Bruce summarizes Matthew's and Luke's versions of the Christmas story here and here. I don't think I've ever heard the two accounts separated, and it's very interesting to consider the different perspectives of the two writers. (His comment on this post is a sort of a Reader's Digest version.)
My new personal Christmas tradition is listening to Real Live Preacher's audio book "A Christmas Story You've Never Heard", which you can find at the iTunes store. It's raw and real and it really is very different from any telling of the story that I've ever heard before. His new story (the second of a planned seven) focusing on the shepherds, is available for download here.
I think Dave's got it right. This song kills me.
[+/-] Christmas Stuff |
[+/-] Caution, Wet Paint |
This blog is officially beta-ized. It took longer than I expected, and it was more frustrating than I expected, but it's done(ish), it's better than ever, and it still looks good.
I will try to refrain from ranting at length about Internet Explorer (aka "the special needs browser"). It's beyond me why anyone still uses the damnable thing. Firefox is better, and it's free. If you're not using Firefox, you're not trying.
Anyways, there's lots of exciting new stuff here. Actually, there's mostly just lots of new peek-a-boo stuff. Click on the [+/-]s for drop-down goodies! Hours of fun! Be sure to check out the Labels and Archives pages, and don't miss the peek-a-boo comments at the bottom of this post. So yes, I'm a blog geek. It's ok because it's a hobby, not an obsession or an addiction or whatever. You're allowed to waste time on hobbies.
Big props to Hackosphere, the source of most of my nifty new gizmos. No props to Microsoft.
4 comments:
...Or did I just BLOW YOUR MIND?
a job well done!
[+/-] I Follow Apollos |
The idea of a "biblical church" strikes me as odd. If I understand the term correctly, it means something like "a church which tries to mimic those described in the bible in all ways they deem significant". The problem, of course, is that churches tend to disagree on not only which aspects of the biblical churches are significant (I still say holy kisses are a sacrament), but worse, precisely how the important things were actually done. (Did the early church have women deacons? Baptize babies? All speak in tongues?)
I see myriad problems with the desire to be a biblical church, particularly if the term is understood narrowly. For one thing, I think you'd have a hard time getting all the authors of the New Testament themselves to agree on a very precise set of church doctrines and practices. I like to think that if Peter and Paul and John and James were alive today, they might not all be members of the same denomination (not that they'd make a big deal out of it). Which got me thinking about how it would sound if the apostles went church shopping. This is how I imagine some people imagining it:
Hi there, this is the apostle Paul. I'm calling on behalf of the New Testament Writers' Association. We're thinking of relocating to your town, if we can find a suitable church to attend. Can I ask you a few questions? ... Great.
I took a glance at the statement of faith on your website, and on the whole, it looks promising. A few points may need to be clarified a bit - "inspired" can mean a lot of things, you know - but on the whole, I thought it was pretty good.
Ok, first off, you say you're a "Biblical Church". That's good. Can you explain what that phrase means? ... Yes. ... Well good. I'm glad to hear it.
Can you tell me what your church teaches about salvation? ... And at what point would you say that happens? ... Do you believe there is a possibility that a person could lose their salvation?
Can you describe for me a typical service at your church? ... And how often do you do communion? ... Wine, or grape juice? ... Yes, of course. Now, you don't use those awful wafers do you?
And how much water do you use to baptize your infants? ... Right. ... Ya, that was kind of a trick question.Would you describe your church as charismatic? ... Do you believe the gift of tongues is still given today? ... Oh, I'm glad. ... Yes, I completely agree, but you wouldn't believe what some people do with that verse.
What is your stance on women's roles in the church? ... I see. And do they wear headcoverings? ... Under what circumstances could a women address the congregation? ... What if she was a visiting missionary?
One final thing: could you give a brief description of the end times? ... I'm looking primarily for sequence of events ... Good. ... And would that be the trumpet, or bowl judgments? ... Ok, continue. ... Hold on, what was that? Did you say after the seven years? ... You can't be serious! ... No, no, you've got it all wrong! ... No, it's no use. I'm afraid I'll have to continue my search. ... Yes, quite sure. ... I'm sorry to have bothered you. ... Alright, well, the grace of our Lord be with you. ... Goodbye.
3 comments:
I'm sure glad that Paul, James & John really didn't care about the little things as much as people today do, and when the big things did go slightly askew, I'm glad that they had the cojones to speak up & work to rectify those problems. ;)
As an example, the appointment of the seven sub-apostles (Stephen et al.) in Acts 6 was a direct response to a practical problem with a ministry of compassion. In my opinion, truly "biblical" church leadership would be innovative and pragmatic, not eternally bound to a structure that was effective in the first century. But I'm not really interested in entering the more-biblical-than-thou competition.
[+/-] Exams, Hell |
I'm currently midway through writing exams, and midway through adapting my template to Blogger Beta. That these two events coincide is most unfortunate. I've been spending far less time studying than tinkering with HTML. I am nothing if not undisciplined.
If you're yearning for something to read, I suggest this new post by my good friend Filth-Man (he's really not that filthy). It's about hell (not everyone's cup of tea) and quite long, but I think it's an excellent summary of the problem of hell in biblical Christianity, and various attempts to deal with it. I intend to leave a comment at some point, but at the moment I'm up to my ears in metaphysics. I've actually got a post on a similar subject (hell, not metaphysics) in the works, but between studying, Beta-izing, and my reluctance to dwell on the subject, it's coming slowly.
[+/-] Pied Beauty |
Glory be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;
And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.
All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.
-Gerard Manley Hopkins
This is my second favorite poem ever.
4 comments:
I like the second one too. I should read more poetry...
[+/-] The Great Omission |
While I was working on this post, it struck me that Acts favors the word "disciple" to describe followers of Jesus (30 uses), as opposed to "believer" (13) or "Christian" (just 2). I notice that most of us today prefer the latter terms, perhaps because they sound less impressive or presumptuous. To my ears "disciple" sounds like an lofty title, fitting perhaps for a few very wise and godly people I know, but not to a half-hearted screw-up like me. "Believer" sounds like it might include those of us who aren't the best or most devoted followers of Jesus, but who can sign our names to the Apostles creed or some other list of doctrine. (Real Live Preacher thinks this is a very modern and un-biblical understanding of belief.) And "Christian" sounds like someone who goes to church on Sunday and doesn't say words like "fuck".
I know that none of these definitions are very good ones, but I've been thinking specifically about the term "believer" recently. Based on a quick look through Acts, it seems like the early church used "believer" and "disciple" more or less interchangeably. This makes me think that it is a mistake to distinguish between having faith in Jesus and following Jesus, between being a believer and being a disciple. (I think James would agree.) So I was surprised and pleased when I found much the same thing expressed on the dust jacket of Dallas Willard's delightfully titled new book, The Great Omission:
The last command Jesus gave the church before he ascended to heaven was the Great Commission, the call for Christians to "make disciples of all the nations." But Christians have responded by making "Christians," not "disciples." This has been the church's Great Omission.The book itself is a collection of previously released essays and sermons, and may be a bit repetitive, particularly for those who have already read some of Willard's books. I haven't read it myself, so I won't recommend it. But I love this idea that discipleship, not doctrine, is the essence of Christianity.
15 comments:
But I love this idea that discipleship, not doctrine, is the essence of Christianity.
Me too! I don't think that I could stand being a Christian were it centred around doctrine. Discipleship at the heart of following Christ is so much more fulfilling, rewarding and any other redundant term you want to add on to the end of this (now) bloating comment. Hooray for following Christ through learning to be like Him, instead of following a structured façade that tries to mimic the same!
ℓ℮
Your words are encouraging.
Read on.
I think the idea of a disciple is good. It's much more meaningful and perhaps much more representative of who we are meant to be as believers in Christ.
Disciple does sound scary to the modern ear though... too bad...
ps: I approve of the choice you made in this post... I think it was a good choice. :)
I guess the obvious question is... can you be a disciple but not a believer? (the Indian Ghandi comes to mind).
I'm not completely sure what the answer to the obvious question is. From what I hear, it was precisely the un-disciple-ly-ness of "believers" that turned Ghandi off religious Christianity. One could argue that Ghandi demostrated a far deeper and more meaningful belief in the teachings of Jesus than do most "believers". I think Jesus would respect that.
But some will argue that correct doctrine is, if not a sufficient condition for Belief, then certainly a neccessary one. I don't have a very good response to this. At least, not a Biblical one.
Anyhow, so I've read people saying things like "to be Christ-like in an imperfect world"
"to be accountable to the bible"
"acknowleding one's sin before God"
"acting in certain ways within society... loving your neigbor"
Most of these are from Geez magazine in case anyone want to pin me for plaigerism.
But yeah, so what ever happened to Christianity being about a relationship with God? That's what I thought it was about.. but as far as I've read in this magazine it hasn't been mentioned. And reading Donald Miller's "Searching for God knows what" has reminded me that we often leave out the most important part of faith - relationship.
Seriously... so what good is it if you "believe" and are hence a "believer" but don't have a relationship? What good are a whole bunch of rules and lifestyle choices and guidlines about how to live if it's just that, a lifestyle, and not a relationship.
hmm...
"Relationship" is easier for some people than others, unfortunately. Some of us just don't feel interaction, or emotional closeness with God... (whether this is through our own flaws, or God's choices, or personality types, etc.) For those of us who want to be Christians/believers/desciples/whatever but struggle to have a back-and-forth relationship, it falls back on lifestyle, loving others, trying to obey the word of God, etc...
PS Do I know you? Trying to figure out who you are.
Second, I also would caution a too easy capitulation into the "personal relationship with God" thang. That idea as we understand it is a 19th century Anglo-American construction. Not to say that it isn't true, but that there is a lot of value in believing, even if we don't feel that we have a relationship with God, as Jens points out. I think we need to allow for extremely generous readings of both "belief" and "relationship", and the more generous we are in those readings, the more we'll see that they overlap. A great example of someone who thought on the margins of both belief and relationship was Kierkegaard. A disciple in the most hardcore and heartbreaking sense of the word -- appealing to an absurd leap into the unknown. That's faith for him. The absurd faith that we have a relationship with the unseen, unknown God -- and perhaps not a "relationship" in the way we might conceive of it... and perhaps not a "faith" in the way we might conceive of it.
I guess I tend to minimize this aspect of Christianity because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I am one of those Jens refers to; I don't feel like I interact with (much less have an intimate relationship with) God. For this reason I hope that this relationship is not central to Christianity.
Is discipleship (sans relationship) merely rules, guidelines, and lifestyle choices? Perhaps. I would point out that they are exceedingly good rules, guidelines, and lifestyle choices. And I mean good in the sense that they have dramatic and tangible good effects, both for the disciple and those s/he interacts with.
Whether the separation of relationship and discipleship (or doctrine and discipleship) is Biblical, I'm not sure. [Jeff: I'd be interested to hear more about the development of this idea.] But I do believe that discipleship by itself is meaningful, radical and world-changing. Given the choice, I would rather see everyone in the world become a true disciple of Jesus Christ than develop a personal relationship with him. (Although I say this without having experienced such a relationship first-hand.)
But I hasten to add that I do not think relationship with God is of no value. I am glad for (and often envious of) those who experience it, and in general, the effect it has on their lives seems to be predominantly(though not exclusively) positive. But it seems to me that being a believer/disciple/Christian is neither sufficient nor necessary for having such a relationship.
I think that it is necessary for one to have a relationship with Jesus/God in order truly to be a disciple. By definition, one cannot be a disciple if there exists no relationship between the master & disciple, student/teacher or follower/followed. Now, I believe that being a believer by no means necessitates having a relationship—in fact, one might truly posit that Satan is a believer in Christ—but I do not think that the same holds in reverse. Furthermore, I would hasten to add that the terms "believer" and "disciple" should indeed not be used interchangeably, by the very nature of what the terms actually mean. You can believe & not follow; yet you cannot follow without belief.
Personally, I think it is possible to be a disciple of someone without having a personal relationship with them (one might claim to be a disciple of Kant, Gandhi, Kurt Cobain, or whomever) although I'm sure it helps. Perhaps the word was not used so broadly in the first century, but I think we can all agree that Jesus uses it at least a little bit figuratively - it's just a question of degree.
It seems to me that the words "believer" and "disciple" are used interchangeably in the Bible, at least in the book of Acts. This leads be to suspect that (as Real Live Preacher argues) "believer" meant something quite different back then than it does now. It seems that to Luke (as well as to James and John, among others) one cannot be a true believer without being a disciple. Whether these writers believed that what some of us call "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" is a co-requisite to belief and discipleship is another question.
Fun facts: The words "relationship with God/Christ" don't appear in the NIV New Testament ("relationship to God" appears once, in a negative light). "Know God/Christ" (the exact meaning of which is of course debatable) appears a total of seven times and, intriguingly, always in the context of obedience/discipleship. "Fellowship" with Jesus or the Spirit (which could also be understood in various ways) is mentioned five times, generally in the opening or closing of letters, and with little clarifying context. Are there other words in the Bible that might express the concept of relationship with God?
[+/-] Genocide |
I've often been troubled by Bible stories about genocide. It seems like a good portion of the Old Testament is devoted to stories about the God wiping out entire nations - men, women and children - either through the Israelites or other means. I've been told that killing the children of wicked nations was actually an act of mercy, because if they were allowed to grow up in such a corrupt society they would certainly become evil themselves, and God would be forced to judge them for their wickedness. This explanation has never sat well with me, for a number of reasons.
1. The Old Testament really doesn't include the concepts of heaven and hell. The idea of people being damned for their evil actions or unbelief is definitely post-Old Testament. And the idea of an "age of accountability" before which children are not responsible for their actions is arguably post-New Testament. So, at least from the Israelites' perspective, genocide couldn't have been about saving children from God's wrath. In fact, as far as I can tell, being wiped out is the ultimate expression of God's wrath in the Old Testament.
2. The idea that killing babies is merciful is pretty hard for me to swallow. Couldn't they have rescued and raised as Israelites? Wouldn't this have been far more merciful? Besides, this thinking would seem to support to euthanasia and the abortion of disabled babies, which I think most Christians who defend OT genocide would oppose.
3. If it was merciful to eradicate an "evil" race of people back then, is it still merciful today? Would it have been merciful to wipe out the Germans in World War 2, or the Soviets in the Cold War? If this sounds absurd in the modern world, why was it less absurd back then? (See this post.) What was it about the Amalekites and the Edomites that made them so irredeemable? Has humankind really progressed so much since ancient times, that societies were far more evil then than even the worse ones today, or that such societies were beyond help then, whereas now they often improve dramatically in just a few years? (So much for humanity being in decline.)
4. How can we say that entire nations, meaning every single person within them, deserved God's wrath? Were there really no good men and women among them? (And if so, what has changed? Why are there no purely evil nations today?) Why would God use such a blunt instrument as war to bring judgment to evildoers? Why not just strike the guilty ones dead? Throughout the Old Testament God punishes innocent people for the sins of their neighbors or kings. How is this just?
5. There is a great deal of evidence in the OT that as the king goes, so goes the nation. Good kings, both Jewish and Gentile, lead their people to righteousness and obedience, and wicked kings lead them to idolatry and depravity, generally with very little resistance. And yet it is usually the king's subjects who bear the brunt of God's wrath. (See 1 Chron 21, especially v.17.) Why? If God felt the need to bring an end to a nations wickedness, couldn't he have killed the wicked king and replace him with a righteous one, a la Saul and David? Not only would this be more just (or at least, more merciful) but it would increase the number of righteous nations, rather than simply decreasing the number of unrighteous ones. And if God determines who becomes king (as Jesus and Paul seem to think) how can He punish the people when the leader He gives them leads them astray?
6. God makes a point of saying that the Israelites were no better than the nations they conquered, and the prophets tell us they even surpassed other nations in wickedness. But God is patient with Israel, because of a covenant made with their forefather Abraham. (Another covenant, with David, allows a dynasty of almost entirely wicked kings to rule Judah for centuries. These kings lead Judah into great evil, and the people of Judah ultimately suffer the consequences of their kings' actions. Likewise Israel is scattered forever because of their wicked kings.) If God can be patient with Israel, ultimately redeeming them and never ceasing to love them, why does he not do this for other nations? We like the idea that God loves every person equally and immeasurably. The OT demonstrates (and states explicitly) that God loved (loves?) Israel more than others. Why? Surely it is not a special genetic trait of the Israelites that they are redeemable, whereas the best possible fate for other wicked nations is to be annihilated quickly, to save their descendants from God's wrath. I think we must admit that God could have dealt much more mercifully with wicked gentile nations. If annihilation is a mercy, it is a small mercy, like that of a judiciary system which kills convicts who could be rehabilitated, and sees itself as merciful for sparing them still crueler punishments.
7. I'm not aware of any Biblical mention of genocide as an act of mercy. On the contrary, it is generally portrayed as an outpouring of God's wrath. I doubt that the author of Psalm 137 was writing out of compassion for Babylonian babies.
There are other arguments in defense of the supposedly God-ordered OT genocides, most of which I find similarly unconvincing, but which I will not deal with here. If you'd like to take a look at some of the Biblical stories of genocide and commands to carry out genocide, here are a few: Num 31, Deut 2, 7, 20, Josh 10, 11 (note v.20), 1 Sam 15, 27, Est 9. Of course circumstances differ, and some of these genocides may be easier to excuse than others (some may not even be genocides in the strictest sense) but mercy - for children or anyone else - doesn't seem to have much to do with any of these cases.
1 comment:
[+/-] Why Parables? |
In church the other day we looked at the three parables in Luke 15: the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son. What struck me about them was their differences, specifically the difference between how sheep, coins, and sons are lost and found. A sheep is a dumb animal that wanders off, a coin is misplaced by the owner, and a son rebels. Similarly, the shepherd searches for the sheep and the woman searches the coin, but the father waits for the son to return on his own. Is one parable more accurate than the others?
It's interesting that Jesus apparently told these three stories in one sitting, to illustrate the same concept. Why three stories? Why not just one? Maybe he was using repetition to reinforce one main point, and maybe we shouldn't look too closely at the details. An analogy can only be taken so far. (As a friend pointed out, we shouldn't conclude from the shepherd analogy that God intends to shear, sell, or eat us.) But how far? Maybe we should look no further than the punchline of all three parables: that God cares about the salvation of the lost more than about those who don't need to be saved.
But even this doesn't sit well us. Strangely, all three parables include a non-lost group: other coins, sheep, or a son who needed no saving, which doesn't fit at all with our theology. Also, all three stories end completely happily - every sheep, coin, and son is found and restored - which will bother non-universalists. So maybe all we can draw from these stories is that God really cares about lost people and wants them back. (Which makes it sound like everyone start off on good terms with God, and then goes astray. Even this won't be acceptable for some.)
In the light of this, it seems to me that we can't have much confidence that any given element of a parable is accurate or true. Maybe you really like, for example, the way the Father runs out and embraces his son and gives him a ring. It doesn't seem like we have any reason for thinking that this part of the story is in any sense true to life.
This makes me wonder if these stories are less like allegories and more like ink-blot tests. You see what you want to see in them, and you ignore the rest as narrative dressing. So why would Jesus so often use such an imprecise and easily misunderstood method to convey important theological truths?
I don't have a really good answer for this. (I certainly would have done it differently.) But it's interesting to me that Jesus tends to revert to storytelling when he speaks about theology, as opposed to moral issues, about which he tends to speak more plainly. Today we generally try to be as clear as possible about doctrine. We favor creeds, worded as carefully as legal documents, to stories. Jesus never gave a creed. His method seems designed to encourage diverse interpretations. I don't know exactly what to make of this. Does Jesus place little value on orthodoxy? Does he want to hide the truth from those who don't deserve it? Or is it that theological realities are so ineffable that it is better to hint at them in vague stories than to try to pin them down with the precision of a creed?
2 comments:
[+/-] Shane's Reply |
Those who read Jeff's comments following my recent post on The Irresistible Revolution may be interested to know that I emailed Shane Clairborne about his concerns, and he sent me a response. He said he chose to publish with Zondervan intentionally, as an act of "revolutionary subordination" (John Yoder's phrase). He didn't want to "preach to the choir", but to mainstream evangelical culture, and Zondervan was willing to publish what he wanted to say. Similarly, the cover is designed to be something that might catch the eyes of kids within the Christian subculture (Shane was once one of them). He also says they wanted his face on the cover, but "I told them that it had to look like I was hiding behind the cover, could not show over half my face... And that there had to be a collage of other beautiful faces on the inside cover as you open it up."
3 comments:
I feel all sheepish now...
i still have yet to read said book... perhaps over Christmas. Although I am already pledged to read The Brothers Karamazov which may take up a significant portion of the holidays...
[+/-] Women and Defective Levites |
1 comment:
[+/-] The Detour |
Here's an interesting one: compare the events following Jesus' birth as recorded in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. Luke says Jesus' family journeyed to Jerusalem shortly after Jesus' birth, and went from there to Nazareth. Matthew says they first returned to Bethlehem, then fled to Egypt - a four year detour - before settling in Nazareth out of fear of Herod's successor.
That's a little odd, isn't it? Can we harmonize these two accounts? The key verse seems to be Luke 2:39:
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.This verse seems to implicitly deny the return to Bethlehem and flight to Egypt, but my NIV Study Bible tells me that Luke simply decided not to record it. So the verse could be read:
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they [went back to Bethlehem, stayed there for close to two years, were visited by Magi, fled to Egypt and stayed another two years, then] returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.This is a bit much for me, but those who need the Bible to be contradiction-free probably won't have difficulty with it. I think Luke would have to say something like "they did not return to Bethlehem, nor go to Egypt at any time, but went immediately Nazareth, where they lived until Jesus was grown" to sway those dead-set on inerrancy. It seems to me that such an explicit contradiction is unlikely to appear in any text, and if you were to interpret the texts of other religions so generously, you would find that a great many of them are also "inerrant" or "without contradictions".
Furthermore, if you insist that Luke has simply made a misleading omission here, it seems to me that you must allow for the possibility of other such omissions. This opens up all kinds of possibilities that a more straight-forward reading of the Bible seems to preclude, because anything that text does not explicitly deny could have happened. To me, this seems to defeat the purpose of having an inerrant scripture.
2 comments:
Reading Matthew by itself, one would come to the conclusion that Jesus' parents lived in Bethlehem from before he was born until he was about two years old, before they fled to Egypt. The wise men visited him in a house (Matt 2:11), and Herod's order to kill all the infants suggests the time frame between his birth and the visit of the Magi.
Reading Luke by itself, one would get the impression that none of the politically important people noticed Jesus's birth. Luke does not mention either King Herod or the Magi. Yet the holy people at the Temple -- Simeon and Anna -- immediately recognized him.
I think each story has a valuable subtext that we can easily miss if we try to conflate the two or treat them as mere history.
Matthew points to Jesus' birth being a threat to the established order, even to the point of bringing non-Jews into the Kingdom.
In Luke, the birth story hints at what kind of Messiah Jesus will be: He was born to be a spiritual leader, not a political one.
I think both of these messages are true, regardless of whether we can reconstruct the actual historical details (which I don't think we can).
Some inerrantists claim that to deny the historical veracity of a Bible passage is to treat it as a fairy tale. I've found the opposite to be true: In downplaying the importance of history, we can open ourselves to the deeper meanings of the text. (And I think this is true even of those passages that are historical.)
[+/-] The Irresistible Revolution |
This is an excellent book. I hesitate to say that Shane Claiborne has got Christianity right, or that this book represents the true understanding of Jesus' teachings - I'm becoming less confident about such statements. But I think what it advocates is a very good understanding of Christian discipleship, and I mean good in the sense of being of great practical benefit to both the practitioner and the surrounding world.
I'm starting to have an understanding of Christianity as far less about what you believe or what you feel or what you do on Sunday morning, and far more about how you live your life. (Again, I'm not saying this is the correct way to understand Christianity, but it resonates with me.) And I think the way-of-life Christianity that I'm draw to looks a lot like what Shane describes here.
The second half of the book gets talking a lot about politics, and war specifically, and I found it a little disappointing. It's not that I think these things shouldn't be spoken of, or that they're completely out of place with what he said earlier. But he has a few contentious points (eg. "all war is bad") which he keeps coming back to but never really supports. It was definitely thought-provoking, but not very persuasive.
Nonetheless, this is an excellent and very challenging book, and I strongly recommend it. I have a copy you could borrow, but this may be a good one to buy for yourself. For one thing, he's giving away all the profits.
7 comments:
1. The faux-cardboard cover. I am suspicious of faux-cardboard. Then again, he probably had no choice in the final production look of the book.
2. The book is published by Zondervan. I know, I know, I've always been the first to defend Zondervan's publication of the NIV. Nevertheless, the fact that Zondervan and FOX News are owned by the same guy is at least disconcerting. In particular, one might excuse Zondervan's capitalistic, ultra-right-wing owner for publishing the Bible (a book that, admittedly, has been diversely interpreted throughout the centuries, and which one would be hardpressed to say adheres firmly to one camp or the other -- not to mention: it's always a bestseller); the fact that Zondervan is publishing this zealous appeal to the simple life (complete with faux-cardboard) does seem a little strange, doesn't it?
Then again, I haven't read the book. Those are just my immediate impressions, which I recognize might be completely addressed and assuaged after a quick read through.
I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding my concerns, J., as you have read the book.
A friend of mine who wears a "war is bad" button recently explained to me HIS difference between "war is bad" and "war is wrong". The first statement means all war is undesirable and harmful (which he and I agree with) and the second that all war is morally unjustifiable (which we disagree with).
The Bible also seems to suggest that some wars are morally justifiable.
I don't know a aweful lot about Zondervan (or publishing in general) but I'm far more concerned with the sincerity of the author than the sincerity of the publisher. It's quite likely that they put out books such as this purely for the money, but this is a fact of life in a capitalist world.
"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."
Of course, I can think of a few reasons that a raging leftie like this guy would choose Zondervan to publish with. For example, if he publishes with Zondervan, he will guarantee himself a spot in every Christian bookstore across the continent. And the people who go to that store are precisely the ones who need to hear his message. So, if one were to give him the benefit of a doubt, I suppose that could be a good reason for choosing the publisher he did.
I'm willing to give him that benefit; I'm just a little nervous when people make claims to simplicity and being radical (root-ness, as he tells us himself), and those claims are backed up with: raggedy "hard-core" fonts, faded print, strange book shapes, faux-cardboard (it's there man, regardless of whether he chose it or not, it's there and it's a problem), and pictures of the author hanging out in front of graffiti. As that famous Edmontonian, Marshall McLuhan, once said: The medium is the message.
That being said, your citation of Paul is a point well taken. The truth of this "irresistable revolution" will reveal itself even in spite of the trappings of a socio-economic system that exists as one of the primary obstacles to simplicity.
I'm inclined to forgive poor packaging (unless it includes the word "Xtreme", which is unpardonable) so long as the content is there, and I tend to think the author wouldn't have given it much thought. Maybe he did. It would be interesting to hear why he went with Zondervan, which does seem a bit strange now that you mention it. I just sent him an email, so maybe we'll find out.
If you're afraid that the cover/publisher reflects what's inside, my opinion is that it doesn't. If you think that the cover/publisher is odd and perhaps a bit hypocritical considering what's inside, you may be right.
I should read it.
[+/-] What is Truth? |
I had a chat with a Muslim guy the other day. He was very nice - friendly, engaging, passionate. He was raised as a Catholic but converted to Islam because it made more sense to him. He firmly believes that Islam is the truth, and that this will become evident to anyone who earnestly seeks truth and asks God for guidance.
This is troubling for me. The Mormon missionaries I met the recently are also certain of their beliefs, and are certain that any sincere and humble seeker will come to see the truth of their beliefs. A great many Christians believe the same thing about their beliefs. The same is true for many Atheists, many Muslims, and presumably many people of nearly any other religion. I imagine there are even Agnostics who believe that any honest, thinking person will eventually become an Agnostic. (Of course there are people within each religion who disagree.)
Most of the confident religious people I've talked to (I mean confident that they're right and everyone can know it) are not particularly troubled by this. Sure, they know that lots of people from all religious camps are just as confident, but their own reasons for confidence are so great that they can't really imagine being mistaken. I don't fault them for this, nor do I consider myself somehow beyond this elevation of personal experience over that of others. But seeing this, I can't help but be discouraged about my quest. I feel like I may be able to find some place I fit in the religious world, but to find truth? That is beyond any of us.
This whole concept isn't really new to me, but sometimes I like to forget it. To know truth is a hard dream to let go.
8 comments:
I think I agree. Truth is beyond us. We can get little pieces of truth, but never the whole thing. Thinking that one has the whole truth seems rather naive to me.
this troubles me.
it troubles me that everyone (including myself) feels that they are right and everyone else should agree with them. This central fact of life seems to put us all beyond help. I mean, if all of us think we're right, if there is anything that IS in fact right, the chances of most of us, or any of us for that matter, actually being RIGHT is very very slim.
yes, this bothers me
I guess for myself, I find I have to accept things as truth, even though I may not have overwhelming evidence in my mind. I accept the Bible as truth, for example, but would have a hard time proving it to another. Sometimes we have to "pick a side", as it were, and get on with living. I'd rather focus on doing what I'm reasonably sure is "good" instead of waiting to be sure.
(I'm not accusing you of complacency or not-good-doing, please don't get that impression.)
Anny: I'll likely look into baha'i at some point. I think they have a group at my university, so they shouldn't be hard to find.
[+/-] John's Baptism |
From my "Wacky stuff in the Bible" file:
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"This might not strike you as strange if you're charismatic, but if you're not, it probably should. To paraphrase, Paul meets a group of "disciples" (we prefer the term "believers" - why, do you think?) and asks them if they've received the Spirit of God. The disciples are pretty sure they haven't, in fact, they've never heard of the Spirit.
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.-Acts 19:1-6
(I think the idea of being indwelt by the essence of God would sound a little odd to someone who'd never heard of it before. It would probably also sound like something very significant, and very difficult to miss - not something you'd have to tell someone about, as in "If you're a Christian you have the Holy Spirit", but something you in-your-face obvious, as in "I see you're filled with God's Spirit; you must be a Christian")
Paul's reaction is, "If you don't have the Spirit, then just whose disciples are you?" They say John's. "That explains it," Paul says, "John was all about repentance. John called people to turn from their sins because the chosen one was coming. Well good news: he's come!" Evidently these people were persuaded (persuaded how, I wonder) and were baptized in Jesus' name. Once they'd proclaimed their devotion to Jesus (Baptism, I'm told, was the official way to declare your discipleship to someone), Paul lays his hands on them, and "the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied."
All of this sounds pretty weird to me. I'm not sure what it all means. But what it seems to say is that there's a difference between repentance and receiving the Spirit, and that receiving the Spirit is very palpable and dramatic. The whole thing sounds strikingly similar to what John himself says in Matt 3:11: "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
2 comments:
[+/-] Old photo! |
Q. Hey Jacob, have you always been awesome?
A. Yes, I have always been awesome.
Sorry, I just found this in my closet and I couldn't resist. That's me on a kindergarten field trip, back when I was cute (and slightly less arrogant).
3 comments:
Yuck, I don't think I could hold a snake around my neck. I'd probably get sick or faint or just die.
[+/-] The Great Banquet - JHV |
This is a follow-up to my previous post, "The Plan Bs". Some of my readers felt that the details of the story which I take issue with may not have been intended to be so closely examined. They suggested that we're meant to focus only on the major point of the story - seemingly that the Jews rejected Jesus - and not the details, such as which guests the host seems to prefer, and his motivation for "dragging in" his B-list guests. I think this position is valid, particularly in the light of other, more popular Bible stories, but in my view the distateful elements of this story are quite central, and it seems pretty unlikely that they would have been tossed in just to flesh out the story, particularly if the theology they insinuate was as abhorrent to the teller as it is to us.
To demonstrate how easily these ugly details could have been left out of the story or altered, I've re-written the parable:
For there was once a man who threw a great dinner party and invited everyone in town - rich and poor, old friends and strangers alike. When it was time for dinner, he sent out his servant to the invited guests, saying, "Come on in; the food's on the table."Like any metaphor, this one surely has it's flaws and limitations, but I think it manages not to suggest anything seriously problematic about God or salvation. Would it have been so hard for Jesus to tell the story this way, instead of making salvation for the gentiles (or whoever are represented by the replacements) seem like an afterthought or a less-than-ideal plan B, only made possible by the rejection of the favored guests?
Many hungry people came, many outcasts, and many who had never met the host before. But few (not none) of his wealthy friends showed up.
Some made excuses. One said, "I bought a piece of property and need to look it over. Send my regrets."
Another said, "I just bought five teams of oxen, and I really need to check them out. Send my regrets."
And yet another said, "I just got married and need to get home to my wife."
Others expressed their indignation that the host would invite screw-ups, paupers and whores to a great banquet. They wouldn't be caught dead in the company of such people.
The master was saddened to hear that his friends had turned him down, but delighted to see the poor and the outcasts flocking in.
"Very well," he told his servant, "let the rejects be welcomed, let the hungry be filled, and let the snobs go without."- Luke 14:16-24 (Jacob Heretical Version)
10 comments:
It's not that Jesus did not care about the "B-list" guests; it's that the societal and religious leaders of the day did not care about them. And those very people who were pushed to the margins were the ones who would be replacing the people to whom Jesus was speaking. The parable was a warning.
If we don't identify with the "A-list" guests who ultimately get left out, the story doesn't have the same impact. Is there a way we can apply the warning to ourselves?
Anyhow, this sucks. I wish the bible was easy to take down, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised when it isn't. IT's like bad medicine sometimes.
I will have to give some serious thought to this passage.
thanks
I think the point was that their "insider" status was coming to an end.
Beyond that, there's always the possibility that part of this parable does not go back to Jesus' own words, but is the product of the early church -- which saw itself as a replacement for Israel.
The gospel writers were not above taking liberties with the wording of Jesus' teaching: Compare Mark 13:1-37, Matthew 24:1-44, and Luke 21:5-36, for example. These are ostensibly the same speech, given only a few days before Jesus was crucified. But notice how each author adds details -- or subtracts them.
It is possible that the details about the original invited guests being excluded is Luke's addition to the text.
Finally, Luke's style is to include pairs of stories on the same subject. This one in 14:16-24 is paired with a previous banquet story in 14:8-14. In the first parable, the consequences are far less dramatic. Maybe the ultimate lesson here is simply that we shouldn't rely on our favored status to save us.
Or perhaps I'm way off base.
I didn't notice any significant differences in the passages you mentioned. Can you point them out?
The passages all begin with Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple. But they diverge almost immediately. Luke simply says, "They asked him..." while Matthew and Mark add the detail that it was the disciples who asked, privately. Significant? Does it matter who asked? Apparently it did to two gospel writers but not to the other.
And the question they asked: "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?" according to Mark. Luke has something similar. But Matthew changes it: "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
Matthew's version fits better with what follows ("Many will come in my name...", so perhaps it would be better to say that Luke and Mark omitted this phrase. But why? Is the omission significant?
And what does Matthew mean by the "end of the age?" The age of the temple? That's what the context suggests, although many Christians have interpreted this passage in terms of the end of the world.
Skip ahead just a few verses and you'll find in Mark: "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs. As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations. When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved."
Matthew expands a little: "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs. Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come."
What's this about falling away? Isn't that the same sort of "who's in/who's out" issue that you're objecting to in Luke's banquet parable? Couldn't this passage have been told without the "falling away", the betrayal, the "love growing cold"? The answer is obvious: Yes. Mark told it without those elements.
Luke expands, too: "Then he said to them, 'Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and plagues; and there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven. But before all this occurs, they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will give you an opportunity to testify. So make up your minds not to prepare your defense in advance; for I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, by relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. You will be hated by all because of my name. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your souls.'"
What is a warning in Mark and Matthew becomes words of comfort in Luke. Furthermore, Luke sees the persecution as more an opportunity than a danger. Luke's addition "but not a hair of your head will perish" directly contradicts Matthew's addition "[they] will put you to death."
I could go on, but I think this is sufficient to show that the gospel writers did, in fact, change Jesus's words when they saw the necessity.
Luke also adds the phrase, "for I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict," further changing this from a warning about persecution into words of comfort and opportunity.
It's true that the Jesus' remarks about the end of the age are slightly different in each account, but I think the major elements are the same: wars/famines/plagues, persecution, the spreading of the gospel, and betrayal/falling away.
I don't see "falling away" here as the same issue as is raised in the parable. In this case Jesus is saying individual people will choose to give up when faced with persecution, whereas the parable suggests that there are (or were) essentially two groups of people: God's first choices and his seconds. One speaks of personal failure; the other suggests divine favoritism.
Luke's statement that "not a hair of your head will perish" is clearly a figure of speech (Jesus is not suggesting that Christians are exempt from baldness). It's true that conventionally this metaphor would be understood to mean that we'll suffer no physical harm whatsoever, but in this case, this interpretation is clearly absurd (and not just because of its immediate context - we're talking about the guy who wrote Acts, which extensively documents the physical suffering of contemporary Christians). Luke must be thinking of the spiritual safety of those who endure.
The bit about "words of wisdom" is very close in spirit to what Mark says about being given words to say. Matthew omits this encouragement (I'm sure all the gospel writers trim Jesus' speeches as they see fit, and leave the great majority of them out entirely) but he is not wholly pessimistic.
I'm sure that the writers' biases significantly effected what they included, what they left out, what they emphasized and even what they remembered of Jesus' words and actions. But I don't believe they intentionally twisted or misquoted his words, that is, I believe they were at least as sincere in their desire to accurately convey Jesus' message (as they understood it) as I am, and probably a great deal more so. If we don't trust the Gospel writers (to the extent that we trust any fallible, human historian) who can say what Jesus really taught?
Maybe another example will help illustrate what I am saying. In the verses immediately following my previous example, Mark has, "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand)," Matthew says virtually the same thing, "So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand)," but Luke paraphrases it: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know its desolation has come near." Luke, writing to Gentiles, did not assume the reader would understand, so he changed the words to something that might be more clear to his audience. It seems pretty clear to me that, in doing so, Luke has chosen different words than Jesus chose. But that's OK. Sometimes a paraphrase is the best way to translate the overall message.
Now, going back to my example from my previous comment:
First, upon reflection I think you're right about "not a hair of your head will perish" being a metaphor for spiritual safety.
But that doesn't remove the tension between Matthew and Luke. Whereas you say that the major elements are all the same in these parallel passages, I see one important difference: In Luke, there is nothing about falling away. This changes the whole tone of the message.
Jesus's message according to Matthew is, essentially, Be on guard, because persecutions will come and many will fall away. Jesus's message according to a straightforward reading of Luke is, essentially, Don't worry even though persecutions will come, because you'll be OK in the end.
Maybe, because these two gospels were written to different groups of people, each contained the message the target audience needed to hear. That wouldn't be without precedent: The apostle Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 that he tailored the details of his preaching to the audience.
But in that tailoring, sometimes words have to be left out (as you pointed out), or rephrased. In that rephrasing, new words can be introduced. It's a simple fact that the gospel writers sometimes put words in Jesus's mouth that he did not originally say. I'm not saying this out of a desire to create my own Jesus, nor do I believe the writers were being devious, disloyal, or unfaithful to Jesus's teachings as they understood them.
So, back to the banquet parable, it's possible that the detail about some being left out might have been introduced by Luke to warn the readers that they couldn't rest on their (supposed) superiority. If they did, they would end up being left out.
I'm not saying that's the right interpretation, or even the most likely. I'm just not willing to exclude the possibility just yet.
Luke does say "By your endurance you will gain your souls", but your right that he doesn't speak explicitly about people falling away.
I'm not sure why Luke, a gentile writing to a gentile, would want to add in a warning to smug Jews, and the inclusion of a similar (not identical, and much darker) story in Matthew 22 suggest to me that the basic points of the story, including the prefered guests, are original. But I agree that we can't be sure.
[+/-] The Plan Bs |
This parable really bothers me:
For me this raises all kinds of questions: Is the banquet hall of God not big enough for everyone? Did God make a guest list of certain people he wanted at His table? Was this list made up of privileged people - the type who can buy property and oxen - and not "the misfits and homeless and wretched"? (This seems strange in light of what Jesus said immediately before.) Were religious Jews God's intended guests, and was the acceptance of sinners and Samaritans His plan B? (Paul seems to think so.) Did God have no interest in those who really need a good meal until His well-fed friends shunned him? Did He invite - or "drag in", another big theological issue - the poor and ragged out of kindness and love, or did He want to fill His table simply to thumb his nose at the wealthy no-shows? If there had been enough bums in the city streets, would He ever have sent his servant to those in the country? And what of those who were neither invited initially nor found in the servant's last-minute scramble?"For there was once a man who threw a great dinner party and invited many. When it was time for dinner, he sent out his servant to the invited guests, saying, 'Come on in; the food's on the table.'
"Then they all began to beg off, one after another making excuses. The first said, 'I bought a piece of property and need to look it over. Send my regrets.'
"Another said, 'I just bought five teams of oxen, and I really need to check them out. Send my regrets.'
"And yet another said, 'I just got married and need to get home to my wife.'
"The servant went back and told the master what had happened. He was outraged and told the servant, 'Quickly, get out into the city streets and alleys. Collect all who look like they need a square meal, all the misfits and homeless and wretched you can lay your hands on, and bring them here.'
"The servant reported back, 'Master, I did what you commanded - and there's still room.'
"The master said, 'Then go to the country roads. Whoever you find, drag them in. I want my house full! Let me tell you, not one of those originally invited is going to get so much as a bite at my dinner party.'"- Luke 14:16-24 (Message)
On all these points the story seems dramatically at odds with our cherished beliefs and intuitions about God. I find it particularly hard to believe that the prostitutes and sinners Jesus so radically and graciously embraced are God's plan Bs, his second choices for salvation. On the other hand, such a view wouldn't be wholly at odds with scripture. What do you make of this?
I've struggled with the theology of Jesus' parables before (fleshed out here), and sometimes I wonder if I subject them to too much scrutiny. Maybe they're just crude, off-the-cuff stories meant to explain a basic point without concern for any of the peripheral details. Do you think the only conclusion we're meant to draw from this story is that God is gracious to ne'er-do-wells? Couldn't a story be told that illustrates this point without all the nasty and (hopefully) misleading details of this one?
Maybe the parable isn't about what we think it is. I know, for example, that "God's kingdom" doesn't always mean the place we go when we die, and that many Biblical statements that seem clear and straightforward to my ears are understood differently by many who are more knowledgeable than myself. And I'm sure there are many who can explain this difficult parable in the light of clearer passages, or, to be cynical, passages that more clearly corroborate our cherished dogmas. Perhaps the real lesson to be learned is that Jesus meant for his parables to confuse people.
8 comments:
but that's just me. i'd like to think that it makes sense, & i'd hope that such a perspective is sufficient for you to 'accept' ...if even tentatively, but since i know you too well, it will probably just raise the 'that's just a convenient excuse' flag in your head :). but oh well. maybe my expectations are flawed?
love ya,
ℓℯ
I think that the "privaleged" were the jews who were God's chosen people... privaleged therefore, and the first to have salvation presented to them... who also rejected it(Christ). I think it was God's plan all along to extent salvation to all(gentiles and jews).. and I must admit that I don't understand why the jews got the first go at it... but that's how I understand it.
So I don't (want to) think that the "poor and bedragled" are God's second choice.
I, myself, have a hesitancy in looking too deeply into the parables. I think about all the allegories and parallels and metaphors that I like so much... and none of them are perfect. YOu can only take them so far, right? So I think the same may go for Jesus parables. On one hand, I do believe they were divine... so I suppose there IS the possibility that they were flawless, straight-across parallels that you can take to the nth degree... but at the same time it seems scary to do that... with a story. I dunno.
And yes, I think it is VERY possible that this parable, as well as the rest of them, do NOT in fact mean what we think they do. God is much bigger than me. I can't fit him into by head, and I don't expect that his stories are much different. Far-surpassing. I imagine that these things are all far simpler, far more complicated, more straight-forward and more endless than I can ever contemplate.
I think the point of this story is that some people are too busy/occupied/whatever to do the will of God... with perhaps a side point being that our posessions/jobs/whatever can get in the way.
If anyone's unclear on why I think the grusome details of this story may have been included deliberatly (not thrown in thoughtlessly as filler), I could probably write an adjusted parable that has the same basic point but doesn't smack of divine favoritism, insincere philanthropy... and temporality.
[+/-] Phun with Philosophy! |
I recently discovered The Philosopher's Magazine Online, which includes some very exciting (to me) "games". I recommend all except "Strange New World" and the interactive philosophy quiz. The games deal with some pretty relevant and interesting topics, such as God, ethics, and consistency, and I think they'd be fairly accessible for those without a background in philosophy, although I'm probably a bad judge of that. The activities may be particularly worthwhile for those who have a feeling that philosophy is so much horse poo*, those who just want an introduction to some of the big questions it addresses, and those who think they're right about everything. Check 'er out.
*I don't want to give the impression that none of philosophy (or what we call philosophy) is horse poo. In the words of Cicero, "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it." But a lot of it's hella good.
4 comments:
Clever, Adroit, dexterous, skilful, talented.
What do you understand by intelligence? What is the difference between being intelligent and being clever? Can a person be intelligent without being clever and visa versa? The current IQ test has been used (with modifications) for over 100 years. The average IQ score is 100. An IQ score of 160 places you into the genius category and a score of >200 is categorised as unmeasurable genius. Computers are becoming ever more powerful and sophisticated. Is a computer intelligent? No, it will never be able to comprehend and understand. It might appear to do so but that will be an illusion. It will only ever be a programmed machine. Even if it is programmed to generate its own coding it will do so as an uncomprehending programmed manner. It will never think (I think, therefore I am). It will only appear to be as clever as the men or women that programmed it. If you do not comprehend and understand this then you are not intelligent (having understanding). There are young children (seven to ten years old) who have genius IQs of 160-170. They have above normal learning abilities and talents. However, like an autistic savant they are clever not intelligent. They see the world in a simplistic child like way. One of them may write music and play the violin to a professional standard. Another might be able to do complex mathematical problems. However, they do not have understanding. You would not expect complex philosophical insight and understanding from any one of them. The IQ test should be called the CQ test (cleverness quotient) for it has everything to do with measuring cleverness and nothing to do with measuring intelligence.
The casual misuse of the word philosopher shows the complete misunderstanding of it. When I listen to someone talking about another person’s philosophy, I know I am talking to someone who does not understand. It is as if you can all have different absolute truths, which of course is nonsense. To be a philosopher requires you to be intelligent and have a doubting curious mind. To use observation and logic putting misleading emotions aside and being able to accept the unacceptable. If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things. Rene Descartes
The first precept was never to accept a thing as true until I knew it as such without a single doubt. Rene Descartes
As for accepting a thing as true without a doubt, never, you must always be ready to change and update.
What are you (should be) searching for as a philosopher? The answer is the absolute truth about everything. From astronomy to quantum mechanics. From what is absolute love to the nature of God? From what is consciousness to who, why and what you are. From what is real and what is not. From religion to madness. You do not have to be clever to be a philosopher but you do have to be observant and have a good general understanding of every subject under the sun. Do you have a desire to measure up? My intelligent guess is no..smile. A simple question for you so called philosophers..how many neurons in the human brain. If you do not know, you will never be a philosopher. It is not the knowing the answer that is important but why you wanted to know.
Robert robert77@fsmail.net
You say that 20 feet is the radios of your world. You confine yourself by both the distance (20ft) and the word world. The world is an 8,000-mile diameter ball of molten rock and iron with a thin unstable floating crust. It circles a star travelling at 18 miles each second through the dark vacuum of space. The radius of my existence is beyond and outside the know universe. Even the blue whales world is thousands of miles in radius. Did you know that your body is made up of approximately 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 unthinking atoms. If that is true (which it is), how is it that you are aware and can think? How curious are you? What beliefs will you be prepared (and want to) to abandon in the search for absolute truths? If the answer is not everything then I suggest with insight and knowledge for you to carry on as you are now and be satisfied with your 20ft radius..smile.
Robert robert77@fsmail.net
Let me give you an example of the way a philosopher reasons using only logic to come to a correct conclusion. You might have seen the film Alien. At one point in the film, the android Ash describes the alien as being perfect and uses words of admiration in describing it. Would YOU use similar words to describe that alien if it was in front of you? Now consider the lion or tiger. Both would devour you in cold blood without a thought for you. Would you want to be described as a lion, a predator with no intelligence that stalks and kills? The true philosopher is not fooled by emotions. He/she knows that both the lion and tiger are ugly (as is the alien). But you would have to turn aside from a lifetime of being told that they are both beautiful and worthwhile. My guess is that you cannot do so..smile. If you cannot you will never be a philosopher.
Robert robert77@fsmail.net
The profile of God is of an eternal entity morally perfect and wise with absolute power to do whatever it/he desires and is the maker of everything. It /he desires/demands to be loved, admired, worshiped, knelt before and obeyed for reasons of the preceding qualities. Consider how puerile this is. If you were the father of a young boy or girl you would not say ‘Because I am wiser than you and can do many things that you can not and was responsible for you being here kneel down and worship me’. If you did so, you would be mad. That is absolutely true of the biblical God. Open your eyes and think. At this point, I should point out that the biblical Satan desires the same as God that is for you to kneel down, worship, and admire him.
Worship (OE weordhscipe (WORTH, -SHIP)) worthiness, merit, recognition, honour & respect, reverent homage or service paid to God, adoration or devotion, adore as divine etc, etc.
For the purpose of this discussion let us suppose that an entity (God or whoever..the whoever is very important) designed and made/fabricated the Universe and everything in it. Remembering that he is perfect in every way; would he want or desire to make anything that was flawed? Or being God would not all of his works be perfect as he supposedly is? Consider your body. How extremely fallible it is in so many ways. Your reproductive areas (the penis, vagina etc) are right next to the part of your body that excretes waste matter (faeces). Would you design them so aesthetically wrong? If you were living from before 200 years in the past how disgusting it must have been. Even now if society broke down and you had no soap or toilet paper think of how disgusting and smelly you would be. You live on a ball of very hot iron and molten rock with a thin unstable crust. It has a thin atmosphere and is continuously bombarded by radiation from the sun which if it was not for the earth’s magnetic field would destroy all life. This ball (the planet earth) travels at 18 miles each second through the black vacuum of space in a circle round the sun. Consider how bizarre and grotesque this is. Ask yourself; is the mind of God bizarre and grotesque?
The whole of Gods creation is ugly and flawed, any intelligent person can see that. Consider that it might be deliberate maliciousness on Gods part.
To be evil, malicious, harmful and a liar means that you are flawed (mad). Would a morally perfect entity (God) make anything that could become so? And even if he did, would he not remove it instantly if it did?
Putting aside the naïve, puerile fairy story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden consider the free will argument that religious people use to excuse the badness/ugliness of man and consider your position. A person that lies, cheats, is malicious or amoral HAS NO FREE WILL. A mad flawed person does not have intelligence (understanding) or free will. He/she might be clever (most successful criminals are) but does not have free will. There is no logic in the argument of free will. Does the lion, tiger, leopard, eagle, crocodile, and shark, have free will when they stalk, kill and devour their prey? Does the suicide bomber, the person/soldier killing, raping or torturing, the embezzler, all the ones exploiting others, the thugs and uncaring criminals have free will? No, they do not. They do not have intelligence (understanding) or free will. According to the so-called Holy writing who is responsible? Where does the buck stop? If you are religious, the answer is God. He is supposedly both all-powerful and perfect in righteousness. How and why does this supposedly perfect entity for a microsecond allow all the evil and badness?
Consider that we are made in Gods image (Genesis 1:27). If we are corruptible and flawed..so is God. If God has perfect wisdom and is all powerful (as we attribute to him) he would have known and understood ALL the possibilities that lay ahead. Could you for one moment turn aside if you had the ability to stop a human being from being tortured? God has allowed thousands of years of lies, suffering, torment, degradation, torture, sadness, murder, slavery. NOTHING in this universe or elsewhere can excuse that. If he exists, he is a mad, ugly, a criminal beyond belief.
Why do you not open your eyes?
Pause.
Now you might give the perfect stupid, worthless and puerile reply…God moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. You might say..I have faith. Do you have faith that God will stop you from being robbed? Do you have faith that God will stop you from getting cancer and heal you when you do? Do you have faith that you will not be attacked at any time? Do you have faith that the world is good when it obviously is not? Do you have faith that God will guide all your footsteps and protect you? Do you have faith that the meek will inherit the earth? Do you have faith that Allah will take you to paradise and reward with 72 servile virgins after you blow yourself up and everyone else in your vicinity? Do you have faith that all the bad and evil people will get there comeuppance? Do you have faith that a fictional person will give you an eternity in paradise when you die? Do you have faith when you are dieing of hunger that it is Gods good will for you? Do you have faith that when you are old and alone and your body hardly functions and your memory is almost gone that it is Gods good will for you? Do you have faith when your child/husband/wife is cruelly taken from you that it is Gods good will for you? Do you have faith if you survived the evil Holocaust that it was a good Gods way of punishing/testing you?
If you do, you are like Alice living in an ugly fairytale wonderland.
Robert robert77@fsmail.net
[+/-] A Pickle for the Literalists |
The bulk of this post is an discussion of a chronological disagreement in Genesis, which may or may not interest you. You're welcome to go directly to the last paragraph if you wish - it's the part I really care about.
An interesting point was raised today in my Intro to World Religions class. We were looking at the two Creation accounts in Genesis (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25) and my prof mentioned that the there are chronological differences between them. In the first version, animals are created after plants, then humans (male and female together) after animals. In the second version Adam seems to be created before at least some plants, then animals are created, then Eve. The disagreement seems most clear on the matter of whether the animals were created before or after Adam. The NIV tries to reconcile the two accounts by inserting a "had" into Gen 2:19 ("Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air") whereas most translations simply say "formed". The NIV's interpretation is not impossible - the original Hebrew verbs apparently didn't have tense - but consider the context:
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now [or "so", "then", "and"] the LORD God [had?] formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.- Gen 2:18-22
To paraphrase, God notes that it isn't good for the man to be alone. The solution is to make for him a suitable partner. So either God now creates a variety of potential helpers for man and brings them before him, or God decides that before he creates Adam's helper, He'll task him with naming the thousands of birds and animals he's created so far. Which makes more sense to you?
Similarly, it is possible to understand Gen 2:5 to say that only those plants that require rain or human cultivation had not yet been created, or that they had been created as seeds but had not yet sprouted. But then it would seem that either Adam, who was in a garden full of fruit trees, spent a fair amount of time cultivating and watering crops, or after the fall, undaunted by thorns and toil, he decided to grow every kind of crop he could. Neither seems likely to me. Nor does it seem likely that God, after creating Adam, decided that he wanted him to live in a garden, and that the garden should be in a very specific location where no trees had been created, and accordingly hastened to make there a variety of trees that already existed in other areas. (The creation of a new garden at this point when the constituent trees existed elsewhere seems particularly unlikely if God is on a tight schedule, as I'll discuss in a moment.) More likely God created a garden out of new sorts of fruitful trees and crops now that man (and later animals) existed to nurture and consume them. Or more likely still, Gen 2:5-9 refers to the creation of all plants, which the other creation account places before the creation of man.
One further difficulty in harmonizing the two accounts occurs to me. Assuming that most who wish to do so will also affirm a literal 6 days of creation (which I find problematic for more reasons than I'll list here) it seems that the sixth day of creation in particular was a whirlwind of activity. God creates all land animals (1:24-25), forms Adam from dust (2:7), plants a garden and puts Adam in it (2:8-9), gives him instructions (2:15-17), notes that Adam is alone and needs a helper (2:18), and parades every living bird and beast before Adam to be named (2:19-20. A biologist might be able to guess at how many animals were named and how long it might take, but I can't see even a rush job - quite unlikely for an awestruck man seeing each creature for the first time and assessing it as a companion - taking less than a few hours). Then God puts Adam to sleep, removes a rib, forms a woman out of it, and presents her to Adam (Do you think Adam slept for only a few minutes?) who expresses his approval (2:21-23). Finally, God gives blessings and instructions to the pair (1:28-30). I don't know if it would be possible to do all of this in one day, but supposing it is, why would God be in such a hurry? Apparently because the whole of creation absolutely must be wrapped up before the seventh day in order to set an example for the Hebrews, and everything that wasn't done by the fifth must be crammed into the sixth. It seems to me that God would have planned that better.
My point in all of this is that we ought to recognize that the Bible is a very, very old document from a radically different culture. This is not to say that either or both of the creation accounts - or anything else in the Bible - is untrue (at least in the ways it was intended to be true) but such stories can hardly be expected to conform to our modern cultural and literary conventions. This means that things that might seem like distortions or tall tales to us likely didn't seem that way to the original readers. How else can you explain their acceptance of chronological disagreements both here and in the Gospels, Jude's allusions to myths, or sketchy fulfillments of prophecies in the Gospels, among other issues? Many Christians deal with all such "problem passages" by denying that they are out of tune with our modern expectations - a position which I believe to be not only indefensible but implausible and unnecessary. It seems clear to me that we should seek not to make the Bible conform to our modern expectations, but to understand it as it was meant to be understood. It is critical that we ask the question "how would the original readers have understood this text?" before we claim to understand it ourselves. And if we cannot say with certainty how the ancient Hebrew authors meant it to be understood (which happens far more often than we want it to), it is, frankly, foolish and dangerous to be dogmatic about our own understandings.
5 comments:
Personally, I don't care if the 7 days were literal or not. I don't think it holds much importance for my life or faith really. I mean, it's important to me that I believe that God created it all. But I comprehend that the technicalities are beyond my reach and my mortal mind.
I agree with you though... (or with what I understand you to be saying)... that it's unwise and maybe even prideful of someone to take the bible and assume that it must be literal or that it must be exactly as they see it or wish it to be. It is foolish to believe that it is straight-forward or easily understandable.
Here's a question. Do you think that the Christian faith could/can exist without the presence of the Bible? Like, say, not that the Bible is not held to be valid, simply that it did not exist.
Hmm, maybe that's just a random irrelevant question... it just came out of the blue... it'd be interesting to imagine Christian faith without the Bible...
I think conservatives recognize this - that our choices basically boil down to trusting the Bible, trusting some person, or trusting ourselves. While I agree that the Bible is a better guide than a Pope or personal feelings, I don't believe that it is necessary for our guide to be trusted unquestioningly or crowned with infallibility. And I certainly don't believe (and this is my main point) that the Bible is infallible and unquestionable as understood through a cursory and unscholarly reading by a 21st century Canadian. Too often such a reading will merely reinforce our preconceptions and prejudices.
I believe there has to be a tension between trusting the Bible (as we understand it), trusting scholars and spiritual authorities, and trusting our own intuitions and reason. To throw all our trust on any one of the three certainly makes things easier, but it’s dangerous. Sorry, I’m rambling.
You ask whether the Christian faith could survive without the Bible. If by Christian faith you mean a collection of doctrines, then I doubt it. But if “Christian faith” means faithfulness to the teachings and example of Jesus (which I’m told is a far more Biblical understanding of the word faith) then I think it might. Something would probably have to be written down at some point for the sake of future generations, but it would be something - or more likely somethings - written by mere mortals and hopefully recognized as fallible. Something that bore little resemblance to a creed, but was more like a collection of stories - something (I realized as I wrote this) very much like the Gospels and Acts. So maybe something like the Bible is necessary. But an infallible, God-penned list of dogmas? No.
I wonder how much doctrinal accuracy matters to God, how much he cares how our beliefs align with the true truth. There are certainly Biblical passages that seem to suggest this is important (not the least of which the suggestion that the "name of Jesus" is the only way we can be saved)... but since even Christians disagree, a lot, and God doesn't seem to step in and sort out all this presumably incorrect dogma...
I dunno, just found it an interesting thought.
Many believe that any deviation from their long and detailed list of correct doctrine - including the trinity, six day creation, and women keeping silent in church - will be damaging to one's faith and Christian life, but I see little support for this view scripturally or experientially.
[+/-] A New Direction |
Or What's Going Down in My Life, Part 2
I think my biggest reason for suspecting that Christianity is true is the experiences of other Christians. Of course a lot of us lead very average lives and experience nothing that cannot easily be explained naturalistically. However, I've heard several stories that are much more difficult to explain - fantastic coincidences, mysterious healings, answered prayers, etc. Taken together, they make me suspect that something supernatural occasionally interacts with the lives of Christians. I don't know why this might happen, why it happens in some cases and not others, or why it doesn't happen more, but it does seem to happen.
The fact that Christian faith tends to be based in no small part on first- or secondhand experiences brings to my mind the obvious question of why people of other religions believe what they do. Do they have similar experiences? If not, what reasons do they have for believing? If so, what does this say about the truth of their religious beliefs? Or ours? And why aren't more people asking these questions? (See WGDIML Part 1.)
I suppose the biggest reason most Christians are uninterested in the experiences of others is that most of us have firsthand experiences which we believe to be of divine origin, and they satisfy most of our curiosities about God. I, on the other hand, don't believe I've ever experienced anything overtly supernatural, despite earnestly seeking such experiences. Christianity has done nothing to satisfy my longings for relationship with the divine. Naturally, this causes me to be skeptical about many claims of Christianity that most others take for granted, and to wonder whether other religions can deliver what Christians have taught me to long for. It also makes me wonder if those who speak loudly about the faults and flaws of other religions are blinded by their positive experiences with their own, and whether we're not all more or less seeking the same things and experiencing the same things and condemning the same things in others. I wonder if I was cut out to be a Christian, whether my fear and laziness have kept me from something better, or whether I've simply had too high expectations of Christianity and God, or whether I would have found what I was looking for if I hadn't given up so soon.
There aren't many things I know, but I'm confidant of this: I need to take an honest look at other religions and their adherents. I need to interact with them and worship with them. Especially, I need to hear their stories. I must do this because I need to know what's out there. I need to know whether I can find what I seek outside of Christianity before I seek further inside it. There is an aspect of Christianity that rings true to me, but other aspects do not. I cannot progress as a seeker or as a Christian without looking seriously at my other options.
This whole thing is very exciting to me. I have a bit of a plan, but I'm really not sure what all I'm going to do or where it might lead me. (I have no predetermined destination.) I'm pretty sure that God wants me to do this (as sure as I've ever been about God's will) but I'm very aware that this whole exercise could be fruitless or even detrimental without his support and guidance. If you're the praying sort, please ask that He would direct my paths on this new journey. I'll keep you updated.
6 comments:
I am aware of many of the problems with basing belief on experience, particularly the experiences of others. As a natural skeptic and a person with (unless I flatter myself) above average critical thinking skills, I am very mindful of these common errors, and instinctively suspicious of ostensibly supernatural experiences. In spite of this, there are enough stories that I find difficult to explain or dismiss that I suspect something is up. As I said, I cannot explain why such things do not occur more often, nevertheless, I presently believe they do occur.
You're quite right about "the spiritual twilight zone" being an unpleasent place to linger. I hope not to be here much longer. Thanks for the input.
Anyway, you're trying new religions, cool, let me know how that works out for you.. I am curious, though, what your end goal is through all this. If you have a "religious experience" in, say, a Hindu temple, to you plan to become a Hindu? If you find that other religions have similar experiences to Christianity, does that mean they are all true? Or that the experiences cancel each other out and that the religons are therefore false?
Finally, a work of advice, take it or leave it... but there are spiritual forces in this world (I believe) besides those of God. I dunno what you believe about the Devil and all that, and while I've never had a "demonic" experience myself, people whom I know and trust have done so. Trying various religions to find God is good, I think, but keep your focus on God and be careful whom- or what- you worship and what you get into.
PS why is is necessarily bad to live in the twilight zone?
I can't say what sort of findings, if any, might cause me to conclude that all religions are true (whatever that means) or false. I plan to gather my information first, then draw conclusions.
I think your advice is good. However it seems to me that leaving one's comfort zone to seek truth would be unlikely to make one more suceptible to the influence of some malevolent spirit. That being said, I'll try to be on my guard. (However one does that.)
It isn't necessarily bad to live in the twilight zone. I've lived there for two or three years now, and I think for the most part it's where I needed to be. But as I said, it is not an especially pleasent place to be for long periods of time, and I don't think anyone is meant to live there permanently.
sucky.
I think it must have had something to do with the way I pronounce the word... yeah, probably
[+/-] Kind of Back |
Camp is over. It was good - very good - but I'm excited to start school. I'm pretty much only taking awesome courses this year. Also, something else is happening this year that I'm quite excited about, but you'll have to wait for What's Going Down In My Life, Part 2 for that.
Speaking of which, I am trying to get back to writing again, but my blogging muscles have grown flabby it the last four months, and I'm having a hard time completing posts. But I'm working on it.
In the mean time here are some interesting things I've read recently while skimming through some of my four month backlog of Bloglines posts:
Seeker has some interesting thoughts about knowledge and beliefs here and here.
Bruce found an amusing website.
Jim linked to this very thought-provoking piece on sodomy.
And this trailer gives me chills. What I find remarkable is that it seems to neither praise nor condemn zealous Evangelicals. The movie could be awesome.
[+/-] Truth and the Deification of Doctrine |
Or What's Going Down in My Life, Part 1
I've been tinkering on this one for over a month, and it still seems awkward, rabbit-traily, and inaccurate. I feel like I'm grasping at something significant but slippery, and I'm having more difficulty than usual making it coherent, either in my head or in writing (this is especially true of the latter half of the post). With this post especially (but also with everything I write) please remember that I do not claim to dispense truth, only my own subjective, poorly conveyed, transient opinions. I publish this post because it is partially out of this quaggy pool of pontifical ponderings that I have come to a fairly significant decision, which I will divulge (hopefully more lucidly) in What's Going Down, Part 2. Anyway, here it is.
A lot of Christians like to talk about truth - how we know the Truth about God, eternity, salvation, and even specific points of doctrine, how you too could discover these truths simply by thinking honestly, reading the Bible, and praying, and how those who persistently disagree with us are running from the truth or twisting the truth or denying of the truth. Many Christians (by no means all) seem to regard themselves as not only genuine seekers but genuine finders of objective, indisputable, God-given truth on a fairly broad rage of topics, and seem to think that those who disagree do so only because they are not honestly seek truth.
I believe that the majority of such Christians are far less open to truth than they think they are, at least when it comes to their foundational religious beliefs. (I do not fault them for their less-than-unqualified pursuit of truth - a common weakness, from which I am by no means exempt - only for being dishonest about it.) Let me explain why I believe this.
It seems to me that if a person - Christian or otherwise - were genuinely interested in the truth about God, she would be eager to look honestly at many different religions, rather than trusting just one set of experiences (even her own). Please note that looking honestly at different religions doesn't mean merely asking your pastor about them or reading books debunking them by Christian authors. Until recently I was afraid to do more than this, and I sense that many Christians are similarly hesitant. We seem to have gotten the idea that to honestly, humbly and open-mindedly consider other religions is tantamount to treachery.
I believe this fear of other religions comes from having personified our beliefs about God, or perhaps even mistaken our beliefs for God himself, and consequently imagining the examination of contrary beliefs to be a form of idolatry; unfaithfulness toward our word-and-concept deity. (As if it is even possible for a creed or doctrine to accurately and sufficiently represent God!) I contend that we owe no allegiance to our religion. To God, certainly, but not to any doctrine or religious sect. A Christian who after honest consideration becomes a Muslim is no more a traitor, a sinner or an apostate than a Muslim who for honest reasons becomes a Christian, a Liberal who becomes a New Democrat, or a Virtue Ethicist who becomes a Utilitarian.
(It may be hard for some to imagine honest enquiry leading someone away from Christianity. Suppose, if you must, that they are mistaken or deceived, and that God will later reveal their error to them. The point I hope you will agree to is that it is possible for an genuine seeker to come, even temporarily, to a different conclusion than you have, and that to do so is no sin. Moreover, if a person feels called to examine his beliefs and seek truth, it would be not only irrational but wrong to refrain from seeking out of fear of incurring the wrath of God.)
The personification (or deification) of doctrine is utterly devastating to the honest pursuit of truth in which so many Christians claim to partake. Moreover, it leads to deceit and hypocrisy when as evangelists we expect members of other religions to subject their beliefs to greater scrutiny that we are willing to subject ours. Most Christians expect non-Christians to critically examine their believes and be willing to reject them if disproved, and yet many feel that to subject Christianity to the same honest scrutiny is unnecessary, or even wrong. I believe that we (all humans) must be willing to drop our allegiance to any doctrine about God, however foundational, should we be convinced of its falsehood. If we cannot do this we are worshippers not of God but of theology, and this is idolatry regardless of whether the doctrines we worship are true or false!
I'm not saying it's wrong not to completely and unreservedly pursue truth, nor am I saying that I do this better than most, nor that Christians in general do this worse than most. (I write exclusively about Christians simply because I know very few non-Christians; something, I think you'd agree, which is unhealthy both for a Christian and for a truth-seeker. I mean to correct this.) I believe there are much more important things than pursuing truth, and some people are perhaps better off for not pursuing it. Someone whose life was transformed by becoming a Christian (or a Hindu, or an Atheist) is unlikely to have much doubt about the truth of his beliefs, and little interest in scrutinizing them. I rejoice for those who are so uplifted, challenged, and changed by their current beliefs that they have no desire to look into any alternatives. I only ask that such people recognize that although personal experiences can give one great confidence, great joy, and a great many other things, they rarely (if ever) given access to exclusive, objective truth. So unless your spiritual experiences include receiving an infallible, essential creed from the hand of an angel, it is probably wise to avoid being dogmatic about the theological inferences you draw from them.
9 comments:
The only problem that arrives from this is that I believe in Jesus. No real other religion can provide the grace of Jesus except Christianity (hence the whole reason the religion started). If I believe in Jesus, it's hard for me to really explore other religions that I know don't offer that. That doesn't mean I can't learn about them or have friends that are of other religions. But the truth that I've found in Jesus can't be found in Islam or Buddhism (even though Jesus does show up in both, I believe). So that's where it's hard to honestly explore other religions. Does that make sense?
i believe though, that if i were raised muslim, that i would believe those teachings to be the infalible truth. which makes me think about why i believe. i know that i do believe.
I was prepared to give up Christ if I could find a clearer truth in the Tao. What I discovered surprised me. By looking into eastern religion, I was able to escape the western philosophy that has become entangled with American Christianity. When I tried to see the world through Taoist eyes, the gospel made a lot more sense: Not the Americanized middle-class gospel that we are inundated with, but the radical life-changing freedom that Jesus preached.
I'm convinced that truth can often be found in the most unexpected places, and that we have nothing to fear from other religious traditions. God is a lot bigger than we give him credit for.
Of course it is fine and commendable to have a discussing with such a friend about the relative merits of qualities X and Y, which one might be more important or necessary to the other, what might cause us to disagree about this, etc. What I object to is a double standard that allows us to feel righteous, even smug, about doing exactly the same things we condemn people of other religions for doing.
never realize that the crowd, the 'christian herd', can prove to be such an obstable in our search for Truth.
[+/-] In Lieu of Substance |
I do have big important things to say, but I haven't quite finished saying them yet. (I do a lot of editing.) I'm hoping to be finished the big "What's Going Down in My Life (Part 1?)" in a week or so, but in the mean time, here's some pictures of me jumping off a bridge.
Apparently this is the biggest bungee jump in the world. So, you know, if you're there you've got to do it, right?
Btw, does anyone know how to turn a dvd movie into something internetable? I don't think I have the right gadgets.
2 comments:
On the pinkgoat your mom told me that you surprised them with the dvd and she was scared speechless. :)
Sounds like a party
[+/-] Say It Ain't So |
I will keep this short. Not because I have little to say, nor because I think the matter I'm addressing is of little significance, nor because I've finally learned the importance of brevity (someday, perhaps), but because I'm rushing off to camp again tomorrow, and I have little time to spare.
Consider this passage: "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:5-6)
Assuming that you're as disgusted with what this verse seems to say as I am, can you please explain to me how God is not saying here that he punishes children for their father's sins?
6 comments:
A Biblical example would be the destruction of Canaan, or Jerusalem, or any other sinful city where the children and infants are destroyed along with those being punished for thier sin. As for the world today, well, war in the middle east, world hunger, terrorism and so on are largely caused by the sins of adults and children suffer. (I guess the difference is, in this case the suffering may not directly from God).
I guess the question I would ask is: does God think it is just to punish children for the sins of their parents, or is He mentioning what inevitably what inevitably happens (when adults suffer so do their children)?
And no I don't like this verse any more than you do. I think it's horribly unfair... what I do like is the Bible's willingness (or the willingness of it's writers, I guess) to tackle topics as unpleasant and tragic as this one, which are plain to see but difficult to deal with.
If you want to interpret this verse as descriptive of injustice in a fallen world (not of God's sense of justice) can you explain how keeping God's commandments can, through natural means, have a positive effect on our descendants a thousand generations down the line?
(If you take this number literally, this blessing would last about 20,000 years, give or take, and potentially cover billions of descendants. By comparison, this proclamation was made less than 3500 years ago, and the earth itself is only 6000 years old, according to those who take the Bible most literally.)
The context, the tone, and the wording of this verse seem inescapably clear to me (though I seem to be in the minority). But I've been mistaken about the Bible before, and I would be much relieved (and not entirely suprised) to discover that I'm wrong once again.
In the ancient world (old testament. for example) it seems it was common practice to punish children for their parent's sins. Kings killed the families of traitors (books of Esther and Daniel, for example), Ahab's entire line was wiped out, and so on. Not sure if this was God's idea of justice (I'd like to think it isn't) but He certainly worked biblically in that framework.
Think of King DAvid. First his illegitimate child, and then the entire people of isreal were punished for David's sins. When Achan sinned in Joshua, the peopel of isreal lost a battle.. and some lives.. I'm sure you can think of a billion examples.
It worked the other way as well... God showed favor to Solomon for David's sake... in the OT the greatest reward was always "your line will do such-and-such, your children will do so-and-so, you will have many offspring.." Me personally, I wouldn't be too impressed by a blessing given to my descendants (give it to me!) but back then.. that's how things worked, not sure why, an expert on the ancient world would know.
Also, it's worth noting that God had a very special reward-punishment relationship with isreal.. Do good and prosper, do bad and be punished.. a scenario that plays itself out over and over and over again until Jesus comes... these rewards/punishments were given to the people of isreal as a group.. including the innocent children (the kids dragged off to babylon, wandering the desert for 40 y, etc)... not sure God works what way with the rest of the world anymore.
Maybe these thoughts don't make the verse any easier to swallow. I personally find the idea of corporate responsibility expremely distateful, and kinda scary if I am to be held responsible for the actions of the Christian church or the Western World today..
however, looking that verse the way an ancient Hebrew might have looked at it... Would he have seen injustice and been appalled, or would he have said "ya, punishment for a few generations... that's how things work, that's what our kings do, but holy crap God is sure gracious to those who are obedient!"
[+/-] The Way It Will Have To Be |
I'm back from Africa. I didn't find God, I'm sorry to say. I think I may have been in the wrong part. (It's a big continent, you know.) Hopefully I'll get to do a more thorough search some day. I'm also going to camp in a couple days, which is where I often feel, if not exactly close to God, at least most favorably disposed to him.
I'm starting to wonder again if there's something wrong with me. I mean, I know there are a lot of things wrong with me, but I'm wondering if I suffer from some deep and crippling soul-illness as a result of my personal inadequacies and sins. I have long been aware that I do not see what others see (or think they see) spiritually, but for the most part I've come to accept that I live in the dark. But then every once in a while I wonder if the problem is that I'm just blind, like the dwarves in "The Last Battle".
If I am saved by grace alone, saved from and in spite of my sins, and if I am saved for relationship with God, is it possible that my sins still keep me from the relationship both God and I desire? And is it possible that my sins could still bind me while other's sins do not?
I do not claim to be worthy of relationship with God. I know myself too well for that. I know how sinful I am, and how undisciplined. When I sought God, years ago, I sought impatiently, inexpertly (though not, I believe, insincerely). If you say I sought too briefly, too imperfectly, too greedily or proudly or lazily to expect results, I will agree. But I know that if I mastered myself, overcame my desire and impatience and doubt and human frailty and devoted every breath and thought exclusively to the pursuit of God, I could never merit the intimacy with Him that I seek and so many Christians claim. As a seeker of God I deserve nothing, but which of us deserve more?
I have never heard from God, but then, I seldom speak to him. If there's any spiritual value in Bible reading I doubt I'll ever discover it - I hardly read any more. Worship for me tends to be hollow and tiresome. Tongues, healings and anointings look fake to me, even farcical. And while I could still force myself to attend services, read the Bible daily, even pray, my faith and hope are spent. I could drag myself through disciplines and routines, but I cannot believe that they will bring me to God.
It's not that I don't want to believe, it's that I am no longer able. My choice is to perform a spiritual charade and be miserable, or to ignore God (or at least my desire for him) and be at peace. If I choose the latter, I can continue to strive towards goodness and love. If I choose the former, I will be not only unhappy but ineffective. (Even thinking about this again makes me feel sick, and if I dwell on it I quickly become self-absorbed and self-abusive.)
I haven't entirely given up on earthly intimacy with God, but I am done pursuing it. If it is to happen, God must take the first step. That is the way it will have to be, because my faith is gone.
3 comments:
If you think that their might be a God, consider this, it's my searching story...
I wasn't really looking for God, I didn't believe he existed, and therefore had no need to search. One day he sent me a friend named Khurram. He's from Pakistan and a Muslim. I had many many late night deep discussions about the existence of God. I argued that God was supposed to be all loving, all powerful, but how can those two qualities exist in this being considering the world I live in, ie. war, famine, human slavery, child molestation, and, and, and,.... If God was all loving then it seems that an all loving powerful God wouldn't allow suffering, and being all powerful, could stop all the "bad things." Yet he doesn't.
Then there's the fact of all the religions in the world.
(how appropriate, Kid Rock's Only God's Knows Why just came on the radio)
The true belivers in any given religion, with a whole heart, think that their version is correct.
We argued both points, along with various others, with him winning all of them.
In order to believe in God I believe a few ideas have to be accepted.
1. God is all knowing
2. God is all powerful
3. We, mere humans do not have the ability to analyze or understand God
4. God created the world in his time, which, by the way, isn't our time.
5. God sent messengers, called prophets, to spread his message.
6. Humans have free will. We are the only being with this ability.
7. Only God can choose who will go to heaven/hell. By choosing I am referring to a passage in the Q'uran (I don't remember what Surah, and this isn't definately not verbatim or even close, just what I remember from the reading) The passage says that God will reveal himself to whom he chooses, and there are certain people he won't choose.
8. The Bible, The Torah, and the Q'uran are all valid books. I don't know if you are aware of this, but the Q'uran acknowledges the existence of both the Torah and the Bible, called the Injeel or Gospel. Muslims belive in all the stories in the Torah and the Bible, and say that the Q'uran was sent to Muhammad(pbuh) to set the record straight because His message had become distorted.
Between Christianity and Islam there are, I believe, two major discrepancies...One is the concept of Original sin. Christians believe Eve screwed everything up when she ate the apple. That because of her and Adam everyone else is doomed. Muslims have no concept of original sin. They believe that everyone is 100% responsible and held accountable for their own actions.
-Sorry a bit sidetracked-
I do suggest reading the Torah and the Q'uran, along with the Bible, but approach it more like just reading a story more than worshipping. When you look at all three of them and put them together it seems to make a clearer picture, at least for me.
I said to him at one point, ok, if God does exist then why would he do this. The he asked me, Would you rather exist? or not exist? I pondered the thought for a moment, and figured even though this life may feel like a living hell sometimes, It truly is a wonderful gift to have I that I would definately choose to exist. Then he said the words to me that converted me from Agnosticism to believing in a monotheistic Godism. He said, God gave you the privelige to extist. Those seven words changed my soul. Then I read the Q'uran. I'm not trying to turn you into a Muslim. I am not a Muslim, but I understand their "version" of religion a bit more. There are some very beautiful verses in the Q'uran though, even in English. (the Q'uran is meant to be read in Arabic only) There is something in it about God giving the trees the option of free choice and they froze with their branches raised to the heavens in fear of the opportunity, preferring to bend instead only when God willed it.
The english version is a fairly easy read, a bit over me at times, but not so bad. I have had a much harder time reading the bible.
Sorry I'm all over the place. It's been a rough few days for me and i'm just a rambling on....
Again, welcome home.
Raina
I'm not sure whether you're saying that one cannot believe in God if one doesn't believe the eight points you list; if this is so, I must disagree.
I cannot accept that God created people to be "objects of his wrath, prepared for destruction" (Romans 9).
I'm not at all settled on the doctrine of original sin, but I can't accept that you and I deserve to be punished for Adam's sin.
I haven't read the Q'uran, though I hope to do so in the near future.
I'm personally not encouraged by the "would you rather not exist?" arguement for theism. (Paul gives a similar arguement in Rom 9:19-21.) It strikes me that an abusive parent could use the same arguement to justify his cruelty, but I don't see how bringing someone into existence gives you license to subject them to gratuitous suffering. I am not saying that God does allow or inflict gratuitious suffering (as you know, this point is fiercly debated), but I don't think "Maybe God is a sadist, but at least he created you!" is a very strong defense.
[+/-] Introspection |
This post was originally published at Save Africa '06.
The other day Pete happened upon an advertisement for an evening with Phillip Yancey, and I forced everyone to go. Nothing he said was particularly interesting to me, except that his next book, due in September, will be about prayer, and if it really does anything. (I think the title is something like "Prayer: Does it Really Do Anything?") That's kind of exciting for me because I've been thinking about prayer a fair bit recently. I suppose I've been having a bit of a crisis of faith. (This happens to me every so often.) I'm trying to decide whether I really believe in Christianity or if I just say I do because things are easier that way. It's been about nine months since I decided that what one believes is more or less irrelevant, and all that really matters is how one lives. (Hence I claim to be a Christian not because of anything I think or feel, but because I try to follow Jesus in loving people and be selfless. Real Live Preacher argues for this kind of Christianity.) But now I’m wondering if Christianity is more than just a title you can give yourself. Besides being raised in a Christian home and associating with Christians, in what way am I like Christians? I don't read my Bible or pray regularly, in fact I don't even like or understand the Bible and prayer a lot of the time. I've never felt close to God. I don't see God at work in the world or in human lives. I'm drawn somewhat to the life and message of Jesus, but is that alone enough for me to call myself a Christian? I'm not sure what I think about his divinity, his resurrection, miraculous power, etc. (nor do I particularly care), and I know I don’t believe that one must accept these things to escape eternal damnation. I enjoy the perks of calling myself a Christian (community and the opportunity for service) but maybe it’s dishonest.
Not sure what all of this has to do with South Africa. I guess I came here partially because I want to see God at work powerfully and openly, and people tell me Africa is where he does that. Maybe I'm in the wrong part of Africa. Or maybe I'm eating too much steak and thinking too much about the Oilers. But I was at this Yancey thing and they were talking about a prison in South Africa where these people started a Christian ministry and the inmates were transformed and the murder rate plummeted and BBC sent a crew to report on it. I think when I heard that I realized I don’t believe this kind of thing is miraculous at all (good, certainly, and perhaps influenced by God, but not miraculous). This makes me sad.
I think Church is really built on shared experience. A bunch of people can work and worship and fellowship together because they have the same beliefs, and they have the same beliefs largely because they have the same experiences. I wonder if it’s really possible for someone like me who doesn't have those critical beliefs and experiences to be a full member of the club. No matter how much I like the Oilers, no matter how good I feel when I go to their games, no matter how much I want to be a part of the team, I will never be an Oiler, because I suck at hockey. Maybe there’s nothing to be done about that.
4 comments:
I think maybe the problem is in the modernist distinction between "natural" and "miraculous". The ancient world did not draw such a fine line between the two. I think they realized something that most modern people don't. God's involvement is not limited to the things we can't otherwise explain.
The gospel of John, for example, refers to Jesus' healings and other works of wonder as "signs," not "miracles" (John 2:11, 4:54, 20:30, for example). Although at least one popular translation calls these "miraculous signs," the original Greek term does not necessarily connote "miraculous". A perfectly ordinary, natural event could be just as much a sign as a supernatural healing.
I think we lose something if we look for God only in what we call "miracles" (and I'm not suggesting that's what you are doing). To see, as you put it, God's influence in this prison ministry is (IMO) just as much a sign of God's presence as an inexplicably miraculous event would be.
A bunch of people can work and worship and fellowship together because they have the same beliefs, and they have the same beliefs largely because they have the same experiences. I wonder if it’s really possible for someone like me who doesn't have those critical beliefs and experiences to be a full member of the club.
I've felt the same thing in many churches I've attended. I'm fortunate to now be a member of a church that does not impose doctrinal agreement on its members. We've got the whole range from ultraconservative to very liberal. Still, this comes at a price: The whole sense of community is diminished. I don't know if there is a good solution to this problem, frankly.
reading your blog makes me have this fantastic empathy. I'm thinking that it is best to stick with the Christianity thing because quite frankly, you can't do it on your own, you are no superman.(scrubs) And it is really hard to make a new pagan church, although i here the church of Satan down in california is not all that bad. I'm seriously considering starting to go to church and say that i believe everything so i can get back into being a faithful servant. Religion shouldn't be about what you believe it should be about where you were born and who you know.
i'll be in edmonton for a couple of days in july 5th until 9th maybe acouple days longer, it's a date.
nathan
[+/-] New Digs |
1. African internet sucks. Sucks.
2. My blogging for the next two months is likely to be done here. The short version is everything's going good so far. I'm starting to miss people.
2 comments:
[+/-] I'm Going to South Africa |
I'll be there for two months, leaving May 1. (Good gracious, that's tomorrow!) Shortly after returning I'll be going away to camps for the bulk of July and August. I'm not sure how much Internet access I'll have during this time. In the blogging-est case scenario I'll publish weekly-ish updates packed with exciting stories and pearls of wisdom. (Which would actually be pretty good for me. The astute reader will notice I haven't posted in over two weeks (I blame exams) and my wisdom is a bit hit-and-miss.) It's also quite possible that I'll be pretty scarce for the next four months. I recommend signing up with Feedblitz or Bloglines (in the sidebar) to be notified if and when new content appears.
It's a little bit scary to be going away to a strange and somewhat dangerous country for two months with a couple other guys not renowned for their good sense. Normally a don't do things like this, which is probably part of the reason I decided to go. I figure it's time I stepped outside my comfort zone and did something scary and awesome.
At this point the hardest thing about the trip for me is that it means missing the remainder of the playoffs, in which my beloved Oilers may actually win a series (or more!) for the first time in nine years. It doesn't help that our second round opponents, should we advance, would probably be the Calgary Flames. If you don't immediately understand the significance of a second round playoff series between the Oilers and the Flames, there's nothing I could say that would fully communicate the sense of loss I'm feeling right now. And while I'm sure this will be a wicked trip, if the Oilers win the Cup and I miss it I will probably never recover.
To summarize, I'm gambling two months, thousands of dollars, and more than three rounds of hockey playoffs that this will be a good and meaningful and challenging trip. I would appreciate your prayers, if you're the praying sort.
But someone once told me God is in Africa, so maybe I'll get to talk with him myself.
7 comments:
PS have fun in Africa, learn lots
PPS say hi to my sister for me
Jens
Oh, and tell God I said hey.
[+/-] Pain Revisited |
Devout readers will remember my recent series on the problem of pain (parts I, II, III & IV), which is essentially the question of how gratuitous suffering can exist in a world governed by a powerful and loving God. In discussing this problem with Christians I've often been reminded that God cannot be judged by human standards. The Christian concept of God is a being so great in knowledge, power and love that his actions and motives cannot possibly be understood my mere mortals. Inevitably, any attempt to judge such a being by human criteria will be insufficient and inaccurate. "God has a reason we can't understand" is the answer to any unanswerable question, and no divine act is to (seemingly) monstrous to be excused by our ignorance. This is certainly a powerful defense, but what is it's price? Sam Harris (truthdig.com) makes the following observation (thanks to the Questioning Christian):
If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God's goodness in the first place.
I think he makes a good point. It doesn't seem possible to prove that a good God does not exist based on human experience, knowledge, and logic, but if theists wish to dismiss the argument on these grounds, they cannot then turn and offer their own empirical proofs in support of a good God.
But it seems that we do this all the time. Every week in my church people stand up and proclaim the goodness of God as it is evident in their personal life. No one qualifies these testimonials with the reminder that we don't understand God and it's quite possible that the things he does that seem good to us are actually evil. Nor should they.
I believe these experiences - apparent answers to prayer, encouraging thoughts, etc. - are good and valid, and I'm glad for the encouragement they seem to bring. But it's one thing to let your perspective and your experiences to encourage you; it's quite another to use them to persuade others of the validity of your beliefs. Debate and evangelism have their own set of rules.
We have a choice: either we can debate the existence of God using empirical evidence (recognizing that we cannot be certain about our conclusions) or we dismiss all such evidence. We cannot present our experiences as substantiation of God's goodness and not give credence to counterexamples.
7 comments:
those aren't the only two options. what about God not being able to do anything because of His personality as it were? God is a just God and if we've sinned we have to live with that, however that works. i don't know, but i don't think its a case of God not caring to intervene. i'm not even entirely sure that that's what your post was really about. that quote just bothered me.
Harris, I think, would say that God as you describe him is impotent, or at the least, not omnipotent.
If God's character is completely unintelligible by our standards, how can I ever trust Him? Maybe after forgiving me, He'll decide to condemn my anyway because, hey, we can't understand the ways of God. Maybe it's actually good if God forgives and then condemns me (even though it seems otherwise to me).
Also, if we're created in the image of God, can't we know something about the divine character by looking within? Love and compassion, which I experience in my own life, come from God. Will anyone argue that I can't know anything about ultimate love and mercy by looking at my own experience of these things?
On a side note, this is a beef I have with the church stand on the Trinity, a doctrine that I consider unnecessary and illogical. The reasoning is the same as in theodicy: God is one and three simultaneously, but we simply can't fathom this because we can't fathom God. OK, then maybe God also will love us and condemn us. Maybe He will give us life and take it away all at once. Maybe He loves us and hates us at the same time. Why not? If we make Him utterly unintelligible, anything is possible.
The only thing I object to is dismissing the problem of pain with this arguement and then turning around and saying "See, we know God loves us because he does good things for us". We can't have it both ways.
I don't know if anyone would argue "that I can't know anything about ultimate love and mercy by looking at my own experience of these things". It makes sense to me that if there is some ultimate source of love, that it would be reflected and exemplified in our own ability to love. But I'm sure that some will object.
I like your point about the dangers of making God unintelligible. Of course, there's also the opposite danger of thinking we have him all figured out. On one level I like the idea of God being this weird and mysterious being that doesn't play by the laws of nature, but I think we miss the point in trying to construct some dogma about precisely how he's weird and mysterious. Honestly, I'd be a bit suprised if God's nature wasn't in some way beyond my comprehension, but it seems to me that those who want to canonize their concept of the trinity see God's incomprehensibility as a problem to be fixed.
But in a sense I'm always searching, it's just that now I search for different things. I do try to search strategically and without bias.
And I always appreciate comments.
[+/-] Whatever Befall |
This is a story I wrote two years ago for a Bible School project. The writing is a bit embarrassing now (as all my old writing is) but for some reason I've decided to dredge it up and post it here, maybe because I've finally thought of the right ending for it (the last two lines). Two years ago I was struggling with many apparent intellectual problems with my Christian faith and wondering what might happen if I became utterly convinced that Christianity was irrational. This story was an attempt to put myself in that place and see what comes of it. Here she is:
I awoke in a place and time unfamiliar to me. My surroundings were hazy. My mind was muddled. I cannot say how long it took me to become fully conscious, or if indeed I ever was more than half awake, for my senses never regained their normal sharpness. My first coherent thought was that everything was wrong. I was not in my car. I was not in the hospital, or in my home, or any place familiar to me. Indeed, I doubted very much that my current location was familiar to any who walk upon the Earth. I came slowly to the realization that I was dead. Yes, that fit with what I knew. The icy roads, the blare of horns, the dimly remembered sirens and the dull pain. I recalled vaguely the perception of a comfort and warmth, and the rather detached feeling of my body giving in to oblivion. I was dead.
Far from clarifying the situation, this realization further compounded my confusion. I was not on Earth, at least, I felt only dimly the sensations associated with normal physical existence. My limbs felt leaden, my senses were dimmed, and I seemed to be in a thick fog. The ground beneath me was shifting, like fine sand, but I hardly felt its impression. Gravity, light, and sound were nearly muted. I noticed with some interest that I was not breathing, nor did I feel the need to. My heart, I perceived, was not beating. Yes, I was dead.
I soon gave up straining to move or interact with my environment. There was nowhere to go, nothing to see, and movement seemed to grow less natural by the moment. I concentrated on thinking. My mind, at least, still seemed sharp.
The questions returned. What was going on? How did I come to this place? Had I somehow become trapped or misplaced? Where was God? I became almost frantic in my frustration. How could this happen? Surely… no, this is not heaven. It could not be. But neither, I hastened to add, was it Hell. This was neither a place of torment, nor a glorious new dwelling. It was not the great reality that I had previously seen only as a dim reflection. If anything, this place was the dim reflection. It was almost nothingness. It was barren and shapeless, devoid of both pain and pleasure. What had become of me?
At least I still had some remnant of my emotions, though I reflected that this situation would have caused me exponential fear and frustration in life. My life. Perhaps that was the key. Had I done something to void my salvation? Had I doubted too much? Questioned too deeply? I had thought intermittently about my inevitable death, and yes, I had doubted my acceptance into paradise, but how could this have shaken my eternal security? I reviewed my knowledge of the Bible's teachings.
Nothing. I know it, I’m sure. There is no way this could happen. I’m clearly not in heaven, nor in hell, nor do I the vaguest idea how I came to be where I am. My theology does not allow for this sort of thing. I am a human being, made in the image of God. He knit me together, he knows my coming and my going, and is familiar with all my ways. He knows the number of the hairs on my head. I trusted in him. I placed my soul in his hands! My name was written in the Book of Life – how could it have been erased? How could I become misplaced? Was I lost in the cosmic bustle of a God too absorbed in great matters to notice the fall of one small sparrow? No – unthinkable. My God could not do such a thing. And yet here I am, a faded wisp of spirit wavering on the edge of nothingness. Where is God?
Perhaps I was wrong. Yes, it's obvious now – I've been deceived. Those preachers were fools, speaking of omniscient God and his ways, as if they knew the pattern of the universe. That book I read – always out of obligation, always out of duty and vague commitment – I saw now that it must be nonsense, the ravings and ramblings of the delusional hangers-on of a dusty lunatic, broken by toil and love and driven by mad courage. Foolish, contradictory nonsense, as I now saw. Jumbled and fractured by two thousand years of copying, two thousand years of bloated, corrupt bureaucracy, tweaking and twisting to pad it’s own pockets. How many years had I played their game! Lying to myself, beating my intellect into submission to my frail, grasping heart. Only idiots and fanatics degrade themselves thus, doting on a fickle heart at the expense of an honest mind. If I had only scraped the mud from my eyes I would have seen this sham for what it is: flimsy and foolish. But blindly I swallowed the lies, longing for a fairly-tale ending to a flawed life. My mind, had I allowed it, would have seen the madness of such a hope. What in life suggests such a happily-ever-after? The worse a man’s circumstances, the more his heart longs for heaven, and the more his head tells him it is absurd. I am a fool.
(In this way I brooded for some time – or so I supposed, for time is a tough guess in this place – but presently I quieted myself, and put my mind to work.)
I suppose I am now an atheist. I like the sound of that – it sounds like books and great buildings and the power of the human mind. An atheist is strong, proud, alone. An honest and discerning being, undaunted by the honey-lies of idealistic religion. Alone. Alone and unafraid. How fitting – indeed, natural – that I should be one: I who am certainly and truly alone.
But no, it was not true. I cannot make this claim, for I am neither great nor proud enough. I am low, wretched. No! Not wretched – too close to the groveling humility of the self-abased slaves of religion. (To think that I was once one!) Not wretched, but not great. I am a man, just a man, neither worm nor god, and I cannot claim the lofty crown of the intellectual atheist. My mind, too great for the degradation of religion is yet too small for the bold defiance of atheism. I am a man – what can I know? My mind is my greatest, my only asset, but it is insufficient for such a task as finding god. Such things surpass me, and I would be no less a fool to deny transcendent god as to confirm him. Besides, my current state of being is perhaps as far removed from atheistic nothingness as from Christian paradise. I see that the proud, defiant atheist is as much in the dark as the smug, slavish zealot. There is only one thing for a man to be (especially a man such as myself, doomed to this absurd semi-being.) I am an agnostic.
I know my limits. I make no outrageous claims, for who am I to speak of God? Perhaps there is such a being, or perhaps not, but it is beyond my skill to say. The one glaring clarity in my present state is that no one on earth knows a thing about the "life to come". Each religion and creed is proved equally wrong by my inexplicable limbo. But I do know beyond all doubt that the gentle Jesus of my youth is a fraud. I have the loneliness of an atheist with the lowliness of a religious lackey. The worst of both worlds, I suppose.
But this is odd – my heart betrays me. Treacherous, idiot heart! How can you, my downfall, the traitorous ruin of my honest mind, how can you yet interfere with me? How can you yet whisper your sweet poison in my ear? Fool! I would rip you from my chest with my own hand if only I could end your slanderous hope. What are you saying to me? Shut up! Shut up about your Jesus – I want no part in him. I trusted him, and look where he's left me! You were always on his side, and even now you have the gall to come gloating in my ruin! How dare you trust! How dare you cling to the shambles of that fairytale hope when all logic screams against you?
(I am furious now. My body is numb, but my mind howls and froths at my idiot heart. I strain against this maddening voice lodged in the core of my being, which even now speaks softly of a gentle shepherd and his lunatic love.)
How fallen I am! It seems that my years of mindless trusting have formed a habit so deep that it defies the cold facts of my monstrous new existence. I remember now, to my shame, how many times my heart-driven madness led me to beg safekeeping from that Jesus. How as a child I had lain in bed and wept with fear, swearing my life and strength to him if he would but give me peace. How as a young man driven by passion I had bound myself to him again and again, vowing to serve him forever, pleading him to seal me in his service. I need no explanation for my predicament – I have drilled my enslavement into my own mind over long years of devotion. I had made Jesus my identity, grafting him into my bones and spirit, and even now, with all his promises proved to be dust and gravel, I am stuck fast in eternal submission to him. I am not my own being. I have surrendered myself and am held fast to Jesus Christ, whether he is a god or a devil or merely a tortured fool like myself.
I am humble – if not in temperament yet still in status. I am truly a wretch, as I said so frivolously on earth. Who could be more wretched then a man who has seen his devastating blunder so clearly, yet chooses – no, is compelled – to continue in it? Was there ever such a wretch as I, driven in my heart to madness, crawling in the slime of psychosis yet aware of my state and appalled by my helpless abasement? Jesus, oh Jesus. (How shameless am I to call that name!) Jesus! Lord, Lord! Have mercy on me Son of David!
(At some point I come to feel that there are two voices in my head, and they are having a great argument. There are no words to explain such a thing, but I fell like a spectator in my own mind, listening to my two natures – doubt and faith – struggle for dominance.)
"Stop it! Have you no pride? You're only degrading yourself further."
"I waited patiently for the Lord; he turned to me and heard my cry…"
"Idiot. You still cling to your dreams? All right, let's wait and see if he'll hear you."
"…He lifted me out of the slimy pit, out of the mud and mire."
"Go on! You're a coward and a fool. But we've got time. Let's see if your God will save you."
"Why, O Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?"
"Always your faith is mixed with doubt. Perhaps that's why he abandoned you."
"But those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength."
"Oh give it up! You make me sick with your sniveling."
"How long, Oh Lord? Will you forget me forever?"
"Forget it! You're a worthless, abandoned wretch! He does not love you!"
"Be merciful to me, Lord, for I am faint."
"Ha ha! I see it now. Isn't it obvious? We're in Hell."
"He will never leave you nor forsake you."
"Open your eyes! You are forsaken! You have been cast into Hell, and you'll rot here forever!"
"Oh God!"
"You can think, fool. What is Hell but separation from God?"
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
"That's right fool. You're finished. You are forsaken and you're prayers will not be heard."
"My God, my God…"
"He never loved you. He's always lied to you. He has betrayed and ruined you!"
"God! God! Oh Jesus, please!"
"He hates you! You are an object of his wrath! You are the plaything of a sadistic, unjust God."
"But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"
"And who are you, you sub-human muck, to speak for him?"
"Oh God."
"Now be silent, slime. Shut your filthy mouth and rid your heart of that cursed hope."
"Who are you?"
"Who am I? You know who I am, wretch."
"You tempt me. You are Satan."
"Close, wretch, very close. I am you."
"How can that be?"
"Think, wretch. You are schizophrenic – all Christians are. You have added to your natural doubt and evil a grimy facsimile of goodness and hope. Do you wonder that you cannot function? You are at war with yourself! How can you maintain your sanity?"
"I can win. I can overcome you…"
"No! No, you fool! Look at yourself! Look at your festering soul! The whole universe reeks with your evil. Your sin and doubt are a plague that infects all creation and brings decay and death to everything it touches."
"But he loves me."
"No, he doesn't. Look around you. Think."
"I've looked. I've thought. It makes no difference. My heart is steadfast, and no amount of truth or reality can change my convictions."
"You are a fool."
"Oh hush. We've established that long ago. I can't help it, so I'll just have to live with it."
"You're just like every religious freak who ever lived. Every true Muslim or Hindu or Mormon or worshipper of Baal thinks as you do."
"You're probably right. But I can't help it."
"You are forced to think the way you do, as they are."
"Perhaps. Who can say?"
"Your precious God chooses a few to believe the truth, and the rest to rot in Hell."
"You may be right."
"And it appears that he has chosen you for Hell."
"So be it."
"Oh shut up, you arrogant, sanctimonious parrot! You talk big, but I feel your anger. You're filled with rage against him."
"I was. I often am. But I'm done with that now."
"You're afraid."
"No, I'm not. You know I'm not, and you know why."
"Do I? Humor me."
"I am not afraid because I trust him. It doesn't matter if he doesn't care, or if He doesn't exist. I trust Him and I love Him, and I can do nothing else. So who cares whether I'm in Heaven or Hell? All I can do is trust, and the rest is up to Him. And if He forsakes me, what concern is that of mine? I'm just his creation, and He can do with me what He wishes. But if I spend the rest of eternity in Hell, does that excuse me from loving and trusting Him?"
"You are mad. You are absolutely out of your mind. Fine, I give up. I cannot reason with you. I'm leaving forever."
"No, that is a lie. You'll be back, and we'll have this same argument again and again. The specifics will be different, but you'll never stop fighting me – unless my Lord comes for me and purges you from me forever."
"It will never happen. You will never be rescued, and I'll never give up. I had you so close to breaking, and you can't hold out forever."
"I suppose I couldn't, in my own strength. But God, it seems, has got a hold of me, no?"
"You're wrong and you're crazy. Good riddance, fool."
(Time passes, in the shifty way that it passes in this place. I reflect.)
This place is not so different from Earth. The distractions are stripped away and the laws of nature are muffled, but the laws of my heart and mind remain the same. And like Earth, the times of rebellion and doubt are quite similar to the isolation and fear of Hell, and the times of contentment, obedience, and surrender are not unlike the great communion of Heaven. I do not know if my Lord will ever come for me and take me from this place. I do not know if he even exists, or is merely the invention of my hope-sick soul. But I do not worry. I trust him. And it seems to me that I cannot do otherwise.
May I reach heaven's joys oh bright heaven's sun
Heart of my own heart whatever befall
[+/-] Judge For Yourselves |
This made me laugh (thanks to Steve F). In my opinion, there is exactly one legitimate reason for not allowing women to be ministers in our culture, namely that the New Testament explicitly forbids it. While this isn't a big deal to me personally, I recognize that there are many people who for very good and honest reasons feel that such Biblical commands still apply to us today. As long as they follow these commands gracefully and apply their principle of interpretation consistently I won't argue with them.
But I probably will argue with them if they try to explain why this is still a good idea. I've heard all sorts of sweeping generalizations about the genders that attempt to explain why women ought not to "teach or have authority over" men. As far as I'm concerned, none of them hold water. (See the parody linked at the start of this post.) But as long as they can admit that their practices are based on their submission to the authority of scripture and not some empirically discernible and eternally applicable principle ("the very nature of things"), I certainly understand and respect their position.
My final caveat would be that if you're going to take Biblical authority seriously and you want to make judgments about what is and isn't cultural, it seems to me you ought to make an effort to understand the culture these commands originated in. And whether you're a traditionalist or not, if you want to tell other people that what they're doing is wrong because the Biblical laws regarding homosexuality or head-coverings or what have you very definitely are/aren't cultural and therefore don't/do still apply, you'd better be absolutely certain you know what you're talking about.
Case in point: a Messianic Rabbi explains his historical understanding of the passage that requires women to wear head-coverings here. I'm certainly no expert on first century Jewish culture, so I have no idea whether he's right. (And frankly, it's not a big issue for me.) But it annoys me that of all the Christians I've talked to who feel strongly that head-coverings are not cultural and must still be worn, none of them seemed to have any knowledge of the purpose and practice of head-coverings at the time of Paul's writing.
But perhaps I've just talked to the wrong traditionalists, or asked the wrong questions. I would be grateful if someone who disagrees with the Rabbi's understanding of head-coverings in the first century could present a historically informed argument for the timelessness of this command.
4 comments:
Depending on your beliefs, your values, and your expectations in a relationship, I think it's quite possible that premarital sex - even one night stands - could be great. (That is, it could fulfill your desires and goals without causing any substantial pain to you or others.) Why else would so many people do it? But to me sex is very significant and sacred - the pinnacle of physical intimacy and a symbol of union and commitment both between two people and between God and man. Marital faithfulness (and pre-marital faithfulness to my future wife) is a part of a very solumn life-long commitement which I would not break for the sake of momentary pleasure.
You'll note I'm talking about only myself here. Whether premarital sex really is dangerous or damaging to future relationships is a question for doctors and sociologists. What I know is that most people who sleep around neither recognize nor are subject to Biblical authority, and so anyone who wishes to dissuade them from this practice will have to appeal to some other moral standard.
[+/-] Amazing Grace |
There was once a young man who demanded his inheritance from his father and then moved to a distant land and squandered it on parties and prostitutes. He became so poor that he could no longer feed himself, and the only job he could find was feeding pigs, for which he was payed so little that even the pig slop looked good to him.
He soon realized what a fool he'd been and remembered his father, who was a kind man and generous to his workers. He wondered if he should return home. Of course he would not ask his father to accept him as his son, but perhaps he would have mercy on him and hire him to work in his fields. But whenever he thought of his father he was filled with shame and fear, and could not bring himself to go home.
Then one day as he was sitting in the mud with the pigs he saw his father approaching. Fear and guilt gripped him, and he could not meet his father's eye. But his father bent down in the mud and touched him.
"My son, why have you not come home?"
The son looked up, sorrowfully. "I was afraid. I was ashamed. I didn't think you'd want to see me again."
"You were wrong. Every day I've stood at my window and waited for you to come home. Even though you despised me, shamed me, turned your back on me, I have always been your father, and I have always loved you and longed to forgive you. If you had come home I would have run out to meet you. I would have given you a new robe and a ring, and I would have embraced you and kissed you and celebrated your coming with a feast. We would have rejoiced together as if you were dead and had come back to life!"
The son looked at his father in wonder. "You would do that for me? Even now you would forgive me for all I've done?"
The father shook his head. "No, I said I would have forgiven you, but I will not forgive you now. Since your birth, and despite all your faults and failures I have loved you, but my love has ended. All these years you could have returned to me - even yesterday I would have embraced you as a son - but not today. I've come to tell you that on this day I disown you and I withdraw my forgiveness and my love. I am no longer your father; you are no longer my son. Do what you will - beg, starve, die in the streets. I care less for you than for these pigs, even less than for the slop you feed them or the mud you're sitting in. Whatever remorse you may now feel, however much you may long for my forgiveness, until the day you die you will never again speak with me or enter my presence."
And the father turned his back on the one who was once his son, and left him in the mud with the pigs.
I have a great difficulty believing that God's forgiveness expires when we die. If it's true that God's love and compassion and mercy are vastly greater than (or even comparable to) those of any human, it's inconceivable to me that he would eternally banish those who die before repenting.
"Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed."
"Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands."
4 comments:
A couple of thoughts...
The before death/after death is not nearly so arbitrary a divide as the one in your story; it's a big black and white line.
I remember reading some stuff from CS Lewis where he considers that a person who has lived a long, "godless" life (whatever that means) has removed themselves so far from God that they are unwilling to repent and unable to enjoy heaven, even if it were available. (The Great Divorce, I think it's from.) Don't know if it's true but it's interesting...
I read the Great Divorce a couple years ago. It's a good and thought provoking book, but I can't agree that a long and godless life makes one unwilling or incapable of repentence. There are many well-known cases of horrible people repenting late in life. Why is it less likely that they will do so after death, when all has been made plain to them? I don't know if everyone would eventually repent, but I'm sure an aweful lot of people would.
[+/-] Good Things I've Read Recently |
This is an interesting perspective on fasting and Lent. For the record, I believe there's value in giving things up and I think it's good that people in my very un-Catholic circle aren't afraid to adopt this tradition. But I like that even in Old Testament Judaism these rituals are secondary.
This is what I think about knowledge of God from personal/religious experience. Thanks to Bruce for articulating it.
Real Live Preacher questions the validity of the "slippery slope" argument here.
[+/-] New Features |
"Jacob, you're blog is great. It's so thought-provoking, so well written and relevant. I'd love to read it all the time but I just don't get around to checking too frequently, and you're not the most consistent poster. Can you make it easier for me to read?"
Heck yes I can. The keen-eyed among you may have noticed that the "Archives" box in my sidebar has been renamed "Archives, Etc.". This in itself something to get excited about, but the changes don't stop there! Inside said box I've added a google searcher-thing, an email subscription feature, and a drop-down menu for my monthly archives, along with a pretty bloglines button. All to make life easier for my beloved readers. Let me explain why these things are good.
If you're a devout reader of many blogs, bloglines is still the only way to go. If you want to keep tabs on dozens of blogs (some of which are updated daily, others semi-annually) without regularly checking each one, bloglines will do this for you. It'll tell you who has new posts and let you read them all in one place. It's beautiful.
If you only read this blog and you'd like to read consistently but you don't want to/forget to check frequently for new posts, Feedblitz is your friend. Provide your email address and get Twenty Feet delivered hot and fresh to your inbox whenever I get around to writing something.
If you want to read about specific subjects or find an old post you really liked (I'm probably just talking to myself now) you can google search this blog from the sidebar too. Results are a bit sketchy, I think mostly because I recently switched domain names. But I'm working on that.
If for some reason you want to browse through my monthly archives, you can still do so through the nifty little drop down menu. It's just that they no longer take up half the sidebar.
If you're envious of my new toys and want to add them to your own blog, let me know and I'll tell you how. Or if you're at all good with code you could just check out freshblog, where you can find all these hacks and more!
And if you don't care about any of this, I hope to publish something more meaningful within a couple days.
0 comments
Post a Comment