Dan Sewell

Vending Machine Christianity

2012-02-12T18:13:00.004-06:00

"He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake,
He knows when you've been bad or good
so be good for goodness sake!"
I find the above lyrics more than a little ironic, since of course kids aren't being good for goodness sake, they're being good so they can accumulate lots of loot!

When we relate this to religion, we may tend to think of televangelists- "Fund my 'I want a yacht fund' and God will bestow bountiful blessings upon ye!" Sometimes we try to negotiate with God, saying I'll do such and such, or I'll never do this or that again, in exchange for God doing something for us. Sometimes we find ourselves expecting something from God in return for following religious rules or practices. Oh, I think most of us could say why this is the wrong way to approach God, and could easily recognize such actions as vending machine Christianity, but I have the feeling that, extending this idea more fully, we may find ourselves a little more guilty than we recognized.

Why did we become Christians? Is it because we needed help becoming good people and knew it? Is it because we were overcome by the love that Jesus demonstrated to everyone he met? Is it because we heard about the golden streets and mansions and crowns of heaven? Was is because we were scared as hell of Hell? Suppose that one of the last two is true. Then, are we being "good for goodness sake"? Or are we being good to get something from God, namely heaven? Did we become Christians, did we follow religious practices, did we treat others kindly, give to the poor, all in the expectation of getting Heaven in the end? If at the end of life God said, "Sorry, heaven's not for you" would you respond saying, "But I was a Christian! I belonged to a church! I gave to and volunteered at charities!" Would we feel cheated? Would we instead say, "But Jesus I trusted you!" Now I'm not The Judge on such matters, but I'm guessing that anyone who would've said the latter would not have to say it.

The difference in those two responses is significant; it implies serious differences in why and how we became Christians and dictates who we become afterwards. When we become "Christians" we are transformed. If we became Christians to save ourselves from Hell, or to get some eternal reward then we are transformed not by the love of Jesus but by the love of self. We change the way we live because we ultimately want something for ourselves. The transforming agent is not Jesus' love but the spirit of profit seeking. When we see this, much of the behavior of the church becomes clearer. The existence of the judgmental attitudes and all the doctrinal disagreements makes sense. When our lives are shaped by love, then we pay attention to loving our fellow man under all circumstances. If our lives are being shaped by a desire to get to heaven, then we pay attention to whether our fellow man is doing the "right things" to get access to heaven. Do we care more about what a person does instead of who they are? Do we care about who's doing it right instead of how can we do it together?

We cannot downplay the promises Jesus has made us. They are great, amazing, beautiful. They give us hope, especially when life hands us excruciating pain. We need to know that Jesus has more plans in store for us. The idea of heaven can bring us hope and peace, but it cannot transform who we are into ones who belong to such a place. It may make us behave more like Jesus, but no amount of motivation can make us become more like Jesus. In the end, the only thing that can make us more like Jesus is Jesus.

Elegance in Science

2011-07-13T17:22:00.004-05:00

I was asked to describe the elegance in science that points to God. But first, I believe it to be important to understand the term, or at least come to an agreement on a common understanding of the term, or at least know what I, the author of this post, take "science" to mean, because there are as many different definitions as there are scientists. There are quotes of all kinds, many very eloquent, that try to define this word, but for me it reduces to "the practice of trying to figure out how things work." There is much more to be said on this, but I will leave it alone for the moment. My idea of what is a scientist is directly predicated on my definition of science. In essence, it is one who is curious. I believe that all of us come out as scientists. We continually and without interruption attempt to figure out everything we can about this world we just entered. As we get older, we build more sophisticated ideas as our personal knowledge base grows and as our own capabilities for understanding expands.

You may have thought that I have forgotten the original question, but I have not. I have blathered on about semantics because I think that our curiosity is fundamental to understanding the wonder of God through science. Because God did not make a simple world. Everything is not just immensely complex, but infinitely complex. What man creates has a stopping point of complexity. We are fully able to figure out what the creator has done, and complete the project of "figuring it out." Only God could create a universe such as it is, with infinite complexity, ever smaller details, ever more intricate interactions. We will never have a complete answer for everything (or anything!), and so we, humanity, will always be compelled to look further and examine more closely, and think harder, and consider new ideas. We will never run out of things to be curious about! Any issue can be subjected to the child's tactic of asking why? why? why? There are always new questions, deeper questions to be asked, and always a point where we cease to have sufficient answers. That is the beauty of science, that we never fear knowing everything- praise God, for that would be a dull existence indeed.

I would also point out that there is an incredible amount of elegance within the answers that we find. In my experience with statistics, there have been so many instances where I would start with a complex model, go through pages of equations, algebraic manipulations, complicated derivations, integrations, summations and calculations, only to obtain at the end a solution beautifully understandable, so easily interpreted, something that our intuition easily grasps- this is elegance. There is also beauty in seeing how everything works together. There is an intrinsic power to awe within every field of science that I have studied. I enjoy learning about as many different things in the realm of natural science as I can, because it is truly enjoyable to see how things work together. Just as a mechanic can appreciate the ingenuity and capability that was required to build a car, so much more are we able to appreciate and enjoy how the things that God has made works.

Scholarships for Minorities

2011-07-01T15:55:00.004-05:00

Illinois is the first state to provide a private scholarship for the children of illegal aliens. I'm actually disappointed, but not overly so. I think it's heading in a right direction, but essentially along the wrong path. I think it's terrible to label those who have been raised by illegal immigrants to be themselves illegal. It seems to me very cold indeed to go into the classrooms and pick out a few students and say that they must leave their friends and home behind, move to a new country where they speak a different language, where they won't be provided the same opportunities as their current peers, and will most likely be a much more dangerous place to live. Those students did not choose their parentage, and to say that they are criminals because of it seems absurd. So then why am I disappointed that Illinois has a private scholarship for the sons and daughters of illegal aliens? Because I hate scholarships based on anything other than merit.

I think that the fact the person A gets a scholarship over person B because of their race, ethnicity, parentage, or any other demographic is wrong. We denounce such things as racist or discriminatory if it is done in one direction and call it beneficial if it is in the other direction. Why should a son of a legal resident have to take out student loans and a son of an illegal resident have a free ride? The only correct answer to this question is that the son of the illegal resident happens to have worked harder in high school, made better grades, or scored higher on a standardized exam. Any other reason is in my book total bunk- unjust discrimination masquerading as charity. Honestly, I think if I were in the shoes of a minority who just received aid over a more qualified applicant due to my minority status that I would be insulted that some people think that just because I'm of such-and-such a race, or because my parents are here illegally that I somehow need more help than anyone else, implying that I am less capable because of the minority status.

I believe that I have a good idea why such scholarships exist- that a particular minority is underrepresented in higher education, and that a certain minority group is trapped in a particular low economic class. I think that it is perfectly noble to try to rectify such a thing, but that these minority scholarships are treating the symptoms, not the disease. Shouldn't we instead be working to make such minority groups produce more capable students, instead of giving mediocrity a chance to continue being mediocre? Please don't think that I'm calling all minority scholars mediocre! I've met some very very intelligent ones and were very good friends with them. What I'm intending to say is that instead of putting moneys away for scholarships, we invest it instead in producing the kind of students who will win equal-opportunity scholarships by merit. Instead of realizing that a certain minority doesn't typically produce as good of students as a majority and saying,
"well this is the best you can produce, let's see if they can succeed at a much higher level of academia" we say "let's try to help some of these minorities to develop into the kind of people who will succeed at a much higher level of academia."

Wingnuts- why I Left the Right

2011-05-21T10:44:00.005-05:00

I have been more and more appalled at the extreme conservative right. I know that there are plenty of crazies on both extreme left and extreme right, but the election of Obama really set people off. Since his election we've had an abundance of crazy email chains, absurd issues brought up by politicians, the unbelievable comparisons made, and the circus that the conservative right media has become. The huge proportion of republicans who are unsure whether Obama was born in America, all those who think he's a socialist, communist, fascist, terrorist, etc.- it is simply unbelievable to me that this has become so widespread. Why is this? Why does it seem that people have lost their minds? Consider the comment someone made to me the other day that "the only difference between Osama and Obama is the BS." Really? The head of state of the world's superpower, the head of the most successful republic, the one whose administration continues the war against terror and has finally caught Osama bin Laden, is a terrorist full of BS? I've heard that Obama is the "enemy of humanity." Really? The same Obama who encourages Fathers to be good honest hardworking family men? The same Obama who wants to protect those children born by illegal immigrants? The same Obama who wants to make sure everyone has health insurance? You may disagree that it's the responsibility of the government to do these things, and that's fine. But enemy of humanity? I think it's obvious he cares about people much more than his crazy wingnut accusers (wingnut being defined by John Avlon in his book Wingnuts).

Despite all the patriotic rhetoric and flag waving, it seems incredibly clear that for the extreme conservative, allegiance to country is dwarfed by allegiance to party. As illustration to this, I take Rush Limbaugh's quote upon the election of Obama when asked to write 400 words on his hope for Obama's presidency: "I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." Our president's failings lead to a poor economy, poor national defense, and a failure to unite the country (unification being, of course, an abominable idea to extremists, right or left, who want party purity). So in other words, Limbaugh would prefer this to having a Democrat who succeeds. So for Limbaugh, either an ultra-conservative (even more centrist Republicans are attacked by the wing) Republican is leading the country, or the country should fail for four years until there's another chance for an ultra-conservative to win. In Minnesota, this exactly happened, where extreme rights supported the Democratic congressional candidate to succeed over his Republican opponent, because the Republican candidate wasn't extreme enough.

What most concerns me is the connection between the crazies and Christianity. So many times I've seen comments that mix pure and unadulterated hate for liberals or centrists with God and Christianity. This makes me sick. It's the most unChrist-like comments that invoke his name in them. Whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent, understand that Barrack Obama will always be an historical figure in American history as the first African American president. I think back to my visits to the Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield, and I consider the section of the museum where Lincoln's critics are on display, making very harsh comments, calling him a dictator and such. But this will be nothing, absolute flattery, compared to the section in Obama's future museum displaying his critics. I fear future generations' opinions of us when they see this, because there are some dandies out there, thanks to wingnuts such as Limbough, Beck, Palin (there are so many others, but these get the most attention at least). I fear how often Christianity will be associated with these hate filled diatribes and criticisms, these absurd claims. I wish I could change Christ's name sometimes, just to remove him from these comments, because the Jesus I know has nothing to do with this. The party of Lincoln used to be centered in the north, and the Democrats held the south. This geography switched when Democrats started passing legislation on civil rights. And now the Bible belt became Republican because they opposed these civil rights. I'm so ashamed. This is much of what makes me feel such a personal distance from Church (with capital C) and the disconnect in my mind between Jesus and being a Christian with religion.

I used to be a Republican. Most of my life, in fact. But because of the hate that I see so prevalently, I will never call myself that again. That doesn't mean I won't ever vote for a Republican candidate if I think that they are the best option available, but due to my conscience I cannot associate myself with this paranoid hate and bigotry.

*If you somehow have missed the craziness that I've mentioned, missed the hate-chain-emails, missed the crazy comments by extreme conservative republican politicians or media heads, read "Wingnuts" by John Avlon (it's not an attack on the extreme right, it covers crazies from both sides of the spectrum, and it is not an attack so much as it is good documentation of what's been said). There's plenty of websites too that record such things as well. Some that I have read are:

http://blog.au.org/2009/09/02/pastor-of-hate-when-religious-right-rhetoric-goes-too-far/

http://www.good.is/post/fox-news-shocked-all-black-people-aren-t-burnt-sienna/?utm_source=supr

[skip to 1:35 or so] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-24-2011/24-hour-nazi-party-people

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201010110001

http://mindschmootz.net/2009/06/the-base-of-hate-extreme-right-wing-rhetoric-has-consequences/

Osama

2011-05-02T16:12:00.003-05:00

Well, we did it. Osama finally ran out of running room and got a bullet in the head. The people of America, and all over the world perhaps, is celebrating*, and rightly so in some sense, and horribly wrong in another. I just can't get myself happy about it. I'm absolutely excited in that we may have saved many many lives in the future- OK I get that. But happy that a man is dead to achieve that aim? Not so much. I'm sorry that a man had to die for that to happen. Yes, it was his own past and would-have-been-future choices that led to this necessity (and I agree that if capture wasn't possible then this was indeed necessary). But what unimaginable history, upbringing, environment, family could lead a person to such reckless hate and disregard for life? I don't know, and neither do you. I can't imagine living life with the goal to end others' lives. What a pathetic existence, and by pathetic I mean sympathy enducing, to think about missing out on friendships, love, morality (true morality, not religious), without the aims of bettering your and others' lives. As Harry Potter says to Voldemort in the 5th, ". . . you'll never know love, or friendship, and I feel sorry for you." Yes he's a vile person who needs to be stopped, but it doesn't mean that we don't feel sorry that his entire existence is so meaningless and cruel. He's dead now, so he'll never have a chance to change his heart, or understand why life is so precious. I know I'm in the minority for these thoughts, and that most people won't and can't get past that he needed to die. I still just can't imagine Christ celebrating over this though.

*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-new-york_n_856137.html

Why Karma Stinks

2011-01-24T17:44:00.004-06:00

This is the third post I've had on why bad things happen, (with this post focusing on why it happens to good people), but I had a thought the other day I thought worth putting down.

Why does crap happen? Because we aren't mature enough to handle it. If God always rewarded those who did good, and punished or at least did not do good to those did evil, then the whole purpose of free choice is ruined. Sure we could still choose to do good or to do bad, but our motivation would be skewed. In the end, the purpose of free choice seems to me to get us to be Christ-like; that is, we start from an ugly mess and work our way choice by choice to where we love other people more than ourselves. However, if we knew that if karma was the rule, and that if I did good to others, then God would do good to me here, then I am becoming no more Christ-like then an investor who gives his savings to a company with the expectations of dividends and capital gains. Every good deed would become a profit, and so by making selfish choices, we become more selfish people, and by making good choices, we also are becoming more selfish people. Here's a silly example. I see a wallet lying on the floor in a store. In our world, I could keep it with the consequences of enriching myself and worsening my character, or I could return it with the consequences of getting no monetary gain but becoming more Christ-like and focused on other people. By returning it I would be more inclined to do the right thing the next time I am in a similar scenario. However, in a world ruled by karma, if I return it, I am doing it because I know that by doing so, God will heal my sick relative, or give me that job I wanted. My focus is all on myself and my desires either way.

So I conclude that a world ruled by karma would lead to the failure of God's plan for us, and would turn us all into selfish wretches. So obviously this is not our world, as good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to very good people. While my whole life I've thought of this as unfair, I now realize how impossible life would be if it were any other way. Maybe God is wiser than me, after all.

Why I dislike religion.

2010-07-11T20:36:00.005-05:00

Let me preface this by saying to what in this context I mean religion: dogma, legalism, rituals, ceremonies and liturgy, the view of insiders vs. outsiders, snobbery, deification of a man authored holy book, denominations, liturgy, demand for conformity of beliefs, the notion (which many hold and most deny) that you must think just like me to receive salvation, the passing down of belief systems without any thought or assessment from the receiver, the search for corroborating evidence instead of the search for truth. A final note before my original post is that I don't believe Christianity was ever supposed to be a religion, but a decision that transforms the way you treat others.

Religion is like train tracks for those trying to know God. It keeps everyone on the same track, going the same way, seeing the same scenery, leading to the same conclusions about God. It is following all the cars in front of you. But it is not people we want to follow; rather it is a God for which we search. It is inevitable for a few to get derailed, some of which crash, and never reach their destination, while others go out exploring, maybe taking a little longer to find God, but seeing and experiencing so much more. These latter have seen different things than the clones who have stuck to the tracks. So what leads some to derailing? Questions and fortitude. What keeps one from crashing? Even more fortitude. Stick to the tracks if you want, but do not say I cannot follow by foot; for I forsake the tracks when I see flaws, and wander when the lines are skewed.

A Jesus Question

2010-04-21T08:13:00.002-05:00

So I've always held the notion that it is only fair for God to experience humanity. That is, if he expects us to be "good," he ought to come down here and give it a whirl himself, just to know what he's truly asking. However, if Jesus was that divine manifestation, then it wasn't exactly fair since he could do all the miracles he wanted. One could counter that he did them not for himself, but for others out of compassion and sympathy. OK, so if that's the case, then why isn't it happening now? Surely our God still feels compassion and sympathy, right? So why did he perform miracles then and not now, or before he came?

Quick Thought on Forgiveness

2009-12-16T17:16:00.002-06:00

I just got to thinking about a question that was posed to me, which essentially boiled down to this: How will trusting in God's judgment affect how you treat people? And my response was: Well, trusting in God's judgment means nothing to my actions if I also trust in God's forgiveness of all the crap that I do to people. So where this led me was this thought:

The only way for us to be capable of showing love is for there to be no consequences for us.

If God did not erase everything we did, then all of our good actions would be tainted by the self-interest involved in avoiding judgment. Only with the full knowledge that even if I sin I am forgiven do I yield the power to return God's love and give untainted love out to those around me.

Crap happens. But why?

2009-10-06T15:18:00.002-05:00

Anytime something like this happens, always one of the first things to cross my mind is this: there are so few really good people out there, and so many jerks and straight up otherless (see earlier post) people; so why are we robbed of the good ones?

So, why does bad crap happen to good folks, as far as God's intervention is concerned?
Either God does not intervene in this world, or he does, but chose not to in this case, or God chose it to happen.

The first option seems the easiest road, but there just seems to be so much of my life that I just must attribute to and give thanks to God. So even though my natural inclination would be to this conclusion, some part of me tells me it's not quite right. In addition, if this was true, then suddenly the world is a much scarier place. It's like walking the tightroap and all of a sudden you notice there is no safety net below you. I can't think that God would allow no room for maneuvering on his part. Why would he limit himself that way?

So if God does intervene, where the heck was he? Why act sometimes and not other times? I don't think we could ever answer that unless we actually knew what, if anything, was due to his intervention in our physical universe.

Surely God wouldn't choose this to happen. Not a good God, and the whole universe screams to me saying, our God is good.

One final thought, and thank Bella for this one. I had to put up an electric wireless fence for my idiot dog. It gives her a nasty zap when she tries to leave our backyard. She doesn't understand why she would get zapped. She's just trying to find me. But I, being more evolved, know that she'll get lost and starve to death, or she'll get hit by a car on Johnson rd. So I zap her instead of letting those things happen. Is this what is happening to the Ray's? Is God giving them a well meaning zap? It'd be nice to think so, but I still don't. It'd be nice to think this incident had a divine purpose, but I don't think God would be responsible for this.

What I do think is that while God does intervene sometimes, his intervention is the anomaly, not the norm, and most of the time crap happens. Now God and the Ray's could use this to a good end, but I don't think it was a designed plan. This makes me walk a little more timorously. And much more worried about those I love.

I suppose that we should have strong enough hope in an afterlife to feel OK with losing people, but my beliefs on that aren't nearly solid enough to make me sigh with relief.

2009-09-08T16:38:00.004-05:00

Scott said something to the effect of when he was a kid, his church was conditioning people to be more like the pharisees and not like Christ. Another friend of mine shared that he was scared for his own salvation because he hadn't been to church in awhile. What a load of rot. Scott, here's your corroborating evidence to go along with your thoughts. At what point did we fall back into legalism? Apparently pretty early, from Paul's letter to the Galatians. That sucks. We finally got the chance to live in the great outdoors and instead we go back to our safe little cardboard boxes that we feel so comfortable in. There's so much to experience, enjoy, and yes, there is danger out there too, but if we stay in our smothering boxes, we received nothing new when we let Christ take our hand.

I think of little children in school, having to walk single file, no talking, no turning around, etc. This is what legalism is. It is controlled, it is safe, it is comfortable and predictable, but so limiting. God has given us more freedom and responsibility. We are free to roam the halls at will. On the one hand, there is less human control, and there may be some serious disruptions. But some of us will wander off to do good things. Maybe this is a bad example.

Life is unpredictable, with ups and downs. Some of us only see the ups, some only the downs, and most of us are on the roller coaster, riding the hills and valleys. Now, if we have followed all the rules, but we observe someone in need of comforting, loving, support, financial help, etc., we have no need nor are we responsible to aid this person. We've done all that is required of us. We've given our 10%. We've gone to church the right number of times. We've followed the rules. However, outside of legalism, we might not give 10% to charities, but then again we may give 20%. We may have never stepped inside a soup kitchen, or maybe we know some of the homeless by name. But we are always compelled to love. That person in need should get our help, and it doesn't matter one bit what we've already done or not done. In fact, all that we do is a reflection of the love in us from God, so the more we receive from God the more we shine.

Instead of a checklist, we have a journey to make. Instead of rules, we have a chisel. We can follow the rules or break them in the legalism method. In God's method, we are either becoming more Christlike, or going back to looking like ourselves.

"FREEEEEEEDOOMMMMMMM!!!!" says William Wallace, and so says Christ.

Otherish or Otherless

2009-08-05T14:33:00.003-05:00

So here's a hypothesis:
Every choice we make is based on what will bring us the decision makers more joy (or less pain).

What I mean is this: Selfishness and selflessness don't revolve around yourself at all, but rather what you do for other people. People who are selfish and people who are selfless both are acting and making decisions based on what they think will bring themselves the most joy. The difference lies in whether that joy includes other people or not. Maybe we should talk about people being otherish and otherless.

Here's where all this came from.

Clearly, selfish (otherless) acts can be seen as bringing the selfish person joy, but what about unselfish acts?

First, let's look at coercion/doing good things with a crap attitude. (i.e. We do something because someone else wants us to do it.) For example, I go see a chick flick because my wife wants me to go with her. But really I decide to go because I'd rather endure the film than have an argument, or maybe because next time I get to choose. Or I tithe, but only because I'm supposed to. So I'm doing a good thing, but I chose to do it because I'd rather lose the money than lose the eternal rewards. Or I serve someone, but I do it because I'd rather have people think highly of me than have my time back.

Second, we give/serve, and we do it with a great attitude. But the real reason why we chose to do it is because we enjoy giving/serving others than keeping our money/time/sweat to ourselves.

Challenge: try to come up with a scenario in which a person can possibly make a choice that will not bring more joy/less pain to the decision maker, without disregarding the emotional effects of the choice.

Thanks

2009-08-05T14:32:00.001-05:00

I am so grateful that God has given me more than I need. It is such a great and enjoyable thing to be able to share with others, as opposed to being God's charity.

Image of God

2009-07-30T08:31:00.006-05:00

INTRODUCTION:
So on Sunday Scott talked about the image of God, which started the gears turning. I haven't given it a really good think before this week, but I always assumed that it referred to something completely unique to humans (namely morality). This is actually Take 2 for this blog. In the first one, I tried to state all or most plausible possibilities for what the image of God means, and eliminate all that I could. The one left standing would be the winner. This is typically a great way to go after something if the answer isn't an obvious one. Well, I was discrediting these various ideas based on the notion that we [humans] and only we [not animals] are created in God' image (i.e. my previous assumption as stated above). The problem came when I eliminated all my possibilities. Yikes. The really scary thing came when I eliminated morality (for a highly recommended reading, check out http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13860-six-uniquely-human-traits-now-found-in-animals.html?full=true and http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523515.000-virtuous-nature.html?page=1 ). This really changed my worldview quite a bit, and although I'm no closer to being a vegetarian, I do look at animals in a new light. So I was left with the problem that there is no significant inherent qualities about humans that separate us from animals- only extent to which we possess certain traits. So, despite everything I had thought and assumed before, I was forced to conclude that the answer to this riddle was not a particular trait we possessed but simply the extent we possessed it.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
Here's what I came up with after a good long think. First I want you to imagine a particular situation.
Think of a particularly noble, loving, honorable, hard working, respected man. This man becomes father to a son. At first, this baby looks very little like the man, physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, etc. The boy becomes a toddler, and starts to look more like a man, but obviously far from the what he will become. He also becomes vaguely familiar with right and wrong, although it's more of a "I want to avoid punishment" than a mature understanding of morality. The boy grows into his teens and has a much better idea of morality, but still has a long way to mature. Finally the boy becomes a man himself. He has reached a Point of Accountability in his life, where he can choose for himself whether to live as his father did, or to be a man who cannot hold a job, maintains addictions, remains immature, etc. Suppose this boy/man chooses to live as his father does. He now looks like his father, acts like his father, and while he is not his father, he is very much the image of his father. If he chooses the lesser path, his behavior doesn't resemble his father's, and alcohol, drugs, self-abuse, and failure to take care of himself all contribute to make his physical appearance look less like his father. No one would come up to this person and say, "you're the spitting image of your father."

Less developed life that we came from is like the boy during his childhood. As life become more advanced (from our perspective), these traits from God becomes more and more apparent. When man finally came on the scene, we have reached that Point of Accountability. While we were all created in the image of God, each man now has the responsibility to maintain that image or choose our own lesser path. It's easy to find extreme examples to illustrate this. Look at Hitler, and you do not see the image of God like you would if you looked at Mother Teresa. Each chose to maintain the image of God or to go their own route. Looking at Christ shows us what would happen if we did nothing to taint the image of God in which we were created. Unfortunately, all of us have chosen to live differently than that which we were intended, some more than others. However, when we chose to give ourselves to and follow Christ, we ". . .are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18)." We are looking more and more like God, as Christ changes us and works on us and chisels us into what we were created to be- the image of God.

CONCLUSION:
While morality is not uniquely human, we have such an extended knowledge of morality (that has developed along with the rest of our biological functions) that we are capable, and hence held accountable, to choose to live like our God, and be "the spittin' image of" our Father, or to forsake that path and head our own way.

Medieval Thinking

2009-06-15T08:30:00.004-05:00

Surely we in the twenty first century do not think like those in medieval time period, right? We don't set up Inquisitions, severely abuse lower classes, or wage Holy Wars. But before you get too haughty, look at the next two frameworks for thinking, based on medieval cosmology, and see if you actually are more like those folks from way back when than you might have guessed. First, look at what this cosmology was. The prevailing (and ruling) thoughts was the egocentric notion that the earth was the center of everything, and the universe truly does revolve around us (reminds us of our teenage years).
"The waters lie above it, the air above that, and fire soars upward to the heavens. . . " beyond the moon lies the fixed "crystal spheres [stars]" and beyond that is where God and the angels reside (Primack and Abrams in The View from the Center of the Universe).

Note that the physical location of everything is very ordered. This helped shape the strongest framework of thought of the day, which is to say that everything was put into its place by God. Kings were made kings by God, peons were made peons by God, and one simply lived out the role God placed them in. To deny the divine right of the king was the same as completely tearing down their universe as they saw it. Now for us, especially in America with the American dream, we no longer think of things quite like this, and certainly not for politics or occupation, but I think that we still see this paradigm exhibited to some extent. Questions such as "What is our 'calling'?" or " What did God intend for us to do with our life?" or any sort of questions of destiny or fate all demonstrate this same idea that the positions and places we fill or will fill is all orderly and preordained by God.

The second framework for thinking comes from when the medieval cosmology came crashing down due to the work of Galileo and his contemporaries. What happened was what is considered the Cartesian Bargain. This was applicable to the culture and political structure of the time, but it continues to permeate many folks' thoughts today. What this agreement boils down to is a divorce between the spiritual and the physical. At the time, this meant that scientists would be allowed to work on explaining the physical, but leave any spiritual implications out of it. Similarly, religion would not attempt to overstep its bounds and use their religious views to explain physical phenomena. I see this divorce everywhere today, and certainly has had chain reactions within the past two hundred years that affect us today. For instance, take the common reaction of the church to the Big Bang cosmology. Here, instead of seeing this as evidence for a creation event, secular scientists make no effort to interpret the powerful meaning of their discovery, and Christians simultaneously condemn the scientific data, facts, and theories because it doesn't fit with one particular prominent religious view. Today, much work is being done to see how chemical changes within the brain affect spiritual experience. I will make two predictions: First, scientists will use this to explain away the validity of spiritual encounters, and second, Christians will condemn the science, come up with poor excuses for found data, and not even consider the possibility that perhaps God reaches us through physical means and not by magic. As a final example, go to any church, talk loudly about evolution, note the angry or offended expressions, and then see how many of those folks have read anything about the theory (this does not include reading a dismantling of the theory without reading an unbiased explanation or defense). This is the divorce between science and religion that occured in the 1600's still seen today.

Are we more civilized and sophisticated then the people who lived through and shaped medieval times? Certainly. But I think it important to recognize how these people still shape many contemporary thoughts.

Fire Fall Down By Hillsong United

2009-05-24T17:57:00.003-05:00

Some of the lyrics to a song we sang this morning were "Your fire fall down fall down on us as we pray as we seek." It begs the question, what is meant by fire? When we sing this, what are we intending? I reckon many would say it refers to the Holy Spirit. In the Bible, the H.S. apparently comes down on the disciples in the form of flames. Personally, I have never experienced nor heard testimony to anything like that happening, so to me I cannot consider that to mean the Holy Spirit. Indeed, I imagine if I were to really penetrate the thoughts of those who answered Holy Spirit, I would not find that they believe and expect the Holy Spirit to come down on them manifested as fire, as they would claim to believe happened to the disciples so many centuries ago. For me, when I sang it (in my head- I can't play bass as well as I would like and still sing at the same time!) I fully intended it to be understanding. So much of God is unknown and convoluted by men and their belief systems, I would love nothing more than to catch a glimmer of truth about our deity. I'd be curious to know what each person's "fire" is that they want from God, that thing that they truly seek.

Intersection of Justice and Forgiveness

2009-05-13T21:44:00.003-05:00

What a difficult question. My answer is this: Do what is beneficial. If someone needs punishment to learn a lesson, give them punishment. If the person is truly repentant, offer forgiveness to teach them grace. If others need to know that punishment will follow particular actions, proffer punishment. In each scenario, try to find what will do the most good. In a sense, we leave feelings out of it and try to look objectively at the situation and make a good decision. Of course, this is extremely easy to implement, assuming your God.

Talent vs. Character

2009-02-18T09:12:00.004-06:00

Alright, so my fellow graduate students have prompted this thought with the following quote (which is not quite a real quote, but gets the general idea across): "I'm not dropping the class because I'm stupid but because I don't want to do the work." This represents an attitude which I have seen in other students as well.

The general idea is that a person would rather be thought to have high traits that one cannot have any control over rather than thought to have high traits in areas where we can control. I can see the logic in it as well. If you think yourself smart, you think that you can overcome anything that you need to overcome, whereas if you are just a hard worker, you may or may not be able to overcome a particular obstacle.

However, I've never seen an inspirational film on a very talented person who decided to go the easy route in life. I have seen a film about a person who was born with no arms or legs and yet is able to function autonomously. Which commands the greater respect, the above mentioned man or a Stephen Hawking flipping burgers? Of course the bright and talented man could overcome more obstacles than the dull-witted or clumsy man, so perhaps in this line of thought the talented might have a good self-esteem.

In the end however, I believe that self-esteem, self-worth, and the amount of us respect one commands is achieved from what has accomplished, what actions one has taken, what obstacles have been overcome, as opposed to gifts one was born with that were not earned or worked for.

Yet at the same time, I believe most of us would rather to be thought of as smart or naturally athletic than a hard worker. This is the paradox upon which our self-esteem rests.

B-I-B-L-E

2008-11-17T18:48:00.003-06:00

So John chapter 8 begins with a footnote that says that the earliest manuscripts and witnesses do not have the following account. So, should we treat this with as much respect as the rest of the Bible, or do we believe some monks somewhere in the 5th century (when this first appeared) made the story up and put it in there? How are we to know what should be in the New Testament and what should not? How do we know that any of this is truly the directed word of God? After all, none of them even claim to be such books. They just claimed to be accounts of people's experiences with God, or letters of instruction from one man to others. Whatever may be said about the rest of the NT, one must reach a conclusion about this passage in John 8. Is it authentically from God or is it just a good story added in there? It's easy just to accept it because that's how Zondervan packages the Bible, but is that a sound reason? We must either believe
1. God, although deciding to use the written word to communicate to his people, decided to rely on the oral tradition for just one story, until the 5th century where he decided it was the right time and divinely inspired someone to stick it into his holy text.
2. Man inserted this story by his own volition. While this story is good and may be very instructional in figuring God out, it is nonetheless a fictional piece put in there by man's own volition.
3. Oral tradition handed this story down, and while it's not something from the mouth of God, it is still a true account.
I started to write a fourth option which was that God inspired others to include this later, but what would be the reasoning for that? Did God forget to put it in there the first time? I don't think so. So I hold to the original three options. But I think that each person needs to think about it and not brush it off.

Decision Making

2008-10-03T10:23:00.005-05:00

So, the question is as follows: Is there any point in asking God to help us make decisions? Would God affect our thinking so that we decide to go one way on something we normally would go the other?
This would be only too great, but I think that although God certainly has the potential to be able to tweak our minds, I think that that is the one area God will not invade and control. After all, if he were willing to make up our minds for us, would there ever be any sin? If he were willing to enter our heads and make us decide to do or not do certain things, then Jesus wouldn't have had to come down and die for us, would he? So it seems to me that if God was willing to go to such extremes by having Jesus die rather than affecting our decisions, then he's pretty determined that we are going to be responsible for our own decisions.

Bottom line: If God will make our decisions for us, then we have quite assuredly lost our free will. I think that is the whole thing about the human experiment: that God gives us free will and sees what we do with it.

At any rate, I know that God has helped us along with the decision making process by giving us a conscience and reasoning abilities. And I can't explain how, so it's pure hypothesis on my part, but I am convinced that God will act on our behalf and help us make the right decisions, whether it's God removing temptation from us, our God putting us through experiences that will help us grow in wisdom, or by putting people in our lives who will give us good advice or be a good example, or some other means I have yet to realize.

And yet, while I don't want to put God in a box, I cannot fathom he will make our choices for us.

Grossman Lives Up To His Name

2008-07-26T10:28:00.002-05:00

Ah Rex oh Rex, our quarterback Rex,
I'd ship you out of Chicago, using FedEx

Your throws I admit are definitely the best
They hit players right in their chest
Your throws are exact, straight and true
If only you'd throw to the players in Blue!

PRIDE

2008-06-12T18:52:00.001-05:00

I have presently been reading Mere Christianity, and more specifically, a section on pride. Lewis describes pride as being the worst of all sin, saying pride IS enmity. I've been thinking about it, and it seems that yes, in one use of the word it certainly can be a very hellish thing within us, but in other uses it can be quite positive.

For instance, you should take pride in your work. It doesn't necessarily mean that you should do your best in order to be better than someone else, or you should look down on work lesser than your own. To take pride in one's work means that you should give it your best effort, and do such work that you do not consider shabby and that you are not ashamed to be associated with.

A father can be proud of his son, or a coach can be proud of his player. Certainly this is a negative side of pride if you are wanting to be associated with someone in order that your own status may increase. But I found myself telling a guy I was tutoring who had done well on a placement test that I was proud of him. I only mean that I am happy for his accomplishment and he should feel good about himself for doing so. Now would he be feeling pride if he was feeling good about himself? I hardly think so. After all, we are all trying our hardest (hopefully) to be more Christlike (that includes doing your best always) and so should we not be happy when we find ourselves walking down that path? I think the negative pride comes in when we do a good job on something in order that others think higher of us, but to say that we should not feel proud if we pass a difficult test or run a long race or resist a temptation would be to say that we should never have good self-esteem.

Humility should not be confused with low self-esteem. If you ace a difficult test, you shouldn't lie to yourself that you didn't do anything very great, but neither should you display your test where all can see your high marks. Humility simply dictates us to keep our self-esteem to ourselves.

One last thing on pride. Everyone has some sort of talent, and some have extreme talent. Would it be prideful to pray to God and thank Him for it? I don't think so, as long as we understand the next point. When I understand who God is and who I am, I realize that the only reason that I am smart or that I am stupid or that I am fast or that I am slow or that I am artistic or not artistic has nothing to do with me but everything to do with how God created me. If I am particularly smart, God could have just as easily have made me quite dumb, and I could hardly do anything about it. I have no say in how God made me. When we realize this, I think it is worshipful, appropriate, and quite necessary to thank God for the talents that he gave you.

2008-04-29T09:08:00.002-05:00

Parable-

During much of the 20th century, scientists have debated over the "Big Bang" Theory of cosmology and the Steady State Theory. Both on paper seemed quite plausible. When the evidence started trickling in however, it seemed that the Big Bang theory described evidences and predicted future results with more and more confidence, whereas those holding to the Steady State paradigm needed to explain away more and more incoming data. The Steady State Theory received its final blow when CMBR (radiation) was predicted in 1948 and then discovered in 1965. Now, it would seem obvious that for those who originally believed that their Steady State Theory was indeed true would switch camps when conflicting evidence would come in, as well as supporting evidence for the Big Bang Theory. It would also seem that those who would not switch camps even after being exposed to overwhelming evidence have either a pride or a stubbornness that is unyielding and unwilling to come to grips with what is much more likely to be the truth, and at the very least, come to grips with knowing their original idea is wrong.

Now the concept of a scientific theory is simply to look at a physical phenomena and try to interpret what it signifies.

Similarly, we all have "theories" about what the Bible says. We all read it, and try to interpret what it signifies.

I'm as guilty as the next of claiming that my interpretation is correct. In fact I can be quite stubborn about it, but after all, I'm right.

Just kidding of course.

So let's go to Genesis, because I believe that it is a spot where the story of the two cosmological models can be translated into our Biblical interpretations. Each of us hold some idea as to how to interpret the first chapter of Genesis. The three most common ways are these:
1. God created in 24hr. periods,
2. Each "day" of creation is an indefinite time period, a "day-age,"
3. the first chapter of Genesis is a piece of literature with the intent of teaching specific messages without any scientific considerations.

I'll pick on the first one because it is easiest.

If someone were to read Gen. 1, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created each grouping during 24 hr. periods. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created everything less than 15,000 years ago. However, when we take our noses out of the book and look around us, it takes no time at all to completely disprove this idea (despite what Recent Creationist literature may say, it is completely impossible). Yet many still believe this. Why? Well, partly it is because a bunch of hogwash that may seem like science is fed to people, but mostly I believe it is because they believe that that is what the Bible says and so there is no other possibility that could be true. Just as those who stuck by the Steady State Theory would not give in to the conflicting evidence, these Christians will not be persuaded that their interpretation of the Bible could be incorrect.

Last class period in my Science and Religion class, we were discussing the above mentioned three interpretations of Genesis 1, giving the strengths and weaknesses of each. A girl piped up and mentioned what she thought was a strength of the literary view of Genesis.

"It is permissive. It allows you to believe what you want about science."

This to me reveals a serious flaw in her integrity. We as Christians ought to be truth seekers. This means that we should not be concerned one bit with what we want to believe or what we think is permitted to believe. We should not say that something is not true or is true based on what we think we are allowed to believe, but rather we should believe true what we are convinced is true. I believe quite strongly in the third interpretation of Gen. 1, but I certainly will not look down on someone who has looked at the evidence and truly thinks that the day-age interpretation is correct. Who I will think less of are those who pick any of these interpretations (even the one I think is right) because they think that is what we are permitted to believe, or because it goes along with their original interpretation of Genesis. Maybe this will illustrate what I'm getting at- In all fields of science, theories are contrived to fit the data. When new data comes which does not fit the original theory, that original interpretation is discarded for a new one (ideally of course, for in reality, people are people, Christian or no, and will stick with their own interpretation or theory). Later if still another theory comes along that describes the data better, it is adopted in place of the old. Similarly, we all have interpretations about Genesis 1, and if an interpretation comes along that better describes the facts that we have accumulated, why stick with the old which is contradicted by what we have discovered?

Psychology of Morality

2008-04-24T10:04:00.003-05:00

I was reading an interesting article yesterday on the psychology of "disgust." It was intriguing to hear the author's ideas of how our sense of disgust develops, and how it originated. The studies done however, I found to be more than a little faith shaking, as odd as it may seem for such a study to do so. The results were that most of what we consider disgusting is something that is taught. Those who were not taught to think something was disgusting did not feel that that particular something was disgusting. This was quite extraordinary to me, for I had always assumed that this feeling of disgust had nothing to do with what I was taught, but rather my feelings of revulsion were very natural and innate. This disturbed me mostly because I view how my stomach can turn at stepping barefoot on dog excrement is similar to how my innards twist at acts of immorality. They both are natural feelings and involuntary reactions to what I observe. Indeed, we consider many extreme immoral scenarios to be disgusting. They are linked to each other in an intimate way. Thus my fears began as I saw that if disgust is something that is taught, so could be the case for morality. If you do not yet understand why this frightened me, notice that if morality is nothing more than what we are taught, than there is no absolute morality, and thus no God to have given it to us.

However, still dwelling on it today, the light bulb lit brightly above my head. Compare the development of morality with the development of language. Are we born already knowing right from wrong? It is quite dubious, otherwise why do we see such a maturational development as one ages? And certainly we are not born already knowing our vernacular, but we are also just as certainly born with the ability and desire and need to learn a language. Similarly, we are born with the ability and desire and need to learn what is right and what is wrong. Language becomes such a natural process within us- it is how we respond and react to things (what happens when you stub your toe?) and indeed it is how we consciously think. Similarly, morality becomes so ingrained within us, we respond and react to things with our sense of morality, and we cannot engage a moral decision without our previous moral teachings affecting our cognitive processes.

The conclusion? Perhaps more than what we thought previously, morals are based more on what a person has been taught as opposed to what would naturally develop. This does not mean that we would have no sense of morality without any teaching. We would still feel disgust towards bad flavors and odors without anyone teaching us this, and we would still feel disgust at blatant immoral behavior without anyone teaching us this. Therefore, the question of where does any sense of morality come from is still valid, and the only valid answer still is GOD.

Three Creational Sparks

2008-04-17T09:20:00.002-05:00

Matter, Life, Spirit- the three creation events. This idea of three sparks of creation is a new way of looking at God’s handiwork, and is worth the looking over. Some of us ask questions such as “when did God’s creation event happen?” while neglecting the various facets of creation. Others ask questions regarding when particular things came into being, while neglecting who caused it to come into being. It is time to merge these two sets of questions and see where they lead us.

1. Around 13 billion years, the first spark occurred. Matter was born out of nothingness. Space-time was created, particles and sub-particles were created, and all the laws of nature, discovered and those still undiscovered, were born- God’s first creation event.

2. Around 4 billion years ago, the second spark occurred. The first simple cells of life were formed- a true miracle and completely unexplainable. Thus was the beginning of all the miraculous life forms we view today, with all their complexities, intricacies, beauty, grace, behavior and intelligence- God’s second creation event.

3. Around 200 thousand years ago, the first Homo Sapien walked the earth. When and how the human consciousness began, this third spark of creation, I do not know, but this surely is the most profound of all. Capacity for rational thought, capacity for involved relationships, a keen awareness of aesthetics, and possibly the most significant, a development of a spiritual nature and a moral sense were all born- God’s third creation event.

Now it is interesting to ponder the symmetry of what we know of God and what we know of his creation.

1. God the Lord is the king- the ruler over everything that exists. The Lord is the creator of the heavens and the earth. His laws are obeyed by all of nature. The Lord’s power is demonstrated in this first creation event.
Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 14:19- “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.”
Deuteronomy 10:14- To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.

2. Jesus Christ put himself into the position of experiencing life on earth, to know what it is truly like being confined to a biological shell, to feel every wound and happiness. He experienced family, friends, betrayal, threat, predation, joy, food, drink, love, happiness- all the things of life he experienced.
John 1:3,4- Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
I Timothy 1:15- Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.

3. The Holy Spirit, by nature is spiritual, just as a part of man is spiritual. The Holy Spirit resides in man and guides us and helps us. The Holy Spirit is not in other biological beings because they do not have the moral choices set before men due to their spirit.
Mark 1:8- I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Mark 13:11- Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
John 20:22- And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 1:8- But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. . .

This is of course just one possible lens through which we can view God and what he has made.

What will heaven be like?

2008-04-01T11:41:00.002-05:00

Well, I've got the best wife in the world, a good job, a great school, a wonderful family, great friends, good health. . . it's hard to think of an improvement.

Honestly, I think it will be much more similar to this life than what I've heard from mainstream Christianity. After all, it would seem that this reality was intended to be our eternal home. Which is strange since, albeit it's WAY in the future, eventually the sun will run out of gas, . So did God originally intend for us to expand away from planet Earth? Strange thought. Anyways, I think heaven will be infinitely complex to satisfy our minds, infinitely beautiful to satisfy our aesthetic sense, infinitely large to satisfy our desire to discover. I think we will probably have to work, for two reasons: work develops and strengthens our character, and in a sense is self-sharpening. Second, that sense of accomplishment is so satisfying. I think we will be able to experience God in a way that none of us can yet comprehend. This last one is what I'm looking forward to the most- I'm worn out wondering what or who God really is, and cannot wait to understand Him, His power, His glory, His beauty, His love, unhindered.

That's my thoughts, at any rate. Most of them don't have too strong of a base, other than this is what I imagine "perfection" being. It could be totally different.

The war of Science and Christianity- (long but I think worth reading)

2008-03-27T17:30:00.008-05:00

"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
-Jeanette Rankin

Hostility abounds when reading both religious articles on science and scientific articles on religion. Any scientist who is religious or makes hypotheses inclusive of a higher Intelligence is certainly subject to verbal or active persecution. Anyone immersed in religious circles who believes particular scientific views contrary to orthodox religious views are perceived very critically, may be considered less spiritual, or the ultimate Christian insult, "liberal."

Of course it is unfair to say that this is always the case, and to do so would be incorrect. We are, however, at war with one another.

This leaves those Christians in the sciences feeling much like metal between hammer and anvil.

What are the causes? Is this war needed? Can it end?

Before addressing these questions, let's look at the history of the S&C War. One could say that science experienced the suppressive nature of religion in the medieval age. One must wonder though, is this truly the beginnings of the S&C War? Certainly natural philosophers (precursory nomenclature for scientists) were persecuted and excommunicated by the church, but on a second glance backward through time, we see that free thinking in general was prohibited by those in power, and this is the real persecution. It expands beyond science and into religion, since the commoners were not allowed to read or own a Bible. In the Age of Reason, we see a beautiful amalgam of science and theology. Sir Isaac Newton made the statement that describes both his beliefs and those of his contemporaries, "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." So the question arises, when did the war begin? The answer seems to point clearly to the Darwinian Revolution.

Here lies the answers to when the S&C War began, why it began, and why it persists.

When The Origin of the Species was written in 1859, there was no animosity between religion and science, which is as it should be, since Christianity should not be concerned with the mechanisms of how God created. However, in the early 1900's, the Christian population believed, as many still do today, that God created everything both separately and immediately. The notion of common descent, especially applied towards men, was contrary to the popular interpretation of inspired Biblical teaching. To the eyes of Christians, Darwinism left no room for God.

What could have happened is this scenario: the Christian population pushes pride aside and asserts that their interpretations of the Bible may or may not be correct. To discover the answer, they objectively look at the evidence and weighing it, pick the more probable paradigm- their current Creation model, or common descent. Of course this is not what happened at all. The Christian population assumed that what they already believed was infallible, and assumed that this apparent attack on religion was the first shot fired in the S&C War, and many viewed other scientific theories of origin such as the Big Bang Theory in the same artillery barrage.

In response to this perceived attack, a few Christians took charge of an offensive against Darwinism. This was manifested in the Scopes Trials of course, but was preceded by Harry Rimmer who founded the “Research Science Bureau” without actually being a scientist, and Ellen White who founded Seventh Day Adventism who’s claims came by "revelation." This latter organization claimed that geological phenomena and fossil findings were produced in full by the Biblical global flood, claimed that the earth was less than 10,000 years old, and therefore not enough time existed for evolution to take place. A very influential writing that subscribes to these views, The Genesis Flood, was written in 1961 by Henry Morris (again, not a scientist) and is still in print. These individuals and their organizations have shaped the views of Christians and antagonized the scientific community for over 80 years. As Christians, we should be absolutely outraged that we have been hoodwinked by this bad science. The general Christian population was and is not a group of scientists who can successfully analyze data from various fields of science, and so these hypotheses that seemed scientifically sound to the non-scientific seemed to eliminated any doubt that the original Christian interpretations of the Bible were correct. Meanwhile, this bad science was attacking the scientific community who did know better and attacking their progress. This fueled the fire for hostile responses and completely eradicated any sense of respect for religion within scientific circles.

Allow me to explain BAD SCIENCE- put very simply it is to put conclusions upon the evidence, rather than derive conclusions from the evidence. An example-those who believe in a young earth expect evidence to support this, and so fantastical theories are derived to explain how this could be. True evidence of the age of the earth are looked at after the conclusion is already reached, and explained away using these extravagant and unrealistic theories. BAD SCIENCE is assuming that the current understanding and interpretation of the Bible supercedes what is clear in nature. (Our interpretation and exegesis of the Bible is a dynamic enterprise, and fallible. Think of the difference in how a biography is written today, and what the four gospels look like. Now think of writing styles at least twice as old as the gospels and consider how different they ought to be. It should be clear that the possibility of misinterpretation is high.)

Let me remark here the sad irony that we Christians who proclaim to be such avid seekers of truth, are not honest with observable evidence!

Is this war needed? Of course not. Yes, Christians should be unyielding in battles regarding our sense of morality. This is not such a war. The Bible is very, very silent on any scientific knowledge, and simply does not address the issues of HOW God acted and continues to act. Does not nature only act because God formed the laws they ceaselessly obey? So If God acts, what is the difference to him whether we judge it to be by natural or supernatural means? In both, God acts! It seems that today it is common for Christians to either dismiss evidence for scientific theories, while others ignore it completely, and still others listen only to the far fetched theories accommodating particular Biblical interpretations.

Can it end? Time alone will tell. I think that as long as Christians refuse to look at all the evidence without bias and from there make an informed and intelligent decision (I'm not saying the beliefs must change), we will never be respected within the scientific community. That is what we must do to end the S&C War. The scientific community for their part must diminish the hostility towards those who hold religious views.

The animosity against us [Christians] must fade, and we must stop giving them reason for such animosity.

NERDS R US

2008-03-15T16:14:00.003-05:00

The fourteenth of March is today
St. Pat's Day is three days away
But much more preferred
For the taste of the nerd
Is National Pie Day HOORAY!

3.14.08

Human/Divine Endeavors

2008-03-15T10:23:00.002-05:00

So in my science and religion class we're having a few lectures from a professor from the Bible department. He mentioned that he thought of science as a human endeavor, while theology was a divine endeavor. I must say, I couldn't disagree more.

The Bible is possibly and possibly not directly from God. Nature most surely is directly from God. The "Word of God" was written down by men. Nature was created by the WORDS of God.

So is the study of the Bible the divine endeavor or is science (the study and attempt to understand nature) the divine endeavor? You could say that in one sense they are both human enterprises, because both are man's efforts, and man's methods of study. On the other hand, it could be said that they are both divine enterprises because they both have the goals of understanding God.

Of course, as is sadly most often the case, science is undertaken without thought to the fact that by understanding how nature works we are understanding how God works. But similarly, the Bible can be studied for cultural and historical relevance, without any intent to discover divine truth from it.

The Choice to Believe

2008-03-01T14:49:00.002-06:00

Here's the question of the day: Is belief a choice? I ask this because according to most people's interpretations of Christianity, salvation is based on belief in Jesus.
It seems to me that people have no choice as to whether they will believe something or not. There are lots of decisions that lead to a belief, but the actual choice to believe is nonexistent. For instance, say you're sitting in your living room, and someone comes up to you and claims that there's a dragon squatting behind your couch. Do you have the choice to believe this claim? Could you if you desired strongly enough believe it? Of course not. It's not a choice, because your brain will not allow you to think that this is true based on your prior knowledge and ability to reason. The choice that is presented to you is to ask for evidence or to look for evidence yourself of this claim, but there is no choice to believe. This is a significant conclusion when applied to Christianity. If the popular view is correct, then although we have no choice as to whether or not we will believe in Jesus, we are told to do so, and told that if we do not believe, we will not receive eternal life. The choices we actually do have are to ask God and others for evidence of the claims of Christianity and to look for evidence ourselves. Beyond this we are powerless. We will believe what our brains can rationalize based on the existing evidence. So, if someone looks with all their ability for Christian evidences, but doesn't find enough to convince oneself, then can God hold this person accountable and damn him? Either the answer is yes, or belief is not what God bases salvation on.
The things that seem reasonable to be held accountable for are for lazy thinking, unwillingness to search for truth, and apathy. What seems apparent is that God should look with scorn upon these traits, yet here's the clutch point: while many non-Christians do not believe because of these traits, many Christians are believers due to these very things. Which should God reward, those who believe God because that's what they were told to believe, or those who didn't believe in God because that's what they were told to believe? Which should God reward, those who blindly accept Christianity without reason, or those who assume Christianity is false without reason? Which should God reward, those who believe in God because it's easy, or those who are atheists because it is easy? Neither would seem to be the fair answer, yet in judging these two categories of people, popular Christianity of course favors those who happened to be raised in a cultural or family setting where the suppositions of Christianity were assumed to be true, and belief is accepted and expected in others.

The notorious issue of pain and suffering

2008-02-21T11:56:00.004-06:00

Here's an issue hotly debated for centuries, and still goes unanswered. The issue: if God is good and all powerful, why do bad things happen? Is it because God is indeed not good, or is it because, though God is good, he is incapable of stopping bad things from happening?

Well, the problem seems divided into two categories, one of which is rather simple, the other a bit more complex. Either a bad event occurs due to a human cause, or a bad event occurs due to a non-human cause.

The first case is easily explained in a way that fits inline with the notion of a loving and all-powerful God. Or rather, potentially all powerful God. The truth is that in giving fickle humans freewill, God donated some of his power to us, limiting himself, and empowering us. You see, if we choose to disobey our moral code, God could not possibly stop us if he has truly given us free will. If God were to stop us, then we never had the chance to choose good from evil, which is to say, we never had free will to begin with. If we were not given free will, our lives would be akin to this analogy. I'm sitting in the testing center taking the GRE, and Stephen Hawking is sitting beside me. Before I click on an answer, I tell him, and if it's right, he lets me click. If I'm wrong, S.H. takes the mouse from me and clicks on the right answer. In the end I score perfectly. But who really took the test? Was I given the choice of which answer to pick? No. I was able to look at the choices, tell S.H. which I would have chosen, but S.H. took the test. I had in reality no choice. The right answer would always be chosen. Similarly, if God maintained his power, which I have no doubt he could do if he desired, we would never have choices to do right or wrong, and thus no free will. Since obviously I for one have sinned, this demonstrates that God has given up some of his power to me. Unfortunately, we often misuse this power. This is what leads to these bad occurrences due to human behavior. God will not stop us from hurting one another. Likewise, he will not stop us from helping one another. This is the beauty of God's plan, that contains both dark and light hues in our lives, that allows us to experience the contrasting stuff of hate, love, rudeness, kindness, etc.
I can imagine the counterargument- "Forget contrast, I think the world would be a better place if it was filled with Mother Teresa's." However, the flaws in this argument are abundant. First, if the world were perfect, there would be no need for M.T. to fulfill, and thus no one would experience her love and kindness. Second, even if it wasn't paradoxical to have such a need in a perfect world, would anyone really feel loved by, or feel respect for M.T. had she been working under compulsion, much like a slave?

The second category is indeed difficult to explain, if nothing more than the opposite views to everything. Without ocean storms that cause tsunamis, the earth would quickly become an arid and uninhabitable planet. Without bacteria's ability to mutate into destructive organisms, bacteria crucial to our survival would not have been able to survive through the ages. Without plate tectonics that lead to earthquakes and volcanic activity, we would not have continents, fresh soil and nutrients, and a planet with a habitable atmosphere. So while these things seem very malevolent to those directly affected, they are celebrated by the rest of humanity.
So it would seem that the following are the possible conclusions one can draw from natural disasters (which I am including biological ailments as well). 1) God does not exist. 2) God does exist, he created the world, and now he's watching it spin. 3) God created the world and will intervene when we ask for it. 4) God created the world, and everything has a purpose (in other words, those who suffer got what they deserved).
I cannot convince myself there is no God, or that there is a malevolent God. I won't discuss this option here. The other three I will discuss, in reverse order.

I counter this argument with two simple things: First, we all know good people, more than that, incredible people, who have suffered greatly due to causes not human in origin. Second, Jesus himself said (in Luke 13) that people who had recently suffered were no worse than those He was speaking to. This seems to counter any idea that bad things happen because God wanted them to happen.

The second possibility seems plausible, and may in part be accurate. However, anyone who's been struck by lightning didn't necessarily have time to ask for God's intervention. The fact that this is usually the case with disasters seems to indicate that this is not the way God works. The fact that sometimes in regard to a disaster with a longer duration (i.e. cancer) we ask for help, and yet it doesn't arrive. This also seems to indicate that this explanation is inaccurate.

Our last option is that God takes a hands-off approach to our world. As stated previously, many if not all of these disasters benefit the majority of mankind. The earth is so extraordinary, so regenerative, so stubborn to carry life, it is, for me at least, not difficult to imagine God creating matter, watching planets and galaxies form, watch as earth was formed around the sun, watch as life began to develop, and see how it led ultimately to man, saying, "It's good." Everything we know about the origins of the universe seem to tell us that God did something similar to setting up a sequence of dominoes and tipping the first one over. This gives leeway to bad things happening to the good and bad alike. Credence is also given to this notion in recognizing our own capabilities. God gave us the most powerful tool in order to deal with what could and often do become catastrophes. We have solved many of these problems, and are continuing to increase our abilities to protect ourselves. This is another way that God showed us that he loved us- by giving us these capabilities.

These conclusions, I'm sure, will be in stark contrast to many if not most others'. However, this is where I find the evidence leading. It, by the way is not necessarily what I would wish to be the truth, as I would much rather have the idea that God's angels are ready to stop my electron polarity next time there's a thunderstorm, or provide a distraction for sharks if I were to fall in the ocean. This would obviously be more preferable than the idea that God gave me a certain set of capabilities and it's my responsibility to use them and keep myself out of trouble. So if anyone would like to convince me I'm wrong about God's seemingly aloof characteristics, I'm very willing to listen.

To Dave

2008-02-21T11:43:00.002-06:00

So Dave has the flu. too bad. I wrote him a deeply moving song about it, but since so many others have the flu, i'll share it. get the kleenexes ready.

Hi Ho, you've got the flu.
You know what it do?
It makes you spew.

Ode to the South

2008-02-13T13:06:00.003-06:00

Ode to the South
To those in the south, this paean's for you,
To all of those proud of their neck's red hue.
Who cares you can't talk right, or read well for that,
Who cares that fried foods make you look a bit fat!
You think well of your okra, hominy and grits,
Though I can't agree- it gives my throat fits.
Who cares that your grandpappies lost the great war,
although by now that flag's an eyesore.
You're where the folks are friendly and kind,
Unlike the north, according to your unbiased mind.
Only one thing that bothers me, that gets me each time,
That I consider just a little less than crime:
Oh you Southern girls and boys,
Please quit saying it, "Illinois"!

-Dan Sewell

Basis of Morality

2008-02-07T10:04:00.000-06:00

MORAL: of or relating to the principles of right and wrong; WRONG: unfair or unjust action; UNFAIR: unjust; UNJUST: unfair
This is where Webster's dictionary leaves us. Not far. If we can determine what is right and what is wrong, then we can define morality. What is "bad"? This initially seems obvious, but isn't quite so after a little inspection. Is death bad? Yes. But without it, there are the problems of no food, overpopulation, etc. Let's be specific and define what can be bad. Actions? Is causing violence bad? Yes, but not in self defense. Is shooting an animal bad? If it's for fun, possibly, but if it's to provide for one's family, it's good. Is lying bad? Yes, unless it is to protect someone from harm or to keep from gossiping. It would seem that for every action there is a good and a bad way to implement it. Then is it the reasoning behind actions? Is motivation what defines good and bad? The previous examples seem to indicate as much. Murder is wrong, but sometimes justice demands it to be done. Even torture, which seems so black, can also shift into the greyscale when it is done to obtain life saving information. So is it motivation behind the action, or is it just the motivation? If I am jealous, but I keep my actions in check, have I done anything wrong? Likewise, if I want to do good, but don't actually do anything about it, have I done anything good? The answers to these questions show that it is a coupling between motivation and action that seems to be the basis of morality. But keep in mind that if there is even one exception to something, it is not an absolute truth. If I work hard at my job, is that a good thing? What if the reason I do so is because there is something that I want to buy for myself? Does that make me working hard at my job wrong because I'm being selfish? I would think not. Also, there are numerous cases in history of good motivations inspiring bad actions (the crusades being the most obvious instance). To look at all the combinations and the contradictions:

good motives and bad actions -crusades=bad, violence done in self defense=good
bad motives and good actions- giving to charity for the recognition=bad, the judge who enjoys sending people to prison=good,

Of course, it would seem obvious that bad motives paired with bad actions lead are bad, and good motives paired with good actions are good. However, the key to this discussion has been left out.

We have been able to hold this discussion because we all know what is right and what is wrong. Of course there will be scenarios that are riding the fence where one person may judge one way, and another will disagree, but for the majority of the time, we are in accordance. Why is this? It could be argued that our sense of morals is based on what we have all been taught. However, given the vast number of civilizations born in this world, all the differing ideology, theology, and culture, I cannot be convinced that we have all been taught the same thing by chance. Another point to this end is that there are infinitely many situations in which moral judgment must be passed, and it is simply not possible that we are all taught how to respond to each of them by our elders.
I find that our sense of morals is exactly that: a sense. Just as all our olfactory senses agree on pleasing and displeasing aromas, just as our aural sense tell us that scraping a chalkboard is not as pleasing as Bach, so our moral sense tells us when something reeks or is satisfying. This explains why there is no set rule without exceptions upon which to base morality. Morality is not based on a system of rules to follow, it is based on innate feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Jesus' humanity part 2

2008-02-07T08:29:00.000-06:00

One thing is certain: Jesus, while on earth was not omniscient. Our brains, although incredibly powerful tools, are still finite in capacity. From the world's creation, there is infinite amount of knowledge to be had, however irrelevant most of it seems (from knowing how many stars are in the universe to what each subatomic particle in that universe has done since the beginning of time.) Keeping this in mind, we mesh this idea with one other: Jesus knew he was the Son of God, and had inside information about God. I attribute this to gradual recall of being God-gradual recall since it is hardly likely that Jesus as a baby could have spoken out about how he was the Son of God nor could a baby have the language to even have these thoughts, and the fact that when his brain did develop speech, he did speak out. If this gradual recall is accurate, then God must have put memories (or knowledge) inside of the physical brain with the intention of serving Jesus while limited in the physical realm. Here's the question of the day: Which memories did God choose, and why did he choose them? I see two options. God selected the memories that God guessed would come in handy, OR God knew what information Jesus would need throughout his human experience and put that inside his head. If the answer is the first option, no new revelations are exposed, for we all expect God to make rather wise guesses, and get them right. But what is unspoken in the first option is that God did not know what was to happen, and just made an educated guess. The second option is more direct in this issue. It states that God knew exactly what circumstances would arise, and what questions would be asked, and thus the appropriate knowledge to answer these scenarios.
What all this leads to is that God may very well have foreknowledge of what is to happen. If this is the case, God knows each and every time I'm going to sin, and he did not take precautions to prevent this. This implies that God remains passive as I decide to live for him or without him. The fact that God knows the future and sees us sinning is demonstrated in the prediction of Peter's denials (which makes you wonder about the eventual recall- is it strictly of God's memories of the past, or God's memories of the future as well? Think about Jesus' statements on the end times as you dwell on this idea). So here is the paradox: We believe our God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly benevolent. In other words, our God knows we are about to sin, can change those circumstances easily, and loves us enough to do this. And yet we sin. Here's the solution. As I've heard it said in the South, "I ain't your momma," so God, a bit more eloquently I'm sure, says to us that we are responsible for ourselves, for there is no free choice without the actual possibility of you choosing. Jesus clears this point up in the Lord's Prayer by modeling, "lead me not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." God knows what's coming, and loves us enough to do something about it, if we only ask.

Jesus' humanity part 1

2008-02-07T08:14:00.000-06:00

I wanted to explore the idea of Jesus' state of humanity/divinity. To begin, understand that discovery is an essential part of the human experience. Discovery of the world around you, and, as we all remember through the ever dreaded teenage years, discovery of self. If discovery is an essential part of being human, and Jesus was human, then Jesus had to discover the world around him. Which is significant because one could argue that Jesus, while on earth at least, was not omniscient. Which means he had to make judgment calls on people and his environment. So even though Jesus was there when God created the world, and saw how it was made, Jesus, at some point in his childhood, had to learn that fire was hot, that gravity always works, etc. Did Jesus struggle with his own identity? When did Jesus discover that he was the son of God? Did God speak to him and fill him in on the details, or was this a gradual self-discovery? Was a specific date and time predestined for this knowledge to set in, or was it a gradual process? What was the manner in which it came to pass? An intriguing thought is this: since all we know of our own existence is based on memories (think on that awhile), did memories of being "up there" with God gradually or suddenly come to him? Did Jesus suddenly recall vividly creating the world? (According to our Bible he was: Gen. 1:26 and others.) This instills a sense of irony: man remembering creating man! There will be another part to this discussion, but I save it for a different post due to a different direction taken.