luke 4:16-21

Jesus could have taken opportunities to correct the Scriptures, but he did not.

Conclusion
Despite our modern politics and cultural influences, we must be wary of conflating who God is, and what we desire Him to be. For instance, there could be a genuine intellectual desire to describe God as beyond gender (and thus want to use gender-neutral pronouns) but that is not how God has chosen to reveal Himself in ancient Hebrew.

If God is really the most important being in our lives, then we should seek to conform to what has been revealed about Him, rather than relying on our fickle thoughts, feelings and culture.

For more information:

Torah

Interpreting Scripture

With due respect: Later Christians invented a divine Jesus!

One of the common accusations is that Jesus was just a person who became a legend and eventually God. In other words, Jesus was retconned as God by later Christians.

1 Corinthians 15

However, a reading of Paul's writings will disprove that notion. In the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul recites the earliest Christian creed (1 Cor 5: 3–8). 

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. -- 1 Corinthians 5: 3–8

Paul states that more than 500 hundred people saw Jesus die and came back to life (in fulfillment of the Scriptures; which showed that Jesus was who he claimed to be, i.e. God.).

Note that 1 Corinthians is estimated to be written around 54 AD, about 20 years after Jesus’s execution. Thus Paul’s claim could have been easily challenged by other Christians. As his record of events is backed by eyewitnesses and other apostles, it showed that Christians had regarded Jesus as God from the start.

Pliny the Younger
In 112 AD, Pliny the Younger (a Roman governer) wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor on the policy towards Christians (i.e. how to persecute Christians). In it, he described the religious practices of the Christians. He mentioned that Christians worshiped Jesus and even practised the a ritual of communal eating (i.e. the Holy Communion).

Other sources of early Christian worship are recorded by historians Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Conclusion

Early Christians did worship Jesus as God.

With due respect: Is good something in itself, or is something good because God command it?

A few year's ago, my agnostic friend asked me a question, "Does God approve something because it is good? Or is something good because God approves it?"

At that time, I did not know that this question was known as Euthyphro dilemma. This dilemma presents the monotheist (people who believe in an active God) with two paths:

A) Moral goodness is independent of God

B) God determines what is good

In this post I will examine both paths, A and B, and the problems the paths posed for Christianity.

A) Moral goodness is independent of God
God is subordinate to morality
The most prominent problem to the Christian arising from Path A is that God has to follow an abstract entity known as moral goodness. This challenges traditional understanding of God as being omnipotent (Murray and Rea, 2008).

God is not needed for morality
Another problem is that if morality exists independent of God, then this challenges the necessity of God as a law-giver. In other words, there is not a moral need for God to be involved in the world (Oppy, 2009).

B) God determines what is good
Morality is arbitrary
Adopting this stand is also problematic to the Christian. This means that what morality is dependent on the whims of God (Murray and Rea, 2008).

Morality is subject to the strongest

Another issue is that it makes into a "might makes right" situation. This makes God as a tyrant, since he enforces what is moral.

False dilemma?

St Thomas Aquinas, the medieval theologian did address Euthyphro dilemma. He argued that it is a fallacy to separate morality from God, as God is the definition of good. That means that objective good and God's will is the same thing.

References

Murray, M.J., Rea, M. (2008) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion.

Oppy, G. (2009) Arguing about Gods.

For further reading

Reasonable Faith's link 

William Lane Craig's lecture

Summary:

Alternative Culture: Lego The Movie Review

I have to be honest with you-- initially I did not want to watch this film. I thought it would be too whimsical to my liking. Nevertheless, a few of my colleagues dragged me along to watch this, and I was glad I did.

Plot summary
Lego construction worker Emmet had always led an ordinary life. His daily life is filled with routines and instructions, leaving him little room for creativity. However upon finding a special item known as the "Resistance", Emmet learnt though a prophecy that he is no ordinary person. Teaming up with a thief, Batman, a wizard, a space engineer and a pirate, Emmet goes through an adventure of a lifetime to fulfill his true destiny.

Theological issues
Despite its childish presentation, the movie brings up deep theological themes. In this post, I would like to explore a few.

1) Finding the creator
In one of the scenes, Emmet breaks the fourth wall and meets his owner. Whether intentionally or not, this seems to run coherently with Christian theology-- God is involved in the world, although He cannot be found in nature and is outside the world.

As Pastor Tim Keller (2008) mentioned, to look for God in nature is like Hamlet looking at his attic for Shakespeare. While God's work can be physically found in the world, he generally cannot.

2) The importance of purpose
The overall theme of the movie seems to be the idea of purpose. In this postmodern era, it is generally preached that we humans have the ability to craft our own destiny (Wyatt, 2009), like Emmet comments to his fellow Lego.

I would argue that that our purpose is not self-determined, but divinely-determined. The only way for us to fulfill our true purpose in this world is to ask our creator (i.e. God).

Conclusion
Do watch this movie, even if you consider yourself a mature adult! I give this movie 70/100.

Reference
Keller, T. (2008) The Reason for God.

Wyatt, J. (2009) Matters of Life and Death

Alternative Culture: Persepolis review

Before I begin this review, I would like to say I'm a big admirer of Persepolis, the comic series by French-Iranian artist Marjane-Satrapi. I was pleasantly surprised to find a copy of the film adaptation in the library, and did not hesitate to borrow it.

The premise of the film

Similar to the comic book, the film covers Marjane's life as a child under the Islamic Revolution to a teenager wandering the streets of Europe to a young adult leaving Iran for a second time. She struggles

The theology
There are many issues I would like to blog about. For instance, I would like to blog about how Marjane's uncle faith in the people was misplaced, on the ideology of the Iranian government or even on Marjane's teenage experiences in Europe. However, what I would like to highlight is how Marjane's view of God has changed overtime.

Marjane and God

At the start of the movie, Marjane is portrayed as an ordinary young girl who idolises Bruce Lee and hopes to be a prophet of God in the future.

This "God" is loving and kind, and would never let any harm come to Marjane's way. This "God" is like a cosmic Santa Claus who gives Marjane a good life, without preparing her for the suffering to come.

So it was no surprise that Marjane's theology was shattered when her uncle was executed by the Iranian state. Angered by powerlessness from her "God", she bids him to go away. As she becomes a young adult, her view on God has become more deistic (a "God" who does not care) and answers her queries with a "Yeah, yeah" emotionlessly.

Although the film does not explicit state Marjane's current religious belief, she has stated her lack of belief in God. I find her current belief unsurprising since her theology was not strong in the first place.

Her theology should serve as a warning to Christians. So often, we Christians also have a "Santa Claus" theology: God will reward us if we behave well, and punish us if we behave badly. If Christians are not prepared to have a theology of suffering, then we will have an incomplete theology (Carson, 2006). After all, Jesus had warned in John 15:20 that "the world will persecute" Christians.

In addition, when we face suffering, we often complain of the unfairness of suffering, just like Marjane confronts "God". But why do we expect not to suffer? Were we expecting our wealth, family and social status to protect us from the reality of the world?

Left with a poor understanding of God, we too might abandon our faith unwittingly. Christians should be mature about their faith.

Overall
I particularly am humbled by her experiences in Iran during her childhood days, and her struggle for identity during her adolescent years. I cannot even begin to imagine what it was like growing up during the Iran-Iraq War, or to be discriminated against when in Europe (even though I did my university studies there).

I rate this 85/100.

References
Carson, D. (2006) How Long, O God?

Theology 1.0: What is the ontological argument for God?

[Author's note: The author attempts to present the ontological argument as he best understands it. The author is not in anyway, a philosopher or a theologian. He has a Masters in Biology. He is simply a Christian trying to make sense of the world. This post is also dedicated to his two philosopher friends, Guojun and Mitchel, who helped him immensely through this thought process.]

The Ontological Argument often leaves my brain scrambled like my laptop screen

An argument for the existance of God
One of the arguments for the existance of God is called the ontological argument for God. One unique thing about this philosophical arguement is that we are able to trace its origin to St Anselm of Cantebury. Around 1077-1078, St Anselm wrote Proslogion. This work is where the ontological argument first appeared (Hannam, 2011).

 St Anselm wrote that there is a "conception of God in our minds that is greater than any other thing we can conceive. However, in order for God to be the truly greatest thing He must also exists. A real greatest thing is certainty greater than an imaginary one. If God did not exist he would not be the greatest thing we can conceive and hence he must exist" (Anselm, 1973).

From the wording (and historical research), this argument was not intented to prove God's existance, but rather to show believers why God's existance was necessary. Nevertheless, it has been modified by many philosophers such as Rene Decartes, Gottfried Leibniz and Mulla Sadra as a proof for God's existance (Hannam, 2011).

As with many philsophical agruments, this argument has been refined over time. In this post, I will be exploring the Alvin Platinga's version.

Platinga (1998) argues

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being (i.e. God) exists.

If you're like me, you'll confess that it does not make any sense the first time you heard it.. This is why I chosen to write this post-- to explain it clearer, and hopefully, it'll make sense to you and me.

The difficulties
What does "possible worlds" mean?
One of the difficulties of the argument is to understand what the word "possible worlds" mean. It does not mean alternate universes or alien worlds. They simply mean hypotheses of how the world might have been (Craig, 2008).

Using this idea of possible worlds, any entity can either be impossible (exists in no possible worlds), contingent (exists in some possible worlds) or necessary (existance in all possible worlds).

Examples of impossible entities include the proposition of squared circles, or that the prime minister of Singapore is a prime number.

Examples of contingent entites include extant elephants (there are possible hypothetical situations where elephants became extinct) or that the prime minister of Singapore is related to me (not true in the actual world, but is possible in other worlds).

Examples of necessary entities include the concept of mathematics, or the proposition that square contain four sides.

What does maximally great mean?
A maximally great being is one that possesses all qualities (such as necessity) which are considered better to have. Furthermore it not only possess such qualities, it possesses them to the maximum extent. This means it possesses maximum power (omnipotent), maximum knowledge (omniscience) and maximum good (omnibenevolence).

Having these qualities, one would call this maximally great being "God". Since this "God" would be omnipresent (as part of its maximal powers), if He existed in even one possible world, he exists in all.

Strengths of the argument
The summary of the argument is simple this--  if it is even possible that God exists, then God exists. In other words it shifts the onus of proof of God's nonexistance to the atheist. This is because if the atheist even concedes a slight possiblility of God's existance, then God exists.

To debunk the ontological argument, one must show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God (or rather, a maximally great being) to exist.

A maximally great rubber duckie?

Objections to the argument
As with any argument, there are always people who disagree with it. I shall go through more famous ones.

The unicorn alternative
A common objection to the ontological argument is that it can be applied to anything. For instance, in this youtube video, an atheist ridcules the argument, stating it can be applied to unicorns. He uses the argument to show unicorns exists, thinking that the argument states "if you can define it, it exists."

Nevertheless, let's look at this objection in the best possible light. Let's say we use the argument for a maximally great unicorn. Even if we had a perfect unicorn in everyway, clear of any defect, it still would not be omnipotent, omniscience or omnibenevolent. (If it did, then it would be "God"; we are then just replacing the word "God" with the word "unicorn".) At best, it would be contingent (only exists in some possible worlds).

In fact, this kind of objection is not new, and handled by St Anselm himself 900 years ago. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, St Anselm's rival used a Lost Island as an example (rather than a unicorn). St Anselm pointed out that even the most perfect island is lesser than the greatest thing can be thought of (i.e. it is not "God"; or it does not have the qualities of "God") (Cornman et al., 1992).

Kant's objection
That said, there are forminable arguments against the ontological argument. Almost all serious objections focus on premise 1 ("It is possible that a maximally great being exists"). This is mainly because premise 2 onwards logically follows (Craig, 2008).

One of the greatest philosophers of the Western World, Immanuel Kant also had reservations with the ontological argument (even though Kant himself was a Christian). He questioned the existance as a "necessary proposition". In other words, he argue that a triangle must have three sides if it existed in the first place. Being necessary does not mean an object exist. Furthermore, he argues that a judgement of the non-existance entity is impossible (Kant, 1787).

However, Platinga's (1988) version of the argument does not take issue with this (i.e. it leaves the question of whether existing is a perfection open).

 Can a maximally great being exist?
Another challenge to the ontological argument is whether the concept of a maximally great being is coherent. The notion of God seen as classical theism (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is omniscience, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But these attributes have been often portrayed as contradictionary. For instance, Smith (1980) argues that God is either not good enough or powerful enough to stop all evil.

Limits of the argument
As with any argument, there are limitations. In the Christian context even if this argument is convincing, it does not lead to the conclusion that this god is the Christian God (since the God of Islam and Judaism is also omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent). Granted, this argument is not intented to lead people straight away to the Christian God, but a step in a series of arguments to get there. So this argument is only at best useful against atheists.

In my personal opinion..
I find this argument logically coherent, but yet in the same way unconvincing. I sincerely doubt if I would use this argument as an argument for God's existance. For one, not everyone would agree to call a maximally great being "God". One of the most famous Christian theologians, Thomas Aquinas pointed this out in his landmark Summa Theologica.

Next, it would require people of some level of technical knowledge of philosophy to understand it, blunting its effiency.


References
Anselm, St. (trans. Benedicta Ward) (1973) Prayers and Mediations of St Anselm with Prologion

Cornman, J.W., Lehrer, K., Sotiros Pappas, G. (1992) Philosophical problems and arguments: an introduction
Craig, W.L. (2008) Reasonable Faith (3rd Edition)

Hannam, J. (2011) God's Philosophers

Kant, I. (1787) A Critique of Pure Reason

Kukkone, T. (2000) Possible Worlds in the Tahâfut al-Falâsifa: Al-Ghazâlî on Creation and Contingency. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 38, 479-502.

Platinga, A. (1998) God, arguments for the existence of. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Smith, G.H. (1980) Atheism: The Case Against God

For Further Thinking/Reading
InspiringPhilosophy
GospelCoalition
ReasonableFaith

Alternative Culture: Matthew Parris-- As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

[Editor's note: In December 2008, the British newspaper The Times posted an interesting article on aid in Africa by atheist journalist, Matthew Parris. I have reposted it in this blog.]

Lake Victoria, Uganda, 2009

Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.

We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.

Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.

This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. "Privately" because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.

It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.

There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: "theirs" and therefore best for "them"; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.

I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the "big man" and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? "Because it's there," he said.

To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.

With Due Respect: Who created God?

God as first cause
One of the common arguments for the existence of God is the assertion of God as first cause. In other words, the presence of a finely-tuned created universe implies the presence of a creator (Rees, 2003).

However, the common rebuttal to this is that if God had created the universe/world/nature, what/who created God (Dawkins, 2006)?

This is a retort makes two suggestions:

1) That the answer of "God" only pushes the question of origins one step further back.

2) That a complex god that could create a complex creation is sufficiently complex enough to require an explanation.

Biblical interpretation
Christian doctrine generally teaches that God is eternal and thus have no origin (eg: Psalms 90:2 and Psalms 90:4).  To put it simply, God is the creator of time, and can exist outside time and thus is able to see the history itself.

On the other hand, some Bible scholars has pointed out that God is portrayed in Scripture as acting in time (Boyd, 2007). For instance, in Genesis 18, Abraham negotiated with God over the fate of two evil cities. Nevertheless, there is no compelling reason why God cannot exist out of time and be able to act within it at the same time.

The infinite regression problem
Answers from the Bible are very unlikely to convince the unbeliever. While many belivers find it satisfying as a solution to an infinite regression problem (if A was created by B, who was created by C, who was created by D... who created E, F, G,.... etc), some non-believers view the "God" answer as a cope-out to avoid questions about origins. If pointed out that God just came to be (ie God as first-cause and self-existant), it can be argued that the same is true of the universe.

However, if the universe did not have a cause, it would be immense difficultly to discuss the origin of the universe as a concept. While it may be argued that the universe "just came to be", it would also hardly be the satisfying answer the sceptic would seek.

Rephrasing the question

Ultimately, the nature of the questioner (both the theist and the atheist) must presume something-- whether everything, including the universe has a cause. If so, then the theist must somehow defend "God" as his answer, while the atheist will be left to the problem what the first cause is.

However, if not everything needs to have a cause, then the question of "who created God?" is meaningless.


Also check out:
Biologos

References
Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

Boyd, G. (2007) God of the Possible

Rees, M.J. (2003) Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shaped the Universe

With Due Respect: God is unfair!

Poor apologetics

One of the most common mistakes that most of my Christian friends (and I) make is to jump into a direct rebuttal to our non-Christian friends. However, that demostrates poor listening skills. Often people expressed an opinion (in this case on the fairness of God), we give them 101 reasons or examples why God is fair. But we need to get to the heart of the issue-- what do they actually mean?

The concept of grace is unfair!
One way that they could actually mean is that grace is unfair-- how can God make salvation something a gift rather than something we can earn?


If you think about it deeply, it is true-- the concept of grace is unfair. By dying on the cross to redeem mankind, God made salvation a gift, rather than something anyone deserves(Romans 5: 6-8). Because if God gives us what we deserve, we'll go to hell--no one is simply good enough (Romans 3: 9-20).

Attempting to define God's intention
Another aspect that non-Christians may misunderstand is to set up false aims that the Christian God intented to achieve. For instance, some may argue that if God was fair, everyone would be healthy, wealthy or the like.

However, nowhere in the Bible does it state that God's ultimate intention for mankind is for everyone to be without illness or poverty.

Conclusion
When non-believers say that God is unfair we must carefully examine what they mean, instead of giving textbook answers without getting to the heart of the matter.

Note that this list of potential reasons why non-Christians view God is unfair is not exhaustive, but simply a starter to such conversations.

Theology 1.0: What is the Trinity?

What is the Trinity? Do Christians worship three gods?
This is one of the most misunderstood ideas about Christianity. In fact, some critics of Christianity accuse Christians as worshipping three gods (i.e. polytheism) instead of one.

Although complicated to understand, Christians do not believe in three gods, or that God himself dons three masks in the course of human history. Rather, it is one God who revealed Himself in three persons-- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

One God
The Bible is clear that Christians worship one God. In Isaiah 44:6, God says there is no other God but Him, but he is the first and and the last. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the Bible states that God is one. And in case you were wondering, this view is echoed in the New Testament as well. (see Ephesians 4:6)

Pluarlity of God
Yet, the Bible also makes another thing clear-- there is pluality in the unity of God. In Genesis 1:26, God said, "let us make man in our own image". "Us" and "Our" aren't mistranslations or references to angels.

But what about the trinity, then? one might ask. The word "Trinity" does not is not found in the Bible, but one of the many clear references is in Matthew 28:19. Jesus told his followers to make disciples of all men, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This showed Jesus placed all these enitities as equality with God.

Conclusion
Although it might be difficult to comprehend and explain, the Christian God is one, but yet in three personalities.

For further references
historic case for trinity

Verses quoted
“This is what the LORD says—
   Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
   apart from me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (Ephesians 4:6)

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Genesis 1:26)

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28: 19)

Theology 1.0-- Who is Jesus

A big issue

This is one of the central issues of Christianity. Christians (like myself) view Jesus as God, many people view Jesus as a great moral teacher and yet there are few who said in Jesus was just a myth. For this post, I will be focusing almost exclusively on four Gospels of the New Testament, on why Christians believe that Jesus is God.

The God who was there

In the 2005 DVD The God Who Wasn't There, one of the interviewees asserts that the New Testament was made up details about Jesus as they were written as 'Gospels' as if the word 'Gospel' was just simply meant a religious text. However, that was not how the people of Ancient Rome would have understood it.

In the Mark 1:1, it makes it clear from the start. 'Gospel' simply meant good news. The Gospels were written to those who have not heard about Jesus. In essence, the four Gospels were saying to the suspicious of intent, that the Gospels' intent was good. And those who were skeptical of content, that the Gospels' content was news.

But of course, just because a text says that it is factual does not mean it is. I will probably cover the historical reliability of the New Testament in another post.

Evidence from Gospels

One of my Muslim friends pointed out that Jesus never directly said He is God in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and I agree. However, He does say and do other things that indicated He is.

Self-centred teaching

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty." (John 6:35)

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."(John 8:12)

As shown by three of the many passages, Jesus's teaching about God and spiritual needs focused on himself. He said to follow him was to follow God, to welcome him was to welcome God and to have seen him was to have seen God (Matthew 10:40; Mark 9:37; John 14:9). He focused on himself in his teaching as the way to salvation (reconciliation with God).

Indirect Claims

 Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins (Mark 2:5) and judge the world (Matthew 25: 31-46). The Jews at that time would recognise these are attributes of God and actions only God can do.

Direct Claims

In Mark 8:27-30 and John 20:28  Peter and Thomas identified him as Christ and God respectively, and Jesus did not deny it. Even the Jews in Mark 2:7 said he was blaspheming, as no man should claimed to be God.

Lewis Trilemma

Provided that the four Gospels of the New Testament is reliable, I would conclude that Jesus did claim to be God. This does not mean he is. He could be lying, or honestly mistaken.

Liar

If he was lying, he was certainly not a great moral teacher, mainly because he would have pulled of the biggest fraud of all. He convinced many that he was God when he was not.

Mad

Well, if Jesus honestly thought he was God, but he wasn't, he would possibly be crazy. Because the things he did, consistently are reflected in the nature of God (as understood by the Jews based on the Old Testament).

In other words, I find it hard to conclude that from the New Testament that Jesus was simply a great moral teacher (Lewis, 1952).

Why Christians believe Jesus is probably God, not bad or mad

His teaching

His teaching, particularly the Sermon on the Mount are recognised by many, including Gandhi to great works. It would make little sense for a bad or mad person to be able come up with such teaching.

His character

Jesus was the type of person one would not descirbe as mad or bad. He showed great humility, but not weakness, joy but not wickedness, generousity but not self-pity. Even his enemies struggled to build a case against him (Matthew 26: 57-67; Matthew 27: 11-26)

His fulfilment of prohecy

Jesus fufilled over 300 Old Testament prohecies in his life and death. It would be difficult for even a smart con to manipulate the events of his birth and death. Isaiah 53 for instance predicted the manner of his death, while Micah predicted the manner of his birth.


Conclusion

In the light of this, I, like my Christian friends, come to the conclusion that Jesus is God.

References:

Lewis, C.S. (1952) Mere Christianity