IrContent

Paul says that if Jesus Christ did not rise from the grave then Christianity is a sham and we might as well party down for tomorrow we die (i.e., go out of existence). The Discovery Channel is preparing, with much hype, to air a show produced by “Titanic” director James Cameron about the possible discovery of Jesus Christ’s tomb. Before you run to your local Atheist club to sign up, here are some considerations.Here’s the basic story: Ten burial ossuaries (“bone boxes”) were discovered in 1980 in Jerusalem at the “Talpiot tomb.” Six of them had names inscribed on them: ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’; ‘Maria’; ‘Mariamene’; ‘Judas, son of Jesus’; ‘Matthew’; and ‘Jose’. According to Newsweek, the official report written by the archeologist Amos Kloner found nothing remarkable in the discovery. This “unremarkablness” may itself seem remarkable to those unfamiliar with Israeli archeology. How these particular names would not generate interest among professional Jewish archeologists may seem astounding but several reasons can be listed.First, the names on the boxes were extremely common in the first century. Joseph, Jesus, Judas, and Matthew are among the ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews. Mary and Martha are in the top four for women, with about 25 percent of women in Jerusalem had names linguistically close to Miriam. Thus, it is simply not that impressive to find a bunch of them mixed together in one place. The statistics being trumpeted (600:1 or something like that) assume family relations that have not been proved and are not even implied by the tomb site itself. To this day, experts say the burial cave is not extraordinary. Newsweek reports Kloner as saying, “It’s a typical Jewish burial cave of a large size . . . . The names on the ossuaries are very common names or derivatives of names . . . . The echo of the names of the members of the Holy Family is just a coincidence.” Kloner told ABC that “of 900 burial caves found within 4 kilometres of Jerusalem’s Old City and from the same era, the name Jesus or Yeshu was found 71 times, and that ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ has also been found.”Second, the Talpiot cave was found disturbed and vandalized. This could point beyond vandalism to subterfuge. According to Newsweek the main person pushing for this “discovery,” Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, is a “maverick, a self-made Indiana Jones, who became obsessed with ossuaries in 2002, when he was working on another Discovery program about another bone box.” This was the now infamous “James Ossuary” which has been discredited as a forgery. Jacobovici still believes, in the authenticity of the James inscription ossuary, and is using similarities in the two discoveries to prove the other (the mineral crust found on these ossuaries allegedly matches that of the James box).

Third, the alleged DNA proof is so shallow as to be laughable. Jacobovici claims that part of his proof is that the Jesus DNA does NOT match Mary’s (this is supposed to prove they were married). First, non-matching DNA proves little – there are lots of people who do not match my DNA that I am not married to! Second, even if this conclusion did follow from the lack of a match (which it does not) this would DECREASE credibility of it being Jesus Christ – not support it since Jesus was not married. Third, non-matching DNA should prove that this is not a “family tomb” at all! It might be a random collection or a site shared by several families.

Fourth, there are several questions that cannot be answered by the idea that this is Jesus Christ’s family:

1. Why does the Jesus ossuary simply include a name in “graffiti-like script” instead of the honorary burial format and adornment that some of the others have? (This especially relevant in light of the known site disturbance.)

2. Why would a family from Galilee have a tomb in Jerusalem? 3. How could a poor carpenter family have afforded such a tomb?4. Who is Matthew and why is he in this “family tomb”? (And why is his name being used to increase the statistical probability of these names being connected?)

A group of self-proclaimed ‘rational atheists’ have produced a goofy website and video called The Blasphemy Challenge that calls people, mostly ignorant teens, to make a video of themselves ‘blaspheming the Holy Spirit,’ and thus condemning themselves to hell (if there is one, which they don’t believe of course). I guess this is like coming out of the closet for ex-Christians.

What is amusing and sad is that these geniuses don’t even have the brains to realize that denying the existence of the Holy Spirit is not what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit even is (see What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?). So, ironically, they are not even ‘rational’ enough to properly send themselves to Hell.

I always say that if someone is going to spend eternity in Hell they should at least have a good reason. Yet the members of this ‘Rational Response Squad’ offer nothing more than schoolyard slogans for their denial of Christianity, saying things like: “I am not afraid anymore,” “I will no longer accept the indoctrination of my youth,” “Christians are all hypocrites,” “My family is Christian by I’m my own person and I’m breaking free,” “Christianity is just a crutch for people who are looking for meaning in life” . . . blah blah blah.

YAWN . . .

So if you are interested in hearing a bunch of ignorant, whiny, intellectual-wannabes look for ‘The Blasphemy Challenge’ on YouTube. There have also been several responses posted, but I recommend this one: ‘The Blasphemy Challenge’ Challenge.

Into this torment carnal sinners are thrust,
So I was told – the sinners who make their reason
Bond thrall under the yoke of their lust.

In Dante Alighieri’s Inferno (part one of The Divine Comedy)he is given a tour of the underworld and the various punishments and inhabitants therein. In Dante’s vision, there are nine circles in hell that grow progressively worse (both in punishment and the evil of the act being punished), until ending with Satan himself. It might surprise modern readers, especially Christians, to discover that the first major sin punished is that of lust. Being the first, it is, in Dante’s view, the least sinful.I think this might be surprising to Christians today due to the major push among evangelicals for sexual purity. Yet Dante’s surprises do not end here. Among the sins considered worse than lust are gluttony, hoarding/wasting, sullenness, flattery, and (the worst of all) betrayal. We rarely hear about or are cautioned against these sins from the pulpit today (much less do we see whole ministries devoted to them!). How does Dante’s hierarchy stand up against the modern Christian focus on sexual purity?It is important to realize that Dante is not merely reporting his own personal tastes. Dante was a philosopher as well as a poet, and his hierchy was not based simply on sin’s immediate or obvious external effects. Rather, they had to do with the nature of the act in comparison to the nature of the actor (so to speak). A clue can be found in the various punishments encountered throughout the Inferno. The lustful are in Circle Two which is essentially the first circle of punishment (Circle One is “Limbo” – not a part of hell proper). The lustful are forever caught in a whirlwind that throws them around like rag dolls completely out of control. As Inferno punishments go, this is not too bad. Why?

The major problem with lust, in Dante’s view, is lack of self control (thus the out-of-control punishment). Lust is one’s allowance of animal instincts to overcome rationality. It is a sin that opposes a human virtue because it lowers mankind to the brute animal level. Animals have only instinct and emotion to work with. What separates mankind from the lower animals is rationality. We are given rational intellects in addition to emotion and instinct, and are therefore accountable to use it. When we act according to the dictates of emotion without intellect we act as animals. Yet these kinds of actions are, in Dante’s view, more acceptable than those that go against our nature or those that flow from more purely evil intentions.

For example, in the Inferno murderers are kept above homosexuals because murder is the product of wrath (which people naturally experience) that is out of control. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is simply unnatural (anti-natural, actually). The lustful in this circle are heterosexual – homosexuals are much further down in Circle Seven: Ring Three – the Violent Against God and Nature. Thus, lust is unlike some other sins in that it is basically an out-of-control acting upon good desires. There is nothing sinful about sex per se. Instead, sinful sex is sex outside prescribed boundaries. Because lust is born out of a good, natural desire (and a stronger one than say food or possessions), it is considered the least sinful.In today’s world emotions and instincts (“drives”) are considered good as such. Therefore the denial of any drive is seen as unhealthy suppression. However, as virtually all pre-modern philosophers (whose domain it is to speak to such issues) have noted, the opposite is the case. What makes us human is our ability to withhold action based on emotion if that action is morally wrong. (This is why we need to be so careful to look into one’s philosophy of human nature before allowing them to counsel – and why humanistic psychologists and therapists cannot solve society’s problems.)Anyway . . . where was I?

Ah yes – the contemporary focus on sexual purity. Many causes for this concern may be cited: Pragmatism (lust is one of the most obvious of sins, and its negative effects can be quite dramatic), Prevalence (in our relativistic, sexually soaked culture sexual sin is much more common than others. Philosopher Peter Kreeft believes that almost all of society’s moral issues of today are based in sinful sexual desires!), and Secular Acceptability (sexual sin has a general acceptability that would not apply to other sins such as murder or rape).My concern is not that this important issue be dropped or deemphasized - not at all. But rather that we consider lust and other sins in light of their effect on our very natures. Pragmatically speaking, sexual sin may be the easiest to spot and can lead to many very uncomfortable situations. But non-virtuous solutions to these pragmatic problems (condoms, birth control, abortion, etc.) exist and continue to be fought for in the socio-political-ethical arena. What if all the (obvious, immediate, and external) unwanted effects of sexual sin were done away with? What then would be the reason to abstain? In fact, why be good at all if we can avoid the undesirable effects of evil actions?

What is missing today in a lot of moral discussion, both secular and Christian, is sin’s effects upon us as people – not simply upon our circumstances. No pill or prophylactic can solve those. When we focus solely on avoidance of punishment or unwanted outcomes we tacitly approve of any action whose undesirable effects can be sidestepped. But sin is more evil than that. Sin harms us in deeper ways as it sidetracks us from our very purposes as human beings created in God’s image. When we sin we go against what we are made for - the very things that make us good.

What Dante offers may be more relevant than ever in at least this sense: he saw sin as its own punishment, and hell as the logical outworking of its effects. Those in Dante’s Inferno were not there because God decided it would be fun to torture them for their disobedience (for we see the same kinds of sinners, saved by God’s grace, later on in Purgatory awaiting the removal of their sin’s effects prior to their entrance into heaven).Rather, the damned’s eternal state is simply a reflection of what they became in life.

A while ago I was asked by a friend for some marriage advice - specifically the “Is she the one?” question. I struggled with this question a lot in college and was tired of people saying, “You’ll just know!” It was true, as it turned out, for me at least - but I think this ideal can be easily misconstrued. So this is my brief response to him (I have tried to make it gender-neutral so that the entire human race can benefit from my wisdom).First, you need to go into this realizing that marriage is a covenant before God. This will be the only person you ever get to be in a serious relationship with from now on so you should be reasonably sure that you won’t get tired of them in any way (spiritually, physically, emotionally, intellectually, etc.). If not, married life will become boring quickly (hard to believe, but true). Marriage is great, but it is also a big pain the butt sometimes. Your money and time are not simply cut in half - they are gone! 100% of your resources must be devoted to “the family” and you only get to use them for yourself once in a while. You need to be able to accept your decision even if the hottest/nicest/smartest/ person on earth falls in love with you the very next day (assuming, of course, you are not already married to that person!).(Side Note): Living together to “test the waters” is not only sinful (if sex is involved) or extraordinarily tempting (if sex is not involved) but it is simply not useful. I know of many couples who lived together for years, got married, and then quickly divorced. Marriage is just different - there is no way to “play at it.” Marriage is a covenant - an unbreakable agreement - so in a sense it really doesn’t matter how someone does living together without being married. It’s a decision you make and then you just deal with whatever comes along. That’s why vows are exchanged, it is a promise you make before God so that there is security no matter what. (I like to ask people who say they “don’t need a piece of paper to prove their love” why, if it is so unimportant, do they not simply go through with it. I think deep down they know there is a difference and are afraid of failure.)

Second, remember that the dating period is probably the most excited you will ever be with this person, so give it some time. It’s not that your love won’t grow, but emotionally you probably won’t ever be “higher” than the point at which you decide to marry. Don’t expect it to last. Once the thrill of the chase and the new situation is over all you have left is each other - all day, every day. The emotional growth in marriage is down (deeper) not up (higher). Don’t expect anything to change for the better either. It might - but do not count on it. Be careful not to confuse your fantasies with reality. Fantasies have no necessary connection to reality so they do no good in real decision making. Probably they will do a lot more harm as no one will ever live up to them. So base your decisions on what you think when you are with that person - not when you are apart (”Absence makes the heart grow fonder,” as they say).

Now it might sound like I am down on marriage which I am not. My marriage rocks. I love my wife and appreciate her so much it hurts. But I know many people who are not this happy and most of it is because they have not counted the cost going in. Once the initial excitement wore off they didn’t know what to do. You’ve got to go in with eyes open. You have to think “There is no turning back - I can never, ever, get out of this.” If that comforts you, that’s a good sign - if it freaks you out then just wait. Being single is like being a virgin - you can never get it back. Therefore, don’t waste the single life and don’t simply have ending it as your goal.

Finally, don’t worry over whether this person is THE ONE in the fatalistic sense. There is no “ONE.” While I do not have time to go into my theology of God’s will here, the gist of it is that unless God reveals someone to you with supernatural backup you are responsible for your own choice. Your future happiness is not dependant on peeking in on God’s omniscience. The Bible gives very few guidelines for choosing a mate - and desire is one of them! Basically, so long as you are both eligible (both believers, different gender, of age, not blood relatives, etc.) then you become “the right ones” when you make your vows. Don’t buy into the Hollywood lie that says you can miss out on “the right one” and suffer forever for it.I end with the best advice I ever heard on choosing when to marry: “Don’t marry someone because you can live with them, only marry someone if you cannot live without them.” So if you have to ask, “Is he/she the one?” then he/she probably isn’t. When the person (and timing) are right then marriage will be the obvious choice.

In the scene above, a hopeful recruit for Fight Club is being verbally wailed on to test his mettle before being admitted. The process of hazing, in one form or another, is a time tested method for weeding out those who are not truly committed to achieving a goal and I think maybe we should have it in churches too.

In the first century, becoming a Christian and getting baptized were deadly pursuits. You didn’t have any “cultural Christians” back then practising “churchianity.” It was serious business, for serious people. After Christianity was legalized it took several years of training for one to become an official member of a church. You actually had to prove that you understood what you believed. Imagine that - a whole church full of people who actually had to learn something before they could wear the label of “Member”!

Now any yahoo can walk into a church, raise his hand to “get saved” (as long as everyone’s eyes are closed of course) and BAM!- welcome to the ministry. We have 22 year old pastors who barely made it out of High School in charge of people’s spirituality. I think it’s high time we fix this growing problem, and I think if I ever start my own church it’s going to take some effort to join. I’m not talking about Masonic suicide rituals or anything, just some basic theology exams and low-grade physical and mental tortures to weed out the posers. If people are willing to do as much for membership in some stupid college fraternity - why not demand the same for church? I can see it now . . .

Sunday morning, the members have flashed their ID badges and security has allowed them entrance. Outside the door are this morning’s hopefuls wearing their Sunday best with duffel bags slung over their shoulders in case this takes a while. My deacons begin screaming at them about how they are worthless cretins that don’t deserve to hear a good message - why don’t they just go down the street where “seekers” are welcome and come back when they grow up. They are told that the Church is full, we don’t need no more wannabes - so go home or join a cult or something.

Later that day, after the service has ended the members file out brandishing their “Welcome Paddles.” I walk out and look over the crowd asking if there are any visitors here today. The hopefuls raise their hands and assume the position. The members each get a good whack in as they head for the parking lot to go to lunch. Afterward, if the hopefuls are still there, the elders take their turn - asking convoluted, rapid fire theological riddles to see who breaks first. “We don’t go home until one of you cries!” they yell, spit flying.

If the hopefuls pass this brutal mental testing they are told to wait while the pastor has his Sunday devotions. These devotions last a day or two and if I happen by the church building and see that anyone remains I’ll drive by and tell them it was all a joke played by the elders - no one gets in this week, sorry. If they are still there the next Sunday morning, they’re in.

But not if they fell asleep during the week.