Comment: - The following are
some comments about the tape:
"Thank God for Watergate" by Charles Colson. The tape was sent to me by a friend.
Personal Preamble:
Right from the start I want you to know your beliefs are your choice.
Any criticism I make in the following is about the speaker and his tape,
not about you. I hope you were expecting me to express my honest,
considered views of what the tape says and the related concerns.
If I didn't express my views of it honestly, the following would be a sham,
and I don't think you want that. I admire, respect and appreciate you and
respect you having your beliefs, even if they aren't mine.
Comments about the tape: "Thank God for Watergate"
by Charles Colson:
Colson is persuasive, humorous and good with words. He is a fast talker,
but pleasant to listen too. Wonderful music in the background!
He appeals to the emotions and presents a sermon to persuade, and I think
he does a good job of it. It reminds me of the revival meetings I used to attend
in my younger years. In the tape I find Colson good at claiming things, but he
doesn't back them up with evidence, not even with bible verses. I agree with him
that Vancouver is a great city with beautiful people. I like his joke about the
Priest and the Bishop.
Now, some points about the content. I have 20 points to make (in the order of
the tape presentation). To make the length of the e-mail more manageable I will
include the first 10 in this one and the last 10 in a second e-mail:
(All are presented on this internet page)
(1) Mr. Colson did
have a lot of trauma in his life. A man that has been spectacularly
successful (according to the tape), suddenly finds himself failing miserably
-- a crises that could easily cause a nervous breakdown in anyone. In Chuck Colson,
an experienced problem-solver, it caused a vulnerability and a desire for a way out,
and he found it. He has adapted to another endeavor to succeed; in religion.
However, a conversion to a particular belief is not at all necessary to have a good
relationship with family, wife, children and others as Colson claims. It sounds
like Colson lacked this relationship before his crises. Most other people don't
have this lack.
Intense experiences can change ones life deeply -- I don't deny that.
However, they do not mean that Colson's beliefs reflect reality. A quote:
A "nothing" experience can be very intense. by Gordon Newfeld
(Sun paper 93-07-10)-belonged to Moonies -- an x-Moonie
The question could be asked: "When hundred's of millions of Hindus experience
intense personnel religious events, are they proving their religion is true?"
"When Muslims experience deep religious feelings, does that prove that Allah
is the true God?" The same question can be asked of any religious experience,
including Christian.
A paragraph about intense feelings from my Homepage:
A "nothing experience can be very intense". Many intense religious
experiences
in all the different religions and intense non-religious experiences may only be
mind experiences and do not give evidence their religion or belief system is true.
However, it is evident that many people, if not most people, have a need to
experience intense feelings. These experiences can be private and/or public.
This is shown in people's intense participation: in sports, games, hobbies, sex,
romance; in reading (novels, poems, scholarly works, etc.); in watching
"gripping"
movies or TV; in personally helping others, in accomplishing a worthwhile thing,
in solving meaningful problems, in relevant learning, in working on a worthwhile
project, in scientific discovery; in hiking, gardening and other nature activities;
in relating to others. In causes such as radical fundamentalism (Jewish, Islam,
Christian, Hindu, Sikh, and any other religion); Nazism, communism, capitalism,
socialism, or any other "ism"; New Age. In personal religious experiences.
In Charismatic type of religious service or political event. In drugs. In natural
and man-made catastrophes. You can probably think of many other ways.
It is important to realize that you, as a person, have
some choice and
control in what endeavor you will experience these intense feelings.
Now to the meat of his sermon:
(2) Colson mentions
historical evidence of Jesus. He says, "The objective
evidence is overwhelming that Jesus Christ is exactly who he says he is."
Where is his objective evidence? There is actually no reliable evidence of Jesus
beyond the bible. The bible is the only evidence we can depend upon.
(3) He also says
the objective evidence for God is overwhelming.
There is no hard evidence for or against God's existence. There is no
proof of the existence or the non-existence of God. The design argument
is not a proof at all. Belief in a God is purely by faith, not evidence,
as Colson falsely says.
(4) Big Bang is
mentioned. What caused the Big Bang (Black Holes, colliding membranes, etc.) does not have to be a God at all as hinted by Mr. Colson.
He is only guessing. This is not evidence for a God!
(5) Colson implies
that Einstein believed in the Biblical God. Colson is deceiving
people. Einstein did not believe in the biblical God. From his writings Einstein did not
believe in a personal God either! Albert Einstein wrote in the New York Times
in 1930:
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the
objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after
our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of
human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual
survives the death of his body, although feeble souls
harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
(6) In his tape
Chuck Colson mentions that many scientists and especially
Carl Sagan saying "the universe is all there is and it will always be".
He calls this a Cop-out.
Accepting "the universe is all there is" is why Science has been so
successful.
If "the universe is all there is" is not so, where is the evidence? If there is
scientific evidence for something else, it automatically becomes part of
"the universe is all there is." Colson probably thinks this phrase has a
negative
connotation, but it doesn't!
Let me put this in different words. If a person says that there is a supernatural
entity
that can interact with the natural (e.g. world and people), then it must effect the
natural in some way. If it doesn't then talking about it is meaningless, since it
can't effect the natural anyway. To perceive this effect the supernatural must
influence the natural just as non-supernatural entities do. Therefore, in principle
one should be able to measure this effect. If you can measure it, then it is part of
our universe and is really part of "all that is", and is really not
supernatural.
Where is the evidence for the supernatural -- there is none!
In the last 170 years, science has been used intensively in an
attempt to confirm any supernatural entities and processes
- nothing convincing has been found.
No evidence, no scientific reason to assume another realm beyond the natural.
There is no reliable evidence for the existence of the supernatural or the
existence of any supernatural entities.
There is no reliable evidence at all for the supernatural - for two instances,
no evidence from the existence of telepath; no
evidence that religious experiences are supernatural instead of purely a
phenomenon of the brain.
Until there is definite evidence of a supernatural realm, there is no basis for
assuming it.
Science has considered the supernatural hypothesis and found it wanting.
(7) The best book
showing there is no evidence for supporting beliefs in
New Age thinking, read: Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World, Science
as a Candle in the Dark" ISBN: 0-345-40946-9. This book of Sagan's is an
excellent book, especially for scientists that are vulnerable to superstition and
the supernatural. Carl Sagan has made a really valuable contribution to society
in writing this book shortly before he died. It should be a prescribed book for
all high school students.
(8) Colson claims
people don't have meaning and purpose in their lives unless
they believe the bible is god's word and they believe that Jesus is God.
Some people need more direction in their life than others. Colson is one person
that seems to need a lot of it. People don't need the bible to tell them what their
purpose in life is, many can determine their own purposes and meaning.
Colson concludes something for himself, then claims it is true for everyone. It is not.
(9) Somehow Colson
hints falsely that evolution is not a scientific fact.
As you know, it is! The mechanisms of how evolution occurred and filling in more
and more of the details of what happened is what scientists are working on; they
are not working to show that it is reality. All evidence indicates it is reality. I find
Mr. Colson's scientific knowledge is limited and uses his lack of scientific
knowledge to makes false statements about it and reality!
(10) Colson relates
an absolute moral code with the God of the Bible -- not correct.
Contrary to what is often claimed, I have found the bible does not promote an
absolute moral code. It presents a relativistic situational ethics. What does the
bible say about morality in things that count? Some people talk about right
and wrong absolute standards and that a Moral Law exists. In my study of
the bible, I find the bible is in favour of a kind of situational ethics, not an
absolute standard. Because the bible does not present a standard Moral Law,
Christians have so many different views of what morality is all about -- based
on the bible. All of these views can be justified. From my bible study I have
come to believe the bible standards are purely human ethical standards reflecting
the primitive times when the bible was written.
Ethical and moral behavior in people does not prove a Supreme Intelligence.
Actually, historical evidence indicates that ethics associated with a God or a
religion (Christian, Muslim, or Communist [Communism is the same as most
religions in that it's fundamental premises cannot be falsified]) is dangerous to
human beings. For bible verses supporting situational ethics in the bible see my
internet page on "Contrary to what one hears, the Bible does
not promote a
moral code that is absolute. It promotes a relativistic, situational ethics".
(Kind of a long label for a link)
(11) Colson claims
to have read the bible, cover to cover, and other works.
From this study he has come up with certain conclusions; one being that the
bible is exactly what it claims to be. Charles Colson does not give any evidence
of historical validation that he claims to have. I, myself, have done the same and
come up with quite different conclusions.
My conclusions:
The Bible is a book like any other ancient book. It is written by people that saw
the universe as was common in ancient times. Through Science people have found
the universe to be quite different than the biblical description of it. As in any
ancient document, one may find some useful information in the Bible. By viewing
the Bible (also the Koran and other "Holy" books) as an ancient man-made book
that presents ancient ideas prevalent at the time one can enjoy and appreciate it more.
These "Holy" books may even have been progressive for the time in which they
were written. My examination of the Bible shows that modern Christians' beliefs
do not agree with most of the Bible as it is. Most Christians today are good people
in spite of the bible. They are smarter than Jesus. They are nicer than the God
of the Bible. Many of them have risen above the brutalities of Christianity to
become good, caring people because they (like I) possess a respect for
human values. (Similarly, this also applies to people in other religions who have
become good, caring people because they possess a respect for human values
and that have risen above the restrictions of their religion.)
Ethically and scientifically, the bible is deficient. I
would not recommend
it as a guidebook or a source of science or ethics.
(12) I don't know
what discoveries he is talking about that prove the bible --
I have not found any. There is no other historical confirmation about Jesus
beyond the bible itself.
(13) Mr. Colson
assumes that the God of the Universe is the same as the
God of the Bible. From my intense study of the bible I have concluded that the
God of the Bible could not be the God of the Universe. There is no evidence
that shows that the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran is the God of the
Universe. The evidence of the scientific study of the Universe indicates that the
God of the Universe must be much greater than the God of the Bible or
the God of the Koran.
(14) Charles Colson
assumes the bible is the God of the Universe's Word.
That is a BIG assumption.
Check the page "What constitutes a 'Holy' book? -- [e-mail
response]" to see the reasons I do not accept this belief.
The good news is that:
the assumption that the bible is divine is not necessary. Who told you it was divine
other than the bible itself? If you do not believe the bible is divine then you do not
assume the existence of Sin, you do not assume the fall of mankind, you do not
assume the wrath of God and "divine judgment", you do not assume Christ's
sacrificial atonement means anything -- it doesn't if you don't assume all the above.
(When I was a born-again, dedicated Christian I believed all these assumptions to
be reality.) By not making these assumptions you are then free of all this and can
begin to live a happy, free, fun and ethical life; a life with real meaning.
Just because there are a lot of people that claim that Christianity is the true
religion,
does not at all prove that it so.
You could just live a simple life:
If you are so inclined there is nothing complicated in personally, privately talking with God, in admiring
the universe; and simply believing in the continuance of existence after death;
and in being humane.
There is no evidence that the bible is the God of the Universe's message to
mankind. The only way to make this claim is purely by faith, not evidence.
The same applies to the Koran, Book of Mormon, and other "Holy" books.
Mr. Colson would be more honest if he said his beliefs are based on faith rather
than on his so called overwhelming evidence.
(15) Colson
mentions that the disciples died martyrs' death.
We don't really know what happened to the disciples, except for Judas.
Since the New Testament is relatively silent on postresurrection activities of
apostles (not counting Paul-- not an original apostle anyway), we "know"
even less about their evangelical work. What we do know is mainly a matter
of tradition, which is all Christians can offer in support of their claim that the
apostles died for their beliefs. The trouble with these traditions is that they are
(1) unverifiable. and (2) contradictory.
One tradition, for example, says that Paul was tried in Rome and executed,
but another tradition that he was released and went to Spain to do more
missionary work. In "The Search for the Twelve Apostles", Dr. William McBirnie
admits that traditions were somewhat inconsistent and contradictory. He then
goes on to show various traditions about the postresurrection work and death
of Matthew, Bartholomew, and of the other disciples. We don't really know
what happened to them -- Colson is using very flimsy base for his claim.
(16) Asked my wife
about Hemingway. He had a severe alcohol addiction
problem which greatly contributed to his depression. Marilyn says he was not
the best literary author of the century by far. I knew an earnest Christian,
Mr. B. that attended the same church as I did when I lived in Greendale,
who cut off his right hand as Jesus exhorted in the verse:
Mt 5:30
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is
profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that]
thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Other verses the suggest believers cut off their hand are found in Mt 18:8 and Mr 9:43.
Does this mean all serious Christians do this? -- I would think not. The same
way there are very few atheists that are like Hemingway. Colson implies falsely
that all atheists are basically like Hemingway and eventually commit suicide.
Actually the suicide rate of Christians is higher than the suicide rate of atheists.
So much for Mr. Colson's implication!
(17) I personally
do not put my trust in Jesus for a number of reasons.
I will give two reasons:
1) Jesus' ignorance (1 example).
2) Jesus' promise that was not kept.
1) Jesus has a lot to do with
evil spirits. Now we know through Science that deafness,
dumbness, epilepsy, etc. are physically caused, not the result of some unseen spirit.
Evil spirits/demons/Satan have had their day when people were ignorant of Science.
They are no longer necessary to explain medical conditions. However if you
believe in the inspiration of the bible than not believing in evil spirits would
make a mockery of Jesus.
An Aside:
Reading about the cult suicides, I do think some New Age beliefs can be dangerous
to your health, but this is also true of traditional, organized religion's beliefs.
It is relatively easy to go from Christianity to New Age, or from New Age to
Christianity. They both have beliefs that have no scientific basis, such as
the belief in demons, good and evil spirits, holy ghost, witches, angels,
Satan, miracles, prophesy, holy writings, and so on.
2) According to the Bible the second coming of Jesus was
supposed to happen
within his generation or very shortly thereafter -- about 2000 years ago.
This has not happened. This test of the New Testament authenticity and
Jesus' authenticity have failed.
Some verses:
In the New Testament:
*James 5:8
8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
*Hebrews 10:37
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
*Peter 4:7
7. But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
*1Corinthians 7:29
29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have
wives be as though they had none;
By Jesus:
Matthew 16:28
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste
of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew 24:34
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Jesus promised to return in the generation in which he lived.
(18) At the end of
his sermon Mr. Colson finishes with a public prayer, contrary to
Jesus' teachings. He does claim to follow Jesus, but I guess not all the way?
Jesus promotes private prayer. Public prayers and long prayers are suspect.
I find Matthew 6:5 - 7 are the best verses attributed to Jesus in the bible.
Matthew 6:5 -7
5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
So, prayer must be in private, not in front of other
people -- not repeat things
over and over again in prayer. Be extremely suspicious of anyone that utters
a public prayer e.g. Charles Colson.
Also see the Prayer
page.
(19) One last
thing: Colson talks about sin and an all-good
God. If we actually
assume that the God of the Universe is the God of the Bible and that he is omniscient,
then he created Adam, that knew Adam would sin. He knew human beings would suffer.
Regardless of whether the existence of evil can be theologically explicated, an
all-knowing Creator deliberately placing
humans in its path. This is at least criminal
negligence, if not malice. Those who invoke "free will" forget that we all act
according
to a human nature that was supposedly created by God himself. You can't get away
from the fact that Adam did not create his own nature. At the moment of creation,
an omniscient deity would have been picturing the suffering and damnation of most
of creation. This is mean-spirited. The God of the Bible could not be all-knowing
and all-good at the same time.
(20) After hearing
what Chuck Colson says I don't think he has changed his lying
ways much since the Watergate days. He has only transferred them to the religious
arena. However he has improved his relationship to people close to him --
something he had difficulty with before the Watergate episode, and that
most of the rest of us do not.
As a friend, I would advise you not to be sucked in by this character
-- leave him alone,
O. Hooge