Just a Thought

        During a few sleepless moments last night a nebulous concept began to condense into a question within my mind.  What is the basic unit of a thought?   Or to put it another way, of what is a thought composed?

          In order to communicate the complexity of the question as I am considering it fully awake let me begin by relating an analogy.  As a Biology teacher at present, I teach students many parts or units of structure and function.  One example is the protein.  The protein is the basic unit of function for accomplishing tasks within a cell.  A protein is twisted into a specific shape that enables it to function properly because of an exact sequence of sub-units called amino acids.  Imagine a necklace of differing color and shape of stones all tangled up as it sits in a jewelry box.  But the amino acids have parts called atoms and atoms are made of smaller parts yet (Being an analogy I will leave it to the nuclear physicists to parse quarks and strings, and energy, what ever that is.).  Which part or piece is the basic unit?  Is it the smallest part or is it the association of parts that function as a unit?  Is it the atom that makes up the protein or the protein that functions as a whole, or is it the amino acid of which the protein is composed?

          An example of a ……. an idea might help.  Several days ago my wife and I were taking a pleasant and brisk walk on a cool evening in our small town.  As we approached an intersection near the town square someone passed us.  As I squinted in the evening sun I caught a whiff of cigarette smoke.  Now I have smelled cigarette smoke in many contexts over my nearly 50 years but at this moment I was immediately translated in mind to the pavement, crowds, rides, sounds, and sights of the Tennessee Valley A & I Fair in Knoxville, walking beside my father as a child.  I have heard that odors constitute the most thorough associations and memories and, by the way, I would not have thought any good association would be in my mind from tobacco smoke.  Was the TV A&I Fair-cigarette smoke complex a thought or was the cigarette smoke the thought that drew along in its vapors many rapid fire associations?

          If thought is as simple as a transistor switch on a microchip where one state results in an “on” switch and the other state results in an “off” switch, then the basic unit of thought is the most simple differentiation of this but not that, black not white.  But perhaps thoughts must need to be a functioning unit to exist or be remembered or be used.

          At some point in time a young child discovers the concept of two.  Perhaps his mother was carrying him to the bathtub for his Saturday evening bath.  The procedure included her handing him his yellow rubber ducky.  He gets so excited about the bath that she can hardly hold onto him.  Because this procedure is a time honored tradition in the family, the pair pass his older brother coming out of the bathroom, wrapped in a towel, carrying his yellow rubber ducky.  He squeals and raises his ducky toward his brother’s who reciprocates with a tap of the two toys together.  Having made this discovery, is the thought of “two” (of course devoid of word or Arabic numeral or math at this point) a complex association of bath, brother, mom, ducky, and so forth, or is it a mere recognition of two duckies?  It seems as though “two” generalized to number of siblings or number of dissimilar toys is a future and further association which may amend or truncate or revise “two”.  But is the thought of two from that point in the subconscious mind of this man a reflection on the set of associations surrounding rubber duckies or is it a continually revised concept that is both increasing in complexity by associations and simplified in the basic idea of what “two” is?

          Is the basic unit of thought static or dynamic, a complex association or a singular point?  And despite the consternation of the materialist is the complexity of thinking a suggestion that the whole is more than the sum of its parts?  Is there any suggestion from these musings or deeper study that thought has a deeper Source than chemical reactions, associations, and natural selection?  Just a thought.

A Canon of Truth

          Many students are deceived by a common perspective in high school and college classrooms of today that attributes the core doctrine of Christ’s divinity and the books accepted as inspired by God to the political scheming of Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.  Are these two ideas, that Jesus is God and that the canon of the New Testament includes the 27 books that it now contains, the convenient creation of a Roman emperor and his political cronies for political gain?  No, they are not, because the evidence of both predate the Council of Nicea by 150 to 200 years.

          New Testament historian and apologist, Michael Licona states, “Within 300 years of Christ almost 36,000 quotations of the New Testament appear in the writings of the early church fathers. In fact, every verse in the New Testament is quoted but 11.”  Among these church fathers were Justin Martyr whose writings around 150 and 161 AD affirmed the four Gospel accounts and the Revelation by John as teaching from God.  And Irenaeus of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of the Apostle John, in his writing about 180 AD quoted from 22 out of the 27 books now in the New Testament in defense of their truth.  And Tertullian of Carthage between 200-220 AD affirmed all of the present New Testament books quoting from them, except II Peter, James, II John, and III John.  All of these church fathers and more stated and confirmed what the Council of Nicea merely clarified later.

          On the other hand, a book like the Gospel of Thomas was not affirmed by any of the church fathers and certainly condemned by Origen of Alexandria.  This matters for two reasons.  This book (and others, like the Gospels of Mary, Judas, Matthias, Philip, and Truth and about two dozen others) was a Gnostic writing written at least a century later than the books of the Bible.  Gnosticism was a prevalent religion of the second and third centuries that taught the dualistic view that spirit is good and material is bad.  It twists what the Bible has to say about Jesus.  Secondly, many modern writers, teachers, and some film makers choose to believe these heretical stories, deceiving many to believe lies about Jesus and early Christianity.

          The evidence for which books were considered to be Scripture before Nicea is strong. The evidence against other books grew as their heresy spread and church leaders spoke against them and confirmed the God given books.    But what difference does it make?  It is very important because our salvation depends on what we believe and what we believe is based on what sources we accept and read.  Paul says in II Timothy 3:15-16 that “you [Timothy] have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable to teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”.  If the Scripture is added to by accepting books that twist who Jesus is and what He did, we will not have the “wisdom that leads to salvation”.  Jesus declared His purpose for coming in Luke 24:45-47 when “He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, ’Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”  And Paul the Apostle further confirms what is Scripture when he quotes the words of Jesus (Luke 10:7), and the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 25:4) by  saying, “For the Scripture says” (I Timothy 5:18).  And Peter declares, “our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him wrote to you, as also in all his letters speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”  And I might add to the destruction of those deceived by them.  The Scripture is internally consistent and clearly attested by external sources so that we can know that the person and work of Christ for salvation is true.

Painful Teacher

Pain is a teacher unlike the rest

Mastery through continual test

Speaks loud and clear the nerves to molest

Difficult friend and unwelcomed guest

 

Told to rejoice through various trials

How so when all comfort it defiles

Raises high fears deep emotions riles

Makes a few steps seem as many miles

 

The answer comes through what is induced

Frivolous pursuits greatly reduced

Priorities from limits deduced

Perseverance and faith both loosed

Absolutely

The young man was serious. “We can’t know what is true.” He was asked if there is any objective truth, that is, things that are always true regardless of your opinion or mine? “No, I don’t think so.” Furthermore, “all religion is just man-made ideas about who God is,” and “logic may not be right”, that is, may not lead us to the right conclusions in evaluating whether an idea is true. Do you agree even in part with the statements above? Probably many of you do because these ideas are taught in various forms of media, schools, conversation, and even from pulpits. But is it really true that we cannot know anything, and is there nothing that is always true in every situation?

It is very hard to discuss worldviews or beliefs if the other party is not willing to admit reason as a trusted way to evaluate truth. I suspect that such a disbelief in reason does not really exist. First of all, people act on what they believe. I don’t know of anyone who refuses reason consistently to run traffic lights, or jump off of high places unprotected, or ignore all social norms, or break the law totally unrestrained. It is simply too difficult to consistently ignore all reason, and one who does ignore it probably does not live long. Secondly, I think the fact that people operate on reason otherwise but refuse it on issues of worldview suggests they don’t want answers. Reason is necessary for survival and well proven by experience and practice in such areas as science and law to work well in evaluating truth claims.

Logically, then, “we can’t know what is true” is a self-defeating argument because it says there is one thing we do know, namely, “we can’t know what is true.” An even more self-defeating argument states that there is not anything that is always true, that is, absolute. If you say there are no absolutes then that is an absolute statement. If you think there may not be absolutes, or we can’t know for sure, then there is the possibility of absolutes about which you are ignorant and which may be found. And saying all things are true breaks the law of non-contradiction, which states that two contradictory statements cannot at the same time and in the same sense be true. For instance, stating that ‘God exists’ and ‘God does not exist’ cannot both be true.

So then, does God exist? In a recent talk at a local church entitled “God and Science”, Prem Isaac showed the reasonableness of God’s existence. One way he did this was by applying the Law of Causality: If an object had a beginning it must have had a cause. A corollary law states that the cause cannot be the same as the effect. Now people as diverse as Big Bang theorists, ancient cultures, all of the major religions, and primitive cultures all say that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, according to the Law of Causality, the universe had a cause. And because the universe has space, time, matter, and energy, the cause of it cannot have any of these. If you say that the cause does have these characteristics it is a mere secondary cause and not the ultimate cause itself. Unless you simply give up on the law and declare an endless chain of causes, there must be an un-caused Cause which is eternal (outside of time), immutable (not made of matter), without size or shape (doesn’t occupy space), immutable (does not change as the universe does), powerful (to create all), and intelligent (since there are laws, information, and design). This infinite cause is what we call God.

There are many more logical steps from there to the God of the Bible, based on the reliability of Scripture. Perhaps we can develop a few of these, but here is what God declares in Isaiah 45:5 about Himself, “I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God.” And Peter says of “the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene”, “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10,12) He is the eternal, transcendent Cause who also showed up personally in time to save those who would receive His gift. The mind (reason), the universe, and the Scripture testify to Him for those who will listen.

Behind Your Questions

What do you aspire to do?
What motivates and drives you through?
Is it comfort, security or ease of pain?
Power, influence, life in the fast lane?

Why do you work hard, or at other times sit idle?
Why do you follow rules, but then rear your head without bridle?
Are there goals, a plan, or reasons behind?
Fears, ambitions, or answers to find?

Do you know why the questions never cease?
Why all the efforts but no peace?
Would you want to know if you could be told?
Or shrink back in fear and your spirit fold?

If the answer is Jesus will you reject Him out of hand?
Will you still turn away if your reasons won’t stand?
Do you want peace and purpose, a plan you’ve sought?
Security, comfort, and answers that can’t be bought?

Back to school prayer

Father, we look forward to a good school year, but we won’t have one without Your active presence.  We acknowledge Your goodness, and request that Your hand of protection be upon us. We ask that You teach us truth so that we may communicate it to students and adults.  And all of this we ask for the glory and in the name of Jesus.  Amen.

Blessing the Name by Remembering the Benefits (Psalm 103)

Psalm 103 begins with both a call for the hearer to worship and summary of what the psalmist desires to communicate to himself and those listening to him.  David is alerting his own soul to bless God’s name and His benefits.  But names of God seem to be absent and even the word “name” only appears once in the psalm, so how is His name blessed?  Consider, how do we know the greatness of God’s name?  We know the greatness of it by what He has done.  All works He has done are benefits to those who trust Him, and the greatness of His name is revealed through these benefits.  Add the admonitions of verses 11,13, and 17 to fear Him and we see the summary teaching and application of the Psalm:  Bless His name, remember His benefits, and fear Him.  This application is not merely a spiritual ‘icing on the cake’, it is the means of survival amidst spiritual battle.  David knew the value of it.  In First Samuel 30:3-6 we observe a desperate situation for David and his men.  Having just returned from following the Philistines, they find their hometown, Ziklag, burned down, their wives and children kidnapped to become slaves, and most of their possessions stolen.  The men have wept over their families until they have no strength and are discussing stoning David because of the loss.  The Scripture  records David’s reaction: “But David strengthened himself in the Lord his God.” (v.6).  Now your plight and mine probably are not presently so severe.  The danger is to ignore the need for strengthening ourselves in the Lord.  We are thus rendered weaker for the lesser battles and ill-fit for the greater battles.  And so David urged his innermost being to bless the Lord and not forget His benefits.  May we practice the psalmist’s discipline and experience God’s joy.

Spiritual Israel

Based on a response I received from comments I made in church I began to review and reflect on physical Israel and spiritual Israel.  Most of what can be gleaned from Scripture about the relationship between these two and the existence of the latter as distinct from the former is found in Romans and Galations 3. 

In Romans 2:28-29, Paul clearly says that being Jewish is not merely physical, having the sign of circumcision.  Real Jews would have physcial and spiritual (“by the Spirit”) circumcision.  There is, however, a physical Israel, Paul’s “own race”, still recognized by God, who have a type of adoption and the covenants and more but are lost (Romans 9:3-5; 10:1).  Romans 11:28-29 sets forth the relationship between them and the redeemed (spiritual Israel).  They are clearly enemies in the sense of being unbelieving and counter to the gospel of Jesus, but because “God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable” (cannot be nullified), God still has a plan for them and we should still love them.  They are lost apart from CHrist, but some will not be in the future and others are part of God’s end time plans as set forth in the seventieth week of Daniel (9:24-27).  And God is saving Jews as Paul testitfies about himself and other “He foreknew” (Romans 11:1-8). The remnant that believes is exemplified by the 7000 of Elijah’s day who had “not bowed the knee to Baal” (11:4).  So Israel, the elect, have not fallen “beyond recovery” (11:11).  And Israel as a whole provided the means for fulfilling God’s plan of salvation (Romans 15:8; Act 2:22-24).

But what of this spiritual Israel, is it merely the saved Jews?  No, for Paul says, “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Romans 9:6), but rather, “the chidren of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (9:8).  Who are these other children of Abraham?  “Those who believe are children of Abraham” (Galations 3:7).  “God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (3:8), and “those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham” (3:9).  We receive “the blessing of Abraham… to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus” (3:14).  “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (3:29), what I’m calling spiritual Israel.

How did this transition in Israel come about?  Paul uses the analogy of grafting branches onto an olive tree in Romans 11:17-24.  Israel was cut off because of unbelief and Gentiles were grafted in based on belief.  The reverse is said to be possible as a warning against unbelief.  The fact that Israel is referred to as “natural branches” (11:21) once again emphasizes that physical Israel exists and has a claim on God’s calling.

A better understanding of these concepts may be gained by reading the fuller passages to which I have referred, namely, Romans 2:17-29, Romans 9-11, and Galations 3.

Room 417

On the hallway wall next to the door is posted “Room 417 Storage”.  In this fairly new facility it is used as an occasional office.  The majority could not tell you where it is or for what purpose it is utilized.  I was assigned to sit in silence in Room 417 with three other people for two and a half hours.  I’m a teacher; you figure it out.  Here are my impressions of the space, the activity, and our path.

In a claustrophobic room

Painted white no decor there

Neither flower nor mind could bloom

Though florescent lights and vented air

 

 White noise from conditioned air

Abundant plastic, metal too

Nothing the senses would find fair

Though clean and bright and also new

 

Sanitized of all that harms

Disease, sharp corners, tanning rays

Not a thing the spirit alarms

Though emergency exits map ways

 

Thus the danger to our lives

All is well but dead inside

No awareness that life never thrives

Except in Sonshine and change of tide

Why Physics

Physics is the way to go

Or stop or go with the flow

Or at least know how it works

Like impulse of bumps and jerks

Who cares may be your question

Each action has reaction

Energy conserved as well

Even if you cannot tell

Not effect your life you say

Neglect it and you will pay

Efficiency or power

Safety of bridge or tower

Go away leave me alone

Please change frequency and tone

Add net force and head for home

Physics guide you as you roam