So I’m a Bit Thick–So What?

Tags

atheists, bible, biblical literalism, fundamentalists, Non-Believers, religious right

Okay, so I’m a bit sloooow. I trust that God is persistent and when he wants me to address something he sticks it in front of me until I finally notice, usually for me about three times. So, I’m actually improving, cuz this time it only took twice.

Let me ‘splain.

I’ve been a ranting now and again about how atheists only attack one particular brand of Christianity, that being fundamentalism. And it’s like, hey, don’t you people even KNOW that there are other kinds?

Well, yes, I got that answer finally admitted to me in a couple of places. Richard Beck at Experimental Theology alluded to the same thing–that most atheism is directed at the far right, which is why most liberal/progressive Christians don’t have a lot of critical response to most atheist writing–we tend to agree with it.

Now, recently an atheist blogger confirmed that this is in fact true, so I can rest easy, knowing that I’m not crazy. They know the difference, he insisted, but they attack that which is dangerous. They have no real quarrel with us progressives, live and let live ya know. (I’ve searched diligently for the post, but can’t find it alas. I guess I should save every post in my reader that I even remotely think I might use some day!)

But a new point was pushed forward at Unreasonable Faith yesterday, and the point is well taken I think. He suggested that our time would be better spent in debating with the fundies than with them. I mean, we need not keep reminding them that we don’t adhere to all the silly nonsense of the far right. They admittedly, as I’ve just said, know that.

By doing so we can be part of the solution. Now, I admit, this seems at odds with things I’ve said repeatedly–namely that you cannot for the most part dislodge most fundamentalists from their literalistic beliefs. They are way way too important to their overall well-being.

And there is something decidedly unchristian, I admit, in carrying on an ugly yelling match with folks who aren’t listening in the first place. But, and it’s a qualified but, there is something to what VorJack has to say. We can calmly and quietly, simply post another point of view, without all the pejorative words and flash points.  We can set the record straight, at least on those blogs that won’t simply delete our comments.

Beck, upon rereading his post, said essentially the same thing. Who better than we, who are also believers to take on the burden reminding others that there are other ways of looking at the bible and its teachings.

I realized a rather amazing thing. While I have be assiduous in maintaining some minimum contact with the conservative political right, (monitoring some blogs and bringing some of their arguments to your attention) I have utterly ignored the religious right both in blogroll and in reader. I owe, it would seem, at least some minimal attention to what they are saying. (the fact that I can guess pretty accurately is of no import really.)

So in the spirit of  whatever, I’ve been searching for blogs that focus on biblical literalism. So far I have located one excellent one called Sharper Iron. I’m not sure I’m using the best search words, and so far the atheist community has not come forth with any good ones per my request of them.

So I enlist your help dear readers. Should you know of any that you look at or have seen, please let me know. I guess we have some duty to attempt to clean our own house.

 Admittedly, our right wing brethren have been making life hard on us liberal Christians. They are often an embarrassment and we should not simply take the higher road and ignore them. In all we can be pleasant and civil, but we must stand against such wrong thinking.

Looking at the horror that is the new Arizona law against immigrants, I have been interested to watch who is speaking out against it. I note that it sadly seems to be largely the liberal/progressive arm of the Christian Church. That is simply wrong. Each and every Christian should be against this mean spirited and evil law.

So that is that, and when I get a few fundie blogs together, I’ll put them in a separate category on the blogroll for your perusal, should you be so inclined.

Oh and hey, did you hear? Glenn Beck, has been asked and agreed apparently to be the speaker at Liberty U’s commencement! Now, thinking about that, somehow, I guess it fits. Liberty U is no university worth calling itself one, and Glenn Beck is no human worth calling himself. . . . well you get the idea. Just crazy as hell isn’t it?

The Evolution of God

Tags

agnosticism, bible, Book Reviews, Christianity, evolution, fundamentalism, God, Islam, Judaism, Koran, Non-Believers, nonzerosum, psychology, Robert Wright, The Evolution of God

Those of you who are regular readers of this blog know that my book reviews tend to be favorable. I’ve explained that as the result of not asking for books that I don’t seriously want to read because of the perceived reading matter or because of my experience with the author.

This is no exception to that, but where I might say, I recommend this book highly and you will enjoy it, in this case, I would state you NEED to read this book. And the people who need to read it are virtually everyone who cares about the future of this planet.

I thank Little Brown & Company for the opportunity to review Robert Wright’s latest book, The Evolution of God. Robert Wright needs no build up by me, his credentials are extraordinary. His books are regularly in the top or near top of the NYTimes 10 best books of the year. His book Nonzero was required reading by then President Clinton’s staff.

In a time when religion is facing some of it’s greatest challenges of how to deal with an increasingly global world, and not doing it very well in turning increasingly toward fundamentalist bunker mentalities, Wright offers us hope. And that hope is surprising in many ways.

Ironically, yesterday I took aim at what I consider intellectual stupidity,  in the guise of atheism. Those who espouse such an intellectually devoid position need to read this book, as do agnostics. Believers as well need to face the truth of their religions. None will find complete comfort for their positions, none will be bereft of cause for some optimism.

Wright traces the “evolution” of God from the hunter-gather society, through chiefdoms and city states, and into nations. He makes a probing and well documented argument, that as writers about God have striven to help their respective peoples over the ages to achieve success, they have spoken of and defined God in a way that assisted that goal of success.

He pulls the Old Testament apart, rearranging it into a historical timeline and in so doing allows us to see the emerging God Yahweh grow and change as circumstances on the ground evolve and change. Successful religions do this, unsuccessful ones remain mired, digging in their heels as it were, and fall off the pages of history.  In subsequent chapters he does the same for the New Testament and then the Koran.

The agnostic will exclaim that this “proves” that God is the manufacture of the human mind, developed to support whatever enterprise the human group wishes to undertake. And they would be right, to a point. The believer will find much that is satisfying to them as well. Religion tends to under gird moral necessities of survival. As our societies grow larger and family/friend restraints lessen as we engage with more and more strangers, religion can function as the means by which we curtail behavior that is counterproductive of what he calls non-zerosumness.

Non-zerosumness is that ground situation where groups who are different find advantage in tolerance to achieve win-win scenarios. In other words, if my God is tolerate of your God, then our respective peoples can trade goods and services that benefit both our peoples. This helps change the dynamic, allowing us all to achieve a greater understanding and empathy of “other.”

What is amazing about Wright’s presentation, is that he, a clear agnostic, who claims that he doesn’t have the background to take on the “is there a God” argument,  ends up making the best case I’ve ever read for the existence of God. Or at least, enough of an argument that no one who is a believer should be criticized by anyone for being so.

What Wright argues is that we can demonstrate that over the history of humanity, there has been a real movement toward empathy and a morality, and he argues that this resulting truth is evidence of a divine causation. He doesn’t claim it must be divine, only that it can be. He uses as analogy the “existence” of an electron. Scientists have never seen one, but they claim to see the results of what they describe as an electron. It is somewhat like a particle, something like a wave, it is hard to describe, but it seems to have a result that is definable. So too God.

The result, Wright tells us, is that history moves toward good, truth, love, and all that that entails. He traces this through the Abrahamic religions, and how God has evolved in each of them from warrior, belligerent, retributive, to loving, tolerant, open to “other,” and inclusive. Here is where Robert Wright sees the hope.

In so far as we continue to propel forth those positive “attributes” of  “God,” we can find solutions to our present growing chaos. We are at the moment fighting fundamentalism in all three of our major religions of “The Book.” Rightly seen, we cannot kill all the terrorists, and to the degree that we kill too many innocents in our attempts to do so, we fuel the recruitment of more terrorists. We must, as  it were, realize, accept and embrace that most Muslims are like we are, desiring the same things we desire out of life. To the degree that most Muslims are happy with their lives, the less likely they are to strap on suicide vests. Of course, Muslims need to work from the other side, as do Jews.  In other words, we, the majority who are moderate people in all faiths, must see our commonality and band together in a non-zerosum game of mutually assured salvation.

In all, Wright makes a rather brilliant argument, and provides his own non-zero sumness in showing us how we can proceed. Nobody, agnostic or believer, gets everything they want from this book, but we get enough, and we, if we try, can see the other point of view in a clearer, more empathic way. That is where we can start. We have a long way to go, but we have a history that is, despite the slides and dips, ever upward. Shall we continue to climb? That is the question Robert Wright asks us.

*** I don’t usually do this, but I read two other fine, fine reviews of this book. Since I am not a professional, lest there be any doubt in your mind about whether you should buy it, please read the reviews of :

Andrew Sullivan, well known academic, author and writer,

Lisa Miller, Newsweeks religious editor.

Don’t Blame God (Part VI) (The End)

Tags

agnosticsm, bible, fundamentalism, God, Journey, Non-Believers, religion, theology

I have been periodically answering some claims made by a person who says he “lost” his faith. I think in the end it becomes rather more clear that said person never had a real faith. Certainly when he came up against logical issues with faith as he understood it, he was not motivated to look for a way to reconcile those issues with the faith he was presented. Pity he did not. He might have found some answers.

In any case, this person now declares himself an atheist. And sad to say, his blog is not the thoughtful questioning  I had hoped it would be, but is the more common one which consists of  making fun of a faith tradition and making claims that are unsupported by real facts. In so doing, the speaker, doesn’t realize that the person who is made to look silly is himself, mostly for a childish, pedantic, and ill-informed list of claims about what Christianity lacks in his opinion.

I have often said that I find seasoned atheists rather intellectually challenging. They seldom engage in snickering jokes about believers and call them names. They don’t refer to God as an “imaginary friend,” and liken Him to the Easter bunny. They are wise enough to actually know a few things. But in reality, most intellectual atheists are way to smart to really be atheists at all, which is why they differ so magnificently from the wannabe atheists.

Definitionally speaking, an atheist denies the existence of God. That doesn’t get us very far does it? I can deny the existence of a material reality and claim that we are all living an illusion. As long as no one asks me to prove my claim, I’m proudly the holder of it. And the atheist too, can deny that God exists, and when he proves that God does not exist, then he can continue with that appellation.

The atheist will protest that he does not have to prove a negative, that it is incumbent on the believer to prove the existence of God. I suppose that is correct as far as debate rules go, but then, we aren’t debating. I have no particular interest to “prove” the existence of God, for I believe that intellectually, that cannot be done. I make one claim only, well, actually two.

First I claim that I believe that God exists, and second, I claim that it is rational for a human being to come to that conclusion. Not that the atheist should or must, but that it can be rational for anyone who does so believe, to believe.

So the atheist, if he wants to prove that he has the right to ridicule me for believing, better darn well prove that God doesn’t exist. Otherwise I have no patience with you, because you are merely expressing your lack of knowledge of what can and what cannot be proven.

The agnostic, on the other hand, doesn’t fall into this trap. The agnostic says, I find there is no believable evidence for God’s existence, and I’m not sure there is any means by which God can be proven ever. So I maintain that I have no idea and no one else does either. That is a position that is sensible and I can relate to. For I agree, God is not provable, except to one who already believes. When you believe, you can find any number of reasons why you believe. They do not meet an objective test however, and that must be admitted.

 Either you have experienced that something, that creates within you a certainty of belief, or you haven’t. And frankly, we don’t feel that certain every day. Plenty of the time, we question, we doubt, we spend hours of time thinking, trying to reconcile things that don’t make sense. There is not a thing wrong with that. That is what drives us in part to continue searching on this marvelous journey.

Contrary to the second illustration above, anyone who discards God because of the standard fundamentalist litany of Christianity, was never much of a believer in the first place. They are the ones who were “raised” in a faith, but never paid much attention to it. When confronted with real facts that some things in the bible were not as reported, they are shocked and then use this as an excuse to walk away. God is a joke. I know this because I found out that the  Bible isn’t reliable as “the word of God.” So goes their thinking.

Now they can start a blog and look up neat websites that list all the inconsistencies in the bible, and they can look up neat quotes of other non-believers, and they can post sentences here and there from ancient believers who make statements of their present realities which we find archaic and not in keeping with scientific knowledge. Haha, aren’t we somethin’? Sticking it to the Christians, those dopes who believe in all this voodoo.

And guess what? They are the ones who are silly. Because they are so limited in their understanding of any religion that they didn’t know they barely scraped the surface of what it is about. Most of us didn’t get stuck in fundamentalism. We realized it for its extreme limitations and we long ago moved on. We have matured, need I say, and our theology of God reflects that maturation.

It is in the end, too boring and tiresome to talk to adults about faith when they are at the child’s level and most of us are at least still moving along the path. We haven’t figured it all out, or even a tiny bit of it rightly probably, but we have realized that it is our responsibility as creature to make the effort to discern God, not God’s responsibility to hand it to us in some singsong simplistic fashion. In that effort, God supports us, I’m convinced, and guides us to what we need to read, what tradition we need to be in, and where. We make mistakes, we come unto roadblocks, we get confused, we find paradoxes and contradictions, and we continue to puzzle and think and read and study and pray, and we work out a knot here and there.

In the end, I believe, as I’ve stated here before, in perhaps not so clear a fashion, that we must each of us create a workable but ever changing theology that clicks for us. The atheist in his lack of  intellectual prowess has given up and makes claims that he cannot support. The agnostic is still open to being persuaded by evidence. I get the agnostic, but I’m not wasting any more time on the dullard who claims he doesn’t care enough to think any more.

Don’t Blame God! (Part V)

Tags

animal sacrifice, bible, Christianity, God, human sacrifice, Non-Believers, sacrifices, theology

Today we examine the next “argument” advanced by BEattitude again God. As we have seen from past posts, his claims aren’t really against God so much as they are against a form of Christianity that appears to be the only type he is familiar with.

This next issue, is no different. It depends on one adopting his fundamentalist mindset in order to make it an issue at all. He presumes that to be Christian, one must adopt the premise that the bible is the actual word of God.

Of course, most Christians don’t assert any such thing. The more I have thought about it, the more this discussion is perhaps not worth the effort, but to point up some issues to discuss. Refuting the claims of BEattitude is just too simple, given that he harbors such a very predictable and limited understanding of either the bible itself or Christianity. For what it’s worth, we continue:

Bloody animal and human sacrifices are illogical demands by a divine god as payment for petty wrong doings. These actions are no different than the rituals of archaic pagan religions. Not to mention the bizarre ritual of symbolically drinking human blood and eating human flesh.

Today, of course, we would agree with the first two sentences. But we are looking at things from a modern 21st century position, and we cannot attach two thousand years of learning to our more primitive ancestors. We must attempt to see the world as they did.

Many people falsely assume that monotheism erupted full blown into the Middle East to the Israelites. In fact, any  short perusal through the scriptures gives plenty of credence to the conclusion that this was an ongoing process. The Israelites adopted one God, Yahweh, and argued his superiority over all other gods. They in fact have God himself alluding to their being other gods in the admonition, not to place any other god before him.

Of course, if the belief was that there were in fact no other gods to place before or below God, then such a statement would be unnecessary. In fact, most scholars, so I am informed, believe that the early Israelites were polytheistic, at least giving credence to other gods, if indeed they didn’t revere them in the way they did Yahweh.

Long before the coalescence of the Israelites into a viable tribe, in hunter-gatherer societies, gods were considered as human in most ways, just having extra powers. For this reason, sacrifice was considered appropriate. Human sacrifice was the norm no doubt early on. We have our own relationship to that on this continent in the Aztecs, reported long after such behavior had ceased on the European continent.

The Israelites, like their Caananite counterparts engaged in animal sacrifice, “feeding” gods food as humans would require. This was a vast improvement over human sacrifice no doubt, but still, god was envisioned as more human that transcendent. This was also true of those who followed Yahweh.

I’m told that the practice among the Jerusalem Jews was waning at about the time of Jesus. Of course we know that it was ongoing in Greek and Roman religious rites during that period. In fact, sacrifice went beyond feeding the gods, but including the examination of the carcass for signs of how to proceed with political or economic issues.

Of course, as BEattitude rightly points out, the Jewish practices were no different in kind than those practices of other religious cults. He calls them archaic pagan practices, belying in some sense that he still has some sense of Christianity being “real” versus the pagans who were deluded. I find that amusing, but let us move on.

This proves nothing about Christianity of course, since animal sacrifice ceases for that group that is called the Jesus followers. In fact, it gets turned on it’s head by John’s Gospel, where, having to ponder the failure of Jesus to return as Paul and the other Gospel writers allude to, John moves the Last Supper up a day, and then creates the theology that Jesus in fact is the “sacrificial lamb” of Exodus fame, offered in atonement for the sins of all.

In some sense, those who eat the “flesh and blood” of Jesus are now akin to those who smeared the blood of the slain lambs across their lintels to prevent the angel of death from taking their first born as was done in Egypt. That is the theology at least of John.

BEattitude calls the communion a “bizarre ritual.” That may be. But it is a powerful reminder, whatever you actual belief about it, of the sacrifice made by a man who tried so desperately to get his fellow humans to understand that they were approaching God wrongly. Roman Catholics believe that there is an actual transformation of the wafer and wine into the body and blood (BB) by a process known as transubstantiation. It is an explanation, but not provable of course.

The Episcopal Church prefers to believe that there is an actual transformation, but that as to how it occurs, it is pure mystery. Many other mainstream Protestant fails also believe in the real presence. Others believe it is symbolic.

In any case, we are talking about what humans have concluded about what Jesus meant. We are not talking about what God ordained, unless of course you are part of the religious right who take these things quite literally. I think of Eucharist as a privilege, wherein I encounter Christ in a real way. I don’t spend time speculating beyond that. It is enough that I feel a powerful renewal of dedication to live my life in a way that is conducive to human betterment. I think that is enough.

It is easy to poke fun at that what we don’t understand and are frankly to lazy to learn about. But frankly, the one who points and giggles, says a bit more about their own lack than the shortcomings of believers. They certainly make no argument against God’s existence whatsoever, and frankly make no important contribution to biblical understanding, pro or con, since their arguments are those of the novice. To call believers names for believing in an “imaginary friend,” is akin to throwing dirt in the faces of such giant intellects as Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, C.K. Chesterton, Teilhard de Chardin, Diedrich Boenhoffer, and tens of thousands others to say nothing of the likes of Gandhi, and some of the great Jewish minds. Yet some think they know more than these.

God of course needs no defense, and at least in my estimation, no danger is incurred to the misguided “atheist” who should at least have the mental acuity to realize that they can be no more than an agnostic. I think we all return to our source, saint and sinner alike. After that? I have lots of ideas, but no answers, but I expect I’ll be surprised.

The Legacy of Fundamentalism

Tags

agnosticism, Bart Ehrman, bible, biblical errors, Christianity, fundamentalism, God, Jesus, Non-Believers, Philo, religion, theology

From time to time, I get asked the question: Why are you so against fundamentalists? Doesn’t this cut against your basic belief that people have a right to believe as they wish in terms of God? Goodness knows your particular conclusions are unique from mainstream ideas.

And there is truth to that. I personally wouldn’t care of people wanted to sit like the three monkeys, “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil,” safely ensconced in their dream world of how God works. Trouble is, it doesn’t stop there. They think God demands that they are to force this “truth” they have discerned on everyone else, willingly or not. And that does drive me crazy. See they don’t care much about feeding the hungry, visiting the prisoner, clothing the naked and all that stuff, but good Lord, they must be active in changing the world to their God vision, even at the point of a gun.

The fact that they most resemble other extremists like the the Taliban and Al Qaeda, is beyond their comprehension, and sure to set off a wail of denials. But it’s perfectly obvious to the rest of us. This post comes via the latest attempt to reshape the world in their perverted vision: The Family Research Council is busily trying to stop Kevin Jennings from his appointment to the Department of Education on the grounds that he is gay.

This attack is aimed at the public and starts with “Would you choose this teacher to guide your children?” Just the usual anti-gay hate message. Based on the usual garbage that most of us discarded 30 or more years ago. Groups like the FRC still argue that people like Jennings are busy “recruiting” kids to be gay. Apparently they either don’t read or refuse to believe that you can’t be talked into being gay.

In any event, its but symptomatic. I drop by rather frequently to BEattitude‘s blog and join in the comments regularly. What I find is so very weird is that most of the claims against Christianity come right out of fundamentalist dogma. In other words, find a atheist, and nine times out of ten, the only Christianity they know is fundamentalist in origin.

Yesterday there was a slam at Adam and Eve, and the claim that everyone believed that Adam and Eve were  real people until science made that view untenable, so Christianity keeps re-inventing the “inerrancy” to account for facts. Well, of course, first of all, fundamentalists ignore science in the first place, but the fact is that much of Genesis is seen as allegory and has been long before science told us anything about mitochondrial DNA. In fact Philo, writing at the time of Jesus, claimed that the the opening chapters of Genesis were allegorical.

No amount of explanations suffices. The bible is full of inaccuracies and contradictions, they cry. There, that means God doesn’t exist. Well, no it doesn’t, not by a long shot. You, dear atheist friend, believe that the bible is supposed to be inerrant, and thus you reach that conclusion. And frankly there is no logic at all in what you claim anyway.

The inaccuracies in the bible are well known, and have been for centuries now. And understanding the bible for what it is, has exactly nothing to do with believing in God. You might, and I say might be dissuaded from believing that Christianity is a reasonable theology of God, but that only means you might look elsewhere. There are plenty of faith traditions around the globe.

In all honesty, being an atheist is fairly stupid. Unless an atheist can prove the non-existence of God, then it might be better to simply say, “I can find no credible evidence that God exists, so I choose not to spend time on practices that may not be worth anything. I will continue to be a good person as best I can, and hope that should there be a God, he will be compassionate on me, an honest person.”  That is called an agnostic.

Bart Ehrman, who’s books I’ve reviewed here, is an agnostic today, though he once was a passionate and well educated fundamentalist. He eventually conceded to the great weight of the evidence that the bible was not inerrant. It is many things, and many of them are valuable, yet it is no way the “word of God.” But Dr. Ehrman has stated quite unequivocally that his agnosticism has nothing to do with the errors, conflicts and discrepancies he recognizes are in the bible. He says that a good many of his colleagues, who believe of the bible as he does, remain believers, and he thinks that is perfectly rational and fine. His issues deal with God in other ways, ones he doesn’t at present reconcile with any God he sees presented.

What I’m getting at is that our atheist friends seem to think that they can run over to Wikipedia and run up “discrepancies and errors in the bible” and then list them, sitting back self-satisfied, and announce: “There Christian–explain that!” As if that settles the issue. But the incredible leap in logic is obvious. Proving the bible is not what fundamentalists say is not saying there is no God, it’s saying that fundamentalist dogmas about God are suspect and not supported by the very book they claim represents God.

So in the end the fundie causes more harm than good on yet another level. It drives people to abandon God entirely, because they simply see the illogic of that theology. I see it too. In fact, we all (non-fundies at least) get that. That’s why we don’t vision God in that way, and frankly most of us never did. Sadly, some folks determine that realizing that the fundie position is silly, breath a sigh of relief as if a burden has been lifted. One less thing to have to be bothered with–goodbye God. And that is truly sad, since there are plenty of ways of seeing God that don’t involve this crazy denial of reality. Trouble is, the immature atheist never bothers to look.

Don’t Blame God! (Part IV)

Tags

fundamentalism, God, Non-Believers, religion, suffering, theology

Sometimes when I read or listen to someone tell me why they no longer believe in God, or at least Christianity, I feel so very sad. Sad, because at least in my case, God continued to bug me even when I ignored him in my agnostic splendor.

I’ve come up against a good many “issues” with conventional Christianity over the years, and frankly, it’s never caused me to reject it or God, but to dig deeper. That’s why I feel sad, since the reasons given are always those that relate to a very “basic” bread and butter type of Christian understanding. I could use the word fundamentals but then we get into THAT issue.

Today, we deal with BEattitude‘s third reason for rejecting Christianity.

The statements, “God works in mysterious ways,” or “It will all make sense in heaven,” are little more than irrational cop outs. This God allows horrible atrocities to be committed against innocent men, women and children every day.

Hey, I couldn’t agree more! I find those excuses just plainly unconvincing and frankly not even comforting. They aren’t so much irrational as they are thoughtless. I want a reason that is both sensible and comforting, and one that holds together.

The issue of suffering in the world has caused no doubt more than a few folks to opt out of religion, and sadly also God. Instead of, as I said, causing one to investigate further, some it seems, use this wall as an excuse to not be bothered any more with God. Instead they turn to making fun of what they once believed, and referring to believers as wrong headed, lacking in intelligence, and other demeaning things. They finally have gotten smart you see, while believers, they now recognize for the fuzzy headed, rather illogical and light minded individuals that they really always were and are.

That this is absurd on its face is apparent. Since at least the beginning of Christianity, there have been billions of believers. A goodly number, numbering in the millions probably, are smart; in fact some, (tens of thousands) might be termed brilliant. To suggest that suddenly you’re the bright light and they are all dunces, is presumptuous at the very least, and beyond arrogance at the worst.

I won’t argue that suffering is a thing that causes one to think deeply. Arguments that, somehow we will understand all this in heaven, are insufficient. Telling us that there is “grace” and value in suffering, as the Roman Catholic Church does, is also sounds good on paper, but I doubt that it suffices much for the sufferer of misery, physical or emotional. A better explanation is called for.

God is alleged to be omniscient, all knowing, he is moreover thought to be omnipotent, capable of all things. Why then does he allow suffering? Most Christians are smart enough to realize that God, even of traditional orthodoxy, doesn’t cause suffering. He allows it. He in a word, allows us to suffer the consequences of our own mistakes.

But this doesn’t really address natural disasters, such as tsunamis, earthquakes, and all that ilk. Why doesn’t God prevent them?

My answer is that it’s part of the authenticity of  being. God creates, and he does so by means of establishing physical laws to govern the universe. Those things play out in a perfectly scientific manner. Sentience, develops here and there, as conditions for it fortuitously occur. Biology, driven by evolution, creates DNA that is not helpful, causing disease. This is all quite natural. Mutations are neither good nor bad, they drive life or they inhibit it.

Why does God not meddle? I see it as God being authentic with his creation. He experiences through all of his creation, but if he controls how it acts and turns out, then he’s merely creating robots, not authentic life with all its ups and downs. If God is to control these things, then of course we all ought to be perfect in every way. We aren’t.

If God meddles, saving this person and not that person, they God is tampering with the evolutionary model. And worse, he is tampering with human free will at some point. If natural events point me to death on the highway next week, then changing that changes the future, and who knows who else is affected adversely? You see the issues?

I’m convinced it’s just part of the deal, that God doesn’t intervene and save us from ourselves if you will. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t intervene of course. It means he doesn’t do so by supernatural means. He intervenes through those whom he touches enough that they graciously grant God to use them as his instruments. So perhaps, on that highway next week, I don’t die, because the person who would cause that accident, or would be in a position to prevent it, acts in a different way by being more mindful than usual at that moment.

God allows, because our lives become mere puppetry if he doesn’t. We can’t choose God, God chooses for us. Nothing authentic about that at all. Nothing in it for God, nothing worthwhile for us as human beings. So God doesn’t.

What He does do, is remain with us as close as our breath. He suffers with us, unbearably pained at our misery. He aches to be felt by us, as he waits with perfect patience and politeness for the invitation. He is deeply saddened no doubt that some give up so easily based on what men and women concoct about Him. But He waits. He will wait until you return to Him.

That’s the way I see it at least. Which means nothing of course necessarily to anyone else. It’s how God speaks to me.

Don’t Blame God! (Part III)

Tags

bible, Christianity, fundamentalism, God, hell, Jesus, Non-Believers, religion

Today we continue in our series based on BEattitude’s post, “Losing my religion. Why I recently walked away from Christianity.”

You can visit his blog by linking along the sidebar under the category “atheism.”

I continue to post comments on his blog, not because his posts are particularly intriguing, but that he has a large following and their are some very interesting commenters there, and I have found some of their points thought provoking. You may or may not feel the same way.

Today we explore his second reason:

The act of throwing people into infinite torture and punishment for not believing a Jewish guy from 2,000 years ago was God’s son, or unknowingly worshiping the wrong god, is extremely cruel and sadistic.

Quite frankly, I would tend to agree. But of course I don’t really believe in hell.  I haven’t made a study of hell in general, across the various religious faiths, both modern and ancient, but I do think the idea of an eternal damnation is somewhat unique.

In Egypt, heaven was eternal, hell was not. Punishment was meted out, but annihilation was the end of the wrongdoer. The Greeks considered those judged wrong were sent to Tartarus, where they were punished. It is not clear how long this lasted. Celtic and Middle Eastern ancient faiths led eventually to annihilation as well.

In the America’s the dead traveled a difficult and adventurous journey. It is unclear if that resulted in anything like eternal punishment. At least the Aztecs believed that there was a “neutral” place one could traverse to. Hindus have no concept of Hell, but do claim that punishments ensue for “sins”, again not permanent,  and Buddhists teach that there are places of discomfort but that none are permanent, rebirth always is in effect. until one reaches nirvana. 

Muslim belief is more akin to Christianity, but there are levels of “hell” depending on the seriousness of the infractions.

Most important for our discussion is Sheol, or Gehenna, as known in Jewish theology. It was not considered a place of eternal damnation, but rather as a sort of purgatory where depending on one’s misdeeds, one spent some time reflecting on one’s failings and shortcomings. The maximum length was considered to be eleven months. Additionally, it was not thought to be necessarily a physical place but a place of internal reflection.

This is important, because it would be the type of “hell” that Jesus was familiar with. In fact in the NT, three words, all having rather different meanings are used. Tartarus, the Greek, means incarceration. Hades refers most closely to Sheol and has it’s connotation of a limited period. Only Gehenna is the destination of lost souls.

I would conclude from this, that Jesus, when he referred to concepts that we now identify with hell, was referring to the limited location of souls after death, usually for no more than eleven months. He no where as far as I can tell made reference to any different concept he was referring to.

It is undoubtedly true that later Christianity enlarged and in some sense went backward in making hell a place of eternal damnation. For the most part, historically we don’t seem to see that. And indeed, many Christian theologians today would argue that this cannot be, rather than annihilation must follow those found totally unsuitable for heaven.

First it should be understood, that even in Christianity, damnation doesn’t apply to those who are unaware that Jesus is the “only” means of salvation. And indeed, much of the Christian world would not make that assertion, though some sects surely would.

One is never punished with damnation for “unknowingly” worshiping the wrong God, as BEattitude suggests. One must in fact know God to be God and Jesus to be God and actively knowingly reject them.

That of course raises an interesting question. What does “knowing” mean here. Surely a poor peasant in Indonesia presented with the world’s worst evangelizer, should not be subject to hell if he rejects the poor efforts of a illiterate and poor speaking “evangelist.” And no one would condemn anyone who is mentally infirm either.

No, the hell seems to be reserved for those who “know” and then reject. I don’t frankly “know” God exists. I believe he does, and God seems inclined to keep it that way for most of us. I have argued that there is no meaningful journey to companionship with God that is not based on belief rather than knowledge.

If this is so, then it seems to me rather impossible to send anyone to hell. For if that rare person actually speaks directly to God, or in some way is presented with incontrovertible proof of God’s existence, then rejection must be the result of pure madness, and God cannot punish madness can he?

At least that is how it comes down for me. As I ‘ve said before, this drives some people quite mad with anger. They deeply want to take satisfaction in the knowledge that enemies and anyone whom they deem as failing to live up to their standards, will suffer eternally. To me this is making God do as you wish, rather than recognizing that God may see things a whole lot differently. But we do tend to make God in our image as it were.

In any event, I find the second reason advanced to be badly untrue on its face, and short sighted in its analysis. That seems often what we see in those newly atheistic. I don’t mean to pick on this particular blogger for he is but symptomatic of those I have described as “immature, a term this blogger would have every reason to be upset with, no doubt.

But being busy showing us all various contradictions within the bible, is in fact, immature. This is not new news. It’s quite old news. It is not shocking, nor does it suggest to the believer that they have been duped. It means a book is flawed, but many of us know that. It has little to do with faith. Our faith is in God, not in a book, no matter how valuable it might otherwise be.

Next: How to explain the inexplicable?