The Devil's Delusion

I recently read David Berlinski's book, The Devil's Delusion, Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. His academic background and mathematics and his ability to express himself with the written and spoken word are neither of which I profess for myself. This brief article is not intended as a review of his book. Berlinski wrote The Devil's Delusion in response to Richard Dawkins' own book, The God Delusion. Dawkins goes far and wide to do his best to inflict some notion of misery on believers by vomiting his vile contempt about God. I was neither fazed nor impressed or dismayed by it.

Berlinski has not said anything to me that I, and I hardly think I am alone, was not already aware on the pretensions of atheists, not just concerning God whom they do not know, but concerning those things of nature and the universe which they do profess to know. Berlinski, who identifies himself as agnostic, has taken it upon himself to speak favorably in defense of theists and our claims concerning God and the universe.

I have often noted about atheists that their reasoning, to be quite liberal with that term, is so very much like the same so-called fundamentalists, fundies, or believers whom they ridicule. In the same manner as some believers sprinkle liberally their speech with words such as faith, belief, atheists sprinkle their speech no less liberally with the words such as, logic and reason. Both seem to think that merely by so sprinkling their speech makes it so and makes it convincing. As a testimony of the similarities between these two I have noticed the embrace and an increase in the use by believers of the atheists' proprietary term, strawman. It is not uncommon now to hear this term bantered about by theists with theists. What can I say but that being human with all its trappings of pettiness and other human characteristics is inescapable for both.

This is a quotation which is attributed to David Berlinki specifically, from The Devil's Delusion. Unless I missed it, which is not likely as I was familiar with the quotation and expected to come across it as I read the book, the quotation does not appear in the paperback copy. I believe it may be in the jacket of the hardcopy.

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”

David Berlinski is to atheism (let's be specific and real, that's atheists) and their scientific pretensions what Penn and Teller are to magicians and E.H. Schumacher [1] was to his fellow economists. Every one of these have called to account their brethren whether it be in the arenas of entertainment, economics or cosmology and quantum physics. We might recognize these individuals, by any other term, as Whistleblowers. This is the term adhered to them either when they (sometimes boldly, other times imprudently) cry out to inform the public or when they are exposed either by their own or the media. I believe we can also readily recognize the same contempt, mockery and scorn with which every attempt is made to discredit them. Rarely is there anything offered and put forward for those who hear the cry of the Whistleblower to become otherwise fully informed by those who have been exposed. Usually contempt takes from and center.

Lastly, David Berlinski shares an interesting point concerning the increasing cascade of contempt by atheists against religion (faith being my own preferred term). Berlinski sees the origin of this as arising in the aftermath of 911 attack on America. The quick reaction by atheists against religion was, I would say, no less pretentious then their other claims to which Berlinski speaks. Some atheists, particularly those who attest to having been hardcore theists at some earlier time in their lives, have some knowledge about some things which, when they are heard out, it becomes blatantly apparent that they never understood when they professed to believe those things. Then they run with those mistaken notions and mix those together with their own freshly and newly owned scientific pretensions while they ran with that mix to make a bigger and ever bigger lump. This is what they, like Sisyphus, will roll around, maybe even uphill, not as punishment, but by their own making.

Read More

First Believe?

I must admit it is refreshing to hear an atheist who presents his argument, or objection as in this case, without the usual excess peppering of his message (I encourage you to view the video: First Believe?) with claims and appeals for logic and reason or mockery and derision. Too often the mere inclusion of these lofty puffs about logic and reason in one’s speech are taken as proof that one’s argument is on solid logic and reason simply because the individual says it, and therefore it is so. This is not limited to atheists. Christians tout and flaunt the same claims with each other as well as with atheists. This is not to dismiss logic and reason. (It amuses me to hear Christians toss around what was once solely the atheist ploy and brand about a strawman. And you thought scarecrows weren’t real, right?)

I agree with Matt about the proposition that I will describe and what amounts to, for working purposes, not as a bait and switch, but as a switch and bait.The switch in this instance is to call on the the atheist to shift from unbelief to belief with nothing more than to have the atheist declare that they believe. Effectively, this conveniently frees the Christian from the work of engaging in thought and discussion with the atheist to bring him or her, not necessarily to that Platinum Award of belief which is rightly the Christian’s objective, but to an understanding. Acceptance of that understanding will not necessarily follow and it may or may not come during or after the discussion if ever. Quite simply the risk of acceptance may be deemed as being too much and too high for the individual and he will reject whatever and all proofs or even a thought to ponder among the evidence.

Essentially, first believe is an outfront appeal, or insistence, for the unbeliever to believe and that once they believe they will see, that is, understand the unseen matters of faith in God. I can understand the atheists’ whuh? bewilderment to such a proposition. It does constitute an incredible problem. However, it is not as though atheists do not have a similar proposition of their own. Of course, the proverbial two-wrongs-don’t-make-a-right comes to mind, but the similar proposition from the atheist is “show me and I’ll believe” or as I believe they say in Missouri, “show me.” (No, I am not from Missouri.)

"I come from a state that raises corn and cotton, cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I'm from Missouri, and you have got to show me." (Congressman Willard Vandiver in 1899)

This call for proof or evidence by atheists is certainly within the realm of what is reasonable and plausible. However, this is not to say that confirmation through sight and touch necessarily trumps or invalidates all other responses to the question of proof. Scientists work with phenomenon which is neither visible nor palpable, but that phenomenon are not for that reason rendered as invalidate or not true. Even so, the acid test for the scientific hypothesis, the theory, of the scientific method of investigation rightly states that an idea or explanation must be testable. A theory is a valid argument and not necessarily a wild guess or wild notion, so there’s no need for an ecstatic jump to conclusions that I have rejected a basic understanding about theory as it is used by scientists. The corollary affirmation to scientific hypothesis is truth. What does that mean? It means that despite our tendency for favorite preferred word choices such as belief versus understanding truth is inescapable. The much heard academic and coffee table popurri about truth as being objective, subjective, emotional, real, biblical truth, philosophical, experiential and the grandest of them all, drum roll, please: truth is absolute, are all like so much turkey stuffing with truth being the turkey.

Jesus demonstrated and defined truth by declaring that he knew 1) where he came from, 2) why he was here, and 3) where he was going. Truth is not so much objective, subjective or absolute as much as it is a perspective on past, present and future, perspective being the relationship of parts, time in this case, to one another. Truth is the knowledge and peace with one’s past, present and future which makes one free because he or she has come to terms and reconciled these things in their heart and mind. [5] Any bias between our past, present or future which cannot be explained will be exposed. Sometimes the quick assumption is to yell liar and hypocrite as opposed to maybe offering words that might guide that person towards a more complete reconciliation of truth. Matt’s definition that “belief is the state of accepting a proposition is true” is no less true than to say understanding is the state of accepting a proposition is true, that is, that it is truth. Here is an instance in which the proposition was not stated, but it is implied and also subsequently rejected.

When God counseled Cain about Cain’s anger and fallen countenance it was all for nothing. It was the first counseling session. The counseling was a failure. Cain went on to murder his brother. After he had murdered his brother Abel he disdainfully scorned God for asking him where was his brother. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Cain said. The implicit answer to God’s question before Cain fired his retort was that, yes, Cain, you are your brother’s keeper. The proposition about being the keeper of one’s brother was rejected by Cain. Effectively, Cain, who spoke and interacted with God, chose to not believe God. Instead, he chose to succumb to the carnal desires of his heart as in the particular instance of murdering his brother. The point being in this very early passage of scripture is that seeing and knowing God, such as did Cain, is neither a guarantee of obedience nor of belief in God.

the universe and the air we breathe

Here are two examples which have been accepted as verified and verifiable through the scientific method. The first is simple, near and present to every human being. It is air, that element which fills our lungs and sustains our life. Air is neither visible nor palpable by human beings. Yes, its effects become visible and palpable when pressure, such as in a storm, is applied to air. The second is the universe. Scientists understood, as recently as between 45 and 60 years ago, that the universe was infinite, that is, that it had always existed. They call this the steady-state theory. This earlier theory was chipped away and eventually, in a manner of speaking, banged out of existence through the work of Georges Lemaître, George Gamow, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson and many others. Clearly, to reproduce the beginning of the universe is not something which one can conduct in the laboratory. Yet, the theory concerning the beginning of the universe is not for this reason invalid or false and no less real than the air we breathe. While I could state, without any basis of support, that I understand the hypothesis concerning the origin of the universe is falsifiable or a falsifiable prediction, I will admit my own inadequacy and incompetence to do so. It is out of my pay grade.

the falsifiable predictability of the resurrection of Jesus

What I can say is that when the scientific hypothesis is applied to the resurrection of Jesus to test it the result is that it is a falsifiable prediction. This does not mean it renders it false or that it nullifies it. Even so, I expect some of my fellow brothers and sisters in the faith might have already jumped to a mistaken conclusion about my statement. It simply means that there is a plausible, alternate explanation and it is good for atheists to examine the alternate explanation and determine for themselves if these things are plausible and believable. Some may be tempted and resort to make a quick dismissal of the resurrection as wishful fairytale.

There is a bit of a similarity between the discussion concerning the universe and the resurrection. They both have to do with origins and  beginnings. If these were to be disproved than so be it. If all the tenets of faith in Jesus were inverted and placed as an upside down pyramid the resurrection would be at the sharp, pointy end of that pyramid. Even though I will state that it is superfluous to chase after every rabbit, that is, every little and big thing which the reader does not understand or rejects from the scripture, it is all for nothing if the claims and historicity of the reality of the resurrection remain unexamined. If the resurrection is indeed false, then the rest is of little significance or consequence and a wide and wild open-ended anything-goes free for all. Kind of a little like a wild (BIG) tusked bull elephant in a fine, pristine, glassware shop on a must.

The resurrection, unlike the origin of the universe, is much closer to us human beings. The reality of death keeps it close and real for us and does allow us to cast it into a hypothetical, far away, distant, parallel universe. Death is an everyday occurrence. It speaks to and of our human nature and desire to live. It is precisely why death is not the sole domain of scientists and philosophers and the reason why this is within anyone’s pay grade. There are several ideas which could be proposed to discredit the resurrection of Jesus. It is likely that none of these ideas are new. Some of these are mentioned in the scriptures and we will examine a couple of these now. No one reading these words has experienced death. Let me be more specific. No one has experienced physical death _ permanently, not a near-death experience from which the person returns to life with a testimony of his experience.

transformation of energy

Scientific knowledge has taught us that the energy which makes up solid matter, such as a rock, cannot be annihilated. It can only be transformed. Then, although it may no longer be visible or palpable to the senses it remains, theoretically, able to be combined or constituted back to its solid form. Although this may not have been done with a rock this is demonstrable and evident in the albeit less solid element of water. The solid form of water can be pressured until it transforms into vapor. Then, once the pressure is relieved the vapor is restored to its solid water form.

The standard response of the atheist to death is that it is final. Here are the death, burial and resurrection accounts as they appear in the four gospel accounts by Matthew,[1] Mark,[2] Luke [3] and John.[4] The occurrence of death for a person, according to the atheist, is as though he or she had never existed. How plausible and credible is this response to death? How is it that a lifeless form of solid matter such as a rock cannot be annihilated, but a human life form with all its information and intelligence ceases to exist as though it had never existed? Furthermore, that this lifeform cannot, like a rock, be restored to its original state or to life?

These are the claims which Jesus made, namely, that he would lay down his life and take it up from the dead, again. This was the restoration of life to a dead body and what had, according to atheists, ceased to exist as though it had never existed. Yes, I understand this can all be dismissed and discarded by the atheist, likely with heavy doses of mockery and ridicule, but this response hardly makes the response of atheists true. It is more profitable to examine the falsifiability of the resurrection.

The claim of the New Testament scriptures is that Jesus died, was buried and rose up from the dead on the third day. This is what Jesus had openly stated numerous times to friend and foe alike. It was not a private club secret among his disciples. This is the hypothesis for us to examine as to whether it is falsifiable. Here are just a couple.

Jesus did not die, but the disciples lied

The truth is that his public crucifixion was a glorious occasion for his adversaries. They were present at the crucifixion and cast their mockery, derision and contempt on him. Some of his disciples were also present at the crucifixion. Nobody denied his death. After his burial some women came to the tomb with intentions of completing the tradition preparations on the deceased. This preparation for burial had not been possible in the case of Jesus because of the approaching Sabbath. Among the witnesses who were present were the duty-bound Roman soldiers who had no vested interest in the entire matter and were simply doing their job as soldiers assigned to carry out the execution of death by crucifixion. They reported to Governor Pilate that Jesus was dead.

Jesus died, but he did not rise from the dead

The thought of the disciples mustering some farce and charade of joy over their dead leader is pathetic. The easy “show-me” proof is precisely what Thomas insisted in order for him to believe. Thomas was one of the disciples of Jesus who was absent the first time he appeared to the disciples. Jesus appeared to as many as five hundred at one time. The visual, verifiable proof that Thomas demanded was to see with his own eyes the holes in the hands of Jesus and to place his finger in those holes and the hole in his side in order for Thomas to believe. (Thomas, like all but one of the eleven disciples [minus Judas who had hanged himself] was not present at the crucifixion. Yet Thomas knew and was familiar with the account by those witnesses who were present that a Roman soldier had thrust his spear into Jesus’ side from which flowed blood and water.) Just as Roman soldiers had presided at the crucifixion they were also present to guard the tomb as requested of Pilate by the adversaries of Jesus.

The idea of whether Jesus did not die, but his disciples lied together with the idea that Jesus died, but he did not rise from the dead are falsifiable predictions. However, the testimony of the scriptures from believers and unbelievers alike plus human reason, and yes, logic and reason, indicate and strongly counter any dismissal of the resurrection as being a falsehood perpetrated on man and perpetuated by man for bad reasons or dishonest and insincere motives. The resurrection of Jesus, like anything else, is a falsifiable prediction, but given the above it is not falsified. There are those who have professed and proclaimed the resurrection from the first to the twenty first century even unto death. Their decision and commitment to do so came about when they were convinced that what they had heard, examined and assessed warranted a response to accept the risks. Furthermore, those deaths which occurred even while professing and proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus were not of unbelievers in the hands of believers, but by believers in the hands of unbelievers.

conclusion

The disciples did profess to believe in Jesus while he was alive and they walked and talked with him. Yet despite the fact that they had heard from him that he would rise up from the dead they wondered what that meant and could hardly grasp much less believe it. Some people, Christians perhaps, would likely admonish the disciples for their unbelief while unbelievers would likely point to this as hypocrisy. However, both of these responses may reflect a similar bias against which Matt admonishes his viewers.

I consider that their unbelief in response to the risen Jesus was as intended by Jesus. It was akin to removing the floaties on the beginner swimmer; let’s see if you have learned to float and swim. It is akin to removing the training wheels on the child’s bicycle. In the case of the disciples even when they saw Jesus with their own eyes Luke attests in his gospel account that they could not believe it because of their joy and amazement.[6] The disciples found themselves stripped, in a manner of speaking, of their floaties and training wheels and all their biases concerning how and what they thought they knew about Jesus. It was imperative that they now demonstrate to and for themselves the conviction of things which they had heard and of which they were now coming to be fully convinced.

The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus can be no more reproduced than the beginning of the universe. Neither of these phenomenon are for this reason false. In the same manner as we ponder the cosmos of the universe and make a determination so, too, the resurrection of Jesus calls for nothing more and nothing less. The disciples and unbelievers in the first century faced the same reality of death as what we face in the twenty first century.

Any attempt to dismiss the resurrection of Jesus because no one in the twenty first century has seen him is akin to dismissing the scientific hypothesis. It is to deny the theoretical possibility of pulverizing the lifeless, solid mass of energy of a rock in oblivion or water into invisible vapor and then each, theoretically, bringing both back to their original solid state. This is a reality. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe (first) it. It has to do with whether it aligns with basic natural science and basic human psychology. This is nothing deep, mystical, mysterious or profound. If it staggers the imagination so, too, do the wonders and vastness of the universe. Mockery and derision are not do they equate with comprehension or a cohesive understanding. Death is not something to be feared and it is definitely not something feared by Christians. This is not to say that there are not people who do live in fear of death, but their fear (or even that of some Christians) does not amount to an invalidation of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Read More

What is Halloween?

Selected (unrelated) reading: Artemis, Pentecost

"Satan's birthday!" blurted out the fifth grader to begin our class brainstorm to my open question, "What is Halloween?". Typically, I would do an overview with my students on calendar holidays to cover the origin, significance and present day observance. My colleagues were aghast at the mere prospect of mention or discussion of a religious point. My response to all was I was not interested in inquiring or imposing respective beliefs. The subject matter, such as Halloween or Christmas, is found in libraries throughout the world. Americans (I do not believe we as a people are unique in this respect) observe religious and cultural holidays with a shallowness with respect to origin and significance.

So, here's my attempt with dos (2) bits of knowledge, understanding and thoughts on The origin and significance of Halloween. I decided in favor of keeping links and references to a minimum while encouraging all to a survey study of their own. You will likely encounter discrepancies and variations between writings on Samhain/Halloween. My purpose is to do a brief overview of Halloween including, 1) The origin and significance, 2) The present day observance and practice, and 3) The value of observance as between Americans in general and Christians in particular.

The origin and significance of Halloween

Halloween, or "Hallowed (holy) eve", "All saints day" occurs, depending on the religious versus cultural, view on October 31 or November 1. Although it is regarded by some as a cultural event it was not so for its pre-christian practitioners, the Celts of France, Britain and Ireland. Among the Celts it was the learned elderly, spiritual priests of the Druids who presided over the "Samhain" (pronounced, "Sow en", approx.) religious ceremonies.

Samhain represented a day (perhaps two or three) when the lowering of the barrier of separation between the living and the dead, between the end and beginning of the year, occurred. It was a time when, according to Celtic belief, it was possible the spirits of the dead could be reached. All fires were extinguished (creating an opportune moment for the spirit world) throughout the land to be re-ignited with fire from the priests. Families remembered and invoked the spirit of loved ones and would lay out an assortment of treats to welcome their visitation. The danger in calling on the spirits of dear ones was that evil spirits (the aforementioned opportune moment) could make their way through into the real world and harm families expecting a loved one's spirit, also. Therefore, they disguised themselves to appear as evil spirits by wearing frightening attire ( costumes) as though themselves one of the dead.

Although I dressed up our daughters for their trick-or-treat night I have never taken to trick or treating let alone wearing a costume even in my younger days.

"Yes, Mr. Torres, but you're old" pointed out another boy to everyone's laughter.

"Oh! You're so right" I replied. "After all, it was the elderly priests who led the solemn Samhain ceremonies and it was not children going door-to-door asking for treats, right?"

The present day observance and practice

Halloween, from a child's view, is participation, in costume, going door-to-door armed with the intimidation, charm and their battle cry of "Trick or Treat!" Their's is a participation in a cultural event, including pumpkin carvings, devoid of meaning. Some participate in mindless destruction of property. Others flaunt a public display to profess allegiance and worship of Satan. None of this has anything to do with Samhain as observed and practiced by the Celts under the leadership of the Druid priests.

Even the "evil religion" tarnish given Samhain by the church is lost to many people. The Roman catholic church, as she has done throughout the world, acquiesced (as a means to an end: conversion of non-believers) to Celt culture. The church syncretized, that is it, melded or harmonized, pagan and Christian beliefs. Later, the church changed its stance and widened the distance between new converts and their this old pagan holiday. Samhain was distorted and demonized as Satanic worship and human sacrifice. The ignorance has been passed on from generation to generation.

The value of observance

Holidays in America, whether religious or cultural, bear a common semblance in the manner in which they are observed: A day off from school or work, picnics and parties.

Is there value in observing Halloween as a religious or cultural holiday? Halloween, and all religious holidays, are neither sanctioned nor condemned for believers in the New Testament. The problem and subsequent teaching by New Testament writers arose when holidays became a proof-test of faith. A former adherent and practitioner of the Mosaic law and now a Christian would choose, for example, to observe the Sabbath. That was not a problem. The problem occurred when it didn't stop there. The individual and other like-minded Christians decided to impose that as a faith requirement on fellow Christians. They targeted those who shared a similar religious heritage with them. The same problem occurred with former pagans as they decided to participate in their former pagan holiday festivities now that they were Christians. Provided they did not engage in immorality it was alright for them to observe the holiday, but not to expect or require fellow Christians to observe the holiday, too.

The Christian expectation, as set forth in the New Testament, is for the believer to be all things to all men. Thereby, evangelism and the winning of non-believers to faith in Jesus, the Son of God. In other words, the Christian's participation in a holiday such as Halloween is with a purpose and understanding of his/her participation and much more than self-gratification.

Unlike the mere observance of a holiday the practice of calling on the dead carries a strong Old Testament prohibition. There is a instance recorded in the book of I Samuel. The reaction of the necromancer from Endor upon seeing the dead may suggest this was a first time ever and may explain the charlatan's great fright. This is neither a condemnation nor acceptance on the Celtic belief. Their belief, whether or not we agree with it, was genuine. The biblical account inference is that even an attempt to connect with the dead is a prohibited. It is a turning away from the revelation of the word of God. It, not the dead, is where believers are to seek guidance and understanding in matters of knowledge present and future.

It is ironic that Halloween, shrouded in dubious practices and ignorance concerning the dead, should come to be a celebration of significant stature in America. Our communities come alive under the moonlight as we walk with our children through our neighborhoods. Total strangers wait and welcome eagerly the children to hear them blurt out, "trick or treat". Though some have cited Memorial Day as our day of remembrance of the dead in America it is primarily the brave men and women who fell in battle and nothing comparable to Halloween or Samhain. "El dia de los muertos" ("the day of the dead") in Latin America bears similarity to the ancient holiday. However, their observance is influenced increasingly by the American costume and "trick or treat" practice in recent years.

Americans may be hard-pressed to give a simple explanation on the meaning of Halloween. However, the affect in community neighborhoods suggests there is an undeniable significance. Perhaps, it is an opportune moment for us, the living, to ponder the meaning that shapes our lives, a great value in itself while we enjoy the night with our children. The gross perversion of Halloween as a glorious Satanic day by a Satanist such as Anton LaVey and which is so quickly swallowed up by gullible saints in Christ only serves to reveal our ignorance. LaVey's and other people's perverse corruption of a celebration is no different than false prophets like Joseph Smith who proclaimed a perverse corruption of the gospel.

The message of Halloween by the saints in Christ

The Halloween message for the saints in Christ in the community on Halloween is that while the Celts celebrated with a welcome the spirits of their departed dead; we in Christ celebrate life in our Savior Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God risen from the dead.

Read More

A Properly Baked Cake

Do you ever approach something with the attitude: I just want to get it done. I just want to get it out of the way. What this attitude reflects is a dislike or displeasure, but vital need in doing that something that needs our action.

When we apply this to our faith in God some people have a ready file to show they got it done a while back. It may have been in their childhood. It may be through mere association with others who profess a faith like them. They've taken care of it. It's out of the way. They are, as they understand, free to carry on with their lives.

There are others whose faith in God means an endless, tiresome exhausting task of work. No matter how small or how big the task they are sure to do it and add it to their works account ready for presentation to God at the appropriate time as proof of their faith in Him.

What these two, faith and works, represent are what I call the "alone" extremes to which people go to get the God thing right and out of the way. They are the extremes of "faith alone" and "works alone."

The Jews in Jesus' day came to Him and asked him (John 6:28,29) for the quick, easy work they needed to fulfill the God thing. Jesus replied that they were to believe in him whom God had sent. In other words, as Jesus states, belief is a work. It is something one does. It is not merely a thought between our ears.

Ironically, Jesus' reply to the Jews has resulted in some who take that and run to the "faith alone" extreme. These two, faith and works, are not opposed or contradictory to each other as some mistakenly understand when they read the letters by the apostle Paul to the Romans and by the apostle James in the letter which bears his name are favorites. The "faith alone" group favors Romans for its emphasis on faith and belief. The "works alone" group favors James because of its emphasis on works. This same approach of viewing one better or more important than the other is not limited to these two. It extends to repentance, confession, etc.

As I drink my coffee, cake comes to mind. It may help illustrate the importance and significance of a humble and sincere obedience to the one whom God has sent. Suppose you invited some friends over for coffee and cake. As they sit at the table you serve a bowl of eggs to one of your friends. Another you serve a bowl of shortening. Another receives a bowl of flour. Another one a bowl of water.

You announce, "Enjoy!" They look strangely at you.

Finally, one brave soul informs you this is not a cake. Another joins in and tells you these are cake ingredients. Another tells you these ingredients are to be mixed and baked in the oven to create a delicious cake.

You gather the bowls with ingredients mix them up. Thirty minutes later you remove it from the oven only to realize the bowl of eggs is on your kitchen counter. No problem, you say, as you break the eggs and spread them over the hot almost-cake. You serve it to your friends. After a while another brave soul informs you this is not a properly baked cake.

Which of these ingredients, flour, eggs, etc., is more important in baking a cake? Clearly, it is not a matter of which is more important but that all these ingredients work together to create a cake.

Similarly, to put one's trust of belief in God and put that belief into action is to understand faith. It is no more important than works or belief more important than repentance. The act of breaking and spreading eggs over the almost-cake is to misunderstand not only the importance of all these ingredients in baking a cake, but to misunderstand the importance of belief over confession, etc.

As an example of this scrambled mixup of imitating the New Testament obedience to the gospel there are some who discard one thing over another as being unimportant. Others will state it is important, but it doesn't need to be done. WHAT?!?!?! Specifically, you may have probably heard baptism discarded as something unimportant. Does anyone believe a person could openly confession Jesus as Lord, be baptized and tell him he can repent of his continued fornication or other sin some time later. Is there anyone who would tell him repentance is not important, or it's good to "DO" it, but not important. This teaching is what leads some to think they have gotten the God thing take care of and it's out of the way. Someone took the liberty to wrongfully teach them of their own accord what they thought as being important and what was unimportant.

A life with that approach to belief and obedience of God does not mock God because God cannot be mocked. However, it does lead one to a life of misery and ruin because they are going about their own lives and not, as Paul wrote, "Christ living in me." The God thing, well, that's at home in their hidden file but ready, if they really must, for display. They mistakenly thought believing and obeying the one whom God has sent is something done once and not something they live in love thereafter.

Read More