Can God Create a Stone So Heavy That Even He Cant Lift it?

I've heard this question many times, and I'm sure many of us have.  It is an old school-yard question that pops up sometimes in adulthood.  Today a friend wrote me to tell me about being asked this question in his philosophy class.

This thought experiment is sometimes called an "omnipotence paradox" because it is proposed that if God cannot make such a stone then he cannot do "everything/anything" and if he can make such a stone and cant lift it then again there is something that he "cant do"

First it is important to point out that what is being proposed here in the thought experiment is logically impossible, along the same lines as making a square circle.  The task at question is not a task at all but simply a combination of self contradictory words.

Second I would point out that the definition of omnipotence has never included that God can do the logically impossible

Third I would say that if the person continues and insists that God should be able to do even the logically impossible if He is to be omnipotent then Wonderful!

If God can do the logically impossible then answer yes, God can make a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it...then he would go ahead and lift it.  The objection to that answer is that does not make sense and is logically impossible.  But granting this premise God can do the logically impossible.

The False Dilemma of Science vs Religion in Orange is the New Black

  It is very noticeable how Christians are depicted in TV shows.  There are over 2.2 billion Christians on the planet from all walks of life but as represented on TV shows they all seem to be quite similar.  Ever since that famous scene on the West Wing, where a scene was carefully crafted and prepared to cast Christianity in a hypocritical light and then went viral I have been looking at how Christians are cast in media.  (I guess I should write about that scene soon)

 I have been watching the first season of Orange is the New Black and I have enjoyed it so far.  But of course I had to notice that the Christian character (Tiffany) is a former drug addict who killed an abortion clinic worker for disrespecting her and as she is in the prison thinks she is a faith healer, preaches any chance she can get, but is obviously a huge hypocrite as her worldview does not match up in her life because she is vindictive and even talks about killing one non religious character.  Just to add, there is a Catholic nun in the series but is yet to weigh in on these issues of religion.

  So I was sad to see that this is the representative of my people in the show but I understood it.  The last episode I watched though, I thought deserved a comment.  The main character Piper pretends to convert to Christianity so she and the Christian character can get along.  When Tiffany brings Piper to a disgusting "muck sink" to be baptised in front of a group of "Christian followers" (who are also purposely cast in a poor light) Piper finally says she cannot convert for a few reasons.  Ill post the monologue speech here.  I apologise for the curse word that appears in this picture.



This is obviously a crafted speech and Ill only tackle the first part here and do some more follow up on this monologue.  The first part of the speech is mainly the tired false dilemma of Science vs Religion.

"I believe in science. I believe in evolution. I believe in Nate Silver, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Christopher Hitchens"

What hits me as so odd here is that many of the fathers of modern science were incredibly religious.  Issac Newton, Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler, James Clerk-Maxwell and on and on were all very deeply religious.  Also they saw no problem with  "believing in" science right along side with deep religious beliefs. Today I have yet to see science provide any problems to the Christian faith.  Yes I understand there is a small group of Christians who hold to a young earth but this is not a popular or traditional view in Christianity.  Christians have never been held to a young earth model as shown in Augustine's writings from some 1500 years before Darwin.

Second she says she believes in evolution.  So do Christians! When the Origin of Species was published it was supported by many Christians and was even published with a letter from Darwin's main American supporter, the evangelical Harvard Botanist and Professor Asa Grey.  Also one of the world most famous biologists, Francis Collins is a Bible believing evangelical Christian who shows there is no problem between Christianity and evolution.


Next she says she "believes in" Silver, Degrasse Tyson and Hitchens.  This is a very odd statement, I don't think these men want anyone believing in them in this fashion but I think I know what she is getting at.  Again I see no problem here.  Neil Degrasse Tyson is a astrophysicist and science communicator.  Christians have a long line of physicists including Nobel prize winners.  They saw no problem with physics and God so why does this character on this show?                                

 When it comes to Christopher Hitchens, he was one of my favorites for sure.  He was loved by Christians worldwide, especially after his debate with William Lane Craig because of his humorous nature, his ability to have a respectful exchange and his humbleness in admitting defeat.  I watched him trounce a bunch of pastors and the like but his debates with William Lane Craig and John Lennox were very different.  He was open to the evidence, was passionate but was very clear that he was not certain.  Also it was easily shown that he was very emotional on the topic and was not able to argue against strong Christian apologetics.  He even remarked about how the fine tuning argument for the universe (teleological argument) was the strongest from the Christian side and the most intriguing. Chris Hitchens had many close evangelical Christian friends and even his own brother is a strong Christian apologist.

  My main idea here is the Science vs Religion issue is a false dilemma.  There is no evidence to prove that it is a problem and is not a reasonable position to hold.  It is a popular one though that you will find in media and on internet forums.  If you encounter this issue, just ask for the evidence to be presented that supports it.
Ill stop there and tackle the rest in follow up blogs.

I hate Christianity, Christianity causes all the Wars!

  Since I live in a city in which only 4% are bible believing church going Christians of course I receive daily objections and ridicule to my faith.  90% of it is the usual old and tired anti religious bigotry along the lines of "how can you obey the bible when it says you cant eat shrimp?" I find that objection so elementary and silly I haven't addressed it yet but I guess I have to soon.  But today as I was in my local coffee shop reading my bible and talking on the phone a guy came over and asked me if I was a "fundamentalist" I laughed and asked him what he meant by that.  He explained to me that all fundamentalism leads to wars and violence.  So I rebutted that but anyone's definition the Amish are fundamentalists and explained how he was very wrong in that regard.  So his next point was that he hated Christianity because it causes all the wars.

  Coincidentally just last night I watched the movie the Book of Eli in which it depicts a world in which all Bibles have been banned because many people believes that the Bible caused the great war that ended civilization.

  Since Christianity is a facts and evidence kind of religion I invited the fellow in the coffee shop to examine the evidence with me for his claim that Christianity causes all the wars.  Together via my phone we examined the encyclopedia of wars to find out that of all the wars in history which chronicles some 1762 wars only 6.98% are religious and if you subtract those waged in the name of Islam then you get 3.23% .

  So the facts speak for themselves.  Recently I watched an interview with Jesse Ventura, and as a former professional wrestler I truthfully respect him.  I watched as he tried to say that the Vietnam war was a religious war.  While I appreciate his emotionalism, because many of my people are very emotional, he is simply wrong and ive yet to find a historian with peer reviewed evidence to back up his claim.

The facts show that Christianity is a religion in which Jesus tells Peter to put away his sword and that those who live by the sword die by the sword.  It had been Christians who have fought for things such as peace, rules in war, and human rights.

   The way this debate usually goes is "hey what about the Crusades?" well a question is not an argument.  For the past month Ive been reading about the Crusades and it had completely changes my view.  So if someone brings that up, ask for evidence.  Christians need not provide all evidence to any off the cuff question that people bring up as an objection.  Ill post about the crusades soon and what they were in resoponse to.

Historically Ignorant "American atheists" advertisement

    One ally of atheism is historical ignorance.  When I hear attacks on Christianity historical ignorance is the answer to the attack quite often.  This comes up in many ways that I will explore separately later on in this blog.  Today Ill explore this advertisement that was taken out in New York's Time Square. 

  It depicts a picture of Santa Claus, and a picture of Jesus dying on the cross.  It encourages us in a very evangelistic way to keep the merry spirit of Christmas but to dump the "myth: of Jesus dying on a cross.

  What I find so surprising about this, is that many atheists I know and interact with online appreciate history.  Appreciate evidence, peer reviewed articles and the opinions of the consensus of scholarship.  Many atheists I know do appreciate history and would never say anything along the lines of Jesus of Nazareth not existing or that he didn't die on a Roman cross.  Especially considering this is one of the most well attested to facts in history.

  Even former Christian and now agnostic Bart Ehrman takes these history deniers head on quite often and even compares them to holocaust deniers  in this article from the huffington post.  "In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilisation, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?"

The simple fact is that Jesus did exist and was put to death on a Roman cross.  No scholars that I am aware of take the view seriously that Jesus didnt exist and was put to death on a Roman cross. It is simply an Internet circulated idea that no one with any credibility puts their name behind it.  As I said in a recent blog post, the only people that put their names behind it are simply not qualified to do so.

What I would like to see happen is for us to keep the merry of Christmas, to acknowledge historical facts such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth and for us to dump these silly historically ignorant attacks.  We can have a rational debate with out purposly misleading posters.

  I also find it very interesting that Christians are often ridiculed for evangelising. But this is one of the new attitudes in the new atheism.  That no only should religion be purged from the public square but also in the private lives of people.  I'm amazed to hear the new atheism evangelism, I personally enjoy encountering it because I enjoy engaging with people. 

Can even Santa Claus be saved???

    Santa Claus is very popular around the world.  The Santa Claus that we mainly see today is the Coca Cola version of the big, red and white Santa Claus.  So, was Santa Claus a real person? Who was he? Is he just a pagan idea?

  Most people simply do not realise the rich ancient heritage behind the Santa Claus story.  Santa Claus is a form of the Dutch name Sinter Klaas, which is a reference to Saint Nicholas.  St Nicholas was a fourth century Christian Bishop of Smyrna which is now part of modern day Turkey.  Today December 6th is actually Saint Nicholas day and in many European countries today is the day in which gifts are exchanged and Christmas day is a day of a feast and celebration of Christ.  Saint Nicholas was traditionally known as lavishing gifts on children and the needy.

  St Nicholas was born is 280AD and was raised in a Christian home.  He was forced to grow up quickly because of  the sudden death of his parents.  He inherited his parents wealth and was known for sharing his wealth for good.  He was elected Bishop of Smyrna and was known to be a faithful man and passionate for the gospel.

  Under the Roman Emperor Diocletian who ruthlessly persecuted Christians, Bishop Nicholas suffered for his faith, and was imprisoned.  After Emperor Constantine ordered the cessation of all persecution of the church, and the Christians were released from prisons Nicholas was released.  He later attended the Council of Nicea in AD 325, where he affirmed the Doctrine of the Trinity.

  Also at the Council of Nicea Arianism was declared heresy.  Arianism is the idea that contrary to John 1 Jesus was a created being and sub ordinate to God the father.  There is a weak tradition that Saint Nicholas got into a debate with Arius himself and as the heat increased Saint Nicholas actually punched out Arius! 

  So can Santa Claus be saved?  Yes! He can be known as a defender of the faith, as a man who stood by orthodox Christian doctrine, as a man who used wealth for charity, and as a man of passion for God.  If it is true that he punched Arius I don't agree at all with his action but I cant help but have a laugh and understand we all make mistakes, but I can also admire his passion

"Well, I dont think Jesus even existed!"

I am always surprised to hear this objection in person.  Usually I picture it as an Internet based issue that rational people don't really hold to.  But recently I encountered it again, so I thought I would write a quick blog about it.

  The claim that Jesus didn't even exist simply flies in the face of history and textual criticism.  In fact someone who would make this claim would be a history denier.  But I am amazed how strongly many people hold to this claim when in scholarship the view is considered to be quite silly.  In my conversation recently I was saying that I have never found a scholar to support this view can you suggest any?  The person then referenced the book "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy and added that they were scholars.  Well a quick google search turned out that these authors are not scholars, they do not have one peer reviewed paper between them also their education is a B.A and a M.A which I appreciate but their degrees are not relevant to the field and they are not scholars.  This book is mainly about the idea that Jesus was a myth.  I almost feel bad when I see how much the scholarly world is against Jesus mythicists.  In a article I read recently Bart Ehrman was saying of mythicists

"there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology."

Another objection along these lines that I often hear is that since the historical documents concerning Jesus are biased and contain supernatural claims they cannot be trusted.  This is simply not true at all.  All historical documents are biased and many contain supernatural claims.  This is simply the art and science of the historian and textual critic.


Also I hear people say "well of course there was a guy walking around first century Palestine named Yeshua but not who we now call Jesus Christ.  Since I am a layman Ill pass this one over to Bart Ehrman again:

"With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it."

So we have numerous independent accounts, we have sources that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (I'm pretty sure he is talking about the creed in 1Corinthians 15 there), we have the writings of Paul and testimony from Peter and Jesus' own brother.  Seems like pretty good evidence to me. 

   When I do go through this with friends they will usually change their opinion to that Jesus did exist BUT there is no reason to accept the supernatural claims.  At this point that is fine for the moment, because I believe in trying to stay on one topic at a time.  At least if you review the evidence with someone they may stop publicly preaching about how Jesus didn't even exist.  Which is great because the case for Christianity is a cumulative case, so when we take down a roadblock like "Jesus never existed" that's just one part of the cumulative case.

Biblical Hermaneutics in a Union Meeting

So I was in a Union meeting for my job the other day.  The union rep is talking about a respectful workplace and an upcoming vote when he turns to talking about the book of rules, policies and procedures.  He said "this book is just like the Bible, its all up to interpretation and everyone reads it differently."  So of course I spoke up.  "Actually that is not what the Bible is like at all, we have a discipline called hermeneutics which is the art and science of text interpretation"  The union rep let out a groan, and said OK its not like the Bible and moved on.  But the point here is this really is how many people view the Bible which is shocking!

   We Christians do recognise the Bible as the inspired word of God, but it is very important to understand that many of the interpretations of the Bible are not.  The Bible along with most texts is not a book where you just pick it up and can fully understand it.  The Bible was not written yesterday and in our own culture and context so some extra work has to be done to get a full understanding of the text.

  Really I just want to give a quick introduction to Biblical hermeneutics, so here are a few points to consider when reading the Bible.

 1.  Who is the author of this passage?
 2.  Who is the intended audience?
 3.  What is the context of the passage?  Both directly and over the larger picture
 4.  What is the cultural context? 
 5.  Where have similar themes or quotes appeared before in the Bible?
 6.  Are there certain words that require further examination?

As I write this I'm already sure that I will edit it later on, Ill be walking down the street and remember I should add more.  But really this is just for consideration for you to dive deeper into the Bible and to know that the Bible is not a book where we can all interpret it differently.  We work together in community and follow Hermeneutics to fully understand the Bible