5 Minute Answer

My dad called me an atheist the other day. This is not the case at all, and he wasn't serious, but it made me realize how my beliefs and opinions on much of Christian tradition come off sounding like to one of more conservative faith. I didn't think much of it, however. My friends know more or less where I stand, so I rarely have to define my faith to them. New issues arise, and they find out my thoughts on it, but it isn't revolutionary to them; they know where I'm coming from. I'm still overly-blasphemous at times (in good humor, of course), and unfortunately vulgar depending on the company, but little I say needs defense, because my friends know when to take (or not take me) me seriously.

I was somewhat troubled, however, when I was explaining to my mother a bit about Anselm's "fides quaerens intellectum" (her Sunday School class is using a book that, upon opening to the introduction, included a heading "Faith Seeking Understanding" and nowhere gave any mention of Anselm), and she asked me why I was a Christian, or if I was one at all. I suppose she asked me because I was expressing my dissatisfaction with Anselm's theory. I was saying that I didn't like the idea of coming to the table with assumptions, and interpreting one's experience in order to fit the prior assumptions. The question caught me off guard, and I did not know how to respond to it. For a while now I have barely considered myself a Christian. I have thought of myself as a "liberal Christian," or most recently a "Judeo-Christian Agnostic," but I have long known that my beliefs lie outside what most Christians would call "Christian". My first response was yes, of course I consider myself a Christian, but then I conceded that it all depended on how you defined Christianity. As a "Judeo-Christian Agnostic" it is much easier for me to explain what I don't believe rather than what I do believe.

Telling your mom what you believe when you know full well that she would label it non-Christian and therefore wrong and hell-binding is a difficult thing to do when you have to go to work in 5 minutes. This is the stuff of hour-long conversations, not 5 minute quibbles.

Needless to say, I got nowhere in my defense. When people ask me something about my beliefs and I fear that they may react strongly against it, I always try to explain the "why" before explaining the "what." For example, I love using the example of the Passover as it relates to the crucifixion. John's gospel records the crucifixion occurring before the Passover meal, whereas the synoptics record the Last Supper as the Passover meal, therefore the crucifixion occuring the day after. The theological significance of this is that John wanted to portray Jesus as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." So if Jesus didn't really die on the day of the Passover meal, did he really die as our atoning sacrifice? But how can I explain this in 5 minutes? It seems that any theology you can explain in such a short amount of time is not a very deep one. I tried to address the statement of Jesus as "Lord" and "Savior," but that would require somewhat of a word study on these words and redefining them from each biblical authors writings.

It seems that most Christians may be able to say that they are Christian because they "believe Jesus died to save them from their sins." Unbeknownst to them, however, is the reality that they are actually expressing a specific theory of atonement that was put forth not simply from the Bible, but from medieval theologians, and it is not the only theory out there that is "Christian." Now, one of the five fundamentals of the early 20th century says that one must believe in the Sacrificial theory of atonement for one to be a Christian, but that is hardly the only way one can look at the crucifixion and remain biblical. I think that any pithy statement of believe carries a lot of weight, and the terms must be defined before one can claim them as gospel and bet their eternal soul on them.

It almost seems as though it would be easier for me to start off the conversation by admitting that I am not a Christian, and then as I explain my views, let my audience determine whether or not they accept my opinions as valid and encompassed in the broad Christian tradition. Not that I need it to, but it seems that if people believe that you are a Christian they treat you as an equal (since most people around here claim to be Christian). I sometimes wonder if I'm intolerant because I don't tolerate people that don't tolerate others. Does this make sense?

I can be arrogant in my faith, because behind my faith stands much education, personal research, and reflection. In a matter of months I will have a degree in Religion, and I would be lying if I said that this reality didn't make me somewhat arrogant of my beliefs. However, if someone is not a Christian and has come to their faith through education, study, and serious thought and personal reflection, then I will respect them much more than a fellow Christian who believes because his/her parents brainwashed them to believe.

Although I seem to be detracting from my initial point (assuming I had one to begin with), I suppose what I want to emphasize is that the relationship between God and man is a simple one, and yet it isn't. When explaining what I do believe, it is very simple. I believe in the love of God towards man, and man's moral responsibility to share that love with his fellow man. Now when I am questioned as to how that ties in with Jesus and the traditional dogmas of the Christian religion, it gets really hard. I would have to explain biblical criticism and historical/contextual studies of specific books of the Bible; I would have to discuss history from 1st century gnosticism to 5th century monasticism to 12th century scholasticism through 17th century reformed theology, and then the crisis of the 19th century that the 20th century tried to clean up before I could adequately explain my faith as it ties into the Christianity of today.

I'm not part of an "anything goes" religion, but I think that different people find their way to God in different ways. My way falls most closely in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but I lack belief in many dogmas that most would call essential to the faith. Does that make me un-Christian? Perhaps, but it does not make me ungodly. One of my favorite illustrations is Jesus' story of the "least of these." Many will come to heaven and Jesus will say "I did not know you." Many will respond and say "But we did everything in your name, for you!" And he will tell them that they didn't feed him or clothe him, and that every time they did these things, they did it to him. Jesus feels with us, he experiences life with us, he has that solidarity. In the same way, I believe those that feed and clothe him will get their inheritance in Heaven even when those that claim they lived in Jesus' name may not. Now my opinions on the afterlife are perhaps not completely biblical, but I believe my interpretation of this particular story of Jesus is. I think God would rather us love our neighbor than convert them. This, I believe, is what the true Christian message is, which is why I still like associating myself within the Christian tradition. Unfortunately I anger more than I love, it seems, because of the lack of love I see in my fellow men.

That's the easy answer, I suppose. I am Christian because I love. I don't think it's much more complicated than that. I think that's a 5 minute answer.

Who Is Jesus?

The last post that I had on here about fundamentalism caused quite a stir at the website http://www.justgivemetruth.com. In the controversy I caused I was told that unless I was born of the Spirit I couldn't understand the Bible because the Truths had to be revealed to me by the Spirit, and no man-knowledge could show me these. I was asked who Jesus was to me, and this was my response. The moderators on this site believe that speaking in tongues is the initial sign of receiving the Spirit. Everything else should be self explanatory. Instead of saying directly who I thought Jesus was, I gave them a short (very much abridged) spiritual journey of sorts as it relates to the question. Here it is:

I start my spiritual journey in 10th grade.

I was not "saved" as you may say, nor was I actually baptized. I was raised Catholic in Montreal, and when I moved to North Carolina 9 years ago I started attending 2 churches, a Baptist and a Methodist church. I never became a member of either of them. To keep it brief (since this is not the topic), I did not take Christianity seriously until I got into an argument with a Catholic friend which pushed me to the boundaries of my beliefs, and then that night as I was struggling with the possibility (or impossibility) of God I felt a calming, unreal presence with me. It is hard to describe how I felt, but I was totally calm in an instant, and I knew it was the hand of God.

Over the next 2 years I started reading the Bible more and attending the FCA at my school, leading the music when needed to at Fifth Quarters and other FCA events. The Jesus I knew in high school was God. All I knew about Jesus was in the Bible, and I believed it because it was the Word of God. Jesus was one with God and all it took to go to heaven was to confess that Jesus died on the cross to save the world of its sins, and then when I repent of my own sins I would be forgiven so long as I believed it was Jesus who did it (Pray this prayer and you're in!). Jesus was the cosmic communicator that would save me from the wrath of God so long as I prayed in his name and confessed him Christ and Lord and Savior and all that stuff. That is who Jesus was to me in High School.

It should be noted that I did not come to a Jesus on my own terms. The Jesus I came to know in high school was the Jesus that I was conditioned to know. It was the Jesus that my friends claimed, it was the Jesus that FCA claimed, it was the Jesus that certain teachers claimed, but I can honestly say that most of what I knew about Jesus came from either shallow readings of the Bible or what I felt like people around me believed. It was not my own soul that accomplished my belief, it was the manipulation and peer pressure of those around me who I felt must have been right.

I went off to college an eager student wishing to learn more in order to validate his own beliefs. That is worth unpacking a bit. I was pretty confident in what I knew. I was pretty confident that the Bible was inerrant, and that if it said it, that was the end of it. Proof texting worked on me (What I mean by "proof texting" is taking a single verse or phrase out of its biblical context and using it to back an argument or point; I have hence learned that this one of the most irresponsible ways out there of reading a text). I did not go to college to have my beliefs changed; I went to learn more so that I would know that I was right (which I believe is unhealthy).

My first religion class freshman year was Old Testament survey. I learned a bunch of stuff about the Old Testament as a whole, but the class was pretty shallow because there's just so much to cover. However, one of the most valuable things I took from that class is that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but it was a collection of documents that were weaved together by a later hand. Stories told multiple times in different ways, texts that would have been impossible to have been written by Moses (like his death in Deuteronomy 34, which actually implies strongly in verse 10 that it had been written long after this event), passages that would only make sense if they were read by a much later audience (such as the reference to the kings of Israel in Genesis 36.31), and evidence that has been researched over the past few hundred years all led me to the conclusion that I could only take the Pentateuch seriously (and hold it to its true value) if I acknowledged that it was a rich collection of traditions that were brought together as a composite tradition of Israel.

This allowed me to break free of the idea that it was somehow dictated to man by God. It became more and more apparent the more I studied it that it could not have been such, and that it actually makes more sense and becomes so much more valuable when that view is discarded. This of course changed my view of the New Testament as well. I could now make sense of the Gospels in a way I never could before. I realized that these were recorded traditions about Jesus, and I should understand them as such.

As I furthered my studies from this class onward (into New Testament studies and Christian History), I came to see that the "inerrant" view of the Bible is very new, and that what many Christians claim as the way to salvation (Inviting Jesus into your heart and the likes) is really a very new phenomenon that would have fallen on deaf ears more than a few hundred years ago. This radically changed my view of salvation.

I began to read the New Testament not as one book, but as a collection of works by different authors. I ceased interpreting Paul by what John had wrote, or interpreting Luke by what Matthew wrote, because I saw this as irresponsible. It would be like reading Wordsworth and interpreting it through Blake. Most of the New Testament authors were probably not aware of the other literature that was to become New Testament canon. Surely Paul was not aware of the gospels, and one could justifiably question whether or not Paul would have agreed with literature such as the gospel of John. He may have called it heresy! We cannot know for certain. All we can do is give each book the respect it deserves by trying to understand the context in which it was written.

I began to learn about the priority of Mark, and how it was probably the earliest Gospel and then Matthew and Luke used it as an outline of sorts (sometimes copying verbatim from it) and then expanding using their own traditions (M and L respectively) and both using a common source (that has since become known as Q). This allowed me to understand more clearly what each Gospel's emphasis was. For example, Mark perhaps viewed Jesus as temperamental and quick to anger (In Mark 1.40-44 shows Jesus healing a man and then "sternly warning" him and kicking him out. In 1.41 Jesus is moved with "pity," but other manuscripts have "anger." When Mathew and Luke retell this story, they copy almost verbatim, and then leave out that sentence. They also leave out the stern warning and the sending away (Matthew 8.2-4, Luke 5.12-16). Mark also records in 3.1-6 the story of Jesus healing a man and getting angry at those around him. Mathew 12.9-14 and Luke 6.6-11 retell the story but leave out Jesus' anger), whereas Matthew and Luke omit parts in order to show that Jesus was not. I began to see how Matthew spiritualized certain things. Luke has Jesus saying "blessed are the poor" (Luke 6.20), whereas Matthew's Jesus says "blessed are the poor IN SPIRIT" (Matthew 5.3, emphasis added). This allows me to see that Luke viewed Jesus as caring about the poor and oppressed, whereas Matthew made it more universal, and allowed anybody to be able to relate by interpreting Jesus' saying as a promotion of humbleness. Both of these I believe to be true, that Jesus had an emphasis on humility and lived by example, but that he also genuinely cared for the poor and the outsiders of society. I believe this was who Jesus was and how we should be, but I do not believe he delivered the speech twice. I believe that the tradition existed (either oral or written), and then each gospel writer interpreted it to promote their view of Jesus. This is how I can make sense of it.

Then I studied the gospel of John, probably the latest of the gospels. In it Jesus is very different. Jesus doesn't tell a single parable in John (whereas he supposedly never taught in anything BUT parables in the synoptics Matthew 13.34), he never conceals his identity (Andrew proclaims him as the Christ in the 2nd chapter whereas Jesus doesn't want people to know yet in the synoptics).

There is much to the Gospel of John that I feel is important to take note of. John contains the highest Christology of the canonical gospels. John was the last of the gospels written, and is probably 60 years removed from the death of Jesus, and the community that produced the gospel probably lived in an isolated area, perhaps in Ephesus. The gospel is quite theological, and is less concerned with reporting history as it is concerned about interpreting Jesus. Jesus is placed at many Jewish festivals for the purpose of reinterpreting the festival in light of Jesus, or better, interpreting Jesus by using the festival as a starting point. For example, the Bread of Life discourse is given on the Passover as he feeds the multitudes (it isn't the Passover in the synoptics). He says that those who ate the manna in the wilderness died, but those that eat the bread that Jesus provides will live forever (much like the story of the woman at the well, and how Jesus' water will not allow one to go thirsty again). Jesus' Light of the World discourse is given in context of the Jewish Festival of Booths, and that festival contains huge candles in memory of the light that led the Hebrews in the wilderness.

What should be seen in these stories is that there is a lot of symbolism. Jesus told parables of God, he told stories to tell us truths about God, but the stories or parables would not necessarily true themselves. Did the story of the prodigal son actually happen? I highly doubt it, but that wasn't important. The importance was that God is like the father who sees his son while he is still far off and runs out to meet him in love. The stories that the author tells may have some historical basis, but for the most part they appear to be illustrations that may not have happened but are used to reveal something about who Jesus was to the Johannine community that produced the gospel.

So the question is that of validity. If the stories that are told in the fourth gospel are not historically factual, then do the abstract truths hold? Well, I would say that as far as they can be understood, yes, they do.

As I'm sure you can see, there are consequences to this view. One such consequence is it makes you think for yourself too much. It is really easy to NOT think when you think the Bible is just dropped down from God. All it takes is looking it up like a dictionary, and let it dictate your life for you. When you admit that men wrote it using the traditions they had and developed their own opinions and theology (that may be different than other NT books such as the gospel of John vs. the synoptics), it opens the doors to some legitimate questions.

One such question is why it should be worth anything. That is a legitimate but silly question. Why do we read Shakespeare? Why do we read Descartes? Why do we read anything? We read to enrich ourselves and to learn. When we read the Gospels, we can learn about God AND ourselves. We can learn about the effect that he had on his followers and his followers' followers. This is the best we can really know about him. We cannot look into the past yet; all we can do is read what generations after Jesus thought of him. We can read about how Mark saw him suffer, and how we should live sacrificially. We can see how Matthew saw him as a continuation and fulfillment of the Jewish tradition of the Annointed of God. We can read of Luke's Messiah who is universal and not bound by social taboos. We can read about John's Christ who was united with God and desired for all of his followers to be united as one as well. We can see how John's Jesus was so much more than a teacher confirmed and exalted by God.

Again, the question is one of validity. John's theology is late and farther removed from the person of Jesus than the Synoptics or the writings of Paul. In fact, Paul's Jesus is Lord and example. Paul was probably unaware of John's idea of Jesus as pre-existent Logos (cf. Romans 1). Does this mean it is invalid? Well, I am not willing to say.

What I AM willing to say is that Jesus had such a profound effect on his followers that he cannot be ignored. How else could his followers have led something so revolutionary, as fishermen? How could Paul, a Jewish Pharisee and persecutor of Christians have such a change of heart? He saw the risen Jesus. How could this man Jesus still be changing the lives of people 50 years later in the Johannine community unless he had a real presence with them. How could people be willing to die for a man they never met unless they could feel the presence of God?

Who is Jesus to me you ask. He is a man that cannot be studied enough. He is a man who changed the lives of his followers, his followers' followers, down to my own life as I strive to live for the Kingdom and glory of God. I never grow tired of reading and studying the Bible because I want to learn more about the effect that Jesus of Nazareth had on his followers. I can't ever get enough of Paul's writings because I am fascinated by the way in which Paul calls us to a higher righteousness for God. I love the universality of the gospel. I love the message of self sacrifice in the name of Jesus. I believe that the spirit of God lives in his people as it came alive in Jesus.

You probably think I'm still evading the question. Well here is my answer: Jesus is a mystery.

Have you ever seen the movie Phenomenon? It is about a man who gets brain cancer, and instead of shutting down brain function, it unlocks it. The result is genius and telekinetic power. The man tells people that he is not something magical or supernatural: he is the potential. He says that he has become the potential of everybody.

John tells us that Jesus was the incarnated Logos. This is not all that he tells us about the Logos. He says it was the light of all men. Genesis tells us that we are made in the image of God. This image, this Logos, this "divine spark" as it has been called, was incarnated in the man Jesus. Schleiermacher talks about a "God-consciousness." Imagine the moment, if you will, that you felt God with more presence than ever. Imagine one of the moments that you felt completely present with God; that his hand was holding you, that he was within you, and that you just knew that God was with you. Imagine that moment (or those moments). What if you could feel that all the time? What if your life was one consistent presence with God? This "God-consciousness" is what we only have a peek of. We only see it now and again (some more often than others). What if Jesus had this all the time? How would one live if they were at all times being inspired by the presence of God? What would it be like if the Logos and imago dei came alive in a person and took hold of their every being? I can only imagine, but I believe that this is who Jesus was. Nobody can deny that strange things happen; miraculous healings and mind over matter phenomenon are common. Who's to say that Jesus' miracles weren't because he was so in tune with nature and God that he had some amazing power of influence and charisma that bent the boundaries of the mind and body? I'm not a doctor, so I can't say what it would take to make the blind see or the lame walk. But people ARE cured. Jesus was calling us to become more than we had ever been.

You may say again that I am avoiding answering, and the only response I have for that is, maybe.

Because of the study I have put into the biblical texts, I cannot give a simple black and white answer. Can I with good conscious tell you that I believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah? Well, no I can't, because the Christian definition of "Messiah" is very different from the Jewish definition, so as I have stated in a prior post, I cannot simply say "Jesus is the Christ" without some reservations.

I am not "avoiding the answer," I am simply sharing the reason why I am extremely hesitant to pass judgment on the man of Jesus. He called us to have faith in God, he called us to a higher morality, he called us to be more than just "religious," he called us to be true images of God as he was. When one looks at Jesus, one looks at God. There is no more physical way in which one can do that, I believe. Do I believe he was God incarnate? Well geez, I don't think there's a human being who ever lived that could explain that question. Even the Fourth Gospel shrouds that in mystery. That is what it is, a mystery. How does an infinite being inhabit a finite one? Well, I don't know, and neither does anybody else. It is beyond our comprehension. I simply claim ignorance. We are made in the image of God, and God breathed his spirit into us to give us life and consciousness, so couldn't one argue that we are ALL God incarnate? Before I get labeled a blasphemer I must say that this all depends on your definition of "incarnation." The Logos of God became flesh, according to the Fourth Gospel, and this Logos lived among us. But it didn't just inhabit the earth in Jesus. The Greek word there for "live" or "dwell" in John 1.14 is "skinao." This verb literally means to "pitch a tent" or even "tabernacle." It recalls the imagery of the Exodus and how the people would build a tabernacle (tent) whenever they stopped, and the glory of God (his very presence) would abide in it. This is the same way that the Logos abided in Jesus, according to this gospel. A very real presence of God lived in Jesus. This is how Jesus and the Father are One. But how then could he pray that his followers be One as He and the Father are One? Is he asking God to incarnate his followers? Isn't that what you guys claim he has done? If you are Trinitarian then the Holy Spirit is just as much God as Jesus or the Father is, so by claiming you have received the Holy Spirit and that it dwells inside you, then you are claiming equality with Jesus. It is the same imagery that the prologue of the Fourth Gospel depicts. Is this not what Jesus prayed for? Is this not why the curtain in the temple was torn? That we all may be one with God as Jesus was, that we all may be ever conscious of the presence of God, and that we all may live in the Spirit, not only in the Flesh (which is kind of mandatory), but in the freedom from sin and death granted to us by the grace of God?

Jesus is the Way, sure. But does that mean belief in Jesus or following his teachings? I can say wholeheartedly that I believe Jesus is the Way, but how I interpret it is probably not the same way you would interpret it. It's a metaphor, obviously, but most Christians probably interpret it to mean "if you're not a Christian, you're going the wrong way." I disagree. I think it means that the Way of Jesus is the Way. For example, if you have a cage full of prisoners, and one man goes to the front of the room and presses a blue button that opens the door and then says "I am the way" and exits, what he obviously means is that we should all go up and press the blue button to free ourselves. The prisoners are not to start debating about whom that man was, they are not to claim he is the way out of the cage if they only believe that he will get them out, they are not to believe this man is going to make anything better for them. They are to go and press the blue button to escape. If Jesus is the Way, I believe that means the teachings of Jesus are the way. For example, what happens if an observant man was scanning the walls for a way out, and because he is examining the walls he does not see the man escape? He works his way around the room, and he discovers the button, presses it, and escapes. He has found the way. Jesus told the story of those who say "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?" but Jesus tells them "I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers" (Matthew 7.21-23). I always imagine Christians in heaven seeing Buddhists getting in and claiming the same thing. The way of Jesus is that salvation. So I could say "Jesus is the Way," and you guys would agree with me, but I don't believe he is the Way in the same way that you believe he is the Way. I could say Jesus is Lord, but one would have to define Lord. Lord (Greek kurios) means master or leader, pretty much. Lord doesn't mean "God." So someone could claim Jesus Lord without professing any other Christian doctrine. They could say that Jesus is Lord and they will follow their master by selling everything they own and giving all of their money to the poor. That may be the only thing they do. You have a different definition (I do too) of Lord than that, but it's all interpretive.

Fundamentalism

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.