Jesus was Intolerant

“No one comes to the Father but through me”

Those are the words of Jesus of Nazareth. His claim was so radical it shook not only his culture, not only his time period, but every society and every era from then onward. Why was this sentence so powerful? How did this phrase grip the world?

The first thing one notices about Jesus’ words, is that it is a statement of exclusivity. That is to say, Jesus made the claim that he alone was the way to the Father. No one else. Not Muhammad, not Krishna, not Moses, not Abraham, nor the pagan gods of the Greeks: no earthly figure, nor heavenly divinity could lead humanity to salvation. Jesus claimed exclusivity.

The first question I wish to pose is this: was Jesus’ exclusive claim reasonable? Was his declaration of absolute truth internally consistent? Was his claim logical?

One of the most basic, fundamental principals of western philosophy is what is called the Law of Non-Contradiction. This ‘law’ is meant to be a representation of the way things really are in the universe. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two statements cannot both be true and false in the same way and at the same time. The propositions ‘A is B’ and ‘A is not B’ are mutually exclusive. Either A is B, or A is not B. They cannot both be true. Think of it this way: The statement “I own a cat” is either true, or not true. Can I both own a cat and not own a cat at the same time? No. I either do, or do not.

What can we gather from the Law of Non-Contradiction? We can say that truth, by it’s very nature, is exclusive. That is to say truth excludes falsehoods. If the statement “I own a cat” is true, then the statement “I do not own a cat” is inherently false. As such, during the very act of stating any supposed truth, we automatically dispose of a multitude of other contradictory statements.

So certainly Jesus’ claim of exclusivity is a most logical statement. “No one comes to the Father but through me” is internally consistent. By stating exclusivity, Jesus denied the validity of a myriad of other beliefs, creeds, and religions. From the Greeks to the Egyptians, from the Romans to the Jews, Jesus was telling the world that there was only one way to the Father: the very person of Christ. If Jesus’ exclusive claim was true, it automatically made all other contrary beliefs false. This is logical.

Jesus made a claim of absolute truth. In a world of relativism and postmodernism, we have erased such statements from our own vocabulary. We are terrified of the prospect of the absolute. No politician, no leader dares make a claim of absolutes for fear of being accused of the deadliest of 21st century sins: intolerance. Jesus’ claim was intolerant of falsities.

But what are we, the men and women of the year 2009 to do with such a statement? In a world where whatever is logical is simply a matter of pragmatical value, where whatever is truthful is but a subjective intuition, where whatever is good is simply a matter of personal opinion, how can we go against our postmodern, relativistic culture and even just for a moment consider the simply logical, exclusively truthful, and absolutely good claim of Jesus Christ?

To become faithful followers of Christ, we must truly become intolerant of falsehood.

“No one comes to the Father but through me”

-Jesus of Nazareth

Defining Terms

Alright, so this may seem like a waste of time at first, but I can guarantee you that if a real conversation ever gets going, it will become necessary to send certain individuals to this page for reference. Here I will outline a few basic terms and ideas that I will probably be using frequently in my writings.

Theism: the belief in God.

Monotheism: the belief in one God.

Polytheism: the belief in many gods.

Christianity: the belief in God as a triune, personal, supernatural being who sent his only Son (Christ) to earth, became incarnate and died for the sins of mankind. Basically a Christian is anyone who holds to the basic principles in the Apostle’s Creed. Although there are many factions of Christianity, anyone who holds to the core doctrines such as the existence of God as a Triune being, Christ’s atoning death on the cross and subsequent Resurrection, and the existence of heaven, hell, and the supernatural as described in the Bible can be considered a Christian. Acts 2: 22-24 defines some of the core doctrines of Christianity quite nicely: “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge, and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.” (NIV)

Atheism: The belief that there is no God. Although atheism seems to never come by itself but often arrives in a parade of other beliefs such as naturalism, avid Darwinism, and secular humanism, atheism itself is simply the belief that there is no God. Many atheists try to claim that atheism is the ‘lack of a belief in God’ but this phrase is more equivalent with agnosticism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New Edition) has this to say about atheism on page 64: “Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist”

Atheism (weak): equivalent to non-theism. “I have no belief in God”.

Atheism (strong): the belief that there is no God. “God does not exist”

New Atheism: the resurgence of atheism whose official beginnings seem to be marked by the release of The End of Faith by Sam Harris  in 2004. The movement was strengthened by many subsequent polishings of similar atheistic literature including: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens, and Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett. The Rational Response Squad seem to have really started the movement on the internet, releasing their “Blasphemy Challenge” in late 2006. The New Atheists often do not identify themselves as such, but are fairly easily recognizable. New Atheists tend to focus their arguments less on the existence of God, and often take his non-existence as a given, seeking to undermine ‘religion’ and ‘religious behavior’ as a whole and replace it with ‘free thought’ and ‘humanism’. New Atheism is more than the belief in no God, it holds to a multitude of other beliefs and can almost be classified as a cult-like religious organization.

Agnosticism: as applied to theism, the belief that it may not be possible from an epistemological standpoint to come to a firm conclusion about the existence of God. He may or may not exist. Agnosticism is similar to (if not identical to) weak atheism.

Naturalism: “In general the view that everything is natural and so can be studied by the methods appropriate for studying the world, and the apparent exceptions can be somehow explained away.” -Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New Edition) page 641. Naturalists tend to hold that everything in the known universe (and outside it) is natural, conforms to natural laws, and is observable and understandable only through naturalistic means. Most naturalists reject any notion of the definitely metaphysical, absolutely ethical, and unexplainablely phenomenological.

God: not Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Magical Pink Unicorn. Not Thor, Zeus, or Xenu. Not my imaginary friend. Come on guys, lets be serious.

Peace

(I will continue to add more terms as I have time)

What to Expect

Hello and welcome to my blog

This is my first official blog -ever- and I just wanted to let everyone know what to expect. If you are visiting from my Youtube channel, you may be familiar with the way I do things. My blog will be similar to my Youtube channel in it’s content and will hopefully contain more substance and less show. I hope to slowly shift my focus from YT to my blog as I feel my writing is better than my videography/ speaking. Here are the main things this blog will deal with:

1. Philosophy
a. Atheism
-Responding to the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett)
-Providing cogent responses to both new and old atheistic arguments
-Exploring the validity of naturalism and materialism
-Responding to YT atheists

b. Christianity
-Looking at the various proofs for the existence of God (ie Kalam Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, Axiological Argument, Transcendental Argument, Ontological Argument, and Argument from Beauty)
-Providing an in depth look at philosophy and its relation to Christian apologetics.
-Dismissing common attacks on Christianity
-Showing the philosophical validity of the Christian faith and its core tenants and doctrines
-Sharing and exploring the works of various Christian philosophers such as Soren Kierkegaard, Anselm, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, and Alvin Plantinga

2. Apologetics
a. Historical Reliability of the New Testament
b. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
c. Sharing the works of various apologists such as Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell, and Norman Geisler

One of my biggest pet peeves is Christians who censor their pages. I refuse to censor as I feel that truth will always win out in the end. If you have something to say, say it.

Peace