Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:3-4, 6, 11-14

3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. 

4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. 

6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.

11 And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself:

12 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil: 

13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not: 

14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.

We here continue the ritual by which Aaron would enter into the most holy place of the tabernacle once every year. Personally, I find the layout of the chapter confusing, as there are two groups of sacrifices going on, Aaron making a sin and burnt offering for himself, and Aaron making a sin and burnt offering for the congregation. The verses weave back and forth between the two, and I have decided to instead reorganize the verses according to their subject. Thus, today I will cover all the verses specifically about Aaron’s sin offering, then over the next two days all of the verses about the congregation’s sin offering, and then the next day all the verses for both burnt offerings. Also, I will review the basic facts first, then consider the symbolic meanings more in depth at the end of the chapter. Hopefully I won’t just make things more confusing than they already were!

One thing that stands out immediately about this chapter is that it is describing a supremely sacred event, which required specialized ritual aspects seen nowhere else in God’s law, starting with the dual sacrifices, one set being for Aaron and the other for the congregation. Also unique is that Aaron is purifying himself in preparation for an annual visit with the Lord. Also, that a blanket atonement is being performed over the entire congregation for any sins that had been committed throughout the year. The purpose of this special event was to bring God, Aaron, and the people all into simultaneous alignment. It was the Day of Atonement.

And so, we first hear of Aaron’s sin offering, which starts off normally enough, but then in verse 14 it goes into specialized territory when Aaron uses the blood of the offering to sprinkle the mercy seat seven times. The mercy seat is, of course, the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, within the most holy place of the tabernacle. The place that was forbidden for anyone to enter except at this one time. We have heard of blood being sprinkled around the sacrificial altar for burnt and trespass offerings, and blood sprinkled on a person for the consecration offerings, but this is the first time we hear of an offering’s blood being used on the mercy seat.

But Aaron could not just enter into the most holy place. Verses 12-13 explain to us that in order to preserve his life in such a holy place, Aaron must first use coals from the altar of sacrifice to burn incense, enough to produce a cloud that would cover the mercy seat, creating a barrier between him and the direct dwelling place of the Lord. It does not explain this process entirely, but perhaps Aaron would hold the curtain open to let the incense cloud travel in first, and then proceed only when it was safe to do so.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:1-2

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord, and died;

2 And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

The opening of this chapter references back to the priestly disobedience of Aaron’s two sons, Nadab and Abihu, who were consumed in fire by the Lord for their sin. This memory is invoked to remind Aaron of the strictness of his calling, particularly in matters of “the holy place,” which is the inner chamber of the tabernacle where the Ark of the Covenant resides. Aaron is informed, on pain of death, that he must never come into that place outside of the very specific conditions that God will describe in the rest of this chapter. And none of the other priests could ever venture into that place. Only the High Priest, and only once a year, as we will soon read.

The reason is given in verse 2. The Lord, Himself, will dwell in a cloud upon the mercy seat, which is the lid of the Ark of the Covenant. His presence and His glory are wonderful and terrible, consuming like a flame any who are not prepared beforehand.

There is in these verses an example of the principle of leadership. With leadership responsibility there comes great obligation, great consequence for failure, and also great privilege. Aaron will officiate as the highest authority in bearing the sins of the people, he is given the instructions of how to do so under pain of death, and he will be the only one allowed into the very chambers of the Lord. Obligation, consequence, and privilege.

Posted on by Abe Austin

A Slight Change of Idea

A slight change of idea can be the difference between prevailing peace or rolling horrors upon the Earth.

Every great ideology, philosophy, pattern of government, and conception of reality began as a mere idea in the mind of a man. They are but small things, and a man can turn his mind from one idea to another with little consequence. He has but simple thought experiments, ideas of how things could be. And in the simulations of his mind, his ideas may all seem correct, innocent, and only geared to the good of mankind.

But as the idea grows, and leaves the mind, and takes hold of the masses, then it becomes argument, then creed, then party, then nation. And as it grows, so do the consequences, and so some ideas become the foundation for flourishing and joy, and some become the foundation for purge and war.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Fundamental Preconceptions

Fundamental preconceptions are sacred to us. They form the basis of everything that we know and believe. They tell us how to be right, and who else is wrong. We immediately know false statements when they contradict our preconceptions and immediately know true statements when they follow from our preconceptions. Our entire perspective of reality and righteousness is based on its alignment with our fundamental preconceptions.

Thus, when you attempt to break the fundamental preconceptions of another, you are attempting to do no less than crush their entire conception of reality. This is no mere disagreement; it is a great cosmic event with the greatest of stakes hanging in the balance. To what extent one is prepared to engage in that conversation varies wildly from person to person.

If you succeed in breaking the fundamental preconceptions of another, and they were not ready for it, you have done nothing less than dropped them into the pits of hell. There is now no sensibility to the world for them, no comforting reason, all that should be is not. If they are ready, and you are speaking the truth, then it can be the beginning of their ascent to heaven.

None of this is to say that people should be left in their deep delusions, but it does deserve proper respect for what we are doing when we try to rouse people out of them.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Boundaries on God

Getting an Education)

I had long been aware that I felt different from many people, Christians included, in the fact that I did not struggle with the terrible suffering in this world combined with the belief in a powerful and loving God. Frankly, I was glad that I didn’t see a paradox in this and assumed that the paradox wasn’t even real. I assumed that people were distressed by this conundrum for purely emotional reasons, which would certainly be understandable, just not justifiable by logic or reason.

And, as I learned in my study of the matter, that assumption of mine is true for many individuals out there. Many don’t understand the very argument that they use, don’t recognize that it only applies in some contexts and not in others. There are also those who see that the Problem of Evil is only an argument against a very specific conception of God and reality, and I am very grateful to them for expanding my horizons so I could see what that conception was.

Yesterday I shared about faiths that bypass the argument entirely by not holding to the presuppositions that it depends on. Today I wanted to conclude by exploring some of the thoughts that came up when I imagined how it would be to live as one of those Christians to whom those presuppositions do still apply.

What Does All-Powerful Mean?)

At the root of everything, it comes down to just what we mean when we say that God is all-powerful and that He is sovereign over all. In most conversations, I find that even people who believe in the strongest conceptions of God’s power, still assume that to some degree He imposes restrictions upon Himself. They might say that God has the power to slam Jupiter into the Sun, causing a sudden burst of heat and energy that would consume the Earth and eradicate all life in an instant…but He doesn’t, because He is checked by His goodness and compassion. The fact that God does not do something, is not evidence that He cannot do something. It can merely be a sign that His nature bounds itself. God must wield all power, but not at the expense of being all-benevolent.

And then other attributes can be applied to that. Such as logic and truth. These are principles that exist on the same plane of existence as Him, and many Christians would argue are a part of Him, and as such He would operate according to their principles. Just as God would not show His power in a way that contradicts His benevolence, He would not show it in a way that contradicts His logic. If He did, He would be uncoupling His own parts and cease to be Himself.

Thus, could the suffering in this world be a logical necessity, even under the hands of an all-powerful and all-benevolent God?

Is God still all-powerful if that power is bounded by His benevolence and His logic? Is He still all-benevolent if that benevolence is bounded by His justice and His logic?

And if God does need to balance all of these criteria with one another, then perhaps there is space to say that a world of suffering, and a species of man who become heroic by overcoming great opposition, is a logical necessity. In our own lives we know that victory is only a virtue in the face of genuine possible defeat, and maybe that isn’t just an illusion of our reality, but an eternal principle, as true as the principles of mathematics. Perhaps life is the way that it is, because it was the only way that it could be.

This may not answer every concern found in the Problem of Evil, but I think it does open the door to deeper conversation.

In Conclusion)

In my last post I showed how certain faiths do not hold the same presuppositions that the Problem of Evil argument depends on, and which explains why I never found it to be a conundrum. Today I explored the experience of one who did assume those presuppositions, and what arguments could still allow for the existence of both suffering and God.

This brings me to the end of this study, and I have certainly learned a lot through the process. I now understand where the strength of the Problem of Evil argument resides, what presuppositions it depends on, and what my responses to it are, both with and without sharing those presuppositions. It has been helpful for me, and I hope it can be helpful for you, too.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Removing the Constraints

The Problem)

In my last post I explained how the Problem of Evil, the common argument that the suffering of the world is incompatible with the existence of God, was dependent upon two presuppositions.

  1. That God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent.
  2. That our reality is created out of nothing.

When both of these are combined it means that God could have created our existence to operate by any system that He wanted, but He chose to specifically use one where suffering was necessary for growth and transcendence. And what is more, because we, ourselves, are created ex nihilo as well, we never had any agency in being added to this system, nor any say in the consequences that await us on the other side.

But I finished the last post by promising to show that not all Christian faiths, and not all non-Christian faiths, hold to these two presuppositions, and that this conundrum comes apart in these other contexts. I will show one example of both.

Eternal Souls)

The first example comes from my own Christian faith: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Our theology is unique among Christians in that we believe that we are co-eternal with God. Not only in the sense that we will live for eternity after death, but that we lived for eternity before birth. We believe that our souls, like God, are uncreated, and therefore their nature is not subject to His design.

This is important for two reasons. The first is because it suggests that the way suffering seems to be a necessary component for cultivating the fulness of our potential is baked into us from before the creation of this world. It is not a stipulation that God put upon us but a pre-existing quality that He had to account for. He designed this world to be suited to our nature, not the other way around. It is also likely that the pains of an afterlife torment are simply inherent to our pre-existing nature when we choose to live after the manner of rebellion, not an arbitrary consequence crafted by God.

The other important point is that our entering into this current state was voluntary. We believe that God proposed the creation of this world and mortal experience to us, with an understanding of all it would entail, including the hardships and dangers therein, and that we willfully chose it. We chose it because it was the right method to draw out our full potential, to develop us to be like Him.

From this perspective, the Problem of Evil is hardly a problem at all. The suffering of this world is essential to us. Not because God made it be so, but because of our inherent nature. Yes, God is all-powerful, and He could intervene in every tragedy and remove all suffering from us in the moment, but it would frustrate the entire purpose of our being here. If God prevented all pain, that would never teach us to stand forthright against the storm, only to cower behind God’s skirts. And God did not force any of this pain upon us, we chose it so that we might win the greater good on the other side.

Universal Consciousness)

Shifting gears now to a non-Christian perspective, Advaita Vedānta, one of Hinduism’s major philosophical schools, teaches a principle of universal consciousness, which states that all of us and all of creation are not separate beings at all. All of our perceived reality is but a part of one super-entity called Brahman. Thus, our perceptions of being separate beings that inflict pain upon one another, or being victims of a cruel and indifferent universe, are mere illusions. When people hurt one another, or when nature hurts humanity, it is actually just that universal consciousness hurting itself.

The Problem of Evil doesn’t make sense when our suffering is but the left hand injuring the right. No, the injury is not good, but there is no outer deity to get mad at for subjecting us to this experience. We only experience this pain because we are so insistent on our sense of individualism, trying to see ourselves as separate from the super-reality that binds us all together. All we have to do is to let go of the self, relax back into the universal consciousness, and we no longer become a subject of pain.

Thinking Outside the Box)

Obviously, I do not expect many of my readers to agree with either of these viewpoints, and therefore to not necessarily be freed from their anxiety about the Problem of Evil. But I think it is still important to see that the problem is one that arises because of presuppositional beliefs. This conundrum is not inevitable. It exists only because of context, and it evaporates in another context. It is, therefore, hardly a binding principle, and we do not have to be fettered to it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Combinations of Presuppositions

Gaining an Understanding)

In my last post I explained how I never understood the Problem of Evil, which is the common argument that the suffering that we see in the world is logically incompatible with the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God. So, to comprehend this viewpoint better, I went to some online forums to discuss it with both atheists and Christians who see this argument as credible. It took a fair bit of time, and a lot of back and forth, but finally it made sense to me. I realized that the reason it never resonated with me, but did with others, was because we had a different set of presuppositions that entirely changed the context of how we view reality. Now, I still do not have those presuppositions, so the conclusion that the suffering of this world is incompatible with God still does not resonate with me, but I do understand why it would for others. I understand why it could very well resonate with me if I shared those same presuppositions.

As an aside, I think this is an important lesson in appreciating the different beliefs and struggles of others. Very often the conclusions that others draw seem so strange and incoherent to us, and by focusing on the conclusions, we usually just continue to confuse and frustrate one another. We have to get lower, down to the underlying premises that lead to those conclusions, the fundamental beliefs that make the position become sensible and rational.

But anyway, using the information I gained, I want to spell out exactly what the presuppositions are that would make suffering and God’s goodness hard to hold in the same mind, and in the next post I will show why a different set of presuppositions would not.

The Presuppositions)

The first presupposition we have already identified. It is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent. He loves His children, He wants goodness and happiness in the world, and He has the power and knowledge to secure it.

But as we will see, this alone is not enough. There is one other necessary presupposition, and it is often overlooked. It is creation ex nihilo, the belief that God created the universe, all of its systems, and the human species, out of nothing. All of our reality is a closed box that God had full control over the designs of. All of the ways that this life is, are because God personally wanted them to be that way.

This second presupposition is key, because without it the obvious counterargument is that yes, God does want goodness and happiness, but in His infinite wisdom He knew that a fulness of joy could only be found in overcoming great trials. He did not only want His children to have peace, He wanted them to be heroes. He wanted them to choose righteousness even when it was hard. He wanted them to be driven by a love that could overcome any adversity.

But for the critic who believes that the existence of God assumes creation ex nihilo, this counterargument holds little weight. The critic can readily agree that yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that true depth of character is acquired only by suffering. Yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that greater good is obtained through temporary evil. But then…why is humanity of that nature? If the universe is a closed box that God designed every part of, then why design humanity to operate by those rules? Why not design a humanity that becomes heroic, and loving, and strong by just having nice things happen to them?

A Sensible Question)

With both of these presuppositions: an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God, combined with creation ex nihilo, I think that critique is very strong. I do not know that I can see any convincing argument against it. I have seen how other Christians try to refute it, and at the end of the day they seem to be trying to pry off one or the other of those presuppositions. And that’s fine if you don’t happen to agree entirely with them, but most of the Christians in these arguments do actually hold both as essential to their faith.

But not every Christian denomination does hold to these presuppositions, and certainly not every non-Christian denomination. There are faiths that are absent one or the other of these claims, including my own, and to us this Problem of Evil loses its power. We will examine that in more depth tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- My Confusion

An Old Argument)

The Problem of Evil is a famous argument that the existence of evil causes a logical contradiction with the existence of God. The argument goes all the way back to the Epicurus, the Ancient Greek philosopher, and it goes as follows:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Clearly, this argument is specific to a certain popular conception of God, the “triple-omni” creator who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Critics who use this argument often say that it would therefore be possible to accept a God who is missing one of those characteristics, but not a God who has all three. Maybe He really is good but doesn’t have the power to totally eradicate evil? Maybe He really is all-powerful, but He isn’t totally good?

My Confusion)

I wanted to explore this concept more, because frankly this argument has never had any sway over me. People point to the existence of terrible suffering and evil in the world, and how it tries their faith, and I’ve never been able to sympathize with that conundrum. I simply didn’t see why the existence of one the precluded the existence of the other. To me it always felt like there was a premise missing:

Premise #1: God is all-powerful, all-caring, and all-good.
Premise #2: There is suffering in the world, including of innocent people.
Premise #3: ???
Conclusion: Therefore, premise number 1 and 2 are in contradiction. The existence of premise #2 is plainly observable, so premise #1 must be the falsehood.

Obviously, I can understand that because God is powerful and good people want the evidence of that to be a perfect, peaceful world…but isn’t that what He created? That describes the Garden of Eden exactly. He really did make a perfect world, and it was only when His children performed evil therein did it transform into a fallen world. It didn’t fall because God didn’t have the power to keep it there. It fell because He willingly handed the creation to man to “have dominion” over it, and man caused the fall. This was a choice, not a lack of power.

And now, one might say, since man did take that perfect creation and corrupt it, and now there is suffering, why wouldn’t a powerful and loving God save and redeem it? But once again…isn’t that exactly what He is doing? Isn’t the message of the gospel, that He sent His son to die for the sins of the world, unlocking the capacity to restore paradise from within our hearts, reclaiming us, one soul at a time? And obviously some may prefer that He would redeem it more immediately, not by this slow, gradual process, but I think we see in the story of Noah how that would not be an act of kindness. God did stamp out all evil on a large scale once before, and hardly anyone was able to survive it. Is that really the more immediate method that we would like Him to use on us today? It seems clear that the slow, deliberate method of winning souls is due to God’s mercy towards us, not due to a limitation of His power.

Learning From Others)

However, this Problem of Evil argument still bears real sway over many people in our society, atheists and Christians alike, and I decided I wanted to understand it better. I wanted to see if there was something that I was missing. A piece of the logical formula that I hadn’t appreciated before. So, I created a few posts online, both directed towards believers who struggle with this conundrum, and atheists who subscribe to it. I explained my inability to understand the validity of the argument and asked them to enlighten me.

I evaluated the logic of what they said and pushed back in many cases, because most arguments amounted to little more than an emotional desire for peace today. That is a totally understandable feeling, but hardly a logical contradiction of God.

To my delight, though, I was able to find some commentators who gradually led me to understand what I was missing. It took a bit, because these commentators had presumptions they didn’t even recognize, which were presumptions I didn’t even have. Recognizing what these were, and how if I did have those same presumptions, it would similarly test my faith, I finally felt like I understood the argument. I still didn’t agree with it personally, but I saw the valid points that it raised. In my next post I will explain what these critical presumptions are, and why they don’t apply to me.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Judgmental

I grew up in a generation where accusing Christians of being judgmental reached its peak. It got to the point that even asserting the mere existence of divine truth was seen as exclusionary and hateful, and for a long while now, any mention of commandments and sin has been called judgmental. This mentality prevailed in the culture war and became assumed correct as a general rule, but we have since seen that those so concerned about Christian judgmentalism are themselves more judgmental than anyone else. The difference is that they secularize the religious terminology, but that doesn’t change that it is judgmentalism even so.

They don’t call it “righteous,” they call it “being right.”
They don’t call it “being a sinner,” they call it “being on the wrong side of history.”
They don’t call it “orthodoxy,” they call it “being informed.”
They don’t call it “repentance,” they call it “taking accountability.”
They don’t call it “heresy,” they call it “misinformation.”
They don’t call it “excommunication,” they call it “cancellation.”
They don’t call it “doctrine,” they call it “values.”
They don’t call it “blasphemy,” they call it “hate speech.”
They don’t call it “commandments,” they call it “policies.”
They don’t call it “words of scripture,” they call it “experts say.”
They don’t call it “moral law,” they call it “social contract.”
They don’t call it “confession,” they call it a “public statement.”
They don’t call it “church,” they call it “community.”

Fancy terminology aside, we see a society that believes more than ever that there are commandments and laws, and that those who stand against them are morally wrong, and they absolutely condemn those who don’t fall in line.

Indeed, the severity of that condemnation is the most shocking aspect of all. People are absolutely obsessed with being right, with winning debates, with finding surveys and studies that side with them, with proving other people wrong. People absolutely hate people that don’t share their views, and they are very open about it. They are so anxious to be surrounded with “rightness” they will cut off their own immediate family for daring to have “wrong opinions.” They will tell them to “f–k off” and never speak to them again….

But they will still be scandalized that you hold a faith that is so “judgmental.”

Posted on by Abe Austin

You Do Not Understand Others

If you cannot fathom or see the sensibility in the beliefs of another, then the failure is almost certainly in your understanding, not in their intelligence or reason. More often than not, people have logical and coherent reasons for believing what they believe. More often than not, your difference in view simply comes down to them having underlying presumptions that are different from your own. But if you did share their presumptions, more often than not you might very well come to the same conclusions as them.

It is maturity to seek first what those presumptions are, to see the reason and logic that follows from them, and to appreciate that your brother or sister is an intelligent being trying to do their best with what they have, just like you.

Furthermore, in many cases those presumptions are both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Thus, your brother or sister may indeed be wrong, and the conclusions drawn from them wrong as well, but you’ll never be able to demonstrate it by logical argument.

Most arguments around differences in belief are therefore a complete waste of energy. Most debaters will never extend the grace of acknowledging the reasonability in other’s conclusions given their background, nor address the actual presumptions on which everything depends. Instead, people tend to argue on a surface layer for positions that the other cannot accept, and no meaningful change occurs.