Final Report

Interview with Pastor Larry Richardson

The man that I interviewed for my spiritual assessment was Pastor Larry Richardson of Faith Lutheran Church. He is a respected theologian and pastor educated at renowned St. John’s University in Colorado, achieved his masters at Divinity St. John’s in Minnesota, and consummated his academic journey by receiving M.Div. at Luther Seminary. He was a highly qualified participant in my topic, and I was honored that he agreed to be interviewed. It truly was exciting finally sitting down and discussing this topic with an individual instead of a computer screen. I relaxed in my cushion in the church’s lobby, surrounded by the dimming sunrays gleaming through the windows. It was a tranquil atmosphere, gazing out at the beautiful scenery of Alabama. I was serene, totally entranced by the beauty that flourished all around us. My mind wandered off and soon I found myself speculating what could have created such elegance. I soon came around and saw the shining face smiling right at me. Pastor Larry is an exquisite person. His demeanor radiated kindness, but also knowledge and fortitude for what he believed in. I was ready to get down to business. Making sure my notes were in order, I cleared my thoughts and started questioning. There has been speculation among many scholars that the Gospels contradict each other, and using deductive reasoning, this would conclude that the Bible and all of Jesus’ teachings were fallacies. I decided to make that a contention and I wondered how he would retaliate. First, he said that most of these contradictions can be overlooked because of the different viewpoints the Gospels had. They were not in total accordance because they were different people writing them, and they would have seen or noticed varying things. But essentially, he said, they did corroborate the main theme in each of the Gospels, and that validated their truthfulness. He also suggested that if the Gospels were indeed, word for word, the same many would theorize that there was plagiarism and would discount them. He believed that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all had the basic testimony of Jesus’ life and teachings and that supported the existence of Jesus. I wanted to delve into this even further. An issue had been festering in my mind as he spoke. The Gospel of Thomas. This Gospel has been accused of being apocryphal and not trustworthy of the other four Gospels. I wanted to know why. He retorted that the Gospel of Thomas was not truly a testimony, but a collection of sayings thought to be by Jesus. He also stated, and most Christian scholars agree, that the other Gospels were authoritative and Thomas was not. He believed that the Gospel of Thomas did not fit within the guidelines of Christian theology, and should be discounted by the Church. I agreed with his reasoning. He went on even further saying that the canon of scripture, the theology and message of the church that unified believers, was approved by the early church in 400-420 A.D. He believed this was relevant to his case because the early church leaders were very careful when they approved writings that would be incorporated in the Bible. Now, I wanted to get personal, really probe his inner thoughts and feelings. I asked the question that most try to avoid with evasive tactics. I asked him if he believed in the eternal suffering and damnation of Hell. I went further and asked did he believe that a forgiving God could have created such a place. His answer was somewhat surprising. He said that he believed that there was no physical place called Hell, as inculcated in cartoons and movies. There were not horned devils, no pitchforks, no burning cauldrons filled with rotting flesh. He believed that Hell was defined as the possibility of a person being separated or apart from God, he then went on to add that he thought spiritually one would suffer if one is not entombed with God. That really churned my thoughts. I then proceeded to ask him about the beliefs of a certain sect of the Christians, the Calvinists. I wanted to uncover his thoughts on predestination. I wanted to know that if God was omniscient wouldn’t he already know everything that would happen to someone, even if they were going to be eternally blessed or infinitely condemned? He responded by saying that predestination was rejected by Luther, and that this couldn’t possibly be the case because there is another element that must be considered. He believed that God instilled in us free will and other possibilities that circulated throughout our life. He went on and stated that, “God’s desire is what is good for me, but it is possible to turn away from God.” I asked a few other demanding questions, and at the end of our interview, shook hands and left with a smile hinting on my face. I had a notebook full of notes, and an open and optimistic mind on the existence of God.
My interview was not purely based on the existence of God. I already knew that inevitable answer I would receive. A resounding yes. I wanted to delve more into the topic, making sure there was nothing that could disprove Christianity and its teachings. Overall, I loved the time I had with the pastor. He was an interesting and engrossing speaker. He had well-reasoned well thought out answers. He was an abyss of theological insights. I had a lot fun throughout the interview, delving into my favorite subjects of philosophy and theology. I learned a lot more then I first thought, his answers pulsating through me, intriguing every fiber of my conscience. It was truly an insightful and meaningful experience and I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. I still had some questions, but many answers had been brought to the table. It was invigorating having another person to discuss and debate with.
Richardson, Larry.Personal INTERVIEW. 28 April 2010.

Answers to Tough Questions by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart

The source I used for my book-length work was Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask about the Christian Faith by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart. The format of the book was a question and answer basis articulating sixty-five of the toughest questions inquired about the Christian faith. It is difficult to provide one synopsis that complements the entire book, because it has such a wide spectrum of topics. The authors compiled the book into sections dissecting conundrums from the most prominent topics of the Christian faith i.e. the Bible, Jesus, God, etc. It uses scripture from the Bible and a few outside sources to affirm its contentions about the validity of Jesus, the Bible, and God. It delved into some rather intriguing questions, one being where did God come from? And what was He doing before He created the universe? The answer the reader was given is that God is not relative or subject to the limitations of time and space. It is a very shady answer, but this divine entity and his attributes cannot be comprehended by mortals. The example it gave to validate its reasoning was Einstein’s theory of relativity. McDowell adduced in his text that “Einstein deducted that time can actually be slowed down, altered, and sped up when objects begin to travel at very high speeds. This would then suggest that the concept that all things emanate and operate within the context of fixed time and space, that nothing originates outside of time and space, could be incorrect”(56).
First of all, I’d like to note that not all scholars agree with everything inculcated in this book, and it is an opinionated text with evidence to support its claims. It is a rather odd layout for a book, but it is somewhat helpful. It is prescribed to be a guide to aid the reader in a spiritual reassessment. Even with this taking in account, I despised the format. It was very awkward and arduous to read, and really never captured my full attention. I was somewhat disappointed about the sources it used, primarily the Bible. This, to me, was not enough to satisfy my question. It was circulatory in nature, referring to the Bible to validate its assertions. It used some outside sources, namely Josephus the Jew historian living in the time of Jesus. It provided evidence that Jesus, in fact, did exist but not that he was the son of the living God. This is, of course, understandable because Josephus was a Jew and would never assert that he was the messiah. Josephus was shown, by other scholars, to be rather trustworthy in his writings, except when it came to the Romans. Tacitus was another historian cited, him being Roman. But he, like Josephus, did not depict the Jesus that is incorporated with Christianity today. It is intriguing; however, that so many copies of the New Testament are still in existence today. There are more copies of the New Testament than any other ancient document, which is a substantial affirmation to the credibility of the scriptures.
Looking inside the text, it has very convincing arguments. It’s certainly well-researched and cited. The authors looked at almost every aspect, every fiber of the Christian faith and tried to authenticate it. They were coherent contentions, arguing valid points for consideration. As I’ve iterated, I didn’t much care for the read, but it still was informative and essential to my investigation. It did raise interesting points, and probed my thoughts even further to the inescapable question of God’s existence.
McDowell, Josh. Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask about the Christian Faith. United States of America: Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., 1980. 245. Print.

Does God Exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?

The essay I chose to conclude my print sources was "Does God Exist?" on the gotquestions.org website. The main principle it brings to the table is: one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God; it is an act of absolute and complete faith. To validate this claim it states, “If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that he exits. But if He did that there would be no need for faith” (1). The essay, then, iterates the fact that this conclusion does not infer, totally, that there is no proof of God. An exegesis of what it states is that God can be proven just by looking at our environment, the wonders and magnificence of the skies, Earth, and water. The beauty and design of our planet is too sophisticated to have happened by random chance. It uses the contention that throughout human history, various cultures and civilizations have believed in at least some form of divine quintessence. This then deduces that someone or something must have consummated this feeling inside our souls. It is an endless void that must be filled with God’s presence to satisfy its unrelenting hunger. The article then goes to further its point by other arguments already acknowledged in previous writings. It’s very circulatory evidence that is ambiguous and relatively confusing in basis. In layman’s terms, the evidence is heavily repeated by all pro-Christian sources, and has no sound, raw data to support its conclusion.
As I’ve stated the evidence is circulatory, and undergoes a cycle of echoing undertones. I do agree with the underlying basis of the essay, though. There is not much evidence supporting either side, and it is by faith whether or not someone believes in God. Faith, I know, is not the most optimum foundation for a belief system, but it is a heart-felt tenet that needs just consideration. Stating this fact, faith needs just as much attention as any other evidence in my hypothesis. It should not be overlooked as a false assumption or a blind surmise. It is, indeed, one of the essential essences central to the human. I do also believe that there is a “void” or gap in our souls that cannot be filled with secular, materialistic commodities. No amount of wealth, power, or sensual delights can satisfy this all-consuming anomaly.
"Does God Exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?." gotquestions.org. Got Questions Ministries, 2002-2010. Web. 21 Apr 2010. .

The Immoral Teachings of Christianity

The video I used for my multimedia response is a YouTube clip about a conference in Las Vegas. This conference was held July 10-12 and was a Free-thinkers gathering to share and discuss theology and other aspects of religious dogmas. The speaker was none other than the eloquent Christopher Hitchens. The segment was about the immoral teachings that Christianity imposes on its believers. Hitchens quoted C.S. Lewis to iterate his opinion that the disciples who followed Jesus would have to be sick, demented, or complete lunatics. He believes all of the teachings of Jesus were ridiculous, immoral, and absurd fabrications created by a mad man. Hitchens believes that the very foundation of Christianity is unquestionably immoral. He believes the very idea of a man taking the sins of all others is depriving us of our responsibility. One’s problems and sins should be pushed towards them; their problems should be overcome by them and only them. Hitchens says that believing in Jesus is an escape from our dilemmas, and is immoral and unethical. Hitchens believes that these teachings and beliefs are damaging physically and morally to humans. Hitchens asserted that, “The teachings of Christianity are immoral teachings that have done and continue to inflict untold moral and physical harm on our species.” He then goes on to say once we have eliminated these hysterical beliefs; we will finally be emancipated and free.
Before I make a proper response, I want to make a note that, to me, not all teachings of Christianity are harmful and many have promoted prosperity and generosity throughout the world. Hitchens is looking from a psychological perspective of how clinging to something, especially religion, could create harmful effects mentally on a person. This is very true. No one should provincially follow a dogma without first taking in all the evidence. Clinging to a religion and not taking responsibility for one’s actions is an unhealthy practice. Peering through a psychological point of view, I could absolutely see his thought process. Otherwise, the teachings of Christianity have the same morals as any other religion, such as Buddhism, of helping others and being kind to one another. I do not think you should single out religions for moral practices, when others articulate similar doctrines. But, of course, Hitchens would say that all religions are immoral and should be eradicated. I do believe, though, that religion is a guideline to becoming a better person, and that it does teach meaningful principles, even though it does promote conformity. Looking past the discrepancies, Hitchens and I do have a similar stance on some of the instances he mentioned.
"The Immoral Teachings of Christianity." YouTube. Web. 15 Apr 2010. .

Arguments for Atheism

The essay I chose was Arguments for Atheism on the Philosophy of Religion website. This source’s primary goal is to provide sufficient answers and reasoning supporting the belief in no god. Atheists and anti-theists use the presumption of atheism as a principle in their philosophy. This attaches the burden of proof on the theist and if the theist is unable to make a persuasive argument for the existence of God, then this confirms the atheist’s doctrine. The next point atheists assert is the problem of evil. It basically states that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and forgiving why is the world in suffering, chaos, and disarray? If God is omniscient, he would know how to bring an end to all the suffering. If God is omnipotent, then he is able to bring the world out of its misery. If God is forgiving and munificent, then he would wish to save and protect his creations. The simplest conclusion, many atheists say, is that He does not do these things, because He does not exist. The problems with God’s omnipotence and omniscience, is that these are logically incoherent and cannot possibly be true because of the lack of evidence. Atheists also believe that there are flaws within the belief of divine justice. Many say that it dissents with God being all-forgiving. The Christian view of heaven and hell also seem to conflict with God’s justice. Hell is an eternal punishment for a mortal sin, and many don’t think that any sin or mistake is costly enough to be equivalent to infinite condemnation. Criticism has also been raised against the idea of immortality. Many believe that death is the final conclusion, death is the destruction of a person, and if a person is not destroyed by death then the person did not die. Also, arguments concerning prayer seem to be in contradiction with theism. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then prayer and worship are meaningless to this entity, and should never work to change his mind on one’s life and decisions. Atheists use psychology as a way to “explain away religious beliefs” (1). Two philosophers and critics of religion have used this process of thought: Ludwig Feuerbach and Sigmund Freud.
This paper was excellently written. It contains many intriguing philosophical arguments justifying atheism. It is definitely subject to enormous consideration and contemplation. The problem of evil was indeed a “mind-probing” argument and will definitely saturate in my thoughts on making my final decision. Many of the points were plausible and not just ridiculous, bogus thoughts, but coherent and logical conceptions.
"Arguments for Atheism." Philosophy of Religion. Technokinetics, 2008. Web. 15 Apr 2010. .

The Joy Behar Show- Hitchens vs. Wilson

The video I used for my multimedia source is a YouTube video of the Joy Behar Show with two distinguished individuals proving their arguments for the existence and non-existence of God. One is an evangelical and author named Pastor Douglas Wilson. The other is an atheist or “antitheist” analyst named Christopher Hitchens. Both were to provide evidence to support their case for the truth of God’s existence. Mrs. Behar did this segment because of the growing unrest in American life about religion and how many are turning from traditional practices in faith to atheists. Pastor Douglas Wilson tried to use what he called a “burden of proof” to support God’s reality. He was very unclear in the meaning of this and contradicted himself by saying non believers deny the self evident fact they are the burden of proof but it is only self evident to believers. So it is only self evident to believers how can non believers have the burden of proof if it is not self evident to themselves. This was just a side note I wanted to add to portray the nebulousness of this argument and how, to me, it was not very coherent. Hitchens on the other hand believed also that Wilson’s argument was not very relevant and that it was very circulatory. Hitchens believes that the great claims by the bible should be backed up by great evidence. He says that atheists do not have proof that there is no God, but there is no concrete evidence to back up that there is such an entity. Also he says that atheists do not believe in the supernatural dimension only a natural one and that there is only this one and it is the best we have been received. Pastor Wilson then says that animals could talk to Noah on his ark, because we are animals, primates, and we can talk. Hitchens retorted saying that the Presbyterians first did not believe that humans were primates, but now they do believe we are animals and came from primates. Hitchens uses the arguments that the virginal birth, resurrection, and miracles were all like other ancient mythologies and should be considered one of those fairy tales from long ago. Hitchens also believes that even a man named Jesus did exist, his doctrines, moral and ethical, were not true. Mrs. Behar then asks Pastor Wilson if he believes that God is watching him at this very moment, his answer was quite certainly, yes. The idea was, Mrs. Behar used, was that this idea of God watching you is almost viewed by Christians as a self-absorption or self-flattering ideal. Pastor Wilson then used it in a different perspective that it humbles you. Hitchens then said that it humbled you too much so that you were a servant to the Almighty Creator. After the commercial break, the debate picks up a new topic of the relevancy and need for the Ten Commandments. Whether or not humans already know this code, or that we need a divine being to council us on our decisions. Pastor Wilson believes that it is not self-evident not to kill someone or to commit adultery by human standards and that we do need divine intervention. He also states that “if someone waved a magic wand and all sin disappeared our economy would collapse.” Hitchens sidetracks and uses his argument that way before the Ten Commandments were made; Confucius gave us the golden rule: do unto others as you would want to be done unto you. He then says that the first four were made for to obey the “divine dictator.” The next two were self-evident and the others were a Bronze Age and fearful age code that should not be upheld any more.
I believe the way to respond to this source is too break down each of the three debaters’, even Mrs. Behar, cases and debates and the facts and how they presented them. I’ll start with Pastor Wilson. He is not an eloquent speaker and his words are unclear and ambiguous. It is hard to comprehend what his babble is about because of the irrelevancy of it. He did not argue his side properly to make a good judgment, and I believe that he did not have any true facts or data at all. There may have been some good points in his debate, but really I didn’t pay much attention to what he said. Let’s go on to Mr. Hitchens. He is definitely a better and more vivid speaker. He presents a better argument, and is a very articulate debater. Really his facts weren’t that impressive, just how he presented the information was. It was all in his tone, it had confidence, intelligence, expressiveness, and it had every component of a sound argument. He presented his opinion, clearly and coherently, supporting his thesis with philosophical logic. Now let’s move on to Mrs. Behar. She was extremely amusing. It was almost as if she had no place in the argument, yet she interjected often trying to be of some use. She was completely biased with Hitchens, most likely to appease her viewing audience. Her questions were very transparent and understood already to her audience. I didn’t like how she would not let the two openly debate the issue, but try to prove their thesis’s in a cemented block of time. It was a pathetic attempt to try to become CNN. All in all, it was kind of an enriching debate, but lacked all passion and vehemence. I laughed at the pointlessness of the segment, a futile attempt at an engrossing debate.
"The Joy Behar Show-Christopher Hitchens vs Pastor Douglas Wilson." YouTube. Web. 4 Apr 2010. .