"Take a stand for the truth, but do it in LOVE, fool!" -www.ateamblog.com


Login
User name:
Password:
Remember me 
Search
View Article  The Real God

I came across an incredible article, "Death of a Guru" about a man named Rabi Maharaj who left the comforts of being worshipped within his Hindu religion for something even more enticing. He had become increasingly unsettled as he came to realize that his view of the divine didn't match what he knew to be true about goodness and reality.  Ultimately, he left the emptiness and inevitable losing of oneself that happens through meditation (a process he had witnessed in his father) and embraced the One outside of himself who is real and good and solid.

 

A condensed version of the story:

 

For eight long years [my father] uttered not a word. The trancelike condition he had achieved is called in the East a state of higher consciousness and can be attained only through deep meditation....  "Why is Father that way?" I would ask my mother, still too young to understand. "He is someone very special--the greatest man you could have for a father," she would reply. "He is seeking the true Self that lies within us all, the One Being, of which there is no other. And that's what you are too, Rabi...."

 

I was obviously [according to the astrologers and palm readers] a chosen vessel, destined for early success in the search for union with Brahman (the One). The forces that had guided my father were now guiding me....

 

It was encouraging to learn that the lines on my palms and the planets and stars, according to those who interpreted them, all agreed I would become a great Hindu leader....  How I loved religious ceremonies--especially private ones in our own home or those of others, where friends and relatives would crowd in. There I would be the center of attention, admired by all. I loved to move through the audience, sprinkling holy water on worshipers or marking foreheads with the sacred white sandalwood paste. I also loved how the worshipers, after the ceremony, bowed low before me to leave their offerings at my feet....

 

During my third year in high school I experienced an increasingly deep inner conflict. My growing awareness of God as the Creator, separate and distinct from the universe He had made, contradicted the Hindu concept that god was everything, that the Creator and the Creation were one and the same. If there was only One Reality, then Brahman was evil as well as good, death as well as life, hatred as well as love. That made everything meaningless, life an absurdity. It was not easy to maintain both one's sanity and the view that good and evil, love and hate, life and death were One Reality....

 

Before I finished [my prayer to Jesus for forgiveness], I knew that Jesus wasn't just another one of several million gods. He was the God for whom I had hungered. He Himself was the Creator. Yet, He loved me enough to become a man and die for my sins. With that realization, tons of darkness seemed to lift and a brilliant light flooded my soul.

 

Read the full story here.

View Article  Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

In yesterday's debate, Hitchens brought up an oft-cited argument against Christianity, saying that we would need an extraordinary amount of evidence before we could believe that an event as exceedingly improbable as the resurrection actually occurred.

 

I did a quick search on the internet and brought up a short debate (only 38 pages) between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman titled Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? that addresses this very issue.

 

Craig first presents four uncontested facts and clarifies the issue:

 

For now, I want to sketch briefly how a historical case for Jesus' resurrection might look.  In constructing a case for Jesus' resurrection, it's important to distinguish between the evidence and the best explanation of that evidence.  This distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial.  As we'll see, it's agreed to by most scholars.  On the other hand, the explanation of that evidence is controversial.  That the resurrection is the best explanation is a matter of controversy.  Now although Dr. Ehrman says that there cannot be any historical evidence for the resurrection, we'll see that what he really means is that the resurrection cannot be the best explanation of that evidence, not that there is no evidence.  (pp. 3-4, emphasis mine)

 

Ehrman dismisses the facts presented by Craig as irrelevant since he has already ruled out the possibility of interpreting them as describing a miracle:

 

[M]iracles are so highly improbable that they're the least possible occurrence in any given instance....  I wish we could establish miracles, but we can't.  It's no one's fault.  It's simply that the cannons of historical research do not allow for the possibility of establishing as probable the least probable of all occurrences.  For that reason, Bill's four pieces of evidence are completely irrelevant.  There cannot be historical probability for an event that defies probability, even if the event did happen.  (p. 12) 

 

Therefore, in this debate, Ehrman's position that there is no historical evidence for the resurrection is based on a philosophical objection, not on a lack of available facts.

 

Since the objection prevents Ehrman (and many people) from ever considering the actual evidence, Craig then confronts the charge that a miracle, by definition, will always defy probability despite any and all evidence.  He argues that we must take into account not only the intrinsic probability of the resurrection in light of our general knowledge about the natural world, but also in light of the specific evidence for the resurrection (I would argue that this should also include our evidence for the existence of God as well as any other background factors that make the resurrection more probable).  One also has to place the explanatory power of the counter-hypothesis that there was no resurrection into the equation.  He then proceeds to give a mathematical formula that will statistically account for all these factors, explaining where Ehrman's mistake lies:

 

Specifically, Dr. Ehrman just ignores the crucial factors of the probability of the naturalistic alternatives to the resurrection....  If these are sufficiently low, they outbalance any intrinsic improbability of the resurrection hypothesis." (p. 16)

 

I won't recreate the formula here since it would probably cause many of us to run screaming from our computers.  But if you're mathematically or statistically minded, take a look.  I heard Richard Swinburne speak about this formula once, and he came up with a probability of .97 for the resurrection (Craig notes this in the Q&A section at the end of the debate).

 

View Article  Tuesday! Tuesday! Tuesday! It's Hitchens vs. Roberts!

All three hours of Hugh Hewitt's radio show this afternoon will be devoted to "The Great God Debate" between Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) and Mark D. Roberts.

 

You can listen live here from 3:05pm to 6:00pm (PST) or download each of the three hours here anytime after they have posted.

 

[Update:  The transcript is now available here.]

Order the book co-edited by Roger Overton!

www.NewMediaFrontier.com

Interviews
Justin Taylor on the ESV Study Bible - Teaser / I / II / III

Justin Taylor on John Owen - I / II / III

James Spiegel - Gum, Geckos and God

Richard Abanes on Tolle- I / II / III / IV

Michael Ward- Intro / I / II / III

David Wells- Part I / II

Stephen Wagner- Part I / II

Kim Riddlebarger- Part I / II / III

R. Scott Smith- Part I / II / III

Devin Brown- Part I / II

Bruce Edwards- Part I / II

Glenn Lucke- Part I / II / III / IV

Doug TenNapel- Part I / II

Alex Chediak- Part I / II

Richard Abanes on Warren- Part I / II / III / IV / Analysis

Mary Kassian- Part I / II