Is Mercy Deserved?

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Romans 9:18 Consider the following from the apostle Paul. 12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. Here we have a self admission from the apostle himself, that he was “once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man.” Does such a person as this deserve mercy? Imagine we have an individual who had experienced severe trauma from a robbery and as a result, processing through it, they lose sleep, growing increasingly irritable. One day, as they are walking along, someone turns a corner and a memory spikes of the event, triggers their fight or flight response and they end up punching the person, not out of malice, but self preservation. Imagine another individual who simply enjoys punching people and thinks it's funny? It seems obvious that the person who lashed out as a result of a trauma response, is more deserving of mercy, so logically intent matters, but does intent automatically merit mercy? Both of these individuals are no doubt breaking the law and thus, both would merit the same punishment. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Leviticus 24:19-20 Would any of us really believe the person processing a horrific event, who is repentant and apologetic, worthy of the same condemnation as the one who simply does it for fun? Still, the crime in terms of action is identical. This is precisely why I believe the Lord says, For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Matthew 5:38-42 Our motivations for our actions go deeper than we can fathom. Imagine the person who punches people for fun was beaten by his father as a child. While it doesn't excuse the behavior, would it change how we view them? It would for me, but here is where it gets deeper. We often participate in behaviors we know are wrong and despite this knowledge choose to justify it. If the person in the first scenario tried to justify punching the person, because of their scrape with a criminal, unapologetically, would we be as quick to give mercy? So it seems mercy is completely up to the judge of the situation, but in terms of the law, mercy is a forethought if we are making things right. The person walking around the corner in both circumstances was wronged and justice demands it be made right (they don’t deserve to be harmed for ANY reason). Mercy seems only possible if offered, but not a right. The judge of both cases would have to evaluate each individual's case and make a decision based on his own conscience. Let’s read further. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1 Timothy 1:12-17 Note the reason why Paul said he received mercy. He acted in ignorance and unbelief. He would be an example of God's kindness and mercy to others who may believe they are beyond forgiveness. Did the apostle deserve mercy however, because of his ignorance and unbelief? Imagine another person just like Paul, all the same attributes, but killing Christians knowing Christianity is true? Their crimes are identical, the suffering imposed on others is the same, the only difference is, one is not doing it ignorance, the other is. Justice requires they receive the same sentence, but is mercy then Paul's right because of ignorance and God being glorified through his salvation? [18] But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. [19] They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. [20] For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Romans 1:18-20 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) Romans 2:12-15 Consider who the apostle Paul was. 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. Philippians 3:4-6 Now, if Paul is saying in Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 2:12-15 that creation itself with conscience alone is enough to give someone no excuse for not knowing God, how much less excuse does he have, having creation, conscience and the law of Moses and him still not knowing God? Think of God’s character for a moment. In the story of Jonah God desired the salvation of the ninivites and took their ignorance into account. 10 But the Lord said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?” Jonah 4:10-11 Even in the Old Testament we see an example of loving your enemy. 4 “If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it. 5 If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it. Exodus 23:4-5 It couldn't be clearer in Proverbs! 21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. 22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you. Proverbs 25:21-22 Paul however was most likely thinking along these lines. Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:10 During the stoning of Stephen, Saul approved, so in his mind this killing was justified (Acts 8:1-3), but given his background as a Pharisee and his deep knowledge of scripture, I still have a hard time with him not being accountable for his ignorance. 20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah. 23 After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him, Acts 9:20-23 Almost immediately after conversion, Paul is able to argue for the Lord Jesus being the Messiah, so effectively that the Jews could not refute him, decided to put him to death (proving they had no valid rebuttals). If such knowledge was readily available to him, why wouldn’t Isaiah 53 stand out in his mind? Or Psalm 22? Or the Son of Man in Daniel's vision having the same power, authority and worship of the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14) making them both Yahweh (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5-6)? Instead of investigating, I wonder if Saul rashly jumped in and didn't evaluate fairly? If I, a gentile with nowhere near the depth of Old Testament knowledge, can be led by the Lord to see these scriptures point to Jesus as the Christ, surely Saul could’ve responded to the light he already had and been led to the same conclusion? So like our earlier example, it does not seem as if mercy is owed to Paul. Now, I do believe God knows all logical alternative timelines. 9 When David learned that Saul was plotting against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod.” 10 David said, “Lord, God of Israel, your servant has heard definitely that Saul plans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. 11 Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? Lord, God of Israel, tell your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will.” 12 Again David asked, “Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will.” 13 So David and his men, about six hundred in number, left Keilah and kept moving from place to place. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he did not go there. 1 Samuel 23:9-13 “And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” Matthew 11:23–24 I have wondered, if all it would take to not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah was a few miracles, why didn't God just do that? He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekeil 33:11), so why not rescue them? I have two solutions. They already were condemned on the grounds of conscience and creation, they did not need a miracle to know raping visitors is evil! Seeing miracles may not have changed their hearts, obeying from terror and not love (Exodus 20:19, John 14:15). It's one thing to obey a king because he could destroy you if you don't. It's quite another to obey a king because he's your best friend and you love him. Perhaps this was the case with Sodom and Gomorrah? I don't know, but God certainly does not have to explain Himself to me! So I stick with 1 as my answer and 2 as a speculation, but not a definitive explanation. This still begs the question though doesn't it? God showed up for Paul in a way that He did not show up for Sodom and Gomorrah. Both Paul and the inhabitants had the same evidence of creation and conscience and no excuse for not knowing God. Paul had less excuse in my opinion, (I'm not judging, as I'm not God), with his knowledge of scripture (Luke 12:48). So if there is nothing in Paul that merits mercy, having sufficient revelation to know God, yet he gives a logical explanation as to why he received it, from ignorance and unbelief, how do we make sense of it? “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.” Jeremiah 17:10 Our God is in the heavens, and he does as he wishes. Psalm 115:3 Imagine the dialogue between Christ and Saul if He never stopped him on the Damascus road. I can see Saul, devastated, saying something like, “Lord, if I only knew you were the One, I would have been a Christian. I would have served You. There would not be anything I wouldn't have done for You.” This is obviously true (most of the New Testament was written by Paul and Acts shows how dedicated he was). The Lord could easily point to the law and the prophets and his conscience and condemn him, with full justification. He could show him all of the scriptures Paul knew that would have pointed to Him. Perhaps the Lord would even show him his unjust judgement of the situation in not hearing both sides if that were the case? Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is doing? John 7:51 The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him. Proverbs 18:17 “You shall not spread a false report. Do not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you favor a poor man in his lawsuit.” Exodus 23:1–3 “And I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s. The case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.’” Deuteronomy 1:16–17 I don't know, but God does. What I do know is God would not have done anything wrong by withholding mercy from Paul and condemning him in his sin. I do know Paul had enough information to be without excuse and he refused to steward the light he had received properly before Damascus. What I do know is God wants to be merciful to all (Isaiah 55:7, Romans 11:32, 1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 33:11), but not everyone wants that mercy (Exodus 8:32). Ultimately, none of us deserve it and the real answer is, God is God and we are not. If He wants to extend mercy to one person and not to another, that is His prerogative. He owes no one any explanation and no justification. Who is able to advise the Spirit of the Lord? Who knows enough to give him advice or teach him? Has the Lord ever needed anyone’s advice? Does he need instruction about what is good? Did someone teach him what is right or show him the path of justice? Isaiah 40:13-14 I personally believe the Lord looked into Paul's heart and saw a genuine desire to serve Him and a longing to do His will. The Lord would be justified in leaving Saul in his mess, but this is where the goodness of God reveals itself beautifully. He does not punish us for all our sins; he does not deal harshly with us, as we deserve. Psalm 103:10 And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Exodus 34:6 The LORD is like a father to his children, tender and compassionate to those who fear him. Psalm 103:13 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6 God loved Saul, despite his sin and despite his ignorance. Saving Paul was more important to God than holding him accountable to his error and instead of focusing on Paul's failures, He simply had mercy and revealed Himself to Him, not because He needed Paul, but simply because He loved him. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Galatians 1:15-17 The truth is, none of us deserve God's mercy, but thankfully He is willing to extend it to us all. The true question is, will we receive it? We all will end up serving God in some way, whether that is a vessel for honorable use or dishonorable. We can be like Pharaoh and harden ourselves against God, so much so that if Christ appeared in front of us as He did Paul, we would still reject Him. God could still be merciful to Pharaoh by transporting the Israelites to the promised land instantaneously (Acts 8:39) and spared him greater judgement, but also did nothing wrong by judicially hardening him in his sin and using him for His own purposes (Jeremiah 18:1-10, Romans 9:17). The truth is we all have a choice to make. The Lord has already given us enough information for us to come to know Him and He is now drawing all of us to Himself (John 12:32, John 16:8-11). He isn't obligated to give any of us a Damascus road experience, anymore than He was obligated to give Sodom and Gomorrah miracles. Right now we can make a choice to respond to the light we have and the Holy Spirit’s drawing. Will you respond to the mercy you have already been given or will you harden against it? God did not have to give Paul mercy, anymore than He has to give mercy to either of us, but it is His heart's desire to be merciful to all. Don't wait for a Damascus road experience (you may not receive one) rather respond to the revelation you have and call out to Christ for salvation today! He paid the price for sin when He died on the cross, rose from the dead and if like Paul, you will turn from sin and trust in the Lord Jesus alone for salvation, you will be saved. For God does not show favoritism. Romans 2:11

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! 

The fallacy lies in the subjective nature of the word extraordinary to the individual. One might fight the beauty of Mount Rushmore to be extraordinary, while another views it as an unimpressive tribute to a few dead presidents. 

If someone for instance thought it was an extraordinary claim that humans built the pyramids, they may apply a higher demand of proof to overcome their belief in an advanced alien civilization coming to aid ancient man, whom they believe could not possibly achieve what they deem an impossible structure for humanity to accomplish on their own. 

What about the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? Don't the majority of dead people stay dead? Are we being asked to believe that out of all the people who remain in their grave we are just supposed to accept that the laws of nature were violated for the same of this one Man? 

If God exists however, does it seem extraordinary that the Creator of the laws of nature could violate those laws of nature if He desires? Belief in God is grounded in logical reasoning and if thus rational and so with the assumption of a God powerful enough to bring the universe into existence, it does not seem extraordinary then that the same God would have no problem bringing a dead man back to life. 

Supposing He did bring Jesus of Nazareth back to life from the dead, what kind of evidence do you suppose we should expect? 

Imagine a man dying in front of you, in a third world country in a culture that does not immediately dispose of the corpses for two days and by the end of the first day, the smell and signs of death are evident to everyone as they prepare for the ritual they have done a thousand times over, experts in knowing what death is. Two days in, as they prepare the final burial ritual he suddenly springs back to life before your eyes, to the amazement of you and everyone in the village as he tells an amazing tale of the afterlife. 

Now whether his tale is a result of electrical activity in his brain making sense of his experience from an unknown phenomena which science can not explain or his tale is true is debatable, but the evidence that would convince you of this extraordinary claim is simply not very extraordinary and in fact based on the ordinary evidence of information received by your senses and the confirmation of your fellow eye witnessness. 

What evidence would be left behind if such an event happened 2,000 years ago? Nothing more than some written accounts that happened to survive the passage of time, with perhaps some people mocking the claim… Which is precisely what we see in history for Jesus of Nazareth, evidence we would expect if a Man died in front of a group of people and appeared alive to that same group. 

So the extraordinary claim only would require ordinary evidence and thus the fallacy is shown, but I invite the skeptic to consider one final thought. 

Nothing always produces nothing and quantum fluctuations in a vacuum are defined as something, that is, the quantum vacuum is a thing. 

Nothing can simply be defined as “no thing” and thus you do not believe the claim the universe came from nothing iti be an extraordinary claim, but I on the other hand find such a claim extraordinary! 

A universe from nothing? I demand evidence that nothing can produce anything at all! 

All known experience shows us that something can not come from nothing and yet you are asking me in this one particular case to grant an exception to the universe, believing that at one point the normal laws of physics do not apply and universes can spring into existence without a cause? The Leibniz cosmological argument would be well studied for your potential objections. 

If you claim the Theist is unreasonable for believing the laws of nature were suspended in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, then you are equally unreasonable for believing that suspended laws of physics can bring about a universe, a pretty extraordinary claim that by your own shifting of the goal post, requires extraordinary evidence. 

The reality is much more simple. 

Claims simply require sufficient evidence and we have exactly what we should expect if a Man named Jesus, claiming to be God, died 2,000 years ago and rose from the dead. History screams with sufficient evidence, the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of God. 

Atheistic Moral Frameworks fail philisophically to critique God

Imagine a society of sentient ant-like beings on a distant world in a galaxy beyond our reach. Evolutionarily, they developed the sense that the only ethical way to kill their food, is for the organism they captured to be facing to the left, while two of the insectoids stab it in the most “merciful” key places. Imagine another society of these creatures of a slightly different variation who believe they exact same places should be stabbed, however, the organism must be placed to the right instead. These two cultures of insectoids have debates on the moral ethical practices of his best to prepare their food, based on the moral intuitions they developed over millions of years. 

At one point in their past, a common ancestor decided to split pathways, one going to the left of a river and the other to the right and found a food source that tended to gravitate towards the side of the river. As a result, brain mechanisms developed that compelled these organisms to stay towards a particular bend of the river and a sense of danger for departing too far to the opposite direction. Eventually, as structures of planning and future reasoning developed, dads that decided to venture too far off from the side of the river were considered immoral for not providing a stable future for their children by staying close to the river. 

Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will—or in the metaphorical roots of evolution or any other part of the framework of the Universe. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but is not justified by it because, like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.…Unlike Macbeth’s dagger, ethics is a shared illusion of the human race.

Michael Ruse and Edward O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” in Philosophy of Biology, ed. Michael Ruse (New York: Macmillan, 198

Consider now serial killers such as Albert Fish who would kill children and eat their body parts. 

If you are anything like I am, your moral intuitions revolt at such an individual and seek nothing more than to put a man as evil as this behind bars due to the injustice and cruelty he afflicted on innocent children, but this begs the question in the first premise. 

Is our moral aversion based on biologically ingrained adaptations alone? My intuition tells me that such acts are unspeakable and objectively evil, that some things must never been done, where there are no justifications for such a behavior, but is this simply because somewhere in my evolutionary past, it was ingrained that children equal survival which causes my sense to flare up? 

What if however a different set of events directed the course of humanities evolutionary history and we all involved the instincts of Albert Fish? 

Would it still be wrong? 

If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. Nevertheless, the bee, or any other social animal, would in our supposed case gain, as it appears to me, some feeling of right and wrong, or a conscience.

Charles Darwin Descent of Man

The question then becomes one of moral intuition and those moral intuitions could have been different, then how would it be possible to prove the atheists moral intuition in regards to God's character (that He is a moral monster) is correct, when if it were shaped differently, would praise Him as morally virtuous? 

Thus it seems the Theist and Atheist debate is reduced to which side of the river your ancestors developed on like our imaginary insectoids. Ifour moral intuition then is a result of a series of evolutionary adaptations for survival, it can not be an objective ground for discerning the moral correctness of actions. 

The point isn't to say there could not be an Objective morality, but rather that our subjective intuitions are not a viable grounds to judge moral actions as they were designed for survival and not detecting right or wrong. 

The Skeptical Case for the Resurrection

The Skeptical Case for The Resurrection of Jesus from Nazareth 

Preface:

I want to warn anyone reading this book that what I am going to present, may challenge those who have faith and some of my arguments, taken by skeptics to use against believers in attempts to shake their religious convictions. If you are not prepared to question the foundations of your beliefs, my writings are not for you as it is not my desire for you to abandon Christianity, however I do hope if you choose to continue you will read until the end. My purpose in writing this is for a very specific type of mind, one that is constantly questioning what they think about the world around them, that needs a satisfactory answer to the problems that plague their mind, whose need to understand the world around them is insatiable and to whom surface level answers are never enough, as they seek to reduce everything to its constituent parts. If this is you, then I invite you to continue on as we attempt to answer if we should take Jesus of Nazareth seriously. I will be offering naturalistic explanations for spiritual phenomena found in the gospels, through the lens of modern findings in neuroscience (to the best of my ability as a non-expert), that may cast doubt on the reality of religious experience. I want to point out that I do understand the limitations of my educational background and I make no pretensions to be anything other than what I truly am. I will undoubtedly rely on the experts at various points throughout this endeavor, however I believe my strength will be my relatability to anyone who is deeply interested in this question.  Those who constantly weed through the arguments, hearing out two well thought out cases from both sides of the debate and working through whom they believe to be most convincing while constructing arguments of their own will certainly be able to find some enjoyment thinking through the issues with me. 

Imagine a scenario where you have a brain tumor and two well respected neurosurgeons in their field, offer very two very different approaches for your treatment. It would ultimately be up to you to decide which treatment is best for you, despite your limited knowledge on the topic (assuming you are not a neurosurgeon of course) as you think through the arguments presented by minds more knowledgeable than you are. My perspective on writing this book will be of the patient or of the audience member coming home after watching a William Lane Craig and Bart Erhman debate to think through the arguments. I take the role of the friend helping you work through which surgery is best or the person sitting next to you in the debate, in the after discussion telling you who I thought was more  and interested in your pushback as we search for the truth together. I will criticize both sides in an attempt to arrive at the truth of the question, “Did God Raise Jesus of Nazareth from the Dead?” It is my joy to have you be apart of this journey . 

Against Mormonism Gospel Tract

Front cover 

Inside cover 

Step 1: Fold the left and right panels into the center so that the Mormon picture is in front. 

Step 2: Fold in half horizontally. 

Feel free to download and use for your purposes