Does Islam Present Allah As A Deceiver? "Linguistic" Justification (PART II)

Before I resume our discussion of makr, it maybe useful to point out that the Qur'anic identification of Allah with deceit is by no means contingent upon a single word or phrase in Arabic. The Quran employs several other Arabic words to denote Allah's deceit. In this post I will cite an absolute uncontested usage. Another word in describing the deception of Allah, that word is khida/khuda/khada. It is unambiguously translated as deceive in this germane passage:

"Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives them (Inna al-munafiqeena yukhadiaaoona Allaha wahuwa khadiaauhum). And when they stand up for As-Salat (the prayer), they stand with laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allah but little." S. 4:142 Hilali-Khan

Here, once again is the lexical meaning of this specific word:

Kh-Dal-Ayn = To hide/conceal, double or fold, deceive or outwit, pretend, to enter, vary in state/condition, refrain or refuse, relinquish, to be in little demand of, deviate from the right course, resist/unyield/incompliant, turn away and behave proudly. 

khada'a vb. (1) 

impf. act. 2:9, 8:62 

pcple. act. 4:142 

khada'a vb. (3) impf. act. 2:9, 4:142 

LL, V2, p: 344, 345, 346, 347 (Source)

The usage of Khda is rare, it only appears 5 times altogether in the Qur'an and only within 3 verses. Twice it occurs in 2:9, and then again twice in 4:142 and once in 8:62. The translators have taken this word to refer to deceit in all 5 usages. Since I've quoted the first two usages (4:142) I will proceed to quote the final 3. Notice how this term is used in the following references:

And if they intend to deceive you (yakhdaaooka), then verily, Allah is All-Sufficient for you. He it is Who has supported you with His Help and with the believers. S. 8:62 Hilali-Khan 

And:

They (think to) deceive Allah (yukhadiaaoona) and those who believe, while they only deceive (yakhdaaoona) themselves, and perceive (it) not! S. 2:9 Hilali-Khan 

The unbelievers are depicted as trying to deceive Muhammad and the believers. So there can be no doubt from the general and specific usage and the context that Allah also uses deception in deceiving them: "Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives them" (4:142).

One of the greatest Islamic exegetes Ibn Kathir who quotes this verse in the Qur'an and provides an explanation of the passage has been translated by Muslim translators unanimously as deceive:

"(Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives them.) There is no doubt that Allah can never be deceived, for He has perfect knowledge of the secrets and what the hearts conceal. However, the hypocrites, due to their ignorance, scarce knowledge and weak minds, think that since they were successful in deceiving people, using Islamic Law as a cover of safety for themselves, they will acquire the same status with Allah on the Day of Resurrection and deceive Him too. Allah states that on that Day, the hypocrites will swear to Him that they were on the path of righteousness and correctness thinking that such statement will benefit them with Allah. For instance, Allah said, (but it is He Who deceives them) means, He lures them further into injustice and misguidance. He also prevents them from reaching the truth in this life and on the Day of Resurrection." (QTafsir; Qur'an 4:142; or translated by Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman)

The Muslim translators who translated the following commentaries into English all unanimously agree with this translation of the citation (4:142). Tafsir Al Jalalyan is translated as: "He is tricking them". Tafsir Al-Qushairi as "He is tricking them" and later quoted as explaining: "God sends astray, you will never find for him a way". Tafsir Al-Tustari "The hypocrites try to deceive God, but it is He who causes them to be deceived" Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs: "(Lo! the hypocrites) 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy and his followers (seek to beguile Allah) they disbelieve in Him and oppose Him in secret and think that they are deceiving Him, (but it is Allah Who beguileth them)". (Tafsirs)

In this case, this rendering is supported by most translations of the Qur'an in English:

• Ahmed: The hypocrites try to deceive God, but He (leads them to) deceive themselves. When they stand up for performing the service of prayer they do so indolently, only for show, and remember God but little, (English Translation) 

More than 30 English translations of the Qur'an including Muslims and non-Muslims render it this way or similarly: 

• Muhammad Asad: Behold, the hypocrites seek to deceive God - the while it is He who causes them to be deceived [by themselves] And when they rise to pray, they rise reluctantly, only to be seen and praised by men, remembering God but seldom, 

• M. M. Pickthall: Lo! the hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He Who beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perform it languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but little; 

• Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar: Truly, the ones who are hypocrites seek to trick God. And He is The One Who Deceives them, and when they stood up for formal prayer, they stood up lazily to make display to humanity. And they remember not God but a little, 

• Wahiduddin Khan: The hypocrites seek to outwit God but it is He who outwits them. And when they stand up for prayer, they do so reluctantly and to be seen by others, and they hardly remember God at all. 

• T.B.Irving: Hypocrites try to outwit God while He is outwitting them! Whenever they stand up to pray, they stand up lazily to be seen by other people and seldom mention God, 

• Safi Kaskas: The hypocrites try to deceive God, but it is He who causes them to be deceived. They rise to pray, they rise reluctantly, only to be seen and praised by men, seldom remembering God, 

• The Monotheist Group (2011 Edition): The hypocrites seek to deceive God, while He is deceiving them; and if they attend to the contact-method, they do so lazily, only to show the people; they do not remember God except very little. 

• Abdel Haleem: The hypocrites try to deceive God, but it is He who causes them to be deceived. When they stand up to pray, they do so sluggishly, showing off in front of people, and remember God only a little, 

• Abdul Majid Daryabadi: Verily the hypocrites would beguile Allah, whereas it is He who beguileth them, ; and when they stand up to prayer, they stand up languidly, making a show to the people, and they remember not Allah but little. 

• Aisha Bewley: The hypocrites think they deceive Allah, but He is deceiving them. When they get up to pray, they get up lazily, showing off to people, and only remembering Allah a very little. 

• Ali Ünal: The hypocrites would trick God, whereas it is God who "tricks" them (by causing them to fall into their own traps). When they rise to do the Prayer, they rise lazily, and to be seen by people (to show them that they are Muslims); and they do not remember God (within or outside the Prayer) save a little. 

• Ali Quli Qara'i: The hypocrites indeed seek to deceive Allah, but it is He who outwits them. When they stand up for prayer, they stand up lazily, showing off to the people and not remembering Allah except a little, 

• Hamid S. Aziz: Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but He deceives them; and when they rise up to pray, they rise up lazily to be seen of men, and little do they remember Allah; 

• Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali: Surely the hypocrites try to deceive Allah, and He is deceiving them; and when they rise up for prayer, they rise up lazily, showing off to (other) men, and they do not remember Allah except a little. 

• Muhammad Sarwar: The hypocrites try to deceive God but He, in fact, deceives them. They stand up in prayer lazily just to show that they pray, but, in truth they remember God very little. 

• Muhammad Taqi Usmani: Surely, the hypocrites (try to) deceive Allah while He is the One who leaves them in deception. And when they stand for Salah, they stand up lazily, only to show people, and do not remember Allah but a little, 

• Syed Vickar Ahamed: Surely, they, the hypocrites, search ways of deceiving Allah, but it is He Who will deceive (and reach over) them: When they stand up to prayer, they stand without sincerity, to be seen of men, but little do they hold Allah in remembrance; 

• Umm Muhammad (Sahih International): Indeed, the hypocrites [think to] deceive Allah , but He is deceiving them. And when they stand for prayer, they stand lazily, showing [themselves to] the people and not remembering Allah except a little, 

• Dr. Munir Munshey: The hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is actually He Who dupes them. They are lethargic (and listless) when they stand for ´salat´ _ (they) only (wish) to be noticed by others (and just go through the motions of ´salat´). Little do they remember Allah! 

• Talal A. Itani: The hypocrites try to deceive God, but He is deceiving them. And when they stand for prayer, they stand lazily, showing off in front of people, and remembering God only a little. 

• Maududi: Behold, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is they who are being deluded by Him. When they rise to Prayer, they rise reluctantly, and only to be seen by men. They remember Allah but little. 

• Ali Bakhtiari Nejad: The hypocrites indeed (think that) they deceive God, while He is their deceiver, and when they perform the mandatory prayer they perform it lazily to be seen by the people and they seldom remember God. 

• The Monotheist Group (2013 Edition): The hypocrites seek to deceive God, while He is deceiving them; and if they stand to make the contact prayer, they do so lazily, only to show the people; they do not remember God except very little. 

• Mohammad Shafi: Indeed, the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah, and it is He, who deceives them! And when they stand up for prayer they stand with laziness. They do it only to show off to men and remember Allah but little. 

• Faridul Haque: Undoubtedly the hypocrites, in their fancy, seek to deceive Allah whereas He will extinguish them while making them oblivious; and when they stand up for prayer, they do it unwillingly and for others to see, and they do not remember Allah except a little. 

• Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah: The hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but Allah is deceiving them. When they stand up to pray, they stand up lazily, showing off to the people and do not remember Allah, except a little, 

• Muhammad Ahmed - Samira Ahmed: That the hypocrites deceive God, and He is deceiving them, and if they got up to the prayers, they got up lazy, they pretend/show off (to) the people, and they do not mention/remember God except a little. 

• Rashad Khalifa: The hypocrites think that they are deceiving GOD, but He is the One who leads them on. When they get up for the Contact Prayer (Salat), they get up lazily. That is because they only show off in front of the people, and rarely do they think of GOD. 

• Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilali: Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives them. And when they stand up for As-Salat (the prayer), they stand with laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allah but little. 

• Arthur John Arberry: The hypocrites seek to trick God, but God is tricking them. When they stand up to pray they stand up lazily, showing off to the people and not remembering God save a little; 

• Edward Henry Palmer: Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive God, but He deceives them; and when they rise up to pray, they rise up lazily to be seen of men, and do not remember God, except a few; 

• George Sale: The hypocrites act deceitfully with God, but he will deceive them; and when they stand up to pray, they stand carelesly, affecting to be seen of men, and remember not God, unless a little, 

• John Medows Rodwell: The hypocrites would deceive God, but He will deceive them! When they stand up for prayer, they stand carelessly, to be seen of men, and they remember God but little: 

• N J Dawood: The hypocrites seek to deceive God, but it is He who deceives them. When they rise to pray, they stand up sluggishly: they pray for the sake of ostentation and remember God but little, 

• Sayyid Qutb: The hypocrites seek to deceive God, the while it is He who causes them to be deceived [by themselves]. When they rise to pray, they rise reluctantly, only to be seen by people, remembering God but seldom

• Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli: Verily the hypocrites seek to trick Allah, but He is tricking them. And, when they stand up For prayer they stand up lazily; showing off to the people, and they do not remember Allah save a little. 

• Mir Aneesuddin: The hypocrites certainly (presume to) deceive Allah but He deceives them. And when they stand up for worship (salat), they stand up as if loaded with a burden, (just) to show to human beings and they do not remember Allah save a little. (English Qurans)

Does Islam Present Allah As A Deceiver? Lexical Justification (PART I)

A highly controversial and contentious issue between some rival apologists and/or linguists is whether the Islamic deity is capable of deception, and if he is, whether this is a moral act. But even more specifically does the Scripture of Islam, namely: the Qur'an or any other authoritative Islamic source explicitly identify Allah as a deceiver or an entity that participates in deceit?

Germane to the topic is one of the key Arabic words that appears in the Qur'an "makr". The meaning of which is frequently contested or debated among these individuals. The Arabic noun: Makr comes from the triliteral root meem, kaaf, raah (Arabic: م ك ر) and occurs 43 times in the Quran. Nearly every English translation of the Qur'an whether made by Muslims or Orientalists translate the term and it's derivatives, primarily (or most often) as plotting, planning, devising or scheming. At minimum these words could appear to be taken as morally neutral translations and do not in themselves denote any nefarious intent that could be ascribed to the subjects/objects identified. I will propose that this rendering in English is not an adequate reflection of the word or it's derivatives. These translations have left it a little open ended in that they have not conveyed the full meaning of the term. In the future I will also provide an important explanation for why I think these terms are so often translated inadequately. 

Makr occurs in the Qur'an in three derived forms: 

1. 22 times as the verb makara (مَكَرَ)
2. 19 times as the noun makr (مَكْر)
3. Twice as the active participle mākirīn (مَٰكِرِين)

In due time, I will cover every usage of makr in all of the passages, and in the next post I will cover some pertinent examples. Before I move into investigating the usage in some of the essential passages that will help us ascertain the meaning, firstly it may be helpful to provide the Arabic-English dictionary definition.

LEXICAL DEFINITION

Our first lexicon gives us the straight forward meaning of makr from classical Arabic, and it's meaning/applicability to all 43 usages in the Qur'an:

"Miim-Kaf-Ra = To practice DECEIT OR GUILE or circumvention, practice evasion or elusion, to plot, to exercise art or craft or CUNNING, act with policy, practice stratagem.

makara vb. (1)

perf. act. 3:54, 3:54, 7:123, 13:42, 14:46, 16:26, 16:45, 27:50, 40:45, 71:22
impf. act. 6:123, 6:123, 6:124, 8:30, 8:30, 8:30, 10:21, 12:102, 16:127, 27:70, 35:10

n.vb. 7:99, 7:99, 7:123, 10:21, 10:21, 12:31, 13:33, 13:42, 14:46, 14:46, 14:46, 27:50, 27:50, 27:51, 34:33, 35:10, 35:43, 35:43, 71:22

pcple. act. 3:54, 8:30 

LL, V7, p: 256 (Project Root List)"

Here are a few excerpts from Wiki explaining Lane's Lexicon. The Arabic–English Lexicon is an Arabic–English dictionary complied by Edward William Lane (died 1876). It was published in eight volumes during the second half of the 19th century. It consists of Arabic words defined and explained in the English language. But Lane does not use his own knowledge of Arabic to give definitions to the words. Instead, the definitions are taken from older Arabic dictionaries, primarily medieval Arabic dictionaries. Lane translates these definitions into English, and he carefully notes which dictionaries are giving which definitions.Lane's lexicon is based on medieval Arabic dictionaries plus the dictionary Taj al-ʿArus ("Crown of the Bride") by al-Zabidi which was completed in the early 19th century. In total, 112 lexicographic sources are cited in the work. Lane also read widely in order to provide examples for the entries.The lexicon was designed to consist of two "Books" or Divisions: one for the common, classical words, another for the rare ones. Volume I of the First Division was published in 1863; Volume II in 1865; Volume III in 1867; Volumes IV and V in 1872. A total of 2,219 pages were proofread by Lane himself. Lane's great-nephew Stanley Lane-Poole published Volumes VI, VII and VIII from 1877–1893 using Lane's incomplete notes left behind him. Lane's work focuses on classical vocabulary, thus later scholars found it necessary to compile supplements to the work for post-classical usage. Therefore Lane's Lexicon offers us insight into both the classical and post-classical usage of the noun:

1 مَكَرَ ذ , aor. مَكُرَ , (Msb, TA,) inf. n. مَكْرٌ; (S, A, Msb, K;) and ↓ امكر ; (Msb;) He practised deceit, guile, or circumvention; or he practised deceit, guile, or circumvention, desiring to do to another a foul, an abominable, or an evil, action, clandestinely, or without his knowing whence it proceeded; syn. خَدَعَ; (Msb;) and of the inf. n. خَدِيعَةٌ: (S, A, K:) he practised an evasion or elusion, a shift, an artifice, or artful contrivance or device, a machination, a trick, a plot, a stratagem, or an expedient; he plotted; or he exercised art, craft, cunning, or skill, in the management or ordering of affairs, with excellent consideration or deliberation, and ability to manage according to his own free will; syn. of the inf. n. إِِحْتِيَالٌ: (S, TA:) or to this explanation, conveyed by احتيال as the syn. of the inf. n., should be added secretly, or privately: (Lth, TA:) مَكْرٌ is praised or dispraised according to the nature of its object. (El-Basáir.) [For further explanation, see what follows.] ― -b2- It is trans. by means of بِ: and also, accord. to Z, by itself: (MF:) [but I know not any instance of its being trans. by itself: except as meaning he plotted a thing: see مَكْرَ السَّيِّئ in the Kur, xxxv. 41, cited voce سَيِّئٌ:] you say مَكَرَ بِهِ, (S, A, TA,) aor. and inf. n. as above, (S, TA,) meaning, He deceived, beguiled, or circumvented, him; or he deceived, beguiled, or circumvented, him, and desired to do him a foul, an abominable, or an evil, action, clandestinely, or without his knowing whence it proceeded: &c.: (S, A, TA:) syn. كَادَهُ: or it differs [somewhat] from كاده, accord. to Aboo-Hilál El-'Askeree: (TA:) some say, that مكر به signifies as above with the addition of feigning the contrary of his real intentions; which كاده does not imply: or this latter signifies “ he did him harm, ” or “ mischief; ” and the former, he did him harm, or mischief, clandestinely. (MF, voce كاد.) See art. خدع. ― -b3- مَكَرَ also signifies He managed with thought, or consideration, or acted with policy, and practised stratagem, in war. (TA.) ― -b4- مَكَرَ ا@للّٰهُ and ↓ أَمْكَرَ are syn., (IKtt, Msb,) signifying, (tropical:) God recompensed, or requited, for مَكْر [or the practising deceit, &c.]: (Lth, * Msb, TA: *) or مَكْرُ ا@للّٰهِ signifies God's granting a man respite or delay, and enabling him to accomplish his worldly aims [so as to bring upon himself the punishment due to his evil actions]: (Er-Rághib, TA:) or, accord. to IAth, God's causing his trials to befall his enemies, exclusively of his friends: or his taking men by little and little, so that they do not reckon upon it, bestowing upon them renewed favours for acts of obedience which are imagined to be accepted whereas they are rejected. (TA.) An Arabic-English Lexicon. London. Williams and Norgate. 1863.

As recorded by Lane, while some of the later commentators attempt to tone or water down the direct linguistic meaning, ultimately they merely succeeded in offering theological speculation that is intended to account for how Allah is suppose to have participated in human affairs with deception e.g. whether he deceives directly and/or indirectly. However this has no direct import or bearing on the original meaning itself, but rather it points to a later theologically refined rendering of the term. This eventually influenced or caused many Islamic theologians to render makr into English based on a theological disposition rather than a purely linguistical analysis. More on this issue in a future post.

Even in our post-modern period, nothing has changed the directly deriving meaning of the term, that is the practice of guile, deceit or trickery. The classical and even modern Arabic, (as confirmed by Al-Mawrid: A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary) both attest to this usage:

In Modern Standard Arabic. Al-Mawrid is a bilingual Arabic-English dictionary, the most commonly used dictionary for English language learners, now in its

22nd edition. In Arabic word ‘makara,’ literally means to deceive, delude, cheat, double-cross, dupe. 

Raymond Ibrahim an author for the the Middle Eastern Forum (and JihadWatch) says the following: 

"In the original Arabic, the word translated (actually, euphemized) into English as "planner/plotter"—makar—most literally denotes (and, to Arabic ears, connotes) deception. Moreover, according to the definitive Hans Wehr Arabic-English dictionary, the trilateral root "m-k-r" means "to deceive, delude, cheat, dupe, gull, double-cross." One who takes on the attributes of "m-k-r"—such as Allah in the Koran—is described as "sly, crafty, wily, an impostor, a swindler." In colloquial Arabic, a makar is a sly trickster." (MEF)

Hans Wehr, author of the leading Arabic-English dictionary, defines "makara" as "deceive, delude, cheat, dupe, gull, double-cross." (Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (London: Macdonald and Evans LTD, 1974), 917.

An updated version (1979) of the same dictionary is available online. (see the above right). The 4th edition is also available here. Here is a the definition provided in text format:

"makara u (makr) to DECEIVE, DELUDE, CHEAT, DUPE, GULL, DOUBLE-CROSS… 

III to try TO DECEIVE… 

makr cunning, craftiness, slyness, wiliness, double-dealing, DECEPTION, 

TRICKERY… 

makr ruse, artifice, stratagem, wile, trick dodge 

makkar and… makur cunning, sly, crafty, wily, shrewd, artful; sly, crafty person, IMPOSTER, SWINDLER 

makir pl.… makara sly cunning, wily (Hans-Wehr, P. 1076)

From Lissan Al Arab 

"مكر مكر : الليث : المكر احتيال في خفية  

Makara Makara : trickery, deceiving, tricking in secret/ hiddenly 

جري مجرى هذا القول قوله تعالى : يخادعون الله وهو خادعهم و الله يستهزئ بهم ، مما جاء في كتاب الله - عز وجل . ابن سيده : المكر الخديعة والاحتيال ، مكر يمكر مكرا ومكر به . وفي حديث الدعاء : اللهم امكر لي ولا تمكر بي

 "And it can go as Allah says: They trick Allah and he tricks him and Allah mocks them"
Which came from the book of Allah the most high Ibn Sayda: Makir:  Trickery and Slyness Makara, Yumakar, Makran and Makara behi And in the Hadith Duaa (Prayer): "O  Allah deceive for me and do not deceive me."" Or as Google Translate has it: "Jerry course of this to say the verse: He Khadahm deceive Allah and God mocks them, which came in the Book of Allah - the Almighty. Son of his master: cunning deceit and fraud, deceit plotted subtle and cunning it. In an interview to pray: God Amkr me nor my Tmkr"

In addition there are two online Arabic dictionaries that report makr as as guile, trick, deception, conniving and sly in Arabic (1,2).

A literal rendering of the Qur'an into English is made by several Muslim speaking Arabic-English translators of the Qur'an: "And they cheated/deceived and God cheated/deceived, and God (is) the best (of) the cheaters/deceivers." 3:50 - Revealed in Madinah (English: Literal).

A Lexical Quran with a literal translation by Muhammad Ahmed and his daughter Samira Ahmed also translate many of the passages containing the word: Makr, literally and explicitly. e.g. "And they cheated/deceived and God cheated/deceived, and God (is) the best (of) the cheaters/deceivers." (3:54).

Google translate (along with 10 other Arabic-English translation websites; see below) whether translating, the noun, verb, or adjective have makr exactly the same as the authoritative dictionaries and lexicons:

Note: what is interesting, is that occasionally , when certain Qur'anic passages are put into the translator, the translation is often changed into planned/plotted/devised, a meaning not attested to any where by the usage in and of itself or else-where in the translator. Hence standard usage is completely unanimous. This demonstrates that possibly certain Muslims used the "suggest an edit" function in order to alter the translation when Qur'anic passages are inserted into the translator itself. This modification would be to help sustain or reckon the translation as compatible with many of the "official" mainstream English translations made by Muslims themselves, who in turn influence many orientalists to cohere as part of tradition and agree with such renderings.

Here are all of the Website Dictionary Translators:

Finally while nearly every mainstream translator of the Qur'an has not translated makr as deceit many Muslim translators, have no problem translating Arabic words as deceitful in passages of the Qur'an, outside of official translations of the Qur'an. Perhaps the most obvious reason for this is because other Islamic literature is read much less often by English speaking non-Muslims, hence soft renderings are not as required. In sources outside the Qur'ran there is no set rule, no such standardization, regulation or conformity is as perfectly required by the more "official" and common translations. These other sources that cite verses from the Qur'an and translate them more reliably/accurately with the lexicons above include commentaries, books, ahadith, and history, more on this in the coming post.

Did Jesus Claim To Be Divine? Forgiveness of Sins: Kingly, Priestly, Prophetic or Divine?

Today I'm going to address a claim made by Bart Ehrman. The claim that the historical Jesus's own statements pertaining to forgiveness could be construed as a self-designation to be apart of a priestly class:

"Someone may argue that there are other reasons, apart from explicit divine self-claims, to suspect that Jesus saw himself as divine. For example, he does amazing miracles that surely only a divine figure could do; and he forgives people’s sins, which surely is a prerogative of God alone; and he receives worship, as people bow down before him, which surely indicates that he welcomes divine honors...When Jesus forgives sins, he never says “I forgive you,” as God might say, but “your sins are forgiven,” which means that God has forgiven the sins. This prerogative for pronouncing sins forgiven was otherwise reserved for Jewish priests in honor of sacrifices that worshipers made at the temple. Jesus may be claiming a priestly prerogative, but not a divine one." (How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Kindle Edition With Calibre (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2014.) p. 247)

Best Interpretation of the Account

Before I begin, it is worth noting that the reason why Ehrman had to appeal to the priestly office to account for the phenomenon of the forgiveness of sin is due to the fact that in ancient Israel, it was priests and not prophets (or kings) who were responsible for the forgiveness of sins. As Ehrman knows the roles of these anointed classes were always segregated. Even a king could only make pronouncements not forgiveness of sins, that was for God who appointed and reserved a priestly rank to perform such functions. There are no examples of prophets and kings forgiving sins before or contemporary to Jesus, it's solely, solemnly and exclusively the role of priests. This means if Jesus is not claiming a priestly prerogative then the only alternative is that he is definitively exclaiming an outlandish divine and supernatural prerogative by Jewish reckoning, that no other king or priest or prophet has ever attributed to himself in all the known history of Israel.

In the context of this historical account (Mark 2:1-12 cf. Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26) Jesus is not asserting, nor even hinting at a claim to be an earthly high priest. Nor is he implying or espousing he acquired any form of judeo-priestly authority, nor did his opponents (or allies) view him as a member of the priestly elite, rather the import of his statements resulted in them deducing he was making a divine claim about himself and that he personally had authority direct from God, something God alone possessed was accessible to this man from no where, the backwards town of Nazareth, a preacher from Galilee that no one had heard of. Neither the historical Jesus nor his audience viewed him as someone who had undertaken formal theological training in any setting whatsoever. He was neither a priest representing the Pharisees or Samaritans, let alone was he employed as an errand boy for the temple. 

According to Ehrman's view he was taken to be a renegade rabbi, someone who had no formal Jewish education who had never been to Yeshiva (Jewish School), he was merely from the remote village of Nazareth, along with his illiterate, village-peasant fishermen group. He had no prominence or reputation as a scholar or a priest, a scribe, or lawyer but he was a persistent public nuisance and disturbance. He was seen according to Ehrman as a controversial local who preached an apocalyptic message in every town he imparted himself upon. It is with that prolific context, we can point to the account. They ask: "how is he able to enunciate the forgiveness of sins?" They say: "who can forgive sins but God alone!". But does this imply the scribes (very educated in Jewish Law and Tradition) were exclaiming priests were excluded from their own prerogative to forgive sins? That is highly unlikely or dubious since we are talking about educated,  literate Jews who had a formal theological training. By "God alone" then, it is implied forgiveness cannot take place outside of the domain, government, kingdom or authority decreed by God, his Law or his pre-set authorities in conjunction with his temple. 

This was taken to be an infallible and permanent authority by almost every living Jew at the time. God established the systematic procedure to acquire forgiveness through Moses and ordained the temple and it's restoration for Israel, there was no negotiation with that system, rather this was a collective and universal authority given to the custodians of the Temple, the Sanhedrin, that is the Elders instilled by God himself through Moses and protected by the Priests, Prophets and Kings. God set up a system, he planned the appropriate means to declare atonement through the temple, the Sanhedrin, priests, the official rites, rituals and ceremonies associated with Torah and Jewish tradition. No one is suppose to claim they independently of God's pre-established rulings and offices are given God's very power/authority to forgive sins, that would be literal idolatry from the Jewish perspective who were co-dependent on the religious priesthood and atone made and ordained by God. 

God had already supposedly related his own divine authority to Moses and his successors, a divine authority that cannot be usurped. Now apparently the historical Jesus was contradicting what was viewed to be God's very own fixed decree. He was just a rural preacher, a Rabbi among a group of relatively unknown men who had no formal authority to usurp divinely mandated institutions given to Israel by the Almighty. How could Jesus possibly claim this? He was on the outside, he was not apart of the recognized system. He was the prophet who asserted God's kingdom, but now (according to Ehrman) he claimed he had the very authority/power belonging to this everlasting kingdom and universal government, including even the very power to forgive sin. Who exactly was this audacious character claiming to be? Not only was he merely claiming to be the prophet announcing his own coming kingdom, he was now telling his disciples he was to be the Ruler and Judge of this kingdom. But now he appeared to claim to fully represent the authority of God's kingdom on earth, evening claiming God's very own divine prerogative to forgive others without paying his dues to God's ruling priesthood and authorities as if he were even the Lord of the temple itself 

Challenging The Priestly Interpretation In Light of Bart Ehrman!

Ehrman thinks that Jesus during his public ministry never claimed he was the Anointed one, the Messianic King: 

"The first is one I have already mentioned, that “Christ” (i.e., anointed one; i.e., messiah) was far and away the most common descriptive title the early Christians used for Jesus, so much so that they often called him Christ rather than Jesus (so that, despite my little joke earlier, it really did begin to function as his name). This is very surprising, given the fact that as far as we can tell, Jesus did nothing during his life to make anyone think that he was this anointed one." (IBID: p. 225)

And:

"Here there are two facts to bear in mind. The first is to reaffirm that we have no record of Jesus ever proclaiming himself to be the future king of the Jews, the messiah, in a public context. This is never his message. His message is about the coming kingdom to be brought by the Son of Man. He always keeps himself out of it."  (IBID: p. 236)

Rather Ehrman thinks Jesus privately shared his view of himself as the kingly Messiah with the disciples. One of them (Judas Iscariot) eventually gave this information to the Jewish authorities. Jesus was given over to the Romans as an insurrectionist and upon his trial would not deny this belief, ultimately resulting in an abrupt end to Jesus career and his death under Pilate. 

However if Jesus never proclaimed he was the anointed king of Israel in public, why would he proclaim he was an anointed priest? A belief of his which would of been even more concealed over that of his role as Messianic King! And if he was a priest, why wouldn't he just appeal to his priestly heritage upon his trial before the Sanhedrin? Why would he even put on trial, if he was among their brethren from the start? And why would he admit he is the anointed Messiah but not an anointed Priest? 

Rather if we take Ehrman's view seriously, then Jesus central public identity was that of an anointed apocalyptic prophet. Further more Ehrman makes a rather candid admission:

"But a much more common understanding of the term did not involve an angelic judge of the earth or an authoritative priest, but a different kind of ruler. Again, as we have already seen: it was the king of Israel who was understood to be God’s “anointed one” par excellence." (IBID: p. 220)

Ehrman himself admits that the term ("anointed") used for priests, prophets and kings is rarely used for priests. Not only then did Jesus not openly declare his Messianic role, but it is less than likely that Jesus claimed to be a (anointed) priest in any sense. Jesus even fails the criterion alluded to Ehrman:

"This prerogative for pronouncing sins forgiven was otherwise *RESERVED FOR JEWISH PRIESTS* IN HONOR OF *SACRIFICES* THAT WORSHIPERS MADE *AT THE TEMPLE*"

This clearly excludes Jesus from being identified within such a category since he failed to fulfill every last one of these functions in the role of a priest. Finally in a list of factors mentioning what Jesus did not claim or believe, even Ehrman makes an incredible admission:

"That is to say, he did not come on the clouds of heaven to judge the living and the dead; he was not a priest; and he never raised an army and drove the Romans out of the promised land to set up Israel as a sovereign state." (IBID: p. 225)

Challenging The Priestly Interpretation In Light of Historical Jesus

I believe Ehrman's assertion that Jesus may have viewed himself as a priest contradicts (or contravenes) his own view of Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet in many ways. Firstly there is no other passage(s) or historical sources which denote historical Jesus had a view of himself as an anointed priest. If we take some of the miracle accounts he alludes to as historical, since when does a priest, raise the dead, or supernaturally read the hearts of humankind? This fits better with a divine character or conception. If this is to be read as a priestly account then it is the one isolated case. But then that would engage a form of special pleading; that is to construct this text with a priestly interpretation, that doesn't plausibly fit the narrative. Such a view doesn't cohere with anything else we know about Jesus supposed self identification as a priest, yet we do have a variety of factors that could comport with a divine self-perception. In addition since no other references to Christ's priesthood can be found, this fails the criterion of multiple independent attestation which is essential to Ehrman's historical methodology.

Next, the priestly interpretation of the verse does not conform with Ehrman's pre-existing narrative of Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet and future King, there is no priestly role involved or required in Christ's identity: 

"What we can know with relative certainty about Jesus is that his public ministry and proclamation were not focused on his divinity; in fact, they were not about his divinity at all. They were about God. And about the kingdom that God was going to bring. And about the Son of Man who was soon to bring judgment upon the earth. When this happened the wicked would be destroyed and the righteous would be brought into the kingdom—a kingdom in which there would be no more pain, misery, or suffering. The twelve disciples of Jesus would be rulers of this future kingdom, and Jesus would rule over them. Jesus did not declare himself to be God. He believed and taught that he was the future king of the coming kingdom of God, the messiah of God yet to be revealed. This was the message he delivered to his disciples, and in the end, it was the message that got him crucified." (IBID: p. 247). 

If Jesus is preparing for a new kingdom where he would rule, then how would a priesthood proclaiming the forgiveness of sins even be relevant to his ministry? The fallacy of irrelevance. Hence casting Jesus as an earthly Jewish priest of some type fails the criterion of congruence (also called cumulative circumstantial evidence) which is a special case of the older criterion of coherence. The criterion of coherence, also called the criterion of consistency and conformity looks back at what has already been established as historical, and tests if a new hypothesis is consistent and coherent with what is already known. Thus this criterion is not simply applied to ancient texts as a star but looks back at the results of modern analysis and considers its coherence and consistency. [1] 

Finally the priestly portrayal of Jesus also fails the criterion of contextual credibility, we have no examples of other figures (particularly: apocalyptic prophets) from the period claiming to forgive sins themselves personally without the appeal to the pre-existent divinely instilled paradigm, rather we have texts that demonstrate certain individuals or groups of individuals may have believed that about "other" Biblical (or otherwise) esteemed figures, but there is no evidence this is a position of any contemporaries. 

And with that said I end today's article with a quote from one of the 20th century greatest apologists, since they are germane to understanding the function of Jesus divine forgiveness:

As C.S Lewis once wrote in his work, Mere Christianity:

"And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips. One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history." (source)

Mark Bennett Reviews Ijaz and Yahya "Review" (PART I)

Yahya is correct that the Scriptural terminology doesn't use the word "person" or "being" or show a differentiation between the two. However Perkins has not shown the word "person" or "being" is applied to the Father anywhere in the Bible either. Clearly not only does a differentiation not exist, but the words themselves are not mentioned! Hence Perkins must also be guilty of violating sola scriptura if Yahya is correct. But that is a questionable assumption itself because  I haven't found a definition of "Sola Scriptura" that says that we cannot infer distinctions in persons or beings or infer such conceptions given our language, in fact it seems this concoction of Yahya's was far from the intent of the pioneers of such doctrine. We could obviously say that the being/person of the Father is not the same person/being as Yahya (John), yet that differentiation isn't made explicitly anywhere, yet it is still obviously true that Yahya does not share the same person or being as the Father. Also it is not at all clear how 'extra biblical material' cannot be used as a yard-stick to interpret the Bible given that any language the Bible exists in, has pre-defined terminology, we must learn the language, linguistic and meaning, before attempting to interpret anything. It is therefore in fact impossible to interpret the Bible without a yardstick given from the basis of the science of linguistics or philosphy of language itself.

Ijaz presumptive claim that the vast majority of doxologies are added is a non-sequitor. Even if that were the case, the distinctions of being and person can still be ascertained (the personhood of the F, S  HS are distinct) without such doxologies. It is not shown how historically Christians were at all wholy dependent on such doxologies to infer distinctions in person or being. This would also be irrelevant to the O.T. (or even largely the Gospels) where such "binitarian/trinitarian" doxologies do not exist yet Trinitarians still infer distinctions based on personhood.

Further more it is not explained why James White has common ground with such assertions (doxologies were developed/added), it would seem highly unlikely White would agree with such a contention, hence it would be irrelevant to his own set of interpretative principles. Hence under the interpretive principle of Tota Scriptura, White is perfectly within his right to inteprete accordingly, the Bible as a "whole" unless Ijaz can demonstrate that such a spiritual interpretative tradition is off the hook in a historic theistic tradition, which is dubious.

Ijaz claim that "Godhead" is absent from the N.T is just false (Col 2:9), it is an old English term meaning "divinity" and is translated that way in the KJV as such. The claim that person or being is absent is not shown to be important, as even if that is the case, one can infer God is an almighty "being" who is a "person", no more or less could also be inferred about John the Baptist who is also a "person" and a human "being". The claim that it is "read into" or "eisegeted" is therefore dubious, since "inference" is a valid hermenutical methodology that even Unitarians (and even Muslims) themselves enjoy and employ when reading the Bible (and/or Qur'an). For example the Bible never refers to God as a "self" but most conceive of God as a self or a personal agent. A self with consciousness, awareness or a disembodied animating spirit, all possibly valid descriptions. yet none of which are used of God in the totality of Scripture.

Ijaz questions whether Paul had the authority to change or arbitrarily reform the Shema. However Christians in general (who view Paul as possessing such authority and agree with this particular interpretation of Corinthians) are not obligated to assert Paul "changes" the Shema in the sense entailed by Ijaz, but rather he "interprets" or "modifies" the Shema due to it and an older tradition possessing a pre-existing embedded multi-personal notion of God as either recorded in the judeo tradition or revealed in the relevant recent history by the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul's views are also in perfect accordance and conjunction with the interpretive methodology and principles of the Hellenistic Judaism of his period. In addition we would expect given the anticipated progressive revelation held to by the Jews, who had not argued all revelation was sealed, and this would have to be even more true, due to the recent advent of the Messiah sent to Israel. For example two Scholars report:

"The references to the roles of the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ in creation (“from whom and through whom”) also reflect traditional scriptural affirmations of the roles of God and of Wisdom in creation (for the latter, see Prov. 8:22–31; Wis. 9:4, 9; Philo, Flight 109). In prophetic literature Yahweh’s absolute power as creator of heaven and earth is what sets him apart from idols, which, on the contrary, are human creations (e.g., Jer. 10:3–16; Isa. 44:9–24). The description of Christ in terms normally attributed to Wisdom (Wis. 8:1–6; 9:1–2, 9; Sir. 24) suggests that just as Jesus takes the place of “the Lord” in the Shema, he also takes the place of “Wisdom” within Hellenistic Judaism: “Paul has indicated that everything one might hope to gain through possessing [sophia (Wisdom)] can be gained rather by possessing Christ” (N. T. Wright 1992: 130)." Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A. (2007). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (pp. 717–718). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos. 

Or simply read Dr Michael Lakey work.

Hence according to many scholars the only way in which Paul diverges from the Shema (as understood in his time) is by the precise "identification" of the Wisdom/Logos with the historical personage of "Jesus" himself, which is truly unique. The Logos is no longer merely God's creative principle, but is revealed in a historical person, the Messiah of Israel.

The final objection I will address is that the H.S is not mentioned in the Christianized Shema. Personally I find this objection the most persuasive, however it would have to be combined with other evidence, by itself it's not compelling enough. For example Paul has some other creeds that omit mentioning the Father "sending" the Son (Phil 2:6-11) in the context of the salvation/restoration of mankind, yet clearly this is an essential part of primitive Christian theology as a whole when it comes to salvation and/or restoration. Nor do any of these creeds mention the H.S at all, let alone as "God", yet despite this obviously the H.S. played a vital role in the view of the early Christians. Do we conclude they rejected the H.S due to it's absence? Or do we conclude, their theological development advanced as they were able to access the increasing knowledge of the totality of Scripture and Tradition? Ultimately this appears to be nothing more than an argument from silence, that needs to be cojoined with other data to be made useful.

WHO AM I?

Mark Bennett (also known under the pseudonyms: Dk, Derek Adams) is a Christian debater, blogger and apologist. He was born and raised in Wellington, New Zealand. He is the owner and operator of the blog www.AnsweringAbraham.com and former contributor to a prominent interfaith polemical website: www.Answering-Islam.org (1).

He has engaged in numerous dialogues, exchanges and controversial interactive style debates with Atheist and Muslim figures including: Islamic extremist Abdullah Al-Andualsi (2), Apologist, Activist and Reporter Sami Zaatari (3) Director of the MDI-USA(Muslim Debate Initiative-USA) and Imam Shadid Lewis (4) and Muslim apostate and passive homosexual Paul Williams (5). He is featured critically by various Islamic organisations (5).

Mark has had several informal heated exchanges with other Islamic apologists such as Nadir Ahmed, Ijaz Ahmad, Bassam Zawadi and Osama Abdullah (7), though only the later is publicly available (8).

Mark has spent the better of 15 years (including approximately 6-7 years as an Atheist) learning theology, philosophy, religious studies, debate polemics and Christian apologetics. Mark was invited on ABNSat Network by presenter and Christian philosopher David Wood to share his views and testimony as a former Atheist.

Being raised in a Pentecostal Church, he later in life attended a Baptist and then non-denominational Church. At 16 years of age Mark discovered theology and apologetics, after listening to Christian speaker Kent Hovind he described himself as becoming a evangelist, apologist, fundamentalist, literalist and Young Earth Creationist.

It was not until many years later and quite a while into the studying Islam that he began to have very serious doubts about his own Christian world view, primarily from an ethical point of skepticism. Mark apostatized from Christianity with the recognition that many of his own criticisms of Islam could be as equally applicable to a fundamentalist view of Christianity. However in 2014 Mark embraced deism, and finally theism. At this point he adopted an unorthodox view of Christianity including synthetic elements of Buddhism, Hinduism, Platonism and Paganism which he has adhered to until this day.

END NOTES:

(1)  Answering-Islam (also known under the domains: AnsweringIslam.net and Answering-Islam.net) is a Christian missionary forum engaged in evangelism and proselytization to Muslims and criticism of Islam.

(2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11733968/By-day-at-heart-of-counter-terror-policing.-And-by-night-preacher-of-extremism.html

(3) http://gulfnews.com/writers/sami-zaatari?module=recent-articles&page=4

(4) http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/responding.htm

(5) http://web.archive.org/web/20140226133655/http://bloggingtheology.org/2014/02/25/1862/

(6) http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_derik_adams

https://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/10/09/the-intolerance-of-the-intolerant-why-anti-muslim-polemicists-misrepresent-muslim-groups-a-case-study/

https://callingchristians.com/2012/04/30/refutation-where-did-jesus-say-i-am-god-worship-me/

https://callingchristians.com/2014/04/13/james-white-shamoun-and-friends-behaviour/

https://callingchristians.com/2014/04/22/mark-bennet-inciting-deceit-for-popularity-and-anthony-rogers-support/ 

(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJrxmjaSd6c

(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi9vPvEWQVw

When Feminism Goes Wrong ~ Richard Carrier

The SJW, Feminist Richard Carrier has recently discovered the painful way that feminist Social Justice Warriors don't represent real justice. Carrier has been booted off his own blog and banned from various Atheist Conferences for the dreadful crime of hitting on chicks. That's all. Not assaulting them, not raping them, not even verbally abusing them, but attempting to politely seduce them, making them feel uncomfortable and getting rejected.

Before he was banned, Carrier made a post defending himself from one of the allegations. When asked by a blog user whether Carrier is blaming his victim (as per the normative SJW model), he replies:

"Victim blaming is the act of blaming the victim for their victimization. I’m saying that she wasn’t victimized. Beyond learning of my interest in a possible future date."

But unfortunately for Carrier as several users noted, in SJW philosophy the women's (aka victims) testimony must be favoured (smirk: privileged) over the men (the predator) in these kind of circumstances:

"I thought you had to “listen and believe” when it came to women? Guess it’s a little bit troubling when it happens to you huh? There is a reason it is innocent until proven guilty. I have no sympathy for you because you have sided with these psychopaths doing the whole A+ nonsense." (source)

And:

"There’s no real evidence either way, Richard. It’s mostly your word against hers. I should probably just “listen and believe” Amy, then. That seems like the virtuous thing to do. Further to what Damion said, can you confirm that false accusations are vanishingly rare unless the accused is a SJW blogger?" (source) 

And unfortunately following an objective analysis, one blog-user reveals that every method that Carrier uses to defend himself is actually a violation of his very own SJW principles and certainly constitutes victim blaming:

"Checklist useful for #24 victim blaming:

Beginning with suggestion that the alleged victim misled you about crucial details like her name and highlighting every possible error or fact in dispute – check. 

Quibbling over irrelevant details like employment status of employees vs volunteers – check. 

Highlighting where the alleged victim has changed details – check. 

Assumption that failure initially to report something which is then later reported then that’s evidence of dishonesty – check. 

Garnering character references from supporters – check. 

Downplaying witting breaches of SSA policy – check 

Pedantic quibbling over on-the-job vs off-the-job for leaders with duty of care for young students – check. 

Expressing dismay that someone you praised as a very competent adult turns out to be too immature to be the subject of an above-board flirt from a person of your standing – check 

Making a show of how you never wanted to make trouble for someone in an abusive relationship by defending yourself, then being reluctantly forced to retaliate with a truckload of trouble – check. 

Skipping over why you never mentioned to the SSA that you had thought you were sacked from the speakers bureau for a separate incident in a completely different state – check. 

Proof by Bayesian something or other that it couldn’t possibly have happened – check. 

Ready supply of bystanders requiring exceptional evidence – check.

Deleting trolling outright but allowing sexist hyperbole #19 to receive only a mild tutting – check. 

Redefining ‘creepy/sleazy’ to be whatever would have been more creepy/sleazy than what you did – check. 

Telling your side of the story in your own framing and implying that failure by the other side to do so shows bad faith – check. 

Writing a long-winded screed in 2015 which stresses the importance of learning from mistakes, then allowing the exact same situation to recur – check. 

This sounds so much like the sort of thing a victim-blamer would do. Someone as wise as you could have followed the oft-useful maxim “guys, don’t do that”. But… don’t heed anything I’d suggest because it would be to do the exact opposite of what you’re doing." (source)

And that's it for Carrier, his Career is over.

What British Muslims Really Think

Does the New Testament SAY Jesus is God? - Mark Bennett (Dk) vs Olkee

CTW - Solo Fitness HITS YOUTUBE

Salvation "From" The World Not "Through" The World

The foundation of every social construct and mental map of the world I've ever seen is the assumption that as human beings we are inherently flawed from the start. And I think this can be an incredibly misleading notion.

Our modus operandi is that we must look to something other than ourselves for answers, something outside ourselves for deliverance. We are in one reality, salvation is in another. We are limited and dependent. We are hopelessly enslaved and in need of redemption. The external reality, the world around us possesses this redemption we are in need of. Surely it must, that's why I keep looking. I am in need of "other". Almost, anything! Anything in the world, except, well "me" is worth examining for potential salvation: sports, wine tasting, religion, sex, etc. The inherent assumption is that we are lost and incomplete without relations with something external. to us. Something on the outside world, that is not me will provide me with what I truly need.

Society tells you a man will make you happy. Society tells you a woman will make you happy. Society tells you a high paying career will make you happy. Society tells you, sex will make you happy. Society tells you drinking will make you happy. Society says these new pair of shoes will make me happy. Society says a brand new outfit will make me popular, and therefore happy. Society tells you going to high school, then university, then getting a career, then getting a promotion, then finally the golden 65 retirement will make you happy. Society even tells you how to avoid a decrease of happiness (aka pain). Society says avoid rejection at all costs. Society says don't talk to strangers. Society says don't risk looking embarrassed. Society says don't upset the flow of things. Society says fall in line and follow pleasantly, be mediocre and most importantly fit in. Society says be like every person around you, don't stand out clearly. Society is like your best friend, it shows you not only how to increase your happiness but also decrease your painfulness by avoiding harmful situations.

I wonder if your ballshit meter has risen even a little yet? Most of us have done/had many/all of these things, yet we are not extremely fulfilled or undoubtedly happy. We are not on some perpetual high, nor do we feel some ultimate fulfillment like a divine love drug similar to ecstasy. In fact we have problems that are never ending, never-ceasing, and once we solve one, then arises another. We hope the deliverance may come in the future, but none of what society has given so far has satisfied our expectation. In fact it's produced a mass-consumer culture of addicts invested in perpetually buying whatever "merchandise" they need to give them that temporary hit, that band-aid over the wound.

In all these cases something outside of you tells you the condition of that which make you happy and the adequate answer to that condition. That's nice isn't it? Except that each condition and answer fails every time at producing long-term deep satisfaction, or as I call it spiritual nourishment. It's all just a temporary fix. I remember sometimes "longer" fixes would come along, like a video game that last for hours, but eventually it runs out of stem, the novelty dissipates, the high becomes a low and boredom, or depression and hate reappear.

So what is salvation? Who is salvation? How can I earn salvation? Society has the answer. Salvation is finding about reincarnation on Oprah Winfrey. We will go through endless lives until we are finally delivered. Fun is determined by watching Jersey Shore. Healthy living is determined by watching Dr Phil. Acceptance is determined by buying the right make-up kit. For me regaining approval will be found in a hair-growth surgeon! Losing hair means I am now incomplete according to many infomercials, until salvation comes in the form of a toupee. That's society for you.

Christianity also has the answer to salvation. So does Islam. Don't forget, Mormons too. Everyone has the fucking answer. Heak, everyone except me. Everyone is an infallible authority. Some how everyone magically knows the answer. Not a single person alive seems to have failed to share the conviction that, they have have the truth and/or salvation through some (external) system of authority other than themselves, whether it be Islam, science or girly magazines. We are all to follow the authority like good children. I am not an authority. But everybody else is, every religion, and every ideology, every construct, and every mental model.

It is apparent from the above, that in each and every case I seek completion outside of me, I willingly put my completion in the hands of a reality who is just as flawed, if not as imperfect as myself, in the above illustration I use the architects and results of some mainstream aspects of society which make absolutely no sense, saturated in mainstream media that engages in high rhetoric and empty promises. Why do we give away this power to the world around us? I have no idea. But i'm going to deconstruct the basic flaw in principle. I will pick on the Evangelicals as a case in point, to show how and why none of this works.

Evangelical Christianity commonly asserts things like: "I don't have a religion, I have a relationship with Jesus Christ".

It's mean't to be an attractive package for us on lookers. Since the evangelical in question is not religious (a word they incorrectly associate with mere 'legalism') but rather 'relationship' orientated. We all need a relationship with the perfect partner and savior who can match our every need. But who can fit such a description? The evangelical insists: Jesus.

Obviously since no human can be perfect, the selling point is that God became the perfect human in Jesus. They usually go onto to say something like: "If you ask Jesus to come into your heart and experience a relationship with you, he will come into you, give you joy, peace, salvation and live inside you as Lord and Savior."

Notice the over-lap and commonality the Evangelical belief has with the aforementioned notions made by mainstream society. In both cases happiness, completion and salvation is that something that lay outside of me, something external to me, the world around me (if you will), which will come and redeem me. In this case "Jesus" instead of "a boyfriend" or "alcohol" or "successful career". Jesus is my new "drug", Jesus is being sold as a "made to feel better/happiness provider" and "savior of my soul and long lasting relationship".

Hence the concept of Jesus in this regard, like every other concept is made to appease our stimulating mechanisms. In the same way we can't help but respond to the shiny objects or beams of light at rock concerts, Jesus is functioning the same way. A very good psychological effect, but alas only a happy-time story, and a temporary fix. 

Unfortunately not even this Jesus himself can resolve our feeling that something is missing in our lives, outside of a few places (e.g. Church) times (worshiping) or years (when your Pentecostal passion ceases).

So do I need a relationship with Jesus to complete me? Will this restore some deep part of my being?

1. A person cannot experience relations with another person who they have never encountered. (even if requested or not). The implication? I must look to myself. 
2. No experience of a relationship has ever completely satisfied me. I must look to myself. 
3. External relations do not produce long lasting deep satisfaction/spiritual fulfillment. (evidence: "Family, Friends, Work etc"). Look to myself, much? 
4. External relations with a perfect external entity do not cause permanent spiritual fulfillment. (evidence: "Christians who've had divine relationship/experiences with God yet remain dissatisfied and long for heaven and/or death TO BE (future tense) with Christ since they aren't content yet"). Look to myself, instead? 
5. I do not require relations with the external to be complete. (I'm an introvert and prefer the company of my lonesome self. In-fact without anybody existing, negative mental labeling/activity, bad stereotypes, envy, hatred, comparison etc, would become almost entirely obsolete). Me, me, me! 
6. To look to the external world is to make the fundamental mistake that another has enlightenment and you lack it. Why begin with negative assumptions over positive? 

So this "outward" figure, the one mean't to "descend from the heavens" to be our savior, redeemer, and relationship extraordinaire is ultimately a substitute used for external stimulus. This is not to say that we cannot find God and/or Jesus, but to say that I think that Evangelicals have fallen into the common societal structure of providing a missing need and then filling the void with a cheap fix, which is why this movement is falling apart. It's as utterly bankrupt as are all the other notions claiming salvation is external.

While I do make the affirmative existence of the objective world (based on faith), I do not make the claim that this world can redeem me or liberate me. I must find the source of my liberation in my own choices or "free will" and test/check that against the world around me.

A Battle of Metaphysics: Materialism vs Idealism - Who Is The Winner?

Materialism and Idealism are competing views debating a particular question: "What exactly is the precise nature of reality?" or "What singular substance composes reality? Matter or Mind?" or: "Does matter produce mind, or does mind produce matter?"

Both positions are committed to the view that reality is only comprised of one substance, but disagree on the nature of this substance. 

Atheists and Theists can adhere to either one of these views. Both positions are compatible with Atheism or Theism. In today's post I would like to introduce an Atheist Idealist. That is a person who does not believe that matter (commonly viewed as mind independent physical nature) is all that exists, but rather an Atheist who believes reality is non-physical and composed by merely mind or consciousness. In this Idealist view matter is an emergent property of consciousness, in the Materialist view mind is an emergent property of matter, though in both cases they are only viewed as properties, not as distinct substances since reality has one single substance according to both positions. 

Both Theists and Atheists have this debate among themselves, in their own inner-circles and with each other. My position is if I were an Atheist, I would still be an Idealist. I think the Atheist Idealists happen to have a decent argument, and I will appeal to one to explain why.

James T Stillwell (also known as OpenAirAtheist and I—Theist) is a former Christian Theist (an "OpenAirPreacher") and former Atheist Realist who became an Atheist Idealist and Power Nihilist. Former fan and/or associate, of colleague of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, his skepticism/doubts began in his viewing of a debate with Dan Barker and James White which ultimately lead him via a process of skepticism to reject Christianity and theism as a whole and become an apostate and atheist, or "I-Theist" as he likes to call himself. He runs the blogs OpenAirAtheist.blogspot.com and TheStillWellPost.blogspot.com and the YouTube Channel  I—Theist. He argues the Abrahamic God cannot exist since these theists define God as nothing. If God is no-thing, he has no existence, as only things have real existence. That is God does not have a positive identity which possesses borders and boundaries. rather he is limitless and therefore is either nothing and/or everything which is just logically incoherent (1, 2). He has videos mocking Faith/Theism (1, 2), has videos either challenging and/or debating popular Christian Apologists such as James White (1), Matt Slick (1) and Sÿe Ten Bruggencate (1). He asserts that even if theism were true it cannot account for objective moral values, duties and/or a purpose:

"This qualified form of moral nihilism is active Nihilism not passive. It is a skepticism or disbelief of claims to objective or absolute meaning morality and purpose, a recognition that moral dogma along with religious & political ideologies are a means of control or gaining power over others. It contends that the existence of a God or Gods is insufficient to bridge the is-ought gap or produce objective moral values & duties." (source)

Similar to Anti-Theists he argues even if God existed he would not submit to God, he does not grant that anyone has authority to make him comply with any particular moral norms including the notorious: "Golden Rule". He views himself as a kind of God and/or Superman, and views Judeo/Christian modernity like (Nietzsche) virtually as a curse. (1).  In one comment in his own video he comments:

"I'm not down with calling the universe god or defining myself as a pantheist, due to the massive baggage acciated with those terms. I will use the term god when referring to myself, since I am highest in my own hierarchy of values, and I create my own values instead of borrowing from social norms and the herd." (source)

And:

"You seam to 1 have mistaken me for a materialist/physicalist but I'm not. 2 i don't "believe" in anything (depending on what you mean by belief). 3All praise Allah? No I am my own God. I am an I-Theist. You can grovel and subjugate yourself all you want. As long is doesnt thwart my will to power progress I could careless. Most people are by nature slaves like and so if there is no master around they will invent a Skye Daddy. That's fine with me as long as you leave me out of it." (source)

Stillwell therefore views himself as a God rather than a slave, which represents the majority of humanity. He has this emancipation complex similar to that of Tyler Durden in the movie Fight Club. He is free from the bonds of modernity, society and Judeo-Christian values and ethics and is in his own right a kind of Creator and has been set-free from the sheep and masses.

Despite being no friend of theism or Christianity, seemingly defining himself as an enemy of our God, you can see in the above quote (emphasized in red font), that he rejects a common position that many Atheists identify with, known as: "Materialism".

As mentioned, in it's base line form materialism asserts: "physical matter is all that reality consists of." This is a monistic view of reality, that is the belief that all reality consists of only one singular substance. Particularly in this case, that substance is physical, natural, material, commonly identified as: matter. This is in contrast to methodological naturalism which according to the Supreme Court can be described like this:

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify." (source)

Theists are quite often accused of the "God of the gaps" fallacy, meaning that when science cannot explain something we provide magic or "God did it" as an alternative hypothesis, which is really no explanation at all, it's certainly not science. However ironically this is nearly the exact same fallacy of the materialist otherwise known as: "Naturalism of the gaps".

The idea is when science cannot account for, or explain a natural phenomenon, we must be apriori commit to an eventual and inevitable materialistic explanation that will in the future be provided by science. This is despite not having any current and/or contemporary evidence for such a belief, we are expected to trust in science as the golden calf or holy grail of all reality and truth because of it's proven track record and consistent observation that all has been explained in terms of physical reality.

The typical justification for this is view is according to the principle of induction, science has resolved similar situations in the past and will inevitably do so in the future (belief on materialism). For example the storm god Thor is no longer viewed as the cause or source of thunder, rather the typical modern scientific view is that thunder is the result of a shock wave caused by the rapid expansion of hot plasma contained in lightening. Richard Carrier expands:

"The cause of lightning was once thought to be God’s wrath, but turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces. We once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it’s all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. Disease was once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons, but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. In case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. Not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be God’s wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all. The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. A horse that runs a million races and never loses is about to run yet another race with a horse that has lost every single one of the million races it has run. Which horse should we bet on? The answer is obvious." (source)

One of the main criticism of this methodology is that when I don’t know how something works or how to explain it, the correct conclusion is “I don’t know.” A second problem is while science has aided us in providing a better and proper coherent explanation of these observations, the belief that what we are studying is mind-independent "matter" (naive realism) and that this matter has to be physical/material is now a belief independent of science. It is highly controversial in physics to advocate a particular definition of matter/energy. The reality is we don't really know what energy/matter is. However there are good reasons for rejecting the view that matter is merely "physical stuff" that exists in and of itself, that is independent of mind. I think there are plenty of other responses to the so-called defenses of "materialism of the gaps", but I don't want to go into exhaustive detail.

Instead, I will appeal to our Atheist friend Stillwell to explain, ultimately why Carrier (and other Materialists) seem to be wrong according to science. 

The Case For An Immaterial Soul

While Stillwell may not use the term: "soul" (I would have to ask him, but it's unlikely given his agenda to avoid giving credence to anything associated with theism), I use "soul" here as a synonym for an individual perceived sense of personal self (distinct from other independent selves/entities), a mind embodied and self awareness and consciousness. One could argue such a metaphysic is in contradiction with Christianity in general or not present in the Bible, that's fine, that is a separate argument. My personal view however is the Bible is not teaching metaphysics in either sense and is possibly compatible with both. But, that is a debate in and of itself for another time. Moving on to the evidence for the Soul.

Stillwell began in 2012 to make public videos inclining towards a non-materialistic view, that is that while reality is monistic (is composed of one substance) that substance is not necessarily physical, but rather matter is an emergent property of an immaterial substance, namely consciousness. But lets hear him explain it in his own words:

Later that year he published this:





The next year he strengthened his belief in Idealism, and argues materialism just cannot explain consciousness/mind:





And finally he made this video in 2014:





He also linked to the following video (in his 2013 vid) that argues that materialism/dualism are both refuted faith positions, and that the mind transcends all physicality, which indirectly is a good argument for the use of the word: "soul":

Stillwell, is correct. Berkeley argued as an empiricist that Locke (a fellow empiricist) should be an idealist. As wiki notes:

"An argument for idealism, such as those of Hegel and Berkeley, is ipso facto an argument against materialism. Matter can be argued to be redundant, as in bundle theory, and mind-independent properties can in turn be reduced to subjective percepts. Berkeley presents an example of the latter by pointing out that it is impossible to gather direct evidence of matter, as there is no direct experience of matter; all that is experienced is perception, whether internal or external. As such, the existence of matter can only be assumed from the apparent (perceived) stability of perceptions; it finds absolutely no evidence in direct experience."

How A Universalist View of God's Love Trumps Them All

Introduction 

A fundamental teaching of Christianity (and the Bible as commonly understood with a Christian pretext) is that God is the infinite source of love. God is love itself. The Bible does not make this statement about any other feature of God with the exception of: "God is Spirit". God's spiritual (that is non-physical) being is commonly construed as the fundamental nature of God within Christendom.

Now because of this understanding of God's spirit as a fundamental aspect of God for thousands of years, Christian theologians have been forced to deduce and infer God's love is also fundamental in the exact same manner, since both statements in the original Greek New Testament are construed and posited using the exact same grammatical construction and syntax, they are indistinguishable bar one word: "God is .... (love/spirit)".

It is undeniable, if one is an essential aspect of God's nature as Christian scholars, theologians and Greek grammarians maintain, then the other has to be. This gives us at-least two essential aspects of God. God subsists in his very essence, being and nature as pure perfect love and spirit. To put it another way, if God was composed of "stuff" (like energy/matter is) it would be "love and spirit energy/matter and/or atoms and molecules". This gives you an incredibly rare and unique insight into just how loving God is, his very center, his whatness and isness, his pure existence is love. The very composition that constitutes him (or that he constitutes) is comprised of perfect absolute love.

God is not only loving or spiritual, as in an adjective describing a temporal like state. It's not that he sometimes behaves this way, temporarily manifesting this quality, nor is he even is just generally like this as some long term part of his character. The profound truth is that he is what embodies and perfectly exemplifies these adjectives in his very unity of being, he is the noun form of love itself, absolute love, he exhausts the category of love from inside and out.

If Sue says Joe is "loving", we can imagine a relative statement here, meaning Joe from the stand point of his beloved Sue is the most wonderful and loving man in the world. Yet he is not synonymous with "love" the noun. Yet if I say "Joe is human" he is synonymous with "human", everything that human is, Joe is. We can say Joe is loving, but not love itself. Of God we say, he is loving because he is love. 

Joe therefore does not behave lovingly because he is fundamentally love, rather Joe has a potential or range of behaviors he could exemplify (non of which are permanent), he will choose to express or won't. This expressive love we exhibit is not fundamental, nor continuous, immutable, everlasting, perfect, nor does it envelop our very essence or our totality of being. Hence Joe is choosing (but is not inherently) love, where as God is (inherently) love. 

A loving person can exhibit love, since love is a potential attribute that can be demonstrated, but imagine a case where a loving person is love, imagine if it's not merely potentially expressed, or a general depiction of how someone behaves but imagine a God who is absolutely identical with love. A space where there exists no potentiality, or regression or change, he is for once and forever: perfect love itself fully exhausted and appropriated and expressed.

This literary device is not used of any other positive aspects of God's nature, which is quite telling. God is identified with two nouns in the qualitative construction (and no others) in the very construction used to also establish the ineffable certainty of Christ's divinity "and God is the Word (translated as the Word is God John 1:1c)". This means is the very concept of these nouns exemplifed and embodied in personal consciousness therefore we must explain God in this light.

Notice regarding any of the aforementioned qualities there is no Biblical statement like: "God is Faith (wrath, anger, justice, etc)", however there is: "God is Faithful (wrathful, just, etc)". This is of course because God is not faith itself, rather he is the object of faith. And he is faithful because his love endures forever, his promises remain the same, and he will never give up on us. So his "faithfulness" is the result of his loving essence, not because "faith" is an essential aspect within God's being independent of love, rather faithful here is the manifestation and application of love given God's relationship with the created world, which makes it a behavior that God exhibits in the context of relating to creation, but love is the foundation for such divine activity.

Likewise this explains the existence of "mercy". Mercy is apart of God, yet it is not a fundamental aspect of God's being. Using our language mercy is derivative of God's pure loving essence. To explain: How can God have mercy on one, or be essentially merciful when when there was no sinners to have mercy on? This shows us that mercy is derivative of God's love, and only came into fruition when sinners began to exist. It's an adjective describing God's behavior or his activity when he was manifesting love. When the creation finally required mercy, mercy as a loving expression of God's activity came into being out of necessity. God's mercy (the merciful one) therefore is a particular application of love in the context of divine-human relations, and the activity, or adjective did not exist prior. Mercy does not exist as a real independent and phenomenon in God (like love and spirit are two essential aspects), it's a description of an action (and trait) that God makes, which is based in love.

Christian teaching then as passed down for hundreds of years has two fundamental descriptions of what God is. His very own essence is love and spirit. This means statements in the Bible that appear to contradict or undermine the loving essence of God must be re-understood in light of God's fundamental being and loving/spiritual essence.

Christianity teaches God is a Father and yet Christians do not literally believe God is a biological Father (with genitals and sperm), nor a literal "him". The Bible use these terms to describe God because he is personal rather than a "thing" or an "it". The Bible however quite often refers to God's attributes, such as his wisdom, and his divine presence, as "her", demonstrating God is personal no matter what gender pronoun you wish to employ. The Bible also ascribes repentance and evil unto God, but again we do not take this literally, since God is portraying himself in these passages like a man on purpose to demonstrate his willingness to listen to our prayers and his supremacy over creation.

However despite all of the aforementioned what is fascinating is that many contemporary Christians forget that other adjectives and or attributes assigned to God are also non-literal in terms of the human notions of such concepts, and the same qualities must be explained in the context of God's fundamental loving nature, that is his very being.

In the Bible God is commonly assigned human qualities like "anger" or "wrath" or "vengeance" (as mentioned) sometimes even "evil". Many of God's attributes, his wrath, his justice, his anger, his judgement, his righteousness, etc must be qualified in light of his essence so we can infer the proper understanding of these descriptive terms in the context given God's all essential-loving being. We cannot propose any description or definition of these qualities that contradicts God's core loving being. Historically, the Church has understood these more human like descriptions to be anthropomorphic in nature. That is God is an unfathomable consciousness, above and beyond human reality. It was therefore necessary for God to condescend on our plain and speak to humans in our own limited way by relating to us using terms and language and emotive states of being that only we experience and learn from. (1)

So when you think of God's anger, wrath or judgement don't conceive of such common intuitions or common sense assumptions that the ordinary humans perceives in finite mind. God describes himself using terms that you have some subjective emotive correspondence to and experience with, but no such application exists in the context of the Almighty who possesses no such temporal states of emotion, incomplete desires, passions, no inadequacy nor imperfection,  he cannot be "frustrated" or "made angry" like we are, rather these explains God's own activities, behaviors and responses to human behaviors from the stand point of human interpretation. 

All of these anthropomorphic descriptions are to be explained in the context of God's essence, not as God acting like humans relating to other humans or God desiring equal measure for punishment and sin, or good and evil. Within Christianity is a doctrine known as the impassibility of God has been largely confusing especially for protestant reformers.

On the one hand these theologians wish to adhere to God's impassibility since it's completely Scripturally sound while simultaneously holding to views that contradict God's immutable loving state, including such beliefs as God's judgement is expressed through eternal conscious torment. The problem is both doctrines cannot possibly be true. And God's impassibility tied to classic theism is a historic doctrine of the Church. As one Encyclopedia describes the doctrine:

"Impassibility is that divine attribute whereby God is said not to experience inner emotional changes of state whether enacted freely from within or effected by his relationship to and interaction with human beings and the created order. More specifically, impassibility means that God does not experience suffering and pain, and thus does not have feelings that are analogous to human feelings. Divine impassibility follows upon His immutability, in that, since God is changeless and unchangeable, his inner emotional state cannot change from joy to sorrow or from delight to suffering. Biblical basis. The Bible does not address the philosophical question of whether or not God is impassible. Nonetheless, divine impassibility is founded upon the same scriptural evidence as that of divine immutability. Summarily, God, within the Old Testament, reveals through his immanent actions within time and history that he is personal, knowing, and loving. He is the One God who is Savior, Creator, and Sanctifier. These immanent divine acts reveal that God transcends all else that exists. He is completely "other," and so He cannot be numbered among all else that exists. Thus, God is present and active within the created order of time and history as the one who, as the "Wholly Other," transcends it. Unlike creatures, whose emotional inner states change either through their own actions or by being acted upon, God as all perfect transcends this changeable created order. He neither can change his own inner emotional state nor can another effect a change in his inner emotional state, and thus He is impassible. Within this Old Testament context God, nonetheless, is seen as displaying a variety of emotions. Due to his faithful love, God hears the cry of his enslaved people in Egypt and so "suffers" over their plight (Ex 2:23–25; 3:1–8, 15–17; Dt 4:37). Moreover, because of his love God equally grieves over the sinful disloyalty of his people and even becomes angry (Hos 11:1–4). Yet, his heart "recoils" within him and his compassion "grows warm and tender," and thus he will not execute "his fierce anger." The reason is, "For I am God and not mortal; the Holy One in your midst and I will not come in wrath" (Hos 11:8–9). While God's wrath rises in justice, it is always tempered by his forgiving, compassionate, and faithful love (Ex 32:11–14; 1 Sam 15:11). Within the Old Testament then God is seen as "suffering" with, or on behalf of, or because of his people, and so he grieves with or over them (Ps 78:40, 95:10–11). These various "emotional" states are said to cause God to "repent" or "change his mind" (Gn 6:6–7; Judg 2:18; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15; Ps 106:45; Jer 18:8; Amos 7:3 & 6; Joel 2:13; Jon 3:19). In the end, God consistently acts with great compassion and mercy. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord."(2)

And another:

"Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God is "without body, parts, or passions, immutable." It is important to note that the debate regarding the doctrine of impassibility does not center on whether God has feelings or emotions. Though some would argue for the position that God does not possess any feelings or passions, those such as Paul Helm who seek to preserve impassibility do not view God as completely apathetic. Rather, the question is whether or not God's passions are voluntary or involuntary. Does God actually react to his creation in an emotional way? Can humanity hurt God, emotionally? The standard difficulty encountered by advocates of impassibility is that the Scripture narrative presents a God who does, in fact, react to his creation. The typical rejoinder to this is that the narrative portions of the Holy Text also present God with certain human features such as hands, eyes, etc. Surely, it is claimed, we do not accept all descriptions of God in human terms (anthropomorphisms), and as such we should be cautious in accepting the emotions and passions of God at face value. In recent years many in the Open Theist circles have explored the various anthropomorphism's of God to discover if, in fact, they do reveal something about God, however imperfect the description may be." (3)

Hence it is impossible for God to be both literally love and hate, or anger and peace, nor can God 'alternate' between human states of emotional being,  rather God is beyond human states of transitivity and he himself is pure being and his his own unique essence that is composed of a deeper but real mystery of love. The Church went with the passions as the anthropomorphisms they were intended to be yet ironically they still preserve false doctrines that contradict this.

When a Christian affirms that God is love, or God is infinitely loving or the source of infinite love, I must ask them what on earth they mean by this? That's because ninety percent of the time it's just lip service to the so-called "Gospel" of highly active imagination.

Egoic 'pseudo' love, a human type of god presenting a human type of love. A literal heaven or hell, Christ or torture, born or burn. This shallow exclusivity has frequently under ranked and under estimated who God is. It has reshaped and redefined God as made in man's image. This naive formula so often regurgitated, has asserted and presented itself as synonymous with God, that image that constipates God and turns him into a blithering fool, is not life, God is life.

Most Christians are like the Pharisees who were so fond of espousing and protecting certain divine truths without contemplating or reflecting the divine majesty and the very suchness, beauty and purity of such a precious reality. They neglect to ponder even the slightest profundity, failing to realize any far reaching implication. Your entire life could be cast into all the majesty and glory of the divine heavenly kingdom. The precious one condescending into you his child, and manifesting through your presence, his grace made perfect and complete, and your unity with his being, sealed forever. In the split of a second, the breath of one moment, the world around you could change forever, such beautiful, deep, deep spiritual mysteries, treasures revealed from our unbreakable bond and union with God. Transcendent knowledge and peace, and God in us and us in God.

O mortal; creature, how you have under estimated God's infallible, perfect power and immovable unquenchable divine love? His love cannot be quenched by you or me alone, it's unending, it will consume every rebel, every murderer, every coward, and every failure. How can man place a boundary, a limitation upon his God's unending unquenchable love, while God himself cannot?

How can God's love ultimately be defeated by sin and death? How is it, God's perfect love can be stopped, ceased or made fallible? How can a man's will thwart God's will to bring him into loving communion? How can man's inaction stop the perfect and complete one? How is it that pure love does not consume the lost souls of every last sinner with pure and absolute affection and unending grace given and made manifest by our perfect heavenly Father?

How can God's boundless and limitless perfect love not be sufficient for even one sinning creature? How can God's infinite love not consume all of "hell" and melt every rebellious heart of every sinner until the piercing/ circumcision of all soul? Why is it that God can stretch his hand out to save me and you, and yet he can't save all made in his image? Will he let one of his children go astray? If he can change my heart, can he not change every heart?

Lord make us less selfish and more compassionate. Take us from the old and into the new. God open the eyes of our hearts, Lord, of all who doubt you and send them your loving angels,

Come unto me and I will give you rest says the Lord.

(1) To use a modern analogy, imagine if you wanted to communicate with an Ant. How are you going to do it? Do they speak, German, French, English or Arabic? No. Any other language? No. Do they understand human non-verbal communication? No. So is it even possible? One way to relate to an Ant is you would have to learn the Ant-language, or signal them patterns of behavior and signs that communicate to them in their own way. It's ironic, you can know about an Ant, but an Ant can know nothing about you. As you can see God is confined to using our range of emotive experience in communication with us, he is able to communicate to some degree some far reaching concepts.

(2) http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407705591/impassibility-god.html

(3) http://www.theopedia.com/Impassibility_of_God