The Partner

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of the Man this one was taken." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh. - Genesis 2:18-24

Why the "name game"? Did God not know that Adam would not find a partner among the animals? It seems that the name game could have been cut out of the story with not much affect to the intent. 

The point of the name game is not because God didn't know who Adam should have as his partner, the point was to vividly demonstrate to Adam the goodness and kindness of God to design a perfect partner for him, and him for her. 

Why didn't God just make another man and given them both the ability to asexually reproduced? Because that wasn't the perfect partner that Man should have. 

The last verse of the passage explains the reason for marriage: 
(1) I wasn't good for Man to be alone, 
(2) God (and Adam) had many options to choose from for a partner, 
(3) God demonstrated that he designed the perfect partner for Man: Woman

I don't see any other way to interpret this passage with integrity of heart as a Christian, and come to the conclusion that Man is also the perfect partner for Man, or Woman the perfect partner for Woman. If we attempt to draw this conclusion it is reminiscent of account immediately following... 

"[the serpent] said to the woman, "Did God say, ..."

... Yes, he did. 

 

"Christianity is the only religion that sends people to Hell for not believing."

This was a statement that two of my coworkers agreed upon when discussing religion at work the other day. 

Is it true? Well yes, but mostly no. It may well be fully "no", for the reason that there exists that there is another religion that sends people to Hell for not believing - not sure, probably depends who you ask. But lets just consider that there are no other religions that are in contention. 

It is true that everyone in Hell will be there because they do not "believe in" the Jesus Christ revealed God. But that is not the message of Jesus. Three points are important to understanding the Christian message:

1. Jesus suffered a torturous and completely unjust death and more importantly bore the spiritual burden of the sins of every person who ever lived (incomprehensible!). So if there was another way for which people could be saved and to be restored to relationship with God wouldn't God have chosen that way instead? A different way of putting it would be: if people who didn't "believe in" God could go to heaven apart from Jesus Christ then why did Jesus have to die? 

2. Jesus came because every person in the entire world was desperately in need of a savior and miserably enslaved to sin with no hope of being restored to relationship with God. The Bible teaches that everyone is not born into the world inherently good, neither are they neutral with regard to sin. This is birthing a very big discussion about sin and human nature that will have to span a discussion at another time, but this is the Christian belief. Many other religions and philosophers would agree that there is something deep in the heart of humanity that is bend towards doing evil. What is that and where does it come from? So in brief conclusion, Christians aren't saying that everyone who otherwise are "good" are now simply going to Hell because they don't "believe in" God. Christians are saying that ALL people are spiritually dead and have no hope - thus enters Jesus, the Christ. Christians are in desperate need of Jesus' blood as much as any other person in the world. 

3. What does it mean to "believe in" God? 

"You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder." James 2:19

Yet demons will not go to Heaven, in fact Hell has been reserved for them. This shows us that it doesn't mean simply an intellectual belief that a God exists. So then what kind of belief is that the God desires? To "believe in" God in the biblical sense is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Paul sees himself as a "servant" of Christ. A belief that permeates every aspect of your mind, body and soul. 

"Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?" Ezekiel 18:23

The Gospel according to Pope Francis

Sometimes you find out that your worst nightmares are reality

...such is the case: Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story

What is the Perspective on Rape in the Middle East?

The New York Times article entitled Rise in Sexual Assaults in Egypt sets off clash over Blame got me thinking more about how people view the cause of rape in the Middle East. One of the reasons this hit me hard is the shear audacity and organization of the rapists. I highly recommend reading the article. 

The blame for the rapes "sometimes" lies "100 percent" with the woman according to some ultra conservative Islamists, one even saying that women "went [to Tahrir Square] to get raped." The thinking is that since men's sex drives are too powerful to resist when a woman who "stands among men", therefore she it is her fault since she ought to know this fact. 

Why isn't rape more prevalent among Western societies then? 

And, although Kurdistan seems to be a relatively egalitarian society compared with much of the Middle East, women still have very little protection. Parents don’t allow their daughters to go out alone because a lot of the men can’t be trusted to keep their hands to themselves. In fact Kak Amanj did not speak very favourably about Kurdish male youth at all. He says it is not uncommon for boys to resort to force when their romantic advances fail. What intrigued me was his pseudo-scientific explanation for why this happens. He spoke rapidly and in broken English but he seemed to be implying a link between circumcision and increased libido. ‘In Western countries the boys don’t have such strong sexual feelings as Kurdish boys because they don’t cut the skin off the penis,’ he said. Make of that what you will. 

(taken from a blog about travels in Iraqi Kurdistan). So sexual desire is increased by circumcision up to a point where desire is uncontrollable. Unfortunately for this theory, some Western countries like the US have over 50% of males circumcised. 

So then what is the root cause of this systematic rape? It does lie with the men, that is for sure, but how and why. 

As far as I am aware Islam does not condone rape. Then why are prominent Islamists not blaming the rapists? Could it be that this systematic rape supplies an incentive for society to rush to the "safety" of Islamic traditional Sharia law. Systematic rape is a means to an end for these Islamists, they do not condone the rape but they will not condemn because the results are favorable to them. 

Is sin "falling beneath the standards expected"?

Was just reading this article on the BBC about Cardinal Keith O'Brien who has apologized for "sexual misconduct". It struck me how lame this apology was and how unbiblical in nature. 

I haven't read his entire statement so maybe I am making false assumptions about Cardinal O'Brien, but with that being said the fact that he mentions that is sorry that he fell "beneath the standards expected" of him makes me question how he views sin. 

Is that all sin is? An offense to others? 
Why wasn't there repentance back in the 1980s? 
Can we expect only private repentance from church leadership with their attempt to conceal their sins?
If so, how can we trust church leaders to be godly?

Where is the seriousness and somberness of repentance? 

You can't have your cake and eat it: Problem of Evil and Hell

The Logical Problem of Evil: 

(1) An all-powerful God could prevent evil from existing in the world
(2) An all-good God would want to prevent evil from existing in the world 
(3) Evil exists in the world. 
Therefore, an all-powerful and all-good God cannot exist. 

Adherence to the Problem of Evil admits in premise (2), that evil is wrong and should be destroyed from the world. 

It is repulsive to many that God would send anyone to Hell. By attempting to use the Logical Problem of Evil it is admitted that an all-powerful and all-good God would want to destroy evil from the world. 

Allow me state an additional argument reusing premise (2). Lets call this An Argument for Hell:

(2) An all-good God would want to prevent evil from existing in the world 
(4) There are people in the world who are evil. 
Therefore, God would remove them from the world. 

How would he remove them? Something called: Hell. A complete separation from God. 

If someone attempts to use the Logical Problem of Evil AND they think it is true that there are evil people in the world, then an all-powerful and all-good God would remove these evil people. 

I am convinced by Alvin Plantinga's  Free Will Defense that the Problem of Evil is not a logical problem. But assuming one hasn't decided whether the Logical Problem of Evil is true, they might see that the premises of the Logical Problem of Evil lead to a doctrine of Hell, not the opposite. 

In conclusion, this post isn't that relevant because anyone who holds to the Logical Problem of Evil, doesn't care whether God would send people to Hell because they have already decided that an all-loving and all-powerful God could not exist to send people to Hell. Still it could be an interesting discussion for some (maybe).