Damn you I'm a Christian

Picking and choosing from the Bible

2008-01-25T06:22:00.000-08:00

It's been a while, but I've built up some more steam to explain my Christian views. Inspired by two things:
1. An interesting and intelligent comment from an old post.
2. A link I followed to this web page: The 100 Greatest quotes from Christian chat rooms.

Here's an extract from the (anonymous, so I hope he/she doesn't mind) comment:
"Our LORD wants you to make a stand. Don't be wishy washy. You can't pick and choose parts of the bible that you agree with and then toss the rest out because it didn't meet some human need for things to be "fair".

Your knowledge of history and how the bible was put togeather is also lacking. You've made statements out of ignorance on how the bible was put togeather.

You even gave Satan a one up over God, suggesting that the scriptures have been manipulated by satan himself in order to decieve us. If you were God, would you allow your life giving word to contain a single extra dot or tidle? Would you allow satan to toy with the very tool of salvation?

Remeber, the wisdom of man is but foolishness to God."

Before I get into this, I urge you to read some of the posts on the '100 idiotic things that christians have said on the internet' page. The vast majority of them are steeped in ignorance, for example the idea that the King James version of the Bible is the 'official' or 'correct' one. Now, as my commenter points out, I have made comments in ignorance of how the Bible was put together. I fully admit that I do not know everythinhg (or all that much, in fact) about how this happened. But I'm pretty sure of some things about the Bible:

Significant portions of the Old Testamant were probably composed orally and passed on by memory before they were ever weritten down.
The New Testament was written by people who used a different language for speech than they did for writing.
There are no copies that we know of that might be considered a 'first edition', or anything like that. There are simply fragments of old scrolls, and of course the long tradition of people retelling the stories across the generations, and again of copying out new versions transcribed from old versions.
There are different translations of the Bible in most languages - I've certainly read sections of the Bible in at elast four different English translations (including the minor distinctions one finds between the US and UK editions of the NRSV).

What I'm driving at is that reading and trying to understand the Bible and then talking about it with other people are all difficult things. To my mind, the God-centredness of the Bible is evident in reading the WHOLE thing (something I've not done yet, although I'm getting there!). I have at least read the whole of the New Testament at least twice, in several different English versions, and bits of it in Greek - as close as possible to the 'original' Greek as one can get, not as reliable as you might think since there are discrepanices even among the oldest existing scrolls.

So that's what I know about the Bible.

On reading the New Testament, I am inspired to belief, and belief in particular in a loving and inclusive God. And this is where the 'picking and choosing' starts. There are seemingly contradictory sections in the New Testament alone (never mind its rejection of the excessive killing in God's name that litters the Old Testament...). This must be reconciled somehow, and that's a challenge that most theological and intellectually minded christians enjoy/struggle with for their whole lives. It's a blessing and a curse, frankly.

On a purely emotional level, I can;t help but turn to certain Bible passages more readily than others, often because they were some of the first ones I was exposed to that had an effect onme. An old favourite is the parable about the man with the plank of wood in his eye trying to take the mote of dust out of his brother's eye - a simple warning against hypocrisy. But I accept that I love this teaching more because I heard the story when very young, and not because it has any greater claim to truth than, say, the parable about the shrewd manager who saves his money for a rainy day.

I think one can't pick and choose the overriding message of the Bible, but one is obliged to pick and choose from the details. Of course, christians will never agree about what the overriding message is anyway, let alone agreeing about the meaning of specific passages. And this in itself shows that the Bible is grossly imperfect. Not a work of the Devil imperfect (I was just being provocative when I said that - come on, admit it, it would be kinda awesome iof it turned out that the Devil wrote the bible and God is all like "Hey you idiots, get your noses out of that damn book and start listening to what your hearts tell you!" whilst not intervening and destroying the evil bible because he's just not into intervention, y'know?

Of course chirstians do at least try to agree about what they think the Bible as a whole, and in its different verses, actually mean. And that's a noble quest. The annoying stuff happens when some start saying 'You're not a real christian becuase you don't believe that bit in the Bible means this, and I know it does becuase the Bible tells me so'. I don't like those people at all. But I wouldn't call them non-christians, just frikkin' idiots.

Like the people on the 100 list. Which I really only mentioned here because it's consistently funny to point at idiots and laugh at them. Another fine gift from God.

The God Delusion - more unstructured thoughts

2007-10-05T06:40:00.000-07:00

Clearly I'm kidding myself if I think I can formulate coherent responses to the book now several months after reading it.
Anyway, it might be time to get into the meat of one of Dawkins's early arguments: the question of what God is, and what kind of a believer I am. In the Creed, a statement of belief that I trot out every Sunday as part of the Mass, it starts out by describing God as the creator of Heaven and Earth. Everything, really. Then there's bunch of details about Jesus and the Holy Spirit being the same thing as God, but perhaps a bit more directly connected to humanity. And some statements about Mary and Pontius Pilate that as far as I can tell serve the function of grounding Jesus in history.

As I recall from Dawkins, he suggests that a belief in God follows two basic ideas. 1) He created everything 2) He continues to exist and to affect his creation, most importnantly in that us humans are capable of having a personal relationship with him. I'd say that's a pretty fair summary of the Creed, and imagine that it fulfills most other religions' concept of God, too.

Dawkins is quite happy to concede that proposition 1) - that God is creator - is perfectly tenable. He calls people who believe in this (but not in proposition 2)) 'Deists'. However he points out that he finds it an unsatisfying belief, because you can't prove or disprove it. Worse, it begs the question of who created God. Which is a fair point. Nevertheless, he suggests that he can cope with Deists. He's a little bemused by them, but doesn't find them offensive.

Proposition 2) is not let off so lightly. Now, Dawkins is not saying anything new here (as he would be the first to admit) - this really is about the clash between sceince and religion. Even a cursory understanding of physics will explain that the Universe is bound by a set of laws, which affect the energy and matter that everything is made of. Now, we don't fully understand those laws, but we understand enough to know that events happen in an intelligible sequence, and it's deeply vulgar to invoke an interventionist God as a factor in that sequence. If atoms and molecules move around and change, it's demonstrably because of the laws of physics, and not the lore of God.

The point is, Dawkins is happy to believe (or rather, to let other people believe) that a Deist God set up the Universe, gave it its laws, and then let it get on with its own thing. He's not happy to believe that people can pray to God and thereby effect change, or that God can randomly decide to suddenly change those laws and make things happen that 'shouldn't' have happened.

I'm in agreement with that. But I don't think this prevents God from being a presonal God. I guess I'm being heretical when I say that I believe that God is, essentially, limited in his powers. He can't break the laws of physics. He can't even change the laws of morality, and make murder a noble pursuit, for example. I think these concepts are part of God, and an immutable part at that. However, within the laws founded at the point of creation (or maybe even pre-existing creation, if such a concept makes any sense), God can and does interact with people. I found it frustrating that Dawkins didn't seem to allow for this kind of Deism: God as creator, but non-interventionist, but still accessible.

I'm being non-heretical when I say that is still important that God is a creator. If God didn't create the Universe, then as I see it either he doesn't exist, or is a creation entirely of humans. In which case one need not waste time being beholden to him. Although, it does raise some very interesting ideas about how much power this kind of being can have.

The God Delusion: an anlaysis Part 2

2007-08-20T09:26:00.001-07:00

An all too common question comes up in the religion/science arena - can 'science' have anything to say about religion and spirituality? Dawkins tries to unpick this question, and very much comes up with the answer, 'yes'. In simple terms, I agree with him, although I have a suspicion that his argument as to why is not one that will satisfy many non-believers (or non-non-believers; Oh, you know what I mean - people who have the opposite opinion to Dawkins).

Anyway, I think that most religious people with an ounce of understanding of what science is all about are happy to believe that science can and does have a lot to say about things like how the universe began, where life comes from, what informs individual human personality, and so on. I hope that these same people are wise enough to acknowledge that when science's investigations go against a surface reading of, say, the Bible, that this basicaly means a) the Bible is wrong, at least in a literal historical interpretation and therefore that b) inasmuch as it is sensible to place a lot of stock in an old book, you'd better be prepared to look up the word 'metaphor' in the dictionary before you begin reading it.

Let's be clear about this, science is awesome. Science, in many ways, is better than God. Science is in the realm of human control in a way that God is not. You can trust that science will get to the truth of things in the end, even if along the way the humans who work in scientific investigation jobs get things wrong. As Dawkins rightly points out, the scientific community argues with itself every bit as much as the religious community, but scientists are generally nicer than clerics/theologians, with the result that scientists can admit to their mistakes and revise their understandings much more readily than clerics have a habit of doing. Obviously this doesn't apply to all individuals, but as a general rule it's pretty sound.

This is all a bit off the point. Stepping back, let's remember that 'science' isn't a thing, it's a method of analysis. In its ideal form, science is open to all reasoning beings without the need for any prior knowledge. Any hypothesis that science puts forward, I should be able to observe happening for myself. In very simple terms, science is about assessing the evidence that something happens, and working out what is going on.

As I mentioned last time (or whenever it was), I belive that there is, and has to be, evidence for religious belief. In my case, it's to do with mental states, and a bit to do with the group consiousness of humanity. Things that science / social science can and do put to the test. So again in very simlpe terms, it seems straightforward to me that science can have something to say about religion. I also think that science should get involved in the mystery of God. Science is all about exploring, and this is a pretty exciting field to explore - or at least I think so.

I'd like to suggest at this point that 'science' is not restricted to the use of tools such as telescopes to see the stars or scanners to investigate brainwaves. It's also about using common sense and logical argument, just as Aquinas attempted with his so-called proofs of the existence of God.

I guess if I'm being honest I believe that God in and of himself is beyond the reach of human scientific investigation. However, I also belive that it's not helpful to think about God in those terms anyway. God is nothing without humanity. The only evidence (that I see) for God comes through what people say and do and feel. So the way to investigate God is through people, who very palpably are within the reach of science. To study religious truth, then, is to study the mechanisms by which God (hypothetically) interacts with humanity, be it through the Bible, divinely ordained prophets and of course the enldessly frustrating but vital evolutionary drive that humans have to be superstitious, and to 'believe in' various things.

Bit of a rambling post today - sorry about that. Anyway, Dawkins is right - science is a valid and sensible tool in the quest for finding out if there is any truth in religion.

A digression: What God Wants

2007-08-01T06:33:00.000-07:00

Confession - I have a cat. My first pet. INevitably, this has given rise to me experiencing some crude analogies.

Here we go!

Being a good and kind owner, I put out food for my cat, change her litter tray regularly, leave toys for her to play with, and of course sit with her, stroke her and so on. Occasionally, she will meow and whine and generally give the impression of being distressed, with no obvious cause.

It's really nice when she wants to hang around with us. It's really satisfying when she's happily eating or playing or exploring. It's mildly frustrating when she whines, but also kind of funny, especially when she meows after we go into a different room and she wants attention. It's as if she hasn't got the sense or perhaps the courage to come and look for us.

Anyway, it makes me wonder if God feels like this sometimes. He provides space for us humans to live in, gives us food and shelter and places for us to explore and toys for us to play with. So it must be hella annoying when we whine at him with our ill-conceived prayers and whatnot. Also amusing when we seem not to be able to find him when he's just around the corner - we just keep on meowing unti he comes to find us.

It also makes me think about the fact that I was keen to get a cat as cats are friendly enough to be affectioante, but apart from a bit of feeding an occasional vet trips, they really don't need any looking after, so it doesn't matter that we're out of the house all day.
And by extension, this would imply that God kinda wanted to make some humans cos they talk to him a bit, but really he's hoping we'll look after ourselves and stop bugging him about being fed.

Look, I am really sorry about the rubbish analogy / new pet owner bit. Won't happen again. It's not really theologically relevant or exciting, althoguh there's definitely something in the idea that God wants us to be self-sufficient, and that it is very possible to live a life without acknowledging God. Might possibly be the seed for a decent Future Shock in there, as well...

The God Delusion - an analysis Part 1b

2007-07-31T07:32:00.000-07:00

And another thing about the whole approach to the question of God.

Dawkins devotes a reasonable amount of space to the question of certain 'logical' 'proofs' of the existence of God. I, and I imagine many other contemporary christians, are not particularly interested in this kind of philosophising. Something as important to a life as God is not going to be weighed up purely by a thought experiment. If, as I believe, he has a real and physical impact on my life, there ought to be evidence for his existence, and therefore the question of 'proofs' is a little irrelevant.

To be fair to Dawkins, he didn't exactly bring the subject up. For that, we can thank Thomas Aquinas (probably the most famous God-prover, although I'm sure there are many others). Allow me to be a bit hypocritical here. I've said I don't care from a faith point of view about all this. From an intellectual point of view, I do find the topic quite fascinating, so I'm going to indluge by dragging it up very briefly...

As far as I can tell, there are two main logical proofs for the existence of God (with various variations). One is the idea that the world exists, therefore it must have some kind of origin, or reason, for existing. That is God. The other one is much more wishy-washy and is a true thought experiment. What's the greatest thing you can imagine? Well, whatever the greatest thing is, it must actually exist, since something can't be that great if it doesn't exist. Given most common definitions, God is obviously the greatest thing, but only if he actually exists, therefore he must exist.

Now, I haven't studied logical philosophy, and it may well be that there's a way of constructing this second argument so that it follows logically. But I'm pretty confident that basically nobody finds it convincing or at all satisfying as a proof of God's existence. It's kind of funny, I guess, so it has that going for it.

As for the first proof, well that is also unsatisfying because it doesn't attempt to explain where God comes from. It's all very well going back trhough time finding causes for everything, but it only works if the very first thing in time is something that can be explained as appearing without needing a cause. Of course, those who believe in God are perfectly happy to believe he is causeless, but this is a matter of assertion rather than a self-evident truth.

Anyway, the point of this all is to say - who cares? I don't base my faith on a questiona of answering where the universe came from, or why things exist. I'm reminded in this context of a certain Gospel story. Jesus is talking to a number of scholars, who are arguing about marriage and Heaven. They ask Jesus who will be true husband in Heaven to a woman who has had several husbands on Earth. Jesus basically dodges the question, which is a bit annoying, but he also makes a great point "God is the God of the Living, not the God of the Dead." Which is to say, don;t worry about what's going to happen in Heaven, worry about your life now, you bunch of bloody idiots.

By extension, I'm pretty sure that worrying about where Life and the Universe came from is not going to answer questions about what God is and what God means for us (or indeed whether or not he exists). Really, we should worry about the impact that God has on people's day to day lives.

Of course, Dawkins certainly isn't short of things to say on that subject...

In summary: logical proofs for God = a bit of fun, but not really relevant. Likewise, disproofs of God.
For the record, I'd like to point out that I thoroughly agree with Dawkins that anything we humans can't understand yet about things like how the universe began or how life started is not a license to invoke God as a cause. It's a license to do some hard science and to have some imaginative (and testable/observable!) ideas about what sort of events and mechanisms might be in place to bring life and the universe about.

The God Delusion: an analysis Part 1

2007-07-27T07:24:00.000-07:00

So a big problem for atheists is wondering why on Earth people believe in God. I certainly had conversations with people in school in which they asked would I believe them if they told me there was a great big elephant who lived in the sky, but who was invisible. This was very annoying.

In a roundabout way, these people were trying to demonstrate that God is a ridiculous idea. Obviously I don't believe in an invisible elephant, or in a celestial teapot (to use Betrand Russell's analogy as Dawkins does), because presented baldly to me the concept is absurd. Yes, it's impossible to disprove, but I'm not going to waste any energy on believing in it. And therefore, why should I believe it when I am told that some vague God, who is beyond understanding (the ultimate invisibility) created the Universe and lives in judgement over it.

Now, people who don't believe in God seem to think that God as a hypothesis is exactly like this teapot, except for one unfair advantge - people are idoctrinated to believe in God from such a young age that the idea is no longer absurd. I suppose I can beleive that as a very young child, if someone I trusted (perhaps even a TV presenter) told me about an invisible elephant/teapot in the sky, I would believe them. And once having that foundation of belief, I might then have found it very hard to realise that this person was either mistaken or flat out lying to me about it later on. After all, this seems to be the case with Father Christmas (although I must say I don't really remember believing in that particular myth, for whatever reason).

But I just don't think God is like that. I don't believe in God because I am told he exists. I genuinely feel that there is evidence for his existence. Yes, it's somewhat vague, but it's there. It has to do with the drive I feel to try to be good, and to try not to be bad. It has to do with the feeling of alienation and wanting to overcome it, and moreover with a corresponding feeling of communion with other thinking beings even when I am alone. These are facts of life that are, think, totally separate from religious dogma, and hence not at all in the sphere of the 'celestial teapot' putdown of faith.

Before I go on, it's important to be clear about a couple of things. Religious dogma is, in fact, rather important to religion. There's just too much in it for any one person to think about, so it's inevitable that as someone who pursues faith I am going to have to take some people's word for it on some issues of religion. There will be some facts that I am not going to get around to questioning rigorously in my lifetime. This is a shame. But it's also true for every part of life, not just religion. Dawkins, for example, certainly takes some facts of science on faith. I'm sure he's very well read and well educated, but I suspect that he doesn;t understand the full ins and outs of cosmology, for example, but I'm sure he's happy to believe the work of folk like Einstein, Feynman and whoever else, and not feel like he's letting himself down by doing so. The point I'm making is that faith and trust are pretty essential to life, and it's pretty stupid to attack them ni themselevs. I don't claim that Dawkins does this, by the way, but he does seem to forget how unavoidable it is that people accept dogma from other people in science as well as religion.

I will of course concede that science has a much better track record of admitting its errors and refining its dogma than religion does. Better yet, scientists can admit their mstakes and stick together without having to found new religions, although I'm sure many a lab partnership has experienced schism over some fundamental disagreement.

I'm digressing a lot here. The other big point I wanted to be up front about was that yes, my faith is based on evidence. I mentioned a desire to be good, and a feeling of togetherness as two examples of this. I don't say that these experiences prove that God exists, because of course there might well be other explanations for where they (and other 'evidence feelings' for God) come from.

Now, Dawkins does of course go into these sorts of things in his book. Social evolution theory (or whatever it is called) has some very good answers to these questions. The only point I'm really making in this post is that Dawkins just doesn;t seem to acknowledge that some people 'feel' God. They don't just believe in it because they are told to, or because everybody else does. And even though he has answers for these questions, it would help if he acknowledged that this is a pretty damned important part of their faith for those who have one. And that's what I meant when I said Dawkins seems to approach the question of God from a very different angle than I do, which leaves certain portions of his book unsatisfying.

'The God Delusion' an analysis: prologue

2007-07-25T08:46:00.000-07:00

Finished it. Lots to say (at least, that's what it feels like now). I did at one point think that I might genuinely be losing my faith, but by the end I don't think so. I might have modified my understanding of God and christianity a little bit, but the main mind change I've gone through in readnig the book is that I don't think Dawkins is a bad person any more. I pretty much hated him for a while with his somewhat oxymoronic anti-religion crusade, but now that I've read his side of things, I think he's alright.

Anyway, what about the content of the book? I think it fits into two main sections. The first (and better) half goes through various arguments about why God might exist, and proceeds to explain why this hypothesis is always less satisfying than another more mundane explanation, with the stated aim of making non-believers of anyone who reads it. I think it largely succeeds in this.
The second (and still good) half attempts to explain why religions are an especially bad thing, and why no child should be brought up in a faith context. I hear what Dawkins is saying, but I think he's basically wrong in his argument.
All of this will be fuel for plenty of future posts, with any luck. Best of all, I'll get to be really angry about the extremely religious, and perhaps equally angry with the extremely non-religious, which is kind of what this blog is meant to be about.

I take some self-righteous pride in that various moderate religious people think I shouldn't have added to Dawkins' coffers and ego by buying, reading and discussing the book. Let's just pile on the bile, eh?

Back to the main thrust of 'The God Delusion' itself: Dawkins explicity says that he hopes people will read the book and come to agree with him that religion, or at least faith in God, is a fool's position, one untenable in the face of natural philosophy, science, and plain old common sense. Dawkins further hopes that the book will be read by people with a faith who then lose it, and not jsut by people who already share his reasoned atheism. I'd say I am possibly the ideal reader of the book. I have a faith, a christian faith no less (meaning he and I share the same cultural values). I am well-educated. I know a little bit about science, and like to think I know a bit about evolution, natural selection and genentics in particular - not least from reading early Dawkins books (Selfish Gene, Extended Phenotype and Blind Watchmaker all highly recommended, by the way), on which he bases a fair amount of his argument (i.e. before Darwin, God was a reasonable hypothesis to hold). I'm also extremely open to doubt.

So what does it say that even I, the ideal reader, am not swayed by Dawkins's claim that God is a delusion, and my faith based purely on superstition? Nothing really. It certainly doesn;t prove that he is wrong, although I am a little mixed in being disappointed not be have been persuaded, but also bolstered by thinking my faith must be based on something stronger than superstition. Hmm.

There's a large part of me that suspects that I cling to my faith because I, like many people, am extremely stubborn, and don't like to think that I'm wrong about something. This is an issue that Dawkins mentions, but if you're interested in that side of the 'why does religion persist' question, I recommend another excellent popular science book with a great title, 'Six impossible things before breakfast', by Lewis Wolpert. It's not really relevant to Dawkins' book, it's simply a fact of life he accepts and wishes more people could overcome. I heartily agree.

There's also a much bigger part of me that thinks 'well Mr Dawkins I understand and think I follow everything you're saying, but the God you're arguing against isn't the God I believe in'. It's going to take me a while and probably more than one post to unpick that statement, so I'll leave it for now.

I think the biggest issue I have with Dawkins' approach is that it simply doesn't strike a chord with my conception of why people are religious. And that's what I'll start with next time.

Insiders and outsiders

2007-07-12T07:58:00.001-07:00

Still ploughing through Dawkins, still basically enjoying it. He's certianly reminded me of one fo the things I hate most about certain religious people - their tendency to hate people who aren't of the same religion. All too often, exactly the same religion.

I'm sure that the tendency of humans to want to identify with a group is very important for our survival, and very hard to overcome, but it's pretty hateful really, isn't it. Any time I notice that I've shied away from any person just because they are different in whatever way I feel pretty bad about myself. Probably worse than about any other wrong thing that I do. I'd like to think I don't do it very often - no, I ignore people becauase I don't like them, which is a perfectly acceptbale reason...

Anyway, religion and iontolerance. I'd like to think that christianity (for example) is all about railing against intolerance, and generally accepting and welcoming people. So anyone who goes against me obviously isn't a real christian...

And so it becomes clear just how easily this whole intolerance thing comes about. Basically, tolerance is a bit incompatible with Faith. Faith is about being sure of what you believe, which means in a lot of christian contexts that other people are wrong about what they believe. Which means that however nice you are to those non-believers, you inevitably view them as 'others', and end up teating them differently, and behaving differently around them. And that's not nice.

So it seems to me that the only responsible position for someone who has faith that it is right and good to try to be welcoming of all people and not to live by the worldly/human measure of insider/outsider mentality, has to make room for doubt in their mind, otherwise they will fall into the very insider/outsider trap they are trying to avoid. But then, how should one respond to people whose faith tells them that outsiders are bad and should all die?

Ah, faith and logic - another two things that don't mix together very well.

Off topic: Crime Prevention anger

2007-06-20T08:35:00.000-07:00

PLease excuse me while I use this space to express annoyance at something other than Christians giving me a bad name, and non-believers just not getting it generally (I think that was my original intention. It seems that I'm not as angry as I though, especially compared to Philip Roth whose Portnoy's Complaint I'm currently reading and enjoying).

Anyway, I really hate those posters about mobile phones. The ones that show a person talking on their phone ON THE STREET WHILE WALKING, and then say 'keep your phone out of sight, or else you're a target.' The whole damn point of mobile phones is so that you can talk on them whilst BEING MOBILE, particularly while on the street. It's no bloody good telling me not to use my device for it's intended goddman purpose in order fior me to avoid not getting it nicked. I might as well not own the stupid thing. Bad Crime Prevention team! Find a better way to stop mugging!

What really prompted my anger on this was a similar poster I saw yesterday showing a person IN THEIR HOUSE opening a window, saying 'this lets in more than just fresh air'. I mean for God's sake are we supposed to live in houses with no apertures in order to prevent any thieves from ever getting in? I mean, fair enough to remind people to close windows when they go out, but telling you never to open your window even by a crack? Anyway, property is theft as we all know, so what is a thief?

I suppose I could make some analogy with my views on Christianity at this point but that would be silly. Maybe it's like Dawkins pointing to a person praying and suggesting that religion lets in the evil of extremist fanatical murdererous martyrdom as well as maybe the chance to feel good about yourself and your fellow man. See what I mean, silly analogy. Next time I won't bother.

The Way, the Truth and the Life

2007-06-13T06:56:00.000-07:00

So a slightly crazy Christian struck up a conversation in church with me and a friend. He was talking about how some people he evangelises to complain that the Bible is all a matter of interpretation. He said that sometimes this is true but parts of it are just black and white. He gave the example of the gospel verse (I think from John) that has Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by me". You can't argue with that, he said. I did suggest that one could, but he said no, one couldn't, and I let it go. It's not very nice to anger someone I've just met.

But then that's what blogging is for - hooray!

Let me start by acknowledging that yes, it is very annoying when people say "The Bible says x' therefore it must be true and you are wrong if you don't believe that". This clearly assumes that one sets any stock in the Bible in the first place, which is a massive asumption. I'm not sure where I stand on the Bible, but I definietly believe that it was written, rewritten and compiled by vairous individuals and schools who really beleived that they were explaining what God wants from us to the best of their abilities, be that in a biased but attempting to be accurate historical way or in a purely poetic allegorical way. I don't think the Bible is eeeEvil, although if the Devil was really clever wouldn't he do well to make poeople beleive that the Bible was the word of God when actually it wasn't? Well I think that would be a fun plot to a short story at the very least.

Anyway, back to the question of interparetation. I think the verse in question is at least immune from translation and local cultural issues. The iteration of three Godly qualities to Jesus as an individual couldn't be clearer. And, if you believe that God exists, and that the Bible (inclduing the Gospels within it) are an expression of God's truth and will for us, then the verse is pretty transparent. However, I find that for all its clarity, it is a little devoid of meaning.

"I am the way, the truth and the life, says Jesus. "No one comes to the Father but by me."
"That's nice" say I. "So what?"

Ok, so major flippancy alert there. But the point is, Jesus is telling us a statement of fact (assuming you believe etc etc). He's not actually telling us to DO anything about it, he's just saying this is the way it is.

It's like he's the gateway to God, and to get in you have to go through the gateway. He doesn't say that you have to do anything special to find or enter that gateway just that he is it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a fact independent of belief. There are words that explain how gravity works - some people understand them, some don't, most don't care. But we are still all affected by gravity. So it with Jesus. I believe he is a fact, but it doesn't matter that I believe, because he is still a fact. And just as people noticed and talked about (and, essentially 'understood') the fact of gravity long before Newton and others tried to describe it, people everywhere have understood and been affected by the fact of Jesus, long before and miles away from the event of his historical appearance. They even gave 'him' other names, like 'being nice'.

So the point is, I don't dispute the verse's claim, but I do dispute it's black and white-ness, because it doesn't to my mind explain itself very well.

What does it mean to "come... by me?" Presumably it means doing (or at least, trying to do) what Jesus/God asks of us. And frankly, people were doing that anyway, even if they screw up all the time. As is constantly being pointed out, most 'religions', as in 'ways of life' ultimately ask very similar things of their followers, the only conflicts arising out of the need to identify oneself with a speicific religion, and then persecute/evangelise to those who don't identify with the same thing. And too many examples of blatant misogyny. BUNCH OF BLOODY IDIOTS

In short, I don't think that verse means that people have to believe in Christianity or acknowledge the fact of Jesus in any way. Although I do happen to think it's true that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I just think that people have access to that way, truth and life in a variety ways that don't involve Jesus per se, but come to the same thing. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and all that.

I think I misused that paraquote there. Sorry. You know what I mean, right?

Give til it hurts

2007-06-11T07:53:00.000-07:00

So I've been getting through 'teh God Delusion' at a reasonable pace. And it has helped to bring back some of my anger, you'll be pleased to hear. Not anger at Dawkins, strangely. I mean he's wearing his Captain Smug helmet on every page which is annoying, but hardly unexpected. No, his arguments are as always reasonable if at times just not really relevant to the way I imagine lots believers think. I'll get into that later.

No, what's happened is that I've been reminded of various things that bug me about my fellow christians, which is kind of why I started this blog in the first place. Dawkins mentions charismatic televangelists, a breed I've luckily had no contact with, but who clearly have a lot of power. The people who spend a lot of their time talking about a) the power of prayer to deliver specific goods (incluign healing, but also material things) and b) the need for people to give them lots of money all the time.

Now, I don't don't don't believe that prayer works in the sense of asking God for something and then getting it. It's just an absurd concept to me. Perhaps especially because one can never disprove it, what with it being possible to say 'oh well you diodn;t pray for the right thing', or 'you're not worthy enough for God to listen to you' or 'God chose not to give you what you want because he knows best and you don't really need that' or whatever.

However it's also pretty clear that many people do have their prayers answered. Which is to say, either they get what they want by coincidence; they pray for things that are likely to happen anyway (the vast majority of illnesses go away in time, after all), or they interpret any given outcome as an answer to a prayer. So, it's easy for me to see why televangelists can appeal to the power of prayer so successfully. And that's just mean, so they shouldn't do it.

It's especially mean when one thing these people pray for on their shows is money. The fact that they also ask for it all the time means that they often get this money, and they can then point to the power of prayer as the cause. Now, I don't have a problem with preachers encouraging their congregations to give money away - God knows we all cling to our money and I doubt christians are any more generous than atheists when it comes to charity - but shouldn't we get some say in where we give that money to? I'd be very excited about a televangelist who gave the same 'give til it hurts' spiel but then directed his or her viewers to a long list of charitable causes and tell them to pick one (I'm a fan of mental health charities myself as it goes). You don't need an angry christian to point out how wrong money-grabbing televangelism is, but it's so horrible, isn't it? Even the ones who sincerely believe they're doing God's work and actually spend the money on community stuff rather than on themselves (sadly not as rare as it should be) are kind of doing it under false pretences. I have issues with charisma generally, but again I'll leave that for another time. Basically, it's open to serious abuse in a way that I imagine is almost impossible to control.

Churches asking for money is a bit of a tricky issue for Anglicans like me just at the moment. We come from a background of owning most of England and therefore never being short of money. This has lately changed, and I understand that the Church of England is in a state of crisis with broken buildings, priests on small salaries and the prospect of small pensions to come. So I guess there will soon be a move to US style money-grabbing sermons soon enough. Maybe people are used to this in America, where the Church has always been separate from the State, so people know how to resist it better? Who knows. I think it's good that churchgoers should give money to their churches in order to pay for building maintenance and above all clergy salaries, but I'm fearful of what directions this need for money might move things in.

God is judging you and you have passed

2007-06-01T02:52:00.001-07:00

So here's a thing about the Afterlife which is pretty hard to swallow - you have to be 'good enough' to get into Heaven. Christianity's answer to that (which I guess I endorse) is that no one is inherently good enough. We all fall short. So God cheated by making himself human (Jesus), and living up to his own high standards while being human. Along the way, he also rescued everybody from Hell, which somehow happened as a result of Jesus being crucified. It's called atonement, I believe, and is notoriously impossible to understand, and as a result is all very well for the faithful, but it's kinda unsatisfying.

But you know, there's another way to think about it. Crude analogy coming up - just pretend this is a school assembly, alright?

So a celebrity pseudo-stalker friend of mine recently declared of her current obsession of choice: “But if he knew me he'd think I was amazing and want to be with me”. Now, this sort of thing is rarely borne out in reality for all sorts of reasons, but the strange thing is that this bold claim is probably true, sort of. I mean, most people get into celebrities because they have something in common, right? I'm talking celebrities who have a talent behind their fame, here. An actor whose roles you appreciate, a musician whose songs you like, an athlete whose skills you admire all have something key in common with you, i.e. a love of the thing they do, and more specifically they way they do it. Unless those people really hate themselves every day...

It seems logical to me that if you find their work amazing, then they must at the very least agree with you fundamentally about what things are amazing (within a certain context, that is), and that's pretty rare in the grand scheme of things. How many of your close friends actually have the same taste as you in anything? Of course, it doesn't follow that said celeb will like you as a person (or vice versa), but I'd bet that if they genuinely KNEW you they would in some fundamental way think you are amazing.

OK, so here's the crude analogy part. We all have something in common with God - we're made in his image. I've sort of gone into that before, and yes it's a matter of faith and pretty hard to unpick what that means, but loosely it involves being nice and wanting to create things. But God is better than the celebrity, because he actually does KNOW you. Everything that goes through your mind, all the justifications you make for doing or not doing things the things that you do. And as freaky as that is to think about, I'm ok with it because it's surely as a result of that intimacy (one-way as it is) that God does think you're amazing and wants to be with you (hence the fixing it so that everyone gets to be with him in the end). And in Heaven it's exactly like that for everyone. We will all know each other and think each other are amazing. So that'll be fun all round, then.

What is God?

2007-05-30T01:32:00.000-07:00

I took this test the other day:

It's kinda fun. Here's my report (which I hope the site creators don't mind me posting):

Plausibility Quotient = 0.8
The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 0.8. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!
*******************
God the sustainer?
Your God is the sustainer of all that is. This means that if God ceased to exist so would everything else.
The metaphysical engineers are finding it hard to model this God in our universe. The laws of physics do not seem to require that the universe has anything outside of itself to continue to exist. Therefore, they can't quite see what kind of evidence it would be possible to point to in order to come to the belief that God is required for the universe to continue.
When they have previously confronted this problem, it has been suggested that a law-giver or law-enforcer is required in order to sustain the laws of physics. But this response seems to rest on a misunderstanding of the nature of physical laws. Laws in the legal sense do require law-givers and law-enforcers. But physical laws are simply descriptions of the nature of reality. So the idea that a law-giver is needed to sustain the rules of physics seems to confuse the legal and scientific senses of laws.

[I'm going to interject here - yes, science has shown that the Universe does not need a 'sustainer', nor indeed a 'creator'. That's where the belief bit comes in, and I'll grant you it's arbitrary. To be honest, it's also pretty irrelevant. What does it matter to me whether or not God created/sustains the Universe? It matters if he exists or not, though.]
*******************
Not so personal after all?The metaphysical engineers are finding it hard to understand how, on your conception of God, one can have a personal relationship with her.
Personal relationships appear to depend on a number of things. Sufficient similarity between the persons in the relationship is one. Another is that both are persons, or are, at least, person-like, as some higher primates, for example, appear to be. The problem is that in our universe there seem to be no genuine personal relationships between things of great difference. And God, as you have described her, is vastly different from human beings.
People can have feelings for things which are similar to those they have towards people. Affection or love for places or objects, for example, is common. But this is not the same as having a personal relationship with them. In a similar way, people have relationships with animals, maybe a cat. But this does not seem to be the same as a personal relationship, because of the great difference in the way the person relates to the animal and the way the animal relates to the person. Perhaps this is the kind of relationship which you envisaged?
*******************
________________________________________
That is the end of the metaphysical engineers' report. As we said at the beginning, we are not sure that the problems they identify are insuperable. But we do hope that by thinking about them you may come to understand what you mean by God more deeply, and perhaps even revise your former beliefs.

Anyway, this issue the report has with my ability to relate to a personal God is particularly interesting in the light of Richard Dawkins. I am at long last reading his 'The God Delusion' book. Early on, he draws a distinction between Theists and Deists (and his beloved atheists). He doesn't really allow for people to be more wsihy-washy than that, and from a philosophical and scientific point of view he's right not to. Nevertheless, it seems that I am a Deist with theistic tendencies. For Dawkins, A Deist believes that God created the Universe, founded the laws of gravioty etc, and that's it. He doesn't care beyond that. A Theist, on the other hand, believes that God created the Univrse and takes an active and participatory interest in its minutiae, particularly in the doings of people. Hence, getting upset/angry whenever people sin, sliping the odd miracle in here and there to save a bunch of people, that sort of thing.

Dawkins famously thinks that anyone who believes in God is pretty much an idiot, or at least someone who needs rescuing from this delusion. He has more time for the Deists than the Theists, but is obviously frustrated that they can't let go of the need for a creator (Thomas Paine is his champion Deist, by way of example). And his major problem with Theists (within their own frame of belief) is why a God who is the whole Universe would bother to care about such insignificantly small things as people. The report aboev says mroe or less the same thing - how is it possible to have a personal relationship with a being so vastly different from oneself?

I can see where they're coming from with this, and sympathise to a large extent (e.g. not believing in miracles), but I have a problem with the idea that a creator God would have no reason to care. And I think it explains why I'm more of a Deist than a Theist. Crude analogy time - I am not really aware of every cell in my body, and can't claim to care for individual cells as such, but obivously they are important (essential!) to me. And maybe no single cell can impact on my body as a whole, but clusters of cells surely do.

Going back to God, I'd say I see God as a being who is not concerned with the daily workings of the Universe or even with people, but who inherently cares. The belief bit kicks in here - people 'cells' are different from all other cells in that they are directly and individually connected to God. This is a very key part of God's make-up for me. He didn't just create the Universe and let it get on with itself, he imbued certain beings (yes, via the mechanism of natural selection and other as yet undiscovered processes etc) with a part of himself that specifically means we can relate to him. But at the same time, those cells are not obliged to be concerned about God if they don't want to be, which I think is what makes me more Deist than Theist. God's pretty laissez-faire, no?

Feeling religious

2007-04-19T00:41:00.000-07:00

So Easter's been and gone, and in that tie I haven't particularly been exposed to any foulnesses of christianity to rail against. Although the Ten Commandments came up yesterday, in particular the line that goes "I the Lord and a jealous God [what's up with that? Who are these other Gods to be jealous of, then??], punishing children for the iniquity of the parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me"

Obviously I don't believe that God causes suffering to the children of people who 'reject him' (of course I also don't believe he punishes those people either, but anyway). But I am aware that certain christians really do. If a child is born with some kind of disability, say, they will claim it's because one or other parent sinned somehow (interestingly I haven;t heard tell of this sin being blamed on a grandparent or great-grand-parent...). This is evil. Not just because it proclaims disabilities (e.g. not being able to walk for one reason or another) as an unquestionable negative, but also because it's just plain heinous to imagine a God who works like that, I don;t care how mysterious his ways are.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about, since it goes without saying that such beliefs are rotten to the core. So evil. Aaarrggggghh.

What struck me over Easter was a sense that I feel less religious than I used to. And I think I identified two specific reasons. The obvious one is that at Church I now have certain responsibilities (chiefly looking after children and teaching them Sunday School, and also part-leading a monthly Taize service). Which means that at any given service I have things to do beyond being a congregant. This distracts from my ability to focus on the liturgy and prayers. I imagine this a common problem for people who are at all behind the scenes at any ritual. It's hard to enjoy the mystery of an experience (and that's a bit part of Church) when you're in on the delivery in some way.

Of course I've noticed this before, often around Christmas and Easter when there are services at which I don;t have any responsibility, I get to sit in front of the altar rather than behind it, and the mystery-loving neurons in my brain get re-activated.

The more interesting (disturbing?) thing I felt this year was that maybe I'm not so dutiful in prayer now because I don't feel alone in a way that I did as a teenager. I guess there was a time when God was a person I could share thoughts and feelings with exclusively, and that's not the case now, what with me being married and generally being more confident in my friendships and all. So does that mean God was a crutch for me? I don't think so, but it's still weird and frustrating. And of course there are things I think about in prayer that I wouldn't talk about for various reasons.

I know I'm sharing in an all-too bloglike way, for which I apologise. I'm going to stop now. None of this wishy-washy feelings business - we want hard facts and harder opinions. Oh, wait, this is a blog about religion.

Taking offence

2007-04-02T09:40:00.000-07:00

So I knew a priest once who wouldn't go into a video shop to rent a video. His reasoning was that he was worried that because he's obviously dressed as a priest most of the time, people would see him and then think it's ok to go into a vdieo shop. Now, he had no problem with the renting and watching of films as such, but he was concerned that the people would assume that just by going into a video shop anything withi was fair moral game. Including porn. He was worried that his presence inside a video shop would be enough to encourage others to go into said shop, and hence they would be more likely to rent a porn film. I think he was also (but less) worried that some parishioners might see him enter a video shop and assume that he was renting porn for himself.

I can sort of see his point, but it's pretty far-fetched, no? To be fair, the neighborhood he lived in (suburban Tokyo) did have many video shops with fairly extensive adult sections. But really, don't you have to draw the line somewhere at not taking responsibility for other people's actions and reations?

And this leads me to my point about taking offence. I'd say that most people are happy with the basic moral conception that it's ok to do whatever you like so long as it doesn't hurt other people, or infringe on their liberty, or what have you. I'd like to believe that this viewpoint is independent of any religious conceptions (actually, it's probably more liberal, since all too many religions seem to take issue with certain non-harmful things like idolatry).

So, where does being offended fit into the rule about hurting or infringing on people? Swearing, for example, clearly does offend some people. But then I'm pretty sure that those who most speak up about swearing are not themselves hurt by it, but believe that other people are. As in "don't swear in front of my grandmother", and of course they may be wrong. I often think that there's a long chain of pseudo-offence going on whereby people all think that the person next to them is offended, and so get upset on their behalf. But actually no one cares. Or rather, they only care because they think they should, not because they are personally hurt.

I should really outline the specific case that has got me to post on this. The scene is Camden Town, yesterday. Which happened to be Palm Sunday. Which means that the morning Mass begins out on the street, deliberately in a public place. I believe this is partly out of a vain hope that the crowds outside will start to sing hosanna as they did for Jesus on his donkey on the original Palm Sunday, but I suspect it's mostly jsut to remind the world at large that Christianity still exists and has functionaing rituals. Anyway, one person in said crowd was overtly offended by the presence of Preists in vestments, candles and general christianity being in her face. She surely was personally hurt, and from her all too coherent utterings it's likely that she has suffered some trauma at the hands of the Church (a chruch? a preist?). Of course, her reaction also caused the gathered congregation and various onlookers to be upset to, not least with the swearing, but jsut her reaction in general.

What to do?

Is it wrong to perform a ritual in view of people who might be offended by it?
Is it wrong to express how upset you are to people who are to some extent doing their job (in this case the every thorny issue of mental health arises as well)?

I guess some might argue that if religion didn't exist, this situation ought not to arise. But then it's pretty clear (to me, at least) that human evil would cause the underlying trauma anyway. But still, putting your ritauls on display, even in a non-evangelical way (there was certainly no sense of trying to convert any onlookers) is potentially offensive.

Is the onus on every individual to curb their own sense of offence (assuming there is no greater psychological harm at stake than that), or is offending people such an evil that we should all check our actions to ensure that we never offend anybody?

Sadly, to some Christians I can believe that their answer would be to do with truth. As in, if what we say is true, then no matter if its offends (or even hurts) someone, they need to hear it. Frankly I don't have that much of a sense of truth. Or maybe it's just that my truth is more concerned with not causing harm/offence in the first place.

Heaven is...

2007-03-30T09:09:00.000-07:00

Well, what exactly? I guess it's a fairly essential tenet of Christianity to believe in Heaven. And I suppose most can agree on a definition of Heaven as being in a state of complete togetherness with God. Of course, what that means is somewhat trickier to unpack. Is it a place? A state of mind (and body - we're not dualists, after all)? Is it something that only applies after death, or might there be pockets of Heaven on Earth / during Life? Maybe this IS heaven, and if my faith was strong enough I could see that.

I guess there are other general agreements, such that Heaven involves feeling only happy, and certainly never sad or guilty or angry or sinful in any way. Which all leads me to wonder about personality. Will I retain my unique personality in Heaven? And if so, how will this manifest? Presumably not in my emotional reactions to things, since I will constantly be happy. Does it simply boil down to my taste in food and music and comics?

I could do a bit of research to find out more examples, but as I can recall right now, Jesus didn't have much to say about Heaven except a) there is no marriage in Heaven, and b) that it is like a mustard seed. A) is confusing, since marriage is one of the things that makes me happy on Earth, so it seems odd to take that away. Although one supposes that there is no need for marriage in Heaven since everyone will like each other equally, which I guess is a good thing. B) is more interesting, since the analogy is about how mustard seeds start out tiny and grow massive, which suggests to me that Heaven is not like a place that one gains entrance to, but an idea that one wakes up with one day, starts small and gets bigger and bigger until it is everywhere, presumably with us at the centre.

But perhaps the most famous thing about Heaven is the idea that some people get in, some don't, and God is the judge who decides either way. This is all very well, but it constantly confounds me that people who are not God (i.e. all of us) think they can have the smallest inkling about how God does this judging. I guess the Bible can tell us a bit about how life might be lived better, but it's surely not a 'getting into Heaven' manual.

And yet too many christians seem to be really on fire with the idea that loads of people won't get to Heaven, are (I suppose rightly) upset by this, and so attempt to persuade people to change their ways lest Heaven shut them out forever. Calm the Hell down, people! That's not how it works! And even if that is how it works, how the Hell do expect your chosen methods of persuasion to work, exactly? I swear, those sermons about damnation are so irritating that even if they're true I don't want to be part of it. And I'm pretty sure more souls are put off christianity for life than are 'saved' by it, so how does that fit into your value system?

I guess I'm content to leave Heaven as an idea that makes for some fascinating artistic imagery, a great place to set sections of theological sci-fi stories, and of course a vague notion of what might wait for us all after death. And I'm thinking more thought should be paid to the idea of Heaven as the here and now, not the then and after - or at least a potential here and now. As Jesus said at the end of that marriage conversation, "You are mistaken. God is the God of the living, not of the dead" (or words in half-remembered aramaic translated into Greek then Latin then seven kinds of English to that effect).

In which case, maybe no-one gets to Heaven, and God is still patiently waiting for his first customer (in an outside-time kind of a way, natch). What does he care? He's got all day...

All religions are not the same

2007-03-22T09:31:00.000-07:00

Well as you might know I'm not entirely convinced by that statement, but I don't really know what I think. I'm definitely offended by the idea that people who believe in the wrong religion are damned to eternal Hell, although I'm not as offended by the idea that people of no religion are damned to Hell, because at least they kind of chose that path. I say kind of, because it's not as if anyone is in a position to weigh all the evidence for and against God and make a balanced decision. It's just too emotive and indeed genetic a decision to make. I demand that no-one is rational on the topic. All you so-called science worshippers who believe in being objective. You suck. Science is part of art as much as it is part of truth.

Anyway, I don't believe people go to Hell, so whatever. Mostly I wanted to post a link to this article which is sort of about Jerusalem, but I came across it because I was interested in the story 'The Three Christs of Ypsilanti' which is not particularly controversial. Sorry about the paragrpah on shiatsu zones in the link - that's all very well, but that's not what I was looking to direct peolpe to.

Now, mental illnesses of any kind (that's what the story is about, whoever hasn't followd the link yet) are no proof for or against God, although I can see how it seems like that sometimes. Especially when one considers that certain religious orders have been founded by schizophrenics inspired by hallucinations *cough*ignatius*cough*. But I do find that they have a lesson to teach about how little control we have over the content of our minds, including our beliefs, and how frustrating it is that some minds seem engineered (whether through inheritance or teaching or more likely both) to be religious, and some do not. Talk about your unfair advantages. I also can't tell whether am have an emotional religious undertow fighting against a rationally athiest core, or a rationally faithful core atruggling with an emotionally inspired athiesm. Not to mention the impact of peer pressure on both sides. Maybe I should go and spend 40 days in the wilderness to decide, but I don't think God is calling me to anything quite so important as that.

Comics I'm not supposed to like: True Faith

2007-03-16T08:58:00.000-07:00

Oh, wait, comics aren't mainstream enough for the wider Church to have an opinion on them; except maybe that all comics are bad/puerile. Nevertheless, take it from me that the Church authorities probably wouldn't like True Faith, a very early work from Garth Ennis and Warren Pleece.

Actually I don't think Ennis would feature highly on any list of approved comics, with his largely anti-God not to mention filled with over the top sexual and violence (and indeed comedy sexual violence) series Preacher on top of the 'do not read for the sake of your worthless little soul' list. But, True Faith is my pick for today, mostly because it attacks religion pretty directly, even more so than Preacher, which confronts God so directly as to be not really about him at all. Or something.

Now, I don't particularly like True Faith because it attacks religion, I just happen to like it. It opens with a boy who decides to join his school's Christian Union because he really fancies a girl in it. You can just tell that this is based on a personal experience of Ennis's (or maybe a friend of his), so that's endearing up front. It then goes on to make a slightly annoying joke about Christians happily going ot the pub, but only drinking orange juice. Sure, teetoalling is part of many a christian's lifestyle, but it's hardly the only way. Maybe I'll talk about that another day.

What the reader is not expecting at this point is that the story will go on to feature our hapless hero getting kidnapped and involved with two wayward (ex?)christians who are so incensed with God that they decide to burn down churches and engage in all other kinds of mayhem.

It's quite possible that Ennis genuinely hates religion because he sees that it drives people to violence and insanity (which I guess he might well have some experience of in Northern Ireland). But mostly I think he sees it as an excuse to set up some engaging comic sequences involving madmen, and for generating shocking imagery involving religious trappings. The page in which the two chief nutters argue about whether or not God is a 'blockage' or a 'cancer' is one of the funniest things ever. And as I've discussed before, the impact of being confronted with a shocking image or concept is an important thing, and certainly not something to be locked away from society. Also, there's plenty of teen angst in the backdrop of True Faith, which is always pleasing to me.

In short, I imagine that many christians would not like the comic because it paints a pretty mean picture of religion, as well as mocking religious mania. Being mocked is never fun, but by God is it important. Obviously such mockery works better and is more polite when it comes from someone on the inside (as it surely does in this case; even if Ennis has no faith now himself (I have no idea, but I suspect he doesn't), he seems to have grown up in a context of christianity and its mindset), but no mockery is worthy of being banned or punished. Mockery is to be welcomed, for it makes us question ourselves and recheck our beliefs. Also, if it's good iot can put a smile on our faces, and a smile is a free gift from God if ever there was one.

Aim for the outer bull

2007-03-14T09:11:00.000-07:00

Today is plagiarism day on Damn you I'm a Christian.
Firstly I am compelled to refer you to today's Dinosaur Comics, and it's beautiful punchline,
"Failure is just success rounded down, my friend."

You see, this is something of an approximation of the reality behind the Gospel message. Here's how it goes:
God created Man. God wants Man to be friends with him, but Man is a bit evil, and therefore cannot live up to God's expectations. Luckily, God is nice, and devises a way around this: he creates a perfect man who is good enough to be friends with him. This man then agrees to journey to the very depths of Hell and to rescue all the evil people (i.e. all people) and bring them back to God. There's a sort-of clause which suggests that people don't have to go with the perfect man if they don't want to, but that's mostly irrelevant here.

Anyway, the point is, God wants people to try to be good, but he knows we're going to fail, we know we're going to fail, and it's ok, because there's a get-out clause. So, for God at least, failure really is a valid approximation of success.

With that in mind, why even try to succeed? A friend of mine once gave a somewhat tongue-in-cheek but also genuine talk about aiming for the outer bull, rather than aiming for the centre. I can't remember the deatils of his argument, except I think his point that it's easier to hit the outer bull than the inner one, and it's also possible to 'miss' the outer one by hitting the inner one by chance. And even if he didn't say it, I was struck by the fact that people who set up goals and go all out to achieve them are kind of horrible and annoying.

I'm being a massive hypocrite because I want success for myself, but I'm getting more and more comfortable every day with the realisation that a) I'm too lazy to push myself towards goals, and b) I care abnout incidental things too much to be bothered about end goals anyway. And who says that's not success? Well, outer bull success anyway.

On natural theology

2007-03-08T06:48:00.000-08:00

So 'natural theology' can probably mean many things, but as far as I understand it it essentially means trying to find out about God by looking at things in nature. A misguided priest called William Paley wrote a book with that title in 1803 (or thereabouts) which argued that the beauty of nature, especailly the fitness of animals to their environments is proof that God exists. He was pretty much writing the template for one of many 'intelligent design' arguments; many scientists and theists of all kinds still use this line of argument. I'm not taken with it myself, as I may have stated earlier.

But, I still have time for the natural theology. I don't think there's much point in looking to nature to prove that God exists (or not), but if you already believe that he does, then surely you can find otu something about him by examining his creation? I always liked the conception of God having given us his 'book of nature' as well as his 'book of words' (i.e. the Bible). In many ways, I feel that the book of nature is vastly superior to the Bible, because it is accessible to everyone. More than that, it is within everyone. I think anyone who believes in God believes that he is the root creator of everything. Even if chaos has had a hand in shaping that everything, some trace of the creator must be in evidence everywhere (assuming that there is a creator, of course).

The Bible may indeed be a gift from God (I don't think I can dispute that, much as I would sometimes like to), but it requires literacy, which is far from universal. Or at least it requires someone to read it to you, who may or may not be biased in their interpretation. I'm thinking 'may' is a lot more likely...

So, with that in mind, how does one go about reading this book of nature? I guess it involves science, to a degree, since science is essentially the method by which one can understand the physical world. I'd say social science plays a pretty big part, too. Humans are a part of the natural world, after all, and we do so love to analyze ourselves, don't we. And maybe that's a sign that we should be doing it.

It's at this point that the problems with natural theology become clear. Any urge to do something is surely 'natural' in the basic sense of the word. Is it therefore godly? How can we trust ourselves to know which aspects of nature are instructive about God, and which are not (if any?). This is a problem with readnig the Bible, too, of course. And I suppose this is where the doctrine of the Fall comes into play. Those early Jewish sages who wrote Genesis were no doubt struggling to see why our earthly lives are not perfect, and decided/observed/were moved to see that it is because we are somehow separated from God. Hence the story about the serpent and the apple as ana analogy for the source of this separation.

And maybe at this point a Bible-centric christian could jump in and say "Aha! The bible was given to mankind after the fall. Hence we know that it, unlike creation itself, is a more perfect expression of God. so we should study that above nature."
And they'd have a point. But it seems to me that the truth of the Fall (which I don't really understand) has not rendered nature worthless and wholly ungodly. If we humans are capable of crossing the divide to get to God, then it must be in our nature to do so, so we must be able (in theory) to work out how to do that just within ourselves and the context of the world around us. Maybe the bible makes that easier? But I can't help but believe that the answer (is there an answer? Is there?) is to be found in the book of nature as well.

I do apologise for the feeling I have that this post feels even more like a sermon than any previous ones. Not channeling the anger today, am I? I hate Bible-bashers. Chapter and verse? Pah! There - that good enough for you?

The Church and money

2007-03-05T07:28:00.000-08:00

I've just been to Rome, which is overloaded with Christianity. At least, as far as buildings and tourist attractions are concerned. Even the pre-Christian Roman stuff is Christian, 'cos after Constantine and the Popes got going they consecrated all the buildings they liked and left the others to rot. Or looted them for marble and bronze to add finery to their new churches.

These are all very splendid and inspiring. But the eternal question remains about whether or not this is a good use of people's money. (I've met more than one person who clami that they can't be Christian because of this problem). Of course I'm not going to offer an answer. I certainly see the reality that lots of christians give money to the church precisely because they want to fill it with art offerings. What else can a human being give to God who created everything? Well, err, maybe they could give people food and shelter and emotional support? I don't know.

I prefer to take the cop out route that the concept of money itself is the evil, not what people do with their own money. Sure, the Church could spend more money on welfare than art, but that's more to do with the state of the world today, and less to do with the fact that social welfare is more worthwhile than art. WHICH IT ISN'T. Art trumps all, otherwise there is no point to creation. Except, being kind to people is a type of art??

Still, the sheer amount of painting, sculpture, high ceilings, marble floors and so on in all those churches is thoroughly startling. And it sits odd alongside my imagined protestant uprbinging as religion being something more in the mind than the body. I have this idea that a Church should be a cold stone building with wooden pews and altars, maybe a handful of crosses for inspiration, some candles for ritual, and some Bibles for studying. Sure, the examples of art showing Bible scenes, or saints lives (and more often, horrible deaths) can provide inspiration. But this is diminished by the knowledge that a lot of the artists who created these works were bound by convention to depicting such things. There wasn't muich call for non-religious art (in Europe) until the Renaissance, and after that it's soon replaced with greek mythology which is itself a limited genre. So anything that an artist wanted to actually say had to be moderated through this medium, which might have been somewhat stifling. And hence is a bit less inspirational.

I certainly don't have much of a faithful response to holy relics, be they clothes, bones or stairs that Christ once walked upon. I can relate to the idea of a Pilgrimage to see such a thing, because the journey itself is the thing. But I don't believe in being touched by the holiness of a specific object. But, it doesn't concern me that other people genuinely are touched by such things. The mind responds to all kinds of stimuli; why not relics? A good sermon can inspire prayer and holiness; surely a symbol that puts one in mind of a good sermon (e.g. a holy biography) can easily inspire the same thing. Of course, the more people denounce any given relic, the harder it will be for that relic to have an inspirational effect. Soon, they will become like so many Roman ruins, to be wondered at but not prayed to...

Films I'm not supposed to like: RoboCop

2007-02-26T11:13:00.000-08:00

Now, I'm the first to admit that I would like to think of this as a vaguely intellectual blog, railings against certain beliefs aside. And so I should admit upfront that there is an intellectual argument to explain why Christians ought to like the film RoboCop, dealing as it does with questions of death, resurrection and redemption (in a genuinely non-messianic way). And more than these issues, the film addresses the question of what it is to be made in the image of God, and to have a soul.

I'm not really going to get into that, though. Because, frankly, the reason I warmed to RoboCop in the first place is because of the ultraviolence. Which has nothing to do with religion whatsoever (except I suppose for reminding people that one's soul is irrevocably linked to one's body). RoboCop is one of those films that looks and feels pretty trashy, and is thought of by many as trash, but is, I think universally hailed as a great film. Look it up in Halliwell's, go on. And all the other film books.

But I'm not really going to get into that either. I don't think Christians are particularly snobbish when it comes to art (obviously plenty of individuals christians are, obviously). They don't care that RoboCop is low art brushing against high, or high art dressed in low clothing, or whatever. It all comes back to the ultraviolnce (and possibly that bit where Miguel Ferrer snorts coke from one of his call-girl's cleavage. Great scene.)

I pretty much fell in love with RoboCop (an 18 film I watched first on video with my 13-year-old cousin; I was 11) because it featured a crazed robot mini-gunning a marketing executive; a man getting his hand blown up by a shotgun; a cool robotic screen visor thing; and a bit where a man drives into a vat of acid, partially dissolves, then gets decapitated by a car. Also, some solid cussing.

I tell you these things are not christian. I am pretty sure that the liking of these things is not christian either. But then I say, so what? In a manner completely unrelated to my spiritual faith, I believe that watching violence does not beget violence. Even if the viewer in question is a child. It's entirely possible (likely? Not sure) that living with violence does beget violence But watching it on TV? No.

The thing with director Paul Verhoeven is, he's someone who likes to use films to show people things (who isn't you ask? Most of them, poor fools). Amongst the things he shows in RoboCop is the impact of bullets on flesh. I expect it's all rather expressionistic, what with the copious blood. And it is shocking. I hope it's meant to be shocking. The shock is part of what makes the film so intense, so exciting and so re-watchable. Also, unwholesome.

I don't get where this notion comes from that films and other entertainments should be wholesome. I guess there's some kind of project (moral majority, I'm looking at you) to create a world in which no-one would ever want to make or watch such films. Exploding flesh is not something we are meant to see. To be honest, there are plenty of films that push this envelope much further than my beloved RoboCop, but I don't think that's the point. It's a reasonable test-case, not least because it's a well-made film. I just can't buy into this utopia. Not because it could never exist (I'm sure human hands are capable of such atrocity), but because it seems so confused about art.

Even if you want to argue that RoboCop is hardly 'art' (you'd be a fool, it's a film, it's almost inherently art), the point is that I respond to it, and its moments of violence, as art. The cheapening of life that is a result of the on-screen killings is not a part of that. It is a part of the larger film that needs to be considered when examining the film as a whole, but it can be detached from each scene - something that more than one censorship board around the world has been deathly afraid of; but why?

Christians don't have a duty to enforce a good way of life on other people; if anything they have a duty to let people be. But there is a christian duty to live out a good life. Is this challenged by watching and praising violent films?

I'm tired now.

The big secret

2007-02-22T02:12:00.000-08:00

So I heard a rather inspiring Ash Wednesday sermon yesterday, and also received a mild rebuke for being a bit too vitriolic and unchristian on this blog to date. I think it's time for me to refrain for a change from saying what I don't like about religion and certain conceptions of Christianity, and remind myself that I really do have a faith. Don't I?

I believe in a personal God, who created the world, which in turn gave rise to beings that have the ability to conceive and commune with God. The fact that we are a sinful lot is sad to him, and I believe that one should try not to be sinful - which includes actively trying to do good things as well as avoiding evil. Partly in order to make God happy, but mostly because it's in our nature to feel better about ourselves and the world when we try to be good. Now, I also believe that through the Jesus event God has established a way that our sins will be forgiven, but as St Paul points out this doesn't give us the right to do whatever we want; we should still try to be good, even if it's a futile exercise. That's to say, it doesn't matter that we can't live up to the Jesus ideal (which is one reason why I dislike christians who take so-called 'sinners' to task), because God, who is cleverer and kinder than you, has set things up so that everything turns out alright in the end.

Of coruse, God is also clever and kind enough that he doesn;t make it too easy. So we don't feel day-to-day as if we're in heaven; we get to live out the (individual and global) struggle of good against evil, which is doubtless more fun than floating around in Heaven singing worship songs all day long. I believe that going to church, studying the Bible and praying help with this venture. Hanging around with other christians who are engaging in the same struggle helps, too.

Of course, I don't believe that one has to be a christian to participate in all this. I mean, everyone tries to be good, and feels bad when they fail, right? I pretty much believe that being made in God's image mean that we all inherently buy in to this struggle, even when we're at our most cynical and lazy. I guess I could try hard to turn away from it in various ways, but it's pretty clear frmo the Bible, especially the Gospels, that God reaches out to help all people, even those who have tried hardest to ignore the call to be good. I feel a bit guilty about framing all this in Christian terms, as I don't believe that Christianity has a monopoly on the 'truth' behind these assertions. But my upbringing puts me in the camp of Christianity and church-going, so there. And I'm happy about that, although I don't think it's right to force people into that mould who don't have any connection to it.

Anyway, that's me trying to be positive. ho hum.

The literal word of God

2007-02-21T09:12:00.000-08:00

The Bible is the word of God. That's the contention of all Christians, I'd say. All Christians? Well, one village still holds out against the invaders. Probably.

Anyway, if pushed (not very hard), I'd have to say I agree, although of course there is much dispute about what 'the word of God' is. Let's get one thing clear, it surely isn't the 'literal' word of God. Even if it was, no-one would be able to understand it correctly, since we all grow up learning language in a slightly different way, and all attach subtly different nuances to certain words whether we want to or not. Especailly when one is dealing with translations.

Nonetheless, a myth persists that the first five books of the Bible, aka the Pentateuch, aka the Torah (I think?) were 'dictated' by God. Were they in fact transcribed by Moses, who had no trouble writing about himself in the 3rd person? Not sure. Actually reading them makes it pretty plain that God didn't write them. Or if he did, he was a God who was still struggling to understand grammar and the written word, what with all the endless repetitions that get rather dull. And it smacks of Jungian absurdity to believe in a God who needs to grow and develop just as humans do (Doesn't it? Maybe that part of being made in his image - we grow and change in body and mind, perhaps that's a sign that God does too?)

What gets me about this 'dictation' myth is the idea that it suggests everything God says must be literally true. Jesus openly spoke in parables (that's to say, stories whose events didn't actually take place, but whose meaning has a message of truth), so why shouldn't we assume that God did, too? Especially when it comes to explaining creation, an event that even the exact language of science struggles to communicate in an easily understandable way.

You can probably tell that I don't believe the Earth was created in 6 days. I don't even believe that the Earth was created in 6 'passages of time'. The 6 bit is just an analogy for the working week, after all. You can tell because in chapter 2 of Genesis is an alternate story of God creating the world. It doesn't as such contradict the first and more famous story, but it does suggest that things were created in a different order (which suggests that the order DOESN'T BLOODY MATTER YOU IDIOTS). It all doesn't refer to any passage of time, and the whole Adam and Eve bit puts the thing firmly into the realm of allegory.

To explain my sudden interest: I've been working through Genesis for the first time since the World Wide Web existed, and it's a bit weird. I guess later posts will develop the idea of how one should read and interpret the Bible (as if I knew the answer), and that age-old but oh so modern question of picking and choosing bits of religion to believe in or to ignore. What fun.

Lent

2007-02-20T06:23:00.000-08:00

So it's Shrove Tuesday today, aka Fat Tuesday, one of those days on which traditional encourages us to indulge ourselves before beginning forty days of penance and fasting. And what better way to indulge than talking about myself on a blog, those most indulgent of things?

Lent is well known enough in Britain that many people give something up even if they don't have religious convictions. Partly this is because it's something easy to talk about at school with children, and partly it's because people like an excuse to give something up in order to better themselves.

Actually I have no statistics to back up any of those statements. They just feel right to me in my limited sphere of contact and experience. Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on giving things up for Lent. I can certainly buy into the idea of using it as an excuse to make myself fitter and healthier. I can buy into the idea that I will spend time in prayer as a result of my sacrifice, even if it is only an idea, not a reality. Less impressively, there is the idea that one is reminded of God every time one confronts the temptation to indulge in whatever it is one has given up. Which is probably better than nothing in holiness terms. And of course there's the idea that Easter is so much more fun because you get to really enjoy your favourite thing(s) again.

I can't say what I've given up every year, and I know that some years I haven't bothered out of apathy for the whole thing, but I can remember not:
Eating meat
Watching films
Masturbating (failed one year, succeeded the next)
Reading comics
Buying DVDs
Buying comics
Being mean to people / saying nasty things about them
And I've failed at least twice to give up chocolates and/or sweets. (I just forgot, ok? It wasn't a conscious - oh yes Mr. the Devil, I will fail my Lenten vow, alright.)

And all these for the full 40-day period. Actually, the '40-day' thing is confusing in itself. 40 Days from Ash Wednesday takes you up to Palm Sunday. And I heard that some people stop their Lent vows on Palm Sunday. But clearly Holy Week is a penitent time, so you can't break Lent vows before Easter. So really that's 47 days. But then when I was about 19, I heard that Catholics (and probably plenty of Prots too) don't observe their vows on a Sunday, which accounts for the extra 7 days. Theologically speaking this is because one is encouraegd to celebrate on a Sunday, since it's the day of the Lord's resurrection. But the whole point of fasting is to do it continually, yes? So 6 days on with a break seems a bit like cheating, doesn't it?

Frankly I think I'd get more out of Lent if everyone around me was participating, and we were all giving up the same thing. A bit like Ramadan, I'd guess. The fact that we all get to choose what to sacrifice makes me think Lent is a little selfish; but if we didn't choose then Lent would end up being 'easier' for some people rather than others, which goes against the concept of religion (doesn't it?).

Of course, there's the relatively new school of 'taking something up' for Lent; again, this usually translates into exercise, but obviously accomodates extra prayer time or Bible study time or what have you. But I feel that there's something inherently human about fasting or abstaining which it is good to be a part of, and you can't tap into that by taking something up, even if you could argue that this means 'sacrificing' free time.

Last year I gave up 'indulgence', which kind of meant that if I wanted something (to eat or buy or whatever) but didn't actually need it, then I wouldn't have it. Which pretty much amounted to eating a bit less junk food and drinking a bit less. Maybe I'll do that again.

I did think about posting here every day as a Lenten demand, but a) that's kinda indulgent, and b) I won't be able to 'cos I've already got an internet-free holiday booked. I guess I could give up nothing and add an extra 40 days to my time in Purgatory...

Richard Dawkins vs creationism

2007-02-14T03:51:00.000-08:00

You know, I was really going to try to hold off talking about R. Dawkins for a while. I have bought his 'God delusion' book but haven't read it yet, so I won't be talking about that just now. But his crusade against all religion has come across my path lately, and I feel the need to say something.

Let's get some details out of the way. Richard Dawkins is clearly an intelligent man and a staunch scientist. He has written elegantly about evolution and more importantly the process of natural selection. He has no time at all for creationism or intelligent design. (These are of course separate entities, although I get the impression that all creationists also support the 'intelligent design' concept. MOre fool them)

I have very little science training myself, but I do have a bit of theology training. As part of the former, it is obvious to me that creationism is nonsense. As part of the latter, I am pretty well convinced that intelligent design is not a serious scientific argument, and is certainly not a philosophically sound one (thanks to David Hume, amongst others). So really I ought to be on Dawkins's side here. Except he goes too far, and in doing so brings a personal agenad to what should be an impersonal debate. He is so incensed by the idea that both doctrines (I won't call them theories) are taught in schools as part of any 'science' course that he seems intent on removing them from the world entirely.

This is where my problems begin. If, as Dawkins rightly claims, both ideas are bunk, then science should be able to show this pretty easily. So why not just let that happen? Why not let the creationists present their evidence, their arguments and whatnot, and then the flaws in these pieces would shine through, and we could go away happy? Banning the arguments from the public eye might help, but it feels inherently wrong to ban people's thoughts and beliefs, however foolish they are.

However, I guess Dawkins wants to take this step because he can see that the 'rational argument will win out' idea clearly isn't working. And I'd say that this is so not because the science to disprove creationism / intelligent design is itself faulty, but because most people are idiots. They are easily swayed by the nature of an argument, by oratory tricks, and by their own inherent prejudice, to the expense of valid content, rational thought and so on. This is of course well known across the globe, and it's kind of annoying but most people seem happy to accept it and just get on with sysiphian tasks like education. People are being swayed by inadequate / wrong science? So what? Get over it, and just do your bit to do the real science well.

Frankly, I think Dawkins's efforts would be better spent trying to promote better English lessons so that people could read the Bible more intelligently (not to meantion learing better how language works).

Films I am supposed to like #1: The Mission

2007-02-12T08:03:00.000-08:00

I finally watched the Mission last night. A film that has unanimously been praised to me, particularly by the holiest of my religious friends. It was pretty good I guess. I felt more than a little manipulated at times. The best bits for me were De Niro's fall, penance and redemption sequence near the beginning, and then Irons carrying the monstrance at the end. Probably most people like those scenes, right?

Anyway, I felt kind of weird watching the film. Partly there's the inevitable, 'oh, is this a bit racist / patronising' factor that comes whenever films show people from alien cultures. The Mission did pretty well on that score, except for the scenes with the music and the small children's faces. And then there's the whole 'mission' thing, which as I described earlier is one of my bugbears about religions in general. Couldn't help wondering about both while trying to get absorbed by the palpable drama at the same time. Anyway, The film paints a pretty simple picture of good people helping individuals against bad people who are more concerned with money and politics. Of course it paints that picture using very intricate colours, so it acknowledges that the bad people aren't particularly bad as individuals, and that decisions aren't taken lightly. It even goes so far as to question the good of the Jesuit mission - were they right to try to bring the good news / convert the indiginous people.

"She says she doesn't want to go back to the jungle because the Devil lives there." reports Fr Gabriel (Irons) at one point when explaining to his superior why the Mission village should be allowed to remain open. But surely the child would not have such a thought had the Jesuits not put it into her - so who is the real villain? Of course its obvious that the Jesuits have in fact saved the lives of these people, because they would have kidnapped and sold into slavery without the Jesuits' protection. Adding to the question of what makes a hero is Gabriel's refusal to fight. Sure, he probably wouldn't have saved any more lives if he had done, but it's a real test of his character and our ethical values about what to do.

I'm pretty sure my vicar loves this film because it explores the age-old question of faith and works and how they interact. The various Missions in the film are places of worship but also of practical social responsibility. They give poor people food, shelter, work and above all protection from your more sraightforward evil exploitative western merchant types. And they provide spiritual direction, which may or may not be evil, depending on your point of view. Not clear what happens to those who refuise to go to Mass, mind. Did they get evicted, left to fend for themselves against the slavers? And what are we as a modern audience meant to think about the idea that the Jesuits have taught whole communities to sing as if they were Barnet Community choir? Are we meant to remember that there was a time when people believed that 'savages' were less valid and more animal than 'proper humans'? Or is the film maker trying to persuade his audience that naked jungle folk are educatable and therefore valid, i.e. guilty of the same prejudice as his characters?

If it was just the Jesuits in the jungle trying to convert people, that would be unequivocably bad (wouldn't it?). But since western culture has in all its guises been forced upon the native people (sorry, can't quite work out the best shorthand word here), it's probably only right that the christians have a go, too. Especially if they can offer something better than the merchants. The film also rasies the classic question of weighing up morals and lives to see what is best in the long run. I don't know my history, but I suppose there is an argument to show that the Jesuits in Europe were socially redeeming to such a noble extent that it's right that they cut off the South Americans to ensure there own survival. Perhaps the presence and continued power of the Jesuit order in Europe in the 17th Century was responsible for some of the good things that came to pass. Who knows? In the end, I think this film like so many others (Hotel Rwanda leaps to mind) imply highlights the ethics of proximity. If you're right next to someone who is suffering, you'd bloody better help them. But the further away they are, the less you feel this impulse, and so the less it matters. Those doing the suffering can affect this reaction by making themsleves more proximate, for example via the medium of a successful film. If it's in your mind, you feel nearer to it, and the more need there is for you to intervene.

Luckily, this isn't a film about showing people obvious answers to a horrible problem. Instead it reinforces my foolish belief that the best way to make the world a better place (if that's really so desirable) is for everyone to be nice to everyone else they ever meet without worrying to much about the politics of it all. So that helps me like it.

You know, I'm typically a champion of poor films with redeeming features. This feels like a review of a great film (partly about redemption) highlighting its poor features. Oh well.

Final thought - Robert de Niro grows a great beard, but it really doesn't go with his hair.

God will not smite the cartoonists

2007-02-07T06:34:00.000-08:00

So God features in lots of cartoons, usually in a gently mocking but kindly way. As the world knows, this upsets some people. Obviously I don't care about their feelings, or about God's feelings, on this matter. I don't imagine I need to explain why - but lets just say that if there are no comics in Heaven, I'm not going.

Anyway, the latest Dinosaur comics struck me as a great example of giving God a voice that seems realistic and in keeping with what little we know about his personality. Enjoy.

Turn away from conversion

2007-02-06T07:49:00.000-08:00

So one thing that Christians like to do (in the popular imagination anyway) is to convert people. Sometmies they call this evanglising, or doing missionary work, or winning hearts and minds for Christ, or whatever. I have in some ways been involved ni activities along these lines. I don't really hold with it. I'm pretty much of the opinion that people on the whole should stick to the religion they've been brought up with / exposed to most. And I include atheism in that, even though it isn't a religion as such. I don't see the point in trying to persuade someone that God exists (and has any kind of agenda) if the whole concept of God is entirely man-made to them.

Trying to convert people makes them angry. I've been to enough talks at school / university where everyone politely sat down to listen to the christian talk and then get their free food to see this in action. Partly it's being told that you're going to Hell that hurts. More than that, it's being told that you're a bad person who does bad things, and that's why you're gonig to Hell. But more still, it's the idea that you're a stupid person, because you don't even believe in Hell, let alone the concept of eternal punishment.

I can only imagine it's even more galling if you're a person of a different faith with your own beliefs about the nature of God, Hell, Salvation and Damnation being told that you're wrong.

And that's why I'd never give such a talk, or ever try to persuade someone to believe the things that I believe.

But there are two big problems with this. Firstly, it's a pretty major part of Christianity that you should spread 'the Good News' about Christ. (I always get struck by that phrase. Unless you already believe in Hell, there's no need for good news, right?) Secondly, I do believe the things I believe - don't I? - so how can I not want other people to believe them too. I mean, I'm a moral relativist in many ways, but truth is truth, isn't it? And every time I explain what I believe - which happens fairly often - aren't I inherently expecting other people to come ronud to my way of thinking, however much I protest?

But, to explain why I don't have time for mission work of this kind:
I don't believe in the inevitability of Hell for non Christians. I simply don't. If God wants most of my friends to go to Hell, then I'm going too, and fuck him if that hurts. I also don't believe in the need for people to be publicly baptised, or to declare things in speech or on paper like 'I accept Jesus Christ as my personal saviour'. I mean, if you think that, then God knows it automatically. More to the point, what does that even mean?

If Jesus represents every person on Earth (and I think we can all agree that that's what 'the Son of Man' epithet means), then it must be possible for everyone to have a link to Jesus whether they've heard of him or not. Admittedly in the last 2,000 years missionaries have done a remarkable job of ensuring that very few people haven't 'heard' of Jesus, but that's not the same thing as believing what they've heard. And if Jesus is the So of Man, then we must all have alink to him regardless of what we think it means for a 'Son of Man' to exist.

The point is, I beluieve that everyone has the capacity to 'accept Christ' (for want of a better phrase) regardless of whether they have encountered any kind of church, and regarless of what religion they belong to. Now, it's clearly offensive to talk about a Jew or athiest or Sikh or whatever asm 'accepting Christ' without realising it. And this is where it becomes about language, the root cause of so many stupid arguments across the world. By all means blame religion for the world's wars, but you can bet that if people didn't lie and get meaning twisted in simple conversation that there'd be far fewer conflicts still. You see, while I happen to believe in the events outlined in the Gospels concering the Life of Jesus of Nazareth (aka the Son of God) - or at least, most of them - it doesn't matter that I do. That famous 3.16 phrase about "whosoever believes in him might have eternal life" is for me something one can paraphrase without losing the key meaning. So, as long as I attempt to be a Godly person, I am within the realms of 'beleiving in Jesus', whether or not I openly think/talk in the language of 'Jesus'.

And so we come to semantic argument number 2 - what does it mean to be a 'Godly person'? Well, it pretty much involves being kind and helpful and generally not being mean and spiteful. Which is what virtually everyone on the planet does all the time. You may nkow some pretty mean people, but do you know why they are mean? Do you know if they even think they are being mean? I suspect that very few people - perhaps only psychopaths - have the capacity to be truly unGodly.

And that's my incoherent take on why conversion is at best a waste of time, and at worst, really bloody annoying.

Music I shouldn't like No. 1: Nine Inch Nails

2007-02-01T00:59:00.000-08:00

There are certain expectations of a practicing Christian about the sorts of things you might be into. My love of comics is not often disputed (although that probably says quite a lot about people's misconceptions about comics as well as about christianity...), but my love of certain music and films has been. For the sake of having plenty of material to fill up posts with, I'll occasionally dissect some examples of this.

And we begin with Nine Inch Nails, industrial rock brainchild of the satanically named Trent Reznor. OK, I'm pushing it with the name thing, but anyone with a Z in their surname is asking for a little bit of teasing.

I don't know much about the band or the man, but it's pretty clear from his lyrics that he had a fairly large exposure to the church and its teachings as a child, probably as a teen as well. I don't believe that singers deliberately use religious language in a provocative way unless it means something to them. Case in point, the song 'heresy' from the Downward Spiral album is all about damning believers, what with lines such as "Your God is dead/and no one cares/and if there is a Hell/I'll see you there".

I admit that it's odd that I should be moved when I hear this song. To some extent I believe I can justify this feeling and indeed the lyrics themselves. Put simply, Nine Inch Nails and many (all?) other examples of shouty rock music - to use its proper name - are meant to be expressions of rage and frustration at the way life is, and how unfair that is to certain individuals. i.e. it's great for teenagers. You're just old enough to start questioning the wisdom of being born in the first place, you're old enough to be expected to participate in society, but you're not old enough to be able to shape that society, and it's all too clear that other people have set things up, which is, frankly, the definition of unfair. Why should I be expected to join in with your mess of a society? Why? Why goddamit why? And so the bile spills out, directed at any and all targets.

And let's face it, even the most devout believer in God would have to admit that much of religion has been devised and shaped by humans. I have enough faith to believe that God exists, but not enough to believe that the Church as it is now, ever was, and ever shall be is following some divine blueprint. Too many of those pesky humans involved to mess things up.

So, there's a justification. But on the other hand I don't really believe that music needs to be justified. I don't like Nine Inch Nails just because of their lyrics. I like the tunes and above all the sounds. I'm a sucker for the synthesiser, and also the industrial music device of using non-instruments to make music with. All, loudness is good (except of course I always play my CDs quietly lest anyone else should hear them...)

I imagine many a christian telling me not to play such 'evil' music. And I can understand why they'd be offended by these kinds of lyrics. But if I like the music, what's the problem? Well, I suppose it's a fear that if I play 'heresy' over and over again, I might start to believe what the lyrics are saying. [A quick aside to point out that since the song is CALLED 'heresy', I don't think it's meant to be taken at face value] Or worse, one of my less faithful friends will hear it and be pushed further away from God as a result.

To which I can only say, how weak-willed do you think we really are? It is well-known that advertising works, but in very subtle ways mostly to do with brand recognition, not changing your whole personality. And it's not as if Christian Rock gets regular converts just because of its wholesome lyrics. I guess there probably are some examples of this, but I'd imagine that arena of music is regularly preaching to the converted.

As a pseudo-intellectual, I like to think that Reznor's lyrics are more likely to get people to think about what impact God and religion have on their lives. You wanna start a discussion, you say something provocative, right? Not that I'm advocating playing the song as part of a Sunday Mass, you understand...

Let's not forget that Nine Inch Nails's music has other issues beyond God-bashing. There's a whole bunch of suicide/drug glorification, not to mention sexual anger which I'm sure some would find unpalatable. The fact that I find this inspiring no doubt reveals something about my character, but I don't believe the music is either inherently evil or corrupting. Give people more credit, please. I'm going to have to air my half-formed views on censorship soon, aren't I. O God.

Blas for you, blasphemy

2007-01-29T00:23:00.000-08:00

I doubt anyone has copyright on that particular pun, but for the sake of honesty (hey, I am a christian, after all) I'll admit that I didn't think of it until heard it used well by Eddie Izzard. And speaking of stealing ideas, the very name for this blog is mostly from Ken Knudtsen's excellent pictorial treatise in anger, My monkey's name is Jennifer.

So, whom exactly am I damning? Well, all of you for existing, of course, but also no-one. I don't have the power to damn people, and I don't expect God would listen to my pleas to damn people either. Even if I really meant it and prayed hard about it. Simply put, I find the expression funny, and it lends a certain weight to one's anger.

I grew up in a household where swearing was not as such forbidden, but it just never comes up for fear that it would be chastised. My older brother happily taught me the classic swearwords when I was about five, but it seemed to me like it was useful to know the what the words meant without ever being inclined to use them. But, the old blasphemies were present in abundance. Thus, my mother's only exclamation (beyond that perennial classic, "oh, no") would be the occasional "damn" (strangely with no exclamation mark), while my father's favourite remains a well-spat "Christ!"

This is in contrast to a classmate who favoured frequent and often hard swearing with the purpose of not blaspheming, which he felt to be wholly sinful. I get the impression that in much of the USA this opinion is shared, although I'm sure many households disdain all forms of swearing, but with special punishment reserved for the blasphemous kind.

Now, there is an argument to be hard that many people are genuinely offended when they hear certain swear words (curse words if you prefer), and therefore it is good to avoid swearing because it upsets these people. But to my mind you have to question why they are offended, and I'm pretty sure that it's a question of moral relativism rather than absolutes. Blasphemous exclamations above all are something that we have to be taught to be offended by. Just look at the actual words used: God, Christ, damn you, Hell, Godforsaken, bloody (it's short for 'By Our Lady' dontchaknow), Smite you etc etc. These words get used in contexts that are child friendly (well, maybe not 'smite'), so children know what they mean, and so are not shocked to hear them used in an exclamatory context. But the classic swears are words that children don't necessarily know about, and might struggle to understand even after an explanation (have you ever tried telling a six-year old what 'wanker' means?), so it's easy to see that the words hold a certain mixture of attraction and repulsion when a child hears them. And that's partly why they become swear words, yes?

Anyway, I'm sure there's plenty to say about the goods and ills of swearing. I am now old enough that I find it weird when people on high streets and buses happily curse into their mobiles for all ears to hear, but I doubt it's a new thing - it's just the words that change. I'm not so interested in that issue just now. I was hoping to explain why it's ok to use religious pseudo-swear words.

So, the thing is, people use swear words to express their feelings, yes? Or because they become part of language and are used as all-purpose adjectives. So when someone shouts out "Oh God", they're not taking his name in vain, they're just using the expression in the english language that sums up a feeling of hopelessness, dread, frustration or even boredom. I don't think they're literally saying "Oh, God, now in my hour of need, rescue me from this dire situation", anymore than when someone says "let's get down to the nitty gritty" they are discussing slavery. And because the word 'God', or 'bloody' or 'Hell' are not inherently bad words - damn it all, many of them are meant to be words of hope - it seems most odd that people can hear those words and cringe, as they might when assaulted by your more standard curses.

That said, I was going to call this blog 'God damn you, I'm a christian', but I wimped out because I thought I might offend too many people. Even though I don't mean it. OR DO I? Isn't any christian who cuts people off from their church ultimately proclaiming them as damned, even if they'd never say the word? That there seems to be some kind of hypocrisy, which as anyone knows is the worse than any of the seven deadlies.

Let's get this straight from the start

2007-01-27T04:17:00.000-08:00

I am a Christian by birth. Somehow, my faith has failed to lapse, and I find myself occasionally required to explain to people that I'm going to church on a Sunday morning. This has led people to make certain assumptions about me. Which is actually quite useful a lot of the time, but sometimes it makes me angry. Not as angry as people who don't move down the bus, mind, but angry nonetheless. No doubt many of their assumptions are correct, which is annoying in itself (hey, I want to be unpredictable, too), but I guess I'm here to counter the false assumptions. And then to forcefeed you my opinions about christianity, religion, my faith.

Foremost amongst those pesky assumptions seems to be the one about sex. For the record, I am married, and no, we didn't wait. I wouldn't go so far as to say that waiting is for losers, but it seems to me to be a purely artificial idea that virginity is inherently holy. Sexual mores are always changing, and I'm not going to get into all that now, but frankly, what with prophylactics and contraceptives being in plenty, what are you all so hung up about? Oh, right, the emotional content. Which of course is never brought on by intimacy of an other kind - kissing, conversation, sharing embarrassing personal secrets etc. Nope, no-one's ever been hurt or messed up by indulging in those sinful practices before marriage, so it must be ok to do those things but not have the sex.

I want to wrap up this first post before I go on too long, but because it's the first, I feel obliged to provide a list of my liberal christian beliefs that might conflict with some peoples conceptions of what it is to be christian. There are probably plenty more were these came from, but this is a good start, no?

1. Other religions are right - or at least, they're all driving at the same thing, even if none of them (including christianity) can explain it very clearly.
2. God created the world all right, but in his own damn conception of time. Cosmology and evolution are splendid and beautiful facts, natural selection is not 'just a theory', it's the truth you blind fools.
3. Homosexuals are better than you, and they're not going to hell.
4. Actually, no-one's going to Hell. It does exist, but God isn't so evil as to set things up so that most people will end up there.
5. I don't understand the sin of blasphemy, God damn you.
6. Mind altering substances exist for a reason. Loosing control is hardly sinful, even if it can be irresponsible sometimes. The fact I'm too much of a chicken to have practiced using any (except alcohol) is neither here nor there, honest...
7. Praying for things doesn't make them happen even if it can and does affect your own attitude to things.
8. Bad things don't happen to people because they (or their parents) have been bad - bad things just happen. (God, I really hope people don't think most christians have the opposite belief. I can hardly bear to recognise that some christians really do think 'disabilities' are a punishment from God. Someone needs to be poked in the eye for starting that belief)
9. Jesus is awesome. Oh, wait, all christians believe that. Don't they?