Category Archives: Questions

Objective Truth

What I Learned About Objective Truth

Recently I just came back from a conference that talked about Christianity and Justice and how they’re both intertwined into one another. Before the conference me and a couple of other students that I went to the conference with had to read a book by C. S. Lewis called Abolition of Man. For this blog this is what I want to focus on is the argument C. S. Lewis makes in his book, and if you are curious about what I learned at the conference I talk more about that on my YouTube channel and my podcast check them out and subscribe to both not to miss out on any content I put out throughout the week.

So C. S. Lewis in his book Abolition of Man what he basically argues for is that there is objective truth and that objective truth is sent to us from something other than ourselves. What prompts Lewis to make this argument is that he received a book from two english professors that wanted Lewis to read the book and give feedback. Lewis definitely had some feedback to give to those two professors. When Lewis read through the book he realized that this book which is suppose to be a book about english was far from teaching any english at all he realize that this book was basically a book about subjectivism and the authors thought they where writing about english. When Lewis realized this he began to give the three lectures arguing about subjectivism which we now have in the book Abolition of Man. Before I continue with Lewis’ argument let me define the words subjective and objective.

Subjective: influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

In the book Lewis received from the two professors they basically wrote without realizing that everything is subjective and nothing is objective in this world. Lewis combats that with saying that just by them writing this book means that even the writers have an objective value which is the value that they believe everything is subjective. Lewis in his book claims that everyone has an objective values if they notice it consciously or not. Let me asks a couple of questions if you don’t believe Lewis’ claim.

Is it right to kill a completely innocent person for no reason at all?

If an innocent person is drowning and you have the ability to save their lives is it okay to walk away?

Is it right to take someone else’s place on the bus for no reason at all?

For these questions you the reader probably automatically said no to all three of those questions. Why what made you automatically say no, even if you didn’t say no you did have something within you pulling you to say no to the questions. But why is that you may give the answer that you was taught this at a very young age not to kill anyone or not to take a spot that has already been taken, true but who taught the people that had taught you and who taught them you can continue going back and back and eventually end up with the first person that ever existed who taught that person why does this person have that instinct or feeling.  You might say to this that it’s basically human instinct not to do these things if that was the case why don’t we act on all our instincts we have as humans. For example what’s stopping men to just have sex with every woman they see insight that attracted them. What’s stopping people from acting on the urges they deeply feel throughout the day, something is stopping them and even you. You may feel two urges one to act and one to not act now here’s the question what’s that feeling that tells you to go for one and not the other. What’s that other thing that tells you to do the right thing even though you strongly want to go with your instinct to do the opposite? That thing is the objective value that has been ingrained in you and most of humanity.

If you’re curious about the argument about objectivism then definitely read these two books by Lewis which he basically clearly explains why its very real that we as human beings definitely have objective values if we believe it or not. Book 1 and Book 2

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Did Jesus Existed?

Photograph by: Redo Angelo

Did Jesus Actually Existed?

Jesus Christ is one of the most well known people in the world and the main foundation for one of the world’s most well known religion Christianity. He is well known because of his teachings and miracles he is claimed of saying and doing. Now many people would write articles and books saying that Jesus didn’t exist. That he was fabricated by Jews so they could have their messiah to worship, but is that true. Didn’t Jesus Christ actually existed? Many scholars including atheist and agnostic scholars who are in the field of studying the bible and the New Testament would claim that Jesus was an actual person historically.

Why Scholars Believe He Did?

Even though we hardly have any references of the historical Jesus in early Roman sources. Scholars claim that there is so many sources that mention him in Christian sources that it is impossible for one person or group to make him up. He’s mentioned in Paul’s letters, The Gospel of Mark, The Gospel of Luke, The Gospel of Mathew, The Gospel of John, The gnostic Gospels of Peter and Thomas, The Jewish Historian Josephus mentions him, and The Roman Historian Tacitus mentions him.

Bart D. Ehrman in his book A Brief Introduction To The New Testament says in chapter thirteen titled The Historical Jesus that what historians use to know if Jesus actually existed and while he existed what he mostly did and said is a set of a rules of thumb. First rule the earlier the source the better, so Mark’s Gospel would be a more reliable source because many scholars believe it was the first Gospel written. Second rule the more written about Jesus the better, so if we find two or more independent sources claiming that Jesus did something. That would be more reliable than one source claiming Jesus did something. Third rule the more the written sources work against the bias of the author the better for it being historical.

Applying The Rules Of Thumb To The Sources

So Mark’s Gospel was the earliest according to scholars it was written between 65-70 C.E. depending on what scholars you hear from some believe that Luke and Mathew gospels where written in 80-85. Depending on what scholars you go to some believe that Luke and Mathew copy their gospels from Mark’s Gospel. So many scholars would consider these three gospels as one source instead of three independent sources. Okay lets just say they’re all one source about Jesus, but scholars consider John’s gospel to be an independent source because of how different his gospel is from the other three Mark, Mathew, and Luke. Now remember rule of thumb number two if two or more independent sources claim Jesus did or said something not written exactly the same way it most likely happened. So lets analyze, lets start with Jesus’s crucifixion. Mark’s gospel has it written starting at Mark 14 and John’s Gospel has it written starting at John 18 even though Mark’s and John’s gospel dates are different for the events being taken place. There’s a reason why I believe that John purposely wrote his gospel on a different timeline than the the other three gospels that I will address in another post. But even though they differ in timeline they have similar events on how Jesus’ crucifixion happened they both claim that Judas betrayed Jesus, they both claim that Peter denied Jesus three times, they both claim that Pilate sentenced Jesus to the punishment of crucifixion. All of this according to the historical rule of thumb number two tells us this most likely happened historically. Also two more sources claim that Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside the Gospels according to Erhman roman historian Tacitus at least indicates that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate. Jewish historian Josephus writes about the description of Jesus being sent and executed by Pontius Pilate in book 18 of The Antique of the Jews, “At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man……He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross,…”. All together four sources claim that the execution of Jesus happened which according to rule of thumb number two this is what historically happened.

Now rule of thumb number three claimed the more against the author’s bias the written works are the more historically accurate they are. What scholars and I mean when we say written work that goes against the authors biased; is lets say for example, what if one historian in United States history writes a piece explaining how the United Sates was created, but left out the part about slavery and claimed that we was always a country that always paid their workers from the very beginning. What if another historian in United States history writes the same piece but add in the slavery which goes against the United States idea of it being a country created on freedom. Which two historians would you most likely trust the second one because their information goes against the historians bias in United States ideology. You would think that if the gospel writers made up Jesus that they would claim that Jesus was not baptized by anybody, because why would he need to be baptized he’s God he would basically be saying that he’s less superior. Of course I got my reasons why Jesus was supposed to be baptized, but I mention that in another post. Most scholars would claim when Mark writes in Mark chapter 1:9 that Jesus was baptized by John the baptist that this goes against the bias of the author for the reason like I said before why would God need to be baptized. Also Mark writes in his gospel in Mark 14 that one of Jesus’ disciples Peter denied him three times when Jesus was on trial. You would think that if Mark was making this up he would frame Peter as a disciple that would not deny Jesus and also stand firm with Jesus. So according to scholars this goes against the bias of the author too. So according to rule of thumb number three these events most likely historically happened.

Conclusion

Overall scholars believed that Jesus was an actual historical person who existed because they are way to many historical references that mention Jesus that it can’t be possible that Jesus was made up. Also scholars like Erhman use a set of rules of thumb that they use to compare sources which historically prove that Jesus most likely existed as an actual historical person.

Why didn’t God create the Perfect Human and Why didn’t he create the Perfect Society?

Why didn't God create a sinless sociaty

In this Blog post I’m just going to go a little deeper into the questions one of my viewers on my Youtube channel asked me which was “Why didn’t God create the perfect human?” and “Why didn’t God create a sinless society?” If you haven’t viewed my video where I answer the questions in a short five minute video you can look at that down below.

Going deeper into the first question

Why didn’t God create the perfect human being? Like I said in the video in the very beginning when God created the first human being Adam he was I believe created perfectly in God’s eyes. When God created humanity in the very beginning he saw humanity as perfect in every aspect and every way including having a mind to have free will and free choice to say no to God’s commands, sin by the way is when we do anything that goes against God. Now why would God even give us the choice to not obey him if he does not want us to not obey his commands. To answer this question God does not want us to be “robots” just obeying orders without a second thought. God want us to obey him because we want to obey him, he want us to love him because we want to love him not because we are forced.

Going deeper into the second question

Why didn’t God create a sinless society? Like I said in the video before he did create a sinless society in the very beginning in Genesis chapter1-2 there where no sin when God created the world. But when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3 they allowed sin to enter into them and into the society they where around. Now there is a different view of this question that I will answer, why didn’t God create a sinless society in the since of making it impossible for sin to even have an opportunity to enter into it. My answer to this question will link right back up to the first question, “why didn’t God create the perfect human?” If God allowed the society he created to not have the opportunity for sin to enter into it, then Adam would of never been made perfect in God’s eyes. Adam would not have been able to have free will which obviously God wanted in Adam.

What is the Trinity in Christianity?

Thinking of Trinity

Photo Credit to Joshua Earle

What is the Trinity?

What is the Trinity? The Trinity is a concept in Christianity that explains God as unity of three distinct persons the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each persons is unique but also the same in essence.The Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit are all one God but they are not each other. Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not Jesus. If this is confusing it’s okay, because  we as humans can never fully understand the Trinity concept. This concept is a concept that is describing God which God is infinite and greater than us. So we should not expect to be able to have God all figured out. Now I’m not just going to stop the blog at that note because we Christians did come up with this concept of the Trinity which the bible does supports.

Biblical Supports

Explaining the verses

Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8 all these verses has the plural pronoun “us” when referring to God. Which is not a direct explanation or argument for the Trinity, but it does open the door to us clarifying the plurality in God. 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Mathew 28:19 are just examples of where in the bible that it mentions all three unique persons in the Trinity.

Explaining the Trinity

So like I said before God is one in three persons. God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, they are all distinct persons but they are one divinity. They are not each other God the Father is not God the Son, God the Son is not God the Holy Spirit and God the Holy Spirit is not God the Father. The diagram below should shed some light and clarity of what I’m trying to say if you’re still confused. Also you can click on the resources I used to be able to explain this because these sources explain this concept in much greater detail and depth.

The Trinity

http://www.gotquestions.org/img/trinity.jpg

If I don’t believe in Jesus Christ will I go to hell?

thinking

Photo Credit to Chetan Menaria

  Will I be judge by God and go to hell if I don’t believe in Jesus Christ?

I think this is a common question people ask christians. I even believe at some point in a christian’s life they even think about this question. This question popped in my head a couple of times, which  was probably one of the reasons why I created this blog and my youtube channel.  Now this question could be flipped and ask in many different ways. I’m in this blog is only going to address the way the question had most commonly been asked to me.

The question

  • If a person who don’t believe in Jesus Christ but does good deeds in life will they go to hell?

The common misconceptions the questioner have when asking this question.

  1. That christians believe that we can avoid the punishment of hell by doing a set of good deeds and doing a set of good works.
  2. That God’s results of punishing a person to hell is ONLY because they didn’t believe in Jesus Christ.

My explanation and the answer to the question.

Christians do not believe that to be able to avoid hell we have to do a set of good works or good deeds. Christians believe that all humans deserve the punishment of hell including ourselves, because we all had sinned. We all did a crime big or small against God. Think about it like this lets say a person is being charged with a crime, but this person in his past did amazingly great things. He helped the poor, he saved peoples lives, and he did other great things that might label him as a “good person”. Is the judge going to let this person free from his recent crimes because of this person’s previous good behavior? No by the judge doing that, that would be doing injustice. God being the judge of this world and we being the people charged with the crimes. God is willing not give us this punishment but only by one condition and that condition is to believe and have faith in Jesus Christ and let him pay the price for all the crimes we committed. So to answer the question if this person who did all these good deeds does not take the offer God is handing to them to avoid punishment for their previous or recent crimes. They will be punished.

Also when I was doing my research on this question. I came upon a good video that had a great explanation of what I just said. Actually this video is where I actually got the metaphor of the criminal and the judge. If this post still have you confused on my answer then check out this video by clicking here.