March 30, 2011

Editor’s note. This post is in part an experiment. It was written from my phone and therefore may include (more) typos and grammar errors (than usual).

I have been thinking recently about perspective. It is one of those fantastic human things that skews and changes everything. It defines who we are, what we believe, even the choices we make.

Perspective is that which allows two humans with the same fact come to two different conclusions about what those facts mean.

Take the photo of the drink for instance.  Ski is a drink that many people in the U.S have never heard of. It is made with real lemon and orange juice, and in would describe it as perhaps a cross between Fresca and Mountain Dew with no nasty aftertaste.

Ski is my absolute favorite drink in the world. But when I have new people try this sweet ambrosia I always receive one of two reactions.

1) I love it. (This is the correct reaction, naturally)

2) It tastes like Mr. Clean!

And I kid you, the second reaction is always said word for word with no prompting from me. Mr. Clean is always the one mentioned.

This always leaves me wanting to ask a question, naturally. Namely, how do they know what Mr. Clean tastes like?

I’m always told things like scent, guess work, and imagination. To date no one has admitted to giving Mr. Clean a taste test.

Presented with as many facts as can be, a decision is made based in the end on preference.

This leads me over to questions I get asked alot.  Do I believe in a young earth or old earth? What about evolution?  (more on the the answer to those questions later)

Typically if the answer I give isn’t satisfactory I’m asked the usual follow up questions. How oh how can I not come to the “obvious” conclusion based on the facts?

As humans we put precedence on some facts while ignoring others. As humans we draw conclusions.  Sometimes these conclusions are really undeniable. But more often than not there is no way we can absolutely be 100% certain. We could be wrong.

So the answer to the question of how I can come to a different conclusion is really quite simple.

If we disagree it’s because I have a Mr. Clean perspective.

March 23, 2011

Over at Wesdraws.com there’s another interesting conversation happening. (It seems as though Wes is determined to keep me updating by compelling me to answer his questions!)

Recently, Dan Haseltin of Jars of Clay fame wrote an article discussing whether or not offensive art can be Christian. It’s really an interesting read and you should check it out here.

This article led Wes to ask a slightly different question: Should Christianity art offend?

It’s probably one of the largest discussions I’ve seen at the site, having over 70 responses as of this writing. The topics have ranged from what is offensive, to the question of why nudity is wrong and violence is ok, and the point of ‘showing it all’, being “real” or just “trying to be cool”.

It’s clearly a heated topic with a variety of opinions, and it really got me thinking.

Should Christian Art offend? Should Christian anything offend? Are we allowed to be offensive, or are we called to be perfect paragons of light, shining only peace and love while never skating on the edge of unruliness or offensiveness?

As always, when faced with such questions, I feel compelled to turn to the Word and the Man that I believe in. The Man who IS the Word in fact. Jesus.

And so I have to ask, was Jesus ever offensive? And you know what? I think He was. Several occasions come to mind where I believe He most likely offended people. I remember reading when Jesus called people hypocrites, Herod a fox, and even when He turned down a disciple for not giving up everything immediately to follow Him.

But one occasion especially comes to mind: Matthew 21. Let me quote the verses for you.

12 Jesus entered the Temple and began to drive out all the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves. 13 He said to them, “The Scriptures declare, ‘My Temple will be called a house of prayer,’ but you have turned it into a den of thieves!”

Whoah. Jesus walked into a temple and kicked people out. He turned over their tables and chairs. He called them little more than a den of thieves. And these were the guys working in the Temple! That would be akin to me walking into my church, knocking over the Secretary’s desk and then kicking her out.

I’m pretty sure the money changers were offended. But Jesus had a very real point to make that day. (And it’s a good one, but I’ll save that for another post)

These people were doing something very wrong, and doing so in the Temple no less. And Jesus was going to say the truth, no matter how forcefully it needed to be said, no matter how offensive it might come to those who needed to hear it.

Jesus wasn’t going to let the fear of offense dilute the power of truth. And we shouldn’t either as Christians.

There is a fine line to walk. Jesus didn’t turn over those tables and chairs for the sake of the point. He turned over the tables and chairs as He made the point. He didn’t offend to tell the truth. He told the truth even if it offended. And there’s a large difference.

Allow me to put it this way. Imagine you know two people for ten years. One who cursed and swore every other word of every sentence. And one who never once uttered an expletive. If on the tenth anniversary of meeting these two individuals both spoke an expletive would you react to the first? Would you react to the second?

I would hazard a guess that to the first it would be business as usual. But to the second you might do a spit take. Because it was so out of character and place it took you by surprise.

When it comes to offense we must ask ourselves why we are doing what we are doing. To glorify God first? Or to grab attention in the hopes that it might eventually glorify God.

If you offend for the sake of offending just to elevate your message, you only dilute it.

But if you dilute your message for the sake of not offending you have done equal harm to your words.

Should Christian Art (or anything) offend? Yes if necessary. Just not by default. Not as a go to tool. But should it avoid offending at all costs? No. Christianity is about God first and the world second. Not the other way around. It is better to offend with truth than to make peace with a lie.

March 16, 2011

Over at Wesdraws, Wes posed a few very interesting questions in his latest post.

He asked:

“Do you think there is a difference between a “believer” and a “disciple”?

If so, what differentiates the two?

Which is more important?”

I read through the answers, all very well stated and clearly explained. But I found myself disagreeing with them to a small extent.

What most commenters said was basically, “Yes, there is a difference. (Although maybe there shouldn’t be) Believing is something anyone can do, but discipleship is growing/learning/etc. therefore it is better.”

But it’s not. Not necessarily. I’d like to take a look at a few verses of the Bible before getting into more of my answer. Because I do believe there is a difference between a disciple and a believer.

John 6:

53 So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. 54 But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever.”
59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?”
61 Jesus was aware that his disciples were complaining, so he said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what will you think if you see the Son of Man ascend to heaven again? 63 The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But some of you do not believe me.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning which ones didn’t believe, and he knew who would betray him.) 65Then he said, “That is why I said that people can’t come to me unless the Father gives them to me.”
66 At this point many of his disciples turned away and deserted him.

Now I want to point out something here. There are many people that Jesus is talking to. But a few of them are actually disciples. They are referred to specifically as that. In fact, the text goes so far as to say he said to THEM (the disciples).

A disciple is someone who is learning. Whether it be teaching, methods, philosophy, or something else. They are a learner. These people followed after Jesus because he had something interesting to say, something they may not have heard before, and they wanted to learn from Him.

But what Jesus decided to say and teach that day was very difficult to understand and even more difficult to accept. Many of the disciples did not understand. But even more than that, the text tells us they did not BELIEVE Jesus’ words. So they left him. Turned away from him.

My point today is that discipleship is great. It’s important. Very important. Some of the commenters at wesdraws pointed out Paul’s writing that mentions even demons believe in Jesus. That we strive for more.

But to the opposite point, anyone can learn. Anyone can listen. But without belief, and therefore application of that belief, you can walk away from Jesus having truly gained nothing.

Many people stood before Jesus one day and heard his words. They were disciples of Christ But they walked away from him because in the end they weren’t believers of Christ. How much did their learning do?

So to answer Wes’ questions:

There is a difference between a believer and a disciple.

A disciple is someone who strives to learn from another.
A believer is someone who puts their faith in another.

But neither is more important than the other.

In fact, each is broken without the other.

A believer who does not learn and grow is stagnant.
A learner who does not believe is lost.

March 14, 2011

This is a short article I think, one born from a conversation I was having earlier.

You see, they were talking of some people out there who claim the Christian name but don’t live up to it. These people apparently say the current tragedy in Japan is some sort of divine punishment from God. And this friend were talking about how bad this makes Christians look to others.

And I agree in principle. But in loudly complaining about these people in many ways my friend only served to draw more attention to them. And they clearly don’t deserve it.

The problem for my friend is they know people who only see the ugly side of Christianity.

But it’s good to know these sorts of people. In fact, that brings me to the main point of this post. You see, I think every Christian should have at least one (if not many) atheist friend(s).

I had a co-worker at one point who was atheist. I still remember the first day it really came out. That he was absolutely completely convinced that there is no God. And that I was absolutely convinced there is. The best description for this occasion would be two cats meeting for the very first time. Our backs arched, we circled, each ready to claw the other, waiting to see who would strike first.

I don’t remember who struck first, but I do remember there was a lot of back and forth for nearly an hour.

But the first day wasn’t our best day for argument and debate. It was merely a beginning. Because we were co-workers and we did have to speak to each other often. So we had to see each other as more than just that Atheist/Christian guy. We saw our strengths, weaknesses, likes, and dislikes. And we found we had many things in common. In fact, outside of our spiritual beliefs we were more alike than unalike.

My co-worker challenged me everyday. On what I believed, why I believed, how I believed. And I too challenged him. He sometimes told me that I was the first real Christian he had ever met. This was both heart-warming and heart-breaking. After all he had been in church as a younger man. For me to be the first is a sad fact.

And while I had known that Atheists can be and are good people, there is always the prejudice… the temptation to believe that they aren’t really. That they’re different from Christians somehow. Less moral.

And while it was true that my co-worker and I disagreed on certain points of morality I can say with a strong confidence that he is a good good man. One I am glad to call friend.

We are no longer co-workers, and we don’t communicate as much as we did before. And I can’t say that he became a Christian because of me. But I think I can say he knows more of what a real Christian is because of what God did in my life and in his.

And while he could never convince me that God isn’t real, he taught me many things through his actions and words. He challenged me to look at my spirituality, my beliefs, in new ways that I might never have done on my own.

Every Christian should have at least one Atheist friend. And the other way around too. Through such relationships we can challenge our preconceptions. And our faith can grow.

July 6, 2010

This will be a multitopic letter, with sidebars and asides and so on, I can feel it now.

Evangelism has been on my heart alot lately. I’ve been hit with it in classes, challenged on it in my worklife, and even (albeit without truly meaning to) had it thrown my way in my online dealings.

Evangelism is a really sticky topic in America. You will often hear anymore that “faith should be a personal thing, kept to one’s self.”

It saddens me that this is said. It saddens me even more that Christians are ACTUALLY buying into it. They shouldn’t. It’s a lie.

The ability to evangelize, to preach, to tell others of your belief, no matter what that belief is, is one of the most important fundamental rights any American has and should exercise. (Side note, the ability to walk away from those doing said evangelism is equally important, respect is always to be maintained and if someone wants to leave and not hear anymore, they should be allowed to do so ALWAYS.)

Telling someone about the truth of Jesus Christ is one of the most important things any Christian can ever do. Even if it’s awkward. Even if it’s unsuccessful. Even if it doesn’t seem to amount to anything. (If often does and we don’t know it).

But why?

Because of what we believe.

Recently, while speaking with others online, I was asked innocent questions. How were my classes towards accreditation as a minister coming along, and what denomination would I be preaching for? The answer to the second led to another question. Does that denomination preach fire and brimstone sermons?

My answer was simply that we do not regularly preach about Hell (we focus more on the love of Jesus), but if I were asked straight out if I believe a non-believer who does not hold Jesus as a personal savior will go to hell when they die I would answer yes.

That answer offended someone. Someone I do consider a good person, and would gladly call a friend.

Am I sorry for the offense? Yes. Am I sorry for my answer? No.

Because I would rather risk offense to even a good friend, then commit the greater offense of lying. Of sanitizing the truth. Of trying to create some pseudo “more friendly” religion in the hope to draw other people in with that deception. That to me is more offensive, any day of the week.

Do not misunderstand me. My denomination and I very much, believe that Christianity is a religion of love. Not hate. And it is far too often being used as a means of hate. And THAT is offensive too. Hating others is not the example Jesus set at all. He spent his time with sinners. Loving those sinners. He told them the truth. That sin is bad, what the consequences of sin are, but he always showed love. He never spoke in hatefulness to those sinners. And the church as a whole needs to start setting THAT example, instead of the one we are all too often known for.

I believe the vast majority of Christians actually fall in line with that. Unfortunately a very loud minority has set a bad image for us. And it’s our fault. Because we aren’t out there, being just as loud, only in a good way. It should come to no surprise that when the world sees only one set of Christians acting in a very non-Christian manner, it has come to believe that all Christians are like this.

It’s too easy to sanitize Christianity. But that’s the worse thing we can do. Because then all we accomplish is someone joining under false pretenses and leaving disillusioned. I encourage people to be honest in what they believe, but love at the same time. It is possible. If you aren’t sure how, just read about Jesus. He was the very model of truthful loving. Watch a parent. Parents will, in all lovingness, tell their child they are making a mistake. They will do it gingerly, tenderly, but with the proper sense of admonishment. This is less of a contradiction that we make it out to be.

There is a lot of WRONG teaching on what Hell is. And that’s the only reason I believe the topic of Hell needs to be addressed in church. A reeducation. It isn’t a threat, but it is a truth. The point of Hell is too often misunderstood. The reason for it completely lost.

But at the end of the day, if you are a Christian, you must decide something. Do I believe in Hell or not? Do I believe in everlasting life or not? If I do, how important is it that I tell others of Jesus? And I have found a worthy answer to that second question. Given by an atheist. Penn Gillette, of Penn and Teller.

There’s something that truly struck me about Penn’s words too. He kept saying, “He was a good man.” And it hit me so hard the first time I saw this. It has been so long since I have heard the phrase, “He was a good Christian man.” You don’t hear that anymore. And some would believe that’s because Christianity isn’t synonymous with good. But it should be.

I believe you don’t hear that anymore for another reason. The good Christians are keeping to themselves. This allows a minority to represent the majority to the world. We have held back too long, and allowed an image to encompass us.

Evangelism is important. It’s the most important thing you will ever do. Because it can change a person’s life. Even if you don’t see them come to salvation. The good book tells us (in the new Canterrain paraphrase version), that some plant the seeds, some water them, some harvest that which grew, but God gets the glory. Sometimes your ‘failure’ in evangelism isn’t a failure at all. But the seeds that were needed so someone else could do the harvesting.

And evangelism is like any other skill in life. The more you do it, the better you will get. The less you do it, the worse you will get.

From personal experience I have found that my closest times with God have been where I was speaking about God, for God, because of God.

Evangelism has another side effect that is all too important. It will challenge your faith, and grow it. Strengthen it like the fires do to a sword.

I encourage you, if you believe… TELL. It’s the most important thing you will ever do.

June 20, 2010

This will probably be my last response to NFQ. (More on that as we go along)

Recently (ok, recently in the context of writing things on the internet) she asked me a question about the story of Adam and Eve on my site. I found it an interesting question, and posted the start of the response.

I admitted up front that I had commented on the article, that I felt my comment was too long, and I also had to cut it short. I wasn’t satisfied with whether I had actually answered her question or not. I stated that maybe I would make it a multipart topic. In other words, I didn’t really say everything I wanted to say yet.

Maybe NFQ missed that comment (it happens), but she doesn’t treat me as though I said any of that in her response. I’ve said more than once that NFQ has been polite in her communications with me, and I’ve always appreciated that. But in her response post I suddenly can’t find myself saying that anymore.

I’ve suddenly come to realize, among other things, that NFQ is not in fact a critical thinker. She’s an internet debater. (Debate is not always critical thinking. In fact, it’s often NOT critical thinking. It’s just competition.)

I can see this by the way she unjustly half commented on half my post, glossing over one section while completely ignoring another. To read her post, one would think that I: agree English interpretations of the bible are bad, agree only biblical scholars can really read the bible, and that I forgot what the central aspect to her post was, and etc.

Now that’s me glossing over her post, and it’s really not that fair is it?

Let’s get in to what she had to say.

First, she comments that it is strange I even get into the topic of God lying when it has little to do with her central point of her post.

I’ll agree to the second part, partially, but not the first. NFQ stated in no unclear terms that God lied.

Call me a strange Christian, but when I see those words I have to back up and take a moment to examine them and wonder where it came from, how it came to the conclusion, and then address it. If I stated right now NFQ lied, she’d probably do the same over her own words. Now I’m not God, but I do believe in God (this very site is about God) so how should it really come to a surprise that I would feel the need to address the point?

I started to address this by getting into the fact that English interpretations of the Bible often end in the unfortunate but unavoidable fact that meaning can be missed, left out, or unclear. NFQ calls this a common excuse.

Well of course it’s common. It’s true. That doesn’t make it an excuse. That makes it true. This is the case of any sort of interpretation. Things do not always interpret well. Culture influences slang, importance, word choice, and more. Try to tell a joke in a different language to a different culture and you’ll quickly find out what I mean.

Small bodies of work that are interpreted often lose something in the process. So why should it come to a surprise that the Bible is no different?

What really shocked me though is what NFQ went on to suggest. I’ll quote that section just for clarity.

“The fact that most of the people reading the Bible today are reading a translation of a translation of a translation is definitely a problem, as far as conveying the (alleged) word of God is concerned.

If we agree on this much, (Canterrain’s note: I don’t actually agree on that assessment) though, we should move on to the next natural question: why is anyone reading the books of the Bible in anything other than the languages in which they were originally written? Teaching people the contents of the Bible in their own native languages seems like asking for trouble; you’re bound to misrepresent things and give them the wrong idea about God. Is it ever okay for me to read the Bible without the oldest known texts in front of me, and without years of training in ancient cultures and their languages’ idioms? It would seem not. It seems that only a very small percentage of people on the planet, real Biblical scholars, are at all qualified to read the Bible.”

This strikes me as funky, because NFQ comes off as the same person who probably would decry the church for at one point keeping the bible out of the common’s person hands by refusing to allow it to be interpreted into a language the common person could understand. (In fact, she has stated that “…religion was obviously fabricated in order to control people (sometimes for good and sometimes for bad).”)

Maybe NFQ is ok with the idea of the bible being kept out of the people’s hands by never being interpreted to English, but if she’s note I’d really feel compelled to ask for her to pick a side.

Are only Bible Scholars qualified to read the bible? No. That’s as absurd and ridiculous as NFQ probably means for it to be. But it also completely destroys her point.

Just because anyone should be able to read the bible, doesn’t mean that interpretation becomes an excuse. With any interpretation, things will get sticky and therefore when confusion comes out of it will need to be addressed. But that’s better than not interpreting at all, or over interpreting to a point it can’t be understood anyways. (Funnily enough, there is a bible interpretation that seems to want to do exactly that. It’s called the Amplified Bible, and not so surprisingly it can be very hard to read, and impossible to teach from)

NFQ goes on to point out that I commented on one particular line of the bible that doesn’t get interpreted exactly for all the reasons I’ve just stated. It’s the last few words of Genesis 2:17, and most literally they would be rendered “… and dying you shall surely die.” NFQ says that doesn’t make sense. I would almost agree, and like to point out that for that reason I explained. Over many sentences.

Allow me to summarize what I said. Dying you shall surely die doesn’t sound like much sense in English. But in (at least biblical era) Hebrew, it’s a cultural way of placing emphases. In this case, emphases on the severity of consequence. It’s an exclamation point of sorts for a people who didn’t use punctuation.

I also went on to explain how this doesn’t mean instantly in that exact moment, citing various other uses of the exact same words in other portions of the bible, places where it clearly doesn’t mean instant. But that’s left out of her post entirely.

Now NFQ asks about the tree of life and immortality, and that’s fair. I meant to cover this topic, but the whole topic became very long. Suffice to say (and I am going to gloss over this, because it involves Hebrew again, and clearly that’s not good enough) there are lines that suggest that had man chosen differently, he would have actually been allowed to live without dying. It’s actually a topic complicated enough to be worthy of its own post, and I’d like to cover it someday.

While commenting on my pointing out how the same word for day is used in multiple ways (a case for context NFQ likes to just disregard), she points out that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 might seem to have completely separate stories containing a first time God created man and woman together, and a second time God created man and woman. Two completely different and unrelated stories.

The case here is actually closer to what NFQ is stating than what she realizes. Two different stories are being told. But they also overlap and are related.

The first story is the story of creation as a whole. God created things, in this order, and rested at the end. The second is the story of what happened when (and after) God created man. The first story is a summary of a great deal of events. The second story is a detailed description of a single arc of events.

The man and woman mentioned in Genesis 1:26 are the exact same woman mentioned in Genesis chapter 2.

If I tell you about all the things I did to get to work. Perhaps waking up, showering, and getting ready for work, getting on a subway train, making the final trek to work… then later mention things that happened while on the subway train in detail, I have not told you I rode the subway twice.

This is a case of mistaking chapter and verse markings for meaningful markings of any sort. Yes, we added the chapter and verse distinctions. The books of the bile were never really written with putting those distinctions in mind. Now NFQ might decry that as more proof that the bible is altered and etc (she might not, however, to be fair), but the fact of the matter is we work and teach out of the bible. And the numbering system is the only thing that prevents a conversation such as, “Now everyone turn to the book of John. No that book of John, the other one. The one about Jesus. Now turn to the approximate middle if you have a small print bible, but two thirds in if you have a larger print. You’re looking for a section before his crucifixion…” You get the idea. Yes, the numbering system itself can create ‘problems’. But they are generally mild, and it is a case of helps more than it hurts. There are actually bibles printed without any such numbering whatsoever, and I do encourage any bible reader to purchase one. You may read the bible in a whole new way.

I can go on, and on. The problem lies in that I DO believe context matters. I also think it’s somewhat absurd to believe that context doesn’t. Context is the very heart of every sentence written. NFQ doesn’t. And since it’s a point we can’t agree on, it means it’s a topic where we will spin round and round.

And at this point, I refuse. Because as I have gone along I have come again to the realization that I began to mention earlier. NFQ is not a critical thinker. She is a debater. She doesn’t seem to care about being right so that she is right. But she cares about ‘being right whether or not she actually is right’ for the sake of winning.

You can see this in her articles on how to better debate. Debating is all well and good. But you can debate things you don’t believe and win. (I’ve done it) I have no doubt that NFQ could take every single one of her articles, and actually post responses that not only disagree but actually defeat them.

There are two kinds of debate though.

Debate for the point of bringing critical thinking. These end in the posts where when given one set of responses you reply with another set of responses based in fact, or at the very least well supported speculation.

Then there is debate for the sake of competition. These end in posts where when given one set of responses you reply with a carefully crafted set of responses with the sole intention to demean the value of the original set of responses, no matter what their actual worth may be. Usually this means the opposing responses have little knowledge or benefit to offer themselves.

NFQ’s response to my post can be boiled down to, “Canterrain is wrong because I disagree, and I think his point is invalid because I say so.” She glosses over things that are important, while focusing in on things that aren’t (all while essentially accusing me of the same thing; this despite that I admit I hadn’t focused on the part I and she really wanted me to). I get no sense that NFQ approached my requested response with any respect. (I admit, I could be wrong, tone is very hard to read on the internet)

And unfortunately, it’s left a bitter taste in my mouth. There has been one benefit to all this though. It made me remember why I started this site. And it wasn’t to debate. So I’ll throw in the ‘towel’. Because in the end, I’m hoping to add something of substance. Not win a competition. As for NFQ, well I honestly think she’s capable of substance too. She’s shown it on more than one occasion.

I think her better articles are the ones that aren’t about “how to win”, but unfortunately, as I look through them, it just seems like it’s becoming more and more about winning on her site.

But just as my ‘biases’ dictate my leanings in thought, so do hers. And I’m failing to see the point of continuing to circle the drain. So that’s why I doubt I’ll be continuing this back and forth between NFQ. And I do wish her the best. We are both just acting on our beliefs, after all.

My only regret really, is that I thoroughly enjoyed how respectful this going back and forth had started, and how disrespectful it seemed to end.

June 17, 2010

This is more of a quick article.

Over at MaxvsMax (can’t get enough of that webcomic you see), there is an interesting topic going on. The creator, Wes, quoted C.S. Lewis and asked for thoughts on the quote.

Eventually the topic of the Bible and its rules governing slavery come up. It is suggested that according the Bible slavery is just fine. Clearly this is morally repugnant, but God is just fine with it. Can that be right?

There are a few things to keep in mind here. Cultures change. There was a very real point in time when MAN accepted slavery as a natural thing, and was dependent on it. (And until not very long ago in the scheme of things)

Economies depended on slavery. People depended on slavery. In some ways, the world depended on it. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. But it does mean one thing.

Just because something is important doesn’t mean someone of authority can simply state, “This shall (not) be.” And it will happen.

If that were the case, we’d have universal health care in the United States as I type this.

Slavery could not be overturned in a moment. Sometimes cultures must be changed a little at a time. The Bible has done this more than once. A very long time ago a culture decided that if you hurt me I would hurt you worse. So you would hurt me even worse. And so on. So to start a path down a good road, an eye for an eye was started. You hurt me. I hurt you back just as much. The cycle is stopped. Eventually though, man grew enough that he should be able to do even better. So we gained the instruction turn the other cheek.

The Bible, and God’s instructions, were left in the middle a situation where slavery couldn’t simply be abolished and everything would be ok. (Anyone can be realistic and see the truth behind this, even as we all agree slavery is not ok)

So the best and only, available choice was the next best thing. See to it that if slavery ‘must’ exist, then the situation for the slave is as good as possible. (Something that sadly was not always followed) It is difficult to find another set of rules for slavery that looked upon the slave so well.

So in short. Does the Bible (and therefore God) support slavery? No. It merely didn’t have the authority to abolish it. So it did what it could to stem it.

This is an article late in coming.  And it will touch alot more on exacting scripture than I really intend for Lifequill.

In a comment to my Easy Apples post, the writer NFQ asked some questions regarding the creation story, specifically regarding the forbidden fruit and the consequences of eating it.  (You can see that post here )

There are a few things I’d like to address regarding the post, along with the final question asked.

In the post, NFQ states:

“God lies to Adam and Eve and tells them that eating the fruit will cause them to die that day. (We know it’s a lie, because they do eat the fruit and that’s not what happens.)”

But this is untrue, actually.

The problem herein lies in that NFQ is working from an English translation of the Bible.  The phrase is rendered, “And you shall surely die.” This does lend to certain problems in understanding the text.  (For reference, the section of the Bible being discussed is Genesis 2:17; “… but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”)

Two sections need to be considered.  The phrasing “in the day” and “you shall surely die.”  I’m going to start with the second.

If you examine the Hebrew, the wording and verbiage used would come out word for word, “…dying you shall surely die.”

It contains a few things that really matter (grammar specialists take note, everyone else feel free to skip forward a bit).

It contains the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) and the infinite absolute form of the same verb (dying).

What exactly does that mean, you ask?  First and foremost, that there is a strong emphasis on the fact that a kind of death will happen.  But to best grasp it all, one can look for other uses in the Bible.

This same basic phrase is found in Numbers 26:65.  In it, God tells the Israelites that because they refused to trust Him, the adults would die over the course of 40 years.  The phrase, dying you shall surely die, is used specifically.  But it is clear in that context, and from the following events, that God did not mean every adult would die instantly or at once.  (Hence part of the use of 40 years).  But that it could be gradual, still with the same outcome.

What of the second phrase, “in the day…” doesn’t that suggest that it would happen that day?  Well, no.  Again if you look at the Hebrew and how it is used in the Bible it often does not mean a single day.

For instance, the same word that creates this phrase is used to describe the six day period of creation.  Not a single day.  (Genesis 2:4)  It is also used again in Numbers 7:10-84 to describe a twelve day period of sacrifice.  The word itself can either be a specific day, or a number of days, or even more, and is dependent on the context of the text it is contained within to determine the case.

There are multiple ways of interpreting the line in regards to Genesis.  It seems clear that a spiritual death DID happen that day.  Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden; they “hid themselves from God.”  Their once close relationship was now broken.  But where the earlier text suggests that they may have lived eternally before (the part about eating any other tree, actually translates more correctly as everlasting feasting), they were now cursed to toil, experience pain, and eventually die.

There is nothing in the Hebrew text to suggest that the best translation would be, “If you eat the fruit, you will die instantaneously (or even this day).  Just that the death would be a grave one.  (It is emphasized in seriousness, not necessarily in timeliness)

So God was in fact telling the truth.  Eating the forbidden fruit led to both a spiritual, and eventually a physical death.

But there is still another important question from NFQ’s post I feel need be addressed.

In it they ask (and allow me to paraphrase), “Is it fair for God to punish Adam and Eve’s actions, when by the very text admittance, they did not know the difference between right and wrong?”

Yes.  Yes it is.  We as humans, more specifically parents, do exactly that every day.  When we have very young children, they often begin to do something because they do not know any better.  As a parent, we will see their action and warn them to stop.   The child understands what the parent has said, what they wish.  But chooses to do so anyways.  Again, not realizing that what they are doing is ‘wrong’.  Not knowing any better.  Yet afterwards, we still punish them.

Why?  Because even if a child did not realize what they were about to do was wrong, they do know the sound of a parent’s voice.  The intention of their words.  And chose to ignore it.  We punish as much for that as for the wrong.  Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of right and wrong.  But they did have the knowledge of what God wanted and what He did not.  And they chose their own will anyways.  As with a child, they were punished.  They, and the child, later knew what they did was wrong.  Not just because of the action being wrong, but because of the disobedience.  A child may not yet have understanding of good and bad, right and wrong, but they do have an understanding of listening to a parent.  And we further instill that by holding them to it.

A life without consequences equates in nongrowth.

NFQ specifically asks: “So, the story of Adam and Eve suggests either that the justice of the Judeo-Christian God runs contrary to our most basic notions of what fairness should look like, or (less likely) that the Judeo-Christian God is so arbitrary as to cross the line into antagonism. If you believe in this God and you revere the text of Genesis, please tell me: which one is it?”

The answer actually is the first.  One need not look further than the Bible to see that, as stated in 1 John 1:9.  “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

From the beginning man has as a whole done more wrong than right.  More harm than good.  Given free will, we choose destruction more often than not.  It is hard to find a person who is blameless.  (I do not believe one exists on this earth)

From the beginning all men have sooner or later chosen their own path over God’s.  Reveling in our knowledge instead of His.  Man’s justice claims that all crime should be punished.  Yet, as John tells us, God’s justice involves forgiveness.  When is the last time a judge offered a criminal forgiveness?  Yet that is God’s way.

So although NFQ was trying to get at something else, (which I admit I sidestepped entirely with my earlier answer on exactly why punishing Adam and Eve is ok), I still find the answer to the question to be a resounding yes.  What we find just in this world, it seems God would try to avoid for a greater sort of justice.

NFQ also asks: “While we’re at it — why wouldn’t God want his people to know the difference between good and evil? Wouldn’t God want people to be able to choose good over evil, and doesn’t that require being able to distinguish between them? A deity that punishes his people for finding out the difference between right and wrong does not sound very benevolent to me.”

I must simply point out what man has done with his knowledge of evil.  God has knowledge of good and evil.  Yet He is pure, and does only good.  Man on the other hand is not the same.  Capable of both good and evil, man chooses evil.  And though yes it can be said that not all men are “EVIL” in the large truly horrid sense of the world.  No man is purely good either.  And drawing a line becomes a task so large that the rolling stone of “what isn’t too evil?” will flatten even the largest city.

Without the knowledge of good and evil, man could not do evil.  But God didn’t strip that knowledge from us.  He forbade it, yes.  But He didn’t stop us from attaining it when we made the choice.  The crux of free will.

May 7, 2010

“When atheists read the Bible, they — by virtue of their being atheists to begin with — are starting with the premise that the Bible is false. I highly doubt that most atheists are reading the Bible with the goal of figuring out for themselves whether the content is authoritative.”

Hi.  Let me preface the rest of this article with the statement that the quote I just laid out is actually something I do not believe.  I think we can all agree that it is highly intolerant, an extreme case of bad stereotyping, and just plain wrong.  But I want you to keep the quote in mind because it is part of a point I’m going to try and make in today’s piece.

One of my ways of relaxing and passing the time is reading webcomics.  This can actually be a hard thing to do at times, because it seems more and more webcomics are becoming ‘adult’ by nature.  I suppose this is the way of the internet.  I’ve been very pleased to find a webcomic named Max vs. Max.  It is a story about a Christian, struggling with faith, and trying to make each through each day.  It’s clean, it’s funny, and thankfully it doesn’t try to beat you over the head with a large print King James Bible.

The creator, Wes Molebash, signed up for an account at formspring.me a place where you can be asked and answer questions from anonymous or not anonymous readers.  Not surprisingly quite a few fans of the webcomic begin to ask questions about his faith.  At one point he mentioned that “…the Bible holds up under heavy scrutiny.”

One reader, a person who writes in the blog No Forbidden Questions, was stunned by this answer, and probed with a further question essentially of ‘… What do you say to objections like these?”  They also posted links to youtube videos.  Wes answered, and his answer inspired a blog post from the reader.  You can read it here: http://www.noforbiddenquestions.com/2010/05/heavy-scrutiny-for-the-bible/

And it’s that post I’d like to address.  Firstly, I’d like to thank NFQ for starting out polite.  At no point did the writer call Wes stupid or use any sort of name calling or anything else of the sort.  And it’s that sort of debate that really allows mankind to grow.

But there are quite a few issues I’d like to take with the post itself.  Because things did quickly start to go downhill, suggesting an unhealthy bias and large amount of stereotyping and intolerance on the writer’s part.

Let’s start with the most blaring comment that came right out and slapped me.

“When Christians read the Bible, they — by virtue of their being Christians to begin with — are starting with the premise that the Bible is true. I highly doubt that most Christians are reading their Bibles with the goal of figuring out for themselves whether the content is authoritative.”

And now you see the “trick” I pulled.  And I’ll admit that it was a “trick”, but not an unfair one.  If a statement is brash or intolerant when phrased towards one ‘set of people’ then it is so no matter what ‘set of people’ it is phrased towards.

What boggles me about this statement, and many statements made in this blog post is the vast generalization and intolerance featured in it.  And I don’t mean in just the usual way of generalization.  This author, for instance, treats each and every single Christian as though they were born and raised Christian and never knew any other life.  (Take their later comment in the comment section: “It’s stuff you get taught practically from birth, and it comes with threats of eternal hellfire for those who do not believe. It’s hard.”)

There are quite a few Christians who were born and raised a Christian.  And knew no other life.  It’s true.  But even more true is that there is an equally great number of Christians who were NOT born and raised Christian.  But came to this belief later in life.  Not all Christians are taught practically from birth.

I myself did not become a Christian until I was 18.  This previous weekend I had the wonderful opportunity of listening to Nathan Grubb for a class.  This is a man who is the son of a Pastor.  One who committed adultery, drank excessively, and practiced every sin he preached against.  This was a man who had every reason not to believe the Bible, not to believe in God, and for a great portion of his life did not.  And now he does.  There is C.S. Lewis, a person who although born in to a Christian family was not Christian and was in fact a person who argued against it (against J.R.R. Tolkien actually) until the age of 32. (And not before at first declaring himself just a theist as opposed to a Christian)

The list goes on and on, and so I find myself dismayed at such a statement which ignores such a greater fact entirely.

Even the fire and brimstone comment is out of place.  This isn’t the 1950′s.  I have never heard a fire and brimstone sermon.  They aren’t common.  And haven’t been for a very long time.  (Yes they exist, but my point is they are not every day lecture as the comment suggests)

I’m also confused and take issue with a few other statements.  For instance, NFQ writes, “…I was also disappointed by Molebash’s use of the old, hackneyed response to contradictions in the Bible: that you have to look at the context.”

I feel this in part comes from two faults.  One being Wes’s, and one being the writers.  There are times when the issue of context isn’t a matter to discuss where ‘contradictions’ in the Bible are mentioned.  Point against Wes.  But there are many times when it IS.  Point against the writer.
What I find confusing is that the writer begins to list several areas they feel context has nothing to do with.  The reason I find this confusing is Wes didn’t bring up these subjects, NFQ did, so applying it to the talk with Wes seems out of place to me.

Context is important in the Bible.  Some things were meant for certain cultures, some things were meant for all time, the problem is often determining which is which.  Context, however, can never be determined from a single line of the Bible and it’s a mistake to use context as an argument for or against this way.  Broaden the portion of the Bible you are looking at instead of focusing in on just one line.  (Also, I thought this section would have been a lot better without the extreme sarcasm, it really brings down any ability I have to take the writer seriously, which is a shame because I want to.)

Another thing I take issue with is where the writer states: “I got referred to someone else who “does a better job” of answering my question. This is another one I get a lot. Personally, I wouldn’t be able to believe in anything as bizarre and counterintuitive as religion without being able to provide an extremely good explanation of it myself…”

I’m confused by this statement greatly.  Whether you believe in Creationism, or Evolution, or a hybrid, chances are you believe that every human is unique.  They all have strengths and weaknesses.  They all have things they are good at, and things they are bad at.  And no one is good at everything.

Yet this statement seems to suggest that every Christian should be able to adequately, thoroughly, and eloquently be able to answer every question they receive about faith without a moment’s thought.  That just boggles me.   Christians aren’t by definition perfect public speakers and writers.  Some of us just stink at explaining things.  Some of us can’t explain how to program a VCR let alone expound upon the mysteries and complexities of God.  And the lack of ability to do so is not a point against faith and God or even the believer.  It’s a natural and normal point of life.

There are plenty of atheists who can’t answer every question they are posed either.  Should the reverse be true?  Of course not.

Furthermore, the suggestion that not having the answers right now (As mentioned in the statement: “Well, guess what? They haven’t figured out all the hard questions. We are still waiting.)means that there are no answers, or won’t be answers and etc. etc. is just off and again wrong.  Sometimes, as Christians, as atheists, as anything at all, we don’t know all the answers.  Sometimes we never do find all the answers.  That doesn’t mean those answers don’t exist.

Let me pose this question.  Right now Science has yet to find an answer for an impossible number of things.  Should I therefore no longer treat Science as a valid point of view, or something to be trusted because it can’t provide me the answers to the hard questions “right now?”

The answer is of course no.  And the same applies to the hard questions regarding Christianity.

My point here today is this.  Yes.  Christians have bias.  And you know what? So do atheists.  So do pagans, and politicians, and everybody else.  NFQ seems to miss this entirely.  They actually portray atheists as completely unbiased (“When atheists and/or skeptics read the Bible (or any other text describing supernatural claims), they consider the claims and consider the evidence for and against them, then they attempt to come to a conclusion on the likely truth value of those claims.”), and Christians as completely biased and completely unable to look at the Bible without bias.

If you must stereotype then do it fairly, and the fair truth is that on average both atheists and Christians are equally biased when it comes to the Bible, although in different directions.  And both are equally capable of reading, examining, and determining the truth and authoritativeness of the Bible.  If they want to.  And you can’t question how willing one side is to do that without conceding the same of the other.

Saying “I’ve never met a Christian who…” or “I’ve never met an atheist who…” is not only wrong, but a weak argument.  You haven’t met every atheist and every Christian.

Healthy debate, intelligent thinking, and true fact seeking means putting aside all preconceptions of a person, a group, an oath or creed, and looking at what is beneath instead.

To quote an episode of one of the Star Trek series, “Challenge your preconceptions or your preconceptions will challenge you.”

January 27, 2010

I sometimes get asked, “If God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat the apple, why did He make it so easy to get?”

The question revolves around the idea that God could have just as easily put the tree on top of a mountain, or made it impossible to reach in some way.

The problem is the question misses the entire point of what God really wanted.  What God wants.

God built mankind with the express intent of giving them freewill.  The ability to choose.  It’s one of the things that separates us from everything else in the universe.  Angels know God exists.  And have no choice but to worship Him.  The animals, the earth, even the very rocks would call out in praise of Him if no man or woman did.  (Jesus briefly touches on that fact in Luke 19)

But God wanted something more.  He wanted man to be able to make a choice.  To believe Him.  Or not.  To worship Him.  Or not.

We all know to a degree why He’d want something like that.  If someone does something nice for you because they have to, or because they have no choice but to, it doesn’t mean anywhere near as much as when someone does something nice because they want to, they choose to.  Does it?

Angels cry out in worship every moment to God.  But a single moment of Man’s worship moves Him far more.

God wanted to build a creature that would choose to believe Him.  Believe in Him.  Worship Him.  The one downside to that is, God would have to build a creature that could choose not to believe Him.  Or believe in Him.  Or worship Him.

And so the very first choice came with a fruit.  Mankind was told not to eat it, or else there would be dire consequences.  A serpent said to eat it, and that there would not be any such dire consequences.

Now I have to ask you, my reader, if the fruit had been impossible to get would it really have been a choice?

Let me ask this way.  Imagine you enter a restaurant.  You are greeted warmly by your server and they ask what you would like to drink.  You naturally inquire as to the choices.  Imagine the server told you, “We have water.  And we have soda.  But the only way to get the soda is to travel to Mount Everest, ascend it, and claim it yourself.”

Is soda really a choice in that situation?  No, no it is not.

For something to be an actual choice, one option must be as relatively as easy to choose as the other.

If God had made the fruit impossible to obtain, He would have chosen for Mankind.  Instead of allowing Mankind the choice.

May I address something else here?  Choice also involves consequence.  And taking responsibility for our choices.  This is the very second mistake Mankind made.
First Mankind chose to believe the serpent over God.  Then Mankind chose not to take responsibility for that choice.

Eve blamed the serpent, saying “The serpent deceived me and I ate it.”

Adam blamed both Even AND God!  He said, “The woman YOU put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (emphasis mine)

Notice first he points out that Eve gave him the fruit, then he points out that God was the one who made Eve in the first place.  Therefore it’s “His fault.”

That’s a pretty big mistake to make.  Because let’s face it.  Eve chose to believe the serpent.  Adam chose to believe Eve.  They were told by God there would be dire consequences.  And they chose to believe otherwise.

And do you know something else?  The very question this topic asks makes the same mistake.  It tries to put the blame on God.  “Well if God had put the fruit out of reach, then Adam and Eve couldn’t have eaten it.”

But the problem isn’t what God could have done.  The problem is what mankind should have done.

Do you know something else?  This very topic also proves just how much God loves mankind.  He could have made it impossible to choose to eat the fruit.  But He would rather be able to lose us, not have our worship, have the outcome of us choosing something other than Him… than force us to stay in His presence, and worship Him.

That’s one of the things that seem to distinguish God from so many stories of gods and goddesses.  Often those gods and goddess demand worship.  God really could.  But all He does is ask and hope and extend His arms waiting.

But God is a parent, in so many ways.  We let our children choose.  But when they choose unwisely, such as misbehaving, we also hold them accountable for those decisions.

So that’s what it boils down to.  Yes.  God didn’t want Adam and Eve to choose to eat the fruit.  But what He wanted more was for Adam and Eve to be able to choose at all.

Without free will we are no different than cows.  Existing without any real choice.  Unable to grow, to succeed, to triumph.  But with free will we can do all that and more.  At the small cost that we also can and will fail.

Thankfully, God also created forgiveness.  Second chances.  And growth.  Our failures don’t define us.  But they do refine us.  And that’s important too.

« Older Posts — Newer Posts »