Posted on 08/07/2002 5:17:12 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
This week's Newsweek makes an effort to "explain" Heaven to all those poor souls out there who, in the words of column author Lisa Miller, "need" Heaven, "even when clerics insist that heaven is symbolic."
Miller evidently considers herself to be an expert on the subject and, in one sense, I suppose one could agree. Miller makes it clear that she doesn't believe in an afterlife, God or Heaven.
Since, from her view, it's all just a fairy tale, being an expert on Heaven is not much different than being an expert on Harvey the Invisible Rabbit. See the movie, read the book and bingo! – instant expert!
And who is going to dispute her "expert" analysis with facts? Somebody who's been there?
Miller explains Heaven from the points of view of Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism – even David Koresh's perspective is granted equal time with Christ.
Miller also applies the words of Pope Urban to the army of the Crusades and the promises of David Koresh with equal theological weight.
Miller's "explanation" of Heaven is both condescending and wildly inaccurate, unless one shares her perspective that since there's no such place, every explanation is equally valid.
She draws a conclusion that the Jews had no real understanding of Heaven until after the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B.C. Miller blames the Greeks, saying that Jews invented Heaven because the Greeks had one. She bases her conclusion on Daniel 12:2. "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
To make this work, she concludes the Book of Daniel was not written until around 165 B.C.
She says the Jews added this as the "first full-blown reference to resurrection in the Bible, an enormously dramatic historical event and 'an act of incredible theological chutzpah,' says Neil Gillman, professor of philosophy at the Jewish Theological Seminary." The incredible theological chutzpah belongs to Miller, as I read it.
It would take more column time than I have here to address the authorship of the Book of Daniel. There are tons of historical evidences, but for me, the validity of the Book of Daniel is addressed by the Bible itself.
Since Jesus validated Daniel as a prophet, (Matt 24:15, Mark 13:14) if Daniel was written in 165 B.C., then Jesus was also a fraud. In that case, it wouldn't matter anyway.
Miller says that the backdated and forged Book of Daniel (it would necessarily be both for her thesis to work) is the first reference to resurrection in the Bible. That pretty much establishes her theological credentials.
The Book of Job is generally considered to be the oldest book in the Bible, dating to a time bordering on pre-history.
Job 19:25-26 attests: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."
Since Job intends to stand "in his flesh" after "worms destroy this body" "at the latter day upon the earth" it doesn't require a doctorate in divinity to see he is referring to the resurrection that Miller says is not introduced into Jewish theology until 165 B.C.
Miller concludes, "Good, compassionate behavior is not a matter of historical necessity, political perspective or cultural bias. If one can make the mental leap to imagine God in heaven, meting out judgment at the final hour, it's not so much more of a stretch to believe that, in his or her wisdom, God must be able to sort out the bad guys from the good, and twisted rationalizations from what is true."
Miller is right. God has no problems sorting out the good guys from the bad guys and is quite capable of sorting out twisted rationalizations from what is true.
If it weren't such a serious issue, this latest attempt of the modern media to explain a crucial religious belief would be humorous.
Miller does accurately reveal the gross ignorance of natural man when it comes to things spiritual. Jesus explained this when He told a learned religious leader of his day, "Unless a man is born again spiritually, he can not understand the things of the kingdom of God." When the startled religious leader asked how a man could be born a second time when he is old, Jesus replied, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is spiritual." (see John 3)
Even a highly educated "religious minister" who does not have spiritual life can't understand the spiritual phenomena of God. The Bible further explains why: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." Simply put, all mankind is born physically alive, but spiritually dead.
Until a person receives the gift of pardon for sin that Jesus died in our place to purchase for us, he cannot receive this spiritual birth. But the moment anyone recognizes that he or she is separated from a holy God by sin and receives this pardon, God causes to be born within him a new spiritual life. Then this person can understand the spiritual dimension of God.
If there is no God, there is no "good" - the word becomes meaningless drivel. The problem with atheists like Miller is that the world and all that is in it is reduced to a mass of random particulars. There are no absolutes and therefore, there can be no meaning to life or anything in it. All is matter + time + chance. How pathetically sad for Miller and all who think like her.
Many people do pillage and rape and kill little children -0read the papers lately? Do you think these people have God in their consciences? Please tell me if you can: What is the source of "good"? What is the source of "morality"? Whence does it come? You atheists have absolutely nothing to unify the particulars of the world - it all MUST BE random meaninglessness., Where does "meaning" come from? Is the idea of morality, meaning and goodness a cruel joke played on us by evolution? hmmm? Honest atheists admit that life is meaningless without God. Read Neitszche lately? How about Rousseau? So, why don't you get honest too and simply it? Why not be an honest atheist?
And of course, she's been from one end of the universe to the other and knows for a fact that God is no more real than the Easter Bunny...so why shouldn't she be the expert! There!
That's quite an assumption to make.
Yes, and the Bible tells us that God punished King Saul for not killing little children, as he was commanded to do. So God is hardly the answer to that issue.
Well, we all have broken God's laws. I'm sure you have. What is the punishment for breaking God's laws? Should God be a bleeding-heart liberal who coddles criminals?
Is there another option for an atheist? If an atheist claims there is meaning and morals and goodness, they should be able to explain where these things originate. Speaking from the "materialist" perspective (which is the only refuge and ultimate reality of true atheists), life is nothing but a mass of random particulars - matter in motion pal.
So you're saying that someone who refuses to kill little children is a criminal?
It plainly states the earth will no longer need the sun, if the sun burns out billions of years from now it will have no impact on the survival of the planet or mankind, and to mankind there shall be no end. Although we almost wipe ourselves from the face of the Earth, it won't happen.
When the secular and the atheist such as Miller see what they have missed out on being a part of, they will gnash their teeth in wretched, bitter, disappointment, but it has been their free choice to ignore so important a matter as their spirit.
During this same time, a person was showing me historical evidences that have never been refuted that show that the probability of Jesus actually rising from the dead was at least 99%. Even Simon Greenleaf, the famous law professor at Harvard who wrote the 3-volume treatises on how to judge evidences in a court of law, became a Christian after he reviewed the historical evidences. Becoming a Christian probably kept me from committing suicide, since living in a world which logically has no meaning and purpose would be futile, and without purpose, and in reality, a cruel joke.
I am not familiar with the King Saul story you mention. But I am aware that God ordered the killing of entire populations. Let's look at the Canaanites for example. They sacrificed their babies on the arms of their false God Molech (bronze statue heated in fire and live baby placed on its red-hot arms). Does that sound similar to abortion industry today? bingo! You are catching on. Here's a rule of life: Sonny grows up to be just like daddy. God gave the Canaanites 400 years to stop this evil practice, and when they are all wiped out - they DESERVED IT. God always uses PERFECT JUSTICE. Oops - "justice" - where does that come from? Dog gone it! There's another absolute for which you can find no meaning!
Amen. Praise God.
Why is that?
In order to be consistent in their self-exalted rationality perhaps?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.