Posted by Hemant Mehta in Pastor Mike Clawson responds to your questions. This is the last of the series, so thanks to Pastor Mike for offering to answer so many of the questions (and thank you for asking them)! I wonder what else we can do like this…
You can also read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.
…
Okay, this is my last post. These have turned out to be a lot tiring and time consuming than I expected, but I appreciate all of you who have contributed to the conversation.
Pedro said:
You don’t demonize atheists. You don’t believe in biblical inerrancy, nor in passing laws just because “the Bible says so.” You really seem to want to make the world a better place, instead of, as many Christians do, simply “save as many souls as possible”, because the world is the devil’s, it doesn’t matter, and Jesus is coming to end this “experiment” in a decade or so anyway.
My question, then — and please treat it not as criticism of any kind, but simply as honest curiosity –, is this: why still believe? What reasons do you have to believe, when neither most Christians nor the Bible itself seem to agree with you, and you end up having to reject a lot from both? And have you never wondered if, somehow, the world doesn’t make more sense from a naturalistic point of view?
Excellent question! I wonder myself sometime. 
But when it comes right down to it there is still something about God that I can’t let go of (or maybe it’s that he won’t let go of me 
). There are so many reasons - both philosophical and experiential - for why I still believe and I really can’t go into all of them in detail here (Hemant asked me to keep these replies to just a few paragraphs!) Let me see if instead I can just paint with a broad brush some of the big reasons that keep me coming back to God.
On a philosophical level when I look at the world around me, with it’s beauty and complexity and appearance of having been designed, it still just makes sense to me to think that it was in fact designed by someone. Naturalism (i.e. the belief that there was no designer, no creative force behind existence) is indeed a possibility, but it seems less likely to me than belief in a Creator. On another level I look at life and human history and it seems as if things do work together for some kind of larger purpose - that there is some bigger story at work, a story about love and justice and ultimate joy. Again, this could all be illusion or wishful thinking, but it seems to me that another possible explanation is that there really is a larger purpose to existence.
On a more personal level, there are just too many “spiritual” experiences that I’ve had throughout my entire life to just suddenly explain them away by some other means - whether answers to prayer, experiences of transcendence in response to nature or relationships or times of worship, or just those times when I’ve sensed the immediate presence of God and been overwhelmed by his reality. As I said in a comment on another of my replies - theism provides me a bigger tent that allows me to affirm the authenticity of spiritual experiences like these while also appreciating things like science as well. In atheism by contrast I’m forced to reject the one in order to embrace the other. Just speaking personally, I prefer a philosophy that allows me to keep my options open and doesn’t require me to reinterpret all my former experiences to mean something other than what they appeared to mean at the time.
Ultimately I’d echo the words of C.S. Lewis, “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” Christianity is the lens through which I make sense of the world - and it does make sense to me. Things about life, my daily experienes and big events, as well as the experiences of people around me start to make sense in a new way when viewed through this lens. I’m not saying that I couldn’t trade in this set of lenses for a different one, but so far I haven’t found another set that works as well for me.
As for why Christianity specifically - there is just something about the person of Jesus Christ and his way of justice, mercy and self-sacrificial love that appeals to me. The more I study his message and way of life, the more I’m challenged by it, and the more I become convinced that it is not only the best possible way to live personally but is also ultimately the only hope for our self-destructive race.
BTW, I know all this is very vague. Again, these aren’t intended as throroughgoing arguments for why any of you should believe in God. I’m mainly just explaining my personal, “existential” reasons for continuing in my beliefs.
I do want to explain however that I don’t feel as if I have to “reject” a lot from the Bible or Christianity to maintain my faith. My journey has not really been about throwing out the parts of either that I don’t like. Rather, it has been a re-discovery of what I think was there all along and just got buried by our theological systems. For instance, I resist the suggestion that fundamentalists are the ones who really get the Bible right and the rest of us have to reinterpret everything to make it fit our own preferences. What if this other approach has been the right one all along and it is the fundamentalists who have been misunderstanding and re-interpreting what the Bible is really about? The truth is that the more I study historic Christian theology, the more I find that my views are really not that uncommon among Christians throughout the centuries (only somewhat uncommon among one particular conservative wing of the church in the past century or two). My experience has been similar to that of G.K. Chesterton, who said:
“I did try to found a heresy of my own, and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered it was orthodoxy…”
Anyhow, thanks again for the great questions!
[tags]atheist, atheism, Pastor, Mike Clawson, Christian, God, Naturalism, C.S. Lewis, Bible, G.K. Chesterton[/tags]
Much as I hate to say it MikeC, you are a decent guy. This board is richer for your presence.
Thanks Logos… but why exactly do you hate to say it?
I don’t hate to say it at all. So, for the record, Mike rules!
Actually, you sound like most ordinary Christians, perfectly reasonable people who have worked out a way of seeing the world that works for them. We atheists only hyperventilate–correction. reasonable atheists only hperventilate–when the suggestion comes up that these are the only lens and that we are grieviously injuring the rest of humanity by not espousing them. Otherwise it is a rather wonderful free-thought world, where what works in the particular for person X is just as valid as what works in the particular for person Y.
I can see how this would present a not-quite-so-easy conundrum for scientists, and those who feel the urge to convert others, or to arrange the world according to their version/vision, on the other hand, but for the rest of us, it really should remain something that has to do with very basic freedom of thought. I can also see that for fundamentalism, the particular instance of what should be taught strikes at the very heart of freedom to believe (in creationism, for example, or in assorted miracles) and that it seems to them that the scientists are looking to brainwash them and their children. I don’t really have an answer to that, except to say that science seems to be an area in which people of various beliefs and non beliefs can work together, so that is becomes quite weird to talk about Hindu physics, or Muslim biology or Christian mathematics. I think atheists have become worked up at the threat to the neutrality of science. Of course, we think it IS neutral. If one doesn’t agree, then we’re back to square one about who gets to be the Prefered Thought authority.
OK where do I start with my questions over this without sounding negetive and/or hatefully aggressive.
I guess I’ll just ask and hope you don’t take offense.
1. Mt 10:34 RSV says: “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.” This and many other sayings in the Bible, some said by JC and some from the OT, has started many a Crusade, Inquisition, and other wars and cruelity to people. Yes, at one point JC does say “Put away your sword” to his disciples, but those who follow the first statement, and others like it, live by the sword and sometimes die by it.
Now, IMHO, there is nothing wrong with holy texts, but rather it is what people do with these texts that makes them good or bad, be the texts from the Torah, the Bible or the Qu’ran etc. How can you say that JC’s teachings are “ultimately the only hope for our self-destructive race”? Isn’t that a bit bias and prejudice? Couldn’t the Upanishads, the Tao, the Analects, the Theravada, or even the Humanists’ Manifesto be just as much of value as JC’s teachings?
2. “the more I become convinced that it is not only the best possible way to live personally…”
OK that is you personally, I understand that, but we have that word “only” again. I’m wondering, would you feel that a person who follows a different path is not living the best possible way? Jains practice non-violence and vegetarianism, which I will once again say is very commendable. Gandhi (and I can’t seem to spell his name today), a Hindu, and MLK Jr., an admirable Christian who learned from Gandhi’s ways, both practiced non-violence. Humanists, albeit human, try to practice non-violence also. MLK Jr. learned a lot from that infamous Hindu. People have learned a lot from Buddha too.
Meanwhile… Back in the Darkages and other time periods, Christians and Islamics alike were having Holy Wars (or Ji’hads for the Islamics). Christians had witch hunts (based on a quote in the OT) and Holy Inquisitions. Oh, we’re not done yet… Christians, except the Abolistionist Christians (like Episcopalians), used the Bible to condone slavery. Then they turned around after slavery ended and use the Bible for segregation. Now, they are using Biblical text meant for another time period to deny human dignity from Gays. Nice!
Some Islamics believe Christians are infidels, based on the Qu’ran scriptures, and therefore Christians are going to hell. Evangelical Christians come up with a virtual training video game (Left Behind video game) in which Christian youth are trained to kill non-Christians. Wonderful!
You see where I’m going with this. What some people do with holy texts is abhorrent, horrifying, and an abomination to society. Yes, yes. the Hindus had that caste thing going on before Gandhi, in which a lot of the Outcastes/Untouchables converted to Islam, which they saw as more equitable. I’m sure someone can find something in other religions and philosphies that is almost as bad. That’s not the point.
How can you say with such certainty that JC’s message is the “only” best possible way to live? The other messages are not? Just what if the Hindus/Jains are right and you don’t gain enough karma to end the cycle and become one with Brahman? What if the Buddhists’ Noble Eightfold Path is the way to enlightenment and spirituality AKA attaining Nirvana? What if the Humanists idea of reason and compassion as we strive to better ourselves and society is right? What if all schools of thoughts are right? What if none of them are correct, but only just a way of life?
To me, and no insult intended, your statement sounds biased and prejudiced. Which I find very sad. This does not mean that I think less of you, but it does mean I feel you may have some things to think about and consider. At the very least contemplate a different way of expressing this thought. Maybe say, “I become convinced that for me it is the best possible way to live…” Where you have the word personally makes it sound like a statement that is across the board for everyone, which I know you surely did not mean that. I would hate to think that you did mean it that way.
I have a friend who says, “There are many paths and they all lead to center.” I truly believe, just as Karen Armstrong has said she does, we can gain a little good out of all the philosophies. None of them are right and none of them are wrong. They are just human concepts on how to live life and we gain some good from each one of them.
I have to say, I really enjoyed your responses/posts, as far as I can say, that I understood them. Since I´m not a native speaker I may sometimes have been wrong to fully get what you were writing about. But there´s a certain thing, that really bothers me and it´s your remarks on atheism as a belief.
I´m sure you know what will come next and may have heard/read many times before, but I have to write it anyway.
To some extent I think I understand why you tend to think of atheism as a belief system similar to religious beliefs. But this allegedly suppressed belief that for many religious people seems to shine through all these rational and more or less reasonablec scientific studies is headed towards a totally different goal or target. It may be a belief but - for lack of words - let´s say it may be a belief of a different quality than those beliefs of religion or spirituality. A quality of probability to more precise.
Scientific belief means to trust on the data, information and knowledge that has been gathered all around the world to produce even more precise assumptions of what the world is or may be about. This, from my point of view, hints on why scientific belief, if one has to call it so, promises and in many cases is more accurate than any other model or assumption of the world.
To think that science will certainly provide universal truths is premature, or at least highly improbable. Universal truth possibly goes beyond the borders of human imagination, cognition and perception of the universe and everything that´s in it. But at least science has developed much better methods of explanation how and why human beings feel, experience and interact with their surrounding world. These methods, of course, won´t be universally consistent, but still they will evolve to even more sophisticated ones. There will be dead-ends, misinterpretations and even manipulations, that´s human nature. Nevertheless, I think, one can say that scientific belief can hardly be described as a belief at all. Scientific belief is based on tested methods, complex rules of argumentation and - as far as possible for human beings - on proof.
Scientific belief is an expectation of what scientific work may provide in the future. It´s a belief so stripped down to assumptions of what might possibly known in the future, that it hardly is a belief anymore. It´s more or less knowledge- and experience-based expactations. Not universally true. But probably more accurate than anything else before.
All the best and thanks for your posts
The Bible tells of the perfect family. Jesus is the Father of the House. He isn’t here right now, but we know what He said to do. It is His Holy Spirit that brings us to His Redemption. It works inside of us. The Holy Spirit does not convict me of the sins of the world. It convicts me of my sins against the world. My personal relationship with the Father. My Father treated all of us the same. My Father was a hero. I can show you His Bronze Medal. He is your Father, too. Mother said He was coming back. She has never lied to me either.
Although that might not strictly be true… you might find this book interesting.
All I ask of any believer is that they keep their faith for themselves and do not try to restrict my liberty with their beliefs. Mike seems to do this. That’s great, and more power to him and those like him.
But, Mriana is touching upon a concern that I also share: whenever religious humans coordinate their beliefs and form popular majorities, they may put pressure on minority non-believers to conform, and may slip into a mode of intolerance. Also, such majorities always have the potential to radicalize and turn nasty, and this is especially the case if the origins of their faiths, and their holy writings, have a violent component.
In Mriana’s message it says
1. Mt 10:34 RSV says: “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.” This and many other sayings in the Bible, some said by JC and some from the OT, has started many a Crusade, Inquisition, and other wars and cruelity to people. Yes, at one point JC does say “Put away your sword” to his disciples, but those who follow the first statement, and others like it, live by the sword and sometimes die by it.
I come not to bring peace, but a sword, means that the truth comes inside of me to help me cut away the lies I have hidden there. Put away your sword meant that is was not the time to fight back. It was time to let Him do His redemptive work. The Spirit deals with our hearts. Not someone else’s.
Even so, Tommy, it has been twisted, by some Christians- past and present, to use violence to force “God’s Word” on others.
Jesus allegedly called people broods of vipers, hypocrites, blind fools.
Mike simply refuses to have any dealings with people who use language one hundredth as strong.
‘Steven, given the tone & spirit of your comments both here and at Hemant’s site, I have no interest in discussing any of these questions with you at either blog. Feel free to go on talking to yourself if you like but you’ll get no debate out of me.’
Can Mike find anything I ever said, which was one hundredth as bile-filled as the words that come from the person he adores?
Why does Mike have one rule for Jesus and another rule for everybody else?
Take these phrases , allegedly uttered by the Son of God, in Revelation -
‘I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan’
‘I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.’
And let us not forgot that Jesus used a parable to compare himself to a king who wanted his enemies fetched and killed in front of him…
Mike, I’ve been following this series, and I’d like to thank you for presenting a new perspective on Christianity. Sorry I didn’t submit any questions, but it’s only now that I’ve read more about your position that I’m starting to have ideas of what questions I might have asked!
Anyway, I’m adding your blog to my personal reader, and I might post questions on your blog if I think of any that are relevant to your topics discussed….
Sorry Mriana, I can see that I was unclear with that statement. Let me address your concerns:
I think I already addressed this exact same question in another thread, but perhaps you missed it. The short answer is that very often pursuing a way of justice, peace and radical inclusion very often will lead to division and even violence from those whose power and wealth depends on maintaining injustice and exclusion. What Jesus is saying is that we must pursue the way of justice and peace regardless even though we know it will lead to persecution and conflict. But those who take his words to justify violence and oppression are actually turning his entire message on its head.
This comes back to what I’ve said in several threads about believing that God is speaking to us in all cultures and religious traditions. If those other traditions and teachings have things that are true and valuable then they are as much a part of the “way of Christ” as anything Jesus himself said. It’s not an either/or, if these teaching are in agreement or if they complement each other (i.e. expand or fill in the gaps others leave out) then the are not in competition but actually each pointing to the same thing.
But I’m afraid that you’ve misunderstand the thrust of my comment in the first place (which is totally my fault for not being clear). When I said that the way of Jesus is our “only hope” I was never intending to contrast it with other religions (like I said, I think many of them are likewise contributing to our understanding of this same Way) - rather, I was contrasting it to the greed and violence and exploitation and prejudices and oppression that so often characterizes humanity. And so often in human history we think that the solution to these problems is simply more of the same - we fight violence with violence (cf. our current War in Iraq for example), hatred with hatred, oppression with more oppression (cf. the way nearly every liberation movement in history has ended up simply turning the oppressed into a new batch of oppressors), and greed by increasing our consumption. I think if we continue down this path humanity is likely to destroy both ourselves and this planet, or at least our current civilization.
It is in contrast to these ways of life that I think Jesus’ way of inclusive love, restorative justice, generosity & simplicity, and non-violent but active peacemaking is truly the only hope for things to ever change - these are the only things powerful enough to overcome evil and not simply replace it with more evil. And truthfully, I don’t care if people put Jesus’ name on it or not (though it is interesting that while MLK learned his tactics from Gandhi, Gandhi said that he learned his tactics from Jesus), what is important is not who gets the credit but that the way of love and justice and peace is actually practiced. If other traditions teach these same principles then fantastic! So much the better.
I hope that clarifies the point I wanted to make. Thanks for pushing me on the issue!
-Mike
P.S. How do you make the eye-rolling emoticon? There have been so many times I’ve wanted to use that lately. I don’t know of any other way to clearly communicate sarcasm online.
I’ve really appreciate Pastor Mike’s willingness to answer our questions and continue the dialogue between Brights and Supers. That said, of course, I’m going to follow with a big “but”. I’m rather unsatisfied with his response regarding the Bible…
If not ‘most’ then certainly ‘many’ of us non-believers have read the bible and found much in there to concern if not horrify us. I feel that when confronted by this, Pastor Mike has taken the dodge that many Christians do. That suddenly, to hear them tell it, the bible is all about Jesus and the wonderful teachings of Jesus. Anything else is just a misunderstanding of what the scripture is ‘really’ saying. Or ‘that’s just the Old Testament, we don’t pay attention to that because Jesus brought us a New Testament’.
It’s not a misunderstanding when things are very plainly written. Leviticus is a treasure trove of hate, violance and intollerance - a complete anithesis of what Jesus is supposed to stand for. Why keep it?
It seems to me if the only important thing is Jesus and his philosophy, than that is the only thing the “official” bible should consist of. Everthing else should be strickly looked at as historical myths - not inspired, and especially not inerrent, words of a god.
The perfect family is Jesus as the father? Who is the Mother? Bronze medal, is that for 3rd place in the long jump at the olympics? And where are Marsha, Jan, and Cindy? Sorry, Tommy, you lost me on this post.
Mike C said,
May 22, 2007 at 10:01 am
Thanks Logos… but why exactly do you hate to say it?
Cause I’m evil
EnoNomi, you are welcome to disagree with my method of interpretation, but please don’t do me the discourtesy of implying that my views are simply some rhetorical dodge intended to win arguments or to artificially make my beliefs seem more palatable (to myself or to others). These are my actual beliefs based on a lifetime study of scripture and how I think it is best interpreted. I don’t hold these beliefs simply to win debates in online forums.
The rolling smilie is simple. You type the colon symbol, the word roll, and then colon symbol again. No spaces of course between the colons and the word roll.
You’re welcome. BTW, what is your opinion on JC’s temper tantrum in the temple when people were selling things, along with the money changers, in it? Wasn’t that rather violent and a loss of self-control?
Is it possible that JC learned his tactics from Krishna or Buddha? Or even others? Humm… Sort of brings new meaning to killing the Buddha.
Steven, are you the same Steven Carr who is the author of “The UK’s Leading Atheist Page”? I see there you have conducted several online debates with Anglican clerics and apologists. I think your efforts to shoehorn this multi-voice conversation into a one-on-one debate format have been completely inappropriate. I do think it is possible to ask difficult questions in this type of conversation, but you might want to reflect on what level of discourse is best suited to this particular communicative act.
Dropping your attempt to write the script of your imaginary debate is a good start, though.
Hi Mike C, I’d like to politely disagree with something you wrote that I find particularly interesting.
“In atheism by contrast I’m forced to reject the one in order to embrace the other. Just speaking personally, I prefer a philosophy that allows me to keep my options open and doesn’t require me to reinterpret all my former experiences to mean something other than what they appeared to mean at the time.”
Very interesting indeed. I’m trying to put myself in your shoes but admit that I’m having a hard time seeing the choice of Christianity as anything but limiting. The way I see it, as a Naturalist, is that you’ve limited yourself to Christianity and completely ruled out all other non-Christianity choices. I think most Naturalists want the answers to the Universe just as bad as Christians (etc…), we just want evidence. We don’t think that simply feeling something is enough for it to be true. It may be a reason to investigate, but not to believe. And so far, no religion has offered enough evidence.
Most of the times I followed my feelings instead of paying more attention to factual evidence, I’ve gotten it wrong. I’m speaking mostly of dating. But, the same can be said of other situations. The hope was that some day I’d pay attention to evidence and my feelings and find someone that I could live with and love for the rest of my life. Luckily, this happened. But, had I followed only my feelings, I don’t think this would be the case right now.
I think that Naturalists try to balance feelings and facts, and are careful not to be overcome by feelings alone. This can sometimes be difficult. I admit that the sense of awe I get when I think about the vastness of the Universe feels spiritual in a sense. But, without evidence of some super-natural power, I’m fine not having all the answers right now. I’m excited that we have so much more to learn. I think that religion tries to answer that sense of awe. I think that some people aren’t ok with not knowing, it’s too vulnerable for them.
That’s my 2 cents.
Thanks Mike C for giving us insight into your thinking. You really do add a lot to these discussions.
*A round of applause* Thanks for taking a position in our spotlight for a week, Mike.
I’m afraid you’re falling in the “how well my glove fits” trap there: our world appears beautiful to us because we evolved to live in it. In a way, I have to think this is better in some aesthetic sense, because it suggests that wherever life evolves to an extent of being capable of appreciating beauty, it will also have evolved to be happiest where it is. (Also, don’t forget that “Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies,” as Emerson says.)
I’ll have to admit I’ve never understood the whole “appearance of having been designed” idea. I look at a mesa and see erosion over millions of years or at a mountain range and see two plates along a boundary pushing together. From this, I have to conclude that we live in a universe where everything happens for a reason rather than being the whim of a deity.
Fair enough. I once had a dream in which I was called by a god to come to it and it never shook my atheism, so as I’m content to explain my “spiritual experiences” by phenomena in this universe, I can’t complain if you’re content to do so the same by phenomena outside of it.
However, I’m not sure about the “bigger tent” metaphor: as I see it, science goes far beyond the results it produces to the methods used to produce them. And NOMA aside, these results really don’t lead to a belief in god, so I can’t help wondering whether you’ve given up the best parts of science in order to keep god, in which case I’d say you’ve traded away a bigger tent in favor of two smaller tents. Of course, since I doubt anything said here is going to make you decide to renounce Christianity and pastorhood (or that that’s even the point of any of this), I suppose that agreeing not to torch each others’ tents is probably a fair compromise.
*A second round of applause* It’s been interesting.
MIKE
But those who take his words to justify violence and oppression are actually turning his entire message on its head.
CARR
So when Jesus said he came not to bring peace, he was saying that he came to bring peace?
The passage continues with the theme of reconciliation, love and forgiveness ‘From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
This was the man who said ‘I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!’, and ‘But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.’
Jesus preached a Gospel of fear.
Douglas Adams wrote:
Mike, I used to think like you about how things looked designed, and then I started reading about evolution and natural selection and that pretty much put the nail in the coffin on design. I found myself arguing that well “Perhaps God just set everything up so that humans eventually evolved”, but the problem with that is that humans are not the end product of evolution. Evolution does not an an “end”. Every species alive on earth right now is the same age, they are all just as evolved as we are. It’s an extraordinary coincidence that we happened to evolve at all.
In my journey to atheism, I went from Methodist, to liberal Christian, to Deism to Atheism. My suggestion to you is to take a class on biological evolution. It would probably make you rethink the idea you have of “design” needing a designer.
Well, Therevadan Buddhism was big in Egypt at that time, so it’s definitely possible, if you think that there actually was a Jesus who actually went to Egypt. Since IIRC only Matthew mentions it and seems to intend it as a Moses allegory, I’m not overly convinced by this, however.
Actually, my main question is very similar to EnoNomi’s, even if the particular phrasing came off as if accusing you of rhetorical trickery. The question I would ask is the following:
The Old Testament really is full of terrible things — God ordering horrible voilence and genocide, cruelty, slavery etc. If you disagree with these valuesand belive God would not behave that way, why continue printing, distributing, and revering it as a holy book? Why not print just the New Testament or just the gospels (maybe with Ecclesiastes) so that you don’t encourage people to apply the bad stuff in their lives and laws?
MONKEYMIND
Dropping your attempt to write the script of your imaginary debate is a good start, though.
CARR
I think this means he wants me to stop quoting Jesus, and start praising him.
No, I mean rewriting everything as if it were the transcript of a one-on-one debate as you did above.
Can you say “projection”?
No, I mean rewriting everything as if it were the transcript of a one-on-one debate as you did above.
HANSON
The Old Testament really is full of terrible things — God ordering horrible voilence and genocide, cruelty, slavery etc.
CARR
All allegedly endoresed by Jesus.
Indeed , Jesus went out of his way to assure people in Matthew 15:3 that the commandment was truly from God that - ‘He who curses his mother or father must be put to death.’
Jesus even compares God to the cruellest of masters, who torture their slaves. Matthew 18:34 ‘And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he should pay his entire debt. So my Heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.’
A striking metaphor of Jesus , comparing God to the sort of person Mike hates.
Wha??
The Bibles that the Gideons distribute at schools take this approach: just New Testament+Psalms+Proverbs. Although I have to doubt that they’re intending the censor the OT–probably just a cost issue.
In any case, I think it’d be far better to just encourage people to read critically; the mere fact that it is written doesn’t have to be enough to get people to apply it in life and law. Putting footnotes in a Bible that say “Wow, this is a really bad passage. Please don’t take it literally.” is probably a bad idea, but only just barely. (On contrast, the first Bible I ever read had a footnote at Jesus’ crucifixion explaining that that was why god had caused the Holocaust. Yes, seriously. It really did.)
The best advice I’ve ever heard for reading books like these is to reflect after reading a passage whether you think it was good, bad, or irrelevant. And if you answer with one of the first two options, the passage is worth marking to read again later. For one thing, you may find some good in what you saw as bad earlier. And if not, at least you’ll understand why it’s bad, which can be just as useful as understanding why something is good.
All Mike has to do is abjure the bad things Jesus did, to earn my immediate respect.
Simply react as a human being would react to someone who allegedly declared to a crowd of people that they were faithless and perverse , and asked ‘How much longer must I put up with you?’
And then Mike would show himself to be a true Christian.
I’m not sure if there’s a question there, but if there is, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edicts_of_Ashoka#Proselytism_beyond_India
for a history of Buddhist expansion into Egypt a few hundred years earlier. As Egypt was basically the cosmopolitan center of the world under the Ptolemys, no one religion could really be said to be dominant, but Buddhism definitely established as firm a foothold as anything else. While there’s some mystery about the formation of the pre-Christian Therapeutae sect, for example, there are some very marked similarities to Therevadan Buddhism and “Therapeutae” could very well have even been derived etymologically from “Therevada.”
(Since we’ve all seemingly decided that Wiki is worth citing.)
Miko: Cool! Thx.
Indeed, it was. Being a peacemaking doesn’t mean simply being passive in the face of injustice. A God who doesn’t get a little upset when the poor are being exploited and oppressed is not a very good God IMHO.
You have to understand that when Jesus walked into the Temple what he saw was not simply an ordinary marketplace. In the historical context of that time period there were two things going on that would have rightfully made any just person very angry:
1) The poor were being exploited - the Temple leaders who profited off this religious system were living in luxury (archaeologists have found $5000 bottles of wine in some of the villas where these 1st century Temple leaders lived!), while the vast majority of Jews lived in abject poverty - on the level that most people in the Third World live today. So Jesus, by getting angry, takes a stand against oppression in the name of religion.
2) Outsiders were being excluded - the part of the Temple where this money changing was going on was known as the “Court of the Gentiles” and was intended to be the place where people from all nation, Jews and non-Jews, could pray and worship God. It was a place of inclusion. But by setting up this market in that space instead, the Temple leaders were excluding people of other races from their religion. This is why Jesus exclaims: “This was meant to be a place of prayer for all nations, but you have made it into a den of thieves!” In this statement Jesus is standing against both economic, racial and religious exclusion.
So yes, Jesus got angry and a little violent (though in a very mild way comparatively speaking), but he did so in reaction to gross injustice, which again, is what I think the Way of Jesus is all about and is why I follow him.
BTW, if you’re interested, my Palm Sunday sermon is online and addresses this scene and what led up to it.
There’s no direct indication in the sources but I suppose anything is possible. Jesus did grow up in Galilee which was a major cultural crossroads during that time period. He very well could have been exposed to some of these other philosophies. Though I’m still personally convinced that the heart of his message is quintessentially Jewish.
Wow, that’s just sick!
Excellent advice!
Mike: thanks for answering my question at last.
I may address your reply a bit later, but, for now, let me just say that it was a great answer, and that I really, really wish more (or all) Christians were like you.
Pedro
Hey C.L.,
I tried to address this question in my third reply and some of the subsequent comments. Was there something about my answer there that requires further clarification?
I beg to differ. It is certainly possible to live a spiritual and purposeful life — and to have spiritual experiences — without believing in the supernatural or being a theist.
Well, it came from somewhere Miko and I don’t believe it was all divine providence.
Sorry, Pastor Mike. No insult intended.
So, what else is new. Have you looked at the Religious Reich lately? They aren’t much different.
This still exists today in some churches.
Let’s not forget the authors of the Gospels had a variety of influences. Early Jews, esp as slaves, were exposed to Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian beliefs to name a few. So, none of it is entirely without surrounding influences.
GIVE ME A BREAK! God did not do that! Humans did it!
As a Spiritual Humanist, I agree 100%.
Yes, you talked about how the OT was for them at that time and not necessarily for us now, but are you saying that you believe your God actually ordered such things as slavery and genocide, stonings for various offenses, etc.? To me it is hard to imagine any circumstances under which such behavior would be appropriate for an all-powerful all-loving God. Either the book is describing God correctly and I would question the morality of such a God or the book is describing Him wrong, and I would question the accuracy of the book — either way I would stop reading, printing, distributing, and especially revering it.
If this point is covered among the 57 responses of that post, please say so, and I’ll go back and read more carefully.
I think I probably agree as well, but how are you defining the word ’spiritual?’
Miko, I define spiritual as “feeling of transcendence” or “awe” or “I get goosebumps when I look at a sunset or listen to certain music” (fill in whatever gives you goosebumps), or sometimes I just feel so damned good I think I am going to leap out of my body even though I really think there is no “me” to leap out of my body, or when I meditate and am present, I feel like I am on some kind of higher mental plane than I am when I am worrying or thinking about work… and so forth.
I don’t really define it any differently now that I’m an atheist than I did when I was a Christian. I just explain it differently now.
MIKE
This was meant to be a place of prayer for all nations, but you have made it into a den of thieves!”
CARR
Yes, according to Acts, some of the religous leaders who met regularly in the Temple would demand that followers would hand over the entire proceeds of property sales, and people would be struck dead if they did not hand over all the money.
Where exactly does Mike expect the market to be where people like Mary could buy a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons? (see Luke 2:24)
Certainly priests prospered through the offerings of people like the mother of Jesus, but it was God himself who had decreed that priests should recieve tithes.
Was Jesus angry at the injustice caused by people obeying the word of God in the Old Testament?
The Old Testament tells about the INNER struggles of man to find peace in his heart. It is told from the viewpoint of a family.
It starts out with the father coming to the son and asking “What have you done?”. The child quickly responds by saying “It was her fault, and you gave her to me, so it’s your fault”. The father says to the child, “Go outside and pick up the sticks and rake the leaves until you know what you did.
The child goes outside and argues with himself about who’s fault it is. He puts his heart in prison. He destroys all the things he can. He becomes a slave to the wrong he did his father. He wants a warrior to come save him from his fathers punishment. Finally he realizes that he was wrong.
He realizes he ate the fruit because he wanted to taste it. He wanted to be wise as his father was wise and thought he could do things his own way. He goes into the house to tell his father how sorry he is for his wrong. When he gets inside his father has died. He died to protect him and help him find the peace he needed.
Many do not know why they believe in God. Is that different than not knowing what it is that you do not believe in?
People have “twisted” the word to force THEIR word on others. The Bible says to look inside of ourselves at the “spirit” of the words we say. God wants us to look at our life and honestly answer the question “What have YOU done?” It is the worship of the True Spirit of the word. It is the worship of the Creator of all things. It is the worship of Truth.
BTW, writerdd, I was going to ask you to explain what “spiritual” meant to you, but Miko beat me to it. Thanks for the description.
It seems we’re pretty much saying the same thing. Of course I totally agree that non-religious people can have such experiences. The difference, as you say, is in what we think those experiences mean.
Oh absolutely! Jesus didn’t come to establish another “religion”. He criticized the religious more than anyone else during his ministry. In the words of Rob Bell, “Jesus wants to save Christians” - we need to figure out how to start living the way of Christ more than anyone these days.
If you’ve ever read my blog or my other comments I hope you’ll notice that I try to follow Jesus’ example of challenging the religious as well. I’m more disillusioned with the contemporary Church these days than most of the atheists here!
Most commentators here seem not to doubt your sincerity, as I do not. But, I do think that you’re fooling yourself about what the Bible says. It is what it is: the fundamentalists accept this, and the liberals simply deny it and rationalize the denial with talk about interpretation. The problem with the fundamentalists is that they actually believe the teachings of this primitive tome; the problem with the liberals is that by picking and choosing and reinterpreting the Bible’s language they avoid doing the right thing and repudiating Christianity.
Many fundamentalists would claim that the liberals are repudiating ‘true’ Christianity.
I’m referring to a repudiation before the rational world, not before the fundies–nothing ever pleases them.
DARRYL
It is what it is: the fundamentalists accept this, and the liberals simply deny it and rationalize the denial with talk about interpretation.
CARR
Yes, you will have noticed that nothing annoys liberals more than quotes from the Bible.
Darryl, surely you realize that both sides “interpret” the Bible? It’s impossible to read any text, the Bible included, without interpreting it through some lens or another. The difference is not between those who interpret the Bible and those who “just read it”. The difference is between those who realize that they are interpreting and those who don’t. As soon as you realize that you do intepret, you are you are free to wonder whether your interpretation is the right one or not. In my case, I came to believe that my former, “fundamentalist” interpretation was not the right one, so I traded it for a different one that I believe is truer to the actual nature of the text.
You know, a major turning point for me on the path from believer to doubter was when I realized that virtually every time I cried in church was when I had my period. Uhoh. You mean, maybe I’m not being moved by the spirit? Maybe I’m just having a hormone surge? Huge eye opener for me.
The thing is, I can still bring about the same feelings I had in church by reading familiar scripture passages or singing worship songs. However, I can also bring up the same feelings in many other ways: by listening to other music that I love, by takikng a walk on the beach, by drinking wine outside on a warm summer night.
I don’t know what makes some people think these feelings have a supernatural origin while others are content to understand them as a reaction of our bodies to various stimuli. At some point along my journey, I just stopped having a need to look outside myself and outside of the physical universe to look for meaning or joy.
Yeah, but I’m a dude, so that explanation doesn’t apply to me.
Just kidding! ::ducks::
I do know what you mean. I actually wrote my senior philosophy thesis on that issue. It was 20 pages long though so I won’t bore you with the details.
Yes, Mike, I realize this. I also realize that your response makes my previous point.
Do my ESP powers sense a forthcoming “both/and” type of response from Mike C.?
Yes, yes, I’m getting a clear signal…
I laughed at the part about crying in church when you had your period. As I tell my husband, just because I tend to complain about your annoying habits most when it’s “that time of the month”, it doesn’t mean that those annoying habits aren’t really annoying.
Well, I wasn’t actually going to say it, but yes, that was the basic thrust of my senior thesis.
In what way?
MIKE C
In my case, I came to believe that my former, “fundamentalist” interpretation was not the right one, so I traded it for a different one that I believe is truer to the actual nature of the text.
CARR
And how did you intepret Matthew 18:34-35 where Jesus likens God to a cruel master who tortures his slaves?
Thanks to you, Mike C., for all the time and effort you put into the series! Excellent job.
Carr, we get the idea. You don’t like Jesus. How do you get up in the morning?
My non sequitur alert is going off.
Miko, I’m with you–I can’t understand a thing izzy says.
On the wrong side of the bed, every morning.
To Steven Carr: I think it’s pretty clear by now how Mike C. justifies his position on biblical interpretation. You’re certainly not out of line to question his method, as often as you like I suppose, but have you considered that this particular horse may indeed be dead?
John Cleese once said to a pet shop owner: ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
I think the most appropriate Python sketch here is The Argument Sketch, wouldn’t you say?:
My non sequitur alert is going off.
I s