Lee Harmon's Blog, page 107
December 21, 2011
Mark 15:23, What was Jesus Offered to Drink?
Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it.
//In Mark, the first Gospel written, Jesus is offered a drink of wine mixed with an expensive incense. Myrrh was sometimes added to food to enhance the aroma and taste, and it's likely the soldiers crucifying Jesus carried a portion of this wine mixture for themselves. Amos 2:8 refers to the "wine of the condemned," as if its provision were a final kindness. Perhaps in a refusal to lighten the suffering, Jesus refuses their gift.
Matthew, in copying Mark's story, dramatically changes the atmosphere of the scene. He changes the word myrrh to gall, which generically means just about any bitter substance. Perhaps Matthew doesn't want any confusion with a "good" gift (he has already explained that the wise men came bringing myrrh to the baby Jesus), but more likely, Matthew is taking liberties with the passage to quote from Psalms 69:21: They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst. In Matthew's version, Jesus takes a sip, and apparently refuses to drink because of its taste.
The confusion between these two accounts actually regards the first of two drinks. Later, in both Matthew and Mark, Jesus is offered another drink from a sponge, this time a wine vinegar, which jibes with John's account. Jesus is twice offered wine; first, he refuses, then he accepts.[image error]
//In Mark, the first Gospel written, Jesus is offered a drink of wine mixed with an expensive incense. Myrrh was sometimes added to food to enhance the aroma and taste, and it's likely the soldiers crucifying Jesus carried a portion of this wine mixture for themselves. Amos 2:8 refers to the "wine of the condemned," as if its provision were a final kindness. Perhaps in a refusal to lighten the suffering, Jesus refuses their gift.
Matthew, in copying Mark's story, dramatically changes the atmosphere of the scene. He changes the word myrrh to gall, which generically means just about any bitter substance. Perhaps Matthew doesn't want any confusion with a "good" gift (he has already explained that the wise men came bringing myrrh to the baby Jesus), but more likely, Matthew is taking liberties with the passage to quote from Psalms 69:21: They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst. In Matthew's version, Jesus takes a sip, and apparently refuses to drink because of its taste.
The confusion between these two accounts actually regards the first of two drinks. Later, in both Matthew and Mark, Jesus is offered another drink from a sponge, this time a wine vinegar, which jibes with John's account. Jesus is twice offered wine; first, he refuses, then he accepts.[image error]
December 20, 2011
Book Review: Revelation: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
by Grant R. Osborne
★★★★★
If you've read other books in the Baker Exegetical series, you know pretty much what to expect here: Deep analysis with appreciation for multiple scholarly viewpoints, and every effort made to provide a precise interpretation. Often, this means resorting to the original New Testament Greek, which does make the text difficult to read … especially if you don't know any Greek! You don't have to, but if you know just enough Greek to be dangerous, without being a scholar of Biblical languages, this book will be perfect for you.
This approach, with liberal references back to the Old Testament, is particularly appropriate for one book of the Bible: Revelation. Its deep symbolism makes it a daunting book for most Bible readers.
In my own book about Revelation (http://www.thewayithappened.com) I discuss primarily the historical setting of which John of Patmos wrote. I believe the only way to truly understand Revelation is to first immerse yourself into the beliefs and struggles of first-century Christianity in Asia Minor (where the seven churches of Revelation reside). But when you're ready to dig deeper into the Apocalypse's Hebrew roots and symbolism, this is a great book … whether read as complete study or used as a reference. Osborne doesn't neglect the historical essentials, he just delves much deeper and takes a much more scholarly approach. It must have taken forever to compile. 869 pages with plenty of ink on each.
Five stars for Osborne's vast, no-nonsense research, a necessity for every Revelation scholar.[image error]
★★★★★
If you've read other books in the Baker Exegetical series, you know pretty much what to expect here: Deep analysis with appreciation for multiple scholarly viewpoints, and every effort made to provide a precise interpretation. Often, this means resorting to the original New Testament Greek, which does make the text difficult to read … especially if you don't know any Greek! You don't have to, but if you know just enough Greek to be dangerous, without being a scholar of Biblical languages, this book will be perfect for you.
This approach, with liberal references back to the Old Testament, is particularly appropriate for one book of the Bible: Revelation. Its deep symbolism makes it a daunting book for most Bible readers.
In my own book about Revelation (http://www.thewayithappened.com) I discuss primarily the historical setting of which John of Patmos wrote. I believe the only way to truly understand Revelation is to first immerse yourself into the beliefs and struggles of first-century Christianity in Asia Minor (where the seven churches of Revelation reside). But when you're ready to dig deeper into the Apocalypse's Hebrew roots and symbolism, this is a great book … whether read as complete study or used as a reference. Osborne doesn't neglect the historical essentials, he just delves much deeper and takes a much more scholarly approach. It must have taken forever to compile. 869 pages with plenty of ink on each.
Five stars for Osborne's vast, no-nonsense research, a necessity for every Revelation scholar.[image error]
December 19, 2011
Psalm 30:5, God's Anger
For his anger endureth but a moment.
//I remember singing a hymn in church about how God's punishment is gentle, and his anger short-lived. Can't bring the hymn to mind, now, but God's patience and quick forgiveness is central to most Christian beliefs.
But not all scripture agrees. Here are two verses from the very same Bible book, that don't seem to jibe:
Jeremiah 3:12, I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
In this verse, Jeremiah is told by God to proclaim his merciful nature "to the north" (that is, to Israel, the northern kingdom). God wants Israel to repent, to acknowledge their sin and quit their backsliding. He promises that if they do, his anger will abate.
But they don't, and God's forgiving nature undergoes a transformation. When the southern kingdom (Judah) begins to try his patience, God changed his attitude. He revokes their heritage, promising that they will serve their enemies. Why?
Jeremiah 17:4, [F]or ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.
Being a parent can be soooo trying.[image error]
//I remember singing a hymn in church about how God's punishment is gentle, and his anger short-lived. Can't bring the hymn to mind, now, but God's patience and quick forgiveness is central to most Christian beliefs.
But not all scripture agrees. Here are two verses from the very same Bible book, that don't seem to jibe:
Jeremiah 3:12, I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
In this verse, Jeremiah is told by God to proclaim his merciful nature "to the north" (that is, to Israel, the northern kingdom). God wants Israel to repent, to acknowledge their sin and quit their backsliding. He promises that if they do, his anger will abate.
But they don't, and God's forgiving nature undergoes a transformation. When the southern kingdom (Judah) begins to try his patience, God changed his attitude. He revokes their heritage, promising that they will serve their enemies. Why?
Jeremiah 17:4, [F]or ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.
Being a parent can be soooo trying.[image error]
December 18, 2011
Book review: Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography
by John Dominic Crossan
★★★★
Crossan is one of the premier Jesus scholars of today, and this book is quintessential Crossan. It's a condensed, recently reprinted, more readable version of his 1994 masterpiece, The Historical Jesus.
Crossan's research is controversial, more focused on the real life of a first-century sage (Jesus) than in the messianic God-man Christianity turned him into. I believe Crossan's most irritating position (to conservative Christians) is his insistence that Jesus never rose from the tomb … because he was never entombed in the first place. Jesus' body was probably pulled from the cross and eaten by dogs, with his remains dumped in a shallow grave, like the majority of other Roman crucifixion victims. Nevertheless, Crossan's portrayal of Jesus is warm and powerful.
This little 200-page book is for people who want a quick introduction to Crossan's research without tomes or tangents.[image error]
★★★★
Crossan is one of the premier Jesus scholars of today, and this book is quintessential Crossan. It's a condensed, recently reprinted, more readable version of his 1994 masterpiece, The Historical Jesus.
Crossan's research is controversial, more focused on the real life of a first-century sage (Jesus) than in the messianic God-man Christianity turned him into. I believe Crossan's most irritating position (to conservative Christians) is his insistence that Jesus never rose from the tomb … because he was never entombed in the first place. Jesus' body was probably pulled from the cross and eaten by dogs, with his remains dumped in a shallow grave, like the majority of other Roman crucifixion victims. Nevertheless, Crossan's portrayal of Jesus is warm and powerful.
This little 200-page book is for people who want a quick introduction to Crossan's research without tomes or tangents.[image error]
December 17, 2011
Genesis 13:18, The Patriarchs of Israel
Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.
//We have three great patriarchs in the history of Israel:
[1] Abraham, who came from the land of Ur, is the first and greatest. He was later identified with a shrine in Hebron, what is now Palestine.
[2] Isaac is the son of Abraham, the second of the Jewish patriarchs, and is identified with a shrine at Beersheba, southwest of Jerusalem.
[3] Jacob, the son of Isaac and the third patriarch was identified with a shrine at Bethel. When kingdom of Israel later split in two (separating the south from the north), Bethel would belong to the northern half.
We have no historical evidence at all for these three men. No way to know if they ever really existed. Thus, the identification with three shrines in three different locations opens up the possibility that the "patriarchs" were not related at all, but were three Canaanites, leaders or holy men, whose shrines and stories later became intertwined when Israel invaded and conquered the land. The purpose in incorporating these shrines and writing them into the Israelite history was then probably to justify the conquest of Canaan by claiming divine right to the land; that God had promised the land to the forefathers of Israel hundreds of years beforehand.[image error]
//We have three great patriarchs in the history of Israel:
[1] Abraham, who came from the land of Ur, is the first and greatest. He was later identified with a shrine in Hebron, what is now Palestine.
[2] Isaac is the son of Abraham, the second of the Jewish patriarchs, and is identified with a shrine at Beersheba, southwest of Jerusalem.
[3] Jacob, the son of Isaac and the third patriarch was identified with a shrine at Bethel. When kingdom of Israel later split in two (separating the south from the north), Bethel would belong to the northern half.
We have no historical evidence at all for these three men. No way to know if they ever really existed. Thus, the identification with three shrines in three different locations opens up the possibility that the "patriarchs" were not related at all, but were three Canaanites, leaders or holy men, whose shrines and stories later became intertwined when Israel invaded and conquered the land. The purpose in incorporating these shrines and writing them into the Israelite history was then probably to justify the conquest of Canaan by claiming divine right to the land; that God had promised the land to the forefathers of Israel hundreds of years beforehand.[image error]
December 16, 2011
Book review: The Science of God
by Gerald L. Schroeder
★★★
This book has sold a lot of copies and generated a lot of discussion since its publication in 1997, but it really just didn't do it for me. Schroeder's premise is that Bible thumpers and secular scientists need to put their heads together, compromise a little here and there, and realize that the Bible story goes hand-in-hand with 20th-century scientific discovery.
That means the seven-day creation story is true (Einstein's theory of relativity helped us out a little on this topic) by measuring time from God's perspective. The cosmic clock of Genesis is based on the characteristics of cosmic background radiation. The dinosaurs were created on day five, a day that lasted roughly a half billion years. The flood really happened when the Bible says it did, but it wasn't a universal event. Before the flood, people lived extraordinarily long lives, because the climate was less demanding. You get the idea.
I agree with Schroeder that the conditions of our universe and our own little world are incredibly fine-tuned, and thus a bit difficult to explain. Schroeder quotes Weinberg's famous calculation that if the energy of the big bang fifteen billion years ago were different by one part out of 10 to the 120th power, there would be no life anywhere in the universe. It's as if the universe is tuned for life from its inception. There have been a number of thought-provoking responses to Weinberg's conclusion, but it's still difficult for me to put out of my mind the idea that something really special has happened for our benefit … something quite carefully planned.
It's a puzzle without easy explanation, alright. I just don't get why anyone would choose the Bible's myths as the foundation for their explanation. As carefully as Schroeder has put his theory together, it still just feels contrived and overly complex to me. If Schroeder wants believers and scientists to hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah, he's going to need to write down to the non-scientist level. But why bother? Don't the earliest Bible stories make a whole lot more sense as theological or political or moral treatises than as history books? Why not let religion be religion and science be science?[image error]
★★★
This book has sold a lot of copies and generated a lot of discussion since its publication in 1997, but it really just didn't do it for me. Schroeder's premise is that Bible thumpers and secular scientists need to put their heads together, compromise a little here and there, and realize that the Bible story goes hand-in-hand with 20th-century scientific discovery.
That means the seven-day creation story is true (Einstein's theory of relativity helped us out a little on this topic) by measuring time from God's perspective. The cosmic clock of Genesis is based on the characteristics of cosmic background radiation. The dinosaurs were created on day five, a day that lasted roughly a half billion years. The flood really happened when the Bible says it did, but it wasn't a universal event. Before the flood, people lived extraordinarily long lives, because the climate was less demanding. You get the idea.
I agree with Schroeder that the conditions of our universe and our own little world are incredibly fine-tuned, and thus a bit difficult to explain. Schroeder quotes Weinberg's famous calculation that if the energy of the big bang fifteen billion years ago were different by one part out of 10 to the 120th power, there would be no life anywhere in the universe. It's as if the universe is tuned for life from its inception. There have been a number of thought-provoking responses to Weinberg's conclusion, but it's still difficult for me to put out of my mind the idea that something really special has happened for our benefit … something quite carefully planned.
It's a puzzle without easy explanation, alright. I just don't get why anyone would choose the Bible's myths as the foundation for their explanation. As carefully as Schroeder has put his theory together, it still just feels contrived and overly complex to me. If Schroeder wants believers and scientists to hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah, he's going to need to write down to the non-scientist level. But why bother? Don't the earliest Bible stories make a whole lot more sense as theological or political or moral treatises than as history books? Why not let religion be religion and science be science?[image error]
December 15, 2011
2 Timothy 2:17-18 Has the Resurrection Already Happened?
And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
//I was asked today what this verse is all about, and how anybody could possibly believe the resurrection had already happened. The fact is, there were a number of versions of Christianity in the first couple centuries, and this is one of the things Christians argued about.
Paul believed the general resurrection had begun. He argues his case quite simply in his first letter to the Corinthians. Do you believe Jesus has risen from the dead? Then the resurrection has begun. Do you believe the resurrection has not begun? Then Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead. Paul cannot imagine that Jesus' resurrection could be an isolated event. He describes Jesus as the "first fruit" … that is, the first of many to rise into a glorious new resurrection body.
So did Paul believe others had been resurrected, too? Possibly, or more likely he felt he was living on the cusp on the general resurrection. You see, another of the things early Christians argued about was what the resurrection body is like. Some believed Jesus was resurrected in body; see Matthew and Luke for evidence of this belief. The final chapter in John and the last section of Mark also portray this physical resurrection, though neither is authentic to the original writing (both stories were added at a later date, apparently to bolster belief in bodily resurrection).
Paul didn't see it this way. He felt he saw the resurrected Jesus just as clearly as anyone else did, and what he saw was no physical body. He saw a light from heaven. A spiritual body. Paul is adamant that the new, resurrected body, whether of Jesus or of any other believer, is not "of the flesh."
Given that Christians could not even agree on what the resurrected body of Jesus was like, it's hardly surprising that arguments arose in the first couple centuries of Christianity about what the general resurrection was like, whether it had begun, and what the new messianic age meant.[image error]
//I was asked today what this verse is all about, and how anybody could possibly believe the resurrection had already happened. The fact is, there were a number of versions of Christianity in the first couple centuries, and this is one of the things Christians argued about.
Paul believed the general resurrection had begun. He argues his case quite simply in his first letter to the Corinthians. Do you believe Jesus has risen from the dead? Then the resurrection has begun. Do you believe the resurrection has not begun? Then Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead. Paul cannot imagine that Jesus' resurrection could be an isolated event. He describes Jesus as the "first fruit" … that is, the first of many to rise into a glorious new resurrection body.
So did Paul believe others had been resurrected, too? Possibly, or more likely he felt he was living on the cusp on the general resurrection. You see, another of the things early Christians argued about was what the resurrection body is like. Some believed Jesus was resurrected in body; see Matthew and Luke for evidence of this belief. The final chapter in John and the last section of Mark also portray this physical resurrection, though neither is authentic to the original writing (both stories were added at a later date, apparently to bolster belief in bodily resurrection).
Paul didn't see it this way. He felt he saw the resurrected Jesus just as clearly as anyone else did, and what he saw was no physical body. He saw a light from heaven. A spiritual body. Paul is adamant that the new, resurrected body, whether of Jesus or of any other believer, is not "of the flesh."
Given that Christians could not even agree on what the resurrected body of Jesus was like, it's hardly surprising that arguments arose in the first couple centuries of Christianity about what the general resurrection was like, whether it had begun, and what the new messianic age meant.[image error]
December 14, 2011
Book review: Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World
by John Shelby Spong
★★★★★
Could this be Spong's best yet? Perhaps not, his books are all so powerful, but it's definitely my new favorite. I've actually been looking for precisely this sort of book, so I was really excited to find it—authored by one of my favorite writers, no less!
Spong goes book-by-book in pretty much chronological order through the Bible, explaining scholars' best guesses at each book's origin (place, time, authorship) and the historical atmosphere out of which they were written. The idea for this collection sprang from a series of lectures Spong was invited to give, beginning in the summer of 2006, about how various Biblical books came to be written and regarded as scripture. Much of the information here was known to me already, but there was a host of new insights as well. I've got yellow highlighter marks all over the book! Here are some of the more interesting discussions you'll find:
[1] The formation of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. You'll learn more about the Documentary Hypothesis, and how scholars believe these five books came together, from the four primary sources. Not the most complete explanation, but surely the easiest to understand I've ever read.
[2] The "prophetic principle" (you'll find out you had no idea what a "prophet" is) and the historic background behind the three "books" of Isaiah. Scholars are coming to the conclusion that Isaiah had not just two authors, but at least three.
[3] The "protest" literature within the Bible, and what stimulated its writing.
[4] The "national mythmakers" who preserved Israel's history.
[5] The evolution of the Apostle Paul's beliefs, and how he grew over time from a fiery, apocalyptic preacher into a mellow, thoughtful philosopher.
Of course, you'll read about the Gospel story, the pastoral influence, the Johannine corpus, it's all there and it's all very readable. Highly recommended!
★★★★★
Could this be Spong's best yet? Perhaps not, his books are all so powerful, but it's definitely my new favorite. I've actually been looking for precisely this sort of book, so I was really excited to find it—authored by one of my favorite writers, no less!
Spong goes book-by-book in pretty much chronological order through the Bible, explaining scholars' best guesses at each book's origin (place, time, authorship) and the historical atmosphere out of which they were written. The idea for this collection sprang from a series of lectures Spong was invited to give, beginning in the summer of 2006, about how various Biblical books came to be written and regarded as scripture. Much of the information here was known to me already, but there was a host of new insights as well. I've got yellow highlighter marks all over the book! Here are some of the more interesting discussions you'll find:
[1] The formation of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. You'll learn more about the Documentary Hypothesis, and how scholars believe these five books came together, from the four primary sources. Not the most complete explanation, but surely the easiest to understand I've ever read.
[2] The "prophetic principle" (you'll find out you had no idea what a "prophet" is) and the historic background behind the three "books" of Isaiah. Scholars are coming to the conclusion that Isaiah had not just two authors, but at least three.
[3] The "protest" literature within the Bible, and what stimulated its writing.
[4] The "national mythmakers" who preserved Israel's history.
[5] The evolution of the Apostle Paul's beliefs, and how he grew over time from a fiery, apocalyptic preacher into a mellow, thoughtful philosopher.
Of course, you'll read about the Gospel story, the pastoral influence, the Johannine corpus, it's all there and it's all very readable. Highly recommended!
December 13, 2011
2 Kings 10:30, The Slaughter of Jezreel
The LORD said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation."
//Religion is often evoked as a means of providing meaning to life's mysteries. We find a $100 bill on the street? God knew we needed the money. We lose that $100 bill later? God took it back to test us. Whether in reward or punishment, "God" is the explanation assumed when none other exists.
Bible writers were not immune to this tendency, either. Consider the house of Jehu, king of Israel. Jehu's claim to fame may be his slaughter of the house of Ahab, in Jezreel. Jehu demanded that the elders and officials in Jezreel bring to him the heads of the seventy children of king Ahab. In fear, Jezreel followed Jehu's orders, and Jehu dumped the seventy heads at the city gate, to serve as evidence that God was against Ahab. Then Jehu went and slaughtered everyone in Jezreel that remained of the house of Ahab.
Jehu's descendents continued to reign after his death for four more generations: Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jereboam II, and Zachariah. But then Shallum, son of Jabesh, "conspired against Zachariah, and smote him before the people, and slew him, and reigned in his stead."
Now, the book of Kings sees this continued kingship through the decedents of Jehu as evidence of God's approval. Read again today's verse; Jehu did what was right, so God rewarded him. But the prophet Hosea sees the same event, the slaughter of Jezreel, in a different light. Hosea sees the abrupt end of Jehu's kingship four generations later, and of Israel itself, as evidence that God disapproved of Jehu:
Hosea 1:4, Then the LORD said to Hosea, "Call him Jezreel, because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel.
So, did God approve or disapprove of Jehu? Did God indicate his approval through reward or his disapproval through destruction? Different points of view render different conclusions.[image error]
//Religion is often evoked as a means of providing meaning to life's mysteries. We find a $100 bill on the street? God knew we needed the money. We lose that $100 bill later? God took it back to test us. Whether in reward or punishment, "God" is the explanation assumed when none other exists.
Bible writers were not immune to this tendency, either. Consider the house of Jehu, king of Israel. Jehu's claim to fame may be his slaughter of the house of Ahab, in Jezreel. Jehu demanded that the elders and officials in Jezreel bring to him the heads of the seventy children of king Ahab. In fear, Jezreel followed Jehu's orders, and Jehu dumped the seventy heads at the city gate, to serve as evidence that God was against Ahab. Then Jehu went and slaughtered everyone in Jezreel that remained of the house of Ahab.
Jehu's descendents continued to reign after his death for four more generations: Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jereboam II, and Zachariah. But then Shallum, son of Jabesh, "conspired against Zachariah, and smote him before the people, and slew him, and reigned in his stead."
Now, the book of Kings sees this continued kingship through the decedents of Jehu as evidence of God's approval. Read again today's verse; Jehu did what was right, so God rewarded him. But the prophet Hosea sees the same event, the slaughter of Jezreel, in a different light. Hosea sees the abrupt end of Jehu's kingship four generations later, and of Israel itself, as evidence that God disapproved of Jehu:
Hosea 1:4, Then the LORD said to Hosea, "Call him Jezreel, because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel.
So, did God approve or disapprove of Jehu? Did God indicate his approval through reward or his disapproval through destruction? Different points of view render different conclusions.[image error]
December 12, 2011
Book Review: The God Theory
by Bernard Haisch
★★★★★
Haisch is an astrophysicist with a discomfort regarding the idea of a meaningless universe, and a gift for explaining scientific theory in simple terms. He was raised a strict Catholic, but lasted through only a year of Seminary, after which his interests turned to science.
Although he outgrew fundamentalist Christian beliefs, he's never been able to embrace the impersonal universe pictured by most of his fellow scientists. Science today is based on the premises of materialism (the belief that reality consists solely of matter and energy), reductionism (the idea that complex things can be explained by breaking them down into constituent parts) and randomness (the conviction that all natural processes follow the laws of chance). Haisch begs to differ, arguing that the only logical conclusion of these assumptions is that an infinite number of universes exist, which he finds nonsensical and "morally repugnant." He accepts current scientific theory as a given—such as the Big Bang, a 4.6 billion-year-old-earth, and evolution—but simply feels the evidence argues against random universes, and leans more toward an "infinite conscious intelligence." This intelligence he labels God, for lack of a better name.
The God Theory, then, is Haish's attempt to answer fundamental questions about human nature in the light of modern science. It's based on the simple premise that we are, quite literally, one with God, and God is, quite literally, one with us. His discussion leads to some fascinating and important corollaries:
[1] The God of his theory cannot require anything from us for his own happiness. [2] The God of his theory cannot dislike, and certainly cannot hate, anything that we do or are. [3] The God of his theory will never punish us (forget about heaven and hell) because that would ultimately amount to self-punishment.
Haish touches on cosmology and the inflation theory, the consciousness debate, the implications of quantum mechanics, the "zero-point field inertia hypothesis" (that one's a mouthful) and more, but never treads where an inquisitive non-scientist can't follow, as he lays out his argument for a purposeful universe.
I found the book thought-provoking and a lot of fun.[image error]
★★★★★
Haisch is an astrophysicist with a discomfort regarding the idea of a meaningless universe, and a gift for explaining scientific theory in simple terms. He was raised a strict Catholic, but lasted through only a year of Seminary, after which his interests turned to science.
Although he outgrew fundamentalist Christian beliefs, he's never been able to embrace the impersonal universe pictured by most of his fellow scientists. Science today is based on the premises of materialism (the belief that reality consists solely of matter and energy), reductionism (the idea that complex things can be explained by breaking them down into constituent parts) and randomness (the conviction that all natural processes follow the laws of chance). Haisch begs to differ, arguing that the only logical conclusion of these assumptions is that an infinite number of universes exist, which he finds nonsensical and "morally repugnant." He accepts current scientific theory as a given—such as the Big Bang, a 4.6 billion-year-old-earth, and evolution—but simply feels the evidence argues against random universes, and leans more toward an "infinite conscious intelligence." This intelligence he labels God, for lack of a better name.
The God Theory, then, is Haish's attempt to answer fundamental questions about human nature in the light of modern science. It's based on the simple premise that we are, quite literally, one with God, and God is, quite literally, one with us. His discussion leads to some fascinating and important corollaries:
[1] The God of his theory cannot require anything from us for his own happiness. [2] The God of his theory cannot dislike, and certainly cannot hate, anything that we do or are. [3] The God of his theory will never punish us (forget about heaven and hell) because that would ultimately amount to self-punishment.
Haish touches on cosmology and the inflation theory, the consciousness debate, the implications of quantum mechanics, the "zero-point field inertia hypothesis" (that one's a mouthful) and more, but never treads where an inquisitive non-scientist can't follow, as he lays out his argument for a purposeful universe.
I found the book thought-provoking and a lot of fun.[image error]
