Who does God Love More, Republicans or Gays?

I thought the title would get your attention. It is a contraversial topic that I will try to deal with sensitively - but don't be surprised if you disagree with me. This argument is from the Christian point of view and makes some assumptions that are not here argued (primarily the rationale behind the right/wrongness of homosexuality).

While conducting a Bible discussion recently a brother professed his support for former President Bush. I was initially baffled because I very rarely met any non-American or Black person who supported Bush. His reasoning was faith-based; Bush opposed gay marriage and Republicans are statedly pro-life in the abortion debate.  The developments in California in particular have shown that many Christians (and Afro-Americans as the case may be) will support the conservative values espoused by the Republican party.

This was kind of a shock at first - I couldn't imagine supporting Bush under any circumstance. The fact that he may share a couple ideals that reflect the position of some faiths or individual religious adherents, just isn't enough for me to jump on his band wagon - I suppose I should tell you why.

Firstly, politics is not all about faith, and the brand of democracy and capitalism practiced by the Bush administration was about nothing more than money. In fact, money seemed to be so important that an unjust war was started to get more of it, or so it would seem. The lack of credibility and integrity of the Bush administration supersedes any moral stance he may take. It's like a accepting a rotten banana split with maggots and raw fish because it has fresh whipped cream on top...kinda.

If you asked me what I prefer - married gay people or the Iraq War - I say ring the wedding bells! Some Christians might have been happy about Bush's anti-gay position but consider which has done more harm - gays or the War? The gays in question are consenting adults - the Iraqis who have been killed had no say in the decision to invade their once sovereign nation. Oil companies have posted record profits (spurred on by the instability created through the Iraq war) and American contractors (Haliburton and Blackwater for example) have made millions through reconstruction projects in Iraq. And Bush went on to cut taxes for oil companies only increasing their profit margins.

In my opinion, to support Bush on two points is to ignore a great deal of very questionable decisions and positions that are distractingly un-Christian. Further, politics itself is not a happy partner for religion, and while I have my own personal convictions I have no right to force others to abide by them.

But more on gay marriage. I am not particulary opposed to it for a couple reasons. Gays marrying each other won't make them more gay or more wrong according to Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine teaches that homosexuality is wrong - that is the sin. If they marry each other they won't be comitting an extra or bonus sin, but they will have rights available to them that are now withheld. Gay marriage, in my mind, is not a moral battle but a social one about rights and equality under the law. The spiritual aspect would need be dealt with in the appropriate context. I don't believe I have a right to judge those who make no claim to my faith. The only point where I feel I have authority to challenge someone on their morality with regard to changing behaviour, is if they claim to adhere to Biblical teaching or wish to adhere to it.

This points to another issue: the dehumanization of homosexuals. I am not here challenging Biblical doctrine on homosexuality but the attitude toward homosexuals often demonstrated by the Church as a collective. This may shock some but here goes: homosexuals are human too! Angrily condeming a community from a distance is easy - but put a face, name and relationship to that community and the game changes, especially if said face has never uttered a negative word about your faith and beliefs and is a really generous and good natured person. Am I saying Christian doctrine should change? No. I am saying that attitude should.

I cannot relate to homosexual desire and that fact may colour my view of the sin as more repulsive than others. But does God grade sin the way we do? Does He struggle to love homosexuals but look at George Bush and say 'well he doesn't like gays so he can't be all that bad'? I don't think so. If we are to imitate God we have to deal with people impartially. The notion that all gays can be 'cured', for example, can be more harmful than helpful to those who may wish to convert. Doubtless some have left the behaviour and desire behind while others may find it a part of themselves for life. Either way, grace is offered to them in the same portions as any heterosexual with the according desires.

A note on the 'causes' of homosexuality. I believe to say that no homosexual is thusly oriented due to some biological disposition is as simplistic as saying all are. I don't consider the orientation natural - if it was it would be more common than 10% of the population - but I do think there are times when it is far more complex than we understand. I do think there are a variety of issues to consider (social, psychological, relational, biological etc.) and a combination thereof. To oversimplify the issue may also lead to oversimplifying the approach toward the people involved.

More can be said on the issue and while we may disagree it doesn't mean we have to be hostile about it. If my brothers and sisters wish to support Bush or a Republican stance it is their choice to do so - that should not divide a spiritual family. In the end, as surprising as it may seem, God loves us all unconditionally and equally; gays, straights and yes - W - which might be harder to believe than anything else. ;O)

What is Love? Your Views Please...

To be sure a question mired in cliché. But the actual practice of the subject may be a most rare occurrence indeed, so we shouldn't dismiss it too quickly. I intend to elaborate on the subject but crave your perspective.

Please, in your own words or the words that best fit your personal understanding...

Thanks,

CY

Thoughts On God, The People Who Need Him & The People Who Don't

Even though much harm has been done in the name of God, much good has been done too. But good doesn't make headlines, moreso, the good is often done in an individual life that only knows they are better off for the faith they have found. As much as Christians are saved from the 'world' (not planet Earth but the idolization of outward appearance, material possessions and self-centred thinking)  the world (planet Earth) is saved from them. As much as some insist there is no God and/or a need for one, some folks need God.

The reality of the world tells us that there are some problems in it. Not all the problems are caused by or even remotely related to religion. Despite being capable of unimaginable savagery for whatever reasons, some have emerged to find decency and compassion because of their encounter with God, as they perceive him. Others say that such people are weak, deprived and dysfunctional with a twisted sense of morality that needs external motive in order to seek goodness. Very true! Jesus came to help exactly this kind of person.

Respect is due to those who have no faith to speak of, yet possess a deep sense of morality  exemplified through character and lifestyle. But such persons shouldn't disdain their weaker brothers and sisters who find the need for supernatural help - and somehow receive it. If God is where one finds morality and hence a transformation for the better - what is wrong with that? Indeed, it is this faith that is preventing some from adding a little more breaking-and-entering, adultery and awkward vacations to the planet. But again, what doesn't happen doesn't make headlines.

In truth, we all seek to become 'better' - or at the very least wish to. But what does 'better' mean? Perhaps more patient, honest and forgiving - more courageous, loving and faithful (in relationships). Even Stephen Hawking suggested that we launch a 'program of systematic self-improvement of the species' employing our knowledge of evolution (Collins, 2007). Not surprising as we all want a better world. We also tend to think that our way is the best way to achieve that goal which leads inevitably to a world that demands the need to be better.

Somewhere along our journey though, we all seem to ask questions like: 'is this it?', 'can't we do better?', 'can I change?', 'what's wrong with me/the world/my Mother-in-Law?' We ask these questions because we recognize that something is wrong and if we raise the questions in the first instance, we are very likely correct. If you raise these questions but are wrong to do so, then something is wrong with you.

Often when folks query anothers position they are really wondering why others aren't more like them. They are, perhaps without a holy document like a Bible or Koran, presuming to know the best course of mankind using themselves as the touchstone. And like many 'believers' are consumed by a sense of superiority due to their privileged position of knowing and being the most perfect incarnation of what mankind is meant to be (vegetarians, republicans and Colombian drug lords, among many -or all- others, are also prone to such thinking).

The faithed are often (rightly) criticized for asserting that they and only they know the right. This of course could never be true and some of the unfaithed attest to that because  they and only they know what is right. We see that the problem isn't peculiar to faith or skepticism. But we can agree that there is a problem so insidious that it manages to participate even in the very solution.

Many, of a variety of ideological persuasions, agree that love is the universal answer - but vehemently disagree on what love is - introducing: square one.

The Parents Who Prayed Their Child to Death

Dale Neumann of Wisconsin USA was convicted of second-degree reckless homicide several months after his wife was convicted of the same. Their crime was neglecting to seek medical attention for their daughter who died from complications associated with undiagnosed diabetes. Neumann, according to the BBC, said "If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God...I am not believing what he said he would do."

This is pretty serious stuff and I think it should be made clear without any confusion that this kind of heartbreaking choice is in no way a Biblical or Godly expectation. Abdicating our responsibility to act (when it is in our power to do so) in the name of faith  is a recipe for heartache, bitterness and disappointment.

I can’t find a Biblical reference to support this faith-only approach to healthcare that wont need some amount of assumption or twisting to suggest turning to medical care is an act of doubt. When Hezekiah, one of the kings of Judah, faced imminent death he asked God to extend his life. Medicine, in the form of a 'poultice of figs' was used to treat his illness. Indeed, medicine was the answered prayer.

But what is it that according to Neumann God said 'he would do'? The Pentecostal Church is known for its emphasis on supernatural phenomena, like speaking in tongues, demon possession, exorcisms, visions and faith healing akin to that recorded in the Gospels (immediate and complete). With this in mind it may be James 5: 13-16  that is the source of Neumann's belief. It reads,

Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

The preceding passage does clearly state that a faithful prayer would lead to healing. It doesn't suggest that medical care should not be sought or that seeking such care is a sin of some kind. Paul suggested that Timothy drink wine and not just water due to his 'stomach' and 'frequent illnesses'. It seems that faith healing was not employed in every case of illness and it may even be that healing was not performed only for the sake of physical health.

Jesus performed miracles out of compassion but also as evidence of his divinity. Even though we don't know all the kinds of illnesses that he healed, the ones specified in Biblical text seemed to be untreatable (like blindness, paraplegia, epilepsy and leprosy for example) by any other means available at the time (save Peter's mother who 'only' had a fever - of course we don't know the severity thereof). And generally divine intervention in health crises is sought when there is no other recourse though one is free to pray about anything at anytime if one wishes.

Neumann's reasoning almost suggests that we are to do nothing most or all of the time when faced with health crises. But James suggests that faith and action work together,

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Though James is specifically talking about the issue of righteousness by works vs faith - we can learn that genuine faith results in righteous action. The idea that 'faith can move mountains' doesn't only mean that one waits for the mountain to move but your faith spurs you on to find a shovel and start digging. The shovel in Nuemann's case might have been a doctors visit.

Still, this is a tragic case for everyone involved and one can't help but think about the needless suffering of the little girl and the parents whose sincerity was sadly misplaced. While this case doesn't mean that folks aren't or can't be healed by faith, it does remind us that faith is not a substitute for action but a catalyst.

Book Review: Language of God by Francis Collins

This is one the best apologetic works put out by the side of faith in this new debate around faith, science and skepticism.

That Collins is head of the Human Genome Project adds a hefty amount of credibility to his argument proposing harmony between science and faith. Even more convincing is that he defends science itself against forces (including irrational and incomplete ideas) within religion that would counter basic facts of nature as well as cogent, tested and accepted theories. He is not just an apologist for the Divine but for the natural as well.

Collins successfully guides both skeptics and believers through the essential definitions, arguments and theories of each approach so both can have a clearer understanding of the other and even their own position. There is no doubt that Collins is both a devoted (and accomplished) scientist and theist.

Apart from sharing some of his personal journey from atheism to faith and the role science played thereof, he shows with great effort to be impartial and tolerant of all views, just how the beauty, intricacy, structure and harmony of the human body & DNA, the universal  Moral Law  and the cosmos itself points to a Divine presence. He also counters some of the primary arguments of atheism's more prominent figures including Dawkins. His complete lack of hostility, his logic and scientific expertise make him a worthy opponent.

The reader will be encouraged not just to consider their own knowledge and approach but equipped with a mercifully simple introduction to scientific and spiritual concepts with which they may not be familiar. The atheist is given alot to consider (some might find parts of his argument too metaphysical) and the theist is educated and encouraged not just by a scientist but a man with an admirable understanding of God's nature.

Finally, Collins offers his own alternative theory to circumvent the irrationality of Creationism and the lack of rigour in Intelligent Design, but considers the reality of a universe governed by the interaction of the laws of physics, chemistry and evolutionary biology as revealed by science. He calls this approach BioLogos.

Unquestionably worth a read for persons of all persuasions.

Writers Note:

Collins includes an appendix where he discusses Bioethics broaching issues like cloning, stem cell research, genetic mutations and disease and the implications thereof on healthcare policy. Indeed he even touches on the current healthcare debate now raging in the USA. He does so with great objectivity and responsibility considering the many arguments for against each issue. Ensure you  read this section as well.

TV gameshow offers atheists 'salvation' - CNN.com

This interesting - pretty topical and cutting edge I think.

What do you say?

TV gameshow offers atheists 'salvation' - CNN.com.

What the Hell?! Loving God VS Fiery Furnace

The Burning Question

No one wants to end up on God's BBQ pit - if it exists. Indeed the spectre of hell has turned many off of the idea of the 'Bible God' or the idea of any god at all.  But what exactly is hell? It defintely isn't Dante's Inferno or the many visions throughout religious art history of demons torturing condemned souls. According to Revelation, hell's purpose is to imprison satan and his demons (along with those not in the Book of Life) - not to provide employment for them (although God knows in this economy...).

What happens after death has always been a moot point for philosophers, religious adherents, sceptics and atheists alike. Even the Pharisees and Saducees didn't see eye to eye on the issue, the former not believing in life after death. We know that intra-faith disagreements exist on this issue and are as controversial as inter-faith disputes. The beliefs vary from those who think that the soul is destroyed in hell rather than tortured, then there is the idea that punishment is only for a limited time commensurate with one's sins, then hell is eternal and most attractive of all: there is no such thing as hell only 'the grave' or 'Sheol' and hell is really just representive of death - Hades - the 'place of the dead'.

We all hate punishment when we are the recipients. Some enjoy meting it out - others attest that 'this is gonna hurt me more than...', you know the refrain. But hell, as frightening as it is, has many lessons for us and may be far more real before death only coming to frution after the 'silver cord' is cut. So, assuming there is life after death - and that a super-heated retirement home for satan is a part of it - let us proceed.

What Goes Up...

We can safely conclude that hell is about punishment - whatever we believe about the experience or length of the punishment - that is the purpose. Punishment is nothing new to life before death. It is built into our judicial systems, moral systems, constitutions, cultures and even our instincts. Because we say things like 'that's not fair', as CS Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, it seems we have a sense of justice floating around in our heads. When we are 'unfaired' we expect that justice should be done. However, if we are the 'unfairer' we tend to think mercy, leniency and our turbulent past filial relationships ought to be seriously considered.

In reality justice is often not carried out. Despots die peacefully in their sleep full of years, or rapists commit their atrocities undiscovered -  that is unfair. Unjust. Perhaps the notion of hell arose because of such great impunity? The idea that no one can escape justice by death, even if eluded in life,  is very appealing to the oppressed - not so much to the oppressor. But it has a modicum of fairness, doesn't it?

Some think that God, if he loved us and gave us free choice/will, shouldn't then turn around and punish us for exercising that gift. Here is the view of one blogger:

Free will must be unconstrained by external circumstances. God tells us that we have free will to accept or deny him. But then threatens that we will be punished in life and burn in hell upon death if we deny him. Free will no longer exists when one choice comes with the threat of violent consequences. [emphasis added]

This writer seems to think that free will means the absence of consequence. The implication of the last sentence is that we should be free to assault someone, but it would be unfair if they retaliated because they would be disrespecting our free will to administer a kick-butting curb stomp on them. Everything has a consequence - good, bad or benign. That is a physical law: 'what goes up must come down' (at least on Earth) and 'for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction'.

...Must Come Down

I don't think God is saying that 'if you disobey me I will send you to hell', so much as 'if you don't listen to me the very things I warned you about will turn around and bite you in the rear'. We teach our children this stuff - 'if you scoop hot coals into your lap, you wil be burned' say the Proverbs (6:27 & 28). We teach kids about consequences so they can see the sense in rules - the principles - the character. However, rules cannot convey character or experience - they can only pass on a hollow edict. But it is this experience that seprates children and adults. We know kids shouldn't touch the stove, but because they haven't had the scalding of their life yet - curiosity can win out over obedience...and common sense.

Punishment teaches consequence and consequence helps us realize that we are not islands, that what we do and who we are affects our immediate environment. We see this played out in broken homes, destroyed marriages, estranged children, psychological disorders etc. The whole adultery commandment wasn't to spoil our fun - it was so we wouldn't ruin our families. The converse is true - a whole family, as far as is possible, is likely to be better off than a divided one, and it is no coincidence that much of the 10 Commandments revolve around the  mircocosm of family and neighbours.

Hebrews (12:10) points out that we discipline (or punish) our children as far as we see fit - as best we can to help them be good citizens. Indeed we attempt to do this as a state and have real trouble determining the crime/punishment balance. God, Hebrews says, punishes us so we can become better people (12:10-13). Not just so someone can say 'Ha! Vindication!' but so even the perpetrator can benefit from punishment (note that Hebrews says 'endure hardship as discipline' v7). Punishment is part of love. Parents who love their kids punish them. Indulgent, coddling parents will pay for their lack of discipline with spoilt brats.

One can discipline without love - but one cannot love without discipline.

Being Human or Doing Human

God is often villified by some for not carrying out fairness in ways some think he should - say famines, victimized children and other like tragedies. This indignation says something about or sense of justice - it says that we have one. But we must be willing to apply our sense of justice to ourselves as much as we apply it others - as much as we apply it to God.

Which is worse; to have a crime committed against you, or to be the criminal? What about committing a crime or getting caught - which is worse? In truth whether one is caught or not - consequence occurs. Getting caught is the final and least important part of a crime or sin. The most devastating part of a crime/sin is arriving at the place that allows one to commit it in the first instance. The tragedy in the idea of hell is not going there - it's qualifying. Even if there is no external consequence for certain actions, there is always an internal consequence: a deadening of the conscience, a disregard for the violated principle, a degradation of character, and so on.

Some might argue that not believing in God is no sin. But if God is/represents love, mercy, patience, peace and all other higher virtues of character (and I believe him to be these things) then would it not be a sin to reject such things? No one would consider these virtues to be undesireable. A world without them - now that is hell.

CS Lewis gives the most realisic depiction of hell I think there is. No flames, pitchforks or forked tails - just people and their attitudes. The same attitudes they held in life only without the sugar (in the case of hell) and without the sour (in the case of heaven). Lewis, even implies (some might be happy to know) that one can opt out of hell - but persons in either place are there because that is where they really wish to be. 'But who would choose to be in torment?' you ask. People make that choice every day in life when they choose wealth over family, an affair over their spouse, abuse over patience, greed over honesty, a grudge over forgiveness, isolation over community, fear over peace etc. Lewis' hell depicts persons who simply refused to let go of a pattern of destructive thought - a pattern that becomes their eternal reality.

Keller (The Reason for God, 2008) points out in Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31),

that though their statuses have now been reversed, the rich man seems blind to what has happened...He does not ask to get out of hell...there is increasing isolation, denial, delusion and self-absorption. When you lose all humility you are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of heaven is a sham to them.

Keller cites Lewis' Great Divorce as well,

Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others...You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine...In each of us there is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

Good For Nothing?

Undoubtedly, running from punishment or consequence is no motivation to be 'good' - not for long anyway. Ideally the inherent value, common sense and benefits (personal and communal) of 'goodness' should be motivation enough to pursue higher principles and virtues. In my opinion, it is the abdication of this understanding for 'do it or else' or 'because I said so' morality (which is no morality at all) that causes us to be obsessed with guilt and punishment . I don't think God wants us to obey him 'because he said so', rather I believe he wishes us to share his understanding and righteous character and be guided thereof. 'Do it or else' morality, which is often a technique of parents, requires no thought for the adherent or explanation from the authority. No one benefits in this scenario.

To be sure, love and freedom do not equal impunity or permissiveness. Strong moral character is not achieved by accident - nothing worth pursuing ever is, and as no one is perfect, perhaps what is a major consideration is the overall tenor of our character and outcome of our lives. Of course, objectors to these ideas may not be concerned only with the consequence, but the system of redemption. That is another discussion.

'An Eye for an Eye': Getting Even vs Getting Over it - Biblically Speaking

Where Do Eye Start?
Often the Biblical reference of 'an eye for an eye' is used to justify revenge - some even say that God endorsed revenge in the Old Testament through this teaching while Jesus revoked it in Matthew 5: 38-42:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Now Jesus is referencing scripture itself - so is he telling us turn away from the practice of revenge encouraged by Old Testament teaching? Well the best thing is to go to the texts in the OT that make the initial statement. The first scripture is Exodus 21 and much of the Exodus and Leviticus are spent on specific instructions on delivering justice and fairness to the people of Israel. Indeed, some believe much of the modern day justice system in the West is built on the Judaic judicial structure.

Exodus 21:22-24 reads,

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Sounds pretty much like revenge right? Someone lops your hand off - you lop theirs right off and everybody goes home left-handed whether they like it or not. But if you think about it, going home with someone’s severed hand really won't help you (especially if you live in a time when advanced surgery like face-replacement isn't around just yet). It would probably be better if the victim was somehow compensated - sounds very familiar right? You might be thinking of all those frivolous lawsuits in the US where people are awarded millions for burning themselves with their own coffee, or sue a burger joint for making them fat.

More Even-handed Than Previously Thought

Well, the whole point of the lengthy and often boring detail of books like Exodus and Leviticus was to avoid frivolous cases by covering as much of the possibilities as could be done. So, what does the rest of the scripture say? Verses 26-29 read,

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.

Wow. This sounds more reasonable doesn't it? There is no reference to taking out someone's eye if they take out yours at all. Other references to this type of judgement are made in Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19 but in very much the same vein as this Exodus passage. Now we already know that capital punishment was part of the Judaic justice system and some of the crimes that attracted the death penalty may be questionable to some, but if one considers the detail that went into the laws it might be fairly easy to avoid such crimes. Just as easy as it is today. It might not be too common to be accidentally involved in a pre-meditated murder.

Even in today's society the death penalty is still carried out - and I'm not talking about Afghanistan or Iraq but USA, Texas. Our challenge has always been in determining the just punishment for a crime. So many factors come into play: intent, remorse, self-defence, motive and so on. But one thing is for certain - we need a system of justice if society is to function normally - or as close to what we can call 'normal' as possible.

The Price is Right?

The problem with crime or sin is that when it is committed it cannot be 'un-committed'. Stolen goods can be returned but the violation is already done - the house broken - the peace-of-mind and security of the family shattered. What is the proper sentence? Not even apologies make true recompense for insults or affronts. Unfaithfulness in relationships destroys trust in profound ways - even genuine remorse cannot completely restore trust to a person who has been so betrayed. Some wounds may heal, but still bleed, however, in our consumerist society money if often sufficient for the troubles of many. It might be worth asking if large financial settlements enhance or devalue justice. What do you think?

A crime that has been committed is done so forever. Indeed, in some societies we view some acts as crimes that are less destructive than others we don't view as crimes. Adultery, for example, is punishable by a prison sentence in South Korea (no, not North - South Korea). In many, maybe most countries, adultery is not a crime - but when one considers the repercussions of such an act it might make you think a little about how we determine what is or isn't a crime.

Of course that is a debate about morality and the law. The two don't always meet by any means - and this is what terrifies us about religious law (like the Muslim Shariah) because the law is morality. How can we go through life and not break some aspect of the law, nobody is perfect?

It makes one think about the purpose of any moral code. Is it there to tell us what is right and/or wrong or to tell us what to do only when someone does something we innately know is harmful in some way? Justice usually seems simple when one is neither the victim nor the perpetrator, but if you are either, an objective or impartial standard comes in handy.

But then we are left to question the justice of the justice system. It may be that a moral code is the least of our worries - we might do well to be concerned about living up to a moral code - any moral code. The track record of humanity suggests that no matter how realistic a moral code, we manage to fall below it and break 'the rules'. Paul points out the part of our human nature that just wants to do something because we were explicitly told not to (Romans 7:7-10). Justice is indispensible when considering our propensity for wrongdoing - whether it is a violation of state law or Mom & Dad's law.

Living a Law

This points to something beyond law - rules don't make us better only better informed and only then if the rules make sense. If we violate some aspect of morality by lying, for example, the solution is not just to speak the truth - it is to stop being a liar, or racist or violent as the case may be. What good is it to apologize for a racist slur when one continues to be racist?

Perhaps Jesus' intent - indeed the intent of most moral codes is not to make people DO things, but to help people see the value of certain aspects of character and hence be things. But as for the initial passage referring to 'an eye for an eye', Spielberg's Munich suggested that the only true solution to violation, illustrated through the perennial Israeli/Muslim conflict, was forgiveness. But this is nothing new - only under-practiced. Surely it takes a depth of character to act in a just and righteous way - but pursuit of righteous character may be more progressive than pursuit of righteous rules. Indeed, when we come upon some undocumented situation that has no coded solution, what's left? Only our character and this is the difference between knowing a rule and living it - between avoiding an act of injustice or embracing acts of kindness.

It may be that forgiveness has nothing to do with the trespass itself or the perpetrator - but the attitude and the victim. Forgiveness doesn't preclude justice but it very well may prevent a vicious circle of injustice.

One love.

A Theist, an Atheist & Why One is Good for the Other

An Enlightened Opposition = An Enlightened Defence
One can hardly refer to the theist/atheist debate without citing Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens or Dennett. Indeed, these proponents of skepticism and downright contempt of religion (primarily the Christian faith it would seem), have eclipsed their believing counterparts – no outstanding names come to mind when one thinks of apologia, apart from CS Lewis who is no longer with us. But there is a very good reason for that – apologists have not had to work very hard for a rather long time – so now is the time when their names should be made.

Individual Christians and their communities/churches who engage in a programme of proselytising, have probably found themselves having to dig deeper and farther than ever before in the face of challenges from staunch doubters armed with all the objections of the aforementioned authors and personal anger and disillusionment. No more are the pious clichés, go-to scriptures or threats of hell and damnation sufficient to fill the pews.

This is the best thing that could have ever happened to the modern day Christian church.

Years of blind faith, ‘do as I say’ doctrine, shallow knowledge of the Bible and its attendant history, scientific ignorance and  discouragement of intellectual curiousity, hypocrisy and little focus on the philosophical arguments behind morality and righteousness have not only weakened the authority of the Church but likely contributed to the growing ‘unbelief’. The church could have not survived long under such conditions. Indeed, the popularity of evangelical churches and attrition of traditional churches (like Catholic, Methodist and Anglican) might have been a result of the  more rigorous and inclusive approach of the former. But the rise of the Neo-Atheist is the kick in the pants every theist needed.

Knowledge Demands Character

The type of Christian being formed out of the crucible of atheism is a more curious, educated, thoughtful and considerate version of his fire-breathing, closed-eared counterpart (though the latter is still present and accounted for). The proliferation of apologetic material, though often aimed at the skeptics, is really a boon for the believer. This literature and its authors are providing a platform and template for communities of believers to follow that don’t include bigotry or amorphous relativistic conviction. Rather it encourages inquiry, rational thought and the willingness to entertain conflicting arguments and ideas. The result: a tolerant believer who can convey his beliefs with equanimity and authority.

The vitriol and sometimes dehumanizing rhetoric from some proponents of atheism bears such a striking resemblance to the uglier side of Christian fundamentalism that the more ‘enlightened’ believers are apt to recognize themselves in it. Seeing the destructiveness of an emotion-led argument can go a long way in discouraging someone from going down that road. That an argument may be sound almost does not matter in the face of its inconsiderate and condescending delivery. But still, the soundness of much of the atheist argument continues to generate more rigorous scholarship amongst the layperson and the theologian.

The Enemy Within?

Another very important point of contact on this issue, is where the ‘old-school’ Christian meets the new ‘enlightened’ set. The Christian community can be as harsh and unforgiving to itself as it has proven to be to outsiders. This internal venom is also a great motivator for change within the Church. If anything has been proven, it is that faith is resilient and usually thrives under external opposition – it is internal divisiveness and disunity that can destroy it. The internal battle lines have yet to be drawn in this latest Renaissance of Faith – but this is likely to happen once the ongoing external battle cools down. And Christians may provide more bitter opposition for each other than any atheist.

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

Here is a polemic rant - the very parallel of many atheist rants which I have either read or been subject to. It's not my style as a theist though I understand the position. What do you think?

Undercover At An Evangelical University : NPR

Undercover At An Evangelical University : NPR.

An interesting experiment with somewhat suprising results.

But Seriously: Neo-Atheists - The Fundamentals

Dogma Isn’t Just For The Religious

In the past 2 years or so, I’ve met more atheists and agnostics than in the over 16 years since I came into my own understanding of faith, God and spirituality. There seems to be either a proliferation of atheism or at least a pronounced vocalization thereof. I’ve met those who were once well known and committed believers disillusioned by hypocrisy, irrationality and guilt or those who never got bitten by the faith bug at all.

Most of my contact with the sceptics came through the Amazon Religion & Spirituality forum. I started participating in the forum some time early in 2007 because I felt it necessary to put my faith to the test. Could I open it to criticism and examination and still leave with it intact? I noticed that threads were started and dominated primarily by vociferous, dogmatic and sometimes insulting and very angry atheists. They preached the evils of religion with all the fervour of a Puritan and proselytized their doctrine of logic, evolution and science with the meticulousness of a Pharisee.

I was amazed at the striking similarity they bore to myself in my zealous and often misguided days of spiritual youth. Many referred to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens – the Apostles of Neo-Atheism – in their rants. They railed against ‘godbots’ and ‘fundies’ and scoffed at ‘scripture slinging’. They had a language of their own and created a society within the forum that had its own mandate and purpose: to ridicule religious adherents, to confound their arguments and hopefully disprove and remove their faith. It was a particular delight for some to see believers leave in a huff with scriptures in their wake, fire & brimstone on their breath and frustration tainting their ‘peace in Jesus’ (most religious participants were of some variant of Christianity including myself).

But Atheists Make a Good Point

In truth, I learned quite a lot from these neo-atheists, if not a lot, then a few very significant things. They were right about many issues including the reluctance of some religious folk to question the rationality of their beliefs, the over-emphasis on guilt as motivation, the contribution of religion to war, prejudice and oppression throughout history and that many adherents know very little about their own faith and therefore argue very unconvincingly in their efforts to win others over – especially those who have no fundamental belief in the Bible and therefore cannot accept it as a platform for argument.

These things caused me to examine and question the evolution and progress of my faith. Indeed I was forced to ‘practicalize’ Biblical tenets– to express them in non-biblical terms, in real terms. I was forced to look at the questions to which I either had no answer or never really thought about before. The logic and science behind Noah’s ark and the flood; death, violence and war in contrast to Grace, forgiveness and peace; the role of the devil in mankind’s moral quest and idea of morality outside of religion. It was an adventure that was both frightening and exhilarating. I teetered on the edge of my faith attempting to navigate a landscape that included scientists, witches, homosexuals, Jews and others – and many of them (if indeed they were what they claimed) were perfectly decent folk.

My assumptions and prejudices surfaced like never before. It was easy to condemn acts and lifestyles from the pulpit in a context where most agreed. But to do so in such a liberal environment, and to those who (in some cases) were so respectful of my own faith and position was brand new.  It made me consider the humanity that is often absent in mouth-frothing condemnation of others that has so defined much of religion. It made consider my view of Jesus himself and how he interacted with ‘sinners’.

Pearls & Swine – But Who’s What?

However, despite forging great rapports with some of the most vehement of non-believers the dehumanizing rhetoric, anger, ridicule and hostility continued – indeed flourished. Many threads, despite attempts to engage in reasonable discussion would devolve into a closed commiseration of atheists comparing notes on the virtues of their stance and the inferiority of both religion and the religious. It was the latter point that I found to be most disturbing. All viewpoints are open to deconstruction but to attack an individual’s personhood and freedom to believe as they will is very the thing of which religion has been guilty. The very thing these neo-atheists condemned. But a common response when challenged on this was justification. Many felt they had a right to launch these attacks because of abuse they experienced at the hands of religion and its proposers, because of the relative silence and ostracism of atheists over the years, according to some forum participants.

Still, I found it odd that for persons who had no faith in God, they felt an amazing amount of emotion about the things God did or was supposed to do, according to my or others faith. Some were very angry with the subject they claimed never existed. ‘Why would he let so much pain and misfortune afflict the world?’, ‘why create hell?’, ‘if he is all-powerful why doesn’t he just fix this place?’, they would often ask – truly, we all ask these questions from time to time. But I counter that if one does not believe in God then there is only one other responsible for the state of the world, and therefore only one who has the remedy: mankind. But they rarely argued that point. Some would simply condemn religion for emphasizing how sinful mankind is – but they were doing the same thing by pointing out the reality of human suffering often at the hands of humanity itself.

I was unquestionably disturbed by the approach of some of the neo-atheists and oft argued that their attitude betrayed something about human nature itself. Religion had committed no crime – men had, with religion as their weapon and, I concluded that there seemed to be a movement on the rise that was about to engage in the same crime but with a different weapon. I posit that atheists actually have the opportunity to exercise morality and reasoned argument in exemplary ways because of their non-religious stance. They are not burdened by the baggage religion can bring; the guilt, tradition, formality, heady zeal and practical restrictions. They have no motivation for goodness except goodness itself – no heaven or hell to compel or terrify them, just life, history, morality and science. But I fear many have simply thrown atheism’s hat into the ring of superiority, judgment and self-righteousness that often defines the debate around faith instead of standing outside that ring where they actually belong.

True Respect For All

In the end, my experience taught me that wherever we go we take our character with us. Our personal beliefs, ethos and attitude will ring true regardless of what we may say we believe, or not believe.  The forum, the last time I visited is still dominated by atheists, perhaps all the more, but I still believe in God and I still do my best to follow the teachings of Jesus albeit with a new sense of understanding, curiosity and openness to others. I am left convinced that whether we believe in God or not – whether he is real or not…we sure need him, and now more than ever.

C. Arthur Young

But Seriously: If There is a God - Why so Much Suffering?

'If there is a God, why is there so much suffering?'.

So controversial is this question that some voluntarily give up faith in God because of the unbearable reality of human suffering and death. It is a sort of 'revenge through unbelief' because God hasn't conformed to a particular perspective.

But there are a few assumptions one makes when taking a stance of 'unbelief' due to suffering:

1. Assumption of Omnipotence & Omniscience. Can we determine what is the best case scenario without absolute knowledge & power? The only way we can assume to know the best way to 'run the universe' is if we have the knowledge & ability to do so. One would have to go about managing the interaction between billions of personal choices, actions & attitudes and the impact of collective choice, not to mention the movements of nature itself and ensure the best possible outcome in the face of contradictory desires, agendas and purposes. Any volunteers (let's hope no bankers put their hands up)? Because one has the power to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea, pain-deprivation is not even recommended as a good parenting technique ('spare the rod and spoil the child'). Perhaps the Divine intervenes constantly and in ways that we do not even perceive. Perhaps we are living in the best case scenario and if you were God you would be doing exactly what God is doing, whatever that might be. But our distinct and glaring lack of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence leaves us sorely underqualified for the job.

2. Assumption of Suffering. Is all suffering pointless & evil? I think we know the answer is 'No'. People who overcome great adversity or live with seemingly insurmountable challenges are some of our greatest inspirations: The handicapped child filled with joy & laughter, the abused wife and mother who finds love & strength, the martyr who liberates a nation, the bleeding man who dies on a cross. Indeed, suffering often inspires a virtue that without it would be absent in some of us: compassion. It gives some a purpose in life - to help others. Pain can put our lives into perspective, allowing us to see what is really important. If the Bible suggests somewhere that life is painless I could understand the abandonment of faith - but it does the exact opposite and repeatedly acknowledges, not just the reality of suffering in this world, but its cause and value.

3. Assumption of Responsibility. Can we believe it is God's job to ensure 'painlessness' yet expect to have free-will? We can't have both. Much of humankind's pain is self-inflicted and product of free-will. The 'if I were God' argument is played-out every day in our choices when we try to be God rather than be like God. Hence we see bloodshed, rape, poverty, greed etc. Much pain is the result of 'playing God' and doing so very badly. Perhaps our responsibility is to contribute to the reduction of suffering in our sphere of life through honesty, generousity, forgiveness, fidelity, humility etc. We can't abdicate our responsibility to pain we have caused or to alleviating suffering because God is 'in charge', If anything, faith in God should spur us to action rather than blame shifting. Consequently, one is behoved to acknowledge religion's contribution to suffering and perhaps to correct former errors 'in the name of God' as far as possible. As it is, when mankind has been in 'the position of God' he has often made very ungodly choices, hence, '...absolute power corrupts absolutely' rings true more often than not.

4.The Assumption of Death. Death certainly is the source of some of our greatest suffering in this world - as common and universal as it is, we all do it, but that doesn't make it easy. The loss of loved ones and the inevitability of our own death are weighty even to contemplate, not to mention experience. There is a part of us that thinks we should not die - or at least that we should do so only according to our 'rules'. Ideally, one's death should be meaningful and heroic or a quiet passing full of years, surrounded by loved ones with a fulfilling life of success behind us. This of course is not reflected in reality for a great many of us. Death is a certainty - the variable is when and how - we are left to consider how we live, while we live. Jesus faced our greatest of fears most admirably - it suggests that not even God considered himself above suffering and death. Somewhere in there is the secret to dealing with that Dark Veil.

5. Assumption of Alternatives. As much as we consider all the 'what ifs' they don't matter in the face of the great 'What Is'. Unbelief in God doesn't alleviate suffering or remove our responsibility for the way the world is. Indeed, if one claims there is no God then there really is no one else responsible for the suffering in the world but mankind himself (and impartial nature). The Bible suggests that God allows some suffering - even causes it, so we are technically allowed to question the reason behind said 'allowances', hence point 2. In the end we are left with no alternative but to actually do something about our human condition. Life as we know it is not just the best case scenario - it is the only scenario. But we have a say in how this scenario develops.

Rather than ask 'what's God's purpose in all this - just to watch us stumble over our awkward imperfection?', perhaps it is a partnership between us and the Divine. An exchange and interaction between acquiescence & self-determination, surrender & proaction, faith & reason. A balancing act of allowing God to be God and man to be man, while not ignoring the reality of cause and effect or the power of faith and hope to influence our inner and outer reality.

For a working example of victory through tragedy check here.