Matthew Baugh

Merry Christmas

pthameru@hotmail.com — Sat, 24 Dec 11 03:35:00 UT

New Blog

pthameru@hotmail.com — Sat, 24 Dec 11 03:32:00 UT

I've got a new blog that goes through the New Testament chapter by chapter. Come and join me.

RIP Chirstopher Hitchens

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 22:03:00 UT

I saw in the news this morning that Christopher Hitchens has died at the age of 62. Hitchens was a columnist, author, and pundit famous for his wit, his intelligence, and his often controversial views.

I know him bast as an outspoken critic of religion. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism were his main targets but he viewed all religion as wrong-headed and evil, as can be seen inthe subtitle of his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

I've got mixed feelings about Mr. Hitchens. On the one hand I think his criticism of religion was mean-spirited and unfair, his understanding of the Bible superficial at best, and his suppositions about Christian theology often wildly innacurate. He was fond of making blanket condemnations such as this from God is Not Great where he says that religion is...

"violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."

Despite this, I have to must acknowledge that Hitchens often pointed to real problems that need to be dealt with. He raised important issues that need to be discussed honestly and seriously. While I often disagree--and strongly--with his conclusions, I think his questions are important and am grateful to him for raising them.

Goodbye, Christopher Hitchens. I'm not sure what to offer in farewell because I'm sure you'd scorn my blessing and be offended by my prayers. I guess I'll just thank you for making me think about uncomfortable things. I didn't end up where you'd have wanted me to, but I am better for having struggled with the questions.

Some Pre-Christmas Musings

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 22:02:00 UT

There are some things that we don't always think about in the Christmas story as it appears in the Bible.

Mary and Joseph were not married when Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. We sometimes gloss over the scandalous implications of this because of the miracle, ut put all your expectations aside for a moment and think about it.

When we look at the age women were generally betrothed, Mary was an unwed, pregnant teenage girl. That's something that could be awkward even our more tolerant modern world, but think about thas. Mary lived in a culture that believed in "honor killings." The y may not have called them that but this law from Deuteronomy shows that it what they were.

It wasn't just a scandal; Mary's life was hanging by a thread. Joseph could have demanded that the men of the city stone her to death. Even putting her aside honorably would make her, as an unwed mother, an outcast, condemned by the whole community for her assumed loose morals. She knew what it meant to be vulnerable.

Which really gives a lot of extra meaning to what she says in the song we call the Magnificat.

And Mary said, "I'm bursting with God-news; I'm dancing the song of my Savior God. God took one good look at me, and look what happened - I'm the most fortunate woman on earth! What God has done for me will never be forgotten, the God whose very name is holy, set apart from all others. His mercy flows in wave after wave on those who are in awe before him. He bared his arm and showed his strength, scattered the bluffing braggarts. He knocked tyrants off their high horses, pulled victims out of the mud. The starving poor sat down to a banquet; the callous rich were left out in the cold. He embraced his chosen child, Israel; he remembered and piled on the mercies, piled them high. It's exactly what he promised, beginning with Abraham and right up to now.

This passage in Luke 1:46-55 is remarkible for what it tells us about God. This is not a God who kowtows to kings and presidents or takes special notice of the rich and famous. This isn't even a God who stands in solidatiry with the decent and morally upright church-going folk of the world.

The God who Mary sings about is a God who cares about the poor, the despised, the rejected, and the vulnerable. This is a God whose son is born out of wedlock to a poor couple with no social standing. It's scandalous but God's love is scandalous as he breaks all the social and religious rules out of love. And it's something that carries over to the ministry of Jesus who grows up to touch the untouchables, forgive the unforgivables, and embrace the unacceptables.

Giving Thanks

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 21:59:00 UT

There's an interesting Thanksgiving prayer in the classic movie "Shenandoah"when the family patriarch, played by Jimmy Stewart, says the blessing over the dinner.

The prayer does a lot to establish Stewart's character who is a proud, self-relaint, and pig-headed. He believes in himself and his family and not much of anything else. Bhy the end of the movie the tragedies he experiences in the Civil War have opened his heard and broadened his world at least a little.

I thought of this prayer on this Thanksgiving day because it reflects other things I've heard about thanking not thanking God. It's been a trend for a few years now for celebrities to thank God first when they win a Grammy, an Oscar, or some similar award. It's also become routime for comedians to mock this because it seems to suggest that this person winning is a priority for God.

Sports figures who thank God for a victory, a championship, etc. are also mocked by comedians. they point out that, if God has miraculously helped one team win he has also caused the other team to lose. Some also chide the athletes for failing to take responsibility for their own victories.

Finally, I've seen some people mock celebrities who thank God for healing. When Magic Johnson's HIV went into remission he and his wife publically thanked God, and I saw an on-line column blasting them for it. The article suggested that it would have been appropriate to thank his doctors, or the researchers who came up with AZT and other medicines that helped. Thanking God, the article suggested, was stupid and showed a lack of appreciation for the people who really helped.

There are things here that I agree with. I can't see God caring that much who wins"Best Album" at the Grammies, or intervening in the Superbowl. Also, if someone blows off the contributions of doctors and researchers when they thank God for a healing, I don't think that's right. (BTW, I don't think that was Magic's attitude, or the attitude of many people who experience that kind of recovery. I don't think I've ever seen a case where thanking God made the recovering person any less grateful to all the people involved. It's not as if someone who's just gotten their life back has a shortage of gratitude.

As for "taking responsibility" for our acievements... that seems like a strange argument. It sounds like they are suggesting that superstars and celebrities suffer from tiny egos and that an excess of humility is going to sweep through them like a plague. (Wouldn't that be awful?)

The critics of thanking God have got some fair points, but I think they've missed the point. It's not about imagining that God likes me better then the next guy, or that every little success I have is thanks to supernatural intercession. Thanking God is realizing that we don't accomplish anything all by ourselves. We are connected to others, to family, to friends, to teammates and opponents, to docrtors and nurses and scientists, to producers, and backup singers, and directors, and to so many other people whose contributions to our lives we may not even be aware of. And as we are connected to each other, we are also connected to God. When we feel joy, success, elation, we are feeling our connection to God in that moment and thanksgiving is the most natural response in the world.

Thanksgiving shouldn't be just about the victories in our lives, because God is always with us. When we realize that, we find ourselves seeing blessings in every little thing, and feeling thankful every moment.

It's a better way to live, celebrating your blessings and feeling thankful for them. To go back to the movies, it's the difference between living like the stern and angry Jimmy Stewart from the beginning of "Shenandoah" and the thankful, joyful Jimmy Stewart at the end of "It's a Wonderful Life."

Which Jimmy stewart would you rather be?

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

The Burden of Proof

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 21:52:00 UT

I run across a lot of interesting stuff while browsing the web. Yesterday I found a this poster on an Athiest perspective.

It's an interesting perspective. For one thing, it makes a point that not all Athiests disbelieve in the same way or for the same reason. For some, the problem of human suffering is the issue. I can see how an honest person with a conscience could have a hard time believing in a just and loving God. I think the problem of suffering is something that both believers and non-believers of conscience are bound to struggle with.

For some Athiests, I think it is the coolness factor. When you look at some of the mocking statements New Athiests make about how believers are stupid, delusional, superstitious, immoral, etc. the temptation is right there. Just declare yourself an Athiest and you can claim that you are smarter than the great majority of the human race. It's the flip side of people who become Christians thinking that will make them superior to everyone else. IMO, it's the shallowest reason to believe or disbelieve in anything.

Then there are some who just don't get believing. I've known a few folks in this category who aren't necessarily hostile to believers, but they don't see any logical reason to believe and don't feel any deep urge to believe. Without anything rational or irrational pushing them, the whole idea of believing in God just seems strange to them, and it's easy to see why.

The poster picks up on that, though it takes it in an angry direction. It implies that it is unfair to tell people that they should have to justify themselves by disproving the existence of God.

This is true. I can't make you believe and you're under no obligation to justify your disbelief. I completely agree with the poster to that point.

It's when you take the saying on the poster a little further that I disagree. If you take the "burden of proof" argument to suggest that believers should have to prove God's existence to justify our beliefs, I have to disagree.

I believe deeply and fully in God, but it's never been a matter of evidence. Faith in God seems as natural as eating or drinking to me, and I suspect that's the case for most believers. For us, needing to justify our faith in rational scientific terms is a bizarre idea. Faith, after all, is more about a relationship than about believing an idea.

I think I can get across what it's like with the analogy of falling in love. When you fall in love, there's no difficulty in proving the existence of the other person, but the bond between the two of you is a different matter. Your feelings of love are real, true, and powerful, but impossible to demonstrate. Imagine if someone said this about your love.

If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.

As wonderful and useful as the scientific method is, there are areas of life where it's the wrong tool for the job. There are many unscientific questions that it is powerless to help us understand, yet things like love, beauty, compassion, justice, and (yes) God are still meaningful and important to the majority of people.

The bottom line for me is that the argument about proving God's existence is a silly one. In the modern world we talk about God vs. science, but trying to prove God in scientific terms doesn't make any more sense than trying to prove science in the terms of faith.

Faith and science are two different tools with different uses, different strengths and different weaknesses. Just because science can't answer a question doesn't mean it's a bad question. I really think that we need both the insights of faith and of science. I think that we should stop seeing this as a war and start seeing it as a conversation where each side has a lot to learn and a lot to offer.

The Burden of Proof

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 21:48:00 UT

I run across a lot of interesting stuff while browsing the web. Yesterday I found a this poster on an Athiest perspective.

The poster picks up on that, though it takes it in an angry direction. It implies that it is unfair to tell people that they should have to justify themselves by disproving the existence of God.

This is true. I can't make you believe and you're under no obligation to justify your disbelief. I completely agree with the poster to that point.

If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.

The Bully Pulpit

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 21:43:00 UT

I stole my title from Stephen Colbert this week because it kind of says it all.

In an attempt to protect kids from being bullied in public schools, the Michigan legislature has enacted an anti-bullying measure. Michigan Republicans, however have added language to the bill allowing bullying on religious and moral grounds.

Colbert says it better than I can.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Bully Pulpit

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

Video Archive

I hope it's obvious to everyone without me having to say it just how un-Christian this is. The idea that anyone needs the freedom to physically or even verbally bash another human being to express their religious or moral convictions is absurd. The fact that is it people who call themselves Christians pushing this is deeply offensive to be and about as blasphemous as anything I've ever heard. It shows a tragic lack of understanding of Jesus, who spent his life touching the untouchables, welcoming the outcasts, and standing up for the marginalized.

We have the freedom in the US to express our opinions, even our most hateful and mean-spirited opinions. That's a valuable freedom, but it was not and never should become license to bully.

"My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Thank You Bishop Spong

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 21:42:00 UT

I've been reading columns by retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong for quite a few years. He is an important voice in modern Christianity and, though I often disagree with him about details, I have a lot of respect for him.

There's something that Bishop Spong says about what he calls the "God of theism" that has always bothered me. He seemed to be saying things about God that I disagreed with and I wanted to understand better. I once e-mailed him a question about it but never saw the answer in his column. It turns out that he did answer; I just found what he said in another blog. What he said helped me understand him better, and let me know that we are closer to agreeing than I realized.

Here are question and answer:

----------------------------------------------

Question and Answer With John Shelby Spong

Matthew Baugh, via the Internet, writes:

I've wondered for a while about the definition of theism and its implications. There seem to be three central points you use most often. The God of theism is 1) external, 2) supernatural, 3) intervenes in human lives. Does this statement imply that God is the opposite of these three things?

Much of what you write suggests that this is clearly true of point 3. You present God as not intervening and not capable of intervening. The opposite of point 2 would seem to be that God is natural. Is this a correct assumption and, if so, how do you see God as manifest in the natural world? The opposite of point 1 would seem to be that God is internal.

I'm very aware that I might be reading too much into your words but the sense I get is that you suggest that God is internal to human experience. This seems to fit with some modern brain research that suggests that human beings are "hard-wired" to believe in some higher power and to worship it. This research suggests that belief in God is a natural part of being human rather than a social construct imposed from without.

Is this the non-theistic understanding of God? Internal, natural (though not manifest outside of human consciousness) and unable to intervene in the world (except perhaps through God's effects on the consciousness of each believer?)

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for your penetrating and perceptive letter that gives me an opportunity to think publicly once more about the meaning of the word "God" in human experience.

Let me begin by making a distinction. I try not to talk about the "God of theism." I regard theism as a human definition of God. It is not who or what God is. Theism is a human attempt to describe a God experience in pre-modern language. Prior to Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, people inevitably thought of God as a supernatural presence over the natural world.

Before Isaac Newton, they thought of God as setting aside the laws of the universe to do miracles or to answer prayers. Before Darwin and Freud, they thought of God as the external creator and portrayed God as a heavenly parent. Prior to Einstein, they assumed that these perceptions were objectively true and not subject to the relativity in which all human thought dwells since both the time in which we live and the space we occupy are relative, not absolute. So when I dismiss theism, I am not dismissing God. I am dismissing one human image of God that sought to define a human experience of the divine.

To suggest that if theism is not true then the opposite of theism is true is to make the same mistake. Every human attempt to define God is nothing more than a human attempt to define the human experience of the divine. We can never tell who God is or who God is not. We can only tell another of what we believe our experience of God has been. Even then we have to face the possibility that all of our God talk may be delusional.

When I try to talk of God, I am only talking of my God experience. That is not what God is, that is only what I believe my experience of God to be.

I do not experience God as a supernatural power, external to life invading my world in supernatural power. I see no evidence to think this definition is real. The problem is that most people have most deeply identified this definition of God with God that when this definition dies the victim of expanded knowledge, we think that God has died.

I am not trying to form a new definition. I am only trying to share an experience. In my human self-consciousness at both the depth of life and on the edges of consciousness, I believe I encounter a transcendent other. In that encounter, I experience expanded life, the increased ability to love and a new dimension of what it means to be. I call that experience God and that experience leads me to say that if I meet God in expanded life, God becomes for me the source of life. If I meet God in the enhanced ability to love, God becomes for me the source of love. If I meet God in an increased ability to be all that I am, God becomes for me the ground of being.

I can talk about my experience. Having only a human means of communication I cannot really talk about God. Horses can experience a human being entering their horse consciousness, but a horse could never tell another horse what it means to be human. Somehow human beings have never quite embraced that fact that this is also true about the human being's knowledge of God.

I do not know how God acts therefore I can never say how God acts. For me to say God is unable to intervene would be to say more than I know. For me to explain how God intervenes or why God does not intervene is to claim knowledge of God that is not mine.

I test my experience daily in the light of evolving human language. The result of that is that every day I believe in God more deeply, while at the same time, every day I seem to have less and less beliefs about God. Human beings seem almost incapable of embracing mystery, especially ultimate mystery. I am content to walk daily with the mystery of God. I walk past road maps, past religious systems, even my own but never beyond the mystery of God. I suppose that makes me a mystic, but an uncomfortable, never satisfied, always-evolving one.

I find great meaning and great power in this approach. I commend it to you. Thank you for your super letter.

A Prayer for Egypt

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 21:34:00 UT

I heard some disturbing reports about violence in Egypt last week. As you probably know, Egypt was one of the first great successes of the Arab Spring when popular demonstrations managed to dislodge the dictator, Hosni Mubarak. I thought it was wonderful, and was heartened to hear young Arabs and Egyptians rejecting terrorism in favor of the power of peaceful protest.

Unfortunately, there is a dark side to the revolution. A month ago, Egyptian crowds attacked the Israeli Embassy, and just a few days ago saw a rash of anti-Christian violence.

According to reports, a radical Islamic group called the Salafis are targeting the Coptic Christians with several church burnings and acts of violence. The Copts, who have lived in the country since before the time of Muhammed, are upset by the transitional government's lack of action on the matter. To make matters words, a non-violent Christian protest was attacked by the army leaving at least 25 dead and nearly 300 injured.

The government blames a outside conspiracy that wants to destabilize the country while many on the street think the army may be encouraging chaos in a bid to remain in power. This isn't helped by a the fact that the government controlled media will not report the Coptic side of the story or broadcast any story that accuses government forces or Muslims of wrong-doing.

I believe there are many people in Egypt who want to see peace between the different religions, but it's an uphill battle. What looked like good news for all Egyptians may not be such good news for the religious minorities. Only time will tell. I hope that the prayers of the rest of the world will be with Egypt and the whole Arabic world, and I also hope that the eyes of the world will be on them. May peace prevail on earth but may that peace always include justice for all.

(NOTE: I put this entry aside for a week. In that time there have been huge developments in Libya where dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been killed. My concerns, and hopes, for that country are very much like those for Egypt.)

New Blog

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 21:27:00 UT

I've wanted to go through the entire Bible with a blog, but there are enough topics I want to cover here that it would get a little cluttered.

Because of this, I've started a NEW BLOG to cover the Bible. I hope you'll join me there to take a fresh look at familiar stories and maybe even to discover a few new things.

Bad for Women?

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 16:06:00 UT

I recently signed up for a wonderful site called Bible Study Tools.com which has an even broader assortment of versions of the Bible than my old favorite, Bible Gateway. I'm just learning all the features but one I love is the ability to look at passages from two different versions side by side.

There's a downside to everything, I suppose. The articles I've seen there are (so far) all very conservative. One of these that really caught my attention was an article by Mary Kassian, an author, speaker and professor of women's studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

In her article 10 Reasons Why the New 2011 NIV Is Bad for Women she takes aim at the practice of using gender-inclusive language in the Bible.

In case you're not familiar with it, "inclusive language" means using language that isn't just male. For example, when addressing a group of people where there are men and women mingles it means saying something like "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers" or when talking about all the people in the world it means using "humanity" instead of "man."

This has been fairly common practice in my church (the United Church of Christ) for at least thirty years but has only recently made inroads into Mrs. Kassian's Southern Baptist denomination. This trend bothers her and she has listed 10 reasons that she thinks inclusive language in the Bible is bad for women.

I disagree with her. While I think that inclusive language (like any cause) can be done poorly, I think the basic idea is theologically sound, rooted in authentic Christian faith, and important for modern people. I'll try to explain why point by point.

Here are Mrs. Kassian's points (in bold) followed by my comments.

1. It obscures the profound symbolism of gender:

There may be something in this point, though Mrs. Kassian doesn't develop it. I'll concede that she might be right about some positive symbolism being lost, but I believe that is overshadowed by the negative and sexist symbolism. The Bible was written in a deeply sexist culture where women were not only considered inferior but treated as property. Modern sexists use this to pretend that these attitudes are God's will in the same way that preachers in the Antebellum South used scriptures about slavery to claim that was God's will. We need to strip away the cultural baggage in scripture to discern God's truth more clearly and inclusive language can help to do that.

2. It exalts gender above that to which it points:

Mrs. Kassian says . . .

Changing the Bible's gender language implies that the Bible's gender language is about us. It's not. The Bible is ultimately . . . about Jesus

I agree that the grand sweep of the Bible is about God more than it is about gender. We should not use inclusive language in such a heavy-handed manner that the Bible seems to be a manual on gender rather than the story of God and humanity. Fortunately, nobody who wants to use inclusive language is trying to do this. The changes are subtle and don't alter the story of God or Christ one bit.

3. It diminishes the unique beauty of womanhood:

I'm not sure what to say in response to this. I don't see it, and Mrs. Kassian doesn't ever say how it diminishes women.

4. It is less inclusive of women:

This is an interesting point. Mrs. Kassian points out that the Hebrew word for all people, male and female, is 'adam. She says that when we say "men and women" we are excluding women from the collective whole.

While I can see her point, it would really only be true if people were talking about changing the Hebrew word. No one is doing that. The question is what the best translation of 'adam is. She seems to argue that "man" or "mankind" is the only appropriate English translation. She doesn't say why she believes this is better than a gender neutral term like "humanity."

5. It demeans women:

Mrs. Kassian says that a gender inclusive Bible assumes that women are too stupid to realize that "man" actually means "human" and that "brothers" often means "brothers and sisters." The truth is that this doesn't make any judgment that women are stupid at all. It simply addresses the reality that there are many people who have heard from their preachers that, when the Bible says "men" it means "males only."

6. It patronizes women:

I was surprised by how sarcastic Mrs. Kassian got on this point. She says...

Poor little girls. The translators need to change the words of the Bible so our feelings don't get hurt. Boo hoo.

She says that changing the language of the Bible to avoid hurting women's feelings is wrong. She's right, if that was what was happening, it would be patronizing. But that's not what's happening; inclusive language Bibles exist to give us a more accurate understanding of God's word, free from the sexist prejudices of older generations of translators.

7. It calls God's attitude toward women into question:

She rightly says that God loves men and women equally, but assumes that inclusive language is criticizing God for giving men more air time than women. The truth is that inclusive language criticized not God, but the human writers and translators of scripture who sometimes let their own prejudices overshadow God's truth.

8. It calls God's wisdom into question:

Again, there is no criticism of God, only of the wisdom of humans who bring a sexist agenda to biblical translation.

9. It encourages further changes to Scripture:

Mrs. Kassian says . . .

I know of at least one Muslim that is aghast that Christians would have the audacity to tamper with the wording of our Holy Book.

This one stunned me, not that a Muslim would be agast, but that a Christian would use this as an argument. The Muslim approach to scripture is very different from that of Christianity. Muslims seek to avoid even translating the Qur'an as much as possible and I've seen Muslim critics of Christianity say that the sheer number of versions of the Bible is proof that we are drifting further and further from the original meaning.

Actually, the opposite is true. The reason we have new translations is because we have better scholarship and better access to good ancient manuscripts. Our modern versions, and that includes gender inclusive versions, are attempts to get closer to the meaning of the originals scriptures.

10. It leads women away from truth:

Mrs. Kassian rightly feels that the scripture shoudln't be watered down or made more palatable. But she is mistaken if she thinks that is what lies behind the gender inclusive versions. As I've said, this movement seeks to strip away human prejudice and offer a more accurate and more faithful understanding of our holy scriptures. That's not to say that inclusive language Bibles are automatically good. Like any other approach it can be handled faithfully and well, or clumsily and dogmatically.

The challenge is not to accept inclusive language because we like it, or to reject it because we are blindly afraid of it. We should use it fairly and rationally to help us grow closer to God.

Hell Revisited

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 19 Dec 11 16:05:00 UT

A friend sent me Time magizine article from earlier this year. It seems that Rob Bell, the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church is making waves in Evangelical Christianity with his new book, Love Wins. He is raising the question of whether people who don't believe in Jesus are doomed to suffer for eternity in Hell, or whether the truth is different than what so many Christians expect.

Bell has been criticized for this book. Even though he doesn't come to any firm conclusions about who goes to heaven and who to Hell, he opens the door to the question. This has been called "theologically disastrous" by Conservative Evangelical radio host Albert Mohler. The objection (if I understand it correctly) is that we need the threat of Hell because people aren't going to follow Jesus just because of his goodness, mercy, wisdom, and the way he draws people into a new relationship with God.

Some Evangelical critics have called Bell a Universalist because of the book. For the record, he is not, but he does believe that the question of who is saved and who is doomed is an open one, and the most honest way to discuss this is to affirm that this is a mystery here.

I have a lot of respect for the wisdom, insights, scholarship and compassion of Rob Bell. I haven't read his book yet, but I agree with everything I've heard him say about it in articles I've read. When he says that eternal damnation for all non-Christians seems incompatable with the loving ministry of Jesus, I have to agree 100%.

I'm going to say more about Hell in future blogs. It's always surprised me how little the Bible has to say on the subject. Most of what we believe in Hell comes from much later Christian preaching and traditions. But more on that later. Till then, I'll just leave you with this video of Rob Bell debating this topic with < href="http://adrianwarnock.com/">Adrian Warnock a conservative Evangelical pastor from the UK.

See who you agree with.

video platform video management video solutions video player

Bible Literacy - wrap up

pthameru@hotmail.com — Thu, 30 Jun 11 14:10:00 UT

Just a few final thoughts on the Bible Literacy quiz.

1) The Freedom From Religion Foundation is correct that a lot of Christians don't know the Bible as well as they probably should. For one thing, it's shocking how many believers have trouble differentiating between what is actually in the Bible and what their church and/or preacher says about the Bible.

2) However it is also true that many Athiest critics are equally sloppy, take passages out of context, and fail to distinguish between doctrines and actual passages.

3) The FFRF is correct that there are quite a few passages in the Bible that are shocking. There is violence, intolerance, sexism, and hate speech.

4) But, like a number of athiest critics, they tend to cherry pick the worst scriptures and turn a blind eye to the overrisding themes themes of mercy, compassion, and justice. (There are more than 2000 oassages about showing compassion and justice to the poor making it the second most dominant theme, only surpassed by the theme of faith in God.)

5) The FFRF correctly points out that the Bible is not an accurate source for scientific or medical information.

6) But they tend to distort the passages about ethical and spiritual teachings to try to discredit them. They pull passages out of context and offer unreasonable interpretations.

Bottom line: There are some areas where there is real need for investigation and criticism of the Bible and esopecialoly of a narrow and literal reading of the Bible. It's an important con versation and I think that believers and nonj-believers alike could benefit form an open dialogue.

This would need to be an honest conversation to accomplish anything. Neither side could come in assuming that only they had all then answers. The dialogue would have to inlcude respect, humility and an openness to learning something new.

I'd love to see that happen someday.

Bible Literacy pt 6

pthameru@hotmail.com — Thu, 30 Jun 11 10:48:00 UT

41. Paul forbids divorce, but Jesus allows it under one circumstance. What is that circumstance?

Answer: B - If the wife has sex outside of marriage.

Sexism illustrated: in Christianity, only a male can divorce a cheating spouse.

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32) Not only did Jesus contradict Paul (I Corinthians 7:10), he admittedly contradicted the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24:1), which allowed divorce on much broader grounds.

Divorce in Jesus' time was sexist, just as marriage was sexist. The wife had few rights under Jewish law and divorcing her husband was not one of them. The husband on the other hand, could divorce his wife if he decided there was anything wrong with her or if he simply got tired of her.

This teaching from Jesus came because he was upset by seeing women cast off so casually. Women in Jewish soceity were extremely vulnerable and a divorced woman was put out of the house with no money, property, or means of support. Often begging or prostitution were her only means of survival. Jesus' teaching was meant to protect women from this harsh and unfair practice.

42. What group of people will make it into the heavenly choir?

Answer: D - 144,000 male virgins who have not been defiled with women.

No women allowed! Notice the sexism: women "defile" men.

"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. . . . And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb withersoever he goeth." (Revelation 14:1-4)

My Comments:
The FFRF got this one pretty much right. Like most of the images in Revelation, this is symbolic rather than literal (the number 144,000, for instance is symbolic. It is created by multiplying 12 squared by 10 cubed. Both 1 and 10 are symbolic of wholeness.)

43. Which one of these words is in the bible (Trinity, Liberal, Christmas, or Rapture)?

Answer: B - Liberal.

In the King James version of the bible, "liberal" is a good word. The word "conservative" appears nowhere in the bible.

Different translations translate this differently: NIV="giving generously" giving liberally in , which is rendered:

"The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself." (Proverbs 11:25) "The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful." (Isaiah 32:5) "But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." (Isaiah 32:8) "Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men . . . Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift." (II Corinthians 9:13-15)
My Comments:

Very true. It's an amusing thought, if not really a comment on modern politics (though it is true that many Christians are political Liberals and vice versa.)

It is hard to know how early belief in the Trinity arose, (likely sometime in first several centuries of Christianity) but the word "Trinity" only dates back to the 13th Century and never appears in the Bible.

The Christian celebration of Christmas dates back to the 4th Century CE. The actual word "Christmas" is pre-12th Century but does not appear in the Bible.

The word "rapture" comes from 1594 but the theological understanding of the Rapture is much more recent and comes from 17th Century America.

44. Where does the bible say that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights?

Answer: D - Nowhere.

Nowhere in the bible will you find an acknowledgement that human beings have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity, fairness, or self-government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms, and slaves--God has all the rights.

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12) "Lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5) "Bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." (II Corinthians 10:5) "Captivity" is not freedom. The U.S. Declaration of Independence is a humanistic, anti-biblical document.

My Comments:

It is true that the Bible contains no declaration of human rights; no ancient document does. The very concept of a declaration of human rights is a modern one.

The focus on human beings as "sinners, worms, and slaves" is not really biblical. A quick survey of the KJV trns up only 3 instances of people being called worms. Two of these (Job 25:6 and Psalm 22:6) are the reflections of deeply depressed men and the third (Isaiah 41:14) a word of reassurance to Israel at a time when the people feel like worms. In all these cases, it is the people, not God, who call themselves worms.

The words "sinners" and "slaves" are much more common in the Bible but they are not really used as the FFRF characfterizes them. Different specific groups are called "sinners" in scripture but the word is never used as a blanket characterization for all people. As for "slaves", the term is used a lot in the parables of Jesus, but it is a reminder that all people have responsibilities, not that we are unworthy. The FFRF's objection really applies to the way some preachers talk about humanity, not the way the Bible talks about them.

When the Bible says that people should submit to God it means that they should be loving, truthful, generous, forgiving, etc. It is not the same as the freedom to lie, to hate, to act out of greed, malice or selfishness, but these are the only "freedoms" that submission of God takes from us.

As for the Declaration of Independence, it is a noble documant and it is humanistic. It is hardly anti-Bible though, not in the eyes of most American Christians, nor in the eyes of its Deist author, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.(emphasis mine) nor in the eyes of the signers of the Declaration, 32 of whom were Episcopalian, 13 Congregationalist, 12 Presbyterian, 2 Quaker, 2 Unitarian, and 1 Catholic.

45. Should Christians allow nonbelievers into their homes?

Answer: No

Acting inhospitably is the Christian thing to do. Notice how this verse unfairly equates unbelief and diversity with evil: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (II John 10-11)

My Comments:

Like many of the writers of the epistles, the author of 2 John was dealing with a specific situation. It looks like there were some non-believers in the community who were actively trying to talk believers out of the church. His advice made sense in that situation but wasn't meant to be for all Christians everywhere.

Hospitality is one of the core values of Christianity ans it shows up in many scriptures, including Matthew 25:34-40.

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Enter, you who are blessed by my Father! Take what's coming to you in this kingdom. It's been ready for you since the world's foundation. And here's why:

I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was homeless and you gave me a room, I was shivering and you gave me clothes, I was sick and you stopped to visit, I was in prison and you came to me.'

"Then those 'sheep' are going to say, 'Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to you?' Then the King will say, 'I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was meâyou did it to me.'

46. Should Christian men kiss each other?

Answer: Yes

Why do we not see men kissing in church, then? "Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss." (I Thessalonians 5:26. See also Romans 16:16; I Corinthians 16:20; II Corinthians 13:12; I Peter 5:14)

My Comments:

Well... this was the custom of the time, but it's not exactly a command. :-)

47. Should Christians always give what they have to anyone who asks for it?

Answer: Yes

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." (Luke 6:30, repeated in Matthew 5:42) Try asking Christians for their houses and possessions, and see how faithful they are to the teachings of Jesus. Borrow a Christian's car and see if they ever ask for it back. Modern believers know that Jesus was wrong and the bible is not to be taken literally.
My Comments:

Jesus was using exaggeration to make a point about generosity. Rather than hoard resources and turning a blind eye to people in need, he suggests sharing without complaint. Ther FFRF is half right here, this passage shouldn't be interpreted literally, as an inflexible rule. But Jesus wasn't wrong: generosity is a better way to live than selfishness.

48. Do the Ten Commandments prohibit incest or rape?

Answer: No

The "ten commandments" (see Question 1) do not condemn any sexual acts. The only sexual practice prohibited by the list in Exodus 20 is adultery, which, although a valid marital concern, is a legal act between consenting adults. The violent and degrading crimes of rape and incest surely should have rated a "top ten" list, but they do not appear. Adultery in the Old Testament was considered a crime that could only be committed by a wife. Harper's Bible Dictionary explains: "The law was probably intended to ensure that any child born to the wife was really the husband's child, since it was considered crucial for the husband to have offspring, so that the family name could be perpetuated." Adultery had bearing on the patriarchy, while more violent crimes did not.

My Comments:

This is essentially correct. Rape and incest are prohibited but are not given the special status of adultery. The Ten Commandments do reflect the culture and the time they were written. as much as theu reflect the word of God.

49. If you lose a lawsuit, should you pay exactly what the court decides?

Answer: No

You should pay twice as much! In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commands: "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." (Matthew 5:40-41) Are bible-believing Christians really paying double court-ordered child support? Or are they wiser than Jesus?

My Comments:

This is another case of Jesus exaggerating to make a point (as with question 47). In this instance the point is that Christians should try not to get caught up in the hostile dog-eat-dog world of lawsuits. When you are in a dispute, Jesus teaches that it is better to reach out in kindness and generosity than to lash back. It wouldn't work as an inflexible rule, but Jesus had little use for those and offers it as a guiding principle.?

50. Can Christians ask their boss for a raise?

Answer: No

It is unChristian to ask for a raise: "And [John the Baptist] said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? and he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:13-14) Modern Christians who love their families know better than this: it is not responsible to deny yourself a fair market wage, especially if you have children to support. Real family values transcend the bible. [John the Baptist was "preparing the way" for Jesus when he supposedly spoke these words.]

As with a number of scriptures the FFRF cites, this one changes when you read the whole thing. Here is is in KJV:

10And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?

He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?

And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. (Luke 3:10-14

And it's even clearer in the Message version:

10The crowd asked him, "Then what are we supposed to do?"

"If you have two coats, give one away," he said. "Do the same with your food."

Tax men also came to be baptized and said, "Teacher, what should we do?"

He told them, "No more extortionâcollect only what is required by law."

Soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?"

He told them, "No shakedowns, no blackmailâand be content with your rations."

My Comments:

Not much comment is needed. John the Baptist was telling people to stop harassing and eploiting others. There's nothing here to suggest he'd have any issue with a laborer asking for a fair raise.

So... how did the FFRF do on their own test? FWIW, I'm giving them credit for all correct answers even where they made false statements in their comments.

THEIR SCORE: 36 out of 50.