Introduction
The scientific method, while a positive step, has turned universities into research institutions leaving no place for the search for truth. Things not addressed by the scientific method are looked at with distrust. “Any attempt at a generous and rigorous examination of the major questions of life and reality, which the univerisity for the most of its history stood for, has to be imported onto the campus from the outside” (134).

Is there life after truth?
It is assumed that when we, like Pilote, ask “what is truth”, we are going to come into conflict – and it is a question that ends the conversation. We don’t like the idea of truth because it is binding on us and impinges on our freedom, but Jesus has said that it is truth that sets us free. We assume that moral truths are based on our feelings, and therefore objective and not universal. With no fundimental truth, we prevent things like rape and murder by saying that we aren’t people who do those sorts of things, knowing that there can’t be anything fundimentally wrong with it (we just prefer not to do it). Christians should not follow with this antifoundationalism and insert that the Christian truth is our truth, but assert that it is THE truth. “Why should God have to become humanum, to become one of us? To assert truth in public” (256). We must also “understand that we do not kill one another over our disagreements about the will of God, because we know it is the will of God that we not kill one another over disagreements about the will of God” (333). The most intersting books have not been the nihilist ones, but the christian. Not because they are religious, but because they dare to ask the big questions of what is all this about.

Time for Truth
There is no solid core, no character, of people. It has been replaced by appearances. We have become so concerned with nonjudgementalism that it is worse to judge evil than it is to do evil. Without truth, there is only manipulation – the one with the most power makes the rules. When we are looking for freedom, it isn’t just freedom from but freedom to. “it is not just the permission to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought” (471). Freedom involves letting something be what it truely is. This can’t happen without some truth about it. There are some thigns that are just so profoundly wrong they beg for a standard to judge them against. This leads to the real moral challenge of truth. We are tempted to shape the truth to our desires, but we need to shape our desires to the truth.

Reason for God – The Exclusivity of Truth
People deal with exclusive claims of truth given by religions by trying to hope it away, outlawing it away, explaining it away, arguing it away, and privitizing it away. The idea that as we become more advanced that we will outgrow religion has been discredited. Persecution, like in China, purifies religion and makes it stronger. If we say that our belief in God is due to natural selection evolutionary forces, then we can say the same about our instincts and intelect saying that evolution is true. “If as Nietzche says, ‘All truth claims are really just power grabs,’ then so is his, so why listen to him at all?” (617). We cannot argue that all religions are equally right, as the claims of Christianity would make it either far better or far worse. If we say all religions are equally wrong, you would claim to have a higher form of truth that you argue does not exist. When you are saying there is no god, you are making an exclusive claim. Finally, we cannot say they are private beliefs that should not impinge on others – as all claims impinge on others. Western culture puts the self first at the expense of the community, eastern cultures put the community first. Each has an effect and cannot be privatized. We cannot have any public discussion without religious beliefs because our ideas of right and wrong and how thigns should be are our religious beliefs. Instead, if we see that the truth of Christianity is wound up in one man dying for others, we cannot end up with extremism like 9/11. We see a truth that is not divisive, but far more inclusive than any other claims of truth.

The language of God
The search for God is intelectually satisfying and there are pointers to a God. These are that there is something instead of nothing, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, the universe had a beginning, the precise tuning of physical constants of the universe, and a moral law. Looking at the genome gives us good evidence for the validity of evolution. Evolution is not opposed to theism, but can be harmonized with christianity by realizing that God exists outside of our space time. Much of the concern with Genesis 1-2 is due to interpretation and needs to be read trying to understand the intent of the author.

The Psychology of Atheism
Science has looked for the scientific reason for people’s belief in God, a similar and valid study is the scientific reason for a lack of faith. “I am assuming that the major barriers to belief in God are not rational but in a general sense can be called psychological” (1571). Everyone has different barriers to faith, and some people may choose to move toward God continually through their life but may not ever reach faith. There are social pressures which may turn people atheist in order to escape their path and integrate with others. Others may turn atheist due to the demands that religion would place on their lives. In deeper psychological study, Freud proposed that people use God as a father figure. In line with Freud’s beliefs, all atheists suffer from an Oedipus complex and “atheism is an example of Oedipal wish fulfillment” (1674). A second belief is a theory of the defective father, so atheism may be tied to a loss of respect for their earthly father. As we look at famous atheists, this theory holds true as all had weak or non-existant father figures.

Nietzsche Versus Jesus Christ
During the time of Nietzsche, “there was a great wave of reaction against the power of a Christian ideology that was without real spiritual vitality” (1792). He was reacting to a period where god was used in name only, but true actions were far from the foundational beliefs. Nietzsche wasn’t declaring that he had killed god, but saying that if he were dead it wouldn’t make any difference. He claimed we do not construct our reality in line with reality, but to organize our power. All actions were motivated by power, not happiness. Since history is constructed for power, we cannot trust history. Modernism came to sidestep the search for power an look for central truths in history. Nietzsche said we cannot understand a reality outside of ourselves, so then there is not hope of understanding truth. The only thing left is individual will, and there is no longer a belief in one absolute truth. We have institutions set up on how to learn physics, but nowhere to learn to be good. We do not treat moral ideas as knowledge. For example, we would not grade someone on if they thought the ten commandments were true. “The heart of the issue between Nietzsche and Jesus Christ is truth, and its relation to human freedom, well-being and fulfillment” (1914). Nietzsche freed us to do whatever we will, but we have lost the ability to know what to will. A true kind of freedom is the ability to interact with the world as it actually is. “In other words, truth enables us to represent how things are without running into them, as we submit our will to reality, through truth” (1945).

Moral Mammals
Peter Singer. If we say that the ideas of good and bad are meaningless without God, we are saying that God made an arbitrary decisions about the meaning of good and so it is meaningless. Even if the terms do have meaning, how do we understand what is good. We cannot say moral knowledge comes from the bible because we don’t do what it says to do (like help the poor). Christians aren’t using the bible to determine what is right, but some other source to judge what they do. “There doesn’t seem to be any strong correlation between people being religious and people acting ethically” (2056). An evolutionary idea of morality is asking if I would want this to be done if I were affected by the action.

John Hare. We all know what is good because God revealed it to everyone. The order of the world, that it is possible to do good when we intend to do good, would lead us to believe that the world is fundamentally good. The actual weight of morality is more than we can stand, so we try to ignore it which creates a gap with the demand and our natural inclination. Outside of theism, there are no solid justification for morality – it is a basic starting point outside of ourselves. The best answer for the motivation for morality is God.

The Sense of an Ending
We have gotten to a point in history where we can no longer believe we are continuing to advance for the better. We have given up on the idea of a final resolution. Music has been constructed to create tension and bring it back around to its final resolution. Modern music has played with the idea of having no home and no resolution. It is in this place where Jesus meets us, where the resurrection of Jesus shows a new kind of conclusion. The resolution of the current tension is a restored world.

Simply Christian
“To put it crudely, we all know that we are made for one another, but we all run into difficulties in making that work” (2894). The ideas of justice, spirituality, relationships, and beauty are echos of a voice – suggesting something more. Looking for God is like staring at the sun. It is there, but you can’t see to much because it is too brilliant. The claims of the Jewish temple could not be reconciled into pantheism or deism. It was the place on the earth where the living god had promised to live. As we follow Jesus and speak the echos we hear, we begin to become the new creation people.

Why Human Rights are Impossible without Religion
In the mid 19th century, the philosophy of law changed. There is not higher standard, and law is neither right or wrong but just the law. “We can determine whether the individual elements in the system properly fit the system, but we can’t ask whether the total elgal system is valid or invalid, right or wrong, genuine or not” (3153). With no higher standard, it was impossible to judge human rights violations, like the Nazis. When on trial, they fell back to stating that they acted with their law, which is different but can’t be wrong. We can’t use our conscience to judge because it is conditioned by culture. The natural law idea of giving people what they deserve is the same justification for the concentration camps. “The only true ethic would be an ethic that doesn’t arise from the human situation, that breaks in from the outside. A transcendental, transcendent ethic” (3267). Laws by men are easily taken away by men. We can’t just look to religion because religion makes ambiguous or contradictory claims to each other. The ability to actually back up the claims is the large difference between religions. Everyone agrees with human rights. What we lack is the desire to follow them.

2. First Century Jewish Monotheism Israel’s belief in a creational monotheism distinguishes them from monotheistic like henotheism, pantheism, deism, and gnosticism. They believed that god was providential; that he acted through ‘natural events’ (and also possibly through ‘supernatural’) such as the rise of Rome and the fall of the temple. They believe in a covenental god, who, as described in Gen Rabba 14.6, forecasted the fall of Adam and sent Abraham to restore righteousness (God will, through Israel, undo the primeval sin).

3. Election and Covenant Covenential theology answers the problem of evil. It states that “the creator has not been thwarted irrevocably by the rebellion of his creation, but has called into being a people through whom he will work to restore his creation” (260). Israel’s suffering is due to their infadelity to that covenant, and suffering on a personal level is also seen in the light of forgiveness and restoration (sacrificial system). The blessings and curses for Israel in Deut 27-30 is all dependanat on this covenant faithfullness, but also the promised restoration in 30:1-10 when Israel inevitably falls away.

Israel saw itself as the creator’s true humanity. The curses that happen from Adam, Cain, to the flood and Babel are turned around at Abraham (12:2). Abraham gets the blessings promised to Adam in 1:28, and reconfirmed in 17:2 and 22:16. The main difference that the command (be fruitfull 1:28) is turned into a promise (I will make you fruitful 17:6). Israel is to be a nation of priests (Exodus 19) through whom the creator will bless his creation. Through the prophets, the theme of restoral through Israel is repeated. In order to take their position, they needed to act with wisdom, and therefore by obtaining wisdom they would become truly human. Wisdom was identified with the torah, so by keeping the torah, they could become the true humanity and restore divine order to creation (which may involve judgement of the nations).

4. Covenant and Eschatology Since Israel was not yet restored to their proper role, they must still be in exile (Neh 3:36). Evil became that which threatened the covenant people, and would be eliminated by judgement of God (implemented by his chosen people). This implementation his promises to Israel (His covenant faithfulness) was His righteousness.

5. Covenant, Redemption and Forgiveness Israel’s exile was due to her own sin, and their deliverance from exile would mean that God has somehow dealt with it. Forgiveness of sins (which would have been understood at a national, not personal level) would mean return from exile. Exile was a sacrifice that helped redeem the nation and deliver them from the coming judgement.

1: The growth of christianity in the first three centuries is often described as meraculous. If we take an average growth rate of 40% per decade (3.42% per year) we see that 1,000 christians in the year 40 become over 50% of the empire in the year 350 (34m christians). This growth curve fits with historical progressional estimates. While a significant growth rate, it is comparible to the 43% growth per decade the mormon church has had over the past century. When looking at why people convert to a new religion, the self described reasons are docternally based. When new converts are actually observed, we see that the main cause is due to personal relations with the members, and doctrine plays a part only after the conversion. People are more govenered by rules regarding conforming and deviant behavior than theological concerns.

2: A sect is a schism in the conventional religious body. A cult is a completely new faith. Religions offer three things, status and self esteem to members (intangible – appealing to the upper classes), health/wealth (tangible – appealing to lower classes), and spiritual (life after death – appealing to everyone). Upper classes are more able to master new cultures (as what happens with a cult) and are more able to acknowledge deficiencies in current religious orginizations. Sects are usually formed promoting more tangable things, which appeal to lower classes. There is a positive correlation between education and cult activities (such as eastern religions in the US), and a negative correlation between education and sect movements (faith healing, born again). In the US the major denominations have high levels of college education, but Protestent sects are not well educated (10% for Worldwide Church of God) while cult groups are the most educated of any category. Christianity, being a cult movement in the first century, would have the greatest appeal to the higher classes of the roman empire.

3 It is often assumed that Christianity failed to convert the Jews and turned to the Gentiles. In fact, this would be sociologically odd. It is the religiously inactive and discontented that join new religious movements. Also, people are more willing to join a movement that retains some cultural continuity with religious that they are familiar with. Jews in the diaspora were seperated from the temple and struggled in how to be Jewish in a hellinisitc world (and often made comprimises to bridge that gap). Christianity provided a religion that removed much of the law that constrained hellinistic jews, but also held ties to their religion heratige. If we look at some of the anti-jewish rhetoric of John Chrysostom, it would be taken in light of an attempt to finally convert these jewish-christians (who still dabbled in judiasm) to drop the hyphen and become christians (by attacking orthodoy judiasm).

4: Epidemics (which could kill 30% or more of a population) would have had a significant impact on the rise of christianity. Christians, with high focus on social services, would have survived epidimics in larger numbers than other groups (even if caring for the sick is nothing more than bringing food and water). This would have appeared meraculous and would have encouraged conversion. After an epidemic ended, people’s normal religious ties would have been broken, and people looking to make new ties would be more apt to join a different religion (increased by the higher survival percentage of christians, and the caring of the pagan sick by Christians). Pagan religions did not have answers to why these calamities happened and attributed it to the capricious nature of the Gods. Christianity offered some explanation and a prescription for action.

5: In the pagan world men outnumbered women due to high rates of female infanticide, contrary to Christianity where women outnumbered men. Early Christians had higher fertility due to no use of contraception and reduced abortions. This higher birth rate also increased the number of Christians, wherein pagan cultures the population was declining. Christian cultures also gave women a much higher status, both within marriage and in leadership positions within the church. Because of the higher ratio of women to men, women often married pagan men which brought in secondary converts.

6: This chapter tries to quantitatively analyze which cities would be most receptive to Christianity (by analyzing when a specific city had a Christian church). The largest 22 cities in the area were analyzed, assuming the more urban the place, the higher the rates of unconventionality creating a critical mass to achieve a deviant subculture. We do see that larger cities had a higher Christian population. We also see that there is a negative correlation between Christian churches and distance from Jerusalem. We also see the more Roman the culture (and less Greek and Jewish) the later a church. When we look at Gnosticism, we see that while Jewish presence had a significant impact on the rise of Christianity, only Christianity has an effect on the rise of Gnosticism. This would appeal to the idea that Gnosticism is a Christian heresy and not a Jewish one.

7: Life in the Greco-Roman cities was difficult. Cities were far more population dense than today. With no plumbing, the cities and people were unimaginably dirty – so ancient people were obsessed with health, and may have been why healing was a central aspect of paganism and early Christianity. People in these cities were from every imaginable culture, but stayed separated in culturally distinct areas. Christian missionaries were warmly received in these cities because “what they brought was not simply an urban movement, but a new culture capable of making life in Greco-Roman cities more tolerable” (162).

8: We see in organizations, the higher the cost of membership, the higher the levels of member commitment and participation (as “free riders” would be screened out due to the sacrifice) resulting in “greater material, social, and religious benefits for their members” (177). This potent Christianity made heroes out of martyrs and would be martyrs. These benefits in their current life, reputation, and future life, would account for why many Christians would welcome martyrdom.

9: The state of paganism also helped the rise of Christianity. Paganism was confusing with unknown quantities of gods. Christians gained credibility by their martyrdom and public service. Christianity grew because of this credibility, and the higher organizational state of Paganism.

1: Introducing the Problem
Metaphors are used often in the bible, and we often make errors in our interpretation because we are not sensitive to their cultural setting. The metaphor for sin changes through time, giving the idea of Sin a history. During the writing of Leviticus, a sin act was seen as creating a substance. During the Day of Atonement, the way to remove this substance was to load them onto an animal (having it assume the weight) and send it into the desert (seen as beyond the reach of God) where they would disappear. It was not about feeling contrite for the wrong, but a thing that needed to be removed. The bible is often not faithfully translated, and the “carrying away a sin” is not translated like that, but as washing away or forgiving – causing us to miss the full meaning of the text.

The Persians had a metaphor in Aramaic for sin as a debt. When they conquered Israel, and Aramaic became widely used, this metaphor became more widely used. By the time of Jesus, the metaphor for sin changed to a debt that needed to be repaid “forgive us our debts”. This metaphor change was significant. With sin as a debt, the opposite was creating credits due to meritorious acts. In Dan 4:24, Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that he can redeem himself by giving alms (where the word redeem means “to buy oneself out of slavery”) – as he is a debt-slave to God. Almsgiving was considered on par with all other meritorious acts.

2: Making Payment on One’s Debt
A person could be sold, or their children taken into slavery if they did not pay their debts. In Isa 50:1, it is for Israel’s own sins, not that of God that they are in slavery. Isa 40:1-2 declares that Israel’s debt has been paid (through their actions as a debt slave). The “double for all her sins” is hyperbole stating they have paid more than enough. II Macc 6:12-17 describes how God waits for other nations until their sins have mounted that he destroys them, but with Israel he never lets their sings to reach that level. “Israel suffers more visibly because God wants to make sure that her register of debits never raises too high” (1850). “In Leviticus we see that the acceptance of a sacrifice is tantamount to its being credited to one’s account” (1053), so there are precise instructions to ensure it is done properly. Tertullian first describes the concept of penance for sins for atonement, which is later developed into specific punishments for each sin, creating too much emphasis on the human contribution to atonement.

In ancient times, a specific tablet would be crated to document a debt, and the creditor would hold the tabled and could use it to demand repayment. Rabbis frame Lamech’s remarks in Genesis as a rhetorical question (have I slain a man?). If punishment for Cain was delayed 7 generations, they should be delayed for 77 for Lamech (whose sins are lighter). The story was interpreted that Lamech’s wives abstained from sex because of the oncoming flood (no reason to bring more children into the world). The answer is that God holds the debt and with Lamech’s reasoning he would never collect.

In the middle of the story of Joseph’s decent into Egypt and slavery, it states that Judah leaves home. The rabbis said that the brothers agreed, thinking that they would have to be all in the same place for God to punish them, that Judah leave so that God cannot collect on their debt. Later, when the cup is found in Benjamin’s bag they say ‘God has found the sin of your servants’ (Gen 44:16). It isn’t that God could not collect, but that he waited until the most appropriate time.

God tells Abraham that his offspring will be enslaved for 400 years. Rabbis discerned that Abraham had sinned earlier, which will need later payment. Esau, realizing that the Jacob’s sons were the chosen line, if he was not with them then he would not have to pay. As a result, when Moses returns from Egypt and comes to Edom, saying that “your brother Israel” has suffered and wants to pass through their land, reminding them that they have paid Abraham’s debt alone.

God was not seen as just an accountant with a balance sheet by the rabbis. He was eager to “hide the sin” (Ps 85:3) of Israel to make the account turn out in their favor. “God is not adverse to ‘cooking the books’” (2165) to allow people to not get what they deserve. In some rabbi writings, satan is the one who is trying to play by the rules to ensure all sin is paid for, but it is God who, while satan is out collecting all the sin records, hides away some of it. We then find that “the sin of Israel was searched for, but it is no longer” (Jer 50:20). “Since all debt is ultimately owed to God, it is his right to rescind from collecting it. He does not act unjustly when he offers the debtor such a gift” (2200).

3: Balancing Debts with Virtue
The idea of paying for sins with gifts to the poor occurs in Daniel 4:24 and the book of tobit, resting on the Proverbs, assumes that money given to the poor credits your sin account (as in the Matt 6:19-20 where we are told to store treasures in heaven). The poor act as a direct conduit to God, and the poor would greet people by saying “acquire a merit through me” (3009).

“In the Old Testament, God acted as though he was in need of food; in the new age he is short of currency” (3150). The economy of God’s salvation allows God to become our debtors, and every dollar invested has significant leverage – and God’s economy is not a zero sum (everyone gains from this transaction). Augustine says “give a little and receive on a grand scale… Give the earth and gain heaven” (3180). Eventually this turned into buying indulgences from the church, which was refuted by Luther and the reformation movement. Even in the reformation “works of mercy toward the poor still appear to be meritorious” (3249).

Anslem of Canterbury refutes that Christ underwent a penal substitution for our sins. “The divine Father was not so much collecting the punishment due on his bond as he was rewarding the self-donation Christ had made” (3942). Origen believed:

Adam consented to eat the forbidden fruit not out of a desire to disobey a divine command but to avoid being separated from his spouse, Eve…Adam loves Eve so deeply that he will share the consequences of her sin in order to redeem her from th exile she has been rightfully condemned to endure. The significance of this image cannot be understated: the suffering of Adam-and by extension, Christ-is not meant to be the primary subject of our attention. What the suffering of Adam (and therefore Christ) gives witness to is an immeasurable love for the sinner (3961)

As an analogous example, rabbinic Judaism interpreted the story of Isaac’s sacrifice in Genesis 22 in a similar way. Isaac’s self willingness to be sacrificed created a huge credit. The midrash on Lev 1:11 then explains that the daily sacrifice was done so that God would remember the binding of Isaac, the merits he had earned, and forgive the sins of Israel. The sacrifice of the lamb was a memorial for Isaac, just as the eucharist is for Jesus.

The first half of the book recounts Viktor Frankl’s experience and recollections in concentration camps, the second half describes the idea of logotherapy (finding meaning in one’s life). This will to meaning contrasts Freudian will to pleasure or Adlerian will to power. Meaning can be found through creative work, experiencing someone or something, or through the attitude we take towards unavoidable suffering.

Who we are is not totally dependent on the influences around us. Even in a concentration camp, the sort of person a prisoner was wasn’t the result of the camp influences, but an inner decision. A visible change was seen in prisoners who fell into despair and and often died quickly. The men needed a change in their attitude towards life to learn that “it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us” (853). We should stop thinking about the meaning of life, but instead to find meaning in life – resulting in right actions and conducts. “Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual” (855).

Meaning must begin with the realization of our importance due to the impossibility of our replacement – resulting in a responsibility for our own existence. With this responsibility of our existence, we are challenged with every moment to impart importance and gravity into our actions and mindset. “Man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, and what he will become in the next moment” (1331). What man is searching for is not ease from tension, but striving for a worthwhile goal of his choosing – responding to the call of potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him. Suffering, therefore, is a challenge to turn one’s predicament into a human achievement.

“After all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord’s Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips” (1361).

(I couldn’t help wondering if when Donald Miller wrote A Million Miles in a Thousand Years he had this book in the back of his mind)

Sometimes, my kids surprise me. Sometimes I surprise myself. I’ve never taken the next step to wonder if there are times when I surprise God. This is an extremely freeing concept in ways I never would have imagined, and is having significant impacts on my understanding of prayer (which I have never, in any way, understood).

This concept then ripples from the individual out through societies. We often know when people will riot. We know when the situations are right for a revolution. We may not be able to predict exactly who will do what (and that may not be extremely important) but people at a macroscopic level get much easier to predict. With more understanding of people and situations, events farther into the future can be predicted. Sometimes though, even God gets disappointed.