Joe Boot
Joe Boot is an evangelist and apologist and is the Director of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Toronto, Canada.
The real assumption in this question is clear: Surely the discoveries of modern science have proved that biblical religion is untenable. Yet, there are fundamental false assumptions built into the question itself. The most obvious of these is the popular belief that the scientific method can actually prove things. As empirical science rests on what philosophers call the inductive method, scientific conclusions never offer certainties, only probabilities. Induction is the principle of scientific inquiry that begins with specific observation in order to offer a generalisation about the thing observed.
For example, all the dogs I have encountered have four legs, so I conclude with the generalisation that all dogs have four legs. But my conclusion is not deduced from a universally known truth; it is based on limited exposure to the facts and so is only a statement of probability.
As it happens, there are dogs born with three legs, or injured and left with three. Inductive scientific methods cannot prove with certainty. Furthermore, the past is not directly accessible to us, so all theories concerning origins and earth history are hypotheses, not facts. And predictions about natural processes in the future are based on philosophical assumptions (faith).
Though these things are understood by philosophers of science, the general public is often unaware of the nature of the scientific enterprise. Most people asking this question assume that Christianity is a blind leap in the dark. Christianity, they say, is not concerned with evidence, but is believed in the absence of evidence, or even contrary to the known facts. Faith is not, however, a leap. Rather, it is a foundation. All science is based upon a faith of some kind. For example, we must believe that there is a real world of matter out there that is accessible and correlated to our senses. We must believe that our minds are giving us reliable information about the world. We must believe that language and mathematics, reason and logic can all be applied to the world of our senses.
In fact, the most basic assumption of the sciences is the uniformity of nature – the expectation that the present and future will be like the past. But none of these things are proved by natural science – they are believed on faith. It is because we believe these things that science itself is made a meaningful and intelligible discipline.
Since science is based upon faith assumptions (metaphysical beliefs) that cannot be proved, we need to ask a different question: What kind of faith provides an adequate foundation for science? And, importantly, how does each person’s religious view of the world affect their methods and conclusions in science?
To answer these questions, we must set the presuppositions of these differing faith systems side by side. Every person, scientist or not, necessarily nurtures a religious perspective made up of a number of interconnected beliefs – what we call a worldview. The two worldviews represented in this question are naturalism and Christian theism.
Naturalism holds that matter and energy is all there is. The whole universe is in flux, matter in motion. Everything we observe in the universe created itself from chaos. The universe is the product of chance, not design. Human beings are nothing more than a random collocation of atoms. In contrast, Christian theism holds that the God of the Bible is the creator, sustainer and redeemer of this world. Rather than the void of chance, the mind of the triune God creates, orders and sustains all that is.
So there are two divergent starting points. In the first case, the mind of finite man must be the ultimate criteria for truth, applying abstract laws to the irrational facts all around him. He puts his faith in himself as god, creating a reality for himself. The Christian theist places his faith not in himself, but in the God of creation. So man does not create knowledge or fashion the universe from his own mind, but rather he looks to God as the ultimate source of all knowledge, and reality.
Facts do not speak for themselves.
People with each worldview are looking at the same data or evidence. However, the facts do not speak for themselves; they are interpreted according to a worldview. Thus, when the naturalistic thinker looks at the evidence, he interprets everything accordingly. He claims, for example, that he does not see design in the genetic code, just selfish genes and random replication. He claims not to see God revealed in the heavens, he sees cosmic evolution. To him all facts must be naturalistic and evolutionary to be facts at all. The Christian theist, on the other hand, sees all the evidence as pointing to God. Facts are not interpreted by the finite and everchanging thinking of people, but pre-interpreted by the mind of God and read in the light of God’s revelation in Scripture.
So the idea that science and religion are opposed is a myth. Naturalism as a religion has its science, and the theist has his science. It is one faith or religion that opposes the other, not an objective scientific establishment that opposes religion. The real heart of the issue is this: Which faith makes scientific knowledge possible? If the universe is ultimately chaotic – if all is in flux – then you cannot finally know anything. How can we believe in the uniformity of nature in a chance-driven universe? How can we trust that the chemical accident of our brain is giving us valid knowledge? If all matter is in motion, how can we apply abstract, universal laws of mathematics and logic to reality?
It is the Christian worldview alone that can provide the pre-conditions of intelligible science. It is God who provides the order, structure and regularity that make the cosmos rational. And he has made us in his image, with mind and spirit distinct from matter, capable of exploring and understanding the world. It is the God-given nature of man living in God’s world that makes science possible. Without such a faith there is no science to speak of.
· © This article was written by an apologist from The Zacharias Trust and is reproduced with the kind permission of idea magazine where it first appeared.
This article was reproduced with permission from UCCF: the Christian Unions from their Christian thinking website bethinking.org. For other great articles and audio presentations from great authors go to www.bethinking.org
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
"How Can I Believe in God When There's So Much Suffering?"
Michael Ramsden
Michael Ramsden is an evangelist and apologist and works as the European Director of the Zacharias Trust, which is the European branch of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.
How do you expect me to believe in God, asked Woody Allen, 'when only last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of my electric typewriter?' For a while now, at least in the Western world, the existence of any form of pain, suffering or evil has been regarded as evidence for the non-existence of God. If a good God existed, people say, these things wouldn't. But they do and, therefore, He doesn't.
My job takes me around many different parts of the world in order to answer people's questions about the Christian faith. I find it fascinating that I have never been asked this question in India, which I have visited on many occasions and which certainly knows a lot more about suffering than we do. I find it even more intriguing that Christians who write books in situations where they have known unspeakable torment because of the Gospel also do not normally raise this as an issue for themselves. Why?
There are so many ways in which the question concerning pain can be raised. It can be because of personal loss and pain, or because of a personal interest in the issue of theodicy (the theological term for the question we're looking at here) - to name but two. However, regardless of which way the question is raised, it normally comes down to a moral complaint against God: 'How could you allow this to happen?' The complaint is against God's moral character: 'Can I really trust God if I see this happen?' If you are sure that you can trust Him, regardless of the pain you find yourself in, there is no temptation to turn away from Him, as He is the only one who can help.
First, let's deal with the argument against God's existence. Ravi Zacharias has dealt with this brilliantly in his book Can Man Live Without God? If you argue from the existence of evil to the non-existence of God, you are assuming the existence of an absolute moral law in order for your argument to work. But if there is such a law, then that would also mean that there is such a God, since He is the only one who could give us such a law. And if there is such a God to give us this law, then the argument itself is flawed, since you have had to assume the existence of God in order to argue that He doesn't exist. In short, it is an attempt to invoke the existence of an absolute moral law without invoking the existence of an absolute moral lawgiver, and it cannot be done.
Second, we must also ask the question, which we often fail to do, about what it would take to create a loving world. A world in which love is capable of meaningful expression and experience would also imply a world in which there is choice. If someone tells you that they love you, those words mean something because they are freely given. If you learnt that someone had told you that they loved you and that they had been forced to do it, their words would not mean very much. If you want to create a loving world, you must also create a world in which choices can be exercised. And in such a world, there is also the possibility of choosing a course of action that is not loving, namely evil.
However, these observations do not answer the heart of the question as I think people most commonly ask it. Can I trust God even when faced with great evil? Is He morally trustworthy? Can I trust Him even if I don't understand what is happening?
These are profound questions, and whole books could be written about them. But I would offer one observation for your thoughts: Maybe the reason we question God's moral character when bad things happen is that we live lives largely independent from Him. In other words, do we really trust Him even when things are going well?
I said earlier that I have never been asked questions about God and suffering when I am travelling in countries riddled with the realities of it. In fact, when I visit churches in parts of the world where they are faced daily with the horrific realities of suffering, I normally leave inspired. They trust God in everything, even when things are going well. When times are hard, they cling on to Him because they have already learnt to trust Him. God hasn't changed, even though the circumstances have.
Maybe we struggle with suffering so much in the West because we are so comfortable most of the time that we feel we don't need God. We don't rely on Him on a daily basis, and so we don't really know Him as we should. When suffering comes along, therefore, it is not so much that it takes us away from God, but that it reveals to us that we haven't really been close to Him in the first place.
Obviously we can't address all of the intellectual issues involved here, but, as well as the book already mentioned, let me suggest The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis; God, Freedom and Evil by Alvin Plantinga; and Evil and the Cross by Henri Blocher.
However, what may challenge the critic of God in the face of suffering is not another book on the subject, but rather seeing more lives lived out in dependence on Him, regardless of what is going on around us.
© This article was written by an apologist from The Zacharias Trust and is reproduced with the kind permission of idea magazine where it first appeared.
This article was reproduced with permission from UCCF: the Christian Unions from their Christian thinking website bethinking.org. For other great articles and audio presentations from great authors go to www.bethinking.org
Michael Ramsden is an evangelist and apologist and works as the European Director of the Zacharias Trust, which is the European branch of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.
How do you expect me to believe in God, asked Woody Allen, 'when only last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of my electric typewriter?' For a while now, at least in the Western world, the existence of any form of pain, suffering or evil has been regarded as evidence for the non-existence of God. If a good God existed, people say, these things wouldn't. But they do and, therefore, He doesn't.
My job takes me around many different parts of the world in order to answer people's questions about the Christian faith. I find it fascinating that I have never been asked this question in India, which I have visited on many occasions and which certainly knows a lot more about suffering than we do. I find it even more intriguing that Christians who write books in situations where they have known unspeakable torment because of the Gospel also do not normally raise this as an issue for themselves. Why?
There are so many ways in which the question concerning pain can be raised. It can be because of personal loss and pain, or because of a personal interest in the issue of theodicy (the theological term for the question we're looking at here) - to name but two. However, regardless of which way the question is raised, it normally comes down to a moral complaint against God: 'How could you allow this to happen?' The complaint is against God's moral character: 'Can I really trust God if I see this happen?' If you are sure that you can trust Him, regardless of the pain you find yourself in, there is no temptation to turn away from Him, as He is the only one who can help.
First, let's deal with the argument against God's existence. Ravi Zacharias has dealt with this brilliantly in his book Can Man Live Without God? If you argue from the existence of evil to the non-existence of God, you are assuming the existence of an absolute moral law in order for your argument to work. But if there is such a law, then that would also mean that there is such a God, since He is the only one who could give us such a law. And if there is such a God to give us this law, then the argument itself is flawed, since you have had to assume the existence of God in order to argue that He doesn't exist. In short, it is an attempt to invoke the existence of an absolute moral law without invoking the existence of an absolute moral lawgiver, and it cannot be done.
Second, we must also ask the question, which we often fail to do, about what it would take to create a loving world. A world in which love is capable of meaningful expression and experience would also imply a world in which there is choice. If someone tells you that they love you, those words mean something because they are freely given. If you learnt that someone had told you that they loved you and that they had been forced to do it, their words would not mean very much. If you want to create a loving world, you must also create a world in which choices can be exercised. And in such a world, there is also the possibility of choosing a course of action that is not loving, namely evil.
However, these observations do not answer the heart of the question as I think people most commonly ask it. Can I trust God even when faced with great evil? Is He morally trustworthy? Can I trust Him even if I don't understand what is happening?
These are profound questions, and whole books could be written about them. But I would offer one observation for your thoughts: Maybe the reason we question God's moral character when bad things happen is that we live lives largely independent from Him. In other words, do we really trust Him even when things are going well?
I said earlier that I have never been asked questions about God and suffering when I am travelling in countries riddled with the realities of it. In fact, when I visit churches in parts of the world where they are faced daily with the horrific realities of suffering, I normally leave inspired. They trust God in everything, even when things are going well. When times are hard, they cling on to Him because they have already learnt to trust Him. God hasn't changed, even though the circumstances have.
Maybe we struggle with suffering so much in the West because we are so comfortable most of the time that we feel we don't need God. We don't rely on Him on a daily basis, and so we don't really know Him as we should. When suffering comes along, therefore, it is not so much that it takes us away from God, but that it reveals to us that we haven't really been close to Him in the first place.
Obviously we can't address all of the intellectual issues involved here, but, as well as the book already mentioned, let me suggest The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis; God, Freedom and Evil by Alvin Plantinga; and Evil and the Cross by Henri Blocher.
However, what may challenge the critic of God in the face of suffering is not another book on the subject, but rather seeing more lives lived out in dependence on Him, regardless of what is going on around us.
© This article was written by an apologist from The Zacharias Trust and is reproduced with the kind permission of idea magazine where it first appeared.
This article was reproduced with permission from UCCF: the Christian Unions from their Christian thinking website bethinking.org. For other great articles and audio presentations from great authors go to www.bethinking.org
Monday, 7 July 2008
Does God love everyone? If yes why do people go to hell?
YES, God does love everyone! He cares so much that he sent his only son Jesus Christ, to die on our behalf so that we wouldn't have to go to hell. The only reason that anyone goes to hell is because they choose not to trust in God's salvation. We are all sinners, and none of us is righteous enough to go to heaven by our own efforts. God is perfect, and he cannot stand sin, so that is why he sent his son to die for us. If we will trust in God's son Jesus, he will forgive us, so that we will not have to go to hell. God said: "Rid yourselves of all the offences you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:31-32).
Sharon McGowan
Sharon McGowan
If all men are created in God's image, why does sin exist?
The first humans God made were Adam and Eve. They were created in God's image, and they were perfect and without sin (like God). God made them to be in perfect relationship with him. However, God did not want to force them to love him, so he gave them the choice to walk with Him or choose their own direction. So he planted two trees in the Garden of Eden: the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He only gave them one command: "You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for if you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17). But they chose to eat of it, and by doing so chose to reject God's reign. God is perfect, and he cannot stand disobedience (sin), so the perfect relationship between God and humans was broken, and we became sinful.
BUT, we can choose to turn back to God, because he sent his son Jesus Christ to die for our sins. Jesus took the punishment that we deserve for our disobedience to God, and so allowed us to return to the relationship for which God created us if we only repent and accept him.
Sharon McGowan (edited slightly)
BUT, we can choose to turn back to God, because he sent his son Jesus Christ to die for our sins. Jesus took the punishment that we deserve for our disobedience to God, and so allowed us to return to the relationship for which God created us if we only repent and accept him.
Sharon McGowan (edited slightly)
Saturday, 14 June 2008
Do good people go to heaven?
Do we all go to heaven even if we're not religious but good at heart? Can we be a 'good person' even if we don't go to church?
I am going to assume that the reason the question is worded like this is because the person who wrote it knows that Christians are made "good" by having the bad stuff they've done paid for by Jesus, and is asking if there is a second way to heaven for those who manage to be good enough on their own part and therefore don't need Jesus.
The short answer is that Jesus said "I am the way...No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) In other words, no there is no second way.
This may seem unfair on those who live "good" lives without being Christian. But it's actually much more unfair on people to say that if they live good lives they might get to heaven. Everyone has a different definition of a "good" life. It's all about pressure to perform. It's destined to fail. Because get this: God is perfect. Heaven is perfect. The moment you do one tiny screw up, you're imperfect. Name one person who's perfect by that definition. No, I can't think of anyone either (except Jesus, but He decided to take on our imperfections). There can't be imperfection in heaven. This isn't because God thinks He's too cool for imperfect people. He doesn't. He loves us all. Simply put, the nature of heaven is perfect and imperfection can't exist there.
For want of a better example, let's look at vomiting. When you vomit, it's not because your tummy feels like being a snob towards your food. It's because the food was imperfect and by its very nature could not remain in your stomach. The same thing happens with imperfection in heaven. God's not a snob. He simply created a heaven where imperfection, by its nature, can't exist (and when we get there, we'll enjoy this feature). Furthermore, just to make sure we know He isn't being snobby, He sent Jesus to pay with His life for every bad thing we've ever done so that anyone can have the option of being perfect and going to heaven. All you have to do is choose to go there.
Let's look at what Jesus said about this. This verse you may know: "For God so loved the world, that He sent His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16). I like this verse. It says that if you believe that God sent Jesus to pay for your sins then you're going to heaven. Sounds good to me. Beats trying to be perfect all your life. Of course this is only one thing Jesus said. So just to prove I'm not a heretic who takes things out of context and makes his own theologies, let's look at what else Jesus said so we can have a holistic view of His teaching.
Jesus also said, "do to others what you would have them do to you..." (Matthew 7:12). If we all did to others what we'd have them do to us, we'd be living in a pretty sweet world. Is Jesus saying "try as hard as you can to be perfect"? No! He's just saying treat others the way you'd have them treat you. Common sense!
Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength ... Love your neighbour as yourself." (Mark 12:30). These are also common sense. If you believe God sent Jesus to pay for your sins so that you could go to heaven then it's natural that you would love God! Who wouldn't love someone who enabled them to go to a perfect heaven? And loving your neighbour is the golden rule all over again. More common sense.
One more thing Jesus said. "Go and make disciples of all the nations ... and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus is saying, "Okay, so you guys know that to go to heaven, you need only believe God sent me to pay with my life for you to go there. You know that the best way to live is to love God and to treat other people the way you want them to treat you. Now go tell other people about this so that they can do it too."
So that's what I'm doing. I'm telling you about it cause you're asking if there's a second way to heaven, which is actually harder than God's way! Why spend decades working at being perfect (and still failing in the end) when God made sure that all you had to do to get there was believe that Jesus paid for your ticket? God did this on purpose. There's a good reason it takes a single decision to get entry to heaven and a lifetime to treat others the way you want them to treat you. Because we're not in heaven! Apart from the decision to believe Jesus paid for you to go there, you're actually supposed to think about Earth. You can enjoy heaven when you get there. In the meantime, rather than wasting your life trying and failing to be perfect, just treat others the way you want to be treated and tell them that they can live the same way. Yes, as a result you will spend a lot of your time being "good", but with a completely different approach! As a Christian, you do good things out of love for God and others, rather than doing them in order to get to heaven. Talk about a weight off your shoulders!
Josh Thompson (edited slightly)
I am going to assume that the reason the question is worded like this is because the person who wrote it knows that Christians are made "good" by having the bad stuff they've done paid for by Jesus, and is asking if there is a second way to heaven for those who manage to be good enough on their own part and therefore don't need Jesus.
The short answer is that Jesus said "I am the way...No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) In other words, no there is no second way.
This may seem unfair on those who live "good" lives without being Christian. But it's actually much more unfair on people to say that if they live good lives they might get to heaven. Everyone has a different definition of a "good" life. It's all about pressure to perform. It's destined to fail. Because get this: God is perfect. Heaven is perfect. The moment you do one tiny screw up, you're imperfect. Name one person who's perfect by that definition. No, I can't think of anyone either (except Jesus, but He decided to take on our imperfections). There can't be imperfection in heaven. This isn't because God thinks He's too cool for imperfect people. He doesn't. He loves us all. Simply put, the nature of heaven is perfect and imperfection can't exist there.
For want of a better example, let's look at vomiting. When you vomit, it's not because your tummy feels like being a snob towards your food. It's because the food was imperfect and by its very nature could not remain in your stomach. The same thing happens with imperfection in heaven. God's not a snob. He simply created a heaven where imperfection, by its nature, can't exist (and when we get there, we'll enjoy this feature). Furthermore, just to make sure we know He isn't being snobby, He sent Jesus to pay with His life for every bad thing we've ever done so that anyone can have the option of being perfect and going to heaven. All you have to do is choose to go there.
Let's look at what Jesus said about this. This verse you may know: "For God so loved the world, that He sent His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16). I like this verse. It says that if you believe that God sent Jesus to pay for your sins then you're going to heaven. Sounds good to me. Beats trying to be perfect all your life. Of course this is only one thing Jesus said. So just to prove I'm not a heretic who takes things out of context and makes his own theologies, let's look at what else Jesus said so we can have a holistic view of His teaching.
Jesus also said, "do to others what you would have them do to you..." (Matthew 7:12). If we all did to others what we'd have them do to us, we'd be living in a pretty sweet world. Is Jesus saying "try as hard as you can to be perfect"? No! He's just saying treat others the way you'd have them treat you. Common sense!
Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength ... Love your neighbour as yourself." (Mark 12:30). These are also common sense. If you believe God sent Jesus to pay for your sins so that you could go to heaven then it's natural that you would love God! Who wouldn't love someone who enabled them to go to a perfect heaven? And loving your neighbour is the golden rule all over again. More common sense.
One more thing Jesus said. "Go and make disciples of all the nations ... and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus is saying, "Okay, so you guys know that to go to heaven, you need only believe God sent me to pay with my life for you to go there. You know that the best way to live is to love God and to treat other people the way you want them to treat you. Now go tell other people about this so that they can do it too."
So that's what I'm doing. I'm telling you about it cause you're asking if there's a second way to heaven, which is actually harder than God's way! Why spend decades working at being perfect (and still failing in the end) when God made sure that all you had to do to get there was believe that Jesus paid for your ticket? God did this on purpose. There's a good reason it takes a single decision to get entry to heaven and a lifetime to treat others the way you want them to treat you. Because we're not in heaven! Apart from the decision to believe Jesus paid for you to go there, you're actually supposed to think about Earth. You can enjoy heaven when you get there. In the meantime, rather than wasting your life trying and failing to be perfect, just treat others the way you want to be treated and tell them that they can live the same way. Yes, as a result you will spend a lot of your time being "good", but with a completely different approach! As a Christian, you do good things out of love for God and others, rather than doing them in order to get to heaven. Talk about a weight off your shoulders!
Josh Thompson (edited slightly)
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
God, why are you such a racist, sexist bastard?
Ok, how shall I answer this???
If I were God’s lawyer I’d probably sue you for defamation. If I were God’s psychologist I’d be helping Him get over this serious blow to his self-esteem. If I were God’s spin-doctor I would be trying to suggest that actually God is a good and loving racist, sexist bastard. Fortunately God doesn’t need me to be any of these people… because (unlike other famous people) he deals prayers and questions personally. However, as a servant of God I offer this not-so-humble opinion.
I can actually see why you think that way.
Racist?
God does seem racist. He picked one nation (
However, I do know that God promised Abraham that He would make his descendants into a great nation (
Sexist?
I presume you mean that God is sexist against women?
At times the church has treated women badly. Some churches seem to teach sexist ideas (like not letting women speak at church or making them wear hats). But let’s separate God from the church here. How does God treat women???
God created man and woman… it was His idea and he said both were very good. After Adam and Eve sinned (they did exactly what God said not to do), both the man and the woman bore the consequences of their disobedience.
Sure, the apostle Paul lays down some pretty restrictive rules for women in church in one of his letters. But these probably had to do with respecting the culture of the day. Paul actually lists many women as his close partners in God’s work.
God does however recognize throughout the Bible that men and woman are different (I’m darn glad we are… it certainly keeps relationships fun!) God made men and women different and they have different roles. But that doesn’t mean he is sexist against either women or men.
This is a brief attempt to show that God is neither racist nor sexist. Unfortunately sometimes God’s people tend to misrepresent Him. If you look through the entirely of God’s story in the Bible we will find a God who at times has gone against normal convention to demonstrate that his love encompasses all people, regardless of race or gender.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Is the Islamic God the same as the Jewish God and is He the same as the Christian God?
Muslims believe that they worship the same God as Jews and Christians because they all worship the God of Abraham. But they believe that Jews and Christians have distorted God’s message. According to the Quran, Abraham, Moses and Jesus were actually Muslims, they were prophets who received God’s word and wrote it in a book. The last and most important prophet is Mohammed, who received visions from Allah and these are written down in the Quran. The Quran either affirms or replaces anything that previous prophets may have said. Islam belief is that Christians and Jews have the chance to submit to God and become true Muslims, but at the end times they will be wiped out. However the God of the Bible and Allah are very different. One difference is that Allah resides far away in heaven and the goal is to submit to him whereas the Judeo-Christian God is both in heaven and on earth and it’s possible to have a relationship with him.
So the answer to the question is both yes and no. All three religions believe in a monotheistic God who created the world and everything in it. And the root of all three of the religions is the same. However they believe different things about what God is like and the way to get to and please God, and that makes the God they worship different. This is the big issue with the question. Although people may say they worship the same God, even within any one religion, individual beliefs about what God is like vary. Therefore people are actually believing in and worshipping different Gods. It’s my opinion that all human belief in God is coloured by personal ideas. However as a Christian I believe that Jesus revealed the true God, and as you can have a relationship with Him, He can reveal to you what He is truly like. This doesn’t happen over night of course; rather you grow in your knowledge of God over your life.
So whether all Christians, Muslims and Jews are worshipping the same God and whether He accepts all their worship is a debatable question. As a Christian I would say that sin (trying to be God of your own life) separates people from God and without Jesus’ sacrifice for sin no one can come to God. However I personally believe that for those who haven’t heard of Jesus, if they are responding with worship to their revelation of God, realizing their sin and God’s holiness, then that is all that He asks. But that is just my belief and not one all Christians agree on.
(A disclaimer – I am not an authority on Judaism or Islam so if I got things wrong I apologise. For that matter I am not an authority on Christianity either, but this is my answer to the question from what I know of the three religions!)
References:
- Durie, Mark. Revelation? Do we worship the same God?, CityHarvest Publications, 2006- Holy Bible, The. New International Version. International Bible Society, 1984
- Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity, William Collins Sons & Co, 1976
- Parshall, Phil. The Cross and the Crescent, Gabriel Publishing, 2002
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
Who is Jesus?
Jesus Christ! What comes to your mind when you hear this name? Perhaps a musical or a religious madman or a good teacher or perhaps even a swear word. Whatever our associations with that name, Jesus has had an influence in the world for the last 2000 years (even our calendar era revolves around him – BC is Before Christ and AD is Anno Domini which is Medieval Latin for ‘in the year of our Lord’). But who is Jesus?Biblical and historical sources tell us that Jesus was raised in a small village by Jewish parents of modest means in an area considered the back and beyond of the Roman Empire. He had no formal education, never held a political or religious office, never led an army (in fact, he condemned violence) and as an adult never travelled more than 150 km from his hometown. Yet because of the impact of Jesus’ life and teachings, over 1 billion people today identify themselves as Christians.
During his lifetime, Jesus was known for performing miracles. Some people think he was a magician because of his success as a healer and exorcist. Whether you attribute this to a connection with God, or simply to some kind of power beyond our knowledge and understanding, you've got to admit that his healing and miraculous powers are impressive. People who think that Jesus was only a magician have to ask themselves: why has he had such a big impact on the world? There were plenty of "wonder-workers" in the ancient world, so what made Jesus so different?
Even if Jesus never performed a single miracle, his teachings would have secured his place as one of the greatest moral philosophers who ever lived. In fact, Jesus is a moral philosopher in the true sense: He intends that his teachings be not only contemplated but acted upon. The world has seen many moral philosophers since Jesus’ time, but it is hard to deny that Jesus’ teachings have had far more influence and has lasted the centuries. In fact, his message of caring for the downtrodden, extending kindness to strangers and loving one’s enemies is still unrivalled for its profound insight and penetrating simplicity.
Jesus believed that God was present with him in a unique way. So much so that he is seen to be God in human form as seen in his authority to forgive people of their wrongdoing (something only God could do), rewrite God’s law, heal the sick, raise the dead, deal with demons and finally to resurrect from the dead. According to the NT, Jesus is the Messiah (anointed one), the promised deliverer of Israel whose death on the cross and subsequent resurrection brings deliverance from sin and whose eventual return to earth will bring deliverance from oppression by the completion of God’s Kingdom.
During his time, Jesus was seen as a political threat, a blasphemer, a prophet, a rescuer from cruel oppression. Even his followers at first struggled to understand that he was the Messiah sent to rescue them in a completely unexpected way. But Jesus’ actions, teachings, death and resurrection demand a response from us. Either we write him off as an elaborate fabrication or he is God. It is really not good enough to say he was a prophet or a great teacher. That’s nonsense because he didn’t leave you those alternatives, he never intended to. The key question, in Jesus’ own words: “Who do you say that I am?”
Questions? Feel free to leave comments or questions by clicking on comments below, alternatively, please email questions@vuwcu.org.nz.
Monday, 17 March 2008
Who is Jesus?
Please note that this presentation was not made by CU or WICF and does not represent our views. We just thought it was an interesting and thought provoking video and would like to share it with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)