For an amusing look at what can happen when we literalize and overpersonalize Biblical passages, I recommend the site All True Bible Stories for Children. Numerous old testament stories have been used by the author to illustrates what nonsense and absurdity we create for ourselves at times with the Bible. The work was based on conversations the author had with a woman who was raised to interpret the word of God in highly idiosyncratic ways. For those of you who have been raised in a tradition which interprets the Bible fairly literally, you may find a dim reflection of your own past in these parodies. Here is but one example:
The Story of the Tower in Babel
Genesis 11:1-9
Over his morning newspaper, Beth's father complained about the Mexicans. He talked about how they were taking jobs away from decent Americans and ruining the economy by attracting American manufacturing firms. Beth was confused by all this. "Mother," she asked as they cleared the breakfast dishes, "shouldn't we try to cooperate with people in foreign lands instead of competing with them?"
"That is a good question, little one," her mother said. "And God has prepared an answer." And this is the story she told:
One day, many, many years ago, everyone on earth spoke the same language. Everyone was walking together when they found a big, empty field in a place called Shinar and decided to live there. The people had a big discussion and decided that they would burn some bricks and glue them together with slime until they had built a city. Then they planned to build a tower which would be so tall that the top of it would reach heaven. After that was all done, they decided to name themselves so that all the people of the world would be part of the same group.
Well, God came down from heaven to see the city and the tower being built. And God said, "Look, everyone is cooperating with each other and they can all understand each other. Now nothing will stop them from doing whatever they can imagine doing." So he decided to mix up their language and stop them from living all in the same place so that they would not be able to complete the city and the tower.
From that time on, the city was called Babel, because that's where God ruined the one world language.
"God does not mean us to get along with foreigners," said Beth's mother. "If he did, then he would not have taken the one world language away and stopped us from all living near each other."
Beth thought about this for a moment. "I guess that means that I won't have to take Spanish in high school!" she said. Then she smiled and hugged her mother. All her questions had been answered.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Benny Hinn-Dark Lord of the Sith?
I saw this video on Exploring Our Matrix. If you love watching the force being unleashed, you'll love watching Benny Hinn with a light saber. Laugh Out Loud Hilarious! I can never get too much Star Wars.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
The Grand Design
Over Christmas I finished the book "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Hawking and Mlodinow claim at the beginning of the book that "philosophy is dead." They assert boldly that science is leading the way to find answers to questions regarding origins that were once the domain of philosophy: Why do we exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? and Why this particular set of laws and not some other? They conclude that God is no longer needed as an explanation. Hawking and Mlodinow believe that M-Theory is the best candidate for a unified theory of everything that can answer the questions of our existence.
Regarding the question of why there is something rather than nothing, the authors state in this oft quoted passage:
Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
Luke, at Common Sense Atheism, reviewed The Grand Design and discusses an unfulfilling aspect of the book, noting that no where does it actually explain how something comes from nothing. When Hawking and Mlodinow describe the spontaneous creation of the universe, they describe it arising from "quantum fluctuations" which cause "microscopic" universes to arise and then either disappear or "expand in an inflationary manner." As Luke's review notes, this quantum vacuum is not "nothing" in the sense most of us conceptualize it.
I was interested that Hawking and Mlodinow acknowledge the strong anthropic principle, which "suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our environment but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves." This brings up very real questions about how the universe managed to be so fit for life, given the great unlikelihood that chance alone could account for the necessary highly specified variables being in place, such as the strength of the strong nuclear force as well as the electromagnetic force, the number of space dimensions, and the cosmological constant. However, Hawking and Mlodinow state that if M-Theory is true, then the statistically unlikely becomes likely, as our universe is one of a multitude of universes that exist. They admit that work still needs to be done to substantiate M-Theory. However, they appear confident that it will prove to be the grand unifying theory of everything, which has been the holy grail of physicists since Einstein. It's fascinating to think we may be capable of understanding our origins. However, I was certainly not left feeling as if we understand them yet.
Some are quick to dismiss fine tuning as one of the stronger arguments in favor of intelligent design. However, Hawking and Mlodinow appear to concede that the fine tuning of the universe poses a difficulty for those seeking a naturalistic explanation of the universe, given the statistical improbability of it all. Of course, M-Theory potentially answers the challenge of fine tuning, but it still remains to be seen.
As always, I enjoyed Hawking's ability to explain technical concepts in easily accessible and entertaining ways. While the book may be premature in asserting M-theory to be the answer to life's deepest questions, it will at least serve to open the public up to M-theory as a possibility. (If they weren't already aware of it from the likes of Star Trek.)
Regarding the question of why there is something rather than nothing, the authors state in this oft quoted passage:
Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
Luke, at Common Sense Atheism, reviewed The Grand Design and discusses an unfulfilling aspect of the book, noting that no where does it actually explain how something comes from nothing. When Hawking and Mlodinow describe the spontaneous creation of the universe, they describe it arising from "quantum fluctuations" which cause "microscopic" universes to arise and then either disappear or "expand in an inflationary manner." As Luke's review notes, this quantum vacuum is not "nothing" in the sense most of us conceptualize it.
I was interested that Hawking and Mlodinow acknowledge the strong anthropic principle, which "suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our environment but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves." This brings up very real questions about how the universe managed to be so fit for life, given the great unlikelihood that chance alone could account for the necessary highly specified variables being in place, such as the strength of the strong nuclear force as well as the electromagnetic force, the number of space dimensions, and the cosmological constant. However, Hawking and Mlodinow state that if M-Theory is true, then the statistically unlikely becomes likely, as our universe is one of a multitude of universes that exist. They admit that work still needs to be done to substantiate M-Theory. However, they appear confident that it will prove to be the grand unifying theory of everything, which has been the holy grail of physicists since Einstein. It's fascinating to think we may be capable of understanding our origins. However, I was certainly not left feeling as if we understand them yet.
Some are quick to dismiss fine tuning as one of the stronger arguments in favor of intelligent design. However, Hawking and Mlodinow appear to concede that the fine tuning of the universe poses a difficulty for those seeking a naturalistic explanation of the universe, given the statistical improbability of it all. Of course, M-Theory potentially answers the challenge of fine tuning, but it still remains to be seen.
As always, I enjoyed Hawking's ability to explain technical concepts in easily accessible and entertaining ways. While the book may be premature in asserting M-theory to be the answer to life's deepest questions, it will at least serve to open the public up to M-theory as a possibility. (If they weren't already aware of it from the likes of Star Trek.)
Friday, December 31, 2010
Year End Review
It's the end of 2010, which for me marks right at two years since I began seriously questioning my religious beliefs. I started out quite tentatively, reading books and speaking with no one about my questions. I was unsure of how others would react and I was filled with anxiety about my doubts. I feared where they might lead and I worried over my eternal fate. I eventually started reading blogs by atheists, which felt a bit like sinning. After all, I was openly tempting myself with unbelief, right? It didn't help that I would only read the blogs late at night when everyone was asleep, so as not to cause a conflict with my husband. That made what I was doing seem that much more shady. Eventually I found a friend or two to talk with and by the end of the first year, even my husband and I managed to have a strained conversation or two about my questions. My anxiety was beginning to lessen as I became use to my perpetual uncertainty and as I found others with similar questions.
2010 was a much easier year for me emotionally because I was "out of the closet" so to speak with my husband. Though we still don't talk much about differences in beliefs, we are less defensive with each other. He reads my blog to know my current thoughts and sends me links to articles on occasion. And on occasion we discuss them. This year I found several friends who were open to discussions of faith, a real blessing to me. A few of them even willingly attend a book club with me now where we discuss faith and science issues once a month at church. I enjoy discussions of faith and feel my questioning is a healthy sign of a serious and reflective faith. I no longer feel shame, or guilt, or anxiety about my questions, though I do grow a bit impatient with others who don't seem to question their own beliefs. I am more confident in discussing faith issues, not that I have the answers now, but I feel I have a right to ask the questions. I've also done a fair amount of reading, which has helped me think through issues. Starting this blog was the fullest expression of my willingness to discuss difficult issues. Though it began as a way to not overwhelm a friend of mine with countless emails from me, it has turned into a valuable way for me to work through questions, get advice and encouragement, and practice giving voice to my doubts. I appreciate those of you who have been a part of it.
Over at Exploring our Matrix, a thread has started discussing the faith journeys of similar others, who began as conservative Christians and have deconstructed their faiths, leaving themselves uncertain as to what is next. There are a few who regret this experience, but others, like myself, wouldn't go back to their starting point, despite the emotional difficulties and uncertainty. I noted in the thread that I call myself an "agnostic Christian" at this point, which sounds a bit strange and might be an oxymoron to some. It just highlights my uncertainty as well as my continued attraction to aspects of my faith. I look forward to another year of thinking and wondering. Happy New Year Everyone!
2010 was a much easier year for me emotionally because I was "out of the closet" so to speak with my husband. Though we still don't talk much about differences in beliefs, we are less defensive with each other. He reads my blog to know my current thoughts and sends me links to articles on occasion. And on occasion we discuss them. This year I found several friends who were open to discussions of faith, a real blessing to me. A few of them even willingly attend a book club with me now where we discuss faith and science issues once a month at church. I enjoy discussions of faith and feel my questioning is a healthy sign of a serious and reflective faith. I no longer feel shame, or guilt, or anxiety about my questions, though I do grow a bit impatient with others who don't seem to question their own beliefs. I am more confident in discussing faith issues, not that I have the answers now, but I feel I have a right to ask the questions. I've also done a fair amount of reading, which has helped me think through issues. Starting this blog was the fullest expression of my willingness to discuss difficult issues. Though it began as a way to not overwhelm a friend of mine with countless emails from me, it has turned into a valuable way for me to work through questions, get advice and encouragement, and practice giving voice to my doubts. I appreciate those of you who have been a part of it.
Over at Exploring our Matrix, a thread has started discussing the faith journeys of similar others, who began as conservative Christians and have deconstructed their faiths, leaving themselves uncertain as to what is next. There are a few who regret this experience, but others, like myself, wouldn't go back to their starting point, despite the emotional difficulties and uncertainty. I noted in the thread that I call myself an "agnostic Christian" at this point, which sounds a bit strange and might be an oxymoron to some. It just highlights my uncertainty as well as my continued attraction to aspects of my faith. I look forward to another year of thinking and wondering. Happy New Year Everyone!
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
How We Handle Difficult Passages: One Unfortunate Bible Class
We just returned home after a week of visiting family in two different states. We enjoyed ourselves a great deal, but after sleeping in four different homes, it's nice to get back to our own beds. I didn't attend any Christmas services with family as our religious tradition doesn't view Christmas as a religious holiday. The Sunday following Christmas we attended my grandma's church. It was a reminder to me of why religion can make things so difficult for those willing to reflect on it.
The Bible class studied Romans 9:4-22*. I sat there feeling a bit sad for the teacher and several in the class. They confessed the difficulty they had with the passage and the time they spent pondering it and wondering how a loving God could harden some one's heart or hate someone. The teacher mentioned in passing that he had wondered about the existence of God before. It was clear that the teacher was a bright, educated individual who had reflected on his beliefs. However, he reminded me of myself back when I would only question for so long before retreating to the safety of my original beliefs. I would "search the scriptures" more to bolster my faith than to understand them. It didn't appear that he had come away from his questions with anything other than his original set of beliefs.
Instead of examining the passage in question within it's context, we took a magnifying glass to these few verses in isolation. (You may have attended such classes, where each week the teacher plods through a few verses of the book, until every verse has been read and discussed.) We spent our time discussing what the Bible meant in verse 13, where it states "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." The class reassured itself that God only loved Esau less. When in verses 17 and 18 scripture discusses Pharaoh's heart being hardened, the class determined that the phrase "he hardens whom he wants to harden" meant that God hardens the hearts of those who don't believe in Him. The class spent its time recovering God's unconditional love and the free will of man in every verse that threatened to snatch them away.
It was frustrating to sit through this exercise, though I understand it: I've practiced it myself many times before. The entire point of the passage within its context was ignored out of a need to view the Bible through the lens of prior commitments. Had we read on with some openness, we might have connected this passage to the remainder of the chapter as well as successive chapters where Paul expresses his belief that God is gracious in hardening Israel so that the Gentiles might be saved. We might have read his belief that God was willing to grant mercy to those of Israel if they repented. However, we didn't even connect our passage to the Israel/Gentile discussion. This is an interesting passage that ruffles the feathers of Arminian and Reformed alike. I don't claim exegetical expertise here, I just find it interesting to watch how we handle difficult passages. It was clear from class discussion that what the class valued and needed to protect was God's unconditional love and man's free will. It was not clear from the few passages we read that those concepts naturally emerged from them. They may be found in successive passages, but I felt we wedged them in quite forcefully into Romans 9:4-22.
*Read for yourself if you like:
4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!a Amen.
6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”b 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”c
10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”g 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”h 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
The Bible class studied Romans 9:4-22*. I sat there feeling a bit sad for the teacher and several in the class. They confessed the difficulty they had with the passage and the time they spent pondering it and wondering how a loving God could harden some one's heart or hate someone. The teacher mentioned in passing that he had wondered about the existence of God before. It was clear that the teacher was a bright, educated individual who had reflected on his beliefs. However, he reminded me of myself back when I would only question for so long before retreating to the safety of my original beliefs. I would "search the scriptures" more to bolster my faith than to understand them. It didn't appear that he had come away from his questions with anything other than his original set of beliefs.
Instead of examining the passage in question within it's context, we took a magnifying glass to these few verses in isolation. (You may have attended such classes, where each week the teacher plods through a few verses of the book, until every verse has been read and discussed.) We spent our time discussing what the Bible meant in verse 13, where it states "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." The class reassured itself that God only loved Esau less. When in verses 17 and 18 scripture discusses Pharaoh's heart being hardened, the class determined that the phrase "he hardens whom he wants to harden" meant that God hardens the hearts of those who don't believe in Him. The class spent its time recovering God's unconditional love and the free will of man in every verse that threatened to snatch them away.
It was frustrating to sit through this exercise, though I understand it: I've practiced it myself many times before. The entire point of the passage within its context was ignored out of a need to view the Bible through the lens of prior commitments. Had we read on with some openness, we might have connected this passage to the remainder of the chapter as well as successive chapters where Paul expresses his belief that God is gracious in hardening Israel so that the Gentiles might be saved. We might have read his belief that God was willing to grant mercy to those of Israel if they repented. However, we didn't even connect our passage to the Israel/Gentile discussion. This is an interesting passage that ruffles the feathers of Arminian and Reformed alike. I don't claim exegetical expertise here, I just find it interesting to watch how we handle difficult passages. It was clear from class discussion that what the class valued and needed to protect was God's unconditional love and man's free will. It was not clear from the few passages we read that those concepts naturally emerged from them. They may be found in successive passages, but I felt we wedged them in quite forcefully into Romans 9:4-22.
*Read for yourself if you like:
4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!a Amen.
6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”b 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”c
10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”g 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”h 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Retooning the Navitity
I have to include this video of the story of Jesus' birth. At church Sunday, our worship leader showed this video at the beginning of worship. In the churches of Christ, we traditionally don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday because there is no biblical precedent for it. Not only does Paul warn against honoring one day above another, but Jesus' birthdate is not given. We come out of the restoration movement and cling to the mantra "Do Bible things in Bible ways." The church I attend doesn't quite fit in that mold, however. We are aware that Jesus' birthday is not Dec 25th, but we still teach about his birth in the kid's classes in December, hold a small children's musical Christmas program, and this Sunday, we heard a lesson on Mary and sang Christmas hymns. Given our denomination's tradition, our worship leader thought we could all appreciate the video. It humorously highlights all the popular misconceptions of the story of the nativity but then ends by reafirming the message of Christ coming and bringing light to the world. While I really don't know what to make of Jesus this particular Christmas, I have still enjoyed the rich, celebratory music of the season. And I'm glad my congregation was open to enjoying it.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Christmas 2.0 Modern Story of Nativity
James McGrath over at Exploring Our Matrix linked to this humorous video which retells the story of Jesus birth using our modern technology. So appropriate for today, when even my young boys want technology for Christmas gifts. So much for skates, sleds, and story books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)