AWAKENING-It's been several months since I've written a blog entry, and not much has changed, at least, philosophically within myself so obviously nothing has been accomplished here, at least from my perspective, for quite a while now. With the combination of getting my Bachelor's degree in Business and putting my primary efforts into my career in finance and family time, I feel like I have achieved very much in other areas of my life, but I have been and always will be interested in discussing and progressing not only my intellect in areas such as theology, science, philosophy, etc. but also yours.
At many points over the past few months, I was struck with ideas that provided that all too familiar initial spark that's usually needed as the catalyst for a new thread, but it just never happened, and I apologize if anyone has been deeply saddened (haha) by my blog's absence. Now for you others, the wonderful, much needed adversaries who like to antagonize, play Devil's advocate, or just plainly argue with me, I will be back shorty to continue my efforts to dialectically pursue a mutual understanding of what we all may agree to be an idea or set of ideals that we would call "truth."
Until then, I ask of you this: Initiate the spark yourself. Whether it be starting your own blog or asking me to discuss and dissect a certain topic of interest to you, just do it. Phil Knight got it right when he created Nike's slogan. Be a doer!
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
The Resurrection of Jesus/Logic...
ASCENSION-Recently, I have taken an interest in studying the four gospels of the Bible in much greater detail than in previous attempts. After all, the cornerstone of Christianity is based upon these books and in particular, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To find inconsistency within this pivotal section of the Bible's central message would be to devastatingly (from a believer's standpoint) discover the perception of complete fabrication. While I have read and studied the gospels many times in my life, in this instance, I sought to read them with a set of "new eyes" that are free from intellectual dishonesty and confirmatory bias. I implemented a new approach that questioned the validity of the books' context in a sensible, judiciously logical way.
The results: I have uncovered several contradictions that rise to the surface of my concerns, but for the sake of time and space, I would like to delve into what I consider the most important and obvious flaw that reveals much about the credibility value of the book of Matthew's account as acceptable and reasonable "evidence." The central thesis to this topic will be from Matthew 28 which gives an account of the resurrection of Christ, the most important event in the Bible.
Matthew 28:2-4 states, "There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men." This verse conveys to us that the soldiers guarding the tomb had witnessed, first-hand, that the resurrection of Christ had indeed come to fruition. Keep note of this.
Matthew 28:11-15 proceeds to inform us that the guards traveled into the city to explain the miraculous events that they had witnessed and to give an account to the priests. Subsequently, the priests went on to convene with the elders and "...devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money." Verse 13 tells us that the priests declared to the guards, "you are to say, his disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep." Verse 15 states, "So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day."
So the obvious first question to ask is: How much money would it require for you to conceal the fact that you had just witnessed, with your very own eyes, that Jesus Christ had indeed been resurrected from the dead? And that he truly was, as he had been proclaiming, God incarnate.
The Bible is instructing us that we should unquestionably be impressed and be willing to lay down our very lives for this Truth of truths, yet these guards were so unstirred by the most profound, impactful event that has ever happened in history (remember that they, themselves witnessed this event) that they accepted a BRIBE to cover up this revelation. They didn't fall to their knees, repent, and become transformed, willing martyrs for the "Truth" they had witnessed. No, they DENIED the Miracle of all miracles by securing a bribe and lying about it which would undeniably, by Biblical doctrine, condemn them to Hell for all of eternity.
Therefore intrinsically, either these guards were not at all compelled by this entire sequence of miraculous events, or Matthew was simply not forthright and truthful about his account which would unequivocally expose the Bible as a work that was fundamentally fallacious.
One popular defense of the guards behavior is, "well, the guards were going to be put to death if they confessed the truth." But this argument holds absolutely no merit because the guards and priests would be choosing infinite suffering, money, and surviving a few more years on Earth in lieu of eternal life when they purportedly possessed indisputable, eyewitness evidence that Jesus Christ was in fact what he said he was! Not a lunatic, not a liar, but the Son of God!
In conclusion, this account is embarrassingly fallacious, inconsistent, and completely irrational to anyone that is willing to put aside their preconceived beliefs that, most likely, their parents programmed into them to protect as indisputable truth.
"Human psychology has a near universal tendency to let belief be coloured by desire." -Richard Dawkins
The results: I have uncovered several contradictions that rise to the surface of my concerns, but for the sake of time and space, I would like to delve into what I consider the most important and obvious flaw that reveals much about the credibility value of the book of Matthew's account as acceptable and reasonable "evidence." The central thesis to this topic will be from Matthew 28 which gives an account of the resurrection of Christ, the most important event in the Bible.
Matthew 28:2-4 states, "There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men." This verse conveys to us that the soldiers guarding the tomb had witnessed, first-hand, that the resurrection of Christ had indeed come to fruition. Keep note of this.
Matthew 28:11-15 proceeds to inform us that the guards traveled into the city to explain the miraculous events that they had witnessed and to give an account to the priests. Subsequently, the priests went on to convene with the elders and "...devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money." Verse 13 tells us that the priests declared to the guards, "you are to say, his disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep." Verse 15 states, "So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day."
So the obvious first question to ask is: How much money would it require for you to conceal the fact that you had just witnessed, with your very own eyes, that Jesus Christ had indeed been resurrected from the dead? And that he truly was, as he had been proclaiming, God incarnate.
The Bible is instructing us that we should unquestionably be impressed and be willing to lay down our very lives for this Truth of truths, yet these guards were so unstirred by the most profound, impactful event that has ever happened in history (remember that they, themselves witnessed this event) that they accepted a BRIBE to cover up this revelation. They didn't fall to their knees, repent, and become transformed, willing martyrs for the "Truth" they had witnessed. No, they DENIED the Miracle of all miracles by securing a bribe and lying about it which would undeniably, by Biblical doctrine, condemn them to Hell for all of eternity.
Therefore intrinsically, either these guards were not at all compelled by this entire sequence of miraculous events, or Matthew was simply not forthright and truthful about his account which would unequivocally expose the Bible as a work that was fundamentally fallacious.
One popular defense of the guards behavior is, "well, the guards were going to be put to death if they confessed the truth." But this argument holds absolutely no merit because the guards and priests would be choosing infinite suffering, money, and surviving a few more years on Earth in lieu of eternal life when they purportedly possessed indisputable, eyewitness evidence that Jesus Christ was in fact what he said he was! Not a lunatic, not a liar, but the Son of God!
In conclusion, this account is embarrassingly fallacious, inconsistent, and completely irrational to anyone that is willing to put aside their preconceived beliefs that, most likely, their parents programmed into them to protect as indisputable truth.
"Human psychology has a near universal tendency to let belief be coloured by desire." -Richard Dawkins
Saturday, January 21, 2012
When your freedom becomes another's pain...
A simple fact that we should all be able to personally attest to is that software, movie, and music piracy is out of control. Innovation and economic fairness are being suppressed as a byproduct of this behavior. With that being said, it's understandable that measures are being proposed to discourage intellectual property theft, and with the recent proposition of the Stop Online Piracy Act, individual freedom has been resurrected to the top of our everyday thought. Freedom of speech and personal liberty has been juxtaposed with the protection of intellectual and entrepreneurial property rights. My claim is that this is a far more complex and diverse issue than many people are recognizing and deserves a much deeper analysis. Without an adequate understanding of both sides of this issue, we are not equipped to make any rational, beneficial decisions about this type of legislation. With this post, my simple aim is to promote imaginative, productive thought into this debate.
We must understand that the complete liberation of personal behavior may not be valuable to the maximization of human well-being. It can quickly become invasive upon others' rights, and it can easily destroy the fabric of all objective fairness in any society. Sam Harris asks about this problem in The Moral Landscape: "Should I be able to film my neighbor through their bedroom window and upload this footage onto YouTube? Should I be free to publish a detailed recipe for synthesizing smallpox?" One could also ask if it's acceptable that "personal freedom" allows one to teach their children how to build and detonate nuclear weapons. And down the rabbit-hole we fall even to the depths of granting one the personal freedom to, by any means necessary, fulfill their personal desires even at the expense of another humans' rights and possibly, even to the peril of their own. We have to take into account the possibility that one person's unsubstantiated, misguided delusion could propel humanity into a "less happy" state of being. Therefore, we have to guard against it.
It's my belief that the actions of inhuman totalitarian regimes in the past century have propagated a fear that is eclipsing our judgement on this issue, and many are rushing to a conclusion that "absolute personal freedom" is perfectly conducive to overall human flourishing. In reality, there are no simple resolutions for this problem, but a line must be drawn. For this line to be revised or even removed entirely should be a scientific effort, not a political or philosophical one. As Harris' thesis states, we must make it a scientific, unbiased effort to promote the increased well-being and overall happiness for everyone. With innovative neuroimaging techniques, perhaps we can build a world in which theft, murder, and lying are eradicated. This is undeniably one of the most important matters of any society, therefore, with every fiber of my being, I urge you to research the far-reaching effects of this legislation. Perhaps we can look to science, as Harris believes, to discover the ways to maximize well-being and personal liberation for all.
We must understand that the complete liberation of personal behavior may not be valuable to the maximization of human well-being. It can quickly become invasive upon others' rights, and it can easily destroy the fabric of all objective fairness in any society. Sam Harris asks about this problem in The Moral Landscape: "Should I be able to film my neighbor through their bedroom window and upload this footage onto YouTube? Should I be free to publish a detailed recipe for synthesizing smallpox?" One could also ask if it's acceptable that "personal freedom" allows one to teach their children how to build and detonate nuclear weapons. And down the rabbit-hole we fall even to the depths of granting one the personal freedom to, by any means necessary, fulfill their personal desires even at the expense of another humans' rights and possibly, even to the peril of their own. We have to take into account the possibility that one person's unsubstantiated, misguided delusion could propel humanity into a "less happy" state of being. Therefore, we have to guard against it.
It's my belief that the actions of inhuman totalitarian regimes in the past century have propagated a fear that is eclipsing our judgement on this issue, and many are rushing to a conclusion that "absolute personal freedom" is perfectly conducive to overall human flourishing. In reality, there are no simple resolutions for this problem, but a line must be drawn. For this line to be revised or even removed entirely should be a scientific effort, not a political or philosophical one. As Harris' thesis states, we must make it a scientific, unbiased effort to promote the increased well-being and overall happiness for everyone. With innovative neuroimaging techniques, perhaps we can build a world in which theft, murder, and lying are eradicated. This is undeniably one of the most important matters of any society, therefore, with every fiber of my being, I urge you to research the far-reaching effects of this legislation. Perhaps we can look to science, as Harris believes, to discover the ways to maximize well-being and personal liberation for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)