1) Lost in Translation Often the only copies of texts that we have today are copies of copies. Furthermore, they are often translations of the original text. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was probably written in Syriac, but the earliest copy we have is written in Greek. On top of this, sometimes the original texts were translations of the speeches being recorded. An example of this last point are Jesus’ speeches recorded in the Gospels. Jesus spoke Aramaic; the Gospels were written in Greek. ((The Canonical ones were all written in Greek. There is a slight chance that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, but it is most likely that it was written in Greek like the rest.)) It is important keep this process in mind when the exact order of words is being scrutinized.

2) History was for instruction, not for tracking details Ancient histories were not designed to be modern ones. Their primary focus was not on keeping track of historical minutia, nor was it designed to show a character’s development throughout time. Instead, it was designed to illustrate lessons to be learned by the reader. There was “… great freedom with which many ancient writers adapted their materials to achieve such goals…” ((Novak. Ibid. p.4)) This frame of mind should be accounted for when when studying ancient texts of all origins.

3) Look – Peter wrote this; hence it must be true Ancient authors had no problem with attributing works to authorities in order to give their work credibility. Christians have not been immune to this phenomenon. As early as the middle part of the first century, Christian leaders were complaining about letters being written in their name that contradicted with their positions. ((See Second Thessalonians 2:1-5)) The problem for “Christian texts” only got worse as the years went on. Robin Fox writes:

In the period c.400-600 “aggressive forgeries” added false letters to the collection of almost every early Christian Letter writer. These fake texts of theology helped to enlist the great authorities of the past on this or that side of a contemporary schism or unorthodoxy. ((Robin Fox. The Unauthorized Version p. 153-154))

Imagine someone finding a letter from Paul where he argues quite clearly for each of the five points of Calvinism. The problem was so bad that it was not until the 1500s that people could begin to sort the forgeries from the authentic letters.((Fox. Ibid. p. 154.))

Good Forgeries Even when people were not outright co-opting authorities for the sake of their own positions, there is the problem of attribution. It was common in Classical and Hellenistic Greek culture for a student to classify their own positions and work as their teacher’s. For example, there are more texts attributed to Aristotle that he could have humanly wrote. It is hard to determine in some cases where the teacher’s writing ends and the student’s begins. James H. Charlesworth has delineated the above idea into seven rough categories:((James Charlesworth. “Pseduo-Epigraphy”. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. p.765-767 ))

1. Writings not by an author, but containing some of the author’s own thoughts.
2. Writings by someone who was influenced by another work whom the work is attributed.
3. Writings influenced by someone who was influenced by the earlier works of another author to whom the work is assigned.
4. Writings attributed to an individual, but actually deriving from a circle or school surrounding that individual.
5. Christian writings attributed by their authors to an Old Testament personality.
6. Once anonymous writings that have been incorrectly attributed to another individual.
7. Writings that intentionally try to deceive the reader into thinking the author is someone else.

�When I speak of objects in time and in space, it is not of things in themselves, of which I know nothing, but of things in appearance.�
� Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Part Three, The Cosmological Ideas.

With all that the human race has learned since Kant’s day, some of his maxims still ring true. There have been many realizations that have shaped humanities understanding of how the universe operates. Throughout it all, the majority of man’s believes about what is beyond their world has not matched pace. In the years following Kant, the West thought that it was about to reach an endgame in regards to science. All that was left were a few clouds on the horizon. Those clouds quickly grew to become massive hailstorms that completely altered the way one views nature and even the very nature of reality.

The majority of these storms one can trace their origin to the late, great Albert Einstein. The ideas that he cultivated helped to lead to one of the great revolutions in science. It even lead to the birth of cosmology as a science. His paper on the photoelectric effect lead to Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory on describing the behavior of matter and energy on the subatomic level. His papers on relativity vastly changed the way one views space and time. His ideas showed that there was no actual distinction between time and space, they are both merely different dimensions of the fabric of reality, called space-time. The fourth paper published in 1905 entitled Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content? gave rise to the famous equation E=mc2. This equation meant that energy and matter are equivalent; they are merely different forms of the same thing.

On the surface of things, one might suspect that these advancements served Western religion well. Theologians from Saudi Arabia to Israel to Rome could all point to the notion of a unified space time and say that the entire universe and its history is one great painting of Allah’s. They could also point to the energy-mass equivalence and posit that there is but one base to the paint that the Lord used. Islamic scholars point to the Qur’an and note sura 21, verse 30, �the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder� and sura 51, verse 47, �The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it.� These passages seem to be very compatible with the Big Bang. Pope Pius XII also echoed this same notion of compatibility in 1951 when he declared that Big Bang cosmology was compatible with Genesis^[1] For every religious view that seems to accept what it knows of science there are others that reject science for fear of being a thistle in the wind.

A deeper look does not reveal hopeful promises of reconciliation between western religion and the newfound science. Instead, a much bleaker picture emerges, one where the Lord of Lords finds himself either banished completely from the picture, or reconfigured in such a way that it is barely recognizable. With the unification of space-time comes the stretching of each by energy. Just at the slope of the spatial dimensions are stretched, so is the seeming flow of time. In areas of higher energy, such as ship_A traveling faster than another ship_B, time runs slower for ship_A than it does for ship_B. The ramification of this is that there is no “Universal Now”, or T₁. Time runs at different speeds at different locations in the universe. This creates a problem for a notion of a omniscient God. One cannot know everything that is happening now if there is no Universal Now. Restated, if there is no universal T₁, then it is not possible to know the state of the universe at T₁.

Additionally, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, or UP dictates that there is no possible way that one can know both the position and momentum of a particle below a certain limit. As a dictum, the UP is stated as follows, �The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.�^[2] In exchange for measurement of one, the probability of the other is what is received. The future position and momentum can be described at a probability function. The introduction of this idea showed determinism the door. The ultimate form of determinism is expressed in the idea of a God that knows the future. It would seem that with indeterminacy introduced in the universe with UP that is would be impossible for God to have a futureknowing characteristic.

Another property of God’s that has come under fire is the creation of the universe ex nilo. If you trace back the history of the Universe via the laws of science, one reaches the singularity that sparked the Big Bang. The moment of the Big Bang is the lower boundary of time of the Universe. Classically, it is thought that since the Universe is here, and it must have come from somewhere, that something must have popped it into existence. This is the �necessary being� from Kant’s fourth antinomy. Stephen Hawking, in his book The Universe in a Nutshell, suggests that �maybe the Universe has no boundaries in space and time.�^[3] Hawking then goes on to describe whole universes as instances of what is known as quantum fluctuations. He describes this to the non-doctorates as bubbles of steam in a pot of warm water. In this light, no special creative act is needed. Our universe is simply a bubble that happened to have the right conditions for the allowance of creatures like us that are able to ask such questions like, �Why are we here?�

It would seem as if the Western notion of God as an all knowing being that created the Universe is in serious trouble. Perhaps a better notion of God is the approach that the eastern religions adopt. Perhaps there is no God, no other, no Numinous; but the universal consciousness of Hinduism and Buddhism. The interdependence of mind, matter, time, space, and energy are central to their views. The idea of universes popping in and out of existence sits will with Buddhists. Trinh Xuan Thuan puts it like this, �The Buddhist notion of interdependence is synonymous with emptiness, which is in turn synonymous with impermanence.�^[4] The Buddhist would welcome the notion of quantum fluctuations, where virtual particles flicker into real particles and then annihilate themselves along with their opposites.

Saving the Western ApproachIs there any way that the Western approach can be saved? Consider the software program Avida, wrote by Chris Adami. For over seventeen years Avida has been emulating the evolutionary process. The project that was started in the late 1990s is considered to not only to mimic evolution, but be an instance of evolution.^[5] The creatures in Avida are small snippets of code that replicate, mutate, compete and compete with one another for resources. In the process of evolving they have demonstrated the finer point of Darwinian Theory. They evolve in spurts, similar to what the fossil record suggests happened on earth. This program and its results have been one of the final straws in winning over critics of Darwin by demonstrating in practice qualms found with the theory.1 These points are not pertinent to the discussion here. Imagine for a moment these Avidites advancing to the point where they gain self-awareness. Say they even advance to where they can inquire about the nature of their environment. They might discover first the laws dictated by the computer code. This might not be unlike the Newtonian Revolution of our history. Then the Avidities investigate deeper and realize that it is not possible for the laws of code to describe all that they are able to observe. The beings begin to draft new principles to cover the instances. In doing so, they discover some properties of hard drives on which they are stored and even about the nature of electricity. This can by analogous to our recent discoveries about the nature of space-time and of matter-energy. Keeping in mind these new discoveries, those among the Avidites who believed in a creator, give up their belief. Such a being that could have made us could not exist in such a system as ours. Others tried to manipulate their ideas of the creators to mimic the advances in science. They came up with a being whose essence was compatible with the universe as they knew it, but was rendered as a super-Avidite, one who�s existence also would need a creator.

One day an Avidite, one that sounds very similar to Kant, said that there was not a way to perceive what lies outside our Universe. He also noted that the Avidites don�t directly perceive a creator. Then that must mean that if such a being exists, it must exist beyond the system that the Avidites inhabit. Thus, it is impossible to know anything about such a god scientifically. It is the same with the West. Science can only tell us about the system we inhabit. What we know about the system we inhabit is that the Western idea of god cannot exist in a system like ours. Thus either such a being does not exist at all or it exists outside the system. If such a being does exist outside the system, then perhaps it is not subject to the same problems that a being encounters inside the system. For instance the problem with the universal time and God omniscience can be remedied. If space-time is a unified four dimensional fabric, with wrinkles in it representing the folds in space-time, such as gravity wells and the like, then God could be the privileged observer and see things outside of time. Here the universe would seem like object, the totality of the events that transpired in its existence. From the inside of the fabric, there could be no privileged observer and the same problems would apply. From the outside, however, it is possible to get around the restrictions. Just like the bounds of the Avida software do not bound the developers, neither does the bounds of this universe necessarily bound being outside it. With this said, it is vital to note that this only deals with a possible case. Infinite possible cases have the potential for existence. From inside our system it is impossible to tell which one is the case. In that lacking there is faith. Faith in what one cannot possibly know one way or the other is all that the Western Religions have left in the face of modern science.

Notes:
1 Personal admission by author

Linknotes:

1. Discover Magazine – �Before the Big Bang� accessed May 1, 2005. ↩
2. American Institute of Physics – �Quantum Mechanics 1925-1927, The Uncertainty Principle�. accessed May 1, 2005. ↩
3. Hawking, Stephen. The Universe in a Nutshell. Bantam Books, New York. 2001.P 82. ↩
4. Thuan, Trinh Xuan. The Quantum and the Lotus. Three Rivers Press, New York. 2001. P. 278. ↩
5. Discover Magazine – Zimmer, Carl. �Testing Darwin�. Accessed May 1,2005. ↩

Introduction, the conflict between Christianity and ScienceIn 1615 C.E. the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany received a letter from a friend of hers. The letter sparked off one of the great confrontations between the thinkers of Christianity and those of science. It was one of the major battles between two ideologies that had been diametrically opposed since their respective conceptions. At least that was the way it was seen for many years afterward. Such a view is called the Conflict Theory^[2] It states that religion and science have always been opposed to each other’s ideas and are in a state of perpetual conflict. Was the Trial of Galileo only a flash point in an old, unending war between two veins of thought? It is the purpose of this paper to argue that the conflict theory is wrong and to put forth an alternate structure to the conflicts between science and Christianity. The two most famous conflicts between Christianity and science, Heliocentrism and evolution, will be examined and compared to see what patterns emerge.

Some historians will say these two examples of conflicts between Science and Christianity are perfect examples of conflict theory. Instead the opposite is true. Christianity desires to see the world as it is and places a high value on truth for its own sake. Because of this, most minor discoveries and several major ones are rapidly assimilated into Christian theology. An instance of a major development in science being rapidly Christianized is Hubble�s realization that the universe is expanding and therefore must have a beginning. This shattered the steady-state theory of the universe. The Christianity welcomed this new discovery, as it was much easier to reconcile with it�s theology than Aquinas�s workaround of the universe being both eternal and created. Aquinas had gotten around this apparent contradiction by saying that things that are dependent on God for their existence can be considered created.

Major conflict only emerges when Christianity finds itself at odds with science that it cannot easily Christianize and there is no overwhelming proof of the validation of the theory. By looking at the two following examples one can summarize the process. There are approximately six stages that the movement goes through to right itself. First the Church forms a belief about the world that is harmonious with the science of the time. After time, this belief is fused into its core values because of the high value the Church places on truth for its own sake; after the fusing it ossifies and a violation of the belief is thought to unravel the whole of the belief system�s worldview. Science however, remains fluid and revises itself. Since the Church has already discovered how the world works in a way that makes sense to them and that meshes well with their theology, the Church rejects the new version of science. This rejection ultimately leads to a public confrontation in which science is ultimately victorious. The Church is then left with a choice; it can either respond to the defeat with new theology, or loop back to the fourth stage, denial.

Early Conflicts and Resolution Up until its contact with the ideas of Aristotle, the Church assumed God created the world a few thousand years ago, earth sat in the center of all creation, and God�s will drove everything. The Church�s attitude towards science can be best characterized by what is known as the Handmaiden theory. In this view, Scripture was considered as the true representation of reality. Science was seen as something that could bolster Scripture, help explain what Scripture was silent about, but never would it contradict Scripture. This was impossible because Scripture was truth and truth could never contradict truth. Humans were imbued with reason that mirrored God’s, but because humans were tainted with original sin, our reason was prone to failure. Therefore, it was assumed that when reason ventured so far away from Scripture that it conflicted with it, the Church simply dismissed it as necessarily erroneous.

Once the Church was confronted with the ideas of Aristotle, it ran into several serious problems. Aristotle’s world view made wonderful sense. So wonderful, in fact that it seemed to be the only explanation of the natural world. Despite all of its appeals, it came to several logical conclusions that were unacceptable for the Church. In the Aristotelian framework, the universe was completely self contained and eternal, even the prime mover was contained within the system. In the Christian view, God was the creator of the system and stood outside it. God himself was seemingly rendered impotent. God was assumed to be the most perfect being. The most perfect being must have the most perfect thoughts. Therefore, the only thing that God is allowed by logic to think about is Himself. This stood in stark contrast with the personally involved god of the Christian scriptures. Similar disagreements arose on the topics of the soul’s essence and the naturalistic vs. providential view of history.

At first the Church tried to trim down the Aristotelian worldview. In 1231 pope Gregory IX issued a papal bull that warned against the errors contained in the Aristotle’s natural philosophy^[3] It requested that the errors be trimmed out and then the parts that aligned with the Church�s interpretation of scripture could be taught. This approach never panned out because the �Aristotelian philosophy was simply too valuable to relinquish.^[4]

Instead the philosophy was taught across the board and attempts were
made to Christianize Aristotle. The most successful in this undertaking was Thomas Aquinas. He was able to successfully mesh the philosophy of the Church and of Aristotle. The accommodation went both ways, parts of Christianity were aristoteleanized and parts of Aristotle were Christianized. The Church seemed to have found the balance in the well rationalized philosophy of Aquinas. His was a system that explained reality and theology in a way that was almost perfectly harmonious.

So convincing was Aquinas’ work that a few hundred years later, at the Council of Trent, a major development occurred. Martin Luther, in 1517, first openly challenged the authority and doctrine of the Catholic Church. His challenge sparked the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. The Church responded in several ways. They tried refuting, repressing, and responding to the challenges that Protestants laid before them. One of the responses of the Catholic Church was its own counter reformation. The Council of Trent, held in several sessions starting in 1545 and ending in 1563, shored up the Church’s position on several topics, such as the sale of indulgences and the nature of salvation. The issue of importance to the Galileo trial was the formal induction of tradition in to the cannon. The Church said that the Holy Spirit had not only spoken though the Apostles, but also the Church Fathers and the Church Doctors. The interesting part is that the Church gets to decide who the Church Fathers and the Church Doctors are. Once a person is named a Church Father or a Church Doctor, their works are considered to be inspired. As expected, Aquinas was named placed into this category. Along with his works, his philosophy not only became the official Church stance, but also were viewed to be inspired. As a consequence of Aquinas’ worldview being inducted, the geocentric worldview of Aristotle was also viewed to be inspired. The Council of Trent also declared that only the Church could interpret scripture.

The Cannonization of Aquinas and HeliocentricismAt first glance, this might not seem to be such a large problem. After all, Aristotle did such a marvelous job of explaining reality. As a matter of fact, the Church was quite tolerant of other theories to explain the workings of the world. However, one needs to understand the meaning of the word �theory� at this time. The word conveyed a sense of simply �saving the phenomenon�, not explaining reality. That is why Copernicus’ system was used by the Pope to reform the calendar. It was seen by the Church simply as a good method of calculation, not a depiction of reality, and Copernicus, despite his true feelings, did not press the issue as reality.

Galileo did not take the same path as Copernicus. Galileo saw that the Church was attached to geocentricism, a theory that was increasingly being recognized as being fundamentally flawed. He was worried that as the general populace realized this, they would abandon the Church. Being the good catholic that he was^[5] he sought to convince the Church the error of their ways and thus aid in the saving of the rolls. In his above mentioned letter to Christina he declared that the Copernican view did represent reality and that scripture should be reinterpreted to follow the findings of science, namely, the Copernican theory. The Church was not up to his challenge. Both of these ideas: the claim of reality of the Copernican model, and the elevation of science over scripture were unacceptable to the Church; as the Council of Trent had permanently excluded them from acceptance by the Catholic Church. Thus began the Trial of Galileo. While Galileo was found guilty, forced to recant Copernicanism, and Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was banned, most of the damage had been done in the public�s eye. The Church however, was slow to officially endorse a heliocentric universe. It was only until 1820 the Catholic Church officially accepted heliocentricism¹ when it allowed Canon Settele to publish a work that took Copernicanism for granted.

The conflict in our times, Evolution and Christian FundamentalismSince the times of Galileo, Christianity has found a conflict with science with Darwinian evolution. Since Darwin’s publishing of The Origin of the Species, Christianity’s response has been as seemingly random as the supposed process of genetic variation that powers evolution’s steam engine. There were, and still are, strict creationists, progressive creationists, day-age theorists, theistic evolutionists, divine fiat proponents, old earth defenders, young earth defenders; coming in Evangelical and Fundamentalist flavors.

It is important to begin with several clarifications of easily confused terms. To begin with, the Christian sects Evangelical and Fundamentalist often are encountered in the creation/evolution debate. The term Evangelical, while hard to pinpoint, denotes the branch of Protestant Christianity that promote Biblical Authority as the highest form of authority, the �individual over the collective�, �emphasis on heartfelt religion�, whose main goal is to convert as many people to the faith and keep them converted^[6] Fundamentalism is a subsection of Evangelicalism that adheres to a more conservative position with even more unyielding disposition. A self proclaimed champion of creation science, Dr. G. T. Sharp in his �World View Perception Survey�, fundamentalism is described as �far-right non-charismatic [Christianity].� ^[7] Both sects sprung out of the Newtonian Science of the eighteenth century. With an emphasis on spreading their message and a Newtonian optimism that sees the universe as mechanical and knowable, the assumption was made that one can use natural theology to demonstrate the truths of the Bible. If the Bible was correct scientifically and historically, then it followed that it would also be correct spiritually. For a religious group obsessed with converting each human being on the planet to their religion, the authenticity and authority of the text would be of paramount importance. A literal interpretation of the Bible, to the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, is the foundation of a godly and thus optimal society. When the term Christianity or creationist is used it will refer to both groups.

The problem with Evolution began with its perceived incompatibility with the Christian core beliefs. The first of which is a rejection of a literal six-day creation. If the Bible is taken literally, the special creation of Genesis should have taken place roughly four to ten thousand years ago. Darwinian Evolution requires at the very least a thousand times that span of time to begin to work. Add to that a naturalistic formation of life on a planet that took perhaps a billion years to cool to a temperature that would allow liquid water to exist; the period expands exponentially. All of this flies the face of strict creationist�s time line of the universe. The third objection is the mechanics of evolution. Evolution is believed to use the process of random changes in genetic material and natural selection to produce it’s variance of organisms. Success is measured by reproductive success. This is entirely incompatible with the teleological view of life of the creationists. God created life for a purpose. Everything has its place; order is supreme. This view of the world was inherited from the popular notions of Newton and Bacon, whose approach the Christians found very profitable for their cause. The early naturalist science seemed to be the pathway towards sound apologetics. At first, all was blissful; science, however, as it usually does, modified its best guesses and invented new ones to describe reality. The onset of higher criticism, old earth geology and ultimately Darwinian Evolution flew in the face of the apologetics of the Christian faith.

The Response
The Christian scientists responded as best they knew how. In the language and method inherited by them from Newton and Bacon, they responded, with moderate success. It is worthy to note that while the creationists used, respected, and helped advance naturalistic science; they saw it only as a buttress for the furthering of their faith. It was not seen as being of equal value as a literal interpretation of the Bible.The largest obstacle for the creationists was the infusion of the soul into the body of man. The timing of this event has all sorts of implications built into it. The soul is what sets humans apart from the rest of creation. God is supposed to have imbued the body of man with a soul at the creation of the first man, Adam. The central tenant of Christian theology is that human souls have been corrupted and that Jesus sacrificed himself in order to take the corrupted souls place before the divine judgment. If humans evolved from lesser beings, then when did humanity attain the soul? This central question needed answered if Christianity were to accept evolution.

The problems created by the evolutionary theories were met by responses typical of the movement’s ideals. There was not a unified reaction agreed upon by any council, but instead individuals and small groups working together formulated counter-theories that they believed could account for all the facts and givens that they had collected. The creationists split into two camps, the old earth and young earth creationists. The young earth creationists, for the most part, had a unified view, as a young earth would only allow for so many variations on the theory. It was their �upper limit.� They applied their �scientific� methods to the problems they encountered and battled with little formal success against the popular scientific community. The work of Whitecomb and Morris, was the textbook of the creationists for many years, The Genesis Flood. While some tried to refute the science of the day, others sought ways to make a literal account of Genesis match current scientific theory. Starlight and Time, a recent scientific paper by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, tries to mesh big bang cosmology and a literal six day creation. He begins with God creating a �white hole� of water two light years across with an even horizon of 500,000 light years. He then simulates mathematically what would happen to this great mass of water and tries to reconcile it with Genesis one^[8]

Old earth creationists, as opposed to the young earth creationists, were not nearly as unified in their approach. Some thought that each day of creation was an epoch of history. Others posited that there was a previous creation that was destroyed and then in six days God recreated or reshaped the world as described in Genesis. The divine fiat theory postulates that God spoke out the commands in six successive days; the outworking of the commands, or fiats, took varying lengths of overlapping times. All of these differed from the theistic evolutionists in that they still maintained a special creation of mankind with the imbuing of the soul at that. The theistic evolutionists could not point to a specific point where god granted a soul to man. The old earth creationists were branded as dissenters of the true faith by the young earth creationists. The young earth creationists were named fools by the old earth creationists for being blind to obvious �scientific facts.� The pursuits by both parties were, for the most part, done in earnest. No deliberate falsifying of data was to be found, instead a widespread interpretation of the observations mathematics from a completely different paradigm.

As time wore on, the position of the creationists became less and less accepted by the mainstream scientists. In popular society however, especially in the United States, the view that there was a recent creation of the earth and the life upon it was held by a substantial portion of the population. In the public circle, the creationists still held the high ground. This all changed in the decade following the Scopes Trial. Public perception turned against them and the creationist movement went underground. No longer did they seek public vindication and acceptance of their beliefs and try to bar Darwinism in from the classroom. Instead, they regrouped, so to speak, rehashing their theories, forming societies, cultivating interest on the local congregation level. As they saw problems arise and grow in society, they equated the root of the problem with the supplanting of biblical notions as the root of the national culture with the notions of Evolution. Figure 1 below is a comic drawn by Dr. Sharp, in the third volume of Science According to Moses. It demonstrates the perception that creationists have of the effects of Evolution�s metaphysical groundwork on culture. The creationists believed that they were involved in a culture war and that perception was passed to the congregations of the Christian Churches.

The creationists, having lost the culture war sought a way to reenter into the public arena and regain their lost influence. For the first time since the early 20th century, respected scientists began a new movement in the creationism / evolution debate. They entered into the debate sanitizing their robes of all mentions of god and the bible; calling the movement Intelligent Design. Gone were the names of �Biblical Creationism� and �Flood Genealogy.� Instead this reinvention attacks the presumptions of Naturalism and looks for evidences for design in the natural world. Intelligent Design does not press hard-line biblical creationism; instead, they merely try to demonstrate a need for a third party that designed the universe and life within it. They exploited the gaps in science, used the currently unexplainable to point to a designer. There are four main points that proponents of Intelligent Design use^[9] ; the mechanics of Evolution only describe microevolution, but do not work on a macro-evolutionary scale, a re-hash of Paley�s �a watch requires a watchmaker� argument of biological mechanisms, chance-based arguments are expounded to argue for a �fine-tuned universe,� and finally, the Naturalistic assumption is attacked. Intelligent Design says that a truly unbiased science must not philosophically exclude supernatural events or agents. Such an a priori bias betrays a genuine search for knowledge. Intelligent Design is trying to work its way into the classroom again, under the auspices of equal treatment. The strategy has changed; no longer do they seek the expulsion of Evolution from the classroom, but instead allowance into the classroom as a competing theory. While they seem to call for a new form of deism, the exposed and now infamous Wedge Document outlines the deeper purpose of intelligent design. Following from the conception that the theory of Evolution has corrupted culture and is directly responsible for the growth of certain social ills; Intelligent Design is in fact �designed� to create the first crack in the monolith of our secular society. Once this entry point is gained, Christianity can invade and rescue society from its ills.

SummaryDo both conflicts exhibit the six stages of resolution? The first stage of the conflict involves the production of a belief system that agrees with the current science of the day. The Catholic Church had bonded itself to an Aristotelian science and the Evangelicals to Newton�s and Paley�s science. Phase two involves the revision of science that fundamentally conflicts with Christianity�s theology. The Copernican model of the universe replaced the Aristotelian model and likewise, Darwinian Evolution replaced the neat package of Paley and Newtonian science. The idea of the earth going around the sun and a long, naturalistic development of the species were abhorrent to the Catholic and Evangelical churches, respectively. As a result, both branches of Christianity denied the new science, setting the stage for the conflict. Each found it highly publicized and politicalized trials, the Trial of Galileo and the Scopes Trial. While Christianity won both trials, they lost in the public�s eye and the scientific theory they were reacting against continued to gather steam until it was almost universally accepted in the public�s eye. The Catholic Church finally accepted the heliocentric theory while Evangelical Christianity is currently looping around stages four through six. It took the Catholic Church over two hundred years to fully accept heliocentricism and there is no reason to believe that it will take the evangelicals a similar amount of time to do the same with evolution.

Footnotes:
—————–
¹ Benedict XIV unofficially allowed heliocentricism to be tolerated in 1740 by removing the works of Copernicus from the Index of Banned books.

Linknotes:

1. University of Missouri – Religious Studies Departmental Homepage
2. Wilson, David. The Historiography of Science and Religion. Science and Religion. 2002. John Hopkins University Press. p.14
3. Lindberg, David. Medieval Science and Religion. Science and Religion. 2002. John Hopkins University Press. p.66
4. – Ibid, 67
5. Alioto, Anthony. Lecture notes from Science and Religion. 05/2004.
6. Noll, Mark A. �Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism�. Science and Religion. Ed. Gary B. Gangrenous. Baltimore: The John Hopkins UP, 2002, 262-263.
7. Sharp, G. T. Science According to Moses. 3rd ed. Vol. 3. Noble, OK: Creation Truth Publications, 2000. 95.
8. – D. Russell Humphreys. Starlight and Time. Master Books. Green Forrest, AK. 1994. 32.
9. Wikipedia – Intelligent Design

Before one can tackle the question, �Does God exist?� it must be known whether or not that is an answerable question. The principal topic in the discussion is the gulf between the mind and the outside world. If that gulf is bridgeable, then there is hope, however if the void is too wide, then one is left floating in a sea of subjectivism. How is one to know if the gulf is bridgeable? For starters, the senses would have to be able to correctly perceive the world. Secondly, the mind would have to be able to make sense of the perceptions and match them with the realities of the physical world.

Are the senses to be trusted? The answer is yes. As evidence of this all one must do is conjure up the memory of the morning walk from the bed to the shower. Think back and replay the events of this morning. How was this great feat of navigation accomplished? Surely one did not simply flow to the shower from the bed like water down plumbing. Nor did one constantly bump into obstacles until the destination was stumbled upon like a blind man fumbling for his cane. Instead, the sensory input from the real world was taken in by the eye, skin, and nose and the mind was able to translate this input into information and in turn was able to direct itself to the shower. The above example gives us proof that the mind has at least a window in to the world.

Can the mind make sense of reality? Again the answer is yes. Wipe away the previous image of the trek to the shower. Instead imagine a man preparing for a Civil War reenactment down on some grassy field in Georgia. Our man observes a cannon being shot and makes observations of how far the ball lands each time it is shot. He takes measurements of the distance the ball was thrown and amounts of powder used in the shot. He infers a relationship between the two and begins to plot out a way to represent that relationship. He comes up with a formula that should predict the behavior of the ball being blasted out of the cannon. Upon testing his hypothesis he notices that there are variances between his predictions and the results obtained. One by one he isolates variables such as, air resistance, wind, density and size of the ball, rotation of the earth, and so forth until he is able to make accurate and precise predictions of the behavior of the ball. Not only has our man been aware of what was happening; he is able to understand the principals behind what was happening. He is able to predict the future behaviors of certain objects. These objects, our man labels �natural objects�, objects that do not have a choice in what they do, but instead follow a set of rules. In doing so, our man demonstrates that the human mind can indeed make sense of this universe it is trapped in.

In light of the two above passages, it may be safely assumed that the pure skeptics wrong, and that humans have the natural ability to discover their universe and understand it. If humans are able to piece together the workings of their universe, then they should be able to determine if a God exists. Now the topic maybe turned to the second question: �Does God exist?� The word God is perhaps better termed numinous, for that word is a general term, more fitting to the journey of discovery being undertaken here. There are two possible routes a person could take at this stage of the journey. One could ask, �What would a universe look like that was created by a numinous?� On the other hand the question could be asked, �Do the properties of the universe we find our selves in necessitate the existence of a numinous?� The first approach shall be excluded; on the grounds that it lends too much towards an anthropomorphication of said numinous.

Our man from the field in Georgia staggered into the realm of science. In doing so he discovered for himself a set of rules that govern the universe. Having gone to a couple of civics classes in college, he also learned that the rules that govern our country were not arbitrarily set, but instead chosen and for the most part fit together into the machine of society. On his way home from the mock battlefield, his mind wanders from the honky-tonk seeping from his F-150 to the matters of the cannon balls and civic classes. He begins to wonder if there is the same connection between the laws of society having a framer and the laws of nature having a framer.

Is there an implicit connection between the natural laws that govern the universe and the existence of a numinous that actively frames the natural laws? If the connection can be shown then one can say with reasonable certainty that a numinous exists. Those that would favor an existing numinous would say that the fact that the natural laws operate and are balanced in such a way to allow the development of life is sufficient proof for an intelligent framer of the natural laws. However, some in the scientific community have replied to the previous statement with the notion of the Anthropic Principal. The Anthropic Principal states that the universe is the way it is because if it had any other configuration it could not harbor life. It is science�s way of saying that out of all the possible configurations of the universe, we are able to see this configuration because it allows our existence. It was a great coincidence that the current configuration was the right one. This seems to explain away in one fell swoop the necessity of a numinous. However, concerning the physical development of the universe science can only explain history up to the very act that created the universe: the Big Bang. What science cannot tell us is how this event happened. Events near the Big Bang cannot be predicted. Stephen Hawking states in his book, A Brief History of Time, that as one traces his way backward to the Big Bang there is a point where all the natural laws of the universe break down. Beyond this point science cannot predict what is happening because the foundation that science is based on is natural laws. Therefore, science leaves open to conjecture the opening pages of the universe�s history. It is at this point we can infer that there must have been a creative force to �jump start� the Big Bang. In addition, if there was indeed a force that created the ingredients necessary for the Big Bang, then it is highly likely that the same force crafted the natural laws to allow the existence of intelligent life.

The other main �proof� for a creative numinous is that of life. It is said that life is incredibly complex and configured and therefore must have had an intelligent creative force behind its development. Once again science has a rebuttal waiting in the wings. Its response is the theory of evolution. The theory states that �all the living things of today are the direct descendants of earlier, rather different, living things; that these in turn were descended from still earlier forms of life; and so on, all the way back to the first primitive organism � which in itself probably sprang into existence through the interplay of natural forces[1] .� For a long time no one could figure out how the species made the changes from one form to another. Darwin was able to come of with a plausible solution to the problem. He proposed that mutations combined with the principal of natural selection were the driving forces behind evolution. With the theory of evolution we seem to have dispelled any necessity of a creator crafting life. However, the theory of evolution is not without its criticisms. A growing number of scientists have become unsatisfied with evolution�s claims[2] . They claim that the two fundamental principals behind evolution are unable to foster the dramatic genetic change that is necessary to bridge the species gap. Also, there is not a single workable theory explaining the start of life. Many theories have been put forth, but none have been able to yield verifiable results. In light of this, we find science missing another chapter in the history of the universe. It is possible that in the future science will be able to fill these holes. However, until this occurs, it seems to be more plausible that a creative numinous formed the first life forms and through successive creations formed life as we see it today.

We have shown that humans are able to accurately perceive and make sense of the universe. Through the discipline of science humans are able to discover natural laws that govern the universe. As grand as it is, science cannot explain how these laws came to be or why they are so precisely tuned to allow the existence of life. Our present scientific knowledge leaves only the creative acts of a numinous as plausible explanations to the mysteries of the origin of the Big Bang and of life. Therefore the numinous must exist. However beyond that not much else is able to be scientifically inferred about the numinous. This is another way of putting forth the Cosmological Argument for God�s existence. It does not have the weaknesses that Aquinas� first three ways have. Aquinas� formulation was fundamentally flawed. One cannot have the conclusion in validate one of the premises in one�s argument and expect it to stand.

Linknotes:

1. Creation and Evolution, Alan Hayward, p 4 ↩
2. Creation and Evolution, Alan Hayward Ch 2 & 3 ↩

[More:]

Augustine constantly condemns the following doctrine of Coelestuis and Pelagius in A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin:

“That Adam’s sin injured only Adam himself, and not the human race; and that infants at their birth are in the same state that Adam was in before his transgression (Augustine, “A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin”).”

In maintaining the above as false, one can state his position as follows:

Adam’s sin did not just injure himself, but the whole human race; and that infants at their birth are injured in the manner that Adam was after his transgression.

In chapter 45 of book II, Augustine maintains humans were fundamentally corrupted on the ontological level. This word is not thrown around lightly; this change effected the race’s very being. The nature of humankind ever since the sins of Adam and Eve has been corrupted. The effect has two major ramifications, original sin, and total depravity. By total depravity, I mean not complete depravity, which is the soul’s inability to choose anything good; but rather the idea that men cannot choose God on their own accord. Augustine echoes the same sentiments in The Confessions; he quotes Job 14.4-5 to demonstrate that infants are sinful. He then details examples of their greed and jealousy to support his view (Augustine, The Confessions 9). Elsewhere in The Confessions Augustine details how his malformed desires snare his will to the point that he is hopelessly mired in sinful acts. Augustine, in espousing these doctrines, condemns each infant born to Hell and denies the freedom of the will in choosing God. Since some humans are saved, God causes the conversion instead of the humans.

If one is to adopt Augustine’s line of thinking, one must accept that one has original sin. This original sin taints our very souls from conception. We have inherited this sin from Adam. As descendants of Adam, all humans are born with original sin. Adam, in his sin died spiritually. I know of no way he could pass this sin along to others. Is there some genetic malfunction? If so, let science isolate this physical defect and eliminate it from the gene pool. Was it transmitted by some unnamed, ineffable metaphysical device? Rather than speculate on how it might have been transmitted, consider the following: why was not Jesus tainted with this sin? Is not Jesus supposed to be fully human and fully God in Augustine’s eyes? If He is fully human, then He must be tainted with original sin. If He is tainted with original sin, He cannot be a perfect sacrifice. Since He is the perfect sacrifice one of the previous tenants must be incorrect. Since it is true that He is fully human, it must not be true that all humans have original sin. This is the argument in standard form:

1. Either all humans have original sin or no humans have original sin.
2. If at least one human does not have original sin, all humans do not have original sin
3. Jesus was fully human
4. A necessary condition of a perfect sacrifice is a lack of sin.
5. Jesus was a perfect sacrifice.
6. Therefore, Jesus was without sin.
7. Jesus did not have original sin
8. Therefore Jesus was fully human and did not have original sin
9. Therefore, no humans have original sin.

To sum up, there is no ontological difference between Adam and any other human being. The lack of sin in Jesus is further evidence that there is no such thing as original sin. In order to be logically consistent, one must reject the idea of original sin and replace it with an idea of free will that allows one to choose or not to choose God once they have the capacity to make that choice. The heritage of sin still needs to be explained. If it is not carried by a mysterious metaphysical device or via physical heredity, then there remains one alternative: it is learned. I would go further and say that we have the same free will that Adam had, we are not tainted with original sin, and that is why Jesus was able to resist sin throughout His whole life.

The second argument maintains that full free will is a necessary condition for the occurrence of sin. Augustine says as much on in On the Free Choice of the Will, “Our will would not be a will if it were not in our power… We sin by our own wills. (Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will 77)” One must draw the following conclusion from these premises:

1. We sin by our own wills.
2. Our will would not be a will if it were not in our power.
3. Therefore, one has the power to sin or not to sin.

This conclusion is inconsistent in conjunction with his explanations in his later works as detailed above. It too necessarily rejects the possibility of original sin because sin must be within one’s power to will or not to will. It is not the case that infants have the power to sin or to not sin; therefore, it cannot be the case that an infant can sin.

After giving an alternate and more satisfactory account of original sin, there remains the task of how God is the cause of our salvation and not our will. How then, can one explain how actions can be freely chosen and still be caused? The answer lies in the perspective of the questioner. When viewed after the fact, all actions have a cause.

Consider the following example. A man approaches a bus stop and begins to read his newspaper. A second man stands next to him, staring blankly ahead, anticipating the long, cold ride home. As the bus approaches, a young child, the age of eight, has wandered away from his parent and is standing in the path of the bus, frozen in fear. The first man bolts across the sidewalk and scoops up the child before it was too late. The second man congratulates the first and wonders to himself why he was not the one to be the hero. What was the cause of the first man’s actions? What was the cause of the second man’s inaction? Were they determined beforehand? Was each a free choice? This is the problem of free will: “Are man’s actions freely made, or are they subject to causes and conditions like everything else? (Kant)” If man is free to choose his actions, as most want to believe, then he is responsible for them. However, if man’s actions are determined, then how can one be made to bear the responsibility for those actions? The notion of freedom is so engrained in the values of our culture; that to suggest that all of our actions, from the basic decisions to major life altering choices, are all a façade; is a very troubling notion.

Immanuel Kant summed up his version of the problem in the Prolegomena in the third antinomy in this way:

“Thesis: There are in the world causes through freedom.
Antithesis: There is no freedom, but all is nature. (Kant 75) “

The only two logical possibilities were that either freedom exists, or did does not exist and the world is purely casual. He proposed an interesting solution to the problem. He maintained that both could be true at the same time. This seeming contradiction is possible if each of the statements is applied to different worlds, the Noumenal and the Phenomenal. If this is correct, how does it play out? What is the structure of such a case?

Behind every possible choice that the will can make there are conditions. The man reading the newspaper at the beginning of this paper could have decided to do nothing. If he had decided to do nothing there would have been an array of causes and conditions that would have lead him to decide that choice. This principle is illustrated in the below diagram.

For each choice, no matter how small the probability that the choice would be made, there are causes and conditions that are actualized whenever the choice is actually made. Before the choice is made, multiple causes and conditions could be actualized by the will deciding what conclusion is reached. The will chooses which choice to make and in doing so, sets which causes and conditions determined the choice. This is how an active God prodding people to make the right choice can be considered to have caused their actions. In the actions where they do not choose to follow God, the cause is not God’s prodding.

It has been shown that the concept of original sin is not logically consistent with the personhood of Jesus or with the conditions necessary for sin. In addition, it has been shown that God can indeed be the cause of one’s salvation and it still is a free choice of the will. In doing so, is one compelled to accept Pelagius’ notion that Jesus was simply a good guide and not a substitutionary sacrifice? Let one say that humans are born innocent. That is, they are born with a clean slate. One is sure of three humans that were born this way, Adam, Eve, and Jesus. Once they have the ability to choose right from wrong, they are able to sin. Adam and Eve ended up choosing to sin relatively soon after they had the ability to do so. Since then every human, save Christ has also chosen to sin, except for those that die before they are able to sin. It is most likely that there is culture of sin and that all humans have slipped up in once they have a choice in the matter. Christ was able to choose to sin or not to sin. He was then unjustly crucified.

Because He was crucified unjustly, He was able to be the perfect sacrifice that God’s justice demanded in place of our sins. God allowed Christ to bear our sin, rather than we having to bear the penalty for it ourselves, the very essence of substitutionary atonement. This view emphasizes the love of God, the justice of God, the humanity of Christ, the God-ness of Christ, and the struggle that it was for Christ to go through with it. This is an example of how one can deny not being original sin and still believe in substitutionary atonement. Therefore, one can deny original sin and still not have to hold to Jesus merely being an exalted man.

Bibliography

Augustine, Aurelius. “A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin.” 418 C.E. http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/. 17 10 2006 http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/augustine/TreatiseOnGraceAndOriginalSin.htm.

—. On Free Choice of the Will. Translated by Thomas Williams. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.

—. The Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Kant, Immanuel. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics that will be able to come Forward as Science. Translated by Paul Carus, and James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2001.

In the letter, “To Simplician – On Various Questions,” Augustine wrestles with the question of why Esau was rejected by God and Jacob was accepted by God in conjunctions with Paul’s treatment in Romans 9.10-29. This creates a whole heaping mound of confusion for Augustine, but does lead him to several important doctrines, or at least lays some of the foundations of later doctrines. It is absolutely fundamental that humans are saved solely by God, so that none may boast. Augustine beings with the idea that God hated Esau and loved Jacob from before the time they were born. He then presents arguments on why this could not have been due to any deeds that they did, because the calling preceded their birth. Similarly, it was not done on account of their faith, for the same reason. Augustine then examines if God based the calling on his foreknowledge of either’s works. This cannot be the case, for this would imply that God does choose on the merit of the individual. It also could not have been a result of God’s foreknowledge of faith because grace precedes belief. For Augustine, the path of salvation follows the following sequence:

Calling → Birth → Grace → Hearing → Believing → Faith → Justification → Power to do good works

Augustine cannot find any reason for God to choose one over the other. He can find no reason for God to reject on over another. They are twins, so there is no ontological difference between the two. Augustine does maintain that God can have mercy on who he decides to have mercy on. There is a freedom there because all persons are sinners. He concludes that while there is a reason that God chose to love Jacob and not Esau, it is left unknown to humans. There is some discussion about God calling more than are chosen, but I was not able to ascertain his final position on the matter. The question here is, “Can a person reject the calling of God?” Augustine seems to think that a person can reject the calling, but not being chosen. How this works out exactly, I am not sure. The last section of the latter deals with the idea that the only people with true free will (the will to do good) are those that God elects. No other humans are able to truly do good works.

Previous posts:

• An Honest Question (Henry)
• Can you Handle the Truth? (Brad)

Brad, I like your theoretical framework. I hold to almost all of it as well.

A foundational question that I would ask you is if the very words on the Bible were dictated 100% and transcribed 100% correctly and preserved 100% correctly. Is it possible that there is any error in transcription, translation, or preservation? I am not saying that there is, but say, does the end of Mark belong in the bible or not? The earliest manuscripts don’t have it, so it seems like it was added on at some point.

The highest authority for me is not the Bible, it is God. He is above a earthly book. An infinite God cannot be encapsulated by anything, even a book that the infinite God writes. All things that emanate from God have equal authority. The Bible writes on God and His relationship with creation. Logic is God telling us how to order our ideas, math tells us how to count. The Bible is not God’s treatise on cosmology. Instead it was God communicating with individuals that had no concept of the Big Bang theory or nuclear thermodynamics. As such, it’s authority was not meant to cover those areas. In spiritual matters, it is absolutely authoritative.

I am cautious about including the following in my list of Biblical apologies: “It will be more persuasive because in the actual experience of life, all of these other candidates for ultimate authority be seen as inconsistent or to have shortcomings that disqualify them.” This is a very tricky statement. What do we base the claim on? A survey of all religious people, asking them what system works best? I would guess that one would get a variety of answers on that survey. I think that in each formulation of Christianity I can point out problems that are not readily solved. This by no means rejects the authority of the Bible, nor lifts up another text or religion over Christianity. It only questions the usefulness of this apologetic tactic, especially when in conversation with a person from another religion.

Another thing, if the Bible is considered to have the words of God, is that all it contains? Was it possible to have any additions by the Biblical writers of their opinions to the matter? I am not saying that I do hold to this, but simply asking the question. Should I never cover my head when I pray? So, no hats when I pray? Is it possible that some of the Biblical writers injected their personal opinion in the texts or perhaps were writing on culturally specific mandates?

Lastly, when Timothy talks about all scripture being God-breathed, doesn’t the context talk about the Hebrew Bible only? That is the context. Taking it to mean anything else is taking it out of context.How can one take what the writer of Timothy is saying about the Hebrew Bible and throw it on the the texts that a church council decided were the correct texts almost 200-300 years later? I mean, if one is a honest and actual literalist, must not one reject that the writer of Timothy is talking about the canon that will be formed later?

How does one come to trust the canonical process. They were not apostles, there is no guarantee that their choices were inspired. Now, I am not advocating a rejection or inclusion of any specific text, but I am asking very important questions. The Bible was not written the way Koran says it [the Koran] was. God did not dictate it to one person who had it immediately written down.

With this in mind, I ask you all how you deal with the discrepancies in the Gospels. This is in regard to arguments of authority and inerrancy. What exactly do these words mean to you, and how far does their meaning imply? Do they pose problems for you? That is to say, do the conclusions that you make from them pit you into any uncomfortable corners?

For instance, if I hold that the Bible as we have it is 100% factually and historically true, then was Peter’s mother in law healed before or after he was called to be a disciple? Is it the case that she was healed twice? Do I have to resort to her being healed twice, once right before Peter was called and then once right after Pater was called, in order to maintain that everything in the Gospels is factually and historically true? If that is the case, why did Jesus not do it right the first time?

My point is that I am not making any point. What I am seeking here is not apologetics, but how other Christians deal with these issues. My fear for the Church is that in not addressing these claims openly and tenderly with those that bring them up, we loose sight of Jesus, his mission, and his charge to us, by our rejection of those questioning. I am not trying to engage in finger-pointing, nor trying to invalidate any system of belief. This is more a call to ask people about what is hard to deal with their faith and how they do in fact deal with it. The purpose of which is to build community with other believers and to actually strengthen the bonds of belief.

With most things, a number of distinctions need to be drawn. First off, what does one mean by the word “curse?” Within this post I will take curse to mean 1)the expression of a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., befall a person, group, etc. and 2)a formula or charm intended to cause such misfortune to another (taken from dictionary.com). As Christians, and as people, we should not be wishing evil to befall another person. Doing so is going against Jesus’ charges that one is to turn the other cheek when stuck and that one is to love their enemies. There is no room for one to take this seriously and to also curse someone.

What are words? Words are simply vessels of meaning. It does not matter what color a pot it, what matters is what the pot contains. It is the same with words. I can call some one a “neocon” and depending on how I say it and what meaning I attach to the term, I can mean several things. I could mean a person who adheres to a new version of conservatism, one that recognizes the flaws of past versions of conservatism and have tried to formulate a better version, a more progressive version of conservatism. On the other hand, I use the word neocon and splice the “neo” element of being evil off of neonazi and attach it to a sort hand version of conservative, “con” to get the picture of an evil conservative. I am not saying this is how the word developed, only how one puts together the meaning. The point is that words are only a vessel of meaning. Sociey at large has designated certain phrases to be considered curse words. This meaning only goes as far as the society does. I am sure that most of the readers do not hold to cultural relativism.

If one takes “curse” to mean “the use of a curse word in regular speech,” then one is talking about something entirely different than the preceding paragraph. Consider the following, one has just scored the winning basket in a very close game of basketball. In that person’s elated state, he exclaims, “H-word yea!” Has this person committed a sin? They have not. What are words? Once again, they are simply vessels of meaning. The h-word in the above example only conveys excitement and the rush of success. There is no negative connotation here, and no one is being put down. Therefore, it is permissible. I believe that this applies across the board with words. One needs to take into account the connotation and meaning before assigning a moral value to the usage.

Lastly, and least concrete is the use of curse words to describe situations and the actions of others. Many people take the a-word to mean the same thing as jerk. If someone is genuinely being a jerk, can a person use the synonym a-word to describe another person? Once again, if the usage falls outside of 1) and 2), then I think a case can be made. Am I being mean spirited? Am I attaching this to the person or to their actions? These questions need to be asked. I think that there are fewer cases where one is morally permitted to use curse words as descriptors of behavior.

However, is the use of permissible words always beneficial? No. One has to be mindful of their audience. How will the people that hear me take the word I am using? Does it offend them? If it does, should I actively try to offend these people merely because I have the moral right to use this word? Are there better words that I can use? Despite my freedom to use such a word, am I still above reproach? Those are the questions one should be asking his or herself when considering the vessels of meaning the person is wanting to sail.

In sum, one should never curse someone, but there is a moral freedom to use societally designated curse words in morally permissible meanings. Despite this freedom, it is often unwise to use such words because of how you and Christ as a proxy are viewed.

Ephesians 5:22:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:25a:

Husbands, love your wives,

So husbands don’t have to submit to their wives and wives don’t have to love their husbands.

Beware of the prooftext.