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)

With due respect: A powerful and loving God would not allow pain and suffering!

It is one of the most powerful questions I ever encountered, and it was one of the questions that drove me away from Christianity in my younger days. Yet years later, the same question drove me back to Christianity. So let's try to handle the question-- how can a omnipotent and benevolent God allow evil in the world?

Assumptions
Let's put into things into perspective. The question states three things:

1) God is all-powerful
2) God is all-good
3) Evil exist

And that all three things cannot exist together logically. However, the accuser would be right if one of the two following assumptions was true--

A) There is no logical reason why an all-powerful and all-good God would allow evil in the world
B) It is God's will for us to be senily happy

Poor apologetics
Before I start, I would like to say I will be handling the philosophical/spiritual problem of pain and evil. In other words I skip over the practical reasons of evil, such as evolutionary explanations for pain. For example-- the fact that our nerves can detect danger enables us to survive hazards.

That said, any defence that a Christian makes must not reject any of three realities-- that God is all-good, all-power, and that evil exist. For instance, the Christian cannot 'justify' evil. To justify evil is to deny the existance of evil (the reason why something is evil is that it cannot be justified). Are there reasons for evil? Yes reasons, but not justification.

Free-will defence
 For God to be good, (and fair), He has to allows us to experience consequences of every action anyone (or anything) makes (Lewis, 1940). There is no point giving us freedom to choose, while taking away consequences of the choice. If one chooses an evil act, he and others must face the results of that choice-- be it death or imprisonment.


What about natural disasters?
While most people can accept that evils commited by men, few can "excuse" God from the reponsibility of natural disasters. But the thing is that either for God to be omnipotent, He is involved in everything, or nothing. The natural laws that run our universe cannot be broken by any whim and fancy.

On other hand, I have no problem accepting miracles do happen, but they should happen rarely (hence the term 'miracles'). Although one may claim that God is unfair in saving others, one must remember, nowhere in the Bible claims that it is God's will for all of us to be healthy and wealthy. It is His will for all of us to be reconcile with Him ultimately.

Then how is God good?
In Christianity, God allows evil, yet it is not His will. He may use our acts of evil, to bring about His will (Genesis 50:20). God hates evil, but respects our decisions to choose it over Him (Platinga, 1977).

Problem with naturalism
The problem is simple-- without God, how do you know something is evil? Yet the thought process complex-- one may attribute morality to the natural world, but if nature is "red in tooth and claw", why should we view something that happens naturally such as death and destruction as evil? CS Lewis (1952) explores this concept in Mere Christianity, claiming that if anything,the existance of evil hints towards a god. Afterall, one does not call something unjust, unless he/she has an idea of what justice is.

Conclusion
Although the problem of evil has often been touted as a problem for a Christian God, from the Christian view it is not, and from a theistic view, it hints towards the existance of God. In fact, most philosophers regard the logical problem of evil to haven been sufficiently refuted (Gutting, 2009).

Postscript for the Christians
Yet for the followers of Christ, Jesus never promised freedom from suffering or pain from this earth. He told us that that in this world we will have trouble, but we can take heart -- He has overcome the world (John 16:33)

References

Lewis, C.S (1940) The Problem of Pain

Lewis, C.S. (1952) Mere Christianity

Gutting, G. (2009) What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy

Platinga, A. (1977) God, Freedom and Evil

Merry Christmas!

Hello readers!

Currently I am busy with school so this blog has not been updated for a while. Nevertheless, I will post something soon.

In the meantime, MERRY CHRISTMAS!

God bless,
defensedefumer

Alternative Culture: Jack Doe

A Singaporean Comic Book/Graphic Novel

I must confess-- I like reading comics. However, I have not read any Singaporean comic since the Mr. Kiasu series many, many years ago.

When I saw this graphic novel on the shelf in the library, I could not resist the chance to pick it up. After all, if I do not support our local authors and artists, who will?

Opening Shot

The cover art (particularly its black and white colours) immediately hints towards the genre of crime noir, and it is unsurprising that that the story was such.

The story's hero is private eye Jack Doe. As one can tell, Jack Doe is not really his real name, but together with his job, the protgonist inherits the name from his father. Apparently, the pseudonymn protects the protagonist (whose real name is never revealed) and those close to him.

The story begins with Jack Doe being shot in the chest, and as he tumbles down, he recalls the events that led him to such his imminent death. He remembers that he was investigating the death of his good friend Comissoner Blake. The mastermind appears to be his nemesis Judas Black, although more plot twists emerge before we finally get to the conclusion of the story.

However, this being my apologetic/theological/philosophical blog, I want to focus on one part that made me think deeply. That is the concept of the artist who wrote himself into the script.

That sounds a bit like the Christian God, does it not?

I'm not too sure about the author, Shawn Yap or any of his fellow co-authors intended to borrow any Christian themes (the villain is called Judas) for his book, but the concept of God writing himself into our history is one of the cornerstones of Christianity. Even the artist who wrote himself into the book calls himself 'God' at one point.

And the story reveals that the only way for the characters of the graphic novel to be free from the artist's grip on them was to break the flow of the story. This seems to echos the view of the New Atheists (and some past philosophers) that when we finally rid the concept of God, we become truly free.

I wished the book really explored that what freedom really meant. There are suggestions such as when Jack Doe chose to follow the traditions of his father, or when Jack Doe chose to leave his mother. If we chose to be bounded in responsibility are we truly free. I sort of wished that the authors explored this theme further.

A short review

I really like the overall story, and it seems to also borrow from elements of the Batman mythos (one of the villains looks like the Riddler, another like a anoxeric version of Bane. The Gemini twins resemble Tweedledee and Tweedledum).  However, the characters do suffer from lack of development. Jack Doe at times seems like a whiny kid rather than a seasoned detective, and his relationships with his enemies, Comissoner Blake and his friend Cassandra were ill-described.

The art style is simple but effective. However, there are times when the art was a little confusing, expecially in transitions between flashbacks and current time.

Nevertheless, I give this book a 65/100, for a great plot and a philosophical ending.

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

With Due Respect: I know more than you!

Pitting one's authority over the other

You know how sometimes you feel that during a discussion you must object to something. For instance, my friend said that the Bible was "full of contradictions" (I will handle this argument in a future post).

The most natural comment that most people (in my position as a Christian) would make is , "no, it isn't."

But such a comment is not helpful to a discussion, is it? I would be pitting my authority against his/hers and the audience would decide who they would believe more based on personalities. Provided that it is an honest discussion, a much better answer would be "where?" or rather "can you list an example?"

In other words, it would be better to call someone's bluff (Sire, 2006).

Calling one's bluff

Most well-meaning people who make such statements in my experience actually know little about the issue. Let me be honest, such statements have a hint of the truth, but if we are intellectually honest, we cannot base our understandings on issues with one-word statements.

Most of the time, the questioner would decline to elaborate further (in other words, he/she was trolling or just plain trying to make me look bad). However, those who do really have geniune examples, most of them are really misunderstandings. And very rarely, they do have issues I struggle to answer. In that case, I would get their email and promise to engage them some time later.

Speaking authoritatively

I do not. In other words, I cannot claim to speak authoritately or professionally about philosophy/theology. I claim to speak more expertly on biology (since I am a biology graduate), but even then I do not claim to speak as an expert in biology. So although it may sound counter-productive, take what I write with a huge pinch of salt, because I have to be honest here.

Now you know why I try not pit my authority against others.

References

Sire, J.W. (2006) Why Good Effective Arguments Often Fail

Alternative Culture: The Sorcerer's Apprentice

A short synopsis

Merlin had three students, Balthazar (Nicholas Cage), Veronica (Monica Bellucci) and Maxim (Alfred Molina). Jealous of Veronica's relationship with Balthazar, Maxim betrays Merlin by siding with Merlin's nemesis, Morgana le Fay (Alice Krige). Morgana slays Merlin and possesses Veronica, forcing Balthazar to imprison Mazim and Veronica in a Grimhold (a magical prison resembling a series of Russian dolls). With his dying breath, Merlin instructs Balthazar to look for his successor to finally slay Morgana.

He finds the successor in the form of Dave (Jay Baruchel) many years later who aids him in his quest to free Veronica and rid of Morgana.



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

I just want to focus on one aspect of the movie, and it is the part where Dave, in an attempt to clean his place up, uses what little he learnt of magic to do so. Mimicking Disney's Fantasia where Mickey Mouse tried to do the same thing 70 years ago, the buckets start filling themselves up, and the brooms and mops start sweeping and mopping respectively. Unfortunately, Dave did not learn how to stop the cleaning equipment, and floods the whole place. He nearly gets himself electocuted, if not for the timely arrival of Balthazar.

And in a way it does reflects us (or rather me) as an amatuer thinker/scientist/theologian/philosopher/student. We tend to take a small piece of the cake of knowledge and assume that is the whole story. And we apply it, flaunting what little we know as the whole cake.

I see it in some of my Christian friends, who take what little they know in science and trying to show evolutionary theory as unscientific. I see it in my non-beliving friends, taking their paradigms of Christianity and are satisfied with that. And I see it most in myself, wondering all the time in intellectual discussions if I misrepresent any viewpoint, with what little I know.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

A short review

A rather simple movie. Not too great, but nice presentation and a decent storyline keep it from falling flat in its face. I give it 60/100.