I really enjoy your paintings (especially "Raingutters," wonderful use of color), have never read your poetry and haven't heard your music.

So there.

I identify myself as a Christian (and did so during one of the previous map discussions) but maybe many other Christians wouldn't consider me one--I think two people choosing to love each other is just nobody's damn business and doesn't condemn them to hell (a concept with which I also have issues) because they are of the same gender. Abortion? Sticky issue for me. I considered myself pro-choice until I had an ultrasound during my first pregnancy. "Ah," I thought, watching the tiny form wiggling on the screen. "That is life. There is life in there." But my philosophy on that, too, is, "Against abortion? Don't have one then."

It's all so damn complicated, isn't it.

So what do we do for the next four years? How do we renew hope? I think I'm going to join Amnesty International, write letters to my congressional reps, pray a lot, do yoga for my own sanity, teach my children to respect humanity in all its forms, write, cook, feed the homeless, take naps, take walks and fiercely love and cherish my friends--the Buddhist ones, the gay ones, the Bahais, the Unitarians, the Pagans, the ones who have had abortions and the ones who haven't.

Posted by: m at November 14, 2004 08:52 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/11/15/canadian.welcome.ap/index.html

Posted by: Thought of you at November 15, 2004 08:15 AM

I am certain I hear your music right there in your post. We see things the same way.

Our task now is to generate empathy where walls now stand.

Sometimes I think the difference is those who see God as external to oneself (and an external authority to be obeyed) v. those who feel God as internal (intuition, compassion, breath, warmth). To me, G/god is as close as my beating heart.

So, are you going to toss us a new painting or what?

Posted by: Melissa at November 15, 2004 08:59 AM

I just wanted to comment on your first point right now, Jeff. What's at issue isn't just whether there is one God or many, but more fundamentally, if there is one truth. You might belive that there is more than one god, but if you say that, then you still believe in one truth. Your one truth is that there is more than one god. To believe any one truth, even if that one truth is that truth is unknowable, is to have a worldview, and I do not believe that any opinion about these matters could be any more or less arrogant than any other. The bottom line is that when you call me arrogant for my beliefs, you're still telling me that you're right and I'm wrong about the fundamentals of the universe. What makes you less arrogant when you say there are many gods than when I say there is one?

But questions of arrogance aside, what we're after is the truth. If you're right, then it doesn't matter how arrogant your position was, because it turned out to describe the universe. I assume the same goes for me if I'm right.

Posted by: Andy at November 15, 2004 09:29 AM

A quick note about abortion. You described abortion as a victimless crime. Obviously a pro-life (or if you prefer, anti-abortion) person would tell you that the victim is the unborn baby. I'm not entirely sure why Christians are so universally pro-life in America. I know why I am pro-life, but there is no Biblical passage that gives evidence that God considers a fetus a life.

My reason is that my gut tells me it is so. I'm not trying to posit this as a logical argument, and I chose the word "gut" because somebody said Bush said it and it drove them nuts. But what I mean by that has something to do with the fact that, from Shakespeare to Laci Peterson, the murder of a pregnant woman has been considered a double tragedy. That means something to my gut. My gut is also affected by the pro-life messages of "secular" books like "Brave New World" and "The Giver."

Posted by: Andy at November 15, 2004 11:03 AM

I find it interesting that in any unwanted pregnancy, one-half of the responsibility rests with the father. Yet many of today’s laws allow abortion if the mother desires it. This does not permit the father any right or even knowledge of the situation, which can only lead to further abdication of his responsibilities as the father and denial of his right to prevent abortion.

Today a man (married or single) unwilling to accept the responsibility of fatherhood can be taken to court and, if convicted, forced to pay hospital, doctor, child support, and other expenses. To force responsibility in one situation and to deny it in another is inconsistent justice.

Posted by: ben at November 15, 2004 11:59 AM

Jeff,
I must honestly say I lean closer to you and your views of having the quest of spirituality be, a lifelong and personal journey. Please excuse me as I am a little taken back by the "immoral Christian" label. I find myself to be a very open person who can come to an intellectual discussion, as this one, and take more with me than I brought. I deeply enjoy the exercise to use my mind in such a forward moving discussion.

I was talking to a friend of mine, who for some reason enjoys being the Devil's Advocate, about the basic concept of homosexual marriage. He asked me a question I had yet to ask myself. If it should be allowed to have a legal binding marriage between people of the same gender than should it be allowed to practice polygamy? I am not trying to "stump" anyone. The question posed is one of honest sincerity. Where should we stop things of this sexual nature? Should it matter that a group of two men want to "marry" one woman? Should it matter that Two women want to "marry" the same man? I was taught that marriage was between a man and a women. Not two men and a woman. Not two women either. If the States are prohibited from refusing marriage licenses to same sex partner unions why should licenses be denied to multiple sex partner unions?

Posted by: ben at November 15, 2004 01:55 PM

I think the main reason I can't get excited about the same sex marriage issue has to do with the fact that I'm getting married in July. I've thought a lot about that obviously, and for me personally the marriage ceremony will accomplish the following goals in order of importance:

1. It will be a promise before God;

2. A promise to my wife;

3. A promise to all of the friends and family who have come to witness the event;

4. And finally and least importantly a legal contract with the state, which isn't really a promise, because I can get out of it without having to explain anything to anybody.

Points 1-3 are extremely important to me, but if you told me that the state wasn't going to recognize marriages at all anymore, it would be more of a tax issue for me than anything.

So I'm assuming what the gay community wants isn't really the legal benefits of marriage (there are so few anyway, and Kerry's offer of civil unions wasn't very popular with this group), but rather some sort of mandate from the American people that collectively we think homosexuality is okay. As a right-leaning Christian living in the District, the desire for this doesn't really impress me. I'm surrounded by people who don't care for my beliefs or many of the choices I make. I don't believe they hate me, but then I don't hate them either. Christians are taught to expect opposition and acceptance in this world is almost a sign that you're doing something wrong. We are told to be in the world but not of it. I believe a gay person’s fear of the average American bigot is much more justifiable than a right-winger’s fear that homosexuality is going to destroy the institution of marriage, but on another level, fear is fear, and although it’s the most common motive for political action of any kind in a democracy, that doesn’t mean that it should be.

The comparisons to Nazi Germany don't do anything for me. For all the fear and hatred that exists in this country towards gay people, I don't believe we're anywhere close to where Germany was with the Jews in the 1930's. Conservatives in America may have inflexible ideas about morality, but many of them also have a libertarian streak, which I firmly believe would come into play long before their government started forcing gay people to publicly identify themselves, let alone anything beyond that.

P.S. I was walking down New Jersey today around noon, and I saw a protest of spiritually minded people in favor of gay marriage. They had banners with pictures of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi on them. A few blocks on, I ran into a mob of people protesting seal clubbing outside of the Canadian embassy. They were chanting “shame” and pointing at the Canadian flag. There was even a guy dressed in a seal suit. This isn’t meant to be an argument against or in favor of anything, but it was just weird that the anti-seal-clubbing protest was ten times the size of the pro-gay-marriage protest. If you think I’m unemotional about gay marriage, you should ask me about the seals.

Posted by: Andy at November 15, 2004 02:29 PM

Wow. Lots to say, little time, so I'll make it brief. I completely agree with the Ben's comment about the father not being included. I was thinking about the victim in abortion, and my first thought was obviously about the unborn baby without a choice, but I also thought of all of the fathers who don't even know that their child is being destroyed. Makes no sense to me. It is half his as well. I do think the Bible is clear on abortion being wrong, but that would probably be a discussion that would only interest Andy and I.

And I have to agree with Andy. As a conservative Christian, the message I get is that we need to respect everyones right to their own opinion, but usually that doesn't include my beliefs. Mine are usually seen as bigoted, prejudiced and closed minded. It is just as offensive to me to hear people say their are many gods as it is to you when I say there is only one.

Regarding the issue of people in various parts of the world not even knowing about Christ...that is definitely a valid discussion and point that was made. I would inform you that according to the Bible we are held accountable only for what we know. So, if I tell you that Jesus is the only way to God and you reject that, you are held accountable for that choice. If a man in some remote village has never been told about Christ, then he also will be judged according to what he knows. I believe that many people in various parts of this world recognize that there is indeed a creator and worship in their own way, and often this is a worship of the one true God. They just have never been told about Jesus. Does that make sense?

And also, let's not be so naive to call the Bible just another book. It contains hundreds of prophecies that have come to pass, more proof of its authenticity then any other document in world history (look into this before you accuse me of being wrong...), not to mention that it is the all time best selling book EVER. Just another book? Read by millions daily? Hmm, I don't think so.

I respect your thoughts, understand where you are coming from, but disagree whole heartedly. I hope you can say the same of me.

Posted by: Jodi at November 15, 2004 06:56 PM

You ask how you can get people to talk about your poetry, art, and painting with the same rigor as religion...

You must produce something great.

This is not an inditement of your creative powers, either. But, you must risk everything to make people feel passionate about something. We, as humans, may not agree on each specific work of greatness, but I think most of us know it when we see it. Look, there is a reason why Shakespeare, The Bible, Dante, Don Quixote, the Odyssey, the Illead, Flannery O'Connor, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and even Charles Fraiser are read and will still be read a hundred years from now. They touch our own humanity and makes us reflect upon it, study it, and cause us to grow. Until you produce something inspiring such movemnt, rigorous discussion about your creative work will never happen.

People will say things like, "Oh that's so beautiful." "That moves me." Your work really touched me." Or they'll be silent, which is another way of saying, "I hated it" or "I just don't get." To inspire discourse, you must inspire us...

Posted by: dave at November 16, 2004 06:24 AM

as i write this, i realize that my comments are much more emotionally-based than intellectually-based. it is very difficult for me to detach myself and talk about issues in the abstract, although that is not to say that i think my emotion clouds my rationality.

andy, yes, i believe that the gay community wants gay marriage to be legalized for a number of different reasons. in the grand scheme of things, i am not convinced that any one reason takes precedence over another. i know you are not impressed with the idea of the gay community wanting to gain societal respect, and perhaps that just shows that you are thicker skinned than i. you say that you don't believe people hate you for your choice to practice christianity. but i know that there are people who hate me for my choice to date women. people who otherwise might find me kind and loving and caring and worthy of their respect.

personally, i don't need anyone to tell me it is alright for me to date a woman. no offense intended, but i honestly don't care if there are people who believe my soul is going to rot in the fiery bowels of hell solely because my ideas of love are not constrained by gender. i don't want pats on the back or a cheering squad when i choose to date a woman. what i do want, however, is for people to simply quietly respect my decision. just the same as they respect my decision when i choose to date a man. i do not want to be glared at because i am holding a woman's hand, i do not want to be verbally harrassed by complete strangers leaning out of their car windows, i do not want to have to look at each person i pass with a measure of distrust and fear simply because i choose not to be closeted. i really don't mind if people disagree with my choices in life (i actually expect and encourage people to question my point of view. i want to expand my consciousness as much as the next person), i would just like people to disagree respectfully. my belief is that the legalization of gay marriage is a big step toward that goal. i think homosexuality is generally tolerated within society. i think when legalization of gay marriage comes to pass, it will encourage that tolerance to grow into acceptance. and ultimately that acceptance will grow into respect. but as i said earlier, my thoughts are highly influenced by emotion. and i recognize that my theory about the legalization of gay marriage accelerating societal progression could all just be wishful thinking. i suppose only time will tell if my thoughts are optimistic or naive.

Posted by: jennifer at November 16, 2004 09:23 AM

Too many questions left unanswered...
If the Christian intellectuals involved in this discussion do not understand the dangers of a religiously based law making infrastructure then this discussion cannot move forward. An equal respect and weight given to the voices of non-believers and those of other faiths is absolutely necessary. It is plainly visible that this does not exist when religious faithful espouse our “lack of credibility as humans” in comparison to the wisdom of God… Problems are many… Yes sir…

Can we not argue points based on “If – then” propositions, logic and syllogisms?

Posted by: Mike at November 16, 2004 09:41 AM

... And the guitar work at the end of Outdoor Miner is brilliant. Some of the best I've heard. Not controversial but beautifully explosive over the simple melody on piano.

http://www.abovetheorangetrees.com/mp3s/outdoor_miner.mp3

Posted by: Mike at November 16, 2004 09:55 AM

I miss John Rensing.

Posted by: Billy Sumphumper at November 16, 2004 10:26 AM

What I have been trying to say but obviously failed to articulate is that there is no neutral position. I believe that words like "secular" and "religious" are useless labels, as both secular worldviews and religious worldviews are based on assumptions that are accepted on faith. Of course, I believe logic is valuable. If I didn't, I never would have started commenting. But I believe it has limits, and breaks down at the moment of decision. There is logic in both the Enlightenment and in Christianity, but unfortunately these two worldviews, when taken to their logical conclusions, are mutually exclusive. In American politics this means that the Right is less consistent than the Left, which is why a lot of people on the Left are so frustrated, but in some ways, I think this just means that the Left is more consistently wrong than the Right. The bottom line is that while our government has provided Americans with more freedom than most people in history, the principles our nation is based on are inadequate to explain the most basic questions about who we are and why we are here. There is nothing an American Christian can do but put their religion first. Of course this frustrates secularists, but philosophically they have no reason to be any more frustrated than Christians are by their views.

Sure you are frustrated by Christians when they end a debate by saying, “God says so.” But that’s not the end of the debate, that’s a shifting of the debate. The idea that you’re going to discuss your position, without discussing the principles and assumptions supporting your position is laughable. If you want to have a serious discussion about anything, you can’t rule out talking about God, unless you and your interlocutor both agree that God is irrelevant. Well a lot of people in the world, believe that the question of God must be addressed before any other, and if you don’t find the faith to accept an answer to that question, then any discussion of something as temporal as politics is impossible. For a serious Christian, politics is sitting on top of a massive construct, and “religion” is the foundation. If we’re going to have a meeting of minds, we have to go back to where we started to disagree, and in this case, it’s not gay marriage, it’s much more fundamental than that.

Remember Mindy and Buttons? “Whatcha doin’?” “Why?” “Why?” “Why?” If we start with, “What do you think about gay marriage,” and then keeping asking why, we’re going to be talking about whether God exists and if he has an opinion on the subject pretty soon.

Posted by: Andy at November 16, 2004 10:27 AM

i haven't been keeping up at all. jefferson - do you still play?

a friend now lies in seattle hospital to overcome her body's rejection to newly transplanted kidney, and my best friend's father passing away, and now one of my other dearest girlfriends possibly having cancer. only months ago, our biggest concern prior to election day was gay marriage so that she and her girlfriend can legalize their "union" (in however freakin' extreme christian way one wishes to define it), and now, it's whether she may live. twists. one day politics, another day, life precious.

Posted by: dumbstruck-numb at November 16, 2004 10:51 AM

... So Andy we disagree. It appears that if I want to question the wisdom of your argument my only option is to pick apart your faith based on the words found within the bible, since, in your eyes these have superior merit.

Disclaimer: The following content is to illustrate a point. I am the first to admit to not caring about the intricacies of bible contradiction since I believe that the bible is myth and not meant to be taken as absolute. Is anything (even God) always good or bad?

Here we go (an excerpt from an essay by Mark Ball Ph.D regarding inconsistencies within the bible): At many points in the bible the goodness of god is asserted. This proposition becomes the first premise in a syllogism with the conclusion of which most believers, and nonbelievers for whom a hypothetical God must be worthy of worship, would not disagree.

Goodness does not include murder, rape, enslavement, or child abuse.

God is "abundant in goodness" (Ex. 34:6), his goodness is "great" (Ps. 145:7), and he "is good to all" (Ps. 145:9).

Therefore, God does not engage in murder, rape, enslavement, or child abuse.

The Bible itself itemizes exclusions from goodness in Gal. 5:19-23, many so-called "works of the flesh". Among them, not surprisingly, are murder, as well as certain attitudes and behaviors that can culminate in murder: hatred, variance (discord), emulations (ambitious rivalry), wrath, strife, seditions, and others. Because murder is listed only as one of several works of the flesh, however, the others are also presumably contrary to goodness, i.e., goodness excludes them whether or not they culminate in murder.

Sharply contrasted with these "works of the flesh" in this passage is "the fruit of the Spirit", comprising several virtues listed in verses 22 and 23: "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, [and] temperance". By collecting goodness and parallel virtues in a passage clearly distinct from the one in which he collects murder and parallel vices, the author of Galatians confirms the irreconcilability of goodness and murder, of goodness and wrath, etc.

The Bible is rife with examples of God's acting in a manner inconsistent with goodness. Revisiting the syllogism above, consider the passage relating the story of Israel's war with Midian where it is shown that God sanctions the very crimes that he should abhor, namely, murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse.

First, he orders Moses to lead Israel in a war against the Midianites:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites...

Moses and the children of Israel obey:

And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

The slaying continues in verse 8. Then in verse 9, the children of Israel take captive all the Midianite women and children, confiscating as well "the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods."

Eventually, the captives are brought before Moses, who condemns to death all the male children and all the unvirginal women:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (vs. 17)

Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure:

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (vs. 18)

Thus, in the 31st Chapter of Numbers occur God-sanctioned murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse. First, God specifically orders the war -- he does not simply allow the Israelites to visit pain, suffering, and death upon another people, in which case God's role would be a passive one -- on the contrary, he assumes an active role by demanding the carnage. Second, all the men are summarily killed. Third, all the Midianite boys and unvirginal women are ordered to their deaths. Fourth, the Israelite men are urged to (presumably) enslave and rape the virgin Midianite girls. Most civilized people abhor all such actions as these (with less accord on the issue of war itself), considering them so evil that they must be prevented, even at high cost, and punished when efforts at prevention fail. Murder is still a capital crime in many states, imprisonment is the punishment for rape, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids slavery, and convicted child abusers face not only incarceration but also a stigma, arguably deserved, that will follow them perhaps their entire lives.

Although the believer must concede God's demanding the war, he or she may still reject the notion that God sanctioned the postbellum savagery of Moses and the Israelites. Whereas verses 1, 2, and 7 state clearly that God ordered the war, the believer may insist that what happened to the Midianite captives after the war was ordered by Moses, not by God. Verses 8-18 do not explicitly implicate God in the atrocities inflicted on the captives -- Moses issues the orders.

Nonetheless, it is not less than sanction to intervene in the affairs of Israel and Midian to start the war, while not intervening on behalf of the helpless victims to palliate their pain. If God does intervene in human affairs, and is abundant in goodness, then surely he intervenes not to start wars, but to stop them. Surely he intervenes not to cause pain and suffering, but to end it. Thus, because God was willing to intervene to demand the war, his refusal to intercede afterwards, i.e., his postbellum silence, must be tacit approval of the Israelites' cruelty toward the Midianites.

Although the believer may still correctly argue that silence is not necessarily endorsement, harder evidence for God's approval comes in verses 25-30, in his directing the distribution of the spoils, which include the captives:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast...And divide the prey..." (vss. 25-27)

This explicit command from God punctuates his earlier tacit approval. Instead of rebuking Moses and the Israelites for their violence against the Midianites, he rewards them with the plunder. Clearly, God approves of Moses' treatment of the Midianite captives. Neither God nor Moses has mercy on the most helpless and innocent of the Midianites, the women and children. Such mercilessness cannot be reconciled with Eph. 2:4, which declares that God is "rich in mercy", or with Ps. 145:9, which claims he "is good to all" and which mentions his "tender mercies", or with Ex. 34:6, which calls him "merciful", or with Deu. 32:4, which calls him "just and right". Neither can such mercilessness be reconciled with the spirit of Jesus' own words:

...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Mat. 25:40)

Darkening the scenario further is God's reason for the war, namely, vengeance (vs. 2). To even the score, God initiated a chain of events that would earn for any human world leader the status of a villain. Even though 1 Jn. 4:8 equates God with love, Lev. 19:18 proclaims the irreconcilability of love and revenge:

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord.

Instead, according to the Bible, love entails forgiveness:

He that covereth a transgression seeketh love... (Pro. 17:9)

The pivot point in Lev. 19:18 is the disjunction "but", placing vengeance and love on opposite sides of the line demarcating goodness from non-goodness. This scripture presents love and vengeance as mutually exclusive propositions: one who engages in activity mentioned before the "but" in this sentence is not engaging in activity mentioned after the "but", and vice versa. Of course, the famous biblical passage on love (1 Cor. 13) also plays at cross-purposes with God's role in the Midian affair.

With revenge as his motive, God is acting contrary to goodness and peace, at least according to Gal. 5:22. His action clashes thunderously with several unambiguous biblical directives on dealing with one's enemies:

...Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you... (Mt. 5:44)

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other... (Lk. 6:29)

Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:20-21)

God's reported behavior in the Bible is dichotomous. God is love in the New Testament, but does not seem to be so in the Old Testament. He is praised as merciful in some passages, while he withholds mercy in others, even from the helpless and innocent. Finally, vengeance seems to motivate him, notwithstanding precepts to the contrary elsewhere in the Bible.

Oddly enough, Jesus declares in Mk. 10:18 that only God is good. According to 1 Tim. 4:4, however, "every creature of God is good." Admittedly, this equivocation arises from the use of the same English word for rendering two different Greek words. Along this line, the believer may defend God's actions in the Midian affair as inherently good, claiming they were only apparently bad because man, being flawed, cannot discern the goodness in them (i.e., God works in mysterious ways). In effect, then, the believer would be arguing that child abuse may per se be good under some circumstances or may per se be bad but, by leading to some good that only God understands, is sometimes acceptable. Either of these two scenarios is morally obnoxious. Furthermore, forget not the Lord's own confession about his being capable of evil:

If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. (Jer. 18:8)

The 31st chapter of Numbers, however, is not the only scripture in which God's behavior is morally puzzling. The 19th chapter of Genesis is another, the famous story of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Lot. This narrative begins with two angels of the Lord arriving at Sodom (Gen. 19:1), which city the Lord will soon destroy because its people fornicate (Jud. vs. 7), unless he finds at least ten righteous people living there (Gen. 18:32).

[Earlier in Gen. 18:20-21, the Lord turns a phrase curiously. In explaining his intentions to Abraham concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord seems to admit to ignorance of the situation in those cities:

And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

In no uncertain terms, the Lord confesses to not knowing, even as he speaks, just how unrighteous Sodom and Gomorrah are. He is going down to "see", to ascertain, the degree of the two cities' sinfulness, because he does not know. Punctuating these words, the Lord then states plainly that he will know, meaning, of course, that he does not know at present. The theological conundrum arising from this confession is self-evident: how could God be omniscient and unaware of something simultaneously?]

The two angels newly arrived in Sodom encounter the man Lot, who persuades them to spend the night in his house (vss. 2-3). Later that evening, the men of Sodom surround Lot's house, demanding that he surrender the two men to them for sexual purposes:

And they called unto Lot...Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (vs. 5)

Hoping to placate the men of Sodom at his door, Lot then offers his two virgin daughters to them instead, encouraging the men to do as they please with the girls:

...let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes... (vs. 8)

Then becoming violent, the men of Sodom try to break into Lot's house, but the angels stop the men by striking them blind.

The next morning, because the angels will soon destroy Sodom and its denizens, they urge Lot to flee with his wife and daughters to escape the cataclysm. Ironically, the Bible then says that the Lord was merciful to Lot (vs. 16), merciful to a man who offered his own daughters to be raped (vs. 8)! The enigma here is not so much the apparent forgiveness of Lot, but the inconsistency. Why would God, merciful and gracious (Ex. 34:6), and full of compassion (Ps. 145:8), show mercy to such a man as Lot, but withhold mercy from the innocent Midianite women and children? God has condemned the innocent but pardoned the guilty, despite his being extolled as "just" in Is. 45:21 and Deu. 32:4.”

I know… too long already… Mark’s piece continues…

At some point with enough material we can debate everything on details and contradiction. Perhaps not even the word of god is absolute…

Posted by: Mike at November 16, 2004 11:41 AM

yes yes

I skimmed the article above at least as far as I could go before I absolutely had to point out some things. First of all, the passage in Numbers is much more useful to this man, than the later argument about Sodom, so I'm going to talk about the Numbers stuff later.

My first question is PhD of what? It can't be literature. His reading of the Genesis account regarding God’s knowledge of Sodom is a more literal reading of the text than the strictest fundamentalist would ever attempt. I've seen this approach many times before, where someone tries to undermine literalism by being more literal than the actual practicing literalists. This is a common trick among five-year-olds.

The Bible is literature. I happen to believe it's literature inspired by God, but inspiration from God does not stop it from being literature. And the Bible was inspired by God, not written by God. That means that the style of a particular passage is going to be influenced by the education, culture and literary background of the author. That's an orthodox position, not something I decided myself.

But it's hard to know where to go with this first.

The Post Modernists have shown us the limits of language. Language cannot be completely literal. If I say, "Chair," you have an image in your head, but it may be different than the image I have in my head. We're both picturing something you sit on, but we're probably not thinking of the same chair. If I say, "Wooden chair," then that helps define chair, but now we might be picturing different kinds of wood, and what kind of "chair" I'm talking about is still far from clear. If I say, "purple wooden chair," you still don't know what shade of purple, what kind of wood or what shape of chair I'm talking about. The more words I use, the more questions those words will raise. If I look up a word in a dictionary, the definition is going to be made up of nothing but words, all of which have definitions that also consist of words. To try to nail down a concrete concept with language absolutely is impossible. If you have a grid, the finer the grid is, the more information it can contain, but every time you quarter one of the squares, you've created four more squares, each of which could also be quartered. Decided when to stop is difficult. You might think I'm being wordy right now, and could have explained my points better with less adjectives or metaphors, but I certainly wouldn't be getting any points across at all, if I had never even started typing. Lacan writes about this, when he takes Freud's ideas and applies them to language.

Freud believed that religion was not healthy, because the more "virtuous" a person is in terms of their religion, the more exacting they will become with themselves. If this continues, Freud argues, they'll become neurotic. I take issue with a lot of what Freud says, but I think he's right that perfection is an unattainable goal and that thinking in the manner of his neurotic patients is fruitless. However, I believe he's wrong that Christianity, when properly understood, leads to this end. Nevertheless, a good way to become neurotic might be to start reading the Bible as if every word should be taken in the most literal way imaginable, regardless of it’s context in the text. If that were the case, then the first thing we need to do is start teaching our Christian children to read Hebrew and New Testament Greek at an early age, so that they are like first languages to them, because clearly some meaning has been lost in translation. But I don't believe that this is what is important, because the true religion (whatever it is) must be something that all people can understand. Something that transcends the actual words that convey it.

I believe that the Bible is the place where history and myth intersect. It is history in the sense that I believe the events actually happened, but it is a myth in the sense that the story itself has power, not just because it happened, but because it affects us on a level that operates beyond questions of history. There's been a lot of talk about Steinbeck on here, and he made this point explicitly with the Cain and Able story in "East of Eden." He didn't believe in the historical value of the Bible, but he recognized the mythic value. The difference between a Christian and a secular reader of scripture is not that the Christian sees history where the secularist sees myth, it's that the Christian believes that the text works on multiple levels, one of which is historical.

But even history is conveyed through language, and language can only cast a net over the truth, it cannot represent the thing itself. Christ, however, is the Word made flesh. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." There is a nexus of meaning between the word that is the scriptures, the spoken word that is God's creation, the word that is the law of Moses, the word that is the Gospel and the Word incarnate that is Christ. The Ark of the Covenant was a container for the literal tablets with which God's finger had written the ten commandments, but the ark itself was man made to God's dimensions. God actually request certain artists do the workmanship. In a similar way, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, but that it is man made to God's dimensions.

Christ's body contains the word. His flesh is human flesh, made from the same stuff we're made of, but at the same time, he is the incarnation of God's complete divinity. This is important because now the word exists off of the page. The creator has become the creation, like an author writing himself into his novel. The Pharisees know the scriptures forwards and backwards, but their knowledge is not enough to save them, because they have not experienced the Word in the flesh, they do not know Christ. Christianity urges people to read the scriptures, to hear the Gospel, and then to meet the Christ they read about in the world of experience. I believe this means that a Christian is supposed to have a relationship with Christ. This relationship is fostered through prayer and by listening to the conviction that comes from God. The Bible plays an important role in this, but only when it is used by God, not because it has some sort of power in itself. It is just so much language, and subject to the limits of all language, except it points to the trap door through the ceiling of language that leads to real truth, which is synonymous with the divine.

This is all a really complicated way of debunking the kind of extreme literalism this man employed in his essay in regards to God saying he needed to go down to Sodom. The author of Genesis either didn’t have a firm grasp on God’s omniscience, or else he was employing a stylized technique (one which I think works beautifully as literature), or whatever (I can think of many reasons for that passage to be written that way). But the main point is that God is described but not confined by these words. For those who have faith, the Bible is not the only way to know God. It's how things start, but it's not the end of the story.

That was all ground work, I’m going to tackle some of the other points in my next comment.

Posted by: Andy at November 16, 2004 01:43 PM

First of all, Lot was never a great hero of the Bible. He was spared, because Abraham begged for his life. Our PhD's criticism of Lot's decision to throw his daughters to the mob is understandable given our priorities today, but we live in a society where we are taught to protect our own above all others. In the ancient world, as you'll glean from everything from "The Epic of Gilgamesh" to Homer, the highest ethic is to take care of your guests, even if it is at the expense of your family. And Lot may have guessed that his guests were not just ordinary men either, but men sent from the Lord, whom he justly feared. He grows desperate, and he prepares to sacrifice his daughters to the mob to save the men. I'm not saying that this was the right decision, because the heroes of the Bible are doing heinous things that get them into trouble with God all the time, let alone the Lots of the Bible. But the angels do not allow Lot to do this deed anyway. So I'm not really sure what this guy's problem is with the story. A regular flawed guy like Lot living in a violent and unenlightened age almost does something vile and God stops him...

(the sound of crickets)

I guess he's making the point that Lot does not deserve to be saved if these other people are going to be killed. If that IS his point, then we need to back WAY up.

In Christianity, no one is saved because they deserve it.

In regards to Numbers. I'm not going to explain to you why God wanted such and such a people killed, because I don't know. For me there is no difference between God telling the Jews to kill gentiles in Numbers and God allowing gentiles to slaughter eight million Jews in 1945. They're both evidence of the problem of evil (If God is so good and powerful, then why do bad things happen to good people?), which obviously is the most powerful attack on Christianity there is. I'll get into my responses to that some other time.

As far as Moses' command that the Hebrews keep the young women for themselves, I'm not going to rationalize that away either, except to say that this and many other commands in this part of the Old Testament make at least a little more sense when you remember that these people are in a desert, and at a time in their social evolution when fertility means everything. It wouldn't make much sense to NOT let the young women live.

But this entire article (I've read the whole thing now) is just contrasting the Old Testament with the New Testament, which does not necessarily bring to light a flaw of the Bible. I mean, Jesus spends quite a bit of time contrasting his message with the message in the Old Testament. He implies that the letter of the law was never enough to save a person, because it is not possible to follow to the letter, for one thing (thank you Freud), and for another, because the law cannot describe how we can be reconciled with God anyway, because that is ultimately beyond language (thank you Lacan). That is my reading of the Gospel, and especially of the Sermon on the Mount.

The Bible is not easy to understand and there are many passages that will challenge your faith (if you have any). I think I've already said this, but my general answer to this is that if the Bible were easy to understand and everything was clear, then that would be evidence to me that God had nothing to do with it. I can look at myself and see a fallen heart and a fallen intellect, and I believe that the truth would have to hurt when I saw it. But it doesn't just hurt. There are many passages in the Bible where pain is a kind of valley through which a person travels to a greater understanding.

Before I sign off for the night, I want to mention one Old Testament cycle of stories that functions this way. In 1st and 2nd Samuel life is cheap. David, who is at one point called a man after God's own heart, turns out to be a butcher. He kills and he kills to secure his kingdom. He is a king ordained by God, but it is really not clear how much of the killing God approves of. Then one day, the Israelites are moving the Ark, and one of them puts out his hand to steady the thing. Well you're not supposed to touch it, so the man dies on the spot. David is angry with God and for a time he refuses to let the Ark into the city. But then a wise old woman is sent by God to talk to David. She brings a pitcher of water, pours it out on the ground and tells him that life can be like that spilled water, it can be that cheap. Suddenly the stories change, and life has more worth. If you're reading Samuel as a Christian, you are much more disturbed by the killing than someone who just thinks it's another book, so when I came to that passage it had a powerful impact on me.

In Christianity, the soul is eternal, and death is not a terminus, but a portal. I believe that we are created by God, and he has a right for whatever reason whatsoever to end out lives whenever he sees fit. It's like Cosby, he brought us into this world and he can take us out of it. I also don’t believe it always clear what happens to all those who die.

Ultimately, I believe that there is a reason for everything that happens, no matter how awful it seems to us here, but I do not believe that those reason are always knowable. This is where faith comes in again. I have faith that God knows what he is doing. If you're not a Christian and you don't have your own faith, it appears that this faith is arbitrary. I might as well believe anything. Well I would tell you that I believe I have felt God's presence, and I'm sorry, but I can't convey that to you in words. Of course this is will frustrate a lot of people, but one of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that you can only say so much, because so much of it is beyond language. That is why the Word is incarnate and not just on the page, and that is also why attacking the Bible could never be enough to dislodge a Christian’s faith.

If you asked me at this point, why if this is true, some Christians rely exclusively on the Bible instead of their own convictions (which may or may not be from God), you’d have a good point, because the line between personal conviction and a literal reading of the Bible is very difficult to nail down. That is why I’m not angry with either my Bush voting Christian friends or my Kerry voting Christian friends. In practice, it is very hard to know which way is up, and I really don’t believe the structure of our political system clears things up.

Posted by: Andy at November 16, 2004 03:05 PM

Thank God for Andy, because I'm not really sure where to even begin. I don't think I can argue the innate problems with this man's theories based on his literal and misinterpretation of scripture, often taking things just entirely out of context. But I am not sure if that matters because if someone is out to disprove the Bible, they aren't going to really listen to that anyway. And, I would certainly hope that an educated person like you, Mike, would not have taken these words at face value but would have recognized that everything has spin. (Wow, don't we know that after the last election...) I would hope that you have carefully researched his points and concluded for yourself he is accurate, even going to the extent of taking these words to a trustworthy person who DOES believe the Bible and practices Christianity to hear their perspective. Therefore, fully educating yourself on both sides before choosing what to believe as fact. I, however, believe the man is blasphemous (the only sin that is unforgiveable according to the Bible, by the way). I have studied, in depth, the Old and New Testament. It can, at times, be difficult to understand events in the OT as it was another time period (a LONG time ago), it was a different culture, and I could go on. So there have been times I have had to do extra studying to really discover what was going on, not just taking the scripture literally when things seem a little off. Anytime a scripture seems to contradict the character of God, you have to look closer (as Andy said) and realize that often it is a translation problem. And, one must also remember that flipping between the OT and NT can be a problem if one does not take into account the Old Law and the New Covenant. All that to say, this could be a long discussion, passage by passage. But, my bottom line? I certainly hope you have done more than just read this guys stuff and nod and agree with him because he backs up what you would like to believe, that the Bible is just a nice book of stories. This is far to important of an issue to go along with someone else.

Posted by: Jodi at November 16, 2004 03:13 PM

okay. so i gather from this discussion that it is generally accepted that the words on the pages of the bible are not to be taken literally. that there is an allowance and expectance for personal interpretations, scholarly interpretations, and spiritual interpretations of the word of god. are we in agreement up to this point? assuming we are, my question then becomes: how can we as a society base our arguements for or against the passage of laws on a book that has multiple, and i would imagine sometimes conflicting, interpretations? isn't that like building a house on shifting sand?

Posted by: jennifer at November 16, 2004 10:44 PM

Does not life move and shift like sand?

I don't see the problem.

Posted by: dave at November 17, 2004 06:46 AM

dave,
yes. absolutely. without question.
i guess my issue is that i want there to be a certain degree of solidity in the arguements surrounding the passage of laws. particularly when one book is so heavily relied upon to defend particular positions, i want that book to be a bit more definitive. to me, if one bases an arguement solely upon a book that has multiple interpretations and/or conflicts with itself, the arguement loses credibility. i am basically being asked to put my trust in a book that does not speak to my heart, to my sensibilities, to my ideas about life and love. if someone is going to ask me to do that, then they have to build an incredibly strong case to convince me to make that leap. and one based in interpretations and speculations just isn't going to be enough to convince me to relinquish what i believe to be my rights as a productive member of society.

Posted by: jennifer at November 17, 2004 07:43 AM

Jennifer,

There is no way anyone could read anything without interpreting it, so of course there would be different interpretations of the Bible. That does not mean that it should not be taken literally, it just depends what you mean by "literally" and what the context is of the passage you're reading. But of course there is debate about what the Bible is saying and why. It does not then follow that every point is equally unclear, however, or that every argument about interpretation is equally valid as every other.

But Christians don't just make decisions based on scripture. We think and pray and believe that we feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit as well. This is what makes it real in our lives. We believe that it's not real to you when you read the Bible, because you don't have knowledge of Christ apart from the text. The letter of scripture is just a container for the truth. The Word incarnate is truth operating within time, not static on the page.

I believe that this paradox that you can't know until you have faith, and you can't have faith until you know, is evidence of our fallen nature. We're trapped in a state of ignorance, until God touches us from the outside, and in one moment we know and believe. Your right that this is not a debatable point, and I'm sure that's frustrating. But this is the point where I believe reason fails us. We can talk and talk, and draw ever close to the truth, but we can never pin it down. It's like a limit in Calculus. You can divide a number by two forever and never reach zero.

Posted by: Andy at November 17, 2004 08:11 AM

You realize of course, that zero is not precicely a number, which I think makes clear the problem with this whole discussion.

We are probing for Truth with units that will never carry us to the answer. In one of his dialogs (perhaps Phaedrus, but I can't remember), Plato scorns the Poets, who seek after Truth with words. He claims that the written word will always fall short because it is an image not a form; we should seek the forms. On the other hand, this claim is written and has been read for thousands of years.

Strange paradox. Some would say hypocritical.

And that is the dilemna. In modern debate, we must not be hypocritical. We must be steadfast, resolute, confident, unwavering. When someone points out a contradiction in our behavior or thought (pro-life, yet pro-death penality; enviromentalist, yet SUV drivers; marriage as an affirmation of love, yet gays shouldn't be allowed to wed; anti-war, yet we should kill all the terrorists and evil doers; being Christians filled with the love of God, yet unwilling to be charitible with that love; or whatever other paradoxical beliefs we may have), we are wrong, irrational, and teetering on the brink of the systematic collapse of not only our reason but also our society.

Don't you see that your beliefs are a contradiction of each other, people will say, and therefore false?

Hypocracy gets a bad wrap. Truth is large enough for many points of view, and it's a shame it took Hegel to vocalize that thought because, frankly, the dude can't write in clear prose. The spark of life is in us all. It pushes and pulls and we all see with different eyes because we are indeed created with different eyes and hearts. Some will say there is no G-d; and that is fine--that does not mean they are any less devoloped than those who do feel the touch of Allah or Yaweh or whatever.

They have different eyes.

Some will say there is no truth at all. There are no absolutes, everything is relative.

They too have different eyes.

By wielding the sword of logical paradox, all arguements can be rendered contrary. That we are hypocrites and contrary is a given.

The important thing is not whether you have faith or don't have faith, that you believe in God or Moroni or Yaweh or Buddha or the Big Electron. The important thing is that you believe something and that you probe and prod and poke that belief. If that belief is paradoxical, so be it. We are only human after all, and it is only through examination that our humanity is realized. That is empathy. That is virtue.

The problem is people, instead of studying and prodding their own beliefs, want to discredit their neighbor's, which gets us nowhere. To understand does not mean to aggree.
But, to understand does reveal a bigger piece of Truth, or if not Truth, then at least the world in which we live.

Understand where the Right is coming from. See where the Left is coming from. Seeing does not mean agreeing. It doesn't even mean convincing. It means actually living..

Posted by: dave at November 17, 2004 09:47 AM

Okay, that read like a sermon, but I have no idea what you're saying. I think you're saying that truth is relative. I disagree. What else is there to say about that?

Posted by: Andy at November 17, 2004 11:03 AM

I'm getting into the discussion late. Sorry. Jeff makes some excellent points, which I agree with, about ethnocentricity, and absolute truth, Christian arrogance, etc. Nonetheless, I am a Christian. The dilemna, as you guys have spelled out perfectly, is that Christians are forced to either belief that their beliefs are really true (or, actually believe them), or simply say that their beliefs are "true for them," but not true for other people. The problem that I run into, as a Christian, is that part of my belief is that my beliefs are true for other people as well (if I believe the teachings of the Bible), so I have to either say my beliefs are not true, or say that they are true for other people. The third option is to use words to obscure the issue, which I cannot do without being dishonest to myself.

But if I believe what I believe is true, I am forced into being so arrogant as to believe that I am right and most people are wrong, and chances are, the only reason I believe what I do believe is because of where I am born! As Jeff points out, this begs the question of Absolute truth. Jeff asks, "how can we have absolute truth when there are so many perspectives?" How, indeed? Isn't it possible that each religion just offers a new perpsective on the same truth? We all understand physical perspectative, and the enormous differences that depend upon it, how much more with metaphysical perspective? Still, we have to admit that we are on very shaky ground here. Satanism and Christianity, for example, appear to be opposites, rather than two sides of the same coin. Buddhism teaches (depending on who you talk to) that nothing is behind the universe. Christianity says that God is behind it. Some Muslims believe that they will have several virgins in paradise for killing infidels; some Christians believe they will go to hell, etc. Can both, really be true? I would suggest, not.

The position of those who oppose Christianity, and are very hesitant in talking about "absolute truth," I think, is this: what could possibly be more wrong and arrogant than a religion that teaches that you and your friends get eternity in bliss because of what you believe (not what you do but BELIEVE!) and everyone else, not for what they do, but what they believe (which is dependant on where they are born) are tortured for all eternity? I understand why someone might say, for exaple, "that's almost the most contradictory thing to reason and normal morality imaginable." Granted.

I have more to say, but will stop here for now...

John

Posted by: john at November 17, 2004 11:41 PM

I don't personally believe people are damned because of where they are born. I believe that everyone in some way or another has a chance to either accept or reject God's grace in their lives. I don't know how this is accomplished in each individual life. I only see it happening in my life and the lives of the people in my immediate circle. I would perhaps break from orthodoxy and say that I'm not even sure this life is the last chance we might get to put our faith in Christ, however I'm not personally banking on a second chance. But that's not to say that I believe that religious truth is relative.

Instead of worrying about hypothetical people who may or may not have a chance to meet God, I would encourage people to realize that the message has reached you, and you are either rejecting it or accepting it by having this discussion.

Posted by: Andy at November 18, 2004 08:05 AM

Jeff continues in the discussion along exactly the lines I would follow; from questions of religion and absolute truth, to morality. I think a lot of frustration over the Christian perspective centers around the question of homosexuality. Continuing in my long line of concessions, I would like to concede another point: that there is no logical basis of the condemnation of homosexuality. But can it be admitted that we are floating a little bit, here? We have questioned even the existence of absolute truth itself. On what basis is anything to be called wrong? If I concede that there is no logical basis of homosexuality, I would also concede that there is no logical basis for morality itself! For hundreds of years, philosophers tried to "give a basis" to morality. Philosophers like Kant spent their lives trying to show why reason supported morality, but I don't believe that any of those attempts stood. Enter Nietzsche, who asked why everyone was trying to justify morality if not for morality's sake; who said that there was no logical basis for morality, but that there was merely a logical basis for the will to power (for which we have to admit there is a logical basis). The philosophical attempt to give a basis to normal moral beliefs utterly failed--I'm not saying that there is no longer moral philosophy, but just that moral philosophy's starting point now is merely saying what is right or wrong based on philosophically arbitrary standards, such as "what is best for the most people," or any other number of starting points, all of which seem pretty good at first, but not only are not supported, but also lead either to impossible standards, or have moral or logical flaws. I don't think we want to pick these apart one by one, especially since in the end we all more or less agree on what is right and what is wrong, with a few fringe exceptions, most prominently homosexuality. But here is the simple division, and a simple rule to remedy it: if the Bible is true, then homosexualality is probably wrong (I think that follows); if the Bible is not true, it is not wrong (I concede that in my mind, anyways, that follows). (Now I also understand that many people are saying that even if it is true, that doesn't mean we should legislate morality, especially toward those that don't believe in it. I almost grant that point, except that, again, if the Bible is true, it seems to really make a point about this, so that I think the those who were in the practice of submitting their whole lives to the Bible might be most true to themselves and their God by supporting legislating against it, etc.) (A side point--Jeff expresses concern that sexual oppression from the Christian right will become very spiteful, etc. I am appreciative of his concern, and I share his compassion for the wellfare of the gay community, who are oppressed by evil men, many of whom line themselves up with Christ. But I am glad, and I think Jeff may be too, that Christians can only oppress and show contempt from these people by turning their backs completely on their Master, who dined with sinners, and washed their feet. If homosexuality were a sin, then Christ would be the first to eat with homosexuals without breathing a word about their sin.)

Anyways, I think the question belongs here: Is Christianity true? (Maybe others don't agree it belong here, but bear with me and I will also meet you where you think it belongs) To sum up very quickly what is contained in thousands of books, Christ's resurrection is supported by the martyrdom of more or less all those who lived and ate with him. To say that it is not true, we would have to say (unless I'm missing a third option) that they were decieved or that they lied. But both of those options are very difficult to argue. If they lied, why did they so willingly die, and how could they have been decieved, who were there, and witnessed it all, etc.

I know this doesn't prove anything, but I don't think I'm being too liberal in my argument to say that this warrants the raising of an eyebrow. To my knowledge there is no other supposed miracle in history that is attested to in this strange way (where those who most knew, were most willing to die to testify to it). There is no conceivably better way that I can think of to give historical testomy to a miracle.

I'm way off the subject. Sorry for the long side points, but it's the only way I can honestly try to answer all the really good objections, which I myself know well are not answered in any other way but this. (not this exactly, but by giving evidence of it's truth)

Posted by: John at November 18, 2004 07:23 PM

The question shouldn't be whether christianity is true, but rather:

what does it mean to be a christian?

Posted by: dave-o at November 19, 2004 06:35 AM

Aren't both questions relevant, Dave-o?

Posted by: Andy at November 19, 2004 06:48 AM

I don't think so.

Let's take a mathematical example for a moment.

Euclid proposes that parallel lines never meet. From that postulate, he derives a geometry that attempts to explain the world with points that form lines that form planes on which the shapes of the universe are defined.

A few thousand years later, Lobachevsky came along and refused to accept that parallel lines do not meet and claimed they intersect somewhere at infinity.

Both postulates cannot be proven, yet both these beliefs point to valid ways at describing the universe..

It does not matter which belief is true or false, but rather where it carries you. It is the same with Christianity. So, again the important question is not whether Christ is the Lord, that the Bible is true, but rather where that belief takes you.

How does it affect how you live? Are your core principals properly derrived from your belief?

So, I believe the question must be:

What does it mean to be a Christian?

Posted by: dave-o at November 19, 2004 10:03 AM

I’m quoting my dad here:

“Its true that you can have different sets of consistent axioms for math. But not all axioms are ‘true’ in the sense that they model the actual universe correctly. Euclidean geometry models flat space. It turns out that Euclidean geometry is the wrong model for our space though its a good approximation. So while Euclidean geometry is "true" in the sense that its internally consistent its not "true" if your thinking about providing an accurate model of how the space we live in actually works. Mathematicians don't care about physics. But physicist do.

You can accept Christianity as a set of axioms to live by. But Christianity is based on a historical proposition that is either true or not. The internal view of Christianity is that it would be a big mistake to follow Christ if the historical proposition is proved false. As Paul said ‘if Christ is not risen from the dead then we are of all men most pitiable.’ Eat drink and be merry.”

So I would say, Dave, that while mathematicians might not care about truth outside of an enclosed system, philosophers and theologians do. IF Christianity is true (which I realize is a big ‘if’ in this conversation), then there will be a time when it matters. I believe I was created by God, I believe I have strayed from God, and I believe that only God’s grace can save me from myself. If those things are not true, then I am wrong, and that matters to me. So you can throw up your hands and say that right and wrong don’t matter, but we’re not going to be able to have a conversation about it, because I don’t believe that Christianity is an enclosed system.

Here’s another metaphor. I believe our understanding of truth is like this. We are all inside a building. We were born in this building and we have never been outside. The doors are locked from the inside, which means that we can leave the building whenever we like, but will not be able to come back in. While we’re inside, we develop different theories about what the exterior of the building looks like. Our perception of the inside of the building is based on facts, things we can see and touch. Right now, I think you’re saying, “We can’t know what the exterior of the building looks like for certain, so for our purposes, there is no exterior.” And I’m telling you that, based on what I see around me, I believe this building is a church. I have walked around these rooms with that idea for some time, and I believe I have found more and more evidence that my theory is correct. So when you say the exterior doesn’t matter, I have to disagree. Because if we are in a church, then we might be expected to act like we’re in a church.

You’re saying that reality is a function of perspective. I agree that our perceived reality is a function of perspective, but it doesn’t follow to say that therefore there is no absolute reality beyond our perceptions. Faith is the belief that the perceived reality of the believer has some fundamental resemblance to reality in its most absolute form. Your position is perfectly consistent, but that doesn’t mean that I am wrong.

Posted by: Andy at November 19, 2004 12:35 PM

Andy,

I think you may be misunderstanding me.

I do think there is an absolute realty. I do not think all things are relative. However, I also believe the question of whether Christianity is true is a meaningless question.

To take your buliding metaphor...

I would say, "We cannot know what the outside of the building looks like, but there must be an exterior because something that has an inside must therefore have an outside (unless it's a mobius strip, which is neither here nor there). You think it looks like a Church. Okay. I agree. Let's suppose, it is a Church. What does that mean?"

It is the same with Christianity.

It is impossible to know whether it is true or false. People who try to disprove Christianity or God or absolute Truth miss the point because these things cannot be proven, despite what St. Anselm or Pascal or Nietzsche may say.

I grant that Christianity is true. Now, where does that belief take us? If I am a Christian, what do I believe? How should I act? How should I live?

I will grant your articles of faith as true: That God sent His only Begotten Son to Earth to save us, to die for our sins, and to rise three days later. What does this teach us about human interaction, grace, forgiveness, and love?

To answer those questions, points us toward God.

Look, Euclidian geomtry works, the Pythagorian Thereom works; it may not be percisely true for the realms of the very big or very small (i.e. curved space), but still to my eyes in this world of sense, I believe it. That does not mean I am not acrobatic of mind enough to embrace Lobechevsky as well, when the time is right.

In the Meno or Gorgias, I believe (its been a while), Socrates says that you must hold onto your belief in the face of all questioning becuase it is the questions that will carry one closer to Truth. And even if that core belief is somehow proven false or paradoxical, it still is a noble thing to hold in you heart.

We are human after all, striving to be better. Religion's purpose is to teach us how to treat one another. It is a construct (whether God's or our own) that points toward perfection. The crux of this argument is not wheter Christianity is true, but rather how it makes us interact with each other and the world around us.

Posted by: dave-o at November 20, 2004 08:26 AM

Okay, well the question of what it means to be a Christian is a good one. Obviously, the problem is that on the Sermon on the Mount Christ sets up an impossible standard for us to follow, so I believe a Christian is someone who strives for that ideal, regardless of how well they measure up. The ideal is to empty oneself of pride and recognize that all of our abilities and achievements are from God, and with that in mind to put the Kingdom of Heaven first. That means living for the next world, which is not a call to aestheticism, because (as Buddha pointed out) aestheticism is itself a way of focusing on the temporal. But it is not a complete rejection of the physical world in any case, which is why I have trouble with Augustine (a man whose ideas, as I understand it, may have had the most detrimental effect on the faith of any single Christian’s in history).

Christ says the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love each other. I believe we love God by obeying his commands and enjoying him through his creation. I believe we love each other, not just through abstract and passive tolerance, but through sacrificing for the people we come into contact with throughout our lives. This sacrifice comes in the form of giving up material things, our precious time and most of all emotional energy, which I believe is ultimately the hardest and most rewarding thing a person can give. And I think we have a duty to love the people who are closest to us first. I don't mean that in the sense that we should "take care of our own," but in the sense that it is only possible to love a person as well as we know them. I believe it's important that we all open our hearts to people suffering in the third world and be willing to sacrifice and give. But as valuable as the desire to help those people is, I think it's easy to love the world in theory and something else to actually go to these places and meet the people or to actually go out of your way to get to know the drug addict who lives on your street. And I don't believe having emotions for the abstract concept of suffering humanity is worth anything, if you can't look to the flawed suffering people in your immediate circle of family and friends and be loyal to them over the course of their lives regardless of how difficult it becomes. Real love can hurt a lot, as I believe Christ's incarnation showed us, because it requires constant forgiveness. But I believe the reward for this kind of love is the only thing worth living for.

I think that’s at the heart of the Christian message, and that a Christian living up to potential would be demonstrating this kind of love as much as they are able. Easier said than done, of course.

Posted by: Andy at November 20, 2004 09:30 AM

We are in agreement, which ironicly proves my point becuase I'm Jewish.

I have two questions.

1. What is it about Augustine that you find detrimental? It's been awhile since I read the Confessions (and I only slogged through a few pages of City of God), but I remember being deeply moved by his reflections....

and

2. Why do you think some of the folks eaves-dropping on Jeff's blog have gotten so upset when the word Christianity is invoked? Is it a sense of exclusion or something?

Isn't what you have described above exactly what we all should strive for regardless of religion?

Posted by: dave-o at November 20, 2004 02:23 PM

1. I was moved by his "Confessions" too when I read it. But the way the story goes is that Augustine heard a voice telling him to pick up the Bible and read. When he did this, he opened at random to Paul's "Make no provision for the flesh." And so he kicked his mistress out of the house (instead of marrying her), and renamed their child Adeodatus, which means "Gift of God" (as if his mistress had nothing to do with it). This lead to a firmly anti-sexual doctrine that has, in my opinion, been a plague on Christianity to this day. How different the world may have been, if he had opened to "Love your neighbor as yourself."

I believe that sexual immorality is a problem, and that there is good sexuality and bad sexuality. Obviously, we all agree on that, it's just a matter of where the boundaries are. Even sexually liberated people are against pedophilia for instance.

Maybe the anti-sexual aspects of the Christian religion would have gotten in there some other way, but I’ve read several commentators who credit the extent of it to Augustine, since his books were so widely read throughout the middle ages. I’m not an expert on Church history, so I’m just telling what other people have said.

But the anti-sexual stuff has lead to a lot of misogyny too, since women just couldn’t help being desirable and men throughout history have blamed them for that. I don’t believe that these ideas come from scripture or in any way from God.

2. I wouldn’t say that people who are upset by Christianity have a sense of exclusion in the sense that they’re being kept out of a club. If they wanted to be a part of it, they could always pursue it themselves. I think that everyone has a worldview, and that when they encounter very different worldviews they can become upset. The New Testament shows Christians that people will react this way to them again and again. The obvious example is how the mob eventually reacted to Christ.

What I think is wrong with the Left right now overall is that they don’t have this understanding. They’re still wedded to this Enlightenment idea that if they could just push back the veil of ignorance with reason, then everyone would see their point of view. This gives them the authority to believe they are right and to feel either condescension or pity towards those who don’t know what they know.

Christianity does not rely on pure reason but rather on faith. So it is our faith that causes us to believe that we are right. There cannot be any illusions about the nature of faith, when it is properly understood, so a Christian should never expect everyone to agree with them. Either a person has faith or they don’t. Christians still feel condescension and pity towards those who don’t believe, of course, but the point is that when they feel those things they are being un-Christian.

3. I’m not sure how to answer your last question. I have a deliberately Christ-centric worldview, so I believe that all good things come from God. Yes, of course, I believe all people should strive to be the way I described, but that’s because I believe all people should strive to be Christ-like. I can’t divorce that kind of love from Christ, because I believe that even if a person has never heard of Christ, they are mirroring God’s love when they love in that way. And I believe that Christ is God.

Posted by: Andy at November 20, 2004 03:36 PM

though i'm not really involved in the blood of this one {the tangential discussion, which isn't really all that tangential} i'm enjoying the read immensely.

though somewhat irrelevant, i am reminded of a song lyric from a favorite band. "trapped in a building, with the ghosts of all the people i've betrayed." {unbelievable truth}

a question: i believe that one can be "christlike" without following the bible [christianty] i presume that you feel they are mutually inclusive no?

more to comment on of course, but a walk in the woods with my wife demands immediate attention.

Posted by: jefferson pitcher at November 21, 2004 06:58 AM

One could say that they admire Christ and his teachings, they thought he lived a good life, appreciated how he dealt with the people he encountered, and therefore aspire to live their life like him. Therefore, being Christ-like. They wouldn't have to necessarily believe the entire Bible, in this instance, they would only be mimicing the lifestyle of a person they respect. So, I guess I would say yes, one could be Christ-like without following the entire Bible. But, at the same time, they wouldn't be able to do a very good job without the Holy Spirit. And it wouldn't be enough to "save" a person from eternal separation from God. That comes from believing that Christ was more than just a good guy, that He was, in fact, the Son of God and the only way to God, and that his crucifixion was a sacrifice intended to save mankind from their own personal sins. The Christians goal is to live like Christ, or at least, it ought to be. So while living a Christlike life without full belief in the Bible and who Jesus claimed he was will still cause one to have a better life, because essentially the Bible is teaching us how to do so, it would do the person little good in the long run. (And I mean, LONG run.) And they would still miss out on all of the blessings and benefits that come from that complete belief in Jesus. Does that make sense?

Posted by: Jodi at November 21, 2004 07:54 PM

Here's a popular C.S. Lewis quote that I think may have some sort of backhanded relevance to what we're talking about:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about [Jesus Christ]: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God.'

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell.

You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse .... You can shut him up for fool; you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.”

Posted by: Andy at November 21, 2004 08:14 PM

That quote really cuts through all the bull, now doesn't it? C.S. Lewis was good at that.

What I wonder, though, is if it's possible to accept Christ as the Son and yet not follow the the teachings of the Bible.
Suppose I accept that Christ is the divine made flesh. Does it then necessarily follow that the Bible is the book I must follow?

It's late so I'm going to have trouble articulating this, but here goes nothing;

Suppose I believe that the divine resides in us all in the same way it was born into Jesus, vey similar to Quakerism. It takes silence to allow the divine to speak, but if we are quiet enough, our divine natures will be heard. Both Preachers and the Bible seem unnecessary in this case.

Actually, as I write this, I see some flaws in this way of speaking, so let me try again.

If I have faith in the historical fact that God sent his only begotten son to earth to die for our sins, why must I believe the Bible's version of the tale?

The books of the New Testament are just a sampling of many different versions of the event, and these particular Gospels were decided on after much political wrangling. Isn't it possible to have faith in the exsistence of Christ and yet not believe the Bible?

Posted by: dave-o at November 21, 2004 10:52 PM

Dave-O,
I have problems with that. You are giving man too much credit. God would not allow man to destroy His Word or leave something out. I believe that the Bible we hold is exactly how God intended it to be, and therefore, I don't think one can truly believe that Jesus is the Son of God and not believe and follow the Bible's teachings. One can think he was a great guy, but not the Son of God. If you believe Jesus is God's son and what His death meant for you, then your life would be radically changed and you would want to know more. In wanting to know more, you would seek to read all you could about Him, from those who spent time with Him, etc. Thus, you read the Bible and see that it all ties together in an amazing way, and sooner or later you understand that you can't take away God's written word. It's also, often, how God speaks to us. And as I said on a previous post, there is incredible historical documentation for it's authenticity. Anyway, I'm getting off the point. But the Bible is not merely "one tale of the story."

Posted by: Jodi at November 22, 2004 08:02 AM

I think I know where you're both coming from, Dave and Jodi. I have bounced between these two positions quite a bit. I would agree that reading the Bible isn't a necessary step in becoming a Christian, in the sense that an illiterate person who was just told a version of the Gospel by word of mouth would have the necessary knowledge, I believe, to live for Christ. (I love the scene in "Amistad" when the protagonist identifies with Christ just by looking at the illustrations in a Bible.) But, of course, what we know of Christ comes to us through Bible, whether we physically sit and read it or not. Except what doesn't, and that's where the listening Quakers come in. My theory is something like this. I don't believe the Holy Spirit speaks to me in words. Conviction is an emotion, and as an emotion, it is untethered without language. We need to construct a narrative structure to give our emotions meaning. I believe that this is why art is so important, and why we need a work of literature like the Bible to give structure to the complex web of guilt, longing and love that exists in all of us. And so we have Christ. The name and historical story of Christ exist for us only in the Bible, and without that our connection to God can only be emotional. I think a true religion would have to operate on an intellectual and an emotional level at the same time, and so in order to grow as close to God as possible, we need to read the Bible and “listen” for his convictions. This is why I believe that it may be possible for people who have never heard of Christ to find God and be saved, but at the same time it was important that Christ live and tell his apostles to go out and spread the good news.

As far as the extra-biblical Gospels go, the ones I have looked at were not very convincing and scholars seemed to reject their validity. (By validity, of course, I don't mean whether or not they were inspired by God, but rather whether they were even written by someone who could have been a contemporary of Christ’s.) Are there any specific books you're referring to that you believe are likely written by men or women who were witnesses of Christ's ministry?

I tend to agree with Jodi, and believe that the highly political process of choosing the canon was nevertheless directed by God, because the vast majority of people who have come to know Christ over the centuries have read the New Testament books we have today. So I take it as an article of faith that these books are authentic. But if I read an extra-biblical Gospel that rang true to me, I would value it like any other work of literature, even though I would never know (and probably would not accept on faith) that it was a true Gospel, which was inspired by God.

Posted by: Andy at November 22, 2004 09:14 AM

The Gospel according to Thomas comes to mind, but I'll think about it some more.

Posted by: dave-o at November 22, 2004 09:37 AM

apologies folks...have to close this discussion as the spam is going crazy....please continue if you wish in one of the newer posts....

kindly~
j

Posted by: jefferson pitcher at November 26, 2004 08:28 AM