Ok, so I was starting to writing up my findings to date and was doing brief Google searches to get some more info on some people that other sources only briefly mentioned. Well one thing lead to another and I happened to come across a book called Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill - http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah-Conspiracy-Invent-Second/dp/1569754578. I thought to myself, 'hey lets read a bit through amazon.com just for kicks. You know, to see how much BS it is. I had been writing about the 3 types of sources that John Dickson discusses (1. skeptical, 2. Christian apologetics, and 3.mainstream scholarships), and thought, 'yup this has gotta fall into category 1 and so isn't worth my immediate attention as its probably not peer reviwed and approved by other 'real' scholars.'
Well I found what I read to be rather disturbing, and I was beginning to conjecture the origins of my brother's conspiracy theories surrounding Josephus. From reading his intro and a few reviews, Atwill essentially proposes that the Roman politicians invented peaceful Christianity to stop any further Jewish Messianic revolutionary actions. He considers how the Roman rulers were commissioning and connected to writers such as Flavius Josephus and Pliny (who writings scholars these days take as evidence for the existance of Jesus) and through them and the making up of the Gospels fabricated Jesus and Christianity. So basically, that Jesus didn't even exist and that Christianity is essentially a lie - a political plan to keep peace, order and power over the Jews.
I haven't read his book yet myself, but it seems that a lot of his ideas come from the connection between events in Joesphus' writings and the gospels. Other things like the date this is said to have happened and the noticeable boom of Christianity are also disturbing points.
The first thought that came to mind is if someone made it up, then wouldn't the people from the cities mentioned at the very least be aware that it's a lie and resist it? To answer that 2 points come up. 1. The Romans allegedly killed a lot of Jewish revolutionists in the era surrouding Jesus, so if anyone resisted their new religion they would have killed them to silence them. 2. i thought of Stalin and how he basically used fear to stamp religion out of Soviet Russia. If he could do it, so could Ceasar...
I dunno, even in Stalin's day though underground churches continued and he couldn't change what was really in people's hearts. So perhaps some sign of underground resistance would remain if Christianity was made up and believers of truth didn't want the lie to succeed.
The next thing that came to mind is that if they made it all up, then how did they come up with that kind of thing? I don't think I could just make up a religious text and pass it of as authentic sounding enough to full future generations. I mean, word is that someone like Joseph Smith just made up a religion, but as far as I know it's clear to those who look hard enough that it's fake...
I guess one of Atwill's challenging points is that the Romans who are said to have made it up deliberately wrote it so that it would seem to fulfil the OT and predict future events which they could ensure then happens to further convince people.
My immediate reaction was, 'crap, this guys argument has some solid substance going, now what?' Well the next move was to try to find some reviews on the article and see if anyone scholar tears it to shreds like they did The Da Vinci Code. So far I've managed to find 2 articles:
http://www.insmkt.com/ellensreview.htm
This guys concludes that it's a theory "worth exploring."
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm
I haven't read this one yet, but will do this weekend.
That's the closest I've found to scholarly responses thusfar. I'd like to see historian's POVs etc too.
So in short, unfortunately I can't just ignore this book and it's claims, as the guy is saying that the crux of Christianity - the NT is made up. Made up so ingeniously as to have corroborating writings that suggest Jesus was real. That's a huge claim, and it's gotta be dealt with.
In response to what I know JM will say, yes - you do have to read the sources themselves to evaluate it for yourself. I agree, for sure. But still I do wanna hear what scholars say about it. I personally don't want Atwill to be right, but as it's distubing, it's gotta be dealt with.
And I'm not the only one distubed by this. Check out http://www.apologetics.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=82622&page=all to see how other Christians have been stirred up a bit by this book.
Man I hate conspiracy theories, especially when they sound so possible.
Over n out for now.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
BCE and CE
My high school friend Julie Wilshire who is studying english and history at uni told me that BC and AD are no longer used. BCE and CE are now the letters that go with the years. They stand for Before Common Era and Common Era. I've done a tiny bit of general interest on it, 'cos I'm just curious. It seems both systems were developed along time ago and that it's changed for reaons of political correctness seeing as a lot of people aren't Christians anymore and the BC/AD are associated with Christianity. I got this info from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCE, and
http://web.archive.org/web/20071012132841/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060527/ai_n16436633
I was also interested in looking into it because I thought that maybe historians changes their minds about the historicity of Jesus or something crazy like that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCE, and
http://web.archive.org/web/20071012132841/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060527/ai_n16436633
I was also interested in looking into it because I thought that maybe historians changes their minds about the historicity of Jesus or something crazy like that...
Sunday, March 1, 2009
But wait there's more
Bad me, I know. No posts yet this week. I figured that a Thursday night post is dumb, 'cos it's not really the end of the week, so Sunday nights might be the go. I don't have much to say this round, as I haven't done any significant research on the topics of interest, other than identifying that the Reformation and other historical events that impacted which books are in the Bible today are probably going to be my next area of exploration. And of course, more OT research. Other than that, I've been reading my Bible a wee bit more, and am finding it more interesting and engaging with all the study note additions.
Hm, so I'll probably hold off 'til I've made some new discoveries and tell you all about them next time. Over and out!
Hm, so I'll probably hold off 'til I've made some new discoveries and tell you all about them next time. Over and out!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Origins, Fences and Plans
And the 'once a week entries' rule starts now...
Hmm, I would agree that thus far in these posts I've been procrastinating the bigger core issues that I've been wanting to explore via philosophical ramblings on perhaps smaller topics which can wait 'til the big fish have been fried. The main reason being that I wanted to get the dice rolling as I gather some sources and start the 'real' investigating.
The good news is that I actually have started :) The missing thing though has been me reflecting on it here and synthesizing both what I've learnt, my response/reaction, questions I have and tangents or links that should be followed up later on. In fact, I think that's a nice way to structure my regular posts. Let's make that into a simple dot point list:
1. What does the research say?
2.What do I think about this information - both on a personal level and in light of other information?
3.What other sources or topics have arisen from this research that is worth following up on or exploring another time?
4.What unanswered questions remain that I need to research further?
That of course is just the bare minimum of what I'd like to do here in these posts.
So the purpose of this post (seeing as it's bed time and all) is to give a brief summary of what I've looked at so far, where I'm at in terms of being a Christian, and what the plan is from here.
1. What I've looked at.
Just a summary for now.
Basically as I may have mentioned before, I've read a Lee Strobel article on Doubt in which 3 main points that I can remember came out:
a) It's ok to doubt and still be a Christian. I.e. Having doubts don't make u a non-Christian; and it's normal for Christians to strugle with doubts every once in a while.
b)Strobel thinks that people use doubts as an excuse to hide something deeper. Like hiding behind say a particular argument because you don't want to say give up your life for God or something like that was one of his examples. This got me wondering - gee, am I hiding some deeper resistance to Christianity? I think I wrote down some points about what me deeper reasons could be that I gotta look up
c)I forgot where he got this idea from (perhaps the Bible?), but Strobel thought that you basically come to something either wanting to believe or not, and that that will affect how you read things. That sounds a bit too simple - he was way more poetic and deep and I'll get back to that 'cos I think it's a really important point. Kinda scary too. It did, however, remind me of the commonsense concept of the 'gestalt' ( I think was the word), that cam up in my Science and Religion course back in 2007. The gestalt theory was pretty much that if u come to something with a preconceived view you will see what you want to see. But Strobel's point was a bit different....
I'll flesh these out better another time. Including who Lee Strobel is etc. I really want to make it clear where the information is coming from, how credible the sources are etc....
Ok, another thing which I've done is watched the 4 episodes of the 'Christ Files' documentary - made by our very own Aussie scholar John Dickson. If you're reading this Attila, I think you should watch it and I'd very much like to hear your thoughts. The cool thing about this doco, is that all the info comes from scholars and is therefore credible as they're the experts in the areas of the historicity of the Bible.
From the doco, it was made clear that there really was a historical figure names Jesus and that the New Testament documents about him are credible historical sources. More on the particulars later.
That basically has 2 implications or next steps:
a) If Jesus was a real person, then he must have been either a liar, a lunatic or Lord (I steal that phrase from FEVA and their poster ministry). That's pretty serious stuff and is worth checking out - c'os if he is Lord u'd be pretty dumb to ignorantly let that slip by.
As I'll explain later, historians basically think that the New Testament documents are the best source to get info about Jesus as it was written by the people who he hung out with, and also the people whospent time with the the ones Jesus hung out with. Essentially by witnesses. This in turn means that to do proper research on the matter, the New testament must be read and studied in detail. In fact, as the whole Bible is being explored for truth, i would agree with the point that you actually have to read what you're exploring before you can make educated responses to it. A long jouney indeed...
b) The Old Testament, what it says and its credibility are very important because they are essentially what point to Jesus' significance.
I haven't found much on the OT yet, so i gotta do that.
2. Where I'm at as a Christian
I guess I'm a bit of a fence sitter. I wanna believe Christianity and go with it, but the skepticism and doubts prevent me from whole-heartedly commiting to it and growing. My mission is to sort out the core doubts first so that I can commit to it properly and be a 'proper' Christian exploring doubts, rather than a fence sitter not getting anywhere in either direction.
I think part of the 'problem' is the influence of others upon me. Both your everyday non-Christian critique and members of the intelligentsia who downright look down on all things spiritual as being archaic - of an old age. I like having the ability to switch perspectives and empathesise with all views (or not just ignore new discoveries), but I think I've worked my way into an unhelpful corner of 'neutrality' at present. Even when I hardcore commit, as an educated member of society I:
a) don't want to lose the ability to objectively consider other people's perspectives; and
b)I've forgotten, hehe...
So gotta do more Bible reading etc as part of getting over this hurdle.
The Plan from here
So I guess the plan is 2 fold:
1. I'm starting with continuing my research of the historicity of the Bible; and
2.I'm gonna sit down and study the Bible with that little bit more effort. And yay, I'm finally gonna get once of those study Bibles. About time, aye?
So from hence forth, (hopefully), no more vagueness like 'I think it said etc'. This blog will updately track my journey so that I always have things to go back to and won't forget.
And someone please smack me if I don't keep this regular. Once a week minimun, ok? Peace out.
Hmm, I would agree that thus far in these posts I've been procrastinating the bigger core issues that I've been wanting to explore via philosophical ramblings on perhaps smaller topics which can wait 'til the big fish have been fried. The main reason being that I wanted to get the dice rolling as I gather some sources and start the 'real' investigating.
The good news is that I actually have started :) The missing thing though has been me reflecting on it here and synthesizing both what I've learnt, my response/reaction, questions I have and tangents or links that should be followed up later on. In fact, I think that's a nice way to structure my regular posts. Let's make that into a simple dot point list:
1. What does the research say?
2.What do I think about this information - both on a personal level and in light of other information?
3.What other sources or topics have arisen from this research that is worth following up on or exploring another time?
4.What unanswered questions remain that I need to research further?
That of course is just the bare minimum of what I'd like to do here in these posts.
So the purpose of this post (seeing as it's bed time and all) is to give a brief summary of what I've looked at so far, where I'm at in terms of being a Christian, and what the plan is from here.
1. What I've looked at.
Just a summary for now.
Basically as I may have mentioned before, I've read a Lee Strobel article on Doubt in which 3 main points that I can remember came out:
a) It's ok to doubt and still be a Christian. I.e. Having doubts don't make u a non-Christian; and it's normal for Christians to strugle with doubts every once in a while.
b)Strobel thinks that people use doubts as an excuse to hide something deeper. Like hiding behind say a particular argument because you don't want to say give up your life for God or something like that was one of his examples. This got me wondering - gee, am I hiding some deeper resistance to Christianity? I think I wrote down some points about what me deeper reasons could be that I gotta look up
c)I forgot where he got this idea from (perhaps the Bible?), but Strobel thought that you basically come to something either wanting to believe or not, and that that will affect how you read things. That sounds a bit too simple - he was way more poetic and deep and I'll get back to that 'cos I think it's a really important point. Kinda scary too. It did, however, remind me of the commonsense concept of the 'gestalt' ( I think was the word), that cam up in my Science and Religion course back in 2007. The gestalt theory was pretty much that if u come to something with a preconceived view you will see what you want to see. But Strobel's point was a bit different....
I'll flesh these out better another time. Including who Lee Strobel is etc. I really want to make it clear where the information is coming from, how credible the sources are etc....
Ok, another thing which I've done is watched the 4 episodes of the 'Christ Files' documentary - made by our very own Aussie scholar John Dickson. If you're reading this Attila, I think you should watch it and I'd very much like to hear your thoughts. The cool thing about this doco, is that all the info comes from scholars and is therefore credible as they're the experts in the areas of the historicity of the Bible.
From the doco, it was made clear that there really was a historical figure names Jesus and that the New Testament documents about him are credible historical sources. More on the particulars later.
That basically has 2 implications or next steps:
a) If Jesus was a real person, then he must have been either a liar, a lunatic or Lord (I steal that phrase from FEVA and their poster ministry). That's pretty serious stuff and is worth checking out - c'os if he is Lord u'd be pretty dumb to ignorantly let that slip by.
As I'll explain later, historians basically think that the New Testament documents are the best source to get info about Jesus as it was written by the people who he hung out with, and also the people whospent time with the the ones Jesus hung out with. Essentially by witnesses. This in turn means that to do proper research on the matter, the New testament must be read and studied in detail. In fact, as the whole Bible is being explored for truth, i would agree with the point that you actually have to read what you're exploring before you can make educated responses to it. A long jouney indeed...
b) The Old Testament, what it says and its credibility are very important because they are essentially what point to Jesus' significance.
I haven't found much on the OT yet, so i gotta do that.
2. Where I'm at as a Christian
I guess I'm a bit of a fence sitter. I wanna believe Christianity and go with it, but the skepticism and doubts prevent me from whole-heartedly commiting to it and growing. My mission is to sort out the core doubts first so that I can commit to it properly and be a 'proper' Christian exploring doubts, rather than a fence sitter not getting anywhere in either direction.
I think part of the 'problem' is the influence of others upon me. Both your everyday non-Christian critique and members of the intelligentsia who downright look down on all things spiritual as being archaic - of an old age. I like having the ability to switch perspectives and empathesise with all views (or not just ignore new discoveries), but I think I've worked my way into an unhelpful corner of 'neutrality' at present. Even when I hardcore commit, as an educated member of society I:
a) don't want to lose the ability to objectively consider other people's perspectives; and
b)I've forgotten, hehe...
So gotta do more Bible reading etc as part of getting over this hurdle.
The Plan from here
So I guess the plan is 2 fold:
1. I'm starting with continuing my research of the historicity of the Bible; and
2.I'm gonna sit down and study the Bible with that little bit more effort. And yay, I'm finally gonna get once of those study Bibles. About time, aye?
So from hence forth, (hopefully), no more vagueness like 'I think it said etc'. This blog will updately track my journey so that I always have things to go back to and won't forget.
And someone please smack me if I don't keep this regular. Once a week minimun, ok? Peace out.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Propaganda, Conditioning, Reasoning, and Objectivity
New rule: I will try to make one entry minimum a week. That way I will keep progressing along this journey and feel accountable if I slack of. Please send me a virtual slap if you find that I have failed to adhere to this rule.
Ok, so it's long weekend coming up and I wanna go to bed, so I'm gonna keep this entry short. The topics I'll be throwing up into the air is particularly things that i discussed with my oldest brother, Attila last week. I think it's good to document and reflect on his points in case I forget them and because some lead to big issues which will need to be explored all on their own.
Here's an outline:
-Propaganda
-Conditioning
-Biblical Contradictions - a God that condemns himself and a God of changing character
-The Historcity of the Bible and Jesus...more conspiracy theories
-Bible's appearance relative to homo sapien species existence on earth
Propaganda
When I came home on saturday night with a CD set called 'Tough Questions" by Matthias Media, given to me ny a friend, I showed it to Attila and offered to lend it to him sometime. He skimmed the contents page and rejected my offer - proclainimg that it's Christian Propaganda.
Well when you think about it, he's right. The talks are by a Christian. He's coming to it from a Christian perspective. The aim is to deal with issues Biblically such that one's faith will be strengethened afterwards.
Let's be nerdy about this and look up the dictionary definition of propaganda:
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Source:
"propaganda." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 23 Jan. 2009..
So then, technically speaking, Christian resources could be said to be propaganda as they are made publicly accessible, reflect the Christian views of the writers, and encourage others to see that point of view and perhaps either strengthen their faith, or help in the conversion process into deciding to be a Christian.
One could go so far as to say that Christian resources are something that Christians read just to reinforce what they already believe and reassure themselves that it's all true and that their's a biblical response to all the [important] issues in life.
But, I just wanna add 2 things to that. 2 responses to get a balanced point of view going:
1. As far as I know, the writers or speakers of Christian resources tend to be genuinely committed believers who believe that the Bible is true and therefore a valid source of authrity for responding to issues in the world. They are merely presenting their findings from the Bible. That is, putting forward the Bible's perspective. If there's any imperative for change or whatever, it's not the writer's authority, but the Bible's authority that demands it.
So then, rather than the writer going 'hey I wanna convert some people', or 'hey i wanna encourage these believers to continue believing', I think they're just trying to synthesise and summarise how the Bible responds to something and that the Bible itself is the force pushing a view.
2.We're surrounded by propaganda. From posters of Barrack Obama, through to ads for Coke, through to anything really. All things made by or said by humans have some degree of bias, no matter how slight, and so it's just a part of the world we live in. Sharing opinions, beliefs etc isn't a bad thing. So to put Christianity or its down on the claim that it's propaganda seems kinda weak. Propagandas are worth exploring as they are the front of some fact or idea - and it's good to expose oneself.
More
Hm, nah, I'm too tired. I'll continue this after I get some Zzzzs. Night!
Ok, so it's long weekend coming up and I wanna go to bed, so I'm gonna keep this entry short. The topics I'll be throwing up into the air is particularly things that i discussed with my oldest brother, Attila last week. I think it's good to document and reflect on his points in case I forget them and because some lead to big issues which will need to be explored all on their own.
Here's an outline:
-Propaganda
-Conditioning
-Biblical Contradictions - a God that condemns himself and a God of changing character
-The Historcity of the Bible and Jesus...more conspiracy theories
-Bible's appearance relative to homo sapien species existence on earth
Propaganda
When I came home on saturday night with a CD set called 'Tough Questions" by Matthias Media, given to me ny a friend, I showed it to Attila and offered to lend it to him sometime. He skimmed the contents page and rejected my offer - proclainimg that it's Christian Propaganda.
Well when you think about it, he's right. The talks are by a Christian. He's coming to it from a Christian perspective. The aim is to deal with issues Biblically such that one's faith will be strengethened afterwards.
Let's be nerdy about this and look up the dictionary definition of propaganda:
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Source:
"propaganda." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 23 Jan. 2009.
So then, technically speaking, Christian resources could be said to be propaganda as they are made publicly accessible, reflect the Christian views of the writers, and encourage others to see that point of view and perhaps either strengthen their faith, or help in the conversion process into deciding to be a Christian.
One could go so far as to say that Christian resources are something that Christians read just to reinforce what they already believe and reassure themselves that it's all true and that their's a biblical response to all the [important] issues in life.
But, I just wanna add 2 things to that. 2 responses to get a balanced point of view going:
1. As far as I know, the writers or speakers of Christian resources tend to be genuinely committed believers who believe that the Bible is true and therefore a valid source of authrity for responding to issues in the world. They are merely presenting their findings from the Bible. That is, putting forward the Bible's perspective. If there's any imperative for change or whatever, it's not the writer's authority, but the Bible's authority that demands it.
So then, rather than the writer going 'hey I wanna convert some people', or 'hey i wanna encourage these believers to continue believing', I think they're just trying to synthesise and summarise how the Bible responds to something and that the Bible itself is the force pushing a view.
2.We're surrounded by propaganda. From posters of Barrack Obama, through to ads for Coke, through to anything really. All things made by or said by humans have some degree of bias, no matter how slight, and so it's just a part of the world we live in. Sharing opinions, beliefs etc isn't a bad thing. So to put Christianity or its down on the claim that it's propaganda seems kinda weak. Propagandas are worth exploring as they are the front of some fact or idea - and it's good to expose oneself.
More
Hm, nah, I'm too tired. I'll continue this after I get some Zzzzs. Night!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Homo Sapien Species and God
Before I start thinking structurally here about the things I've started to read, I thought I'd put a few ideas forward.
1. It's ignorant to ignore evidence.
I can't pin point any particular example at this time, but in my experience I've found that some Christians just blatantly ignore, deny, or try to make excuses for evidence which does not initially seem to click with the Bible. One such area is science. The response to evolution, at least in it's dawn, is one classic example of this pig-headedness. Remember the classic debate where the Bishop denied Evolution and the scientist said he'd rather have an ape as his grandfather than an ignorant dude like him...or something like that. It's been a while since I did Biology back in year 12.
Hey, I love science. I think it's great, and I already decided that if I ever get over this animation gig or if it doesn't work out, I might re-train one day in something Biology related - maybe working with animals.
I digress. I'll be talking about and looking at scientific things and ideas later down the track. Quite frankly at this point, back from my Science and Religion course I decided to agree with the idea that science and religion do not clash. Main reason being that the Bible doesn't claim or intend to explain scientific things. It's purpose is the relationship between human beings and God.
So then how I've resolved a lot of the seeming conflicts between science and religion is to read it as 'yes the scientific evidence said it happened like this - so it probably did; and God oversaw/drove that process'.
But science is huge, and I wanna explore a bunch of distinct areas separately and in a lot more detail later. All I'm trying to get at through this point 1 is that some people don't open their minds to the challenges and just plain and simply ignore them. I can never be like that. I've always been and plan to stay broad-minded. And the main thing I wanna say is that if there is evidence there - you can't ignore the implications. Facts can't be disregarded. Theories may change with more evidence, but it's important to consider them. If experts in a field all agree on a hypotheses about certain facts, it's arrogant to hold your own opinions and conclusions above that.
In short, experts' finding on things are valid for consideration.
2. Humans are arrogant
I think that the Homo Sapien species, with our big brains, has become rather arrogant. We seem to think that we can know everything, and that what we conclude in our minds will impact the world around us. Don't believe me?
Anyone who's studied or read about the arts is probably familiar with the idea of relativity of truth - 'what you believe is true for you, but doesn't have to be true for me.' That kind of thing.
Well this is my response to that. An idea I put forward back in my science and religion course days. If something outside the system exists or is true - then it does not matter what you decide in your mind - that thing will still be there. It's like saying I don't believe there's life on any other planet in the whole universe and that's true for me - but if there actually is life out there then the truth is that there is life out there.
So in the case of God - if there is a God - deciding to believe that God does not exist, won't make him not exist. Our minds aren't that powerful. And that's the challenge I'd like to put forward to anyone who has never considered the possibility of a God.
Okay, let's play out this hypotheses further. Supposing there is a God, and that he oversaw and directed the creation of the universe - then:
a) anything is possible for him
b) it's completely up to him what he lets us know about him and how he reveals that information
c) it's arrogant to think that by human power alone we can test or prove him. We're just puny creatures in this universe after all.
So I think it is safe to conclude that:
a)There is definitely a possibility that a God may exist; and
b)Humans need to learn a bit of humility regarding what they think they're capable of.
You might be thinking - 'hey, but aren't u trying to prove God?'. Nah, not really. I don't think you can - unless he let you. My mission is more examining Christianity to see if it's the possible means through which this possible God has revealed himself to/communicated with us homo sapiens.
3. Is the concept of a God archaic?
And just one last idea I wanted to put out there. It ties back to science a bit. Some people (I'll be more specific when i research it) have suggested that the idea of God was made up by people to explain things they didn't understand. They go on to suggest that now that science explains these things, we don't need this God concept.
Well, my knowledge isn't broad enough yet, but I think this is true of some more 'tribal' religions. For example religions of the past where human sacrifices were made to say make it rain, or to keep the sun happy so it'd rise the next day. But I don't really think it's true of the surviving religions of today. Like I said earlier, from what I gather the Bible doesn't claim to try to explain the scientific hows of the world.
Some would suggest that no, what the Bible is trying to do is encourage people to be good. Well if that's the case, the elders over many generations managed to do a pretty good fluke job of getting a consistent message across the Bible. More exploration of these sorts later.
And the other areas I was thinking about where someone might suggest that God is being used to 'fill in the gaps' are:
1. In response to the argument that there must be a God because otherwise this would all be chance.
2. In response to someone saying that God oversaw/sees something like evolution. For example I have a big issue with the Evolution theory. While I observe the facts and agree that the current theories are the most logical, I just find it hard to picture so many mutations conveniently occurring across whole species. I mean, little things are easy to imagine - but seeing as the mutation has to be genetic and exist within the reproductive organs eggs/sperms to be carried across to the next generations, it's hard to imagine young born with drastic changes that would over time change them completely. I have no problem with the Galapagas island birds etc, it's more the like how did a fish manage to ultimately turn into a human.
One answer that seems possible is that God oversaw it and drove the right mutations at the right time - but that's the part I though 'fill-in-gap' types might attack....
Anyways, I've run out of time, so I'll leave it at that for now.
1. It's ignorant to ignore evidence.
I can't pin point any particular example at this time, but in my experience I've found that some Christians just blatantly ignore, deny, or try to make excuses for evidence which does not initially seem to click with the Bible. One such area is science. The response to evolution, at least in it's dawn, is one classic example of this pig-headedness. Remember the classic debate where the Bishop denied Evolution and the scientist said he'd rather have an ape as his grandfather than an ignorant dude like him...or something like that. It's been a while since I did Biology back in year 12.
Hey, I love science. I think it's great, and I already decided that if I ever get over this animation gig or if it doesn't work out, I might re-train one day in something Biology related - maybe working with animals.
I digress. I'll be talking about and looking at scientific things and ideas later down the track. Quite frankly at this point, back from my Science and Religion course I decided to agree with the idea that science and religion do not clash. Main reason being that the Bible doesn't claim or intend to explain scientific things. It's purpose is the relationship between human beings and God.
So then how I've resolved a lot of the seeming conflicts between science and religion is to read it as 'yes the scientific evidence said it happened like this - so it probably did; and God oversaw/drove that process'.
But science is huge, and I wanna explore a bunch of distinct areas separately and in a lot more detail later. All I'm trying to get at through this point 1 is that some people don't open their minds to the challenges and just plain and simply ignore them. I can never be like that. I've always been and plan to stay broad-minded. And the main thing I wanna say is that if there is evidence there - you can't ignore the implications. Facts can't be disregarded. Theories may change with more evidence, but it's important to consider them. If experts in a field all agree on a hypotheses about certain facts, it's arrogant to hold your own opinions and conclusions above that.
In short, experts' finding on things are valid for consideration.
2. Humans are arrogant
I think that the Homo Sapien species, with our big brains, has become rather arrogant. We seem to think that we can know everything, and that what we conclude in our minds will impact the world around us. Don't believe me?
Anyone who's studied or read about the arts is probably familiar with the idea of relativity of truth - 'what you believe is true for you, but doesn't have to be true for me.' That kind of thing.
Well this is my response to that. An idea I put forward back in my science and religion course days. If something outside the system exists or is true - then it does not matter what you decide in your mind - that thing will still be there. It's like saying I don't believe there's life on any other planet in the whole universe and that's true for me - but if there actually is life out there then the truth is that there is life out there.
So in the case of God - if there is a God - deciding to believe that God does not exist, won't make him not exist. Our minds aren't that powerful. And that's the challenge I'd like to put forward to anyone who has never considered the possibility of a God.
Okay, let's play out this hypotheses further. Supposing there is a God, and that he oversaw and directed the creation of the universe - then:
a) anything is possible for him
b) it's completely up to him what he lets us know about him and how he reveals that information
c) it's arrogant to think that by human power alone we can test or prove him. We're just puny creatures in this universe after all.
So I think it is safe to conclude that:
a)There is definitely a possibility that a God may exist; and
b)Humans need to learn a bit of humility regarding what they think they're capable of.
You might be thinking - 'hey, but aren't u trying to prove God?'. Nah, not really. I don't think you can - unless he let you. My mission is more examining Christianity to see if it's the possible means through which this possible God has revealed himself to/communicated with us homo sapiens.
3. Is the concept of a God archaic?
And just one last idea I wanted to put out there. It ties back to science a bit. Some people (I'll be more specific when i research it) have suggested that the idea of God was made up by people to explain things they didn't understand. They go on to suggest that now that science explains these things, we don't need this God concept.
Well, my knowledge isn't broad enough yet, but I think this is true of some more 'tribal' religions. For example religions of the past where human sacrifices were made to say make it rain, or to keep the sun happy so it'd rise the next day. But I don't really think it's true of the surviving religions of today. Like I said earlier, from what I gather the Bible doesn't claim to try to explain the scientific hows of the world.
Some would suggest that no, what the Bible is trying to do is encourage people to be good. Well if that's the case, the elders over many generations managed to do a pretty good fluke job of getting a consistent message across the Bible. More exploration of these sorts later.
And the other areas I was thinking about where someone might suggest that God is being used to 'fill in the gaps' are:
1. In response to the argument that there must be a God because otherwise this would all be chance.
2. In response to someone saying that God oversaw/sees something like evolution. For example I have a big issue with the Evolution theory. While I observe the facts and agree that the current theories are the most logical, I just find it hard to picture so many mutations conveniently occurring across whole species. I mean, little things are easy to imagine - but seeing as the mutation has to be genetic and exist within the reproductive organs eggs/sperms to be carried across to the next generations, it's hard to imagine young born with drastic changes that would over time change them completely. I have no problem with the Galapagas island birds etc, it's more the like how did a fish manage to ultimately turn into a human.
One answer that seems possible is that God oversaw it and drove the right mutations at the right time - but that's the part I though 'fill-in-gap' types might attack....
Anyways, I've run out of time, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Time to Stop Being Lazy
Hi. My name is Nicolette Kiss. I call myself a Christian, but I've found that in the past few years I've been drifting away from God, rather than growing closer to him. Before I tell my story, and state the purpose of this blog, I wanna say that I think this blog could be both interesting and helpful to both Christians and non-Christians. I struggle with the kinds of doubts that non-Christians use to 'attack' Christianity. Because quite frankly, I often find that they have good points that I don't know how to respond to. So I think that both people who launch those arguments and Christians who struggle with them could benefit from my journey to explore and hence deal with them.
Ok, so here's my brief story. As a kid my parents casually attended a church which spoke their language - Hungarian. My bro and I were occassionally put into sunday school where the language was simple enough for us to learn some stuff, but most of the time we were stuck with the old people in the adults church and I was bored as hell. I remember just staring at my watch and observing the hour drag by very slowly. The good part was the food afterwards, and the park in that suburb...
So as a young kid my understanding of this whole Christian business was very vague. I knew about the major Christian stories, but I didn't really know what Christianity was all about. I also wasn't sure if Jesus was real or not.
Later on my mum turned learning scripture into a boring chore by making my bro and I sit with her for say an hour after school and read old language bibles in both English and Hungarian teamed with some Hungarian narratives or poems. That wasn't the way to get a kid's interest. I remember tuning out and playing my gameboy when it was my bro's turn to read...
Ok, so it was only in high school that I really came to know what Christianity was really about and actually got interested in it and believed it myself. I attended voluntary lunch time bible studies and learnt heaps. At some point in high school I also discovered that from a historical point of view Jesus was a real person. A guy named Jesus actually existed! And that was really important because Christianity 100% depends on this Jesus figure.
And then about mid high school my mum wanted my bro and me to get Confirmed - in Hungarian!! Yeah right? I wasn't about to do something I didn't understand. So my mum yielded to the rebellious teenage me and we started going to a local English church (St Lukes Liverpool) so we could get undergo the Confirmation in English. So began my journey of learning heaps more. The young mind is like a sponge and throughout those high school years I was really quite challenged and fascinated by all the interesting things I'd learnt about Christianity. By the end of high school I felt quite familiar with the main Christian ideas and felt I understood what it's really all about. One thing that I hadn't expected when I started out was to discover that Christianity is not just a Sunday thing. That it demands an impact on your whole life. In case I've lost any of the non-Christian readers, what I mean by that is that the Bible tells us that we need to surrender our lives and wants up for Jesus. A quote about taking up your cross says it all...
It seemed that things would go on as usual once I'd started uni. I attended church, church and uni bible studies, and the 2005 and 2006 MYC (mid-year conferences) - which were all very useful in advancing my knowedge of Christainity.
So what happened? Well, when a person goes to university they're encouraged to question what they believe. In terms of Christian beliefs, I didn't really do that back at school. I kind of just went with it 'cos my family was already kinda Christian and all. But a few things popped up during uni years that awakened the skeptic inside of me.
Well I guess that one force that's existed before uni is my bro-in-law and my fallen-away 2 oldest Christian siblings. Time and again, usually around Christmas they've launched their missiles agaisnt Christianity. They have their share of interesting points worth exploring.
One of the things that first struck home for me was, alas, 'The Da Vinci Code.' With its seamless blend of 'history' and fiction, a few scary but reasonable possibilities came out. Most important was 'could Constantine have really invented the whole Jesus being divine?' idea.
I bookmarked the issues of concerns, and wrote down my doubts on a contact card at church. My minister got back to me with a stack of articles that rebutted 'The Da Vinci Code." I confess I never got through them all (but I still have them), but the rebuttal to the Constantine thing seemed quite reasonable - that the churches had already agreed upon the biblical truths and preached them long before Constantine was ever born.
Aside from that, my fallen-away oldest bro leant us a non-religiously motivated documentary that basically crushed most of Dan Brown's so called facts as BS. I was content with that, and I was too lazy to bother with the issue any further.
Then in 2006 I did a correspondance subject with Moore Theological College called 'Intro to the Bible' which really showed how the Bible goes together and how the same message flows through the whole thing.
And then in 2007, I did a 'Science and Religion' general education course at uni, and through the online forums and debates, as well as from the lectures, a whole bunch of 'new' dounts surfaced. And I didn't do anything about it. I got lazy and they've been knawing at my brain for over a year now, such that I've forgotten what most of the doubts even were (though I do have my notes and could - and will - find them again).
So where does that leave me? It has left me divided in a battle between the skeptic and the believer inside of me. Because there's a chance that Christianity is real and of all the consequences that follow, the stakes are too high to just let the doubts cave in and be victorious. Similarly, I can't just ignore the doubts because they're very reasonable and need to be explored and solved before they can be buried, etc.
This all basically means that I've been feeling like a rather poisoned Christian. Every time I hear a sermon, read a bible passage or even watch/hear about other people's experiences in their Christian walks I wonder if it's real. I wonder if we're just deluding ourselves. But at the same time, I wonder how the Bible written over so many centuries could fit so well together if a single divine author wasn't guiding it all....
All this is really no good, and I can't progress if I don't do something about it. I'm the kind of person who can get really good or 'smart' at something if I really want to and apply myself to it. I've been pretty lazy with this Christian gig, and starting from this year I've decided that it's gotta stop. In order to be healthy physically, mentally and spiritually I need to deal with these doubts.
And so begins my journey. I encourage you to share your thoughts, point to resources you might think are helpful, ask questions or just out right challenge anything I say or discover. Bring it on!
Ok, so here's my brief story. As a kid my parents casually attended a church which spoke their language - Hungarian. My bro and I were occassionally put into sunday school where the language was simple enough for us to learn some stuff, but most of the time we were stuck with the old people in the adults church and I was bored as hell. I remember just staring at my watch and observing the hour drag by very slowly. The good part was the food afterwards, and the park in that suburb...
So as a young kid my understanding of this whole Christian business was very vague. I knew about the major Christian stories, but I didn't really know what Christianity was all about. I also wasn't sure if Jesus was real or not.
Later on my mum turned learning scripture into a boring chore by making my bro and I sit with her for say an hour after school and read old language bibles in both English and Hungarian teamed with some Hungarian narratives or poems. That wasn't the way to get a kid's interest. I remember tuning out and playing my gameboy when it was my bro's turn to read...
Ok, so it was only in high school that I really came to know what Christianity was really about and actually got interested in it and believed it myself. I attended voluntary lunch time bible studies and learnt heaps. At some point in high school I also discovered that from a historical point of view Jesus was a real person. A guy named Jesus actually existed! And that was really important because Christianity 100% depends on this Jesus figure.
And then about mid high school my mum wanted my bro and me to get Confirmed - in Hungarian!! Yeah right? I wasn't about to do something I didn't understand. So my mum yielded to the rebellious teenage me and we started going to a local English church (St Lukes Liverpool) so we could get undergo the Confirmation in English. So began my journey of learning heaps more. The young mind is like a sponge and throughout those high school years I was really quite challenged and fascinated by all the interesting things I'd learnt about Christianity. By the end of high school I felt quite familiar with the main Christian ideas and felt I understood what it's really all about. One thing that I hadn't expected when I started out was to discover that Christianity is not just a Sunday thing. That it demands an impact on your whole life. In case I've lost any of the non-Christian readers, what I mean by that is that the Bible tells us that we need to surrender our lives and wants up for Jesus. A quote about taking up your cross says it all...
It seemed that things would go on as usual once I'd started uni. I attended church, church and uni bible studies, and the 2005 and 2006 MYC (mid-year conferences) - which were all very useful in advancing my knowedge of Christainity.
So what happened? Well, when a person goes to university they're encouraged to question what they believe. In terms of Christian beliefs, I didn't really do that back at school. I kind of just went with it 'cos my family was already kinda Christian and all. But a few things popped up during uni years that awakened the skeptic inside of me.
Well I guess that one force that's existed before uni is my bro-in-law and my fallen-away 2 oldest Christian siblings. Time and again, usually around Christmas they've launched their missiles agaisnt Christianity. They have their share of interesting points worth exploring.
One of the things that first struck home for me was, alas, 'The Da Vinci Code.' With its seamless blend of 'history' and fiction, a few scary but reasonable possibilities came out. Most important was 'could Constantine have really invented the whole Jesus being divine?' idea.
I bookmarked the issues of concerns, and wrote down my doubts on a contact card at church. My minister got back to me with a stack of articles that rebutted 'The Da Vinci Code." I confess I never got through them all (but I still have them), but the rebuttal to the Constantine thing seemed quite reasonable - that the churches had already agreed upon the biblical truths and preached them long before Constantine was ever born.
Aside from that, my fallen-away oldest bro leant us a non-religiously motivated documentary that basically crushed most of Dan Brown's so called facts as BS. I was content with that, and I was too lazy to bother with the issue any further.
Then in 2006 I did a correspondance subject with Moore Theological College called 'Intro to the Bible' which really showed how the Bible goes together and how the same message flows through the whole thing.
And then in 2007, I did a 'Science and Religion' general education course at uni, and through the online forums and debates, as well as from the lectures, a whole bunch of 'new' dounts surfaced. And I didn't do anything about it. I got lazy and they've been knawing at my brain for over a year now, such that I've forgotten what most of the doubts even were (though I do have my notes and could - and will - find them again).
So where does that leave me? It has left me divided in a battle between the skeptic and the believer inside of me. Because there's a chance that Christianity is real and of all the consequences that follow, the stakes are too high to just let the doubts cave in and be victorious. Similarly, I can't just ignore the doubts because they're very reasonable and need to be explored and solved before they can be buried, etc.
This all basically means that I've been feeling like a rather poisoned Christian. Every time I hear a sermon, read a bible passage or even watch/hear about other people's experiences in their Christian walks I wonder if it's real. I wonder if we're just deluding ourselves. But at the same time, I wonder how the Bible written over so many centuries could fit so well together if a single divine author wasn't guiding it all....
All this is really no good, and I can't progress if I don't do something about it. I'm the kind of person who can get really good or 'smart' at something if I really want to and apply myself to it. I've been pretty lazy with this Christian gig, and starting from this year I've decided that it's gotta stop. In order to be healthy physically, mentally and spiritually I need to deal with these doubts.
And so begins my journey. I encourage you to share your thoughts, point to resources you might think are helpful, ask questions or just out right challenge anything I say or discover. Bring it on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
