Who are the least of these?

Who are the least of these?  

R

Imagine an alternate timeline where Christ, in His Sovereignty, decided to not reveal Himself to the apostle Paul, a counterfactual similar to the one presented in 1 Samuel 23:19-24 where God revealed to King David what Saul would do if he did not flee from Keliah. 

20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 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. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

Matthew 11:20-24 

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Romans 9:14-18

For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.

Romans 3:23 

Truly the Lord does not owe any of us mercy and if He decided to only give us judgment, He would be doing nothing wrong. Think of the conversation the unconverted Saul may have had with the Lord. 

Saul: “Lord, Lord I didn't know. I didn't know it was You…” 

The Lord: “You had my word Saul, as a Pharisee you were expertly trained in the religious law which ultimately led to your downfall! You were more concerned with the traditions of men and your own esteem than what the truth of scripture actually taught. All you had to do was read the prophecies Saul! You had the law and the prophets and someone with your training along with the intellectual capacity I blessed you with should have easily seen it, but your pride is now your downfall!” 

Saul: “But Lord… I was in ignorance.” 

The Lord: “Yes Saul, I know, but you had the moral law written into your conscience and my invisible attributes have been clearly seen by you so that you are without excuse. When you were stoning Me, Saul, did you feel any amount of regret, remorse or sadness?” 

Saul: “What do you mean Lord, when did I ever stone you or even see you until now?” 

The Lord: “When you did it to the least of these, my servant Stephan you did it to Me! I dwelled inside of Him with my Spirit and felt every ounce of pain, but I comforted him. You say you know the law, quote it Saul. Quote it now! Ezekiel 33:11!” 

Saul: “As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die?” 

The Lord: “And yet even though Stephen is righteous before me through faith, even within your perspective you should rather have mourned his execution and not approved it! Hosea 6:6.” 

Saul: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,

    and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” 

The Lord: “Yet you delighted in the execution of my servant Stephen, exposing the wickedness in your heart. Where there should have been compassion and sorry in his death, pride and approval swelled within you. Depart from me Saul, you worker of iniquity, I NEVER KNEW YOU!” 

Now, the hypothetical is built on a question I have concerning the text of Matthew 25:40, who are the least of these Christ is referring to? I have two thoughts on this, but I believe both are consistent with the text of Matthew 25:31-36. 

The simplest explanation for, “the least of these” are the poor, the marginalized and the outcasts of society, people that God consistently has had a heart for throughout both the Old and New Testaments. 

[9]  “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. [10] And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 19:9-10 

12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Luke 14:12-14

The Messiah being God in the flesh (Jeremiah 23:4-6, Colossians 1:15) then identifying with those whom He has a heart for makes sense as a viable interpretation, however it is the term in Matthew 25:40 that causes me a moment of reexamination. 

[37]  “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? [38] Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? [39] When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ [40]  “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

Matthew 25:37-40 

What exactly does the Lord mean by brothers and sisters in this context? Surely the Lord would not consider an adulterous, unrepentant homeless man who hates God His brother or sister and so I find myself within another line of reasoning. 

Consider the following verses… 

31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 3:31-35

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Ephesians 1:13-24

But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.)

Romans 8:9

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. 

John 14:15-27 

Unity and Diversity in the Body

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27

So it seems from these verses we learn the following. 

• that the Lord Jesus does not consider those of biological relation to be His true family, but those who love, follow and obey God (Mark 3:31-35). 

• Those who have placed their faith in Christ receive the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ who dwells inside of them, literally having Christ dwell on their body (Ephesians 1:13-24, Romans 8:9, John 14:15-27, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20). 

• Believers as a whole are considered the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-27)

This means that the Triune God of the universe dwells in every born again believer. When we feel pain, He feels our pain. When we feel happy, He feels happy and when someone helps us or hurts us, it's as if they are doing it to Christ Himself. If we are a thumb in the body of Christ, when someone harms us it's as if they are hurting the thumb of God. If someone gouges our eyes, it's as if they are gouging the eyeballs of Mercy in the sockets of the Son of God. 

Then he said to the disciples, “Anyone who accepts your message is also accepting me. And anyone who rejects you is rejecting me. And anyone who rejects me is rejecting God, who sent me.”

Luke 10:16 

Are Christians then the least of these? I find the most compelling support for this view in the scripture below. 

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

Acts 9:1-6

The Lord equates persecution of His children as persecution against Himself and how one treats a genuine Christian is a good measure of their attitude towards God Himself. 

I personally believe from the scriptures above with my own personal contemplation of scripture that Christ is going to examine how the world treated His children and will use their treatment of them as a metric of judgment to prove whether or not their faith in Him was genuine or false. 

How you treat a follower of Christ is a direct reflection of how you would treat their Master and so I believe the “least of these” does not only apply to the downtrodden, the outcast, the poor, or the foreigner, but to God's actual children. 

It is impossible for a born again believer to hate their brothers and sisters in Christ as God's love should flow out of them for their brother or sister and if there is a conflict, rest assured the Holy Spirit will restore the relationship. 

11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. 16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

1 John 3:11-15 

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

James 2:14-19

If you hate someone, you will not feed them. If you say you love someone, but don't help them, your actions betray your words. True love and care for others is always accompanied by actions and so if the world sees a Christian in need and is apathetic to them, it's proof they care nothing for God as the Holy Spirit within them would cause them to run to their brother or sister in Christ’s aid. If they refuse to offer any help because they are a Christian it simply means they hate Jesus. 

I believe that on the last day Christians will ask the Lord, “Who were you dwelling in when I gave to the poor, took care of the sick or visited in prison?” I believe the Lord will gladly tell them how He felt as you cared for the person He dwelt in as He heard every encouraging word you offered to His sick child. To His children that were starving, how the food you offered tasted and the relief He felt knowing His needs were taken care of for the day. To the child of His in prison, how you spent time with Him, sharing His light to the soul He was dwelling within as they were in that dark place. 

I also believe that on the last day, non-Christians will be as confused as Saul of Tarsus pre conversion. They will ask the Lord, “When did we not feed You, care for You or comfort You?” 

I believe He may something along the lines of, 

“Remember that homeless man you ignored who approached you at the gas station? Remember that outcast you refused to invite to join your small group? Remember the troubled youth who had no father to care for her? They were all My children. When you did not do it for them, I felt it. I hurt alongside them. When you did it to them, you did it to Me.”

I believe the Lord’s mission is primarily for the marginalized of society and so I believe the question of the least of these is not an either or, but a both and. 

Regardless of how you want to interpret who the least of these are, one thing is for certain. 

If the least of these are not Christians, then those who care nothing about the poor, the destitute, the prisoner, the foreigner or the outcast their heart does not align with the heart of Christ, proving they are far from knowing Him. 

If the least of these are Christians, then those who despise and hate them prove they do not know Christ as Savior and Lord. 

Whatever your view is, whichever interpretation you believe one thing is certain. 

How you treat the least of these, proves whether you are blessed and on the right side of Christ or cursed and on His left. 

Our response to the least of these exposes our heart and demonstrates if we are aligned with Him or if we are far away from Him. 

The question now is, what is your heart to the least of these? 

I pray this helps you in your own self reflection. God Bless 

Myth Points to Deeper Truths

Myth Points to Deeper Truths

Why do we tell stories? Why are we captivated by the hero who triumphs over evil or the anti-hero who “gets the job done” for the greater good in less than pleasant ways that the typical archetypal practitioner of righteousness dare not transgress into. For me, there seems to be something noble about the descent of the hero into a degree of madness in order to meet evil where it is at and stare it down with a greater feriousity than the villain could ever muster, like a sheep dog staring down the wolf, both with a similar nature, but a different posture in terms of the sheep. One protects them, one seeks to devour them, but both have the same basic instinct simply directed in a different direction. 

Batman and the Joker come to mind in terms of a mythic element symbolizing this deeper truth, neither really exist but both represent something very real about human nature and the author is free to explore this idea in greater detail through storytelling and this seems to be the appeal. Batman and Joker are really the same person in a way, both have a distorted view of reality and not exactly sane (I mean dressing up as a bat to terrorize criminals isn't exactly normal), both have traumas, both are brilliant and each one dawns a particular role. The only difference it seems is the expression of these character traits and the direction they funnel their energies into. I remember one thing about Batman that stood out to me, why he doesn't kill and the answer is somewhat chilling… “Because I might like it.” Is the only difference between them then a moral resolution? Interesting to ponder and I believe this is part of the magnetic pull of fiction. 

Personally, when I examine my own heart I feel a small tinge of this in my desire for justice and for the wrongs of the world to be made right. One of my favorite shows is homicide hunter and Joe Kenda happens to be one of my favorite people, but the show is hard for me to watch sometimes, in terms of the reenactments. I remember one particular episode where there were three men holding a gun over another man in an execution style position and he pleaded with them saying, “Please, take what you want. I have a wife and kids.” They shot him without a second thought and my anger immediately blazed and I wanted nothing more in that moment to round these men up, place them in a room and do unspeakable horrors to them in an effort to make them pay for their horrendous evil against this man. Fire would not begin to describe the utter intensity of emotion that flared in me and the desire for these three to face justice for their moral abomination against their fellow man. Ironically, the reason Joe retired is because of his desire to hurt this pedophile grandpa who abused his grandson. He had said something along the lines of (paraphrasing), “I was filled with so much anger and rage and I wanted to find any way I could to harm and kill this person.” 

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Of course, I don't agree with Nietzsche on everything, but it is a fitting quote and thankfully Joe drives a school bus and seems to be recovering well from the PTSD such a job would inevitably produce in someone. Do you see the correlation however yet? Batman is a reflection of something true that was going on in me when I watched the reenactment and something that was going in Kenda and something that goes on in all of us whenever we encounter gross examples of malevolence, but will we take the path of the Batman archetype or will we let the suffering leads us to insanity where the Joker is waiting? 

Reflecting onto my own heart to the rest of my ability, there is something lurking in the shadows that I believe if I did not know the Lord Jesus as Savior would have manifested itself in an unbelievably cruel and dark way. There is no doubt in my mind that Christ has saved me from immense depravity and it is something I could never repay Him for, but it's really interesting when He shines the light on our hearts as He shows us who we really were… 

My old self seemed to not be really concerned with social rules, true justice or following procedures. In other words, if there is a job that needs to be done it needs to be done and it really does not matter how. Reflect on this, it's a wrong and evil idea, but it should help you to understand the mentality. 

“If good is achieved by an evil means, is it really evil to do so?” 

Another way of saying the same thing, but rephrased… 

“If the justice system fails and lets a murderer who deserves to die free, is it wrong to take matters into our own hands and issue the sentence they deserve into our own hands?” 

So I find myself identifying more with the anti-hero than the traditional hero as my old self would have seen traditional morality as getting in the way of what needs to be done. Evil needs to be removed from this world and justice must be impartial and it doesn't seem hard to think if an evil individual as my old self had the power, someone like Thanos could easily be a reality…

Still, I find myself with a deeply ingrained need for justice and a desire to make sure it is meted out no matter what. 

No matter what… 

Where does this desire come from however? Why do I feel this deep compulsion? Desiring justice is not evil, but why am I having this desire being expressed in an evil way?

Ghost Rider is one of the most interesting and fascinating anti-heroes I have come across in terms of story arc. He's not quite the hero, but he's also not necessarily a villain either and the curse of the Ghost Rider placed on him with his pact with the demonic force, known as Mephistopheles pushes him to bring the souls who escaped hell back home. 

This has a profound impact on me as I dive into the deeper aspects of the human personality. I’ve pondered the existence of God for some time and while I do believe He exists now, along the way I have developed theories to try and explain away His existence and so I want to give a bit of background on this particular point, by asking a simple question? 

What is a spirit? 

Depending on your assumptions about reality will determine how you answer the question and so I want to start with the following premises (note these are not my starting places anymore). Let's.start with naturalistic assumptions about reality. 

• Consciousness is reducible to brain chemistry. 

• What we define as spirit is nothing more than an amalgamation of neural networks (we will call spirit clusters). 

• These neural networks are determined by our biology. 

• Multiple spirit clusters may exist in one brain and are expressed are archetypes. 

Now, there is evidence that what we think about directly correlates with what we become (https://ifho.org/neuronal-plasticity-how-your-thoughts-literally-shape-your-brain/) and so I would like to propose what I find to be an interesting idea with the boundaries of the premises mentioned above. 

Suppose all human societies have certain archetypical constructs built into their psychology that given the right conditions, can develop further into full fledged personalities. 

“The archaic and mythic characters that make up the archetypes reside with all people from all over the world, Jung believed. Archetypes symbolize basic human motivations, values, and personalities.”

Jung believed that each archetype played a role in personality, but felt that most people were dominated by one specific archetype. According to Jung, the actual way in which an archetype is expressed or realized depends upon a number of factors, including an individual's cultural influences and uniquely personal experiences.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-are-jungs-4-major-archetypes-2795439

If this is the case, then any mythological story is going to have some sort of representation of these archetypes and I think in terms of Ghost Rider we see the shadow and the hero in a complex interplay of competing desires which can exist in all of us. Now, if “spirit clusters” exist within our brains we should expect to be a mix bag of them in terms of our behaviors. Sometimes we are the hero, sometimes we are the villain, sometimes we are the caretaker, sometimes we are the ruler and at other times we are the rebel. In terms of personality development, it seems that overtime one of these spirit clusters may become dominant, but if there is an internal conflict within an individual that produces a cognitive dissonance in their perceived sense of who they should be and who they really are we can start to see the potential for some interesting character development in our own lives. 

“A Cherokee elder was teaching his young grandson about life.

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil- he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt and ego.

The other is good- he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.

This same fight is going on inside you—and inside every other person, too."

The boy thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather,

"Which wolf will win?"

The elder simply replied,

"The one you feed.”

Tsalagi Tale 

On one hand, I found myself with darker aspects that had infected my personality that wanted to unleash absolute hell on those who do evil, showing no mercy and repaying them back for the atrocities they’ve committed, not only to the people who have hurt me, but to the people that have hurt others. Before I knew the Lord Jesus, this was a small seed, a “spirit cluster” (forgive me for jumping between two contradictory ideas, I know it's not for everyone!) that occupied a part of my mind that if given the right conditions, could have grown and become something monstrous, with a life of its own that would seemingly take over all other aspects of whatever self I had left. 

The more I chose to dwell on my hurts as well as the hurts of others and the lack of justice in this world, the more the self consuming fire would burn. My conscience would intervene and the internal conflict would escalate. One aspect of myself, the spirit cluster that understands it's wrong to take revenge, would desire to contain the monster (the clusters of vengeance and wrath) within that is angry at the injustice in the world which desires to make it right. At some point one of these would win out and at that point, all I can say is God help me (and praise the Lord Jesus, He saved me!) if I was pushed to let the monster out. 

I've had some extreme conflicts with my family. I won't delve into involving my own dad who began to cross lines with my wife you do not cross  coupled with years of emotional abuse that made me feel the flames of this monster arise. 

The things I said I would do to him, the evil that came out of my mouth and heart was so vile, so intense, it can be hard to believe it actually resided somewhere within myself! The Lord has been faithful to me and I realize if I did not have His Holy Spirit within me that those wors could have easily become actions. 

The Ghost Rider seems to be a reflection of the human desire for vengeance in punishing the wicked, to give justice to the innocent and a desire for redemption for the wrongs we have committed. 

I certainly have felt this within me. Overwhelming  desires to rid the world of evil, intense emotions at injustices that feel like a blazing furnace that could never be quenched and a desire to hunt down those who have committed atrocious evil (I will write about my views on the death penalty soon that may challenge my brothers and sisters in Christ). On one hand there is an aspect of myself that is like Johnny Blaze who knows that the Ghost Rider isn't who he wants to be, an aspect of himself he wants to be free from, while simultaneously not being able to rid himself of that seemingly unquenchable desire to stand up for the innocent by punishing the wicked and sending abominations back to hell manifested as the ghost rider. 

For me, the story of the Ghost Rider points to a deeper truth that all of us have the potential to identify with and is an interesting take on how even in the midst of a mistake (like selling your soul to Mephistopheles) we can still choose to turn around and pursue a higher good. My own personal struggles seem to hint at a “Ghost Rider” archetype and while I would never soul my soul or burst into flames to hunt evil people with a penance stare, still there is something true about saying the spirit cluster of the Ghost Rider has manifested itself in reality. 

Anytime someone takes vengeance in the wrong way the Ghost Rider lives… 

A Challenge to Catholics on the over glorification of Mary

My argument is going to be extremely simple and I hope that you engage this argument in good faith with me. If you are Catholic, know that I love you but believe your theology to be in error here. 

 

Now, I know that typically the Catholic response is that there is no Mary worship whatsoever going on and I would argue that even protestants can be guilty of hero worship when it comes to Luther or Calvin and so by no means am I discouraging an honoring of Mary or an honoring of the reformers or any hero in church history, my point is we must all be careful not to place more emphasis on created beings or things than warranted and that those affections that well up in is for their faith must not be so all encompassing that we lose sight of Christ. 

I am not going to spend time psychoanalyzing any particular person or claim to know things about a heart I could not possibly know but I do think that my argument from the scriptures will be helpful. Let's turn to Matthew‬ ‭22:41‭-‬45‬ . 

[41] Then, surrounded by the Pharisees, Jesus asked them a question: [42] “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They replied, “He is the son of David.” [43] Jesus responded, “Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, call the Messiah ‘my Lord’? For David said, [44]  ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’ [45]  Since David called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?”

From what I can tell the argument that God is presenting is as follows. 

Premise 1: David calls the Messiah that comes from his bloodline Lord. 

Premise 2: David is talking to the Messiah present tense before His birth 

Conclusion: Therefore the Messiah predates David 

Now Catholics should be in full agreement with me that Jesus is God and that He is the second member of the Holy Trinity, but for non-Cathilics who may happen across this article I will lay down a simple argument from the scriptures for His divinity. 

7 “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.

8 “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

9 “As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,

    and the Ancient of Days took his seat.

His clothing was as white as snow;

    the hair of his head was white like wool.

His throne was flaming with fire,

    and its wheels were all ablaze.

10 A river of fire was flowing,

    coming out from before him.

Thousands upon thousands attended him;

    ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.

The court was seated,

    and the books were opened.

11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Daniel 7:7-13 

“I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to anyone else, nor share my praise with carved idols.

Isaiah 42:8 

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Deuteronomy 6:4 

If God does not share His glory with anyone then why does He share His glory with this Son of Man in verses Daniel 7:13-14? Either God is contradicting Himself or this Son of Man is also God. If God is one then we have a hint of the Trinity in the Old Testament and any time Jesus uses the term “Son of Man” in the gospels He is claiming divinity. The Pharisees understood this. 

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.

Mark 14:61-65 

22 Then came the Festival of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

John 10:22-33

The Lord Jesus also received and allowed others to worship Him. 

[35] When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man and asked, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” [36] The man answered, “Who is he, sir? I want to believe in him.” [37]  “You have seen him,” Jesus said, “and he is speaking to you!” [38] “Yes, Lord, I believe!” the man said. And he worshiped Jesus. [39] Then Jesus told him, “I entered this world to render judgment—to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.”

John 9:35-39 

Finally, Jesus calls Himself God explicitly by calling Himself the I Am which provoked the people to try and stone Him since He claimed to be the God that spoke to Moses, using His name. 

[13] But Moses protested, “If I go to the people of Israel and tell them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ they will ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what should I tell them?” [14] God replied to Moses, “I Am Who I Am. Say this to the people of Israel: I Am has sent me to you.” 

Exodus 3:13-14 

[54] Jesus answered, “If I want glory for myself, it doesn’t count. But it is my Father who will glorify me. You say, ‘He is our God,’ [55] but you don’t even know him. I know him. If I said otherwise, I would be as great a liar as you! But I do know him and obey him. [56] Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad.” [57] The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?” [58] Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!” [59] At that point they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus was hidden from them and left the Temple.

John 8:54-59

Now that the theology of Jesus being both God and man is out of the way let's go back to the original argument and formulate another based on the conclusion. 

Premise 1: David predates Mary who calls the Messiah that comes from his bloodline Lord. 

Premise 2: David is talking to the Messiah present tense before His birth and Mary, coming from David's bloodline gives birth to Him

Premise 3: The Messiah is the Creator God

Conclusion: Therefore the Messiah created both David and Mary. 

If the Messiah created both king David and Mary and Jesus is the Messiah, then how can He really be David or Mary's Son when they are dependent on Him for their existence? 

[1] In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] He existed in the beginning with God. [3] God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him. [4] The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone.

John 1:1-4

Consider the following statement from the Lord when His family came to do a wellness check on Him. 

[46] As Jesus was speaking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [47] Someone told Jesus, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, and they want to speak to you.” [48] Jesus asked, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” [49] Then he pointed to his disciples and said, “Look, these are my mother and brothers. [50] Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!”

‭Matthew‬ ‭12:46‭-‬50‬ ‭

It seems to me that the Lord Jesus had a different conception of who His family is. Now please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that the Lord didn't have any affection for His mother, in fact as He is nearing His last breaths on the cross He commissions the apostle John to look after her. 

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

John 19:25-27 

However at the same time He also actively discouraged any focus on His mother and redirected people to focus back on God and His will. 

[27] As he was speaking, a woman in the crowd called out, “God bless your mother—the womb from which you came, and the breasts that nursed you!” [28] Jesus replied, “But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice.”

‭Luke‬ ‭11:27‭-‬28‬ ‭NLT‬

So why the statues? Why the rosary? Why the prayers to Mary? As far as I can tell I can see no justification in the scriptures in my personal study of the Bible for any of these practices as Mary will not save any of us on judgment day (For, There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5) and in fact the Bible even implies that she is a sinner in need of salvation as well! 

For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard. Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins.

Romans 3:23-24 

Do you really think it's likely the Holy Spirit would forget to inspire the apostle Paul to include the sinlessness of Mary when hitting that particular part of scripture down? I would expect to see something, “For everyone has sinned… except Mary, she was totally awesome”... but that's not what scripture says, everyone means everyone and even Mary indicates her need of salvation. 

And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 

Luke 1:46-49 

So to conclude, Mary is no more than a created being like everyone else who sinned against God and needed a Savior and Christ atoned for her sins on the cross as well. She is a hero of the faith, chosen by God to be the vessel from which He would come into the earth as a Man but is not someone that should be prayed to and not someone that can mediate between God and man. 

Furthermore, I believe that since Mary was chosen for her humility and devotion to God, she would be horrified walking into any church that had statues of her and would abhor any prayers of adoration to her and would tearfully point you to the Lord Jesus her Savior. Think about this as well. If the Lord Jesus discouraged veneration of His mother then what better way for Satan to taunt God than exalt the person to godlike status He chose because of her humility? Something to consider but all things considered, Mary is just a very blessed woman who received an extraordinary honor but was a sinner just like everyone else and needed Christ to pay her sin debt as well. We should remember her and call her blessed but never take her to the extreme and keep her in her proper place. Just another sinner saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. 

I love you and God Bless you. 

Also, the protoevangelium of James is nonsense. Mary had sex with her husband Joseph. Seriously, the text is clear. 

24 When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. 25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

Matthew 1:24-25 

I mean come on guys seriously! Don't be such a prude! Sex is a good thing, read the entire book of Song of Solomon. Why it bothers anyone that a married woman would have sex with her husband is beyond me. Some things people build entire doctrines on are just silly! 

Until next time! God Bless 

The Zero Persuasive Power of the Zero Power God Equation

The Zero Persuasive Power of the Zero Power God Equation 

This will be a simple philosophical refutation of Tony Berard's Zero Power equation. I'm going to assume his equation is correct as I plan to demonstrate that regardless of its truth value, it simply does not prove what it is created to do. 

Here is a link to the original article where Tony Berard’s equation may be found. Please read it before proceeding. 

https://medium.com/the-globally-responsible-atheist/the-god-power-equation-a115fbbe528d

For a quick introduction to the nature of the topic, please watch this episode from Closer to Truth, Episode 408 “Is Mathematics invented or discovered?” 

https://youtu.be/6CVjoOtA5eg?si=F76juvsmJNu3Vyzi

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.”

A. Einstein to R. A. Thornton, unpublished letter dated 7 December 1944 (EA 6-574), Einstein Archive, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

All theories of mathematics whether it be platonism, nominalism, fictionalism, intuitionism, formalism etc. basically reduce to two underlying premises. 

Math is discovered by humans and has a reality independent of human thought (ex. numbers are real). 

Math is invented by humans and is a useful fiction we use to make sense of the physical world but has no independent reality outside of the human mind (ex. numbers are not real). 

Before I share my personal view I want to ask a simple question (don't worry, you won't need Tony’s level of math to understand). 

π=C/d 

This is a simple equation used to calculate Pi by dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter. You probably remember this from your days in high school and that it is an irrational number, meaning it does not seem to have an end, usually rounded off to 3.14. Again, you won't need any refresher courses on anything to understand my argument, all you have to know is that when someone wants to calculate Pi, this is the value they will always calculate regardless of the size of the circle. Now let's run a thought experiment. 

Imagine we have a set of three exceptionally brilliant minds capable of outstanding mathematical feats, however they are simply unaware of their abilities due to the harsh circumstances of their life. Suppose all three are separated by vast great distances and all three happen to be discovered by three different philanthropists who want them to excel in their abilities. It's not long before all three of these exceptional students make significant progress in all of their intellectual pursuits and all three are asked to calculate Pi. All of them arrive at the same answer rounded off to 3.14. Two questions come to my mind. 

Were each of the individuals coming to the same conclusion because they were all following the same logical structure of mathematics that was created by their predecessors? 

Or… 

Were each of the individuals coming to the same conclusion because they were interacting with an objective and real reality of abstract objects independent of their minds existing outside of the physical world? 

It seems that even nature itself follows mathematical rules and I want to make a critical note here that both Leibniz and Newton discovered calculus independently of each other by studying nature. 

“Calculus is commonly accepted to have been created twice, independently, by two of the seventeenth century’s brightest minds: Sir Isaac Newton of gravitational fame, and the philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. The consensus has not always been so peaceful, however: the late 1600s saw fierce debate between the two thinkers, with each claiming the other had stolen his work.”

https://www.oxfordscholastica.com/blog/newton-and-leibniz-the-fathers-of-calculus/

This strongly suggests that nature follows mathematical laws and that by studying nature itself, we would have no choice but to discover math and the convergence of two independent minds converging to the exact same system of math suggests that math is intrinsically woven into the nature of reality itself and mind independent as if calculus for instance were something that was invented by humans, why did they both invent the same system to describe nature through observing it? 

We either seem to be discovering an abstract reality independent of physical reality or we are discovering someone else's math. What do we do when simpler mathematical constructs lead us to discover more complex constructs like Julia sets and eventually the Mandelbrot set? 

Well, in true Tony Berard fashion, I decided to consult the source he trusts the most, Chatgpt4. Here are the results of our conversation. 

Me: Does the Mandelbrot equation prove math is discovered?

Chatgpt4: The Mandelbrot set, named after Benoit Mandelbrot, is a fascinating example of a complex structure arising from a simple equation, but it doesn't necessarily prove that mathematics is discovered rather than invented.

The question of whether math is discovered or invented is a philosophical one. On one hand, proponents of mathematical Platonism argue that mathematical structures exist independently of us, and mathematicians merely discover them. This view is supported by the seeming universality of mathematics and its applicability in describing the natural world. The Mandelbrot set could be seen as a case in point - it's a mathematical object that exists independently of our knowledge of it.

On the other hand, formalists and constructivists see mathematics as a human invention, a product of our minds. They argue that mathematical concepts are abstract and do not have an existence independent of the human minds that think about them.

So, while the Mandelbrot equation and its resulting set are fascinating and beautiful, they don't necessarily settle the question of whether mathematics is discovered or invented. This question is still a topic of ongoing debate in philosophy of mathematics.

Me: Show how to argue it does prove mathematics is discovered. 

Chatgpt4: The Mandelbrot set, which is the set of values of c in the complex plane for which the orbit of 0 under iteration of the complex quadratic polynomial z_n+1 = z_n^2 + c remains bounded, could be used to argue that mathematics is discovered rather than invented, in the following ways:

1. **Universality**: The Mandelbrot set exists in the mathematical realm independently of human knowledge, waiting to be uncovered. The fact that we stumbled upon it during our exploration of mathematics suggests that its existence is not contingent on human activity. This suggests a mathematical universe that exists independently of human minds.

2. **Unchanging Nature**: No matter how many times we calculate the Mandelbrot set, the result remains the same. This consistency could be interpreted as evidence that the set, and by extension mathematics itself, is a discovered entity. If we invented math, we could presumably change it, but the Mandelbrot set remains the same, no matter the culture, era, or individual doing the calculation.

3. **Unexpected Complexity**: The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex and contains an unending variety of shapes and forms, all arising from a simple quadratic equation. This unexpected complexity, arising from simple rules, could suggest that we are discovering pre-existing mathematical truths rather than inventing them.

4. **Applicability**: Many mathematical structures have applications in describing the physical world accurately. The Mandelbrot set is a key example of how complex dynamics (of which the set is a part) can be used to model and predict phenomena in various fields such as physics, biology, and finance. This could suggest that there is a pre-existing mathematical structure to the universe that we are discovering.

However, it's important to note that while these points can be used to argue that mathematics is discovered, this is a philosophical question and there is no definitive proof either way. Different philosophers and mathematicians may have different views on this matter.

Me: Argue it does not prove mathematics is discovered 

Chatgpt4: The Mandelbrot set could be used to argue that mathematics is not necessarily discovered, but rather invented, in the following ways:

1. **Human Interpretation**: The Mandelbrot set is the result of a human-defined process (the iteration of a complex quadratic polynomial). While the set is consistent and universal, it is based on rules and definitions that humans created. This could be seen as evidence that we are inventing mathematical structures, rather than discovering them.

2. **Language of Mathematics**: Mathematics is a language that we invented to describe the world around us. The Mandelbrot set is a part of this language. Just like we wouldn't say we discovered the concept of a novel by writing one, we might not say we discovered the Mandelbrot set by defining and exploring it.

3. **Subjectivity**: The beauty and complexity of the Mandelbrot set is subjective and dependent on our human perspective. Other beings might not find the set interesting or meaningful at all. This could be seen as evidence that the significance we attach to mathematical concepts is a product of our minds, not an inherent property of the universe.

4. **Absence of Physical Existence**: The Mandelbrot set doesn't have a physical existence in the same way that a mountain or a planet does. It exists only in the abstract realm of mathematics, which is a human invention. This could suggest that we are creating, rather than discovering, mathematical structures.

However, it's important to note that these points are part of an ongoing philosophical debate about the nature of mathematics. Different philosophers and mathematicians may have different views on whether mathematics is discovered or invented. 

Me: Does nature follow mathematical rules? 

Chatgpt4: The natural world often seems to adhere to mathematical rules and principles. Here are a few examples:

1. **Physics**: Many of the laws governing the physical world, such as the laws of motion or electromagnetism, are described using mathematical equations. This allows us to predict and understand physical phenomena with a high degree of precision.

2. **Astronomy**: The motions of celestial bodies, like planets and stars, can be predicted using mathematical models. Kepler's laws of planetary motion and Einstein's theory of relativity are key examples of this.

3. **Biology**: In biology, the Fibonacci sequence (a mathematical series where each number is the sum of the two preceding ones) appears in various forms, like in the arrangement of leaves on a stem or the pattern of seeds in a sunflower. 

4. **Chemistry**: Chemical reactions can be represented by mathematical equations, and the structures of molecules can be understood through mathematical models.

5. **Geology**: The formation and erosion of landscapes can be modeled using mathematical principles.

However, while mathematics is a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, it's important to remember that it is our interpretation of nature. It's a language we have developed to describe patterns we observe. Nature doesn't "follow" mathematical rules in the sense of consciously adhering to them; rather, the patterns and laws we have identified in nature can be described mathematically.

Me: Could we discover math by studying nature? 

Chatgpt4: Absolutely! In fact, many mathematical concepts and principles have been discovered or developed as a result of studying natural phenomena. Here are a few examples:

1. **Geometry**: The ancient Greeks developed geometry partly from studying natural phenomena, like the cycles of the moon and the seasons. They realized that these phenomena could be understood and predicted using geometric principles.

2. **Calculus**: Isaac Newton developed calculus in the 17th century to help explain the motion of celestial bodies. He observed the orbits of planets and discovered the laws of motion and gravitation, which required new mathematical tools to describe accurately.

3. **Fractals**: The concept of fractals, complex shapes that look similar at any scale, was developed in the 20th century by mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot. He was inspired by natural phenomena like the branching of trees and the shape of coastlines.

4. **Chaos Theory**: Chaos theory, which deals with systems that are very sensitive to initial conditions (like the weather), was developed in part by studying natural phenomena. The famous "butterfly effect" is a concept from chaos theory.

So yes, by studying nature, we can and have discovered new mathematical principles. This process is often a cycle, where our understanding of nature leads to new mathematical tools, which then deepen our understanding of nature.

Me: Put this into argument form

Essentially it's discovered through preexisting mathematical truths. 

Preexisting mathematical truths are found in nature. 

We discover math through nature. 

Starting with those axioms we discover more mathematical truths such as Julia sets 

Chatgpt4: Here's how we can structure that argument:

1. **Premise 1**: Preexisting mathematical truths are inherent in nature. This means that the patterns, structures, and phenomena we observe in the natural world often align with mathematical principles and rules that have already been established.

2. **Premise 2**: We discover mathematics through the study of nature. By observing and analyzing the natural world, we are able to discern these preexisting mathematical truths. The process of observation, inquiry, and analysis allows us to identify and articulate these mathematical principles.

3. **Premise 3**: Once we have a foundation of preexisting mathematical truths gleaned from nature, we can build upon that foundation to discover more complex mathematical concepts and structures. One such example is Julia sets, which are complex fractal structures discovered in the 20th century. These sets, like many mathematical concepts, can be seen as extensions or elaborations of simpler mathematical truths found in nature.

4. **Conclusion**: Therefore, the discovery of mathematics is deeply intertwined with the study of nature. Not only does nature provide us with a foundation of preexisting mathematical truths, but it also serves as the platform upon which we build and discover more complex mathematical realities. 

Me: Simplify it 

Chatgpt4: Sure, here's a simpler version of this argument:

1. **Start Point**: Math is found in nature. 

2. **Step 1**: We study nature to find these math rules.

3. **Step 2**: Using these rules, we discover more complex math, like Julia sets.

4. **End Point**: So, we discover math by studying nature.

Me: is it valid? 

Chatgpt4: This argument is valid in its structure, meaning the conclusion logically follows from the given premises or steps. It states:

1. Math is inherent in nature.

2. We study nature to find math.

3. Using basic math, we find more complex math.

4. Therefore, we discover math through nature.

The conclusion (step 4) is a logical outcome based on the premises. However, the validity of an argument doesn't guarantee that the facts within the argument are true. The truth of this argument depends on whether you agree that math is inherent in nature and that we study nature to discover math. This could be a philosophical or scientific discussion depending on different viewpoints. 

Me: Attack the weakest premise 

Chatgpt4: The argument's weakest premise might be "Using basic math, we find more complex math like Julia sets." This statement assumes that complex mathematical concepts, such as Julia sets, are directly discovered or derived from basic mathematical principles found in nature.

While it's true that many complex mathematical concepts build on simpler ones, saying they are "discovered" in nature might be a stretch. Julia sets, for instance, are a concept from complex dynamics, a branch of mathematics that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems that involve complex numbers. While these sets can produce patterns that seem natural or organic, their discovery and study are largely abstract and theoretical endeavors.

These complex mathematical concepts often require a level of abstraction and theoretical reasoning that goes beyond simple observation of natural phenomena. So, while nature might inspire or inform mathematical thought, it's not accurate to say all complex math is directly "discovered" in nature.

Impressive and I agree the argument is sound and so I will absolutely use it as a guide constructing my own I will use later.  

It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing to do at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can’t reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of theoretical foundations; for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.

Albert Einstein 

A. Einstein , J. Franklin Inst. 221, 349 (1936)

Here is the main problem I have with Tony’s use of the Zero Power equation and I will demonstrate that by using his own equation to demonstrate that numbers themselves have zero power. 

Numbers themselves are spaceless, timeless and immaterial and so if the equation suggests that zero power in the universe implies the nonexistence of that thing that's fine, but then the whole exercise of using a useful fiction (numbers and mathematics) to prove that another useful fiction can not interact with the physical universe (God) is absurd. 

If Tony wants to maintain his philosophical position of physicalism, then he has no choice but to adopt the theory of math known as Fictionalism or something similar. 

‘Fictionalism’ generally refers to a pragmatic, antirealist position in the debate over scientific realism. The use of a theory or concept can be reliable without the theory being true and without the entities mentioned actually existing. When truth (or existence) is lacking we are dealing with a fiction. Thus fictionalism is a corollary of instrumentalism, the view that what matters about a theory is its reliability in practice, adding to it the claim that science often employs useful fictions. Perhaps the fullest expression of fictionalism occurs in Vaihinger’s once popular philosophy of ‘as if’.

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/fictionalism/v-1

I am going to use a piece of his own article and simply replace one non corporeal entity (God) with another (numbers and mathematics). 

“Another equation we will need is the very simple P = E/t or power is energy divided by time. 

So, we replace E in the first equation with Pt from the second equation. This gives us (Pt)² = (mc²)² + (pc)². Next, we divide both sides by t² to get the next equation:

P² = (mc²)²/t² + (pc)²/t²

Now, if mass is zero, which is the case for numbers, math sets and the like, we can eliminate that term:

P² = (pc)²/t²

Note that capital P is for power and lowercase p is for momentum. Next, we have an equation for momentum!! It is p = mv, which is momentum is mass times velocity. We replace the lowercase p in that last equation, then, as follows:

P² = (mvc)²/t²

Finally, if m is zero, which it is for incorporeal beings, this term also eliminates.

P²= 0

We take the square root of both sides to get the final number power equation:

P = 0

Thus, the almighty numbers have a zero power level if numbers have no mass.

This is now an irrefutable equation because it uses all the valid equations of physics. Thus, it is now proven that number power or the power of any mathematical equation has zero in our universe.”

So if physicalism is true, his own equation demonstrates that numbers have zero power to affect our universe and if all that humans are is just a recollection of particles, then the fiction (Fictionalism) he is using to try persuade others God has zero casual power in our universe, also has zero casual power in our universe, meaning that his mathematics will be unable to change anyone's minds because it does not have the power to affect the particles that comprise the neurons to change their mind! 

The moment his equation persuades anyone of its truth means we must assign a power value to his equation and thus be stuck with the logical incoherence of his zero power equation proving immaterial numbers have no causal power in the universe, somehow having the causal power to change a physical system (the neuron configurations on the brain) which his equation shows they can not to. 

In other words, if his equation convinces you that God has zero power, then you must concede that numbers have zero power and the mathematics that arise from it as well, but the moment numbers prove to have casual power the moment they persuade any theist, makes his math equation based on a false premise (sort of like the ultraviolet catastrophe where light was considered a wave and the equations did not work for higher frequency light). 

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/The_Live_Textbook_of_Physical_Chemistry_(Peverati)/16%3A_The_Motivation_for_Quantum_Mechanics/16.03%3A_The_Ultraviolet_Catastrophe

To put it another way, if any Theist becomes an atheist because of the Zero Power Equation, then numbers, which are spaceless, timeless and immaterial do have causal power to affect the universe, thus if he achieves his dream of “proving four billion people wrong” he immediately disproves his very equation as the mathematics he uses to prove non corporeal entities (like numbers) have zero power, do have physical power to alter brain chemistry, but if that's the case his equation is immediately not an accurate description of reality and he needs to write a new equation about how much spaceless, timeless and immaterial thoughts weigh… Good luck. 

Any deconversion proves his equation is false and if this happens his only escape as far as I can tell to preserve his equation is to either reject physicalism and accept the existence of some immaterial reality but the moment he does, he affirms the existence of the very reality his equation attempts to disprove and so as long as he maintains physicalism, he is stuck in a dilemma he can't escape. 

If physicalism is true and all that has the ability to affect physical reality is physical things, his equation then has no persuasive power (proven by his own equation) as it relies on non corporeal entities (numbers) to change physical structures of the brain from one set of beliefs based on neural chemistry, to another set of beliefs based on neural chemistry. 

If physicalism is true, then he must adopt some sort of fictionalism for his equations but at that point I can just dismiss his equation as if all that exists is the physical world and numbers are not real, I can simply deny the existence of numbers unless he convinces me numbers are real, but the moment he does he affirms an immaterial reality and is subject to my argument for the existence of God from mathematics. 

Premise 1: Mathematical truths are discovered by studying nature and thus are inherent in nature itself. 

Premise 2: Using the mathematical truths we are able to derive from nature, we discover more complex math built on the basic mathematical axioms found in nature. 

Conclusion 1: Either nature produces math or nature follows mathematical constructs. 

Premise 3: Math is mental in nature and only apprehended through minds, regardless of whether it is invented or discovered. 

Premise 4: Nature is a physical substance that is not a mind and not capable of apprehending mathematical structures which only minds are capable of either inventing or discovering. 

Therefore the math we discover in nature must be a product of a Mind and mathematics exists in a reality independent of the physical world. 

I'm going to take it one step further and argue that if Tony's equation is true then the universe we find ourselves in would not exist! I found it interesting that he believes this is a proof against the Kalam Cosmological Argument but he fails to understand the infinite regress problem that leads to the conclusion of a necessary spaceless, timeless and immaterial cause of some sort. 

We have at least three possible causes for the universe. 

Either nothing created the universe or something that is necessary (meaning that it can not fail to exist and is self-existent). 

Numbers are considered a necessary entity but since when did numbers cause anything? Thankfully, we can use the Zero Power equation that Tony Berard was kind enough to work on to rule out numbers and so we are left with only one other cause that meets the definition of a necessary cause and that is God. 

God is defined as a spaceless, timeless and immaterial cause with infinite power that brought the universe into existence. 

Already God as defined by classical Theism already is not subject to the Zero Power Equation because an Immaterial Being of infinite power can produce any value into the equation and so Tony has committed a false equivalence fallacy. 

“False Equivalence

Description: An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.

Logical Form:

Thing 1 and thing 2 both share characteristic A.

Therefore, things 1 and 2 are equal.

Example #1:

President Petutti ordered a military strike that killed many civilians. He is no different than any other mass murder and he belongs in prison!

Explanation: Both president Petutti and a mass murder share the characteristic that something they did resulted in the death of civilians. However, the circumstances, the level of responsibility, and the intent are significantly different for the president than the typical mass murder and ignoring these factors is unreasonable, thus makes the argument fallacious.”

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Equivalence

God as defined by Theism is a spaceless, timeless and immaterial Being with infinite power Who brought the universe into existence. 

Numbers are spaceless, timeless and immaterial, necessary objects that have no power. 

If the equation assumes that immateriality means zero power, the assumption behind the equation must be justified and so he must either prove that immaterial beings can not affect material reality or that it is unlikely they exist, but his equation then would not be an absolute proof, however he still hasn't escaped the problem. 

We now know that our universe began to exist and so our universe is a contingent entity (meaning it could fail to exist) and not necessary (it is not self existent). If our universe is the product of another universe then we must explain that universe and we immediately run into an infinite regress which is impossible. 

If there were an infinite number or parents going backwards into infinity when would you ever be born?

If there were an infinite number of days going backwards into infinity when would we ever reach today? 

If there were an infinite number of material causes going backwards into infinity our universe when would our universe ever begin to exist? 

We could always add one more set of parents ad infinitum, one more day ad infinitum and one more universe ad infinitum, eventually we will need a cause that is outside of the physical system, that is necessary, self-sustaining and able to bring physical reality into existence to start the chain of events that led to the universe we find ourselves in, which led to your parents, which led to you experience this day, at this moment in time, reading this article. 

Whatever this cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. 

Nothing meets this definition but since when does nothing ever produce anything (a quantum vacuum and foam is not nothing)? 

Numbers meet this criteria but the Zero Power Equation proves they could not bring the universe into existence. 

Whatever the spaceless, timeless and immaterial cause of the universe must have been powerful enough to bring the universe into existence and a Will to decide to bring it into existence otherwise, otherwise if this cause had no power, the universe would not exist and so the fact the universe exists because of a necessary spaceless, timeless and immaterial cause, disproves the Zero power equation! It must be false because here we are! 

Paradoxically, the physicist he relies on for his equation, questioned the nature of physical reality himself! 

We are … all aware of the situation regarding what will turn out to be the basic foundational concepts in physics: the point-mass or the particle is surely not among them; the field, in the Faraday—Maxwell sense, might be, but not with certainty. But that which we conceive as existing (“real”) should somehow be localized in time and space. That is, the real in one part of space, A, should (in theory) somehow “exist” independently of that which is thought of as real in another part of space, B. If a physical system stretches over A and B, then what is present in B should somehow have an existence independent of what is present in A. What is actually present in B should thus not depend upon the type of measurement carried out in the part of space A; it should also be independent of whether or not a measurement is made in A.

If one adheres to this program, then one can hardly view the quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the physically real. If one attempts, nevertheless, so to view it, then one must assume that the physically real in B undergoes a sudden change because of a measurement in A. My physical instincts bristle at that suggestion.

However, if one renounces the assumption that what is present in different parts of space has an independent, real existence, then I don’t see at all what physics is supposed to be describing. For what is thought to be a “system” is, after all, just conventional, and I do not see how one is supposed to divide up the world objectively so that one can make statements about the parts.

Albert Einstein 

M. Born , ed., Albert Einstein—Hedwig und Max Born. Briefwechsel 1916-55, Nymphenburger, Munich (1969), p. 223

I personally tend to agree with the scientist who challenged his philosophical assumptions about how reality should be and accepted it for what it is by accepting what the data was telling him. 

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

Max Planck

I hope this will help Tony and anyone else thinking about his equation do the same. 

Thanks for reading me and as always, God Bless you my friend and see you in the next one where I will share why I believe consciousness is irreducible to brain chemistry. 

What are we to make of Genesis?

Now personally I am open to having an ambiguous view of the opening chapters of the Bible and am okay with the dissonance of not dogmatically landing on any particular interpretation, though I understand not everyone is capable of this. I prefer to withhold judgment on issues that, in my mind, appear to be too unsettled, so that I have the flexibility to explore different aspects of the question without being locked into one way of thinking about something. Nonetheless, if you feel a need to latch on to one particular interpretation of Genesis you are welcome to it and I encourage you to do so… as long as we don't miss the point of what Genesis is trying to communicate of course. My starting place when interpreting Genesis is not dependent on clear scientific precision, so please allow me the chance to tell a short story to best articulate my point. 

Imagine it is past midnight and a young boy named Wes awakens to the smell of something burning. He staggers out of bed in a daze rubbing his eyes as he approaches his window, a cough that begins to increase with more and more intensity as he gazes out of the window. Outside, he sees his mother and father, along with his siblings, but it isn't long before he sees the faces of his family grow cold, looking around in a frantic panic. Wes hears a loud bang in the background and turns to see glowing embers accompanying a beam that was set on fire by a furious blaze that was beginning to quickly consume his room. He perks up when he hears his dad outside the window and quickly turns to open the window. 

“Wes! Wes! My boy, do you see the firemen below you?!” His father could barely hold back the panic in his voice, but did his best to maintain his composure for the sake of his son. 

“I see them daddy!” Wes exclaimed. “But I'm scared! I'm afraid!” 

His dad took a deep sigh as the firemen prepared the net that would be used to catch the seven year old Wes after he jumped from the window. “I know my boy. You have to jump though.” 

Wes’s fear began to increase tremendously as the fire began growing hotter behind him, but his fear of heights caused him to freeze in place.  Wes was an imaginative boy and was always telling the grandest of stories and his mind flashed to a superhero he had invented that could turn into steel . 

“DAD! I KNOW WHAT TO DO!” Wes shouted with glee. “I'll jump out and become Steelzor! That way when I hit the ground I won't be hurt!” 

His father held back his panic as the second story windows blew. “Okay son! Now jump!”  

Wes quickly jumped and fell safely into the net the firefighters had prepared for him, was rushed to the hospital and eventually grew up into a successful novelist, with his most successful comic strip being Steelman. His origin story begins inside a house, with a little boy named Wesley after a fire gone wrong that releases a special chemical that turns him into Steelzor… 

Now let me ask a simple question, what was more important in the moment with young Wes for the father to communicate, the truth that Steelzor is a fictional character, that it's the firefighters along with the nets that will actually save him and it's just his imagination running wild that is deluding him into thinking he is a superhero made of steel or working within his son's beliefs for the sake of the greater truth, that is, he must jump out of the building to live? 

I am not a neuroscientist, but I hardly believe that any of my children would bother much with my ramblings of the location of the of the central sulcus or the pre and post central gyri, nor care to hear me explain the process of an action potential and yet I do not expect them to relate upwards to me, rather I condescend to their level of understanding, similar to Wes’s father in our imagined scenario. I believe this may be what's happening with God and the Hebrew people, rather than expect them to apprehend the scientific nature of reality, with physics that could not possibly be apprehended by them in their time period, he simply related to them in a way they could understand. Rather than multiple gods of creations carrying out various tasks, Yahweh wanted them to know He was the one that created it all. 

Now I am aware that most who adhere to a literalist interpretation of scripture will reject my approach to the text and I offer no objection to their objection! If this is what you believe the text says, then that is what you believe the text says and I am not your lord, not your judge and I simply leave you with respect and love to you in your interpretation, as again I stress that I am more interested in understanding the point of the text, than argue whether there is a literal talking snake in the garden or not. I simply let the Lutheran of the world tell me “is means is” and the Zwingli’s of the world disagree while leaving room for mystery on my part and just partake in the Lord’s supper in remembrance of Christ, regardless of how Christ is present, knowing He is somehow. 

As we have discussed, I believe Christ is the tree of life and so whatever fruit that would come from Him, must give life as He is the source of all life. Consider the following scriptures. 

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

John 6:66-69

[25] Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; [26] and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

John 11:25-26 

43 “For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil [a]treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

Luke 6:43-45 

The Lord says,

4 “Then I will heal you of your faithlessness;

    my love will know no bounds,

    for my anger will be gone forever.

5 I will be to Israel

    like a refreshing dew from heaven.

Israel will blossom like the lily;

    it will send roots deep into the soil

    like the cedars in Lebanon.

6 Its branches will spread out like beautiful olive trees,

    as fragrant as the cedars of Lebanon.

7 My people will again live under my shade.

    They will flourish like grain and blossom Like Grapevines.

    They will be as fragrant as the wines of Lebanon.

8 “O Israel, stay away from idols!

    I am the one who answers your prayers and cares for you.

I am like a tree that is always green;

    all your fruit comes from me.”

Hosea 14:4-8 

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 

John 17:3

It seems clear to me then, that a relationship with God through His Son the Lord Jesus Christ is what gives us eternal life and that eternal death is separation from God, by rejecting His Son, who is the only means by which He will accept reconciliation. I want to reiterate Luke 6:43-45 for just a moment as I think this will bring home the crucial message of Genesis and what God is trying to teach us through the text. 

If people are known by their fruit, that is, by their behavior and the results of their teaching, since the Lord Jesus has no sin (1 Peter 2:21-22, 1 Corinthians 5:21), is God (John 1:1-4 and 14, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14) and the source of eternal life (John 11:25-26), that means there is no disease or corruption in Him. 

If Satan is the embodiment of evil and is the serpent in the garden (Revelation 12:9, 2 Corinthians 11:3, Genesis 3:15, and 1 John 3:8), then in a sense we could refer to Satan as the tree of death since his corruption produces diseased fruit that if bitten, leads to eternal death through the act of disobedience to the Author of Life (Acts 3:15). 

Since sin separates us from God, the source of eternal life (Isaiah 59:1-2) we have a clear picture of what was going on in the garden of Eden. 

We had two trees, one the tree of eternal life who is the Lord Jesus Christ and the other the tree of eternal death who is Satan. Obeying the Words of Christ is life and peace and obeying the voice of Satan is death and destruction. Adam and Eve were presented with a choice of whom they were going to follow and I believe that the choice in and of itself was what led to the knowledge of good and evil. If I am to be consistent in my hermeneutics, then if the tree of life is a symbol of Christ, then the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must be a symbol of the choice to disobey God. Recall in the earlier blog, “Eve’s Room” and the parallels with the philosophical thought experiment Mary's room. Eve, like Mary only possessed theoretical knowledge, it was not until she carried out her act of disobedience to God did she obtain experiential knowledge of evil, just as it was not until Mary saw red for after stepping out of the room did she gain knowledge that could not be accessed through information alone. 

God is goodness, to obey Him perfectly is to only do good, to disobey would be to do evil as His will leads to selflessness, our wills not aligned with His produce only selfishness and destruction as a result. If God said, “You may use any pencil in this bag, except the blue pencil” you can trust that in His divine foreknowledge He has good reason for you not to use it and to not trust His voice, is to reject the voice of Goodness Himself and ultimately all that is pure. The fruit is not what's important in the story, it's the decision of what Adam and Eve did with the fruit that is important. 

Everyday you and I choose to obey one of two voices and we often choose to “eat the fruit” when we give in to the serpent's voice and rationalize our sin, knowing it's wrong and just like Adam and Eve, we blame others for our sinful choices and refuse to take accountability for our sins. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of humanity, told in a way that transcends the ages with timeless truths that connect to us all on a deeply relational level, by a culture I believe God condescended to, speaking in a way not concerned with scientific accuracy, but to highlight the deeper truths in our souls that long to return to Eden with our Creator. I believe there was a literal garden, a literal Adam and Eve and a literal demonic being that came into the garden and led the pair into rebellion against God, bringing about the fall of man, told through the symbolic language and tradition of that ancient culture. 

Whether you want to believe in a literal young earth interpretation where God forms Adam from dust and Eve from his rib with snakes that somehow lose the ability to talk, an old earth view with Adam as a special creation with various mixes of metaphor or as theistic evolutionist would would interpret, Adam and Eve being hominems that God imbued with consciousness and placed in the garden of Eden to be priests of creation, the meaning is all the same. Humanity was deceived by the serpent and creation as a result was cursed and separated from God. 

Whatever view seems the most rational, I will leave to the reader to decide, but know that whichever interpretation you believe to be correct, the central points of Genesis must not be forgotten. Humanity was once in a perfect relationship with God and we fell, but our loving Creator made a way back home for all of us through His Son Jesus and I think as long as we keep that in our hearts, we will be just fine, whatever conclusions we come to.