Fundamentalism annoys me. It does not take the Bible seriously, and makes a joke out of a faith that I cherish. In my experience, Fundamentalists have turned more people away from God than to God, and have (sometimes permanently) scarred the face of Christianity to those they turn away. This post is not so much a rant as it is begging for an answer that makes sense. It seems as if a good slogan for a Fundamentalist would be:
"It wouldn't be faith if it made sense."
If you are a Fundamentalist who does not agree with that slogan, then I beg of you to consider the rest of this post, and see if you wish to remain in your ignorance.
I will now proceed to show different examples that reveal the ludicrousness of the idea of "Biblical Inerrancy." Some are more interpretive than others, but all are worth noting. To keep the attention of any Fundamentalist that has made it this far, however, I will state the easiest ones first so they do not have to think too hard.
The Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew is different from Luke. Although there are many instances that they are different, I will only point out one. Who was Jesus' grandfather? Was it Jacob (Matthew 1.16) or Heli (Luke 3.23)? It should be noted that Matthew's gospel was written from a Jewish standpoint for a Jewish audience, and that even the genealogy was theology. In brief, Hebrew has no numbers, and they use letters instead (English equivalent: A=1, B=2, etc.). David in Hebrew is also the number 14. Matthew's genealogy has 14 generations between Abraham and David, between David and the exile, and from the exile to Jesus. This eliminates the argument that Matthew was skipping generations. Luke has 41 people between Jesus and David (as opposed to Matthew's 28). This would make one of them (or both of them) wrong.
The order of Creation is different in Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1 it is clearly vegetation (day 3), water creatures (day 5), Land creatures (first thing in day 6), then mankind (end of day 6). The most important thing is that animals were created first, and then mankind was made to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (Genesis 1.26). There is little to no way that this can be interpreted in any way other than the creation of mankind as the final act of creation. Genesis 2, however, tells a different story. In Genesis 2, man is formed, then vegetation, then animals, then woman. This lends itself to more interpretation than Genesis 1, which is why it is often twisted around to conform. However, if the text is to be taken seriously, it must be seen as a separate account. Man is formed (2.7), Eden is planted (2.8), vegetation is grown (2.9), animals are created to help man (2.18), woman is made (2.22). Attention must be called specifically to the fact that in Genesis 1, Mankind is created to have dominion over the animals that already exist, whereas in Genesis 2, the animals were created to help man that already existed.
One of the funniest contradictions is the story of Jesus riding into Jerusalem. Matthew 21 records Jesus riding on two animals (a donkey and a colt), somehow straddling the two, while Mark 11 and Luke 19 tell the traditional story of a colt only. The author of Matthew apparently misread Zechariah 9.9 and told his story to conform to the way he read it.
Did Jesus pray that God would not make him go through with his crucifixion? Matthew 26.39, Mark 14.36, and Luke 22.42 tell the story of Jesus praying this very thing: that he wouldn't have to do what he was about to do. John 12.27 explicitly denies that Jesus would do such a thing.
Who incited David to take a census of Israel? 2 Samuel 24.1 says it was God, but 1 Chronicles 21.1 says it was Satan. Did David do it twice?
When was Passover the week that Jesus died? The synoptics (Matthew 26.17, Mark 14.12, Luke 22.7) say that Passover was on the Thursday night (the last supper). John's (18.39, 19.14, 31) gospel places Passover on Friday (the day of Jesus' death).
Did Jesus deliver his sermon on the mount or the plain? Matthew 5, in typical Matthew fashion, has Jesus, his Messiah, up on a hill to deliver his sermon (5.1). Luke, however, in making Jesus accessible to even the lowly of society, has him deliver it on a level plain (6.17).
There are many (many) more than those mentioned above, but I feel like these are representative enough. By ignoring these texts, or interpreting them to fit together in some twisted way, Fundamentalists insult the integrity of the Bible and turn away those that realize it.
I must clarify that I am not saying that Fundamentalists are bad or stupid people. I am saying that they either don't read the Bible they claim to be sacred, or do not understand what they read. Perhaps this is because they were raised this way, but that does not make it right. It makes it tragic.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Necessity of Liberal Christianity
I am a liberal Christian.
I do not think it would take very many readings on here to come to the conclusion that I am definitely a religious liberal. However, some may doubt my qualifications concerning the noun that liberal modifies. After much thought this past month about the subject, I have come to the conclusion that not only am I a Christian, but that liberal Christianity is a necessity for the survival of a legitimate faith.
Let me rewind a couple thousand years to the first century, when Jesus of Nazareth lived. That's what Christianity is all about, isn't it? The Jews were breaking apart into sects left and right. There were the Essenes, the Sicarii, the Zealots, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, etc. They weren't as multiple as modern Christian denominations, but they were on a much smaller scale. One of these "denominations" of Judaism that I want to focus on especially are the Pharisees; mostly because they are more emphasized in the Gospels. What do the Gospels say about the Pharisees?
The Bible most often portrays the "Pharisee" as a hypocrite. Matthew 23 depicts Jesus denouncing the pharisees for their hypocrisy. He says that they teach correctly, but do wrongly. They love to be respected and honored, they love people the attention and glorification as if they are righteous, but they are only clean on the outside. They are blind guides who do the little things such as tithe and wash their hands, but they neglect things like loving your neighbor and caring for the oppressed. Their insides are filth. Surely this isn't all pharisees, but the point is that just because are in positions of religious importance does not mean that they are somehow more righteous than anyone else.
Another mention of them is in Luke when a Pharisee invited Jesus over to eat. After his arrival, a sinful woman entered and anointed his feet with oil, wash them with her tears, dry them with her hair, and kiss them. The Pharisee is surprised that Jesus is not offended; after all, she's a sinner! The Pharisee had an incorrect perception of how one is to act towards the sinful.
Luke 11 has Jesus denouncing their hypocrisy again, with several parallel statements found in Matthew 23.
The last noteworthy mention of the Pharisee is Luke 18. Jesus tells the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee thanks God that he is not like the tax collector. He does all of the right things like tithing and fasting. The tax collector simply says "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"
The picture we have of the Pharisees is first and foremost that of a hypocrite. The obvious answer to what makes one a hypocrite is one who does not follow his own teachings. However, I wish to push the definition a little further and say that it is also one who passes judgment on others when he himself is guilty.
To go outside of the Bible for a moment, what do we know about Pharisees? The Pharisees began to appear after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. With no temple, how would one worship? One worshiped by following the law and reading scripture. The Jewish law was incorporated into daily life as an act of worship. This led many to view Pharisees as being too legalistic. This may not be an accurate portrayal of them, but to be sure, modern Christians tend not to under-emphasize that aspect. In fact, it seems as if Christians would have us believe that 1st century Pharisees were above all hypocritical and legalistic. Hold on to that thought.
Now here comes Jesus. I must first state that Jesus was Jewish. No matter what anyone may try to say, it takes an awfully large quantity of ignorance to argue that Jesus was not Jewish. Within Judaism, what was it that Jesus taught? I am not trying to say that Jesus taught the Jews one thing, and non-Jews something else. Jesus taught one thing, and that one thing was what he was raised in: Judaism.
Let me give you a classic example I'm sure you're all familiar with. Matthew 5, the sermon on the mount; more specifically, his famous "antitheses" (Matthew 5.21-48). Jesus is here going beyond the written law of Judaism and into a personal understanding. Don't murder, but don't even be angry at another. Don't commit adultery, but don't even lust. Love your neighbor, but love your enemy as well.
Now I ask, what right did Jesus have to do this? A stock conservative Christian answer would probably something along the lines of "He's God, he gave the law to them in the first place, so he has the right to change it." I think this is too much of an assumption. I do not believe Jesus was "changing" or "adding to" the law, so to speak. I believe that he was seeing the timeless Truth of the law, and interpreting proper human conduct from it.
Another example: In Mark chapter 2, Jesus is walking through a grainfield on a Sabbath with his disciples, and they begin plucking the heads of grain. The Pharisees claimed they were disobeying the law by working on the Sabbath. By recalling an activity of king David, Jesus concludes that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This deserves a closer look. Jesus pretty much did break the strict law. If he hadn't, he could have said "No, I didn't, if you looked at verse so and so, you would understand." But there is no avoiding it. Jesus took a liberty with the law, because he understood that it was written in a context. Just like the law of divorce. There are laws on divorce, but that is not because divorce is right. Jesus understood the context.
This can also be illustrated in Matthew 15. There are many laws in the Old Testament that prohibit what one can and can't eat, because it will make one unclean. However, Jesus recognizes that it is not what we eat (what goes into the mouth) that makes us unclean, but what we say (what comes out of the mouth). Could it be that Jesus did not just take a "liberty" but completely disregarded these certain laws? I wouldn't say that he ignored them, but it is that he saw what mattered. It matters whether you love your neighbor or not. It doesn't really matter if you eat the wrong type of fish.
I could be more exhaustive in my examples, but I believe these few examples are sufficient to express my belief that Jesus was a "liberal." Too many Jews were more concerned with cleaning their hands than their hearts. This is not the point of religion (and it is certainly not the point of Judaism). Jesus put the focus on community, love of one another, and love of God. When asked what the most important commandment was, he said love God, and love each other. At the last supper he gave his disciples a new commandment, and that was to love each other.
Who were his disciples anyway? They were fishermen, tax collectors, and nobodies. I highly doubt that he would have expected them to obey the laws as the hypocritical pharisees did. He pointed to a higher law, the law of love, community, and relationship. The Jews reacted strongly against his liberalism, and he was crucified.
Fast forward a couple thousand years. What has Christianity been through? The assault of the 19th century is still with us. Evolution, old earth, Markan priority, documentary hypothesis, all of which conservatives call "liberal" with disdain. I believe that with this liberalism, Christianity may never be the same, but religion will survive.
Those who say that science is wrong and the Bible is right, really actually say that science is misunderstood, and that it's not wrong, but we must have clearly misunderstood our evidence, because the Bible is clearly the final authority. If this view is to be continued to be held, then it will become farther and farther away from what is accepted until it is completely destroyed. The more evidence we find that the earth is billions of years old, the farther away Creationists will find themselves from legitimacy. As we continue to find more manuscripts of the Bible, the theory of biblical inerrancy will fall away into nothing.
I am not saying that Christianity is destined to die, but as Jesus saw a higher level of religion from Judaism (even if he would have still considered himself a Jew), so we must find a higher level of religion from Christianity, without renouncing the faith. I believe that Jesus would have thought that whether or not we believe that Moses actually parted a sea is irrelevant (though he probably believed that it did in fact happen). I believe that it would have mattered little to Jesus whether or not the earth was created in six days, but much that we love our creator.
I am a liberal, as has been stated. However, I believe that the future of faith is in liberalism, and by liberalism I do not mean the disbelief in conservative doctrines, but the belief in higher ones. Whether I believe in a young earth or the virgin birth is not why I am a liberal. I am a liberal because I believe in the message of Jesus above all else. I am a liberal because I believe in the power of love over the power of doctrine. I am a liberal because I believe I believe that Jesus died for a message that is higher than Christologies or atonement theories. I am a liberal because more than anything else, I believe in loving God, and loving each other, and without liberalism, I believe that Christianity will meet its death. There are too many denominations, too many preachers and congregations that believe that their salvation rests on their beliefs in doctrines of atonement and theories of the Christ. I say no, you are in darkness. I say no, come into the light of God.
Love is greater than faith, don't you see? Love is the gospel, love is God, and love is the way to salvation. If we do not love, then we are condemned already, and we walk in darkness. If this love makes me a liberal, then so be it. If refusing to kick homosexuals out of our churches makes me a liberal, so be it. If loving the Muslim and befriending the drunkard makes me a liberal, then so be it. I love, therefore I am a liberal. If Christianity is not liberal, then I say it does not love. I say that love never fails, and Christianity without love and liberty will fail.
I am a liberal, and I am a Christian; and I believe that without the former, the latter will be destroyed. Just as Jesus saw the higher meaning of his religion, so we must see the higher in ours; and when there are those yelling at us, condemning us as liberals, condemning us as heretics, crucifying us as heathens, then I will know that Christianity is falling. When those who preach Christ crucified on Sunday, and teach nonacceptance the next, I will know that Christianity is falling. When a Christian can say with a clear conscience that the only thing that matters is Christ's atonement for our sins, I will know that Christianity is in darkness. It is my fear that Christianity is already falling.
I am a liberal.
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
I do not think it would take very many readings on here to come to the conclusion that I am definitely a religious liberal. However, some may doubt my qualifications concerning the noun that liberal modifies. After much thought this past month about the subject, I have come to the conclusion that not only am I a Christian, but that liberal Christianity is a necessity for the survival of a legitimate faith.
Let me rewind a couple thousand years to the first century, when Jesus of Nazareth lived. That's what Christianity is all about, isn't it? The Jews were breaking apart into sects left and right. There were the Essenes, the Sicarii, the Zealots, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, etc. They weren't as multiple as modern Christian denominations, but they were on a much smaller scale. One of these "denominations" of Judaism that I want to focus on especially are the Pharisees; mostly because they are more emphasized in the Gospels. What do the Gospels say about the Pharisees?
The Bible most often portrays the "Pharisee" as a hypocrite. Matthew 23 depicts Jesus denouncing the pharisees for their hypocrisy. He says that they teach correctly, but do wrongly. They love to be respected and honored, they love people the attention and glorification as if they are righteous, but they are only clean on the outside. They are blind guides who do the little things such as tithe and wash their hands, but they neglect things like loving your neighbor and caring for the oppressed. Their insides are filth. Surely this isn't all pharisees, but the point is that just because are in positions of religious importance does not mean that they are somehow more righteous than anyone else.
Another mention of them is in Luke when a Pharisee invited Jesus over to eat. After his arrival, a sinful woman entered and anointed his feet with oil, wash them with her tears, dry them with her hair, and kiss them. The Pharisee is surprised that Jesus is not offended; after all, she's a sinner! The Pharisee had an incorrect perception of how one is to act towards the sinful.
Luke 11 has Jesus denouncing their hypocrisy again, with several parallel statements found in Matthew 23.
The last noteworthy mention of the Pharisee is Luke 18. Jesus tells the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee thanks God that he is not like the tax collector. He does all of the right things like tithing and fasting. The tax collector simply says "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"
The picture we have of the Pharisees is first and foremost that of a hypocrite. The obvious answer to what makes one a hypocrite is one who does not follow his own teachings. However, I wish to push the definition a little further and say that it is also one who passes judgment on others when he himself is guilty.
To go outside of the Bible for a moment, what do we know about Pharisees? The Pharisees began to appear after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. With no temple, how would one worship? One worshiped by following the law and reading scripture. The Jewish law was incorporated into daily life as an act of worship. This led many to view Pharisees as being too legalistic. This may not be an accurate portrayal of them, but to be sure, modern Christians tend not to under-emphasize that aspect. In fact, it seems as if Christians would have us believe that 1st century Pharisees were above all hypocritical and legalistic. Hold on to that thought.
Now here comes Jesus. I must first state that Jesus was Jewish. No matter what anyone may try to say, it takes an awfully large quantity of ignorance to argue that Jesus was not Jewish. Within Judaism, what was it that Jesus taught? I am not trying to say that Jesus taught the Jews one thing, and non-Jews something else. Jesus taught one thing, and that one thing was what he was raised in: Judaism.
Let me give you a classic example I'm sure you're all familiar with. Matthew 5, the sermon on the mount; more specifically, his famous "antitheses" (Matthew 5.21-48). Jesus is here going beyond the written law of Judaism and into a personal understanding. Don't murder, but don't even be angry at another. Don't commit adultery, but don't even lust. Love your neighbor, but love your enemy as well.
Now I ask, what right did Jesus have to do this? A stock conservative Christian answer would probably something along the lines of "He's God, he gave the law to them in the first place, so he has the right to change it." I think this is too much of an assumption. I do not believe Jesus was "changing" or "adding to" the law, so to speak. I believe that he was seeing the timeless Truth of the law, and interpreting proper human conduct from it.
Another example: In Mark chapter 2, Jesus is walking through a grainfield on a Sabbath with his disciples, and they begin plucking the heads of grain. The Pharisees claimed they were disobeying the law by working on the Sabbath. By recalling an activity of king David, Jesus concludes that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This deserves a closer look. Jesus pretty much did break the strict law. If he hadn't, he could have said "No, I didn't, if you looked at verse so and so, you would understand." But there is no avoiding it. Jesus took a liberty with the law, because he understood that it was written in a context. Just like the law of divorce. There are laws on divorce, but that is not because divorce is right. Jesus understood the context.
This can also be illustrated in Matthew 15. There are many laws in the Old Testament that prohibit what one can and can't eat, because it will make one unclean. However, Jesus recognizes that it is not what we eat (what goes into the mouth) that makes us unclean, but what we say (what comes out of the mouth). Could it be that Jesus did not just take a "liberty" but completely disregarded these certain laws? I wouldn't say that he ignored them, but it is that he saw what mattered. It matters whether you love your neighbor or not. It doesn't really matter if you eat the wrong type of fish.
I could be more exhaustive in my examples, but I believe these few examples are sufficient to express my belief that Jesus was a "liberal." Too many Jews were more concerned with cleaning their hands than their hearts. This is not the point of religion (and it is certainly not the point of Judaism). Jesus put the focus on community, love of one another, and love of God. When asked what the most important commandment was, he said love God, and love each other. At the last supper he gave his disciples a new commandment, and that was to love each other.
Who were his disciples anyway? They were fishermen, tax collectors, and nobodies. I highly doubt that he would have expected them to obey the laws as the hypocritical pharisees did. He pointed to a higher law, the law of love, community, and relationship. The Jews reacted strongly against his liberalism, and he was crucified.
Fast forward a couple thousand years. What has Christianity been through? The assault of the 19th century is still with us. Evolution, old earth, Markan priority, documentary hypothesis, all of which conservatives call "liberal" with disdain. I believe that with this liberalism, Christianity may never be the same, but religion will survive.
Those who say that science is wrong and the Bible is right, really actually say that science is misunderstood, and that it's not wrong, but we must have clearly misunderstood our evidence, because the Bible is clearly the final authority. If this view is to be continued to be held, then it will become farther and farther away from what is accepted until it is completely destroyed. The more evidence we find that the earth is billions of years old, the farther away Creationists will find themselves from legitimacy. As we continue to find more manuscripts of the Bible, the theory of biblical inerrancy will fall away into nothing.
I am not saying that Christianity is destined to die, but as Jesus saw a higher level of religion from Judaism (even if he would have still considered himself a Jew), so we must find a higher level of religion from Christianity, without renouncing the faith. I believe that Jesus would have thought that whether or not we believe that Moses actually parted a sea is irrelevant (though he probably believed that it did in fact happen). I believe that it would have mattered little to Jesus whether or not the earth was created in six days, but much that we love our creator.
I am a liberal, as has been stated. However, I believe that the future of faith is in liberalism, and by liberalism I do not mean the disbelief in conservative doctrines, but the belief in higher ones. Whether I believe in a young earth or the virgin birth is not why I am a liberal. I am a liberal because I believe in the message of Jesus above all else. I am a liberal because I believe in the power of love over the power of doctrine. I am a liberal because I believe I believe that Jesus died for a message that is higher than Christologies or atonement theories. I am a liberal because more than anything else, I believe in loving God, and loving each other, and without liberalism, I believe that Christianity will meet its death. There are too many denominations, too many preachers and congregations that believe that their salvation rests on their beliefs in doctrines of atonement and theories of the Christ. I say no, you are in darkness. I say no, come into the light of God.
Love is greater than faith, don't you see? Love is the gospel, love is God, and love is the way to salvation. If we do not love, then we are condemned already, and we walk in darkness. If this love makes me a liberal, then so be it. If refusing to kick homosexuals out of our churches makes me a liberal, so be it. If loving the Muslim and befriending the drunkard makes me a liberal, then so be it. I love, therefore I am a liberal. If Christianity is not liberal, then I say it does not love. I say that love never fails, and Christianity without love and liberty will fail.
I am a liberal, and I am a Christian; and I believe that without the former, the latter will be destroyed. Just as Jesus saw the higher meaning of his religion, so we must see the higher in ours; and when there are those yelling at us, condemning us as liberals, condemning us as heretics, crucifying us as heathens, then I will know that Christianity is falling. When those who preach Christ crucified on Sunday, and teach nonacceptance the next, I will know that Christianity is falling. When a Christian can say with a clear conscience that the only thing that matters is Christ's atonement for our sins, I will know that Christianity is in darkness. It is my fear that Christianity is already falling.
I am a liberal.
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The Relative Goodness of God
While discussing the attributes of God, we came to realize that many of the things we call God are simply extensions of ourselves. We can only know God through that which we already know, and the only thing we know (and that which we know best) is ourselves. Therefore, when we call God just, wise, and merciful, it is only because we think of those attributes as good things, and we make God what we want to.
This is just to give you a very brief background to why I began thinking of these terms. If there was one way that people would like to describe God, or if there was only one word that could capture him (it), what would it be? The omni words (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) get too many people in trouble (the paradox of the rock too heavy for God to lift, for example, or any discussion as to God's foresight/determinism). One of the most popular words used to describe God is "good." God is good, right? I think that it is safe to say that most if not all (I would lean towards all) Christians (those whom I primarily address in general) would agree that God is good. Before I go any further, I must ask in brief what it means to be good.
One way to define "good" is "Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing." For example, I have heard bad jokes, and I have heard good jokes. I have seen bad artwork, and I have seen good artwork. But I may call one painting bad, when someone else would call it good. Which one of us is right? The obvious answer is neither. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? So if goodness is equated with beauty in art, then it would really be impossible to call something objectively good. Some jokes might make me laugh, and my friend yawn. What would make a good joke? There's no way to define a good joke. A good joke is only a good joke so far as it makes the intended audience amused. Is there anything that can be objectively good, then? Can there be anything that is good in a way that anybody could look at it and say that it was good? Goodness only exists as far as we believe it to be good. Calling something good actually says more about the one who describes the object as such than the object itself. If my favorite movies are Die Hard, Crank, The Punisher, and The Matrix, then that does not mean that those four movies are the best movies made, but it does say that I love action movies. If my friend's favorite movie is What Dreams May Come, that does in no way make that movie the best. It only means that my friend is a philosophical romantic. Good is so subjective that it appears that it is impossible for something to be objectively good by its own merit.
A second problem with using this definition of "good" is that it is not only completely subjective, but it is also comparative. What I mean, is that in the above examples of jokes, movies, and artwork, to call any one of them "good" is only when observed as one of many examples. If there only existed one painting in the world, then would it be good? It would be impossible to say. Aside from the fact that some people may like it or not, it would be impossible to realize whether or not the work was good. I think that Dream Theater's sixth album is good, but would I think that if the only music I had ever heard in my life was Beethoven's 5th? It may be easier to visualize this by using the adjective "tall."
Shaquille Oneil is tall.
The Empire State building is tall.
Everyone would agree that Shaq is tall, because what we are really saying is "Shaq is tall compared to most people." The Empire State building is tall, but we are really saying that the Empire State building is tall compared to other buildings. The word "good" as defined above is the same way. Therefore, it would be impossible to call God "good" unless we had other deities to compare him to. We could say "Zeus is alright, Baal is bad, but God is good." I would only know a good song because I've heard so many bad ones. If God is the only deity, then can we really call him good? It appears that we must modify our definition of "good" in order to clear up this mess. I will therefore offer another way of defining "good," and I believe this way to be the closer to how Christians would intend the word to be defined when God is the object.
The second way to think of "good" is in the way that you may call someone a "good person." You do not mean that they are a good person because they are stronger than others, or better looking, or have a fuller head of hair, but you mean that they are kind, generous, merciful, loving, friendly, cheerful, nice, etc. I think everyone can understand this way of thinking of "good" without further explanation. However, I must point something out. This definition of "good" is only relational. I will substitute the word "nice" for the word "good." "John is a kind man." This means that John is kind to other people. It means that when John is around other people, he is kind to them. Would we call John kind if he didn't slam his refrigerator in order to not disturb the food? Well, of course not. That has nothing to do with him being kind, because we define "kind" in relational senses. Can John be kind if he is locked in his house with no human contact? He wouldn't be unkind, but he would neither be kind. If someone is "polite," it means that when they are talking to other people, they say "please" and "thank you." It is impossible to be polite when there is no one to be polite to. So in this way we see the word "good."
We say that God is good because we apply our human concepts to him. We humans are kind some of the time. The best people (with the most "good" in them) are kind more than the worse people. God, therefore, must be the farthest extreme of kind that there could be. He must be more kind than any human can possibly imagine. I could love my family and friends, and this might be a good thing, so God must be capable of love, because he must be greater than me, and love is supposedly a good thing, so God must have it but in greater abundance. So it is with "good." God must be good because we see ourselves as good (on a "good" day).
The problem returns, however, in that this definition of "good" is only valid when there is a receiver of the good. Just as John was kind only because there were people to be kind to, so is God good because he is good to us. Christians may say that God is good because he loves us, cares for us, and watches over us. What then, I ask, would he be if he did not love us, did not care about us, and was altogether apathetic to our existence? Would we still call him good? Probably not. We may call him great and powerful, but we would not call him "good." Then is God really objectively good? If God is only good so far as he is good to us, then was God good before we were created? Before there existed anybody to be good to, could it be possible that God was "good" at all? If goodness is defined in relational terms and God is good only so far as he is good to us, then it would appear to be correct to say that Good was not good before there was anybody to recognize him. Is this objective goodness? I do not believe that it is.
It appears to me that at the very most, we can say that God is good to us. But even in that statement, no objectivity exists. If you asked your friend to buy you a drink because you were thirsty and he did, you may think he was good, while the next person who asks and gets denied will not think the same. You, however, did not know that he has said no to 9 other people before he said yes to you. Is he really all that generous then? He would be to you because of your ignorance. In this way, even if we say that God is good to us, we could not be saying anything beyond that as to the nature of God. We cannot speak of the objective goodness of God, because we would only be introducing a paradox. We can only project subjective and relative goodness on God in our ignorance.
This is just to give you a very brief background to why I began thinking of these terms. If there was one way that people would like to describe God, or if there was only one word that could capture him (it), what would it be? The omni words (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) get too many people in trouble (the paradox of the rock too heavy for God to lift, for example, or any discussion as to God's foresight/determinism). One of the most popular words used to describe God is "good." God is good, right? I think that it is safe to say that most if not all (I would lean towards all) Christians (those whom I primarily address in general) would agree that God is good. Before I go any further, I must ask in brief what it means to be good.
One way to define "good" is "Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing." For example, I have heard bad jokes, and I have heard good jokes. I have seen bad artwork, and I have seen good artwork. But I may call one painting bad, when someone else would call it good. Which one of us is right? The obvious answer is neither. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? So if goodness is equated with beauty in art, then it would really be impossible to call something objectively good. Some jokes might make me laugh, and my friend yawn. What would make a good joke? There's no way to define a good joke. A good joke is only a good joke so far as it makes the intended audience amused. Is there anything that can be objectively good, then? Can there be anything that is good in a way that anybody could look at it and say that it was good? Goodness only exists as far as we believe it to be good. Calling something good actually says more about the one who describes the object as such than the object itself. If my favorite movies are Die Hard, Crank, The Punisher, and The Matrix, then that does not mean that those four movies are the best movies made, but it does say that I love action movies. If my friend's favorite movie is What Dreams May Come, that does in no way make that movie the best. It only means that my friend is a philosophical romantic. Good is so subjective that it appears that it is impossible for something to be objectively good by its own merit.
A second problem with using this definition of "good" is that it is not only completely subjective, but it is also comparative. What I mean, is that in the above examples of jokes, movies, and artwork, to call any one of them "good" is only when observed as one of many examples. If there only existed one painting in the world, then would it be good? It would be impossible to say. Aside from the fact that some people may like it or not, it would be impossible to realize whether or not the work was good. I think that Dream Theater's sixth album is good, but would I think that if the only music I had ever heard in my life was Beethoven's 5th? It may be easier to visualize this by using the adjective "tall."
Shaquille Oneil is tall.
The Empire State building is tall.
Everyone would agree that Shaq is tall, because what we are really saying is "Shaq is tall compared to most people." The Empire State building is tall, but we are really saying that the Empire State building is tall compared to other buildings. The word "good" as defined above is the same way. Therefore, it would be impossible to call God "good" unless we had other deities to compare him to. We could say "Zeus is alright, Baal is bad, but God is good." I would only know a good song because I've heard so many bad ones. If God is the only deity, then can we really call him good? It appears that we must modify our definition of "good" in order to clear up this mess. I will therefore offer another way of defining "good," and I believe this way to be the closer to how Christians would intend the word to be defined when God is the object.
The second way to think of "good" is in the way that you may call someone a "good person." You do not mean that they are a good person because they are stronger than others, or better looking, or have a fuller head of hair, but you mean that they are kind, generous, merciful, loving, friendly, cheerful, nice, etc. I think everyone can understand this way of thinking of "good" without further explanation. However, I must point something out. This definition of "good" is only relational. I will substitute the word "nice" for the word "good." "John is a kind man." This means that John is kind to other people. It means that when John is around other people, he is kind to them. Would we call John kind if he didn't slam his refrigerator in order to not disturb the food? Well, of course not. That has nothing to do with him being kind, because we define "kind" in relational senses. Can John be kind if he is locked in his house with no human contact? He wouldn't be unkind, but he would neither be kind. If someone is "polite," it means that when they are talking to other people, they say "please" and "thank you." It is impossible to be polite when there is no one to be polite to. So in this way we see the word "good."
We say that God is good because we apply our human concepts to him. We humans are kind some of the time. The best people (with the most "good" in them) are kind more than the worse people. God, therefore, must be the farthest extreme of kind that there could be. He must be more kind than any human can possibly imagine. I could love my family and friends, and this might be a good thing, so God must be capable of love, because he must be greater than me, and love is supposedly a good thing, so God must have it but in greater abundance. So it is with "good." God must be good because we see ourselves as good (on a "good" day).
The problem returns, however, in that this definition of "good" is only valid when there is a receiver of the good. Just as John was kind only because there were people to be kind to, so is God good because he is good to us. Christians may say that God is good because he loves us, cares for us, and watches over us. What then, I ask, would he be if he did not love us, did not care about us, and was altogether apathetic to our existence? Would we still call him good? Probably not. We may call him great and powerful, but we would not call him "good." Then is God really objectively good? If God is only good so far as he is good to us, then was God good before we were created? Before there existed anybody to be good to, could it be possible that God was "good" at all? If goodness is defined in relational terms and God is good only so far as he is good to us, then it would appear to be correct to say that Good was not good before there was anybody to recognize him. Is this objective goodness? I do not believe that it is.
It appears to me that at the very most, we can say that God is good to us. But even in that statement, no objectivity exists. If you asked your friend to buy you a drink because you were thirsty and he did, you may think he was good, while the next person who asks and gets denied will not think the same. You, however, did not know that he has said no to 9 other people before he said yes to you. Is he really all that generous then? He would be to you because of your ignorance. In this way, even if we say that God is good to us, we could not be saying anything beyond that as to the nature of God. We cannot speak of the objective goodness of God, because we would only be introducing a paradox. We can only project subjective and relative goodness on God in our ignorance.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The God of the Universe
It has been brought to my attention recently through discussion of faith and science that if there existed extra-terrestrial life, the foundations of Christianity would be shaken, and to some people, broken. I would therefore like to examine the consequences of such a discovery.
First I should say that I believe it is very likely that sentient life forms exist elsewhere in the universe. The universe is far too large and far too old for us to be the only intelligent creatures that exist. As it has been said, that would be an awfully big waste of space. I am not an astrologist nor biologist nor chemist nor astrophysicist, but when I imagine the earth, a tiny planet in a tiny solar system sitting on the edge of one of countless galaxies in our enormous universe, I see a great possibility that there is (or was at one time) intelligent, conscious life somewhere in the vastness of space.
What would that say about God?
I believe that it would only go to show how magnificent and glorious a creator our God is that he could plant the seeds of life all over the universe. Why did he make man? Assuming that he did, then I think the bigger question should be why did he make only man? My answer is that he would not have necessarily had to have only created man. Just as he created the deer, the elephant, the squirrel, and the tiger, so too could he have created elsewhere a creature that would not only live, but look back to him in wonder, and search for their creator. Would it make God "love" us any less? (I put "love" in parentheses to recognize the very human term we apply to a being without body, hormones, or instincts. It is not now the place to discuss the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of how we talk about God). I think not. Does it make you think that God loves us less when we see that there are more people in the world than we thought? If there was discovered an island in the Pacific Ocean that had been cut off from the rest of the world for centuries and found that there were humans living there quite comfortably, would we be upset that there were that many more people on the planet that God had to divide his love and attention among? Not at all! If anything, we should be happy and glad that there are more human beings capable of searching for God and living in fellowship with us. The existence of ETI (Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) does not take away from how much God cares for humans. How limiting would that be, if it did? Do we not think that God is really wrapped up in our own worldly affairs? Isn't it the case that we like to imagine God as living within our own atmosphere? It is easier to imagine an Ozone God that cares about everybody than it is to recognize the truth that God sees the farthest star in the farthest galaxy just as clearly as he sees any sparrows falling in the United States. Therefore, I challenge the theology of anyone who would believe that God could not love us as much if ETI existed.
The effect on our theology of God, however, is not what I really wish to discuss. It is the triune God of mainstream Christianity that I wish to question, more specifically, the being of the Son, Jesus the Christ, the supposed fulfillment of Jewish prophecy regarding a Messiah, the savior of the world, one who has been sent from the father God the Creator to die on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind who forsake the God that created them and worshiped the created instead of the creator. What would be the effect of this second person of the Trinity if ETI was ever discovered?
First of all, one must start at the beginning. Allow me to examine the story of human history. Although I believe human history began thousands and thousands of years ago, I will humor the creationists in brief. Adam and Eve, the first human beings on the planet, were created immortal, without death or sin. The serpent then tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, and Adam ate after her, and humanity has been in sin ever since. God then called Abram some time after the flood (in which God wiped out all of mankind save Noah and his family), established a covenant with him, and has since updated the covenant with Moses leading the Israelite sons of Jacob out of their bondage in Egypt into the desert where he established the law before allowing the next generation of people to enter the promised land and slaughter everyone they could find. Since then the Israelites have had a few kings, some good, some bad, but overall they have faired pretty poorly as far as holding up their end of the covenant with God, and so out of divine punishment, they were exiled out of their promised land into the Babylonian east where they struggled to rediscover their identity as a people without their temple or divinely given land. Eventually their prophets began speaking of a day when God would restore balance and judge the nations, exalting the Israelites as his chosen people once again. This day would be heralded by God's chosen Messiah, or Anointed one; a king who would lead the people to victory and national independence once again. As Cyrus freed the slaves of the kingdoms he conquered, he became the Messiah of the Jews in allowing them to return back to their homeland and rebuild their cities. All was not well in the faith, however, as within a couple centuries they were persecuted and sought out to be slaughtered as a people and they dreamed again of a day when God would right the wrongs done to them, if not in this life then in the next. A few centuries more and the Maccabean Revolt gained independence for Israel, if only for a short while, before they were again occupied by the Romans until a man Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary arrived on the scene. This man was the son of God (whatever that means) and as was later interpreted, God himself in the flesh. The incarnation of the Creator came to earth in the form of a human in Jesus in order to die as the atoning sacrifice for all the sins of the world since Eve bit the apple. The new covenant in Jesus the Christ (Greek for Messiah) was eternal life for all who believed that Jesus the son of god had come in the flesh to die for the sins of the world.
This brings us up to date with Christianity.
Given all of the above, if there was intelligent life on another planet somewhere in the universe, then one would have to ask, did they have an Eden? I for one do not believe that Genesis 1-3 is to be read literally, but if it was, then when God created the first humans, he created them naked, unashamed, in a garden where they had access to eternal life. Why then, we can suppose, wouldn't God also create any other sentient being in a garden of perfection? And would they be made in the image of God as well? Although I do not believe in the literal existence of Eden, Adam, or Eve, I do believe the theology of Genesis in that we are created by God in his image. This Image of God, in my opinion, is what separates us from the animals. We are sentient, self conscious beings that have ever searched for our creator. In this way, I believe that any other sentient extra terrestrial intelligence must, by the very definition of them as such, be created in God's image as well. I do not see any theological problems with this, unless one wants to believe that humans are made physically in the image of God, but I do not believe this is a widespread belief amongst Christians (nor do I hold this belief).
To go back to the question of Eden, one must wonder...If God created this alien species in his image just as we ourselves are, then would he have created a paradise for them as well? And if he did, then was there also a tempter in that paradise? And if so, then although we failed here on earth, could they have not? Could it be possible that other creations did not eat the fruit of the forbidden tree (or whatever other edible object they may have on their planet)? This is, of course, assuming that these other species eat (can one imagine God forbidding the absorption of a specific gas?). Taking aside all of these uncertainties, the question still remains, did they fail? Whatever God forbade them to do, did they, like us, fail and allow sin and death to enter their world?
I must take a step back and say again that I am not endorsing the literal interpretation of the Eden narrative, but examining the implications of doing so. Personally, I do not believe that sin came into humanity by the eating of any mystical plant, but that sin is the selfishness that humans have in them. The desire to elevate the self above all others is our sin, not an inherited disease from the first human. We are all born into innocence, and we all reach an age where our focus turns to ourselves, and the sins are how we act (physically or mentally) to feed this desire to elevate ourselves. I believe that any alien intelligence would have this same "sin." I believe that any population in the universe would struggle amongst themselves with the problem of egocentricity. But I am addressing the problems in taking the Eden narrative literally and projecting it onto another planet.
To diverge yet again on a more abstract thought, I must mention the fact that much theology has been done to attempt to explain whether or not God knew Adam and Eve would sin. Did God not know they were going to sin? In which case he had to send his son (who would have supposedly existed at Creation) to die for us as a backup (Jesus as Plan B)? Or did God know we were going to sin and know that he would have to send his son from the start to save us (Jesus as Plan A)? Or, did God already know that he was going to glorify his son, and if all actions in the universe are caused by God, did Eve even have a choice not to eat the forbidden fruit? Were Adam and Eve (and all of humanity) just pawns in God's plan to glorify his son? If God didn't know that humanity would fail, then, aside from the theological issues brought up by the suggestion that God does not know the future, does that imply that alien creatures didn't fail? Or had they all failed, and God tried again with humans and we are just one of the many failures that God has created? Or, if God had planned on the failure of his creation, then one would wonder why he kept creating them. Maybe one of these millennia God would skip the creation of the tempter.
However one interprets the Eden narrative, one way or another I must confess my belief that we are a broken species. We do sin, and however one believes that we obtained that sin, the fact remains that we have it (although hopefully you can see all the problems that would arise if we take Genesis literally). What then would Jesus mean? If Jesus was sent to earth because of our sin, then unless alien civilizations had no sin (which I do not believe), then wouldn't they need a savior too? So would the Son have been sent to other planets to die for them too? In which case, when Jesus came to earth, was it really the first time that he had done something like that? Or has he gone to other planets and taught his message, then been betrayed (as part of God's interstellar plan) and sentenced to a horrible death on every planet that contains life in the universe? Or to take a step behind that, did Judaism exist on these other planets? Did God establish a covenant before he sent his Son? Was the coming of the Son foretold? Did he fulfill alien Scripture? If all of these answers are "Yes," then Jesus must have been awfully tired.
But wait! There is yet another problem. If Jesus had died for every civilization, then was there also a resurrection on every planet? Most Christians would believe that without the resurrection, Christianity ceases to be. One cannot be a Christian without the Resurrection. Then what would it mean if the Son had already been resurrected? This would make no sense. Supposedly, when he was resurrected, he still had his human body. He still bore the holes in his hands and feet, and his wound in his side. If the Son retains his wounds even in the afterlife, then wouldn't he also have to retain his physical appearance? In which case, would he have had to have been some type of shape shifter that could change into any alien species? Would he have had to hide the scars from every other time that he had been killed? Or perhaps, did he only retain his physical body until the ascension? Then what happened to his body? Did it vaporize? How many bodies could the Son have had? Millions? Supposedly when Jesus returns in the Parousia he will still have his human body. Does this mean that he is returning to the other planets as well? Does this mean that he's going to have to change his bodily appearance every time God decides to end the world? Or will God end the universe all at once and Jesus will somehow ride in on his white horse (or whatever other alien creature he may be riding) at every planet at the same time?
If we wish to erase this dilemna of time and space in dealing with the Son, then maybe God just had more than one Son. This solves our problem, right? God is the father of all planets, but then there was a savior for each individual planet, and so God really has thousands of "Sons" that saved their respective planets. So there would exist a triune God in every Galaxy. Or would the Sons watch over their planets while God was the grand facilitator who ran the project on the large scale while his secretary (the Holy Spirit) floated around making sure everyone has the spirit when they need it.
How confusing this has suddenly become. These are questions that must have answers. Christians get their name from "Christ," which is Greek for "Messiah," which is Hebrew for "Anointed." A "Christian" would have to believe that Jesus is the Anointed one of the Jewish faith. What about all the other "Christs" then? How many planets has there been this fulfillment? How many planets has this fulfillment not yet come? Are we multiplying our Godhead? Is every Christ another essence of God? Or is there still only 3 persons? What about the interstellar holy Spirit? How large is the body of Christ?
If any of the above is challenging your faith, then I hope you do not shut your mind to your doubt. If you do not believe there ever has been or ever will be intelligent life aside from us humans, then this may have been a waste of your time and you should be reading science articles instead of theology. However, if you accept the possibility that there could be, then you must face the implications of such an existence. I beg of you that you do not shut me out as an apostate that you should not take seriously, but that you think through these issues yourself and make your own conclusions. I think God can handle your questioning. Can you?
First I should say that I believe it is very likely that sentient life forms exist elsewhere in the universe. The universe is far too large and far too old for us to be the only intelligent creatures that exist. As it has been said, that would be an awfully big waste of space. I am not an astrologist nor biologist nor chemist nor astrophysicist, but when I imagine the earth, a tiny planet in a tiny solar system sitting on the edge of one of countless galaxies in our enormous universe, I see a great possibility that there is (or was at one time) intelligent, conscious life somewhere in the vastness of space.
What would that say about God?
I believe that it would only go to show how magnificent and glorious a creator our God is that he could plant the seeds of life all over the universe. Why did he make man? Assuming that he did, then I think the bigger question should be why did he make only man? My answer is that he would not have necessarily had to have only created man. Just as he created the deer, the elephant, the squirrel, and the tiger, so too could he have created elsewhere a creature that would not only live, but look back to him in wonder, and search for their creator. Would it make God "love" us any less? (I put "love" in parentheses to recognize the very human term we apply to a being without body, hormones, or instincts. It is not now the place to discuss the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of how we talk about God). I think not. Does it make you think that God loves us less when we see that there are more people in the world than we thought? If there was discovered an island in the Pacific Ocean that had been cut off from the rest of the world for centuries and found that there were humans living there quite comfortably, would we be upset that there were that many more people on the planet that God had to divide his love and attention among? Not at all! If anything, we should be happy and glad that there are more human beings capable of searching for God and living in fellowship with us. The existence of ETI (Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) does not take away from how much God cares for humans. How limiting would that be, if it did? Do we not think that God is really wrapped up in our own worldly affairs? Isn't it the case that we like to imagine God as living within our own atmosphere? It is easier to imagine an Ozone God that cares about everybody than it is to recognize the truth that God sees the farthest star in the farthest galaxy just as clearly as he sees any sparrows falling in the United States. Therefore, I challenge the theology of anyone who would believe that God could not love us as much if ETI existed.
The effect on our theology of God, however, is not what I really wish to discuss. It is the triune God of mainstream Christianity that I wish to question, more specifically, the being of the Son, Jesus the Christ, the supposed fulfillment of Jewish prophecy regarding a Messiah, the savior of the world, one who has been sent from the father God the Creator to die on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind who forsake the God that created them and worshiped the created instead of the creator. What would be the effect of this second person of the Trinity if ETI was ever discovered?
First of all, one must start at the beginning. Allow me to examine the story of human history. Although I believe human history began thousands and thousands of years ago, I will humor the creationists in brief. Adam and Eve, the first human beings on the planet, were created immortal, without death or sin. The serpent then tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, and Adam ate after her, and humanity has been in sin ever since. God then called Abram some time after the flood (in which God wiped out all of mankind save Noah and his family), established a covenant with him, and has since updated the covenant with Moses leading the Israelite sons of Jacob out of their bondage in Egypt into the desert where he established the law before allowing the next generation of people to enter the promised land and slaughter everyone they could find. Since then the Israelites have had a few kings, some good, some bad, but overall they have faired pretty poorly as far as holding up their end of the covenant with God, and so out of divine punishment, they were exiled out of their promised land into the Babylonian east where they struggled to rediscover their identity as a people without their temple or divinely given land. Eventually their prophets began speaking of a day when God would restore balance and judge the nations, exalting the Israelites as his chosen people once again. This day would be heralded by God's chosen Messiah, or Anointed one; a king who would lead the people to victory and national independence once again. As Cyrus freed the slaves of the kingdoms he conquered, he became the Messiah of the Jews in allowing them to return back to their homeland and rebuild their cities. All was not well in the faith, however, as within a couple centuries they were persecuted and sought out to be slaughtered as a people and they dreamed again of a day when God would right the wrongs done to them, if not in this life then in the next. A few centuries more and the Maccabean Revolt gained independence for Israel, if only for a short while, before they were again occupied by the Romans until a man Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary arrived on the scene. This man was the son of God (whatever that means) and as was later interpreted, God himself in the flesh. The incarnation of the Creator came to earth in the form of a human in Jesus in order to die as the atoning sacrifice for all the sins of the world since Eve bit the apple. The new covenant in Jesus the Christ (Greek for Messiah) was eternal life for all who believed that Jesus the son of god had come in the flesh to die for the sins of the world.
This brings us up to date with Christianity.
Given all of the above, if there was intelligent life on another planet somewhere in the universe, then one would have to ask, did they have an Eden? I for one do not believe that Genesis 1-3 is to be read literally, but if it was, then when God created the first humans, he created them naked, unashamed, in a garden where they had access to eternal life. Why then, we can suppose, wouldn't God also create any other sentient being in a garden of perfection? And would they be made in the image of God as well? Although I do not believe in the literal existence of Eden, Adam, or Eve, I do believe the theology of Genesis in that we are created by God in his image. This Image of God, in my opinion, is what separates us from the animals. We are sentient, self conscious beings that have ever searched for our creator. In this way, I believe that any other sentient extra terrestrial intelligence must, by the very definition of them as such, be created in God's image as well. I do not see any theological problems with this, unless one wants to believe that humans are made physically in the image of God, but I do not believe this is a widespread belief amongst Christians (nor do I hold this belief).
To go back to the question of Eden, one must wonder...If God created this alien species in his image just as we ourselves are, then would he have created a paradise for them as well? And if he did, then was there also a tempter in that paradise? And if so, then although we failed here on earth, could they have not? Could it be possible that other creations did not eat the fruit of the forbidden tree (or whatever other edible object they may have on their planet)? This is, of course, assuming that these other species eat (can one imagine God forbidding the absorption of a specific gas?). Taking aside all of these uncertainties, the question still remains, did they fail? Whatever God forbade them to do, did they, like us, fail and allow sin and death to enter their world?
I must take a step back and say again that I am not endorsing the literal interpretation of the Eden narrative, but examining the implications of doing so. Personally, I do not believe that sin came into humanity by the eating of any mystical plant, but that sin is the selfishness that humans have in them. The desire to elevate the self above all others is our sin, not an inherited disease from the first human. We are all born into innocence, and we all reach an age where our focus turns to ourselves, and the sins are how we act (physically or mentally) to feed this desire to elevate ourselves. I believe that any alien intelligence would have this same "sin." I believe that any population in the universe would struggle amongst themselves with the problem of egocentricity. But I am addressing the problems in taking the Eden narrative literally and projecting it onto another planet.
To diverge yet again on a more abstract thought, I must mention the fact that much theology has been done to attempt to explain whether or not God knew Adam and Eve would sin. Did God not know they were going to sin? In which case he had to send his son (who would have supposedly existed at Creation) to die for us as a backup (Jesus as Plan B)? Or did God know we were going to sin and know that he would have to send his son from the start to save us (Jesus as Plan A)? Or, did God already know that he was going to glorify his son, and if all actions in the universe are caused by God, did Eve even have a choice not to eat the forbidden fruit? Were Adam and Eve (and all of humanity) just pawns in God's plan to glorify his son? If God didn't know that humanity would fail, then, aside from the theological issues brought up by the suggestion that God does not know the future, does that imply that alien creatures didn't fail? Or had they all failed, and God tried again with humans and we are just one of the many failures that God has created? Or, if God had planned on the failure of his creation, then one would wonder why he kept creating them. Maybe one of these millennia God would skip the creation of the tempter.
However one interprets the Eden narrative, one way or another I must confess my belief that we are a broken species. We do sin, and however one believes that we obtained that sin, the fact remains that we have it (although hopefully you can see all the problems that would arise if we take Genesis literally). What then would Jesus mean? If Jesus was sent to earth because of our sin, then unless alien civilizations had no sin (which I do not believe), then wouldn't they need a savior too? So would the Son have been sent to other planets to die for them too? In which case, when Jesus came to earth, was it really the first time that he had done something like that? Or has he gone to other planets and taught his message, then been betrayed (as part of God's interstellar plan) and sentenced to a horrible death on every planet that contains life in the universe? Or to take a step behind that, did Judaism exist on these other planets? Did God establish a covenant before he sent his Son? Was the coming of the Son foretold? Did he fulfill alien Scripture? If all of these answers are "Yes," then Jesus must have been awfully tired.
But wait! There is yet another problem. If Jesus had died for every civilization, then was there also a resurrection on every planet? Most Christians would believe that without the resurrection, Christianity ceases to be. One cannot be a Christian without the Resurrection. Then what would it mean if the Son had already been resurrected? This would make no sense. Supposedly, when he was resurrected, he still had his human body. He still bore the holes in his hands and feet, and his wound in his side. If the Son retains his wounds even in the afterlife, then wouldn't he also have to retain his physical appearance? In which case, would he have had to have been some type of shape shifter that could change into any alien species? Would he have had to hide the scars from every other time that he had been killed? Or perhaps, did he only retain his physical body until the ascension? Then what happened to his body? Did it vaporize? How many bodies could the Son have had? Millions? Supposedly when Jesus returns in the Parousia he will still have his human body. Does this mean that he is returning to the other planets as well? Does this mean that he's going to have to change his bodily appearance every time God decides to end the world? Or will God end the universe all at once and Jesus will somehow ride in on his white horse (or whatever other alien creature he may be riding) at every planet at the same time?
If we wish to erase this dilemna of time and space in dealing with the Son, then maybe God just had more than one Son. This solves our problem, right? God is the father of all planets, but then there was a savior for each individual planet, and so God really has thousands of "Sons" that saved their respective planets. So there would exist a triune God in every Galaxy. Or would the Sons watch over their planets while God was the grand facilitator who ran the project on the large scale while his secretary (the Holy Spirit) floated around making sure everyone has the spirit when they need it.
How confusing this has suddenly become. These are questions that must have answers. Christians get their name from "Christ," which is Greek for "Messiah," which is Hebrew for "Anointed." A "Christian" would have to believe that Jesus is the Anointed one of the Jewish faith. What about all the other "Christs" then? How many planets has there been this fulfillment? How many planets has this fulfillment not yet come? Are we multiplying our Godhead? Is every Christ another essence of God? Or is there still only 3 persons? What about the interstellar holy Spirit? How large is the body of Christ?
If any of the above is challenging your faith, then I hope you do not shut your mind to your doubt. If you do not believe there ever has been or ever will be intelligent life aside from us humans, then this may have been a waste of your time and you should be reading science articles instead of theology. However, if you accept the possibility that there could be, then you must face the implications of such an existence. I beg of you that you do not shut me out as an apostate that you should not take seriously, but that you think through these issues yourself and make your own conclusions. I think God can handle your questioning. Can you?
Monday, April 23, 2007
A Christian Response to Homosexuality
It seems that one of the largest issues splitting the church today is the issue of homosexuality. By “issue” I mean the ordination and marriage of homosexuals. I believe it is also a matter of discrimination, but suffice it to say that discrimination and prejudice is unchristian; even if it is against “sinners.”
I believe that most (if not all) Christians opposed to granting the above mentioned rights to homosexuals do so because they believe marriage and ordination to be Christian institutions that should not include the homosexual lifestyle.
Apparently, to these Christians, if one assumes that homosexuality is a sin, then it would be an abomination to ordain a man or woman who commits sins. Since this is absolutely ridiculous (from a Christian view that all commit sins), I think it would be more appropriate to say that because homosexuals do not view homosexuality as a sin, they must not be Christian and would lead others astray. If this be the case, then I must investigate what makes homosexuality a sin.
Even before I do so, however, it should be noted that no matter how much one views homosexuality as a sin, it is still only a sin. If, therefore, a homosexual commits himself to God and refuses to have relationships with anybody, there should be no objection to ordaining him. The single homosexual is no more sinful than the married preacher. In fact, the single homosexual may even be less sinful than the married preacher, because if the married preacher ever looks at another woman with lust, he is committing adultery against his wife (the homosexual would have no attachment). Therefore, I believe that any Christian against the ordination of homosexuals must at the very least allow the ordination of homosexuals who vow to remain single. If, then, the homosexual pastor wishes to begin a homosexual relationship, they would be stripped of ordination for willingly sinning.
I hope you understand that I do not support the above position, but must state it as I believe the logic of conservative Christians concludes.
Now to the tedious occupation of inquiring of the reasons homosexual actions (I specify actions as opposed to homosexuality in general based on the above paragraph that explains that there is no difference in sinfulness between a single homosexual and a married or single straight pastor) are sinful.
I believe that most (if not all) Christians who believe homosexual actions to be sins do so because of the condemnation of the actions in the Bible. I must emphasize again that the actions may be condemned, but never the state of being. I am unaware of any source aside from the Bible that Christians appeal to for moral guidance. The Bible is the ultimate authority for faith and morals (and to some science and cosmology). Therefore, there is no reason to condemn homosexuality as a sin aside from the Bible as a whole. I will proceed to discuss most passages I am familiar with that are used against the practice of homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22 – You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
To start with one of the verses most commonly used to condemn homosexuality as a sin, Leviticus 18:22 is a clear condemnation of the act, and states the law that it should not be done. I am not going to argue that this verse does not condemn homosexual activity. What I am going to discuss is the understanding of the prohibition. It should be noted that there is no mention of "sin" or "immorality" in this verse. It is a prohibition just like the prohibition to eat pork. It is not unnatural or morally sinful to eat pork, only forbidden. What makes this prohibition different then? It can be argued that the prohibition to eat pork (and other non-kosher items) do not have to be followed because we are under the new covenant of Jesus, and therefore do not have to keep the law of the Torah (forgive redundancy). Then would that also exempt us from the prohibitions of homosexual activity? I think most would say no, we are still bound to that prohibition. Why then? If one is to say we must abide by the prohibition because of the verse in Romans, then that is using one verse to interpret another, and is not applicable when isolating verses to be studied and understood by themselves for what they are. Therefore, we are left wondering why the prohibition is here in the first place.
If one argues that the prohibition is there because the action is unnatural, then one must also say that heterosexual activity is also unnatural, because the chapter prohibits many acts of heterosexual activity such as intercourse with two women that happen to be sisters, or two women that happen to be mother and daughter, regardless of their familial relationship to you. I don't think many would argue the "unnaturalness" of having sex with two people in the same family, they would at most say it is "morally wrong" or "adulterous." Therefore, the prohibition of homosexual activity cannot be present for any kind of "unnaturalness" of the action.
It should also be stated that there is no reason to believe the impossibility of procreating is a factor for prohibiting the action, since there are no prohibitions for intercourse with infertile or post-menopausal women, and almost every other prohibition in Leviticus 18 could be procreative.
Furthermore, there is no suggestion anywhere that one must not have homosexual desires; they only must not commit the action. In other places, such as the Decalogue, where theft is prohibited, the desire to steal is also prohibited only a few verses later (coveting). When adultery is prohibited in the Decalogue, the desire is prohibited as well. However, when homosexual action is prohibited, there are no prohibitions on homosexual desires.
The prohibition seems to be (from the context) very specific. What I mean is that it may not even be prohibiting all homosexual activity, but only a specific type (i.e. penetration). If this is the case, then the prohibition is not directed towards kissing, fondling, or any type of action aside from lying with a man as one would with a woman.
The prohibition is also directed towards men alone, and not women. There is no way around this fact. The prohibition is not prohibiting all homosexual action, but only male homosexual action. It does not mention anything having to do with "the same gender," but only that a man should not lie with another man as he would with a woman.
How are we to then understand the prohibition? An excellent article by Martin Samuel Cohen (from which I am framing much of this response) concludes that the prohibition is based on the understanding of semen; more specifically, the proper uses of the substance. This is why there are no prohibitions of lesbianism or other homosexual desires or actions that would not result in the misuse of semen.
Cohen steps back from the discussion to first describe the Israelite practice of categorizing everything. Clean from unclean, pure from impure, light from dark, but most importantly, life from death. The Lord is the God of Life, and death is very taboo. There is nothing that can make one unclean in the Torah to the extent that a corpse can. The handling of a corpse is very important. Everything falls into a category of living, dead, or inanimate. Blood and semen are not alive, but they are what cause life, so are they really inanimate? They do not fit neatly into one of the categories so it is vital that the use of the substances is proper. Chapter 11 begins with dietary laws (what is pure, impure, or an abomination). Chapter 12 discusses purity laws about childbirth, chapters 13 and 14 discus lepers and purification. Chapter 15 begins laws of sexual natures, and chapters 16 and 17 discus the Day of Atonement. Then chapter 18 goes back to sexual matters. What can be noticed in the rhythm of the book of Leviticus is the order in which the author discusses laws. First in chapter 11, purity and impurity of food is discussed. Then childbirth, then lepers, but when it gets to chapter 15, the author begins to discuss the "twin stuffs of life" (blood and semen). Beginning with involuntary emissions of semen (chapter 15) and then moving to voluntary intercourse with a woman with different types of menstrual discharges (which are involuntary), it moves to blood in the use of the Day of Atonement (voluntary use of blood). It then orderly enough discusses in chapter 18 misuse of voluntary emissions of semen. There are a few categories to divide handling semen, there are cases that do not render the parties impure, cases that they do, and then cases that are forbidden because they "transcend the laws of purity." Purity, not morality, is the issue. When a man rapes a little boy, the boy is to be put to death as well as the man (Leviticus 20:13); Israel is eradicating the uncleanliness, not correcting an immorality.
These prohibitions, then, in chapter 18 are specifically describing improper uses of semen. This explains why the only prohibition against women is bestiality (where the semen of the male animal who doesn't know any better is misused), and why other sexual prohibitions (such as rape or sexual relationships between priests or prostitutes) do not appear in this chapter. Furthermore, the prohibition against offering zera' (seed) to Molech can more clearly be understood as possibly a reference to an obscure practice of offering semen to a pagan deity. Zera' is most primarily translated "seed" (semen) but secondarily "offspring." There is little connection to any part of the passage if it means "offspring," but makes much sense if understood as "semen" and maintains the continuity of the passage, leading then into the prohibition of a specific homosexual action.
Finally, I must address the use of the noun "abomination" and what it means generally. Coming from the verb "abhor" it means something despicable or hated. That seems obvious. However, why is it used sometimes, and not other times? To say that it is used in this verse because homosexuality is so much worse than any other prohibition that it deserves the word is in my opinion irresponsible interpretation. Other instances that the word "abomination" is used are eating a sacrifice on the third day (Leviticus 7:18), eating certain birds (Leviticus 11:13), or as referring broadly to prohibitions (Leviticus 18:24-30). The key to interpreting the term is to understanding the previously mentioned idea of separation and categorization of everything into clean/unclean, pure/impure, holy/unholy divisions. To blur these lines is an abomination. It must not be thought that these categories are moral/immoral categories. They are not. I don't think that anybody would say that eating a buzzard is immoral (unless one is of the opinion that eating any animal is immoral), but it was forbidden in Leviticus because for whatever reason, it was deemed unclean. To eat it then, would be an abomination. Other abominations recorded in the Bible refer to doing things that other nations do, therefore mixing Israel (a holy nation to be divided from the rest) with other nations, such as King Manasseh (2 Kings 21:11), King Solomon (2 Kings 23:13), or the things that Josiah reformed (2 Kings 23:24, 2 Chronicles 34:33). Leviticus 18 opens with the Lord's command to not do the things they do in Egypt, in order that they may be separate. Abomination is blurring those lines of separation of the nations (2 Chronicles 36:14). It is therefore not a label for something "really bad," it is only a label of an intermingling between things that should not be intermingling, for whatever reason that may be. This is why rape and murder are not called abominations; they do not blur the lines of separation; it is not that they are "less sinful."
It is therefore my conclusion that this verse is not a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality (as many Christians wish it were), but only a condemnation of a specific act because of the ancient view of semen. Therefore, this verse is irrelevant to today's world where we see no problem in eating birds. More directly, unless Christians take on the ancient world view of separation of everything into cleanliness/uncleanliness, pure/impure, and holy/unholy, we have no right in isolating one aspect of that view (the improper use of semen) and exploiting a verse out of context in order to defend our prejudice.
Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
This verse can be explained in the same way Leviticus 18:22 has been above. I do not need to say the same thing again. Suffice it to say that this passage is also talking about the improper use of semen, as the chapter opens with harsh condemnation of offering one's zera' to Molech, and the only prohibition against women in the passage being bestiality.
1 Kings 14:24 – there were also male temple prostitutes in the land. They committed all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.
First, as a point of grammar, there is no reason to say specifically from this verse that male prostitutes were homosexual. The passage overall is talking about the actions of Judah, and when the collective pronoun "they" is used in this verse it is proper to interpret it as referring to all of Judah (as the context makes clear), and not the temple prostitutes specifically. It is therefore not the male temple prostitutes that are the ones committing abominations, but the whole of Judah.
Romans 1:26-27 – For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
It is my belief that this is the strongest verse to argue that homosexuality is immoral. Paul is introducing his argument that all men need grace. His point is that man chose to worship the created and not the creator. In doing so, all Hell broke loose, and you have Romans 1:26-32. There are a couple of things that need to be said about this passage. The homosexuality of Paul's day and the homosexuality of today is very different. Though the act may be the same, the lifestyle is radically different. Where as the context of Leviticus 18:22 implied a very specific action, the context of Romans 1:27 implies lifestyle. Paul does not seem to be condemning a single act, but a whole manner of living and thinking; one that is void of God. Therefore, I believe that given the difference between what Paul was actually condemning and what we 2000 years later like to say he was condemning, it is irresponsible to rest on this verse.
Homosexuality in Paul's day was just not the same. A common practice (and most likely the practice that Paul was familiar with and condemning) in ancient Greco-Roman society (as reflected in other ancient literature) was that boys would go under somewhat of an apprenticeship to an older man to transition the boy from boyhood to manhood. This often was of a sexual nature. This was completely accepted in culture. The boy, then, when maturing, would go on to have a wife and children, and then perhaps one day take on an apprentice of his own to guide into manhood. This is obviously nothing like the homosexual lifestyle today. We do not know if Paul would have had the same opinion of today's homosexuality as he had of his day. Furthermore, the homosexuality Paul was likely condemning appears to be much more of a choice than homosexuals today. Homosexuals today often grow up thinking that they are going to be heterosexual, and then realize over a time that they are not, and then perhaps after years of guilt (or none), they accept their condition (I use the term in no demeaning way). The ancient Greco-Roman homosexuality was a willful fling of sorts that was performed by otherwise heterosexual men intending to live a heterosexual life. To completely ignore the difference and condemn it all as the same is irresponsible.
I must add an amendment to this as well. Given the difference between first century pagan homosexual actions and modern homosexuals, I must say that Paul seemed to be condemning the unnaturalness of the actions, and not the actions themselves. To be more specific, Greek homosexual actions were done by homosexuals, so the "unnaturalness" that Paul is condemning in his letter to the Romans is really the act of heterosexuals doing homosexual actions, not natural homosexuals. This is another reason why I believe it is irresponsible to apply Paul's admonitions to contemporary culture.
I must also discuss briefly Sodom and Gomorrah. They were not destroyed because the people were homosexual. Genesis 19 records the event of the men wishing to rape the guests (literally to "know"), but homosexuality is an irresponsible label of the sin of the people. Deuteronomy 29:23 mentions the destruction of Sodom when the subject is rejecting the Lord's covenant. Isaiah 1 discusses Sodom and Gomorrah when condemning sacrifices being brought to God with the wrong motivation. Jeremiah 23:14 is condemning false prophets of Jerusalem. Lamentations 4:6 says the punishment Jerusalem received was greater than the punishment Sodom received. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom when discussing turning away from God's covenant. Jesus referred to Sodom when discussing the mission of the Twelve to other cities. If the cities do not receive them, the punishment will be worse than that of Sodom. I see no evidence to claim that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were homosexuals. If, in fact, all the men of the town were homosexual (Genesis 19:4 records "all the people to the last man"), the town would not have any population in the first place.
Finally, aside from Biblical discussion, one must ask the question "Is homosexuality a choice?" My opinion is that the actions are just as much a choice as heterosexual actions, but the orientation is not. I am not a scientist, and I find that most Christians who condemn homosexuality are not either, and yet they feel like they have a right to say that sexual orientation is a choice. I think the burden lies on them to provide the proof that they could change their orientation if they wanted to. I am a heterosexual male, and I believe that it would be extremely difficult (and unpleasant) to change my orientation. At the very most, it is possible that I could complete a homosexual act, but then revert entirely to my heterosexual orientation. I think that most heterosexuals would have a similar opinion. Therefore, I think it is unfair to claim that homosexuals should just be able to change their orientation at will. Or, I think it is unfair to claim that they really aren't homosexual, they just think they are. If someone told me I was really homosexual and only pretending to be heterosexual, they would be wrong. So how does anyone have the right to say that to homosexuals?
Back to the science of it, Christians will often say that there is absolutely no scientific proof that homosexuality is an orientation that cannot be helped. This is absolutely correct. But, it would be incorrect to say that scientific discoveries conclude that orientation is chosen. Experiment after experiment (such as testing arousal to the scent of hormones of specific genders, measuring finger lengths, or testing reflexes) show physical differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. This is not proof, but it is irresponsible (and unscientific) to take these conclusions and claim that there is no science behind the opinion. Something that gets tossed around is that if sexual orientation was genetic, then wouldn't all biological twins have the same orientation? Since that is not the case, that must be proof that orientation has nothing to do with biology, right? Not quite so. It just so happens (forgive me for not being able to cite my source right now, but at a later time if questioned I will find it for you) that if one twin is homosexual, the percentage that the other twin is as well is upwards of 40-50%. Considering that only about 2-10% of the general population is homosexual, that up to half of the siblings of homosexual people are also homosexual is worth noting. This (I believe if my memory serves me correctly) is also true in situations where the twins were raised in separate environments (such as being adopted into different families). Here it can be seen how claims that there is no "science" behind homosexuality can get by. If that percentage of 50 would go up to 99%, a conservative Christian (with his or her mind already made up) can say "Science does not have any proof whatsoever that genetics determine orientation." However, that statement is irresponsible given the evidence (not proof) that exists. Therefore, I say, let the scientists do what they do and be scientists, and let us not impose our opinions on their conclusions. It has, however, been said that even if it were biological, it would only go to show how deep our sinful nature has gone. I think that this is (even if unintentionally) cruel. I don't personally believe that God would have somebody made biologically unable to live a Christian life. Our sin nature may be deep in our soul and mind, but I do not believe it to be in our body.
I speak as an amateur biblical theologian and scholar, not as a scientist, and as I have explained above, I have little problem with homosexuality. The problem I have is with "Christians" who condemn homosexuals. The claim that they are "just being biblical" is nonsense in my opinion. How often does the Bible mention homosexuality? Somewhere around the vicinity of six times. How many times does Jesus mention homosexuality? Somewhere around the vicinity of none. Why then is there any emphasis at all on the condemnation of it, when the condemnation of it is based on irresponsible biblical exegesis? I think as Christians we should condemn not homosexuality, but the condemnation of homosexuality. Homosexuals get made fun of, they are outcast, they are stereotyped, they are discriminated against, they are hated, they are accused, and they are even beaten and murdered for being homosexual. This is what I believe as Christians we should be fighting against. The Bible talks a lot more about loving outsiders and not condemning or mocking than it does about homosexuality (for that matter, Jesus' statement on divorce is stronger and clearer than any condemnation of homosexuality). But "Christians" so often think it is their duty or something to mock and condemn the homosexual. What sickens me the most is that some Christians would deny a homosexual membership (or even attendance) to their church. This is an outrage. That some "Christians" would dare say that the grace of God is not going to be bestowed upon a homosexual.
My conclusion, as I hope is obvious by now, is that I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality to be the same as being right or left handed. I believe that it is only through misunderstanding and misapplication of Scripture that Christians have the illusion of a foundation for their discrimination, and that though not all Christians are as malicious as those I am infuriated at I am disappointed in my fellows of faith for not standing up to the real abomination of society: Hate towards people different than themselves.
I believe that most (if not all) Christians opposed to granting the above mentioned rights to homosexuals do so because they believe marriage and ordination to be Christian institutions that should not include the homosexual lifestyle.
Apparently, to these Christians, if one assumes that homosexuality is a sin, then it would be an abomination to ordain a man or woman who commits sins. Since this is absolutely ridiculous (from a Christian view that all commit sins), I think it would be more appropriate to say that because homosexuals do not view homosexuality as a sin, they must not be Christian and would lead others astray. If this be the case, then I must investigate what makes homosexuality a sin.
Even before I do so, however, it should be noted that no matter how much one views homosexuality as a sin, it is still only a sin. If, therefore, a homosexual commits himself to God and refuses to have relationships with anybody, there should be no objection to ordaining him. The single homosexual is no more sinful than the married preacher. In fact, the single homosexual may even be less sinful than the married preacher, because if the married preacher ever looks at another woman with lust, he is committing adultery against his wife (the homosexual would have no attachment). Therefore, I believe that any Christian against the ordination of homosexuals must at the very least allow the ordination of homosexuals who vow to remain single. If, then, the homosexual pastor wishes to begin a homosexual relationship, they would be stripped of ordination for willingly sinning.
I hope you understand that I do not support the above position, but must state it as I believe the logic of conservative Christians concludes.
Now to the tedious occupation of inquiring of the reasons homosexual actions (I specify actions as opposed to homosexuality in general based on the above paragraph that explains that there is no difference in sinfulness between a single homosexual and a married or single straight pastor) are sinful.
I believe that most (if not all) Christians who believe homosexual actions to be sins do so because of the condemnation of the actions in the Bible. I must emphasize again that the actions may be condemned, but never the state of being. I am unaware of any source aside from the Bible that Christians appeal to for moral guidance. The Bible is the ultimate authority for faith and morals (and to some science and cosmology). Therefore, there is no reason to condemn homosexuality as a sin aside from the Bible as a whole. I will proceed to discuss most passages I am familiar with that are used against the practice of homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22 – You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
To start with one of the verses most commonly used to condemn homosexuality as a sin, Leviticus 18:22 is a clear condemnation of the act, and states the law that it should not be done. I am not going to argue that this verse does not condemn homosexual activity. What I am going to discuss is the understanding of the prohibition. It should be noted that there is no mention of "sin" or "immorality" in this verse. It is a prohibition just like the prohibition to eat pork. It is not unnatural or morally sinful to eat pork, only forbidden. What makes this prohibition different then? It can be argued that the prohibition to eat pork (and other non-kosher items) do not have to be followed because we are under the new covenant of Jesus, and therefore do not have to keep the law of the Torah (forgive redundancy). Then would that also exempt us from the prohibitions of homosexual activity? I think most would say no, we are still bound to that prohibition. Why then? If one is to say we must abide by the prohibition because of the verse in Romans, then that is using one verse to interpret another, and is not applicable when isolating verses to be studied and understood by themselves for what they are. Therefore, we are left wondering why the prohibition is here in the first place.
If one argues that the prohibition is there because the action is unnatural, then one must also say that heterosexual activity is also unnatural, because the chapter prohibits many acts of heterosexual activity such as intercourse with two women that happen to be sisters, or two women that happen to be mother and daughter, regardless of their familial relationship to you. I don't think many would argue the "unnaturalness" of having sex with two people in the same family, they would at most say it is "morally wrong" or "adulterous." Therefore, the prohibition of homosexual activity cannot be present for any kind of "unnaturalness" of the action.
It should also be stated that there is no reason to believe the impossibility of procreating is a factor for prohibiting the action, since there are no prohibitions for intercourse with infertile or post-menopausal women, and almost every other prohibition in Leviticus 18 could be procreative.
Furthermore, there is no suggestion anywhere that one must not have homosexual desires; they only must not commit the action. In other places, such as the Decalogue, where theft is prohibited, the desire to steal is also prohibited only a few verses later (coveting). When adultery is prohibited in the Decalogue, the desire is prohibited as well. However, when homosexual action is prohibited, there are no prohibitions on homosexual desires.
The prohibition seems to be (from the context) very specific. What I mean is that it may not even be prohibiting all homosexual activity, but only a specific type (i.e. penetration). If this is the case, then the prohibition is not directed towards kissing, fondling, or any type of action aside from lying with a man as one would with a woman.
The prohibition is also directed towards men alone, and not women. There is no way around this fact. The prohibition is not prohibiting all homosexual action, but only male homosexual action. It does not mention anything having to do with "the same gender," but only that a man should not lie with another man as he would with a woman.
How are we to then understand the prohibition? An excellent article by Martin Samuel Cohen (from which I am framing much of this response) concludes that the prohibition is based on the understanding of semen; more specifically, the proper uses of the substance. This is why there are no prohibitions of lesbianism or other homosexual desires or actions that would not result in the misuse of semen.
Cohen steps back from the discussion to first describe the Israelite practice of categorizing everything. Clean from unclean, pure from impure, light from dark, but most importantly, life from death. The Lord is the God of Life, and death is very taboo. There is nothing that can make one unclean in the Torah to the extent that a corpse can. The handling of a corpse is very important. Everything falls into a category of living, dead, or inanimate. Blood and semen are not alive, but they are what cause life, so are they really inanimate? They do not fit neatly into one of the categories so it is vital that the use of the substances is proper. Chapter 11 begins with dietary laws (what is pure, impure, or an abomination). Chapter 12 discusses purity laws about childbirth, chapters 13 and 14 discus lepers and purification. Chapter 15 begins laws of sexual natures, and chapters 16 and 17 discus the Day of Atonement. Then chapter 18 goes back to sexual matters. What can be noticed in the rhythm of the book of Leviticus is the order in which the author discusses laws. First in chapter 11, purity and impurity of food is discussed. Then childbirth, then lepers, but when it gets to chapter 15, the author begins to discuss the "twin stuffs of life" (blood and semen). Beginning with involuntary emissions of semen (chapter 15) and then moving to voluntary intercourse with a woman with different types of menstrual discharges (which are involuntary), it moves to blood in the use of the Day of Atonement (voluntary use of blood). It then orderly enough discusses in chapter 18 misuse of voluntary emissions of semen. There are a few categories to divide handling semen, there are cases that do not render the parties impure, cases that they do, and then cases that are forbidden because they "transcend the laws of purity." Purity, not morality, is the issue. When a man rapes a little boy, the boy is to be put to death as well as the man (Leviticus 20:13); Israel is eradicating the uncleanliness, not correcting an immorality.
These prohibitions, then, in chapter 18 are specifically describing improper uses of semen. This explains why the only prohibition against women is bestiality (where the semen of the male animal who doesn't know any better is misused), and why other sexual prohibitions (such as rape or sexual relationships between priests or prostitutes) do not appear in this chapter. Furthermore, the prohibition against offering zera' (seed) to Molech can more clearly be understood as possibly a reference to an obscure practice of offering semen to a pagan deity. Zera' is most primarily translated "seed" (semen) but secondarily "offspring." There is little connection to any part of the passage if it means "offspring," but makes much sense if understood as "semen" and maintains the continuity of the passage, leading then into the prohibition of a specific homosexual action.
Finally, I must address the use of the noun "abomination" and what it means generally. Coming from the verb "abhor" it means something despicable or hated. That seems obvious. However, why is it used sometimes, and not other times? To say that it is used in this verse because homosexuality is so much worse than any other prohibition that it deserves the word is in my opinion irresponsible interpretation. Other instances that the word "abomination" is used are eating a sacrifice on the third day (Leviticus 7:18), eating certain birds (Leviticus 11:13), or as referring broadly to prohibitions (Leviticus 18:24-30). The key to interpreting the term is to understanding the previously mentioned idea of separation and categorization of everything into clean/unclean, pure/impure, holy/unholy divisions. To blur these lines is an abomination. It must not be thought that these categories are moral/immoral categories. They are not. I don't think that anybody would say that eating a buzzard is immoral (unless one is of the opinion that eating any animal is immoral), but it was forbidden in Leviticus because for whatever reason, it was deemed unclean. To eat it then, would be an abomination. Other abominations recorded in the Bible refer to doing things that other nations do, therefore mixing Israel (a holy nation to be divided from the rest) with other nations, such as King Manasseh (2 Kings 21:11), King Solomon (2 Kings 23:13), or the things that Josiah reformed (2 Kings 23:24, 2 Chronicles 34:33). Leviticus 18 opens with the Lord's command to not do the things they do in Egypt, in order that they may be separate. Abomination is blurring those lines of separation of the nations (2 Chronicles 36:14). It is therefore not a label for something "really bad," it is only a label of an intermingling between things that should not be intermingling, for whatever reason that may be. This is why rape and murder are not called abominations; they do not blur the lines of separation; it is not that they are "less sinful."
It is therefore my conclusion that this verse is not a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality (as many Christians wish it were), but only a condemnation of a specific act because of the ancient view of semen. Therefore, this verse is irrelevant to today's world where we see no problem in eating birds. More directly, unless Christians take on the ancient world view of separation of everything into cleanliness/uncleanliness, pure/impure, and holy/unholy, we have no right in isolating one aspect of that view (the improper use of semen) and exploiting a verse out of context in order to defend our prejudice.
Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
This verse can be explained in the same way Leviticus 18:22 has been above. I do not need to say the same thing again. Suffice it to say that this passage is also talking about the improper use of semen, as the chapter opens with harsh condemnation of offering one's zera' to Molech, and the only prohibition against women in the passage being bestiality.
1 Kings 14:24 – there were also male temple prostitutes in the land. They committed all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.
First, as a point of grammar, there is no reason to say specifically from this verse that male prostitutes were homosexual. The passage overall is talking about the actions of Judah, and when the collective pronoun "they" is used in this verse it is proper to interpret it as referring to all of Judah (as the context makes clear), and not the temple prostitutes specifically. It is therefore not the male temple prostitutes that are the ones committing abominations, but the whole of Judah.
Romans 1:26-27 – For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
It is my belief that this is the strongest verse to argue that homosexuality is immoral. Paul is introducing his argument that all men need grace. His point is that man chose to worship the created and not the creator. In doing so, all Hell broke loose, and you have Romans 1:26-32. There are a couple of things that need to be said about this passage. The homosexuality of Paul's day and the homosexuality of today is very different. Though the act may be the same, the lifestyle is radically different. Where as the context of Leviticus 18:22 implied a very specific action, the context of Romans 1:27 implies lifestyle. Paul does not seem to be condemning a single act, but a whole manner of living and thinking; one that is void of God. Therefore, I believe that given the difference between what Paul was actually condemning and what we 2000 years later like to say he was condemning, it is irresponsible to rest on this verse.
Homosexuality in Paul's day was just not the same. A common practice (and most likely the practice that Paul was familiar with and condemning) in ancient Greco-Roman society (as reflected in other ancient literature) was that boys would go under somewhat of an apprenticeship to an older man to transition the boy from boyhood to manhood. This often was of a sexual nature. This was completely accepted in culture. The boy, then, when maturing, would go on to have a wife and children, and then perhaps one day take on an apprentice of his own to guide into manhood. This is obviously nothing like the homosexual lifestyle today. We do not know if Paul would have had the same opinion of today's homosexuality as he had of his day. Furthermore, the homosexuality Paul was likely condemning appears to be much more of a choice than homosexuals today. Homosexuals today often grow up thinking that they are going to be heterosexual, and then realize over a time that they are not, and then perhaps after years of guilt (or none), they accept their condition (I use the term in no demeaning way). The ancient Greco-Roman homosexuality was a willful fling of sorts that was performed by otherwise heterosexual men intending to live a heterosexual life. To completely ignore the difference and condemn it all as the same is irresponsible.
I must add an amendment to this as well. Given the difference between first century pagan homosexual actions and modern homosexuals, I must say that Paul seemed to be condemning the unnaturalness of the actions, and not the actions themselves. To be more specific, Greek homosexual actions were done by homosexuals, so the "unnaturalness" that Paul is condemning in his letter to the Romans is really the act of heterosexuals doing homosexual actions, not natural homosexuals. This is another reason why I believe it is irresponsible to apply Paul's admonitions to contemporary culture.
I must also discuss briefly Sodom and Gomorrah. They were not destroyed because the people were homosexual. Genesis 19 records the event of the men wishing to rape the guests (literally to "know"), but homosexuality is an irresponsible label of the sin of the people. Deuteronomy 29:23 mentions the destruction of Sodom when the subject is rejecting the Lord's covenant. Isaiah 1 discusses Sodom and Gomorrah when condemning sacrifices being brought to God with the wrong motivation. Jeremiah 23:14 is condemning false prophets of Jerusalem. Lamentations 4:6 says the punishment Jerusalem received was greater than the punishment Sodom received. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom when discussing turning away from God's covenant. Jesus referred to Sodom when discussing the mission of the Twelve to other cities. If the cities do not receive them, the punishment will be worse than that of Sodom. I see no evidence to claim that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were homosexuals. If, in fact, all the men of the town were homosexual (Genesis 19:4 records "all the people to the last man"), the town would not have any population in the first place.
Finally, aside from Biblical discussion, one must ask the question "Is homosexuality a choice?" My opinion is that the actions are just as much a choice as heterosexual actions, but the orientation is not. I am not a scientist, and I find that most Christians who condemn homosexuality are not either, and yet they feel like they have a right to say that sexual orientation is a choice. I think the burden lies on them to provide the proof that they could change their orientation if they wanted to. I am a heterosexual male, and I believe that it would be extremely difficult (and unpleasant) to change my orientation. At the very most, it is possible that I could complete a homosexual act, but then revert entirely to my heterosexual orientation. I think that most heterosexuals would have a similar opinion. Therefore, I think it is unfair to claim that homosexuals should just be able to change their orientation at will. Or, I think it is unfair to claim that they really aren't homosexual, they just think they are. If someone told me I was really homosexual and only pretending to be heterosexual, they would be wrong. So how does anyone have the right to say that to homosexuals?
Back to the science of it, Christians will often say that there is absolutely no scientific proof that homosexuality is an orientation that cannot be helped. This is absolutely correct. But, it would be incorrect to say that scientific discoveries conclude that orientation is chosen. Experiment after experiment (such as testing arousal to the scent of hormones of specific genders, measuring finger lengths, or testing reflexes) show physical differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. This is not proof, but it is irresponsible (and unscientific) to take these conclusions and claim that there is no science behind the opinion. Something that gets tossed around is that if sexual orientation was genetic, then wouldn't all biological twins have the same orientation? Since that is not the case, that must be proof that orientation has nothing to do with biology, right? Not quite so. It just so happens (forgive me for not being able to cite my source right now, but at a later time if questioned I will find it for you) that if one twin is homosexual, the percentage that the other twin is as well is upwards of 40-50%. Considering that only about 2-10% of the general population is homosexual, that up to half of the siblings of homosexual people are also homosexual is worth noting. This (I believe if my memory serves me correctly) is also true in situations where the twins were raised in separate environments (such as being adopted into different families). Here it can be seen how claims that there is no "science" behind homosexuality can get by. If that percentage of 50 would go up to 99%, a conservative Christian (with his or her mind already made up) can say "Science does not have any proof whatsoever that genetics determine orientation." However, that statement is irresponsible given the evidence (not proof) that exists. Therefore, I say, let the scientists do what they do and be scientists, and let us not impose our opinions on their conclusions. It has, however, been said that even if it were biological, it would only go to show how deep our sinful nature has gone. I think that this is (even if unintentionally) cruel. I don't personally believe that God would have somebody made biologically unable to live a Christian life. Our sin nature may be deep in our soul and mind, but I do not believe it to be in our body.
I speak as an amateur biblical theologian and scholar, not as a scientist, and as I have explained above, I have little problem with homosexuality. The problem I have is with "Christians" who condemn homosexuals. The claim that they are "just being biblical" is nonsense in my opinion. How often does the Bible mention homosexuality? Somewhere around the vicinity of six times. How many times does Jesus mention homosexuality? Somewhere around the vicinity of none. Why then is there any emphasis at all on the condemnation of it, when the condemnation of it is based on irresponsible biblical exegesis? I think as Christians we should condemn not homosexuality, but the condemnation of homosexuality. Homosexuals get made fun of, they are outcast, they are stereotyped, they are discriminated against, they are hated, they are accused, and they are even beaten and murdered for being homosexual. This is what I believe as Christians we should be fighting against. The Bible talks a lot more about loving outsiders and not condemning or mocking than it does about homosexuality (for that matter, Jesus' statement on divorce is stronger and clearer than any condemnation of homosexuality). But "Christians" so often think it is their duty or something to mock and condemn the homosexual. What sickens me the most is that some Christians would deny a homosexual membership (or even attendance) to their church. This is an outrage. That some "Christians" would dare say that the grace of God is not going to be bestowed upon a homosexual.
My conclusion, as I hope is obvious by now, is that I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality to be the same as being right or left handed. I believe that it is only through misunderstanding and misapplication of Scripture that Christians have the illusion of a foundation for their discrimination, and that though not all Christians are as malicious as those I am infuriated at I am disappointed in my fellows of faith for not standing up to the real abomination of society: Hate towards people different than themselves.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The Christian Response to Abortion
One of the political platforms that seems to be at the top of many Christians' priorities is the issue of Abortion. Should it be legal or not? That is not the topic I am going to discuss. For the record, I do not like the idea of abortion, it is not a decision that I would ever want to wish on a woman. The topic is how Christians should respond.
A common thought is that Christians should respond to abortion by voting to make abortion illegal. That's fine, if you don't like it, vote against it. Whether it is legal or not, women are going to have abortions. It's going to happen. So it's either going to be done by doctors, or it's going to be done in a back alley somewhere.
I realize a counter to this argument is that murder is going to happen whether it's legal or not, but that doesn't mean we should make it legal. The same goes with rape, theft, or other violence.
Laws, however, are not in place in order to punish wrongdoings. The first priority of a law is to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. Therefore, one would have to ask themselves how much does the law prevent crimes? If rape were to become legal, then I would be pretty sure that the rape rate in the country would skyrocket. The same goes with theft. If stealing was legal, it would be hard to hold on to anything. In this way, it is the law that prevents the crimes from being conducted. If outlawing abortion really stopped women from having them, I would push more for making it illegal. That isn't really the case. The lowest abortion rate since Roe vs. Wade (1973) was during Clinton's final term (with his "legal, safe, and rare policy").
What are we to do then? We are to respond as Christians. How do we do that? It's not by voting. Voting to make abortion is not how we are to be Christians. Being Christian is about loving people; and that is what we are not doing.
I propose that we stop worrying so much about whether abortion is legal or not, and I say we try and prevent it from happening. Since I've said that it's not the laws that prevent abortion, what does? In order to figure out how to prevent abortions, we must ask first, why do women have them in the first place?
Now we should look at some statistics.
37.4% of women who have abortions consider themselves Protestant. 18% of women who have abortions consider themselves "Born-again/Evangelical." 31.3% consider themselves catholic. 1.3% consider themselves Jewish, and 23.7% have no religious affiliation. This means that 75% of abortions are done by Christian women. Think about that for a moment. If it's all these Christians that are saying that abortion should be illegal, and yet they are responsible for three quarters of the abortions conducted, what does that mean? It seems as if there's some type of miscommunication here; perhaps between the Christian men and the Christian women. I think we should ask why it is that Christians get more abortions than anyone else.
It should be noted that 78% of people in America call themselves Christians, so the fact that 75% of abortions are performed by Christian women really just says one thing. Religion has little to no influence on whether or not women have abortions.
Why then do women have abortions? Only 1% is because of rape or incest. 6% due to health problems. 93% for social reasons/inconvenience. This 93% deserves a look.
Given now the statistics that most abortions are done by Christian women for social reasons rather than health reasons, it may not be too difficult to come up with some real life examples of what this means.
To give one more statistic to help us with our story, 52% of abortions are done by women under the age of 25. Ages 20-24 have 32% of abortions. Teenagers have 20% of abortions.
So a large chunk (if not the majority) of abortions are done by young Christian women due to social inconvenience. I don't think I'm being too presumptuous to say that these young women are afraid of social condemnation. They are afraid of what their parents will think. They are afraid of what their friends will think.
They are afraid of what their church will think.
This is my point. Churches are supposed to be filled with people who love people and love God. Churches are supposed to be filled with people who follow the example of Jesus and love all the outcasts and those who are rejected by others. "Christians," however, have turned into the ones that reject and condemn the "sinners." I believe that "Christians" cause more abortions than the laws can prevent. I believe that it is the "Christians" who condemn the women who get pregnant that force them into making a decision. The women get to decide to either have an abortion secretly (because if her church found out she would be outcast), or have the child (as supposedly the church would prefer) and be condemned by her church for getting pregnant in the first place. In this situation, abortion is the only option she has in order to not be estranged from the supposedly "Christian" people. This is tragic. This is what makes me mourn Christianity. I believe that if churches would start being Christian, aside from just the sheer rationality of such an act, I believe that abortion would decrease substantially if that were the case. Just think about it. The 52% of women below the age of 25 probably still associate with the people they grew up with (such as church family and biological family). If a young woman knew that if she got pregnant her church would love her all the same, would love her child, and would not condemn her and look down on her and treat her like an outcast, she probably wouldn't get an abortion in the first place. If only Christians would love.
If only Christians would be Christian.
My conclusion is that as Christians, we should not place our emphasis on making abortion illegal; we should place our emphasis on making it not even happen. We should love the women who find themselves in that situation. We should let it be known that we are Christians and we will love others no matter what. That's the Jesus I know. That's the Christianity I stand for. I believe Christians can change the world. I believe that love can. So I say let's make the 50% of young Christian women know that they will still be loved with a child, and maybe that child will make its way into the world.
A common thought is that Christians should respond to abortion by voting to make abortion illegal. That's fine, if you don't like it, vote against it. Whether it is legal or not, women are going to have abortions. It's going to happen. So it's either going to be done by doctors, or it's going to be done in a back alley somewhere.
I realize a counter to this argument is that murder is going to happen whether it's legal or not, but that doesn't mean we should make it legal. The same goes with rape, theft, or other violence.
Laws, however, are not in place in order to punish wrongdoings. The first priority of a law is to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. Therefore, one would have to ask themselves how much does the law prevent crimes? If rape were to become legal, then I would be pretty sure that the rape rate in the country would skyrocket. The same goes with theft. If stealing was legal, it would be hard to hold on to anything. In this way, it is the law that prevents the crimes from being conducted. If outlawing abortion really stopped women from having them, I would push more for making it illegal. That isn't really the case. The lowest abortion rate since Roe vs. Wade (1973) was during Clinton's final term (with his "legal, safe, and rare policy").
What are we to do then? We are to respond as Christians. How do we do that? It's not by voting. Voting to make abortion is not how we are to be Christians. Being Christian is about loving people; and that is what we are not doing.
I propose that we stop worrying so much about whether abortion is legal or not, and I say we try and prevent it from happening. Since I've said that it's not the laws that prevent abortion, what does? In order to figure out how to prevent abortions, we must ask first, why do women have them in the first place?
Now we should look at some statistics.
37.4% of women who have abortions consider themselves Protestant. 18% of women who have abortions consider themselves "Born-again/Evangelical." 31.3% consider themselves catholic. 1.3% consider themselves Jewish, and 23.7% have no religious affiliation. This means that 75% of abortions are done by Christian women. Think about that for a moment. If it's all these Christians that are saying that abortion should be illegal, and yet they are responsible for three quarters of the abortions conducted, what does that mean? It seems as if there's some type of miscommunication here; perhaps between the Christian men and the Christian women. I think we should ask why it is that Christians get more abortions than anyone else.
It should be noted that 78% of people in America call themselves Christians, so the fact that 75% of abortions are performed by Christian women really just says one thing. Religion has little to no influence on whether or not women have abortions.
Why then do women have abortions? Only 1% is because of rape or incest. 6% due to health problems. 93% for social reasons/inconvenience. This 93% deserves a look.
Given now the statistics that most abortions are done by Christian women for social reasons rather than health reasons, it may not be too difficult to come up with some real life examples of what this means.
To give one more statistic to help us with our story, 52% of abortions are done by women under the age of 25. Ages 20-24 have 32% of abortions. Teenagers have 20% of abortions.
So a large chunk (if not the majority) of abortions are done by young Christian women due to social inconvenience. I don't think I'm being too presumptuous to say that these young women are afraid of social condemnation. They are afraid of what their parents will think. They are afraid of what their friends will think.
They are afraid of what their church will think.
This is my point. Churches are supposed to be filled with people who love people and love God. Churches are supposed to be filled with people who follow the example of Jesus and love all the outcasts and those who are rejected by others. "Christians," however, have turned into the ones that reject and condemn the "sinners." I believe that "Christians" cause more abortions than the laws can prevent. I believe that it is the "Christians" who condemn the women who get pregnant that force them into making a decision. The women get to decide to either have an abortion secretly (because if her church found out she would be outcast), or have the child (as supposedly the church would prefer) and be condemned by her church for getting pregnant in the first place. In this situation, abortion is the only option she has in order to not be estranged from the supposedly "Christian" people. This is tragic. This is what makes me mourn Christianity. I believe that if churches would start being Christian, aside from just the sheer rationality of such an act, I believe that abortion would decrease substantially if that were the case. Just think about it. The 52% of women below the age of 25 probably still associate with the people they grew up with (such as church family and biological family). If a young woman knew that if she got pregnant her church would love her all the same, would love her child, and would not condemn her and look down on her and treat her like an outcast, she probably wouldn't get an abortion in the first place. If only Christians would love.
If only Christians would be Christian.
My conclusion is that as Christians, we should not place our emphasis on making abortion illegal; we should place our emphasis on making it not even happen. We should love the women who find themselves in that situation. We should let it be known that we are Christians and we will love others no matter what. That's the Jesus I know. That's the Christianity I stand for. I believe Christians can change the world. I believe that love can. So I say let's make the 50% of young Christian women know that they will still be loved with a child, and maybe that child will make its way into the world.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Brainwashed Damnation
This is the counterpart to my previous post. I had concluded that, against popular belief, if you are not a Christian, you can go to heaven if you had never heard of Jesus. Now I will set up a hypothetical situation that will require another line to be drawn around the limits of God's mercy.
A child is born. The child has no siblings, and is being raised by a single mother. For the sake of keeping this hypothetical, I will not name a country or geographical location. The mother is somewhat mentally unbalanced, but not so much that she cannot raise a child and show love to him (it could be a "her" but for the sake of not saying "it" I will use "him"). The mother cares deeply for the child, and without a husband or any other children, she protects him and loves him with everything that she has. The problem, however, is the mother's paranoia.
The mother is an extreme atheist. She believes that Christianity is a literal plague. She believes that to believe in God is a contagious mental disease that you can only escape by staying away from religious talk, especially Christianity (this is the mentally unbalanced part of her). She raises the child alone and isolated in order to protect him from this disease, not allowing television, newspapers, or radio to corrupt her child's innocent mind. Constantly, daily, she drills him on what he will have to do to survive in the world without becoming infected. She fears for the safety of her child when he must go out of her protection. Christianity, after all, is extremely dangerous, just like every other religion. People will kill themselves and kill other people for it (surely a sign of mental disease). It will ruin your life forever, whether you give up your time or your wealth, you will never be the same once you are infected. The child must not even accept the stupid idea that there is an invisible being somewhere. How silly. As soon as he acknowledges the existence of something as stupid and insane as that, he's as good as dead.
The child is raised in peace. He is happy to have such a caring mother who protects him from the evils of the outside. He grows up drawing pictures of fighting the diseased Christians, hoping doctors can one day cure their plight. As he gets older, he learns math, and learns how to read English by texts that his mother writes for him. He dreams about what the outside looks like, and what type of dangers his mother has to fight against just to bring home the groceries. He is very happy to be safe inside his home where even the windows are plastered over so that the sun cannot make its way inside, and the door is latched many times with many locks that only his mother possesses the key to.
The day approaches. The child must leave the house for the first time in his life. He is 16 years old. It is his first time he will have ever left his home. He finds out that one of the reasons his mother was so frightened for his life was that there was a large evangelical Christian church right next to their house. The Christians in that church had apparently discovered that the child was being protected from their disease, and had attempted to infect the mother and make their way to the defenseless child inside their isolated house. The child was told to be weary, to keep his mind alert, and not let any one talk about God or any other silly nonsense.
The child leaves the house, and walks by the church. He is caught! He cannot escape their glances, they walk towards him. It seems like only an instant, and he is surrounded! The first word out of their mouths is "Jesus loves you." Who was this Jesus? His mother had not mentioned a Jesus. But she did tell him that they would tell him anything and everything insane (they couldn't help it, they're diseased after all) in order to infect his healthy mind. They caught him in a religious fervor and brought him inside against his will. They strapped him down to a chair and told him this man Jesus was God and had died for his sins (which apparently they believed he had). He only had to believe and repent of his sins. He escaped from their torment and ran out in a panic, tripped on the curb outside the church as they chased him shouting about Jesus and God nonsense, and he was hit by a car and died on contact.
He went to hell, right? He had rejected the message of Jesus. He had rejected the religious fanaticism of Christianity. He's got no excuse, right? There's no way that he should have said no to the wonderful good news of Christ, right?
The point of this is to force another line to be drawn. If this ridiculous situation had actually happened (crazier things happen in the world), then the theory that you can go to heaven as long you have never been exposed to Christianity would place the poor child in hell. Should we be willing to say that? I'm not. It's possible to be brainwashed in a matter of months, so imagine what would happen if someone was raised since birth to believe the world is one way and no other, then can we really blame them when they turn the option of Christianity down? I am not willing to do that. If you are, then I suppose there is little point in reading this. I wish you would think about it though. It's so easy to group everyone in the world into one category; a category more like us. It's easy (and tempting) to view the whole world as one big USA with churches on every corner (here in the Bible Belt) and theistic talk throughout our society. It is so much easier to say "If you've heard of Jesus and rejected it then you're going to hell" than it is to say "If you've been brainwashed since birth to not believe in it and only get one exposure (and it happens to be by radical extremists) and you still turn it down then you go to hell."
So now hopefully you may be forming your own hypothetical illustrations in your mind that may make more sense to you than my example. Hopefully you are coming to the realization that it is unfair to claim the theory that if you have heard of Jesus and reject it you are going to hell. Because then one can say, what counts as hearing of Jesus? If you've heard the sentence "Jesus died for your sins" and reject it, are you going to hell? No, because how are you to know who Jesus is? If you hear the sentence "God (an all powerful being) became human in order to fix what we broke," and reject it, are you going to hell? I would say no. It depends on the context you hear it in, how much you trust the person telling you, what you've been raised with, etc. Then what are we doing? We are drawing a line. I reject the theory that says just because you've heard of Jesus and denied it as truth you're going to hell. This never gives anyone the benefit of the doubt. In fact, there is no such thing as a "benefit" of a "doubt" in this case. No matter what led the person to be confronted with the idea of Jesus, if one ignores every influence on their lives, place them in a vacuum, and isolate the one moment when they are introduced to Jesus, and view that as the moment that defines where their soul goes for eternity, then I must say that is unfair and actually quite merciless.
We like to imagine that those who reject Jesus and go to hell are really those that get a full understanding of Christianity and then reject it, but that's not where contemporary theology stands. In reality, probably a lot of people who reject Christianity really don't understand what it is (although I think many "Christians" don't understand Christianity), and yet they are held responsible (by Christians) for the destination of their souls. This bothers me. I hope it bothers you.
I will briefly discuss a relevant point.
Jesus states in Luke 6.37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Judge --> To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration.
To pass sentence on; condemn.
If we make the statement "Those who have rejected Christianity are going to hell" then we have judged. We have passed a sentence on someone and condemned their souls. If say that atheists who try to convert Christians are going to hell, then we have condemned. If we are to take the above words of Jesus seriously, then we are not to say that anyone is going to hell, for that would be condemning them. We should forgive them and love them. That is being a Christian.
Being a Christian is not feeling good about yourself because you know that although 70% of the world's population is going to hell you're not because you were lucky enough to be born of Christian parents or lucky enough that you happened to go to that one church service that day when you felt bad and got saved. No. Being a Christian is about loving people. You may say that converting people is out of love of them because you don't want their souls to go to hell, but then your love is based on your prejudice condemnation.
I am not saying that missionaries are not Christian. I am saying that there are ways of spreading Christianity that do not fully reside within the teachings of Jesus. I think we as Christian should reevaluate what it means to be one. I do not believe that it means we have any right to tell everyone else they are going to hell. That's human nature, not Christianity. It is human nature to elevate the self and degrade everyone else. I believe it is God's nature as revealed in Jesus to lower the self in order to raise up others. To love others more than the self. To feed the hungry; to hug the weeping; to comfort the sorrowful; to encourage the desperate. I am sometimes afraid of what Christianity has evolved into. Sometimes I am even hesitant to call myself a Christian because of the connotation. That is the tragedy.
To bring the theme of the topic together, I declare an armistice. I declare an armistice between those who are "saved" against those who are "lost." I feel that those declaring war on the "lost" should really wonder if they're on the wrong side of the battle.
I have asked you once before to draw your line in your theology. I have asked you now twice. It is my hope that you refuse to. It is my hope that you refuse to draw a line and fall on the mercy and love of God.
"I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." - Jesus, John 12.47
A child is born. The child has no siblings, and is being raised by a single mother. For the sake of keeping this hypothetical, I will not name a country or geographical location. The mother is somewhat mentally unbalanced, but not so much that she cannot raise a child and show love to him (it could be a "her" but for the sake of not saying "it" I will use "him"). The mother cares deeply for the child, and without a husband or any other children, she protects him and loves him with everything that she has. The problem, however, is the mother's paranoia.
The mother is an extreme atheist. She believes that Christianity is a literal plague. She believes that to believe in God is a contagious mental disease that you can only escape by staying away from religious talk, especially Christianity (this is the mentally unbalanced part of her). She raises the child alone and isolated in order to protect him from this disease, not allowing television, newspapers, or radio to corrupt her child's innocent mind. Constantly, daily, she drills him on what he will have to do to survive in the world without becoming infected. She fears for the safety of her child when he must go out of her protection. Christianity, after all, is extremely dangerous, just like every other religion. People will kill themselves and kill other people for it (surely a sign of mental disease). It will ruin your life forever, whether you give up your time or your wealth, you will never be the same once you are infected. The child must not even accept the stupid idea that there is an invisible being somewhere. How silly. As soon as he acknowledges the existence of something as stupid and insane as that, he's as good as dead.
The child is raised in peace. He is happy to have such a caring mother who protects him from the evils of the outside. He grows up drawing pictures of fighting the diseased Christians, hoping doctors can one day cure their plight. As he gets older, he learns math, and learns how to read English by texts that his mother writes for him. He dreams about what the outside looks like, and what type of dangers his mother has to fight against just to bring home the groceries. He is very happy to be safe inside his home where even the windows are plastered over so that the sun cannot make its way inside, and the door is latched many times with many locks that only his mother possesses the key to.
The day approaches. The child must leave the house for the first time in his life. He is 16 years old. It is his first time he will have ever left his home. He finds out that one of the reasons his mother was so frightened for his life was that there was a large evangelical Christian church right next to their house. The Christians in that church had apparently discovered that the child was being protected from their disease, and had attempted to infect the mother and make their way to the defenseless child inside their isolated house. The child was told to be weary, to keep his mind alert, and not let any one talk about God or any other silly nonsense.
The child leaves the house, and walks by the church. He is caught! He cannot escape their glances, they walk towards him. It seems like only an instant, and he is surrounded! The first word out of their mouths is "Jesus loves you." Who was this Jesus? His mother had not mentioned a Jesus. But she did tell him that they would tell him anything and everything insane (they couldn't help it, they're diseased after all) in order to infect his healthy mind. They caught him in a religious fervor and brought him inside against his will. They strapped him down to a chair and told him this man Jesus was God and had died for his sins (which apparently they believed he had). He only had to believe and repent of his sins. He escaped from their torment and ran out in a panic, tripped on the curb outside the church as they chased him shouting about Jesus and God nonsense, and he was hit by a car and died on contact.
He went to hell, right? He had rejected the message of Jesus. He had rejected the religious fanaticism of Christianity. He's got no excuse, right? There's no way that he should have said no to the wonderful good news of Christ, right?
The point of this is to force another line to be drawn. If this ridiculous situation had actually happened (crazier things happen in the world), then the theory that you can go to heaven as long you have never been exposed to Christianity would place the poor child in hell. Should we be willing to say that? I'm not. It's possible to be brainwashed in a matter of months, so imagine what would happen if someone was raised since birth to believe the world is one way and no other, then can we really blame them when they turn the option of Christianity down? I am not willing to do that. If you are, then I suppose there is little point in reading this. I wish you would think about it though. It's so easy to group everyone in the world into one category; a category more like us. It's easy (and tempting) to view the whole world as one big USA with churches on every corner (here in the Bible Belt) and theistic talk throughout our society. It is so much easier to say "If you've heard of Jesus and rejected it then you're going to hell" than it is to say "If you've been brainwashed since birth to not believe in it and only get one exposure (and it happens to be by radical extremists) and you still turn it down then you go to hell."
So now hopefully you may be forming your own hypothetical illustrations in your mind that may make more sense to you than my example. Hopefully you are coming to the realization that it is unfair to claim the theory that if you have heard of Jesus and reject it you are going to hell. Because then one can say, what counts as hearing of Jesus? If you've heard the sentence "Jesus died for your sins" and reject it, are you going to hell? No, because how are you to know who Jesus is? If you hear the sentence "God (an all powerful being) became human in order to fix what we broke," and reject it, are you going to hell? I would say no. It depends on the context you hear it in, how much you trust the person telling you, what you've been raised with, etc. Then what are we doing? We are drawing a line. I reject the theory that says just because you've heard of Jesus and denied it as truth you're going to hell. This never gives anyone the benefit of the doubt. In fact, there is no such thing as a "benefit" of a "doubt" in this case. No matter what led the person to be confronted with the idea of Jesus, if one ignores every influence on their lives, place them in a vacuum, and isolate the one moment when they are introduced to Jesus, and view that as the moment that defines where their soul goes for eternity, then I must say that is unfair and actually quite merciless.
We like to imagine that those who reject Jesus and go to hell are really those that get a full understanding of Christianity and then reject it, but that's not where contemporary theology stands. In reality, probably a lot of people who reject Christianity really don't understand what it is (although I think many "Christians" don't understand Christianity), and yet they are held responsible (by Christians) for the destination of their souls. This bothers me. I hope it bothers you.
I will briefly discuss a relevant point.
Jesus states in Luke 6.37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Judge --> To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration.
To pass sentence on; condemn.
If we make the statement "Those who have rejected Christianity are going to hell" then we have judged. We have passed a sentence on someone and condemned their souls. If say that atheists who try to convert Christians are going to hell, then we have condemned. If we are to take the above words of Jesus seriously, then we are not to say that anyone is going to hell, for that would be condemning them. We should forgive them and love them. That is being a Christian.
Being a Christian is not feeling good about yourself because you know that although 70% of the world's population is going to hell you're not because you were lucky enough to be born of Christian parents or lucky enough that you happened to go to that one church service that day when you felt bad and got saved. No. Being a Christian is about loving people. You may say that converting people is out of love of them because you don't want their souls to go to hell, but then your love is based on your prejudice condemnation.
I am not saying that missionaries are not Christian. I am saying that there are ways of spreading Christianity that do not fully reside within the teachings of Jesus. I think we as Christian should reevaluate what it means to be one. I do not believe that it means we have any right to tell everyone else they are going to hell. That's human nature, not Christianity. It is human nature to elevate the self and degrade everyone else. I believe it is God's nature as revealed in Jesus to lower the self in order to raise up others. To love others more than the self. To feed the hungry; to hug the weeping; to comfort the sorrowful; to encourage the desperate. I am sometimes afraid of what Christianity has evolved into. Sometimes I am even hesitant to call myself a Christian because of the connotation. That is the tragedy.
To bring the theme of the topic together, I declare an armistice. I declare an armistice between those who are "saved" against those who are "lost." I feel that those declaring war on the "lost" should really wonder if they're on the wrong side of the battle.
I have asked you once before to draw your line in your theology. I have asked you now twice. It is my hope that you refuse to. It is my hope that you refuse to draw a line and fall on the mercy and love of God.
"I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." - Jesus, John 12.47
When Christianity Became
I have a question for a general population of Christians. First I must list certain understandings to clarify who I'm posing the inquiry to. The following is a list of basic beliefs of the plurality (if not the majority) of Christians:
1) If you are a Christian, you are going to heaven when you die.
2) If you are not a Christian, you are not going to heaven when you die, you are going to hell.
If you believe both of those statements to be true, then it is to you that I am posing my question.
My question is this: "When did Christianity become the saving religion?"
What I mean, broadly, is that since Christianity didn't exist before Jesus, there must have been a previous saving religion, or else everybody who ever lived before Jesus was doomed to hell because there was no way that they could have been saved. I do not think anyone believes that (even the most fundamentalist conservative exclusivist Christian). I will state now, a third belief:
3) Before Jesus of Nazareth, Judaism was the saving religion.
The topic for discussion is not where Jews went when they died before Jesus (although it is closely related), but what religion is the "right" religion. I think most Christians would say that Judaism was, because it was the only one that worshiped the true God (YHWH).
So, given the 3 beliefs stated above, I will proceed to a higher specificity of inquiry.
If Judaism was the saving religion before Jesus, then one can say that if one were not a Jew, they were damned (damned meaning "sent to hell"). If one were to argue that Jews and non-Jews all went to a waiting area until Jesus died, and then got ministered to by Jesus in the afterlife, then I think it would be safe to say that everybody who died before Jesus died got into heaven. Who would say no to Jesus once they're already dead? Therefore, either Judaism was the only saving religion, or everyone who died before Jesus' death got into heaven.
Now, I want to try and pinpoint the time Christianity became the saving religion. There are a few moments in Jesus' career that might have signified this beginning. The first is Jesus' birth.
Did Jesus' birth institute Christianity as the saving religion?
I think the answer to this can be readily declared to be "No." The reason for this seems self explanatory. If the birth of Jesus was the transition from Judaism to Christianity as the saving religion, then had Mary died from complications of the birth, then she would have been damned for not being a Christian. Likewise, as soon as Jesus' umbilical cord was cut, the gates of hell would have been ripped apart by the sudden influx of souls, since nobody in the entire world would have been a Christian and every death would be an extra tick on the roll. I think it is correct to conclude that the birth of Jesus is not the beginning of Christianity.
The next time that it could have began was the teachings of Jesus. As soon as Jesus began teaching people, Christianity became. This would make sense, right? As Jesus taught people, they would have converted to his teachings, and they would be saved. The ones who rejected his teachings would then be damned. The problem with this, is that the majority of what Jesus taught had little to do with himself. Jesus taught ethics and proper worship of God. He didn't teach people about "inviting Jesus into their hearts" or anything that modern Christians would claim as the meaning of Christianity. Jesus taught people to love God and love one another. If, therefore, Jesus' teachings instituted Christianity, those who accepted his teachings went to heaven (even if they knew nothing about Jesus as God incarnate), and those who didn't embrace his teachings were damned. This also would mean that as soon as Jesus started speaking, everybody would be going to hell, because only the people in earshot of Jesus would be saved. This is preposterous in my opinion. This theory also ignores the resurrection. If Jesus had not yet atoned for the sins of the world and had been resurrected, then how could anyone be called a "Christian"? Jesus taught people how to worship within Judaism. I conclude, therefore, that the teachings of Jesus did not institute Christianity as the saving religion.
Now I move to the death of Jesus on the cross. Now that Jesus has died for the sins of the world, people can start believing it. Modern Christians would probably agree that being a Christian means believing that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and that believing this will save them. So when Jesus died, people could start believing in his sacrificial death. The problem with this view, however, also seems readily apparent. If a devout Jew was standing nearby, one who had just traveled from Alexandria to visit relatives, and witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus without knowing the surrounding circumstances and was so shocked by the gruesomeness of it that he had a heart attack and died, he would be going to hell. As soon as Jesus died, hell would have to expand to allow all the souls into it. Every Jew in the world (along with every one else, of course) who died following the death of Jesus would be going to hell, no matter how much they loved the true God and worshiped him in sincerity and purity. This seems unreasonable. After all, there is no resurrection yet! Another crucial point in modern Christianity is that one must believe that Jesus rose from the dead a day and a half after his death. The resurrection is what ensured that Jesus wasn't a fake, but really was God, right? Jesus conquering death so that we could have eternal life, right? Therefore I conclude that the death of Jesus was not the beginning of Christianity as the one true saving religion.
Up until this point, it should be noted, that if Christianity is not yet the saving religion, Judaism is still. Therefore devout (and sincere) Jews would not be damned even up until Saturday night before the resurrection.
The resurrection then seems to be the last moment in which Christianity could have began. After all, there wasn't really much left for Jesus to do (aside from Pentecost, which doesn't really make one a Christian or not). Therefore, it must have been Sunday morning at dawn, when Jesus rose from the dead to be seated at the right hand of the father, that Christianity became the one true saving religion of the world. This means that as soon as Jesus body disappeared from the tomb, heaven stopped checking people in. As soon as Jesus had been resurrected, he would have gone up to heaven and wondered why no one else was joining him. This would mean that a Jewish man in Spain could be on his deathbed early Sunday morning, and if he died a minute after Jesus had been resurrected, he would go to hell, and for all eternity he'd be wishing he had kicked the bucket just a moment sooner. I think it is safe to say that this theory must also be concluded to be false. It seems very unreasonable, doesn't it? A devout Jew, outstanding in commitment to God who loves his neighbor and follows all the laws of the Torah and worships God with all of his being, would be damned to hell for eternity if he died just a minute too late. I am unwilling to conclude that God would do that.
What does this mean then? There's no other time that Christianity could have become the saving religion, right? I suppose, if one were to say that the Jewish man mentioned above could go to heaven after dying the Sunday morning of the resurrection, one would have to make other exceptions. What about two minutes after the resurrection? What about three? You can see where this is going. If we don't condemn everyone who died after the minute Jesus was resurrected from the dead to hell, then we have to start modifying our theory. If not, we risk never drawing the line that separates Judaism as the saving religion from Christianity as the saving religion and today there would be two true, saving religions! Modern Christians can't have that! Let us discuss further possibilities, then.
How about, when the last Jewish man (or woman) dies who had been alive at the time of the resurrection of Jesus. That way, as soon as that man dies, everybody who is alive would have had the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus, right? Therefore, a Jewish man born early Easter Sunday morning (before the resurrection) could remain a Jew his whole life and go to heaven, while his younger twin brother who came out just a few minutes later (after the resurrection) would go to hell, wishing for eternity that his older brother would have taken less time. This also seems preposterously ridiculous.
What can we do then? When can we say that Christianity became the saving religion and Judaism ceased? No matter where we draw the line in time, if we draw it, we are declaring that God actually condemned the majority of the world by sending Jesus into it.
But isn't that what Christians do anyway? Christians claim that Jesus is the savior of the world, and yet it seems that Jesus really was the cause of condemnation rather than salvation.
Unless, of course, one can say that only those who truly reject Jesus are the ones that are damned. This is another topic completely (which I will address shortly in another post). Unless we can say that it is possible for people who have never heard of Jesus can go to heaven, then it appears that Jesus is the cause of the damnation of most of the world population, and that Holy Week marked the largest influx of souls to hell that history has ever seen.
So I ask those who claim to be Christian: "Where to you draw the line?"
1) If you are a Christian, you are going to heaven when you die.
2) If you are not a Christian, you are not going to heaven when you die, you are going to hell.
If you believe both of those statements to be true, then it is to you that I am posing my question.
My question is this: "When did Christianity become the saving religion?"
What I mean, broadly, is that since Christianity didn't exist before Jesus, there must have been a previous saving religion, or else everybody who ever lived before Jesus was doomed to hell because there was no way that they could have been saved. I do not think anyone believes that (even the most fundamentalist conservative exclusivist Christian). I will state now, a third belief:
3) Before Jesus of Nazareth, Judaism was the saving religion.
The topic for discussion is not where Jews went when they died before Jesus (although it is closely related), but what religion is the "right" religion. I think most Christians would say that Judaism was, because it was the only one that worshiped the true God (YHWH).
So, given the 3 beliefs stated above, I will proceed to a higher specificity of inquiry.
If Judaism was the saving religion before Jesus, then one can say that if one were not a Jew, they were damned (damned meaning "sent to hell"). If one were to argue that Jews and non-Jews all went to a waiting area until Jesus died, and then got ministered to by Jesus in the afterlife, then I think it would be safe to say that everybody who died before Jesus died got into heaven. Who would say no to Jesus once they're already dead? Therefore, either Judaism was the only saving religion, or everyone who died before Jesus' death got into heaven.
Now, I want to try and pinpoint the time Christianity became the saving religion. There are a few moments in Jesus' career that might have signified this beginning. The first is Jesus' birth.
Did Jesus' birth institute Christianity as the saving religion?
I think the answer to this can be readily declared to be "No." The reason for this seems self explanatory. If the birth of Jesus was the transition from Judaism to Christianity as the saving religion, then had Mary died from complications of the birth, then she would have been damned for not being a Christian. Likewise, as soon as Jesus' umbilical cord was cut, the gates of hell would have been ripped apart by the sudden influx of souls, since nobody in the entire world would have been a Christian and every death would be an extra tick on the roll. I think it is correct to conclude that the birth of Jesus is not the beginning of Christianity.
The next time that it could have began was the teachings of Jesus. As soon as Jesus began teaching people, Christianity became. This would make sense, right? As Jesus taught people, they would have converted to his teachings, and they would be saved. The ones who rejected his teachings would then be damned. The problem with this, is that the majority of what Jesus taught had little to do with himself. Jesus taught ethics and proper worship of God. He didn't teach people about "inviting Jesus into their hearts" or anything that modern Christians would claim as the meaning of Christianity. Jesus taught people to love God and love one another. If, therefore, Jesus' teachings instituted Christianity, those who accepted his teachings went to heaven (even if they knew nothing about Jesus as God incarnate), and those who didn't embrace his teachings were damned. This also would mean that as soon as Jesus started speaking, everybody would be going to hell, because only the people in earshot of Jesus would be saved. This is preposterous in my opinion. This theory also ignores the resurrection. If Jesus had not yet atoned for the sins of the world and had been resurrected, then how could anyone be called a "Christian"? Jesus taught people how to worship within Judaism. I conclude, therefore, that the teachings of Jesus did not institute Christianity as the saving religion.
Now I move to the death of Jesus on the cross. Now that Jesus has died for the sins of the world, people can start believing it. Modern Christians would probably agree that being a Christian means believing that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and that believing this will save them. So when Jesus died, people could start believing in his sacrificial death. The problem with this view, however, also seems readily apparent. If a devout Jew was standing nearby, one who had just traveled from Alexandria to visit relatives, and witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus without knowing the surrounding circumstances and was so shocked by the gruesomeness of it that he had a heart attack and died, he would be going to hell. As soon as Jesus died, hell would have to expand to allow all the souls into it. Every Jew in the world (along with every one else, of course) who died following the death of Jesus would be going to hell, no matter how much they loved the true God and worshiped him in sincerity and purity. This seems unreasonable. After all, there is no resurrection yet! Another crucial point in modern Christianity is that one must believe that Jesus rose from the dead a day and a half after his death. The resurrection is what ensured that Jesus wasn't a fake, but really was God, right? Jesus conquering death so that we could have eternal life, right? Therefore I conclude that the death of Jesus was not the beginning of Christianity as the one true saving religion.
Up until this point, it should be noted, that if Christianity is not yet the saving religion, Judaism is still. Therefore devout (and sincere) Jews would not be damned even up until Saturday night before the resurrection.
The resurrection then seems to be the last moment in which Christianity could have began. After all, there wasn't really much left for Jesus to do (aside from Pentecost, which doesn't really make one a Christian or not). Therefore, it must have been Sunday morning at dawn, when Jesus rose from the dead to be seated at the right hand of the father, that Christianity became the one true saving religion of the world. This means that as soon as Jesus body disappeared from the tomb, heaven stopped checking people in. As soon as Jesus had been resurrected, he would have gone up to heaven and wondered why no one else was joining him. This would mean that a Jewish man in Spain could be on his deathbed early Sunday morning, and if he died a minute after Jesus had been resurrected, he would go to hell, and for all eternity he'd be wishing he had kicked the bucket just a moment sooner. I think it is safe to say that this theory must also be concluded to be false. It seems very unreasonable, doesn't it? A devout Jew, outstanding in commitment to God who loves his neighbor and follows all the laws of the Torah and worships God with all of his being, would be damned to hell for eternity if he died just a minute too late. I am unwilling to conclude that God would do that.
What does this mean then? There's no other time that Christianity could have become the saving religion, right? I suppose, if one were to say that the Jewish man mentioned above could go to heaven after dying the Sunday morning of the resurrection, one would have to make other exceptions. What about two minutes after the resurrection? What about three? You can see where this is going. If we don't condemn everyone who died after the minute Jesus was resurrected from the dead to hell, then we have to start modifying our theory. If not, we risk never drawing the line that separates Judaism as the saving religion from Christianity as the saving religion and today there would be two true, saving religions! Modern Christians can't have that! Let us discuss further possibilities, then.
How about, when the last Jewish man (or woman) dies who had been alive at the time of the resurrection of Jesus. That way, as soon as that man dies, everybody who is alive would have had the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus, right? Therefore, a Jewish man born early Easter Sunday morning (before the resurrection) could remain a Jew his whole life and go to heaven, while his younger twin brother who came out just a few minutes later (after the resurrection) would go to hell, wishing for eternity that his older brother would have taken less time. This also seems preposterously ridiculous.
What can we do then? When can we say that Christianity became the saving religion and Judaism ceased? No matter where we draw the line in time, if we draw it, we are declaring that God actually condemned the majority of the world by sending Jesus into it.
But isn't that what Christians do anyway? Christians claim that Jesus is the savior of the world, and yet it seems that Jesus really was the cause of condemnation rather than salvation.
Unless, of course, one can say that only those who truly reject Jesus are the ones that are damned. This is another topic completely (which I will address shortly in another post). Unless we can say that it is possible for people who have never heard of Jesus can go to heaven, then it appears that Jesus is the cause of the damnation of most of the world population, and that Holy Week marked the largest influx of souls to hell that history has ever seen.
So I ask those who claim to be Christian: "Where to you draw the line?"
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Jesus Did Not Want to Die
Matthew 26.36-46
Mark 14.32-42
Luke 22.39-46
I do not know what I believe about the connection between Jesus and God (the Son and the Father), but I would like to explore one aspect of Jesus' knowledge (or lack thereof).
If Jesus is completely God (as ecumenical councils and common Christian theology would seem to teach), then what's the deal with what God wants vs. what Jesus wants, or what God knows vs. what Jesus knows? I do not believe that Jesus was omniscient, I believe that if he was, he would not be completely human. I would like to bring up something that I believe is biblically undeniable: Jesus did not want to be crucified.
Now this may seem like something elementary. "Of course," we may say, "of course he did not want to be crucified...who would?" However, what do we risk when we say this?
Jesus prayed to God in the garden of Gethsemane. Regardless of the problem present when we ask "Did Jesus pray to himself? What's the point?" it must be recognized that Jesus prayed that "the hour might pass from him" (Mark version; in Matthew and Luke he prays for the "cup" to pass from him). In Matthew and Mark, Jesus reportedly says "if it is possible" before he makes his request. This implies that Jesus did not know what was possible (otherwise he wouldn't have said "if"). The gospel of John does not include Jesus' prayer and states that he knew what was going to happen. This is not surprising from John, because John's Jesus is very much in control of most every situation. As John is likely the latest and most theologically evolved, the fourth gospel will be set aside from this discussion, as it bears no texts on this prayer.
So now it seems that Jesus did not know what was going to happen (he no doubt had a good idea, otherwise he wouldn't have prayed this in the first place, but he still thought that there was a possibility that it wouldn't happen). Not only did he not know whether or not what was going to happen to him, but if what he thought was correct, then he did not want to do it.
This is somewhat troubling to popular theology. Jesus and God did not want the same thing. Jesus' will was not to be crucified. He kept going back from waking up the disciples and praying the same thing. As Luke puts it: "yet, not my will but yours be done." This directly implies that God's will and Jesus' will were not the same. Jesus did not want to do what was required of him. He only wanted to so far as he was willing to.
For example, when one compromises to make happy the spouse, they in turn are happy because they made the other happy. It is not that one wants to compromise, but only wants to so far as they are willing. This, I believe, is what is present in the synoptic gospels' account of Jesus' prayer.
Jesus did not want to be crucified. He probably didn't want to die at all. He didn't know what God was going to decide to send him through, but he was willing.
I do not think that it is troublesome to say that the will of Jesus was not the same as the will of God, but some people whose Christology is much higher than mine would probably take issue. I believe that most Christians would have problems with that statement. I believe that statement is firmly established in the passages of Scripture mentioned above.
What does this mean then?
It seems that Jesus' connection with God did not include omniscience. It seems that Jesus' connection with God did not include the power to change the events himself. He was praying to God that God would change the events, because he didn't want to go through with it, and was hoping that maybe he wouldn't have to. What does this do about Atonement theories then? Jesus didn't want to die for the sins of the world? Jesus didn't want Christianity to be founded? One could argue that if the crucifixion and resurrection (since there couldn't be a resurrection without his death) did not happen, then Christianity would not exist, and we'd all be Jewish. That seems to be what Jesus prayed for. If Jesus didn't want to be crucified, then one could say that he had no idea what his death would mean. He didn't know that he was the perfect sacrificial lamb. He didn't know he was going to take the sins of the world upon him. He didn't know, and because of that, he didn't want to do it. This challenges us to rethink what we think about the crucifixion and what Jesus' death really meant. If Jesus didn't even know the results of his death, then how much are we allowed to read into it?
This makes Jesus a lot more human than most Christians may want to admit. I think this is very important though. Jesus suffered as we do. He was uncertain about things. He didn't know how the future was going to happen. He didn't know what God was going to do next. He was a scared human being who repeatedly prayed for there to be another way. His request was not granted.
That's something that we should take note of. God did not grant Jesus' request. Jesus, this "Son of God," this "Messiah," the great "I AM" in the flesh...couldn't ask hard enough to escape his fate. What we should also observe is that Jesus accepted God's will over his will. Jesus probably was pretty sure that God wasn't going to let him off the hook, and he accepted it. He said that God's will in his life should take precedence over his own human will. This is the example to follow. What is there to learn if we say that Jesus wasn't really praying for God to change his mind? What would it benefit us to view this as Jesus talking to himself for therapeutic reasons? The greatest lesson we can learn from these passages are when we look at Jesus as a scared human who doesn't know what's going to happen, but accepts the will of God in his life. This is as we all must do. We, like Jesus, are men incapable of knowing everything God is going to do. We should learn to pray as Jesus did, that God's will be done, not ours.
Mark 14.32-42
Luke 22.39-46
I do not know what I believe about the connection between Jesus and God (the Son and the Father), but I would like to explore one aspect of Jesus' knowledge (or lack thereof).
If Jesus is completely God (as ecumenical councils and common Christian theology would seem to teach), then what's the deal with what God wants vs. what Jesus wants, or what God knows vs. what Jesus knows? I do not believe that Jesus was omniscient, I believe that if he was, he would not be completely human. I would like to bring up something that I believe is biblically undeniable: Jesus did not want to be crucified.
Now this may seem like something elementary. "Of course," we may say, "of course he did not want to be crucified...who would?" However, what do we risk when we say this?
Jesus prayed to God in the garden of Gethsemane. Regardless of the problem present when we ask "Did Jesus pray to himself? What's the point?" it must be recognized that Jesus prayed that "the hour might pass from him" (Mark version; in Matthew and Luke he prays for the "cup" to pass from him). In Matthew and Mark, Jesus reportedly says "if it is possible" before he makes his request. This implies that Jesus did not know what was possible (otherwise he wouldn't have said "if"). The gospel of John does not include Jesus' prayer and states that he knew what was going to happen. This is not surprising from John, because John's Jesus is very much in control of most every situation. As John is likely the latest and most theologically evolved, the fourth gospel will be set aside from this discussion, as it bears no texts on this prayer.
So now it seems that Jesus did not know what was going to happen (he no doubt had a good idea, otherwise he wouldn't have prayed this in the first place, but he still thought that there was a possibility that it wouldn't happen). Not only did he not know whether or not what was going to happen to him, but if what he thought was correct, then he did not want to do it.
This is somewhat troubling to popular theology. Jesus and God did not want the same thing. Jesus' will was not to be crucified. He kept going back from waking up the disciples and praying the same thing. As Luke puts it: "yet, not my will but yours be done." This directly implies that God's will and Jesus' will were not the same. Jesus did not want to do what was required of him. He only wanted to so far as he was willing to.
For example, when one compromises to make happy the spouse, they in turn are happy because they made the other happy. It is not that one wants to compromise, but only wants to so far as they are willing. This, I believe, is what is present in the synoptic gospels' account of Jesus' prayer.
Jesus did not want to be crucified. He probably didn't want to die at all. He didn't know what God was going to decide to send him through, but he was willing.
I do not think that it is troublesome to say that the will of Jesus was not the same as the will of God, but some people whose Christology is much higher than mine would probably take issue. I believe that most Christians would have problems with that statement. I believe that statement is firmly established in the passages of Scripture mentioned above.
What does this mean then?
It seems that Jesus' connection with God did not include omniscience. It seems that Jesus' connection with God did not include the power to change the events himself. He was praying to God that God would change the events, because he didn't want to go through with it, and was hoping that maybe he wouldn't have to. What does this do about Atonement theories then? Jesus didn't want to die for the sins of the world? Jesus didn't want Christianity to be founded? One could argue that if the crucifixion and resurrection (since there couldn't be a resurrection without his death) did not happen, then Christianity would not exist, and we'd all be Jewish. That seems to be what Jesus prayed for. If Jesus didn't want to be crucified, then one could say that he had no idea what his death would mean. He didn't know that he was the perfect sacrificial lamb. He didn't know he was going to take the sins of the world upon him. He didn't know, and because of that, he didn't want to do it. This challenges us to rethink what we think about the crucifixion and what Jesus' death really meant. If Jesus didn't even know the results of his death, then how much are we allowed to read into it?
This makes Jesus a lot more human than most Christians may want to admit. I think this is very important though. Jesus suffered as we do. He was uncertain about things. He didn't know how the future was going to happen. He didn't know what God was going to do next. He was a scared human being who repeatedly prayed for there to be another way. His request was not granted.
That's something that we should take note of. God did not grant Jesus' request. Jesus, this "Son of God," this "Messiah," the great "I AM" in the flesh...couldn't ask hard enough to escape his fate. What we should also observe is that Jesus accepted God's will over his will. Jesus probably was pretty sure that God wasn't going to let him off the hook, and he accepted it. He said that God's will in his life should take precedence over his own human will. This is the example to follow. What is there to learn if we say that Jesus wasn't really praying for God to change his mind? What would it benefit us to view this as Jesus talking to himself for therapeutic reasons? The greatest lesson we can learn from these passages are when we look at Jesus as a scared human who doesn't know what's going to happen, but accepts the will of God in his life. This is as we all must do. We, like Jesus, are men incapable of knowing everything God is going to do. We should learn to pray as Jesus did, that God's will be done, not ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)