Great Christian Mind: John Wesley

Sadly enough, the history of Christianity and its teachings have not been very kind or flattering to the animal kingdom. I became increasingly aware of this through my high school years and into college as I became more active in my faith. Humans were created in the image of God and animals on the other hand are worthless, soulless machines given to us by God to use in whatever way we see fit. I remember sermons, speakers, and the comments of other Christians who made light of and even seemed to take joy in the idea of killing animals, eating them, or causing them to go extinct. Needless to say, this disturbed me greatly. Not only did it disturb me but it struck at my core as being fundamentally wrong. Most frustrating of all was the isolation and aloneness I felt. It seems that very few Christians seem to understand what appears to me to be a very obvious truth.

Now, I do not reject the teaching that humans were created imago Dei nor am I denying that there is a clear difference between humans and animals in their capabilities and value. However, I do not and never have accepted that just because humans are God's image bearers, animals must be as worthless and have no value at all. I've never understood that extreme. I see God as an artist and in everything that an artist creates, he puts himself into his artwork, into his creation. If animals were also created by God, then God put a bit of Himself into them as well. How could someone look at a horse and not believe God placed a sparkle of His own majesty, beauty, and nobility into it? How could someone look at a dog and not see the image of God's faithfulness and companionship? Whatever differences there are between humans and animals, it is very clear that animals, especially higher mammals are sentient, feel emotion, possess intelligence, and feel pain which by any standard of ethics, Christian ethics no less so, demands a necessity for moral and compassionate treatment.

John Wesley was one of the few prominent Christian voices of his time to preach this view. I found a copy of his sermon titled "General Deliverance." Here is a link to it for those who may be interested: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/sermons.vi.vii.html

What really makes Wesley unique is not the fact that he argued for the humane treatment of animals and against the tyranny and unjust rule of man....

Is the generous horse, that serves his master’s necessity or pleasure with unwearied diligence, — is the faithful dog, that waits the motion of his hand, or his eye, exempt from this? What returns for their long and faithful service do many of these poor creatures find? And what a dreadful difference is there, between what they suffer from their fellow-brutes, and what they suffer from the tyrant man! The lion, the tiger, or the shark, gives them pain from mere necessity, in order to prolong their own life; and puts them out of their pain at once: But the human shark, without any such necessity, torments them of his free choice; and perhaps continues their lingering pain till, after months or years, death signs their release.

...but he views about the original condition of the animal kingdom and his vision of its restoration and improvement in the New Kingdom to come.

What, if it should then please the all-wise, the all-gracious Creator to raise them higher in the scale of beings? What, if it should please him, when he makes us “equal to angels,” to make them what we are now, — creatures capable of God; capable of knowing and loving and enjoying the Author of their being? If it should be so, ought our eye to be evil because he is good? However this be, he will certainly do what will be most for his own glory.

The whole brute creation will then, undoubtedly, be restored, not only to the vigour, strength, and swiftness which they had at their creation, but to a far higher degree of each than they ever enjoyed. They will be restored, not only to that measure of understanding which they had in paradise, but to a degree of it as much higher than that, as the understanding of an elephant is beyond that of a worm. And whatever affections they had in the garden of God, will be restored with vast increase; being exalted and refined in a manner which we ourselves are not now able to comprehend. The liberty they then had will be completely restored, and they will be free in all their motions. They will be delivered from all irregular appetites, from all unruly passions, from every disposition that is either evil in itself, or has any tendency to evil. No rage will be found in any creature, no fierceness, no cruelty, or thirst for blood. So far from it that “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain.” (Isaiah 11:6.)

What an immensely beautiful and interesting thought. I am especially fascinated with Wesley's belief that animals would be given human intellect in heaven and the new earth. I can't help but think of the talking beasts of Narnia, who may have represented the ideal state of animals, who were chosen out of the "dumb beasts" and could return to that state if they engaged in evil. Narnia, of course, was conceived by C.S. Lewis, who was another great animal-loving Christian thinker. It's ironic that many Christians who love and appeal to Lewis, do not actually understand some of the more "radical" ideals he held that did not align with traditional Christianity.

What I also love about this concept is that it provides some answers into the question of animal suffering, a topic that, disturbingly, many Christians seem unconcerned about.

I am very thankful for the few enlightened thinkers of God who were able to understand this vision, this truth, despite being taught otherwise in most cases. St. Francis who not only believed in the stewardship of nature and the kinship of animals, but believed the gospel applied to all of God's creatures. John Wesley as just mentioned. William Wilberforce who not only was a pioneer in the abolitionist movement to end slavery, but also established his own humane organization to preserve the ethical treatment of animals. C.S. Lewis who not only had the audacity to commit such offensive blasphemy by illustrating the Christian story and even Christ himself through the image of talking animals, but who also addressed the issue of animal suffering in relationship to a loving God. It is nice to know that I am in good company.

Bill Maher and Stupid Atheism

I usually try to not make the mistake that I often observe among many of those who disagree with me and label people with different views than my own as intellectually inferior. However, there are times when really noticeable cases standout and must be mentioned for the sake of truth and for the sake of others.

Often there is talk radio playing in my house and I admit I like to listen to it because it is interesting. Radio host Hugh Hewitt played some audio clips from Bill Maher's late night show last week, in which Maher characteristically trashes religion in the most tasteless ways possible.

Here is what Maher said regarding the Pope's visit to the U.S. last week:
"Whenever you combine a secretive compound, religion, and weirdos in pioneer outfits, there's gonna be some child f*cking going on. In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God's infallible wingman here on earth, lock away the kids. Which is why I'd like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult; its leader also has a compound and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he use to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats. That's right, the Pope is coming to America this week..."

There are people who are wrong. Then there are people who are wrong and rotten. Bill Maher is the latter. I know that he is a comedian and that apparently the new trend in comedy is to be as grossly offensive, vulgar, and as unfunny as possible, but he's clearly expressing his true feelings as are most other comedians. Comedians merely get away with hate speech because they say it in a way that makes people laugh.

I am not a Catholic and I'd like to establish that right now. I do not agree with the Catholic Church's doctrine and tradition regarding the Pope, nor do I believe that the Pope is inherently more holy than any other devout follower of Christ. However, Bill Maher's remarks about the Pope and the Catholic Church are sadistically rude and offensive to millions of sincerely religious people. Not everyone in the Catholic clergy is having sex with prepubescent boys. In fact, the majority of priest molestation cases are more accurately described as homosexual acts, rather than true pedophilia because the "children" involved are teenagers with adult bodies. He's also twisting the facts by calling the Pope a "Nazi." Yes, the current Pope Benedict XVI was at one time apart of the Hitler youth as was practically every young male at that time. It was a part of school and cultural doctrine and it was popular. If you know anything about history, particularly the disastrous effects WWI had on Germany, you know why Hitler seemed like a shining light of hope to the bereaved Germans. The Pope did join the German military but he later left it after discovering what was really going on. His family was also openly against Hitler's regime and had to move constantly to avoid being caught. This is a man who turned away from Nazism. Labeling him and associating him with the same people who cast Jews into ovens and used Jewish babies for target practice is not only nonsensical, but downright shameful and disgusting.

Even though Pope Benedict XVI may look a bit like Darth Sidious from Star Wars except with a white robe, he is certainly no emperor of the Darkside, at least I hope not.

But, the moron, Bill Maher has much more to say: "Now I know what you're thinking. Bill, you can't be saying that the Catholic Church is no better than this creepy Texas cult? Well, for one thing, alter boys can't even get pregnant. But really, what tripped up the little cult on the prairie? Was it that they only abused hundreds of kids, not thousands all over the world. Cults get raided, religions get parades. How does the Catholic Church get away with all their buggery? Volume, volume, volume! If you have a few hundred followers and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion they call you Pope."

What trash. No class here. But wait! Guess who the special guest is on the show? Richard Dawkins! Excellent. Now we have one of the most idiotic of atheists joined by one of the most arrogant. One must read this most enlightening and engaging discussion about God and the universe between these two free-thinking geniuses as the challenge each other.

Maher: What I first want to ask you is, why is this book [The God Delusion] such a phenomenon? It was so much more than a best seller, it really changed the people talked about this subject all over the world. Why this book and why now?

Dawkins: Well, it has sold more than a million and a half copies now and similar sales have been posted for Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, so it looks like there is something going on...

Hewitt breaks in here to point out that the 1.5 million copies sold is menial compared to the best selling religious-based books, not including the Bible itself. If Dawkins is using the premise that book sales indicate changes in the culture, then all it tells us is that there are at least 20-30 times more religious people than there are atheists and that it is primarily atheists who read atheistic books. It's the atheist club. (I am happy to confess that I personally have been reading the very book being discussed here.)

Dawkins: ...I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throat. I think especially in America, there has been a tendency for God to rule the roost in a way that I think people are rightly getting fed up with and when a group of books come alone to challenge that, people warm to it.

Hewitt, almost chuckling, chimes in about Dawkins' arrogance by basically implying that the fact that he has sold 1.5 million books (mostly to atheists no doubt) somehow indicates that people are fed up with "faith" which is clearly not true. What a brilliant comment by the Oxford zoologist...

Maher: I notice you call it "imaginary friend," a phrase I enjoy because it's so, it gets at so what this is and yet I...

Dawkins: Yeah, did you coin it? Who invented that phrase? Did you coin it?

Maher: Well, I use to use it in my stand-up act... (Maher sounds like he takes great pride in the unparalleled wit of his amazing phrase)

Dawkins: Well maybe it's your phrase. It's very good anyway. (Does he really think calling God an imaginary friend is that creative and clever? If so that's really sad.)

Maher: And believe me, I've stolen many of yours so I think we're even. But I think that people would be interested to find out that in the book you establish a scale of 1 to 7 of atheism: 1 being someone who is utterly certain there is a god and 7 being someone who is utterly certain there is not, but you yourself say you're only a 6. Can you tell us why?

Dawkins: I think any scientist would be unwise to commit himself to saying that there is definitely not anything. I mean, I can't definitely commit myself to saying there are no fairies. Uh, I'm pretty sure there are no fairies. But I think it would be unscientific to do what the extreme religious people do and say "I know there is a God." I can't say I know there is no God. I can't say I know there are no pink unicorns. So a 6...maybe a 6.9 is reasonable.

Hewitt: You see, it's so self-indulgent. They're assuring each other of their absolute rightness about this when the vast experience of human kind is that they are wrong. That's just the vast experience of human kind and the key argument of Mere Christianity which is the essential moral consciousness as to what is right and wrong, "Tao" as C.S. Lewis called it, is the indictment of their certainty.

Maher: One reason why I think yourself and so many others are beginning to speak out against organized religion is...*starts some very forced laughter* BECAUSE IT'S RIDICULOUS! IT'S JUST RIDICULOUS! There's a talking snake in the garden of Eden and people fly up to heaven bodily! It's just ridiculous! How do you explain bright people, and there are many, come on we have to admit this. I talked to your friend, the scientist, Francis Collins (hardly anyone in the audience knows who that is) who discovered the human genome. How does a man go to the lab all day and then go home and believe in the talking snake? How do you explain that phenomenon?

Dawkins: Well, Francis Collins did not discover the human genome. He was head of the worldwide operation that discovered it, so he was an administrator. He's a very good scientist too, but don't say he was the one who discovered the human genome. It was a team effort and he was the administrator who organized it.

Maher: Okay, so he's a bright guy...

Dawkins: Well...yeah, I guess he's a bright guy. But I...um...he... (Dawkins is really hesitant and reluctant to attribute any intelligence to a Christian scientist, not surprising).

Maher: Okay, take another example: Tony Blair your former Prime Minister who just converted to Catholicism...

Dawkins: He's not a bright guy. *chuckles* He's not a bright guy. Francis Collins is a much brighter guy than Tony Blair is, I'll give him that much.

Hewitt points out that Tony Blair was an exceptionally gifted leader and was Prime Minister for more consecutive years than just about any other Prime Minister in history. But more importantly, he goes on to say this which I thought was particularly apt: 'My guess is that they are laughing at what they perceive to be the intellectual put down, which not actually very intellectual, because it's not something that serious thinkers do. Serious thinkers don't indulge in this stand-up dismissal of argument and this peptic hatred of the other side. They're curious, they engage, they talk, but that's not what the atheists are about. At least not these two atheists. They are about attempting to win through intellectual intimidation."

Hewitt has it dead on there. That is exactly what militant atheists do. They are just as bad any religious fundamentalists, just as close-minded, just as arrogant, and just as bigoted and hateful of the opposing side. Religious zealots love to call atheists "evil" and atheists love to label all people of faith as stupid and delusional which is strangely the same exact tactic leftists use against anyone who holds any conservative values. If you're not a socialist, a Democrat, or an atheist, you are stupid. That is the one absolute truth atheists cling to besides Darwinism. It is this elitist and sardonic attitude against theists, Christians especially, that I find infinitely irritating, not to mention monumentally hypocritical. Those who would claim sole reservation of reason, free thought, and objectivity but in actuality are ruled by highly irrational and prejudiced behavior and radically faith-based claims.

Here's another quote that is oh-so-revealing of Bill Maher's personal character, his insipidity, his moral depravity, and the kind of belief system that atheism tends to foster and produce: "I'm the guy who thinks religion is bad and drugs are good. I think children aren't innocent, god doesn't write books, and Jesus wasn't a republican. I think girls hate each other, no doesn't mean no and being drunk is funny. I'm for mad cow disease, how am I gonna win that? I'm against suing tobacco companies. I think abstinence is a perversion. I think Bush's lies are worse than Clinton's. I think Vegas was better when it was run by the mob. I think men are only as loyal as their options. I think stereotypes are true and rehab is for quitters."

And for the record, Jesus indeed, was not a Republican nor a member of any other political party and the Bible was not written by God directly but written by humans who were inspired by God. Please don't twist what we stupid Christians believe and then try to attack it. That's logically fallacious.

I am also amused by all the Darwinists who are foaming at the mouth over Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We sure don't like free speech, dissent, and alternative opinions that defy established naturalistic orthodoxy, do we? If atheism is not a religion, why are its proponents treating it like one?

Finally, for those who may accuse me of being hateful and cruel, I do not hate Maher or Dawkins personally, but I have little respect for the way they carry themselves and trash other people. I do NOT hate atheists. I know several atheists whom I cherish a lot. I also know that the best response is not to complain but to pray for these very misguided but valuable human beings. However, I will call nonsense where I see it and I will demand fair play when I believe it is called for and I am unapologetic about that.

God: Just Another Sky Pixie?

It has become a popular trend among atheists to compare all supernatural phenomenon and religious deities, including the God of Christianity, to other mythical beings such as pixies, fairies, or unicorns. The basic idea is that there is no scientific or logical justification for pixies and fairies and no evidence for their existence other than the fluid power of human imagination and the same is true of God. Of course, comparing the God of the Bible with pixies is not just silly but plain stupid as well. Anyone who makes this claim is surely attesting to their own ignorance of God.

The atheist may wonder why I, like other Christian theists, can believe in God but deny the existence of pixies and on what criteria I base my conclusion. Maybe I am being unfair. I suppose it is possible that pixies do exist.

Perhaps we should consider the possibility in which it might actually be rational to believe in such diminutive magical creatures. If it just so happens that there comes a book attesting to the existence of pixies that contains scientific facts about the earth and the universe thousands of years in advance of science, is confirmed by archaeological evidence, makes dozens of specific prophecies over thousands of years that have come true, advocates a moral and ethical conduct far advanced for its time of writing, and if millions of people throughout history and worldwide have claimed with sincerity that they've been touched and felt the presence of pixies and that most of those claims have integrity and continuity, and that there was at least one pixie who made itself physical for thousands of people to see and whose existence was well documented by honest, reliable sources and eyewitnesses who were willing to die to preserve the truth of the pixies, and I personally had felt the presence and seen the working of pixies in my own life, it might be wise for me to consider the possibility that pixies exist.

Unfortunately for the pixie enthusiast, we have not seen that kind of compelling evidence in favor of "pixieism" unless one wishes to insist that childhood fantasies, faerie tales, and drug induced hallucinations (perhaps the effect of abusing "pixie dust") constitute compelling evidence. However, such evidence does apply to the Bible, Jesus Christ, and the God Christians believe in.

What is Good?

The great Greek philosopher Plato once posed a very profound dilemma about the nature of "good" and virtuous action that atheists and other anti-religious minded people have hailed as one of the most devastating intellectual blows to theism. Specifically, it seeks to destroy the claim that apart from God there can be no absolute standard for good and evil.

In his Dialogues, Plato tells a story where Socrates comes into contact with Euthyphro, a man who is on his way to the courthouse to testify against his own father on an account of murder. Socrates is astonished by this and asks Euthyphro why he is doing such a thing. Euthyphro responds that it is the pious (right and good) thing to do.

Socrates then asks the question: "Do the gods wish for what is good, because it is good; or is what is good, good, because the gods wish for it?"

This is indeed a provocative question and I've heard it before but in my view and understanding, it is not anywhere near as devastating or insurmountable as atheists might like to think.

As a Christian, I will answer this from the Christian perspective specifically, meaning that "the gods" will refer to the one triune God of the Bible.

Does God wish for what is good, because it is good; or is what is good, good, because God wishes for it? In speaking of the theistic-Christian concept of God, I would have to say that the answer is the latter. In other words, good is good because God wishes it. The latter option, that God wishes for good because it is good, cannot be true because if it was, God would not be needed to define good.

But wait, the atheist argues, then if the latter is true then God can say anything is good, even killing people or children. Yes, that's exactly right. God is the sole determiner and definer of what is good and what is evil. But before I get to that point, I will more directly address the dilemma at hand. For the atheist who quibbles that God could or would consider something most people would consider evil such as murdering children as being good, they are making an irrelevant and self-defeating claim. I would then ask them, "why do you think murdering children is wrong? On what grounds and on what basis do you believe murdering children is wrong?" The most likely and truthful answer they could give is that their own conscience tells them it is wrong. At which point I would ask "Where does your conscience come from and why do you have this innate sense of moral judgment to begin with?" The two most reasonable answers would be that either it is an internal mechanism produced by natural evolution, or it is an a priori awareness of divine moral law that was instilled by the Law Giver, God, who made mankind in His own image and made them moral beings. In this case, I am obviously claiming that the latter is true.

If the latter is true, then the one who criticizes and condemns God's ability to define goodness is doing so with the very same standards God gave them in the first place. Thus, their argument becomes circular and self-defeating. In effect they are saying "God can't define good because then God can say things that are evil are good, yet the very things I consider to be evil, I consider evil because God has said they are evil to begin with." Why is murdering children wrong? Because God has established that law. Why do most people believe murdering children is wrong? Because that moral law which governs us is instilled into our being, giving us awareness of what good should and shouldn't be.

Why does God have the right to define good? Because He IS good. He embodies the essence of good and good is His very nature. Because of His omnipotence and goodness, He created the universe and has authority over all of it. For every law there is a law giver. Just as gravity is a law that governs the workings of the physical universe, God's moral law so governs and judges the actions of human beings. God is also just and immutable. He does not change. His nature does not change and His principles and standards do not change. That means God is not going to suddenly change His mind someday and say that something that is evil is actually good. Jesus made the same challenge about people's notions of good when he was called a "good teacher." ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’ Mark 10:17-18 In other words, Jesus was pointing out that the only true definition and standard for all good is God Himself.

And like I have said before, God is necessary for morality to be objective. Humans possess a moral conscience and an awareness of divine moral law, but at the same time, because we are sinful and corrupt in our very nature, our consciences and sense of right and wrong are also corrupted. This is the reason why people will widely disagree on varying issues. With such common confusion and discrepancy among so many moral issues, it would seem that morality cannot exist in any meaningful sense apart from God. For if that were the case that good stood on its own apart from God, then it would seem more probable that people be in further agreement on what is good but they are not. C.S. Lewis made the comparison between flawed human perceived morality and true objective morality like this: "The Divine 'goodness' differs from ours, but it is not sheerly different; it differs from ours not as white from black but as a perfect circle from a child's first attempt to draw a wheel. But when the child has learned to draw, it will know that the circle it then makes is what it was trying to make from the very beginning." Humans have a basic grasp of God's goodness, but naturally it falls far shy of His definitions and therefore we must reform and align our morals to His absolute and objective standard.

If God did not exist, then there would be no basis to say that human beings are corrupt in nature. If God exists, then there is an objective and immutable standard for good and evil that applies to every single person and does not change based on any one person's opinion. Without God's existence, we have no objective means or absolute standard by which to judge what is good and what is not.

Further, if we are to believe that the universe is a purely natural atheistic one, then the concept of good and evil do not exist. Relative morality has no value and no more effectiveness than a relative law does. The only absolute truth in a Darwinian world is survival of the fittest. The strong survive and the weak die. Morality has little do with survival and in fact, it often impedes survival because morality dictates that you put the concern of others before yourself. Survival is about looking after yourself and your own best interests. Because of this reason, it is illogical to believe that the concept and awareness of morality was something that merely evolved or was produced naturally, especially when you consider the fact that only one species on this planet happens to be motivated and controlled by moral values.

To sum it up, I don't see what the problem is with the idea of a God who is intrinsically just and good defining what good and right action is. I know that some would say that my reasoning is too simplistic. I say the most powerful logic is simple logic.

It should also be noted that the appeal to Plato by atheists is somewhat ironic considering Plato was actually very conservative-minded. He was deeply concerned with the moral depravity he saw around him in his time and culture and he was also a big believer in the metaphysical. He believed that reality was better represented by the spiritual or immaterial realm than the physical one and also rejected the pagan Greek gods and adopted what could be considered quasi-monothesitic beliefs.