Lee Harmon's Blog, page 128
May 25, 2011
Mark 9:20,25-26: Jesus, the Exorcist
So they brought [the boy to Jesus.] When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth. … When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the evil spirit. "You deaf and mute spirit," he said, "I command you, come out of him and never enter him again." The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, "He's dead."
//Few scholars doubt the portrayal in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus as an exorcist, casting out devils. What exactly were these evil spirits whose possession had to be exorcised? We imagine schizophrenia, epilepsy, or hysteria, but we don't know. What we do know is that Jesus, acting in the name of God and intent upon showing the arrival of the Kingdom of God, battled the demons face-to-face.
Jesus talked directly to them, shouted at them, waved his hands, angered them, and drove them out. Some scholars picture Jesus entering a sort of trance and imitating the demoniacs' behavior in order to cure them.
John's Gospel, perhaps embarrassed by the whole thing, reports not a single exorcism by Jesus, but the other gospels do not shy away from the image. At one point, Jesus' family members come out of Nazareth to take charge of him, believing he has gone out of his mind. What would be more likely to trigger this concern than Jesus' strange behavior during exorcisms? Others watching the shenanigans laughingly concluded, "He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons."
Yet Jesus' fame as an exorcist attests to his success. Did he get them all? Since there seem to be no demons around today, we must conclude that the Kingdom of God has arrived.
//Few scholars doubt the portrayal in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus as an exorcist, casting out devils. What exactly were these evil spirits whose possession had to be exorcised? We imagine schizophrenia, epilepsy, or hysteria, but we don't know. What we do know is that Jesus, acting in the name of God and intent upon showing the arrival of the Kingdom of God, battled the demons face-to-face.
Jesus talked directly to them, shouted at them, waved his hands, angered them, and drove them out. Some scholars picture Jesus entering a sort of trance and imitating the demoniacs' behavior in order to cure them.
John's Gospel, perhaps embarrassed by the whole thing, reports not a single exorcism by Jesus, but the other gospels do not shy away from the image. At one point, Jesus' family members come out of Nazareth to take charge of him, believing he has gone out of his mind. What would be more likely to trigger this concern than Jesus' strange behavior during exorcisms? Others watching the shenanigans laughingly concluded, "He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons."
Yet Jesus' fame as an exorcist attests to his success. Did he get them all? Since there seem to be no demons around today, we must conclude that the Kingdom of God has arrived.
May 24, 2011
Book review: Heaven is for Real
by Todd Burpo
★★★★★
Very cute. You're going to love this adorable little heaven-traveler.
Colton was nearly four years old when a near-death experience awarded him a tour of heaven. The book is written by his father, a minister. In heaven, Colton met his great grandfather, a sister who died in the womb, and the angel Gabriel. His story is convincing and childlike. If Colton brought back any one special message from heaven, it would be that Jesus really, really loves little kids.
We do learn a little about what heaven is like. Everybody has wings and little lights over their heads. There are lots of colors there, lots of animals of every kind (including a lion!), and lots of swords. The swords are for the angels to keep Satan outside the pearly gates.
The first person to greet new arrivals into heaven is Jesus, and Jesus had plenty time to chat with Colton. Know why Jesus had to be crucified? Says Colton, "Jesus told me he died on the cross so we could go see his dad."
There is one theme in the book that troubled me a bit. After Colton's return from heaven, he would become very apprehensive at funerals, desperate to know if the fellow who died had "let Jesus into his heart." Because, he knew, otherwise the man wouldn't be going to heaven. The author's comment? Man, those Sunday school teachers sure are doing a good job! That picture made me a little sad; a four-year-old boy hardly needs that kind of religion.
Many of the images described by Colton can be found in the book of Revelation. That's a bit problematic in one sense. As a scholar of Revelation and first-century Jewish beliefs, I assure you that Revelation was never meant to describe "heaven." Several passages in Revelation make it very clear that the Bible's final book relates the Jewish expectation of a general bodily resurrection and a new earthly kingdom. Why, then, would I afford Burpo's book five stars if it differs from my interpretation of scripture? Because Christianity is a growing religion! Colton's experience is contemporary; it is indicative of today's image of heaven, not yesterday's. Today, we anticipate a different kind of reward. We now imagine the pearly gates welcoming us to heaven instead of to a new world power centered in a rebuilt Jerusalem. Colton's heaven is warm and friendly, far better than Revelation ever imagined. I vote we let Colton rewrite the end of the Bible.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)
May 23, 2011
Matthew 4:23, Jesus, the Healer
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
//Few incidents provide more insight into the compassion and mission of Jesus than his healings. Jesus was absolutely convinced about the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, and pointed to his miracles as evidence of that arrival. At one point, Jesus explains that his healings are accomplished by "the finger of God." This ability to heal wasn't a gift given only to Jesus: He taught his techniques to his disciples as well, and instructed them to teach that their healings were proof of the Kingdom's arrival.
Luke 9:2, [H]e sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.
Jesus' methods may have been similar to other healers. Once, he put his fingers into the ears of a deaf mute, then spat on his fingers and touched the man's tongue. Another time he cured a blind man by putting saliva on his eyes and laying his hands on him. Saliva was known to have healing properties. These two stories appear only in Mark. Matthew and Luke, though they copied most of Mark, leave these stories out, probably because they sound like acts of magic.
But one point about Jesus' miracles seems clear: He touched. Even the lepers. In an era where sickness was misunderstood as a punishment sent by God, Jesus did not shy away from the unclean and marginalized. His hands brought blessing to those who thought they were cursed, and caressed those who were excluded from human contact because of their sickness. Jesus healed not by magic but by compassion.
//Few incidents provide more insight into the compassion and mission of Jesus than his healings. Jesus was absolutely convinced about the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, and pointed to his miracles as evidence of that arrival. At one point, Jesus explains that his healings are accomplished by "the finger of God." This ability to heal wasn't a gift given only to Jesus: He taught his techniques to his disciples as well, and instructed them to teach that their healings were proof of the Kingdom's arrival.
Luke 9:2, [H]e sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.
Jesus' methods may have been similar to other healers. Once, he put his fingers into the ears of a deaf mute, then spat on his fingers and touched the man's tongue. Another time he cured a blind man by putting saliva on his eyes and laying his hands on him. Saliva was known to have healing properties. These two stories appear only in Mark. Matthew and Luke, though they copied most of Mark, leave these stories out, probably because they sound like acts of magic.
But one point about Jesus' miracles seems clear: He touched. Even the lepers. In an era where sickness was misunderstood as a punishment sent by God, Jesus did not shy away from the unclean and marginalized. His hands brought blessing to those who thought they were cursed, and caressed those who were excluded from human contact because of their sickness. Jesus healed not by magic but by compassion.
May 22, 2011
Book review: The Last Disciple
by Hank Hanegraff and Sigmund Brouwer
★★★★
I'm unaware of another book out there that presents the preterist view in a fictional story, and that alone earns The Last Disciple recognition. If you need a reminder, preterism is a branch of Christianity that believes most of the prophecies and covenantal promises of the Bible have been fulfilled. Armageddon is over. Much, if not all, of Revelation has occurred.
The setting for the book is the years of Nero Caesar's reign, just prior to the war of 70 AD, when the Romans overran Jerusalem. Nero, of course, is the Beast of Revelation, and a beastly fellow he is! The story is told primarily from the viewpoint of Vilas, a trusted advisor, who recognizes Nero is in the throes of madness. He meets up with John the Apostle, the author of Revelation, and together they flee the tentacles of the Beast. This is the first of a series, though I haven't yet seen evidence of future books.
Fiction is not Hanegraff's bread and butter. I guess that's where Brouwer comes in. For the record, I'll say the fiction is moderately well-written and the plot engaging enough to hold my attention, but that hardly seems to matter to readers. Reviews are all over the map. If appears that you're a preterist, you'll love this book. If you're a futurist, you'll hate it. If you're undecided, you should probably save the fiction until you can enjoy it, and study the Biblical foundations of preterism first.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)
May 21, 2011
Daniel 12:8-9, The Rapture is Today!!
I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, "My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?" He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.
//My friends, the "time of the end" has finally arrived! Harold Camping, a former civil engineer, has unsealed the prophecies of Daniel so that we may understand. May 21, 2011, is Judgment Day.
Camping arrived at this date through a series of Bible-based calculations that assume the world will end exactly 7,000 years after Noah's flood. 200 million people--approximately 3% of the world's population--will float up to heaven as a worldwide earthquake strikes. The rest of us will endure five more months of plagues, quakes, wars, famine and general torment. Then on October 21, the earth and universe will be forever destroyed.
Worried about a 2012 apocalypse? Forget about it. Michael Drosnin (The Bible Code) was wrong, the Mayans were wrong, the "2012" action movie was wrong. The 2012 rapture scare, Camping assures us with a laugh, is just a fairy tale. The real rapture is today.
In 1992 Mr. Camping predicted the rapture would be in 1994, but thankfully he now has uncovered newer evidence that makes the prophesy for this year certain. 1,000 billboards around the world proclaim May 21, 2011 as the beginning of the end. 150 stations owned by Camping's Family Radio program promise the same thing, translated into several foreign languages and broadcast worldwide.
In 1970, Camping published The Biblical Calendar of History, which dated the creation of the world in the year 11,013 BC and Noah's flood to 4,990 BC. This differs from traditional Bible dating, but Camping discovered that the word "begat" in the Old Testament did not necessarily imply an immediate father-son relationship. Thus, when one patriarch died, the next one who is mentioned was perhaps not his son but a distant multi-great grandson. This little subtlety greatly helped obscure the proper Biblical calendar from unenlightened readers, "sealing up the time of the end" until, of course, the day had arrived for God to reveal the proper way to read genealogies.
The Dubious Disciple respectfully suggests the following preparations as you ready yourself for this evening:
1. Loudly denounce all church affiliations you may have. Camping insists all churches have become apostate and must be abandoned. Listening to his Family Radio broadcast is ok.
2. Who will care for your loved ones after you float skyward? Rapture insurance can still be purchased on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290567315968
3. Don't forget about your pets! Who's going to feed Fido? Eternal Earthbound Pets will ease your mind of this worry: http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/Home_Page.html. This business employs only avowed atheists, so you can be confident they'll still be around after the rapture.
4. Not sure you're heaven-bound? Don't bother to pack your burn ointment. Camping assures us there is no Hell for the Heathen, only annihilation.
5. If things don't happen as planned, pick up my book tomorrow about Revelation at http://www.thewayithappened.com to learn what went wrong.
//My friends, the "time of the end" has finally arrived! Harold Camping, a former civil engineer, has unsealed the prophecies of Daniel so that we may understand. May 21, 2011, is Judgment Day.
Camping arrived at this date through a series of Bible-based calculations that assume the world will end exactly 7,000 years after Noah's flood. 200 million people--approximately 3% of the world's population--will float up to heaven as a worldwide earthquake strikes. The rest of us will endure five more months of plagues, quakes, wars, famine and general torment. Then on October 21, the earth and universe will be forever destroyed.
Worried about a 2012 apocalypse? Forget about it. Michael Drosnin (The Bible Code) was wrong, the Mayans were wrong, the "2012" action movie was wrong. The 2012 rapture scare, Camping assures us with a laugh, is just a fairy tale. The real rapture is today.
In 1992 Mr. Camping predicted the rapture would be in 1994, but thankfully he now has uncovered newer evidence that makes the prophesy for this year certain. 1,000 billboards around the world proclaim May 21, 2011 as the beginning of the end. 150 stations owned by Camping's Family Radio program promise the same thing, translated into several foreign languages and broadcast worldwide.
In 1970, Camping published The Biblical Calendar of History, which dated the creation of the world in the year 11,013 BC and Noah's flood to 4,990 BC. This differs from traditional Bible dating, but Camping discovered that the word "begat" in the Old Testament did not necessarily imply an immediate father-son relationship. Thus, when one patriarch died, the next one who is mentioned was perhaps not his son but a distant multi-great grandson. This little subtlety greatly helped obscure the proper Biblical calendar from unenlightened readers, "sealing up the time of the end" until, of course, the day had arrived for God to reveal the proper way to read genealogies.
The Dubious Disciple respectfully suggests the following preparations as you ready yourself for this evening:
1. Loudly denounce all church affiliations you may have. Camping insists all churches have become apostate and must be abandoned. Listening to his Family Radio broadcast is ok.
2. Who will care for your loved ones after you float skyward? Rapture insurance can still be purchased on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290567315968
3. Don't forget about your pets! Who's going to feed Fido? Eternal Earthbound Pets will ease your mind of this worry: http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/Home_Page.html. This business employs only avowed atheists, so you can be confident they'll still be around after the rapture.
4. Not sure you're heaven-bound? Don't bother to pack your burn ointment. Camping assures us there is no Hell for the Heathen, only annihilation.
5. If things don't happen as planned, pick up my book tomorrow about Revelation at http://www.thewayithappened.com to learn what went wrong.
May 20, 2011
Mark 7:27, Casting the Children's Bread to Dogs
But Jesus said to her, "Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."
//A Greek woman came to Jesus asking him to cast a devil from her daughter. Today's verse is Jesus' reply, a very nasty way of saying that because the woman was a gentile, she did not deserve the attention reserved for God's people. Harsh words, indeed, hardly what we would expect to hear from Jesus.
Hearing these words, the woman does not grow angry. It is not for herself that she asks help, but for her daughter. She replies, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children's crumbs."
Suddenly, a light goes on for Jesus. God has sent him into the world to proclaim a Kingdom, a new way of life, a way of love and compassion. At first, he believes his focus should be entirely on Israel, and displays a low opinion of the gentile world. But suddenly, he realizes that this woman's desire is the very same as God's desire! She loves her daughter and doesn't want that daughter to suffer.
This is a unique and special story, because as best I can tell, this is the only occasion in the Bible where Jesus gives up his opinion and accepts that of another! He lets a gentile woman convince him! Against all odds, in a patriarchal society that despised pagans, a pagan woman has better helped him understand his own mission.
For that, we should trust and appreciate the mission of Jesus even more.
//A Greek woman came to Jesus asking him to cast a devil from her daughter. Today's verse is Jesus' reply, a very nasty way of saying that because the woman was a gentile, she did not deserve the attention reserved for God's people. Harsh words, indeed, hardly what we would expect to hear from Jesus.
Hearing these words, the woman does not grow angry. It is not for herself that she asks help, but for her daughter. She replies, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children's crumbs."
Suddenly, a light goes on for Jesus. God has sent him into the world to proclaim a Kingdom, a new way of life, a way of love and compassion. At first, he believes his focus should be entirely on Israel, and displays a low opinion of the gentile world. But suddenly, he realizes that this woman's desire is the very same as God's desire! She loves her daughter and doesn't want that daughter to suffer.
This is a unique and special story, because as best I can tell, this is the only occasion in the Bible where Jesus gives up his opinion and accepts that of another! He lets a gentile woman convince him! Against all odds, in a patriarchal society that despised pagans, a pagan woman has better helped him understand his own mission.
For that, we should trust and appreciate the mission of Jesus even more.
May 19, 2011
Book review: The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
by Thomas Jefferson★★★
We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus. There will be remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.
With this goal, Jefferson set about with razor in hand to extract the true words and actions of Jesus from the enveloping hype and miracle stories of the Gospels. Rejecting the virgin birth, the annunciation, and even the resurrection, Jefferson wanted to dig down to Jesus' message of absolute love and service. The result is a chronological new Gospel formed by merging select portions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
An excellent, concise introduction by Forrest Church and an afterward by Jaroslav Pelikan (Whose Bible Is It) round out the book. Jefferson espoused a Unitarian philosophy, subjugating the topic of religion in his library to the category of "moral philosophy." Pelikan, in his afterward about Jefferson's contemporaries, classifies Jefferson among the "Enlightenment rationalists." After reading Jefferson's Bible, I'd say that's a fair assessment.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)
May 18, 2011
Genesis 1:1, Evolution: Fact, Fiction, Religion, or Just a Theory?
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
//Today, I'm sharing a guest post from a friend. You've probably seen Tim's comments on various threads, and you've seen us go head to head, and maybe you've figured out we're the best of friends despite differing beliefs. In my desire to provide fair and equal treatment to a variety of religious beliefs and experiences, then, how could I do better than a guest post from Tim?
I did talk with Tim briefly before posting his article, trying to nail him down on some of the issues the article raises. What, Tim, do you mean by evolution? What is a theory versus a fact? What exactly do you have faith in? The article seemed purposefully oblique, purposefully interpretable in a variety of ways. And that turned out to be just what he wanted: an exercise for your noodle, to make you think for yourself, to build your own paradigm. So, I left it alone.
Tim wanted me to emphasize that he does not have social media accounts. Replies to this article are best posted on my blog, at http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/.
Here, then, are Tim Walker's ramblings about evolution and creation.
Evolution: fact, fiction, religion, or just a theory.
I am going to talk about evolution and some natural processes. Bear with me, it all relates to my paradigm. We will get started with little things. Keep in mind that how one looks at anything including little things is based on our paradigms. Paradigms are perspectives. What we have faith or belief in sets a perspective up. Individual perspectives determine how we define evolution, and I am going to work at presenting a perspective. This is one of my paradigms and I hope you appreciate it and maybe understand it.
There are many different things we could say about evolution, and most have already been said. There are many things that are quite interesting and really do relate to how we look at evolution. I have put some of these together for consideration in hopefully a new or at least interesting way. For example stars are a long ways away. In fact, there are stars that are over one million light years away. It would by definition of the speed of light in a vacuum take light over a million years to reach us from those stars. How does that relate to evolution, you ask? We will get to it after a few other things.
First let us consider some small things. How about dirt? Have you ever considered that trees, flowers, grasses and plants need dirt to grow in? Unless of course you want to talk about hydroponics or aeroponics, but those are outside the scope of this discussion. Any garden needs soil, but what is soil? Soil consists of differing amounts of sand, clay, silt, humus, organic matter on its way to being humus, water, gases, minerals, and a bunch of small to large living organisms. These small things can tell us some very interesting things.
Sand is produced through erosion of rocks. Clay and silt are also produced from erosion of rocks. I would be tempted to say that all of us believe in erosion. Please, remember that belief in erosion. Now let us look at humus. Humus is made up of dead organic matter that has decayed to the point where it is pretty stable. Some of the best humus is in soil called Terra preta. The organic matter takes years to decay into humus. This is another natural process that most of us can believe in. How do the gases and water get into the soil? Precipitation gets both the water and most of the gases into the soil. What about the minerals, how do they get into the soil? The minerals get there through a number of natural processes; some are quite similar to how humus is made. The decay of dead things helps with both humus and mineral availability in the soil. That means you have to have dead things in the soil for those natural processes to work. Those dead things do not always decay; sometimes they just get buried too fast, or one of a number of other ways dead stuff can be preserved. These are other natural processes that most people believe in. These natural processes that create soil are ones that most all of us can believe in.
Anyone want to talk about trees and some other stuff? Trees, as most of us know, have growth rings. There is one ring for each growing season. If there are ten rings the tree is ten years old. Shells have bands that show their age. In a pond you can dig down into the mud deposited on the bottom and again see layers that will correspond with the seasons. These again are other natural processes that most of us accept.
How do these natural processes relate to evolution? Evolution was proposed as an idea many years ago. It is an idea that has been proposed to explain some natural processes that have been observed by a few people. Many people have fought against acceptance of that idea. For them, it has to be fiction. It is now generally thought of as a theory, but it is not treated as a theory. For some people, accepting evolution would mess with an important paradigm that they have. Of course there are others that fight for it just as hard. There are enough facts supporting it that they have developed a faith in the theory being a fact. For them, to think of evolution as just a theory messes with their paradigm also. This is enough of my rambling about evolution being a fact, theory, or religion. The fact is it messes with some people's paradigms.
If you have a creator that creates a world, and wants things to live there, it has to work. "Work:" what does that mean, you ask? If a creator creates a tree, there has to be soil for the roots. In the soil you need all of the things talked about above. The sand, clay, silt and everything else is created. The fact that sand, clay, and silt are now also produced through erosion is quite a different matter. The natural process of erosion is still correct; it is just a different way of creating sand, clay, and silt. The dead organisms have to be created also. By the way, I hope that no one has a problem with God creating organisms that are already dead. A cat, a dog, a person or two, that were created already dead. Actually the numbers of dead things would have to be quite high. There are many things on this earth that just can't survive without dead stuff. How deep did the creator create dead stuff? There are living and dead organisms many thousands of feet below the surface of the earth.
What else does it mean to create something that works? Hmm, I have an idea.
If a world was created 10 years ago what would it be like? It could be just like this one or not. What would a tree be like? If we counted the tree rings on a giant tree how many would be there? If there were 10 tree rings or less that might say something. In fact it might be hard to argue that the world was more than 10 years old. It would probably be a pretty good theory, or just a very accepted fact that the world was created 10 years ago. Everyone would know that something or someone created the world. In this proposed world we could even imagine that the intelligent life had a book similar to the Bible. It would just be a bit shorter in the history area. Another thing that would be different in it would be faith. There would not need to be much about faith in the existence of a creator. Faith is accepting something you do not understand or know. It is not based on fact. For me, and according to the dictionary, this means that faith is not proven or disproven by facts. If the Creator of this hypothetical world wanted the people of this world to believe in Him/Her by faith, there would be a problem. It just would not work. For that Creator, this hypothetical creation does not work. A better job of creation would need to be done. So that a belief in a Creator by faith, and not by fact, would be required.
Now we are getting into the meat. Is a theory greater than a fact? Does a fact prove or disprove a theory? A theory is less important than a fact. If a fact can't prove or disprove faith, then a theory sure doesn't even come close. Theories can't do anything to a belief in God, if it is based on faith. Theories can't even hurt those that base their beliefs on facts. Facts are stronger than theories. Now, if you are basing your belief on facts, theories, or convenience, that is a different thing. Then you get a battle. That is why there is a battle going on about a theory called evolution. If you are basing your belief on facts, theories, or convenience, then you will fight change until the fight costs more than the change. (There is another basis for belief and that is power, but I will not get into that here.) Not so, some would say, faith is about not giving room to false heretical teaching. That is a bad road to go down, people! The Catholic Church has done a good job of showing us some of why that is true. Imagine that carried to a ludicrous extreme: We would need thought police to keep us from entertaining random thoughts, which might go against some excepted knowledge. Oh, wait, it has already been done. For me the real meat of the issue is, do I believe by faith or not? If I do believe by faith, then all of the theories and facts do not affect me. Still, those facts and theories are really interesting to me, because they are the man's best attempt to describe God's creation. I like getting to see and understand how God's creation works; it speaks to me of the Creator.
Evolution is just another theory. Please do not get confused by the idea of natural processes being evolution. The natural processes, facts, are either explained by the theory or not. The change in any one species' characteristics, or any other natural process, is a natural process, not the theory. Again, theories describe facts and suggest possible facts we do not yet know. Theories can be disproved by facts. Some theories will probably never be disproved by new facts, but all can be.
What about those stars out there? In a vacuum, we already know it takes light a long time to reach us. Imagine, again, that world with only 10 tree rings even in their oldest and biggest trees. What would it be like to be looking up into space and see light just getting to us for the first time from another star? It would be kind of cool. It would be a whole different ball game. We would not need to be using layers of theories and facts to try and calculate the age of the universe. It's age would be very obvious. Let me give an example for clarity. If we saw today for the first time a neutron star, and that neutron star was 6000 light years away, and we could see no star farther away, then that fact would give us an age to the universe (assuming we all can agree that neutron stars are old stars.) It would also make the idea of the universe being created a fact. We would know there was a creator. We would have a different Bible.
Having my paradigm,(Contributed by Tim Walker)
//Today, I'm sharing a guest post from a friend. You've probably seen Tim's comments on various threads, and you've seen us go head to head, and maybe you've figured out we're the best of friends despite differing beliefs. In my desire to provide fair and equal treatment to a variety of religious beliefs and experiences, then, how could I do better than a guest post from Tim?
I did talk with Tim briefly before posting his article, trying to nail him down on some of the issues the article raises. What, Tim, do you mean by evolution? What is a theory versus a fact? What exactly do you have faith in? The article seemed purposefully oblique, purposefully interpretable in a variety of ways. And that turned out to be just what he wanted: an exercise for your noodle, to make you think for yourself, to build your own paradigm. So, I left it alone.
Tim wanted me to emphasize that he does not have social media accounts. Replies to this article are best posted on my blog, at http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/.
Here, then, are Tim Walker's ramblings about evolution and creation.
Evolution: fact, fiction, religion, or just a theory.
I am going to talk about evolution and some natural processes. Bear with me, it all relates to my paradigm. We will get started with little things. Keep in mind that how one looks at anything including little things is based on our paradigms. Paradigms are perspectives. What we have faith or belief in sets a perspective up. Individual perspectives determine how we define evolution, and I am going to work at presenting a perspective. This is one of my paradigms and I hope you appreciate it and maybe understand it.
There are many different things we could say about evolution, and most have already been said. There are many things that are quite interesting and really do relate to how we look at evolution. I have put some of these together for consideration in hopefully a new or at least interesting way. For example stars are a long ways away. In fact, there are stars that are over one million light years away. It would by definition of the speed of light in a vacuum take light over a million years to reach us from those stars. How does that relate to evolution, you ask? We will get to it after a few other things.
First let us consider some small things. How about dirt? Have you ever considered that trees, flowers, grasses and plants need dirt to grow in? Unless of course you want to talk about hydroponics or aeroponics, but those are outside the scope of this discussion. Any garden needs soil, but what is soil? Soil consists of differing amounts of sand, clay, silt, humus, organic matter on its way to being humus, water, gases, minerals, and a bunch of small to large living organisms. These small things can tell us some very interesting things.
Sand is produced through erosion of rocks. Clay and silt are also produced from erosion of rocks. I would be tempted to say that all of us believe in erosion. Please, remember that belief in erosion. Now let us look at humus. Humus is made up of dead organic matter that has decayed to the point where it is pretty stable. Some of the best humus is in soil called Terra preta. The organic matter takes years to decay into humus. This is another natural process that most of us can believe in. How do the gases and water get into the soil? Precipitation gets both the water and most of the gases into the soil. What about the minerals, how do they get into the soil? The minerals get there through a number of natural processes; some are quite similar to how humus is made. The decay of dead things helps with both humus and mineral availability in the soil. That means you have to have dead things in the soil for those natural processes to work. Those dead things do not always decay; sometimes they just get buried too fast, or one of a number of other ways dead stuff can be preserved. These are other natural processes that most people believe in. These natural processes that create soil are ones that most all of us can believe in.
Anyone want to talk about trees and some other stuff? Trees, as most of us know, have growth rings. There is one ring for each growing season. If there are ten rings the tree is ten years old. Shells have bands that show their age. In a pond you can dig down into the mud deposited on the bottom and again see layers that will correspond with the seasons. These again are other natural processes that most of us accept.
How do these natural processes relate to evolution? Evolution was proposed as an idea many years ago. It is an idea that has been proposed to explain some natural processes that have been observed by a few people. Many people have fought against acceptance of that idea. For them, it has to be fiction. It is now generally thought of as a theory, but it is not treated as a theory. For some people, accepting evolution would mess with an important paradigm that they have. Of course there are others that fight for it just as hard. There are enough facts supporting it that they have developed a faith in the theory being a fact. For them, to think of evolution as just a theory messes with their paradigm also. This is enough of my rambling about evolution being a fact, theory, or religion. The fact is it messes with some people's paradigms.
If you have a creator that creates a world, and wants things to live there, it has to work. "Work:" what does that mean, you ask? If a creator creates a tree, there has to be soil for the roots. In the soil you need all of the things talked about above. The sand, clay, silt and everything else is created. The fact that sand, clay, and silt are now also produced through erosion is quite a different matter. The natural process of erosion is still correct; it is just a different way of creating sand, clay, and silt. The dead organisms have to be created also. By the way, I hope that no one has a problem with God creating organisms that are already dead. A cat, a dog, a person or two, that were created already dead. Actually the numbers of dead things would have to be quite high. There are many things on this earth that just can't survive without dead stuff. How deep did the creator create dead stuff? There are living and dead organisms many thousands of feet below the surface of the earth.
What else does it mean to create something that works? Hmm, I have an idea.
If a world was created 10 years ago what would it be like? It could be just like this one or not. What would a tree be like? If we counted the tree rings on a giant tree how many would be there? If there were 10 tree rings or less that might say something. In fact it might be hard to argue that the world was more than 10 years old. It would probably be a pretty good theory, or just a very accepted fact that the world was created 10 years ago. Everyone would know that something or someone created the world. In this proposed world we could even imagine that the intelligent life had a book similar to the Bible. It would just be a bit shorter in the history area. Another thing that would be different in it would be faith. There would not need to be much about faith in the existence of a creator. Faith is accepting something you do not understand or know. It is not based on fact. For me, and according to the dictionary, this means that faith is not proven or disproven by facts. If the Creator of this hypothetical world wanted the people of this world to believe in Him/Her by faith, there would be a problem. It just would not work. For that Creator, this hypothetical creation does not work. A better job of creation would need to be done. So that a belief in a Creator by faith, and not by fact, would be required.
Now we are getting into the meat. Is a theory greater than a fact? Does a fact prove or disprove a theory? A theory is less important than a fact. If a fact can't prove or disprove faith, then a theory sure doesn't even come close. Theories can't do anything to a belief in God, if it is based on faith. Theories can't even hurt those that base their beliefs on facts. Facts are stronger than theories. Now, if you are basing your belief on facts, theories, or convenience, that is a different thing. Then you get a battle. That is why there is a battle going on about a theory called evolution. If you are basing your belief on facts, theories, or convenience, then you will fight change until the fight costs more than the change. (There is another basis for belief and that is power, but I will not get into that here.) Not so, some would say, faith is about not giving room to false heretical teaching. That is a bad road to go down, people! The Catholic Church has done a good job of showing us some of why that is true. Imagine that carried to a ludicrous extreme: We would need thought police to keep us from entertaining random thoughts, which might go against some excepted knowledge. Oh, wait, it has already been done. For me the real meat of the issue is, do I believe by faith or not? If I do believe by faith, then all of the theories and facts do not affect me. Still, those facts and theories are really interesting to me, because they are the man's best attempt to describe God's creation. I like getting to see and understand how God's creation works; it speaks to me of the Creator.
Evolution is just another theory. Please do not get confused by the idea of natural processes being evolution. The natural processes, facts, are either explained by the theory or not. The change in any one species' characteristics, or any other natural process, is a natural process, not the theory. Again, theories describe facts and suggest possible facts we do not yet know. Theories can be disproved by facts. Some theories will probably never be disproved by new facts, but all can be.
What about those stars out there? In a vacuum, we already know it takes light a long time to reach us. Imagine, again, that world with only 10 tree rings even in their oldest and biggest trees. What would it be like to be looking up into space and see light just getting to us for the first time from another star? It would be kind of cool. It would be a whole different ball game. We would not need to be using layers of theories and facts to try and calculate the age of the universe. It's age would be very obvious. Let me give an example for clarity. If we saw today for the first time a neutron star, and that neutron star was 6000 light years away, and we could see no star farther away, then that fact would give us an age to the universe (assuming we all can agree that neutron stars are old stars.) It would also make the idea of the universe being created a fact. We would know there was a creator. We would have a different Bible.
Having my paradigm,(Contributed by Tim Walker)
May 17, 2011
Book review: Letter to a Christian Nation
by Sam Harris★★★
Nobody needs another review on this short little atheist booklet. Amazon now has 724 reviews. By now, we all know how aggressively Harris attacks Christianity, and how effectively his writing pushes buttons. I'm not going to review the book so much as I'm going to discuss the problem.
Does Harris have good points? Of course. Is he right? Quite often. Is he offensive? Duh. I'm about as "liberal" as a Christian can get, and even I am offended when Harris writes.
The funny thing is, Harris cares. He cares about people, he cares about truth, he cares about our future. If you don't believe me, begin the book by turning to the back and reading the conclusion. But Harris' method pretty much assures that the audience he wants to reach will continue to ignore him. Just as Harris continues to ignore the Christian writers who seek to reach him.
There's a lot of truth flying in both directions in the Christian/atheist argument, and certainly a lot of honest intentions and concern for one another, yet very little connection. It makes me want to throw up my hands and conclude that atheists simply cannot grasp Christian thinking, and Christians simply cannot grasp atheist thinking. Atheists think they can use logic and common sense to somehow talk Christians away from what they feel and know through experience. Christians think if only atheists would give in to the God they are so frantically resisting, all would be well. If I thought you'd let me get away with it, I'd suggest that one side thinks with their head, the other with their heart … but, of course, I'd just be offending both sides with a trite oversimplification.
It seems utterly impossible to bring the two sides together. I'm not sure it's possible for the two sides to even understand each other. But you'd think coexistence and mutual respect would at least be possible. To that end, I recommend Christians read Harris' book to better understand the way atheists think, and just do their Christian best not to be offended.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)
May 16, 2011
Matthew 7:14, the Strait Gate
Strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
//Here is another of those verses that help religions draw lines in the sand. If a denomination grows, that's proof that God is welcoming people to His one and only way. If instead it is rejected by others, well, that's equal proof that it's right, for strait is the gate and narrow is the way. Your pews not filling as they used to? What more proof do you need that God is with you, for the Bible promises a "falling away." Your constituents having trouble believing what you say? Not your problem, since the Bible promises to reward believers, though it seem like "foolishness."
Religion encourages self-assurance, and when we feel the presence of God, that bolsters our opinion that we have found the one "right" way. Preach it, brother! If others embrace your teaching, glory be to God! If others despise or disagree with you, well, that's to be expected! It's a no-lose situation.
What never seems to cross anyone's mind is that other types of believers—those deceived by other religions and denominations—also experience God, and have just as much evidence for their opinion that you are the one who is wrong. As Karen Armstrong says...
Where is the fun in religion, if you can't disapprove of other people! There are some people, I suspect, who would be outraged if, when they finally arrived in heaven, they found everybody else there as well. Heaven would not be heaven unless you could peer over the celestial parapets and watch the unfortunates roasting below.
Passion for studying religion? Find out how to earn your degree at Online College Classes
//Here is another of those verses that help religions draw lines in the sand. If a denomination grows, that's proof that God is welcoming people to His one and only way. If instead it is rejected by others, well, that's equal proof that it's right, for strait is the gate and narrow is the way. Your pews not filling as they used to? What more proof do you need that God is with you, for the Bible promises a "falling away." Your constituents having trouble believing what you say? Not your problem, since the Bible promises to reward believers, though it seem like "foolishness."
Religion encourages self-assurance, and when we feel the presence of God, that bolsters our opinion that we have found the one "right" way. Preach it, brother! If others embrace your teaching, glory be to God! If others despise or disagree with you, well, that's to be expected! It's a no-lose situation.
What never seems to cross anyone's mind is that other types of believers—those deceived by other religions and denominations—also experience God, and have just as much evidence for their opinion that you are the one who is wrong. As Karen Armstrong says...
Where is the fun in religion, if you can't disapprove of other people! There are some people, I suspect, who would be outraged if, when they finally arrived in heaven, they found everybody else there as well. Heaven would not be heaven unless you could peer over the celestial parapets and watch the unfortunates roasting below.
Passion for studying religion? Find out how to earn your degree at Online College Classes
