So what good has Christianity done throughout history? The University

Atheists and many others are so quick to reel off the bad things committed by supposed 'Christians' over the years (Something I will deal with specifically at a later date.), so much so that many people think that if we were to just eradicate Christianity the world would be a much better and more educated place in which to live! However I disagree strongly to put it mildly! So I'm going to list some of the good things real followers of Jesus have done to educate and help our fellow man over subsequent posts.


1 - Universities

Christianity helped form and start the first universities many of which are still world leaders in learning to this very day (Oxford, Paris etc). They often started or grew out of cathedral schools and initially specialised in Theology,Philosophy, Law and Medicine. The urge for learning in the Christian mind had always started with the premise that God is rational and had created a world that could be investigated and studied rationally and thus learn about the creator, this is also one of the reasons why modern science and investigation began in the western world and not elsewhere.

This is why many of the worlds greatest scientists have been either Christians or at least religious, however this is not to take anything away from the many great scientists who didn't hold to any religious belief or don't today. Many of these scientists work has gone on to do much good such as the Priest and scientist Gregor Mendel's (1822-1884) work in Genetics, William Kelvin (1824-1907), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Robert Boyle (1791-1867), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627, Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543). These guys are just a small selection of the many, many more I could use to make my case.

However back to Universities one only has to look across the Atlantic to observe that many of Americas and the worlds greatest universities were set up by Christians such as Harvard, Yale, Duke, Princeton, Brown, Union, Pittsburgh, New York, Davidson, Colby, Bucknell, Chicago, Emory, Georgetown and Notre Dame etc.

The foundation for education at Harvard for example was implicitly based on Christian principles:

"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning."

So it would seem that many of our Atheist friends are enjoying the fruit from the West's Christian heritage by studying at what were originally Christian institutions which have been only recently taken over by an overtly secular anti-religious agenda. So the University must be at least one thing Atheists can thank God for :P

I wonder where we would all be studying and learning today if we left it to the Atheists? But we're the ignorant ones..

What is Biblical Faith?

I for one am always getting pretty annoyed at the way both Christians and non-Christians use the word faith, in fact I'd quite like to get completely rid of it!

Both groups when discussing the term 'faith' generally mean the Richard Dawkins definition which he states as 'an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.' (The God Delusion, pg 347). Or perhaps the Mark Twain definition best suits most Atheists, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so". I'm pretty sure most Christians seem to hold to a pseudo-biblical definition of faith which could be summarised as belief without evidence or as Richard Dawkins and his horsemen prefer 'Blind faith'. Hopefully it won't come as any surprise to you that none of these are the biblical definition of faith. The 'Blind faith' definition may suit Atheists and other religions but it certainly isn't what is presented anywhere in the Bible.

Pistis

We must remember that the English word faith is a translation of the Greek word 'Pistis'. Pistis literally means to be persuaded of something or trust or loyalty based on proof. Trust is a far better word to describe faith, this is because trust has to be earned, in the context this means that we trust or are loyal to Jesus because he has done something to warrant that trust or loyalty. For example if we look at the example below where the word 'Pistis' is used to show just how different many people's view of faith differs with the biblical definition.

Acts 17:31 - because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof (Greek - Pistis) to all men by raising Him from the dead.

The word used for faith here is informing us that the resurrection of Jesus is evidence that God will one day judge the world, its not blind faith but is instead based on something that God has done. We trust Jesus because he has proved trustworthy and has demonstrated his love to us whilst we were still rebels.

So what is the Biblical definition of Faith?

Trust or loyalty based on proof. Faith is not a feeling, but is a pledge from us to be loyal to and trust God no matter what because he has proved to us by giving us Jesus, demonstrating miracles both past and present, fulfilled prophecy, and the raising of Jesus from the dead. In fact God deserves our loyalty for providing us with a saviour, and giving us his grace for which we did nothing to deserve.

If as Christians we are supposed to provide reasonable answers to those that ask it of us (1 Peter 3:15) it would at least make sense that God has left us with proof that can indeed be presented reasonably to others? Or should we ask others to just believe? But why? The apostles never appealed to blind faith when urging people to follow Jesus! Just have a look at how many times Peter appeals to evidence in his preaching.

Acts 2:22-36

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. 25 For David says concerning him, “‘I saw the Lord always before me,
for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; 26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. 27 For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. 28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’ 29 “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, 35 until I make your enemies your footstool.’ 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Peter refers to several proofs, such as OT prophecy, Jesus resurrection, the empty tomb, and signs and miracles demonstrated to others. Peter knew that trust must be earned, and Jesus had done just that, he had proved by his resurrection that all that he said was true! You see God has left us with reasons why we are to believe in him and these can be presented to others, however this isn't to say that people may except these proofs. This does show however that Christianity is rooted in reasons and proofs for why we believe what we do. This is nothing new as shown from Peters speech, this is how it was done originally, simply appealing for others to look at the obvious evidence before them for following Jesus.

Let me know what you think.

Isn't unfair of God to send people to Hell?

I think the simple answer to the question posed would be no, since God is really only giving people what they want, existence without the involvement of God. How can it be unfair of God to do what the people involved have been saying to him throughout there time here on earth? Most people effectively say to God physically through their actions or verbally that they want nothing to do with him. They want to live by their own rules which practically makes them the God of their own lives, this leaves no room for the true God.

If someone's desire is to live separately from God then they have the right to do so as autonomous beings, however God promises us the decisions we make here on earth have eternal consequences!

God has made it quite clear he will recognise only two groups of people, those who have come seeking after forgiveness and reconciliation through Jesus who wanted to be with him for eternity, and those that didn't seek forgiveness and didn't want to know God their creator for eternity.

Those that have sought reconciliation with God through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross shall have eternal life in heaven and those that lived in rebellion will live in shame for eternity in the place God calls hell. Shame because God being the highest source of honour has been ignored and dishonoured and the gift that he sent down to make peace between himself and mankind was dismissed.

Dishonouring the Queen

Imagine for those here in England that you and the Queen used to be friends however some time ago you treated her very badly and the friendship broke-down. For the last few years you've been living in England ignoring the Queen's rule and living under your own law, but one day the Queen desperate to fix the friendship you once had sends her only son round to your house. He comes with a message of peace and seeks to forgive you and wants to restore the once strong friendship, on hearing this you refuse, push him out the door and tell him never to return as you don't want his gift. This is because your happy playing the king in your own life. The Queen is obviously angry, you have insulted her son whom had left the safety of the palace to meet with you, you have also dishonoured her by refusing her gracious gift! However, God is even more honourable than the Queen in fact there is no one more worthy of our honour, is it any surprise that for dishonouring and ignoring such an amazing gift from someone so honourable might carry repercussions?

Let me know your thoughts on the subject.

John 3:16 - God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

Daniel 12:2 - Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to shame and eternal contempt.

How Christianity changed societies' views on women.

How were women viewed and treated in Greco-Roman society?


Women within the Greco-Roman society were considered of a much lower social status than men. For example if a man wanted to divorce his wife he could simply order her to leave the household. However if a women decided on a divorce she would require a male counterpart to speak on her behalf before a judge and was a much tougher and prolonged process. Women under Greek law were legally considered children regardless of age which meant at every stage of their lives she would be the property of a man whether it be father, brother or husband. As I've discussed in previous post's women were generally seen as property, less credible and of a lower social status than men.

Female Infanticide

Another example of the poor value placed on females within the culture can be seen in this letter written in around 1 BC by someone named Hilarion:

Know that I am still in Alexandria. And do not worry if they all come back and I remain in Alexandria. I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I receive payment I shall send it up to you, If you are delivered of a child [before I come home], if it is a boy keep it, if a girl discard it....

Its to put it mildly, shocking, the callousness expressed and the ease in which he seems to see no problem in urging his wife to commit infanticide. However this point of view was common in Greco-Roman society where it was considered acceptable to simple leave unwanted infants [Mostly female!] outside in the elements for either the weather, birds or other animals to kill. Also the drowning of children after birth was seen as both reasonable and acceptable manner in which to deal with the birth of a female or any deformed infant. There were also considerably more men than women which obviously didn't help the female cause, this was mostly due to as stated previously, infanticide, abortion and women regularly dieing during or after the dangerous procedure. But what exactly was it that eventually challenged and changed this low view and value of both older women and female infants?

How Christianity radically changed society

If you can get by the modern myths and denunciations propagated by the popular media regarding Christianity's views on women you might actually see that Christianity has been responsible for empowering women, campaigning for the rights of the female fetus [Latin - Little on], and so much more throughout history. Always challenging the presiding culture to recognise the equal, God given value of both men and women. Is it any surprise that women have nearly always throughout the history of Christianity far outnumbered men both in the past and presently. But in regards to the Greco-Roman world, Christianity was incredibly appealing since women could enjoy a much higher social status, increased rights, were able to own land, and were under no pressure to marry at the average age of 12 for the pagan women. It must also be highlighted that within the early church certain leadership roles were filled by women such as Phoebe was a deaconess at the Church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1-2), this is a role that would have included much responsibility surrounding charitable activities and some basic liturgical functions. Responsibility for a women within the Greco-Roman religious world would have been unheard of, this lead Christianity to be highly respected and embraced by many influential women (1 Cor 16:19, Acts 17:4, 17:12).

Conclusion

Regardless of what many may think or say many of the rights that women now enjoy as equals are due to the 'radical' views posed by Christianity in a society where women weren't thought very highly of at all. God created both men and women with equal value and worth however with obviously different functions, strengths and weakness' leading to different roles that are complimentary for the building of God's kingdom here on earth. This is not too say Christians have always acted how they should in regards to women but more often than not women have been thought of and treated with the utmost of respect.

Me having a short debate on Premier Radio regarding the Prosperity Gospel

Had a quick radio debate last week on Premier Radio, it was the first time I've ever done it before so I was a bit nervous. I only got an email that day while I was at work asking if I'd be up for it, so I got someone to give me a quick break while I spoke over the phone. Was great fun though, would have liked to have been a bit more prepared though!

Listen here - http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={4CA7D759-A90F-4D79-BAEB-E1EC59F2ADC5}

Please let me know your thoughts.

Clues of the Creator - Why Moral Law points us to the Creator

The clue's we have looked at so far have shown us that the universe had a finite beginning and has finely tuned perimeters and values that allow it to support life.

Now we are all aware that as human beings we seem to have access to basic moral insight known as the conscience. There is something within in us that seems to acknowledge that a certain action is either right or wrong. It's explained in the New Testament as being part of God's general revelation to all human beings thus making us all aware and accountable for our actions, we can choose to follow it or ignore and suppress it.

Romans 2: 14, Even when Gentiles [Non-Jews], who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong. [15]They demonstrate that God's law is written within them, for their own consciences either accuse them or tell them they are doing what is right.

The conscience works like a compass, it doesn't impose it's direction it just lets us know that what we're doing is either right or wrong. All reasonable people would agree that there are certain actions such as murder, torture, stealing, gossip and rape that we would understand to be wrong for all persons, at all times and all places. We also recognise that there are certain virtues and actions such as unselfishness, kindness, trustworthiness and justice that we acknowledge to be right. We know that we ought to do what's right and avoid what is wrong.

So what does this clue tell us about the creator?

Well since we are universally aware of this moral law that allows us to broadly know right from wrong we can deduce that the creator is a lawgiver who cares about how we live our lives. He must also know what is right and wrong himself and be absolutely good since if he wasn't our moral effort would be worthless since we would be living for what is not ultimately right. He must be absolutely good since the standard of good must himself be ultimately good.

It's easy to show that we all live like morality is absolute, since the alternative known as moral relativism is impossible to live life consistently with. I mean think about the statement "This country is getting better!" But how can it be possible to know it's getting better without first knowing what is best. All moral judgements presuppose an absolute moral standard by which it can be measured, relativism leaves nothing but personal preference and no room for moral judgements such as "It was wrong to do that!".

This moral law allows us to know that when we must stand before God one day as we all will, we will all be without excuse since we will all be aware of how we have lived our lives, treated others and ultimately how we have responded to God's act of grace shown to us on the cross through Jesus, we must either ignore it or act upon it.

In Philosophical terms the universal moral law used as evidence for a creator can be summarised as the following:

a)If objective moral values exist, then God exists.

b) Objective moral values do exist.

c) Therefore God exists.

Next time I'll have a look at some objections such as morality as a moral Zeitgeist.

Clues of the Creator - The Fine Tuning of the Universe (Anthropic Principle)

Now carrying off where we left off regarding the very beginning of the universe it seems obvious that we must address how we have come to live in a universe that appears finely tuned to support life. It has been well acknowledged in both physics and cosmology that the very existence of life depends on certain principles or constants and laws of nature being just right.If any of these principles or values were even minutely different it would make the possibility of life impossible. Dr Dennis Scania of Cambridge University puts it this way:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.


These many values and perimeters appear to have been 'finely-tuned' to support intelligent life, this is often referred to as the Anthropic Principle. This means that even the slightest variation at the very moment of the big-bang would render a universe where life of any kind would not exist. A restrictive set of demands were necessary from the very second of the universes existence yet the possibility of this happening by chance is so improbable it begs the question of some form intelligence behind it's formation.

This all means that we appear to inhabit a universe which is catered and equipped for our existence, imagine for a second that you came from another planet, you come down to earth where you enter a modern home. It would seem obvious to you by observing every appliance, room, tap, door and piece of furniture that the house was created for and catered for human existence. This is what to a certain extent is observed within the universe, however clearly on a more general scale. Now it's not just me that suggests that the anthropic principle points to a creator have a read at some quotes from some people more qualified than myself:

Agnostic Astronomer, Robert Jastrow - "The anthropic principle....seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It's a very theistic result"


The world renowned British Astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle - "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars."

So what are some of these finely tuned perimeters and values?

I won't go in to details however these five are just a few of the many that have been observed.

1) The ratio of Electron to Proton mass. If it were larger or smaller it would be insufficient for chemical life.

2) The expansion rate of the universe. If it were larger no galaxies would have formed. If the rate was slower by even one millionth than what it is the temperature on earth would be somewhere in the region of 10,000 degrees..which would be a bit to hot :P

3) The decay rate of protons. If it were greater life would be exterminated by the release of radiation however if it were smaller the universe would contain a insufficient amount of matter to support life.

4) The polarity of the water molecule. If it were greater the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high to support life. If it were smaller the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low to support life. This is because liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result! That's not good either.

5) The gravitational force constant. If it were larger the stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If it were smaller the stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; meaning many of the elements needed for life chemistry would have never formed!

So not only does the very fact that the universe began to exist point us towards a creator God we now have another clue due to the sophisticated fine-tuning of the universe that provides an environment for life to exist. So again we are left with the question 'In the beginning God' or in the beginning nothing...which will it be? It again seems reasonable and honest to admit that a case can be made for a creator of the universe but what do you think? Let me know your thoughts.