Connecticut Shootings

I can't even sleep thinking about those kids in Connecticut. The term nightmare does not come close to describing it for those parents. What if that was one of my kids? That's an unbearable thought.

My heart really goes out to those who lost loved ones in CT. It's inconceivable, tragic, awful... there just aren't words for it.

If you've read any of these posts or heard me talk about God, it's no mystery where I'm going to go with this. Lots of people are no doubt going to the same place right now.

Where is God in all this? If God is indeed good, why wouldn't he stop this and other senseless destruction of life, especially when children are involved?

The idea that God might answer someone's prayer about their job, or their car, or something as trivial as a parking space, but would do nothing to intervene in something like the massacre of innocent children is beyond absurd to me.

I've recently become familiar with the term "deist" and I think that's how I would classify myself. Deism is belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

I just don't see in the world, in the news, in my life and my experience, evidence that God cares about us and is really engaged in our lives in a benevolent way.

If you're reading this and you have a different take on that, I would love to read/hear it. Leave a comment. (Just don't submit as evidence things that go on in your thoughts or emotions that no one can really see as evidence of God's engagement. If that works for you, great. But it won't work for me whatsoever.)

Population, Proliferation, & Armegeddon

As I was starring pensively at my desktop wallpaper this morning (shown to the left), I had a sense of awe at the size of our planet (not always easy to appreciate from a surface vantage point). My thoughts started turning toward the people of the earth and how many can fit on the thing.

I started crunching some rough numbers on my own just for the exercise of it. Roughly 200 million square miles of land, maybe half of that is usable/habitable (accounting for mountains, deserts, ice caps, etc.), need about an acre to support each person (~0.002 sq mi). That's about 500 people supported by every square mile - so it can handle about (100,000,000 x 500) 50 billion people. Again, very rough.

Then I had to check my work:
Google search
Wikipedia - Overpopulation
Yahoo Answers

Turns out (estimates vary) that number is more like ~10 billion (only 1 billion if everyone lived like Americans do!). There are currently close to 7 billion. We will probably hit 10 billion or more in the 40-90 years. I don't think anyone is slowing down on the whole baby-making thing. (Tracy and I have two kids, so we're population neutral :)

Genesis 1:28 - "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it...'"

I think we have the fruitful part down. I wonder what God's plan is for once we have filled the earth? Maybe that we would be technologically advanced enough to move to other planets? That wars, natural disasters, and famines would keep the population in check? That he would be wiping us all out eventually anyway (another flood-like reset event, or Armegeddon, the end of the old earth and start of the new one, judgement day)?

Validity of Scripture - Conversation with a Friend

The following is an excerpt from a conversation I had with a friend yesterday. It was carried out over instant messenger, so punctuation and capitalization is very loose. As well there are some minor edits and redactions. At any rate, I'd love to hear some other thoughts on this stuff.

Friend: i am still not sure about how the bible works. is it a tool for believers to use to get their own way. is it semi historical and allegorical and gives us a guide for christian living? is it something we can use like magic or out of context to make ourselves feel better about the human predicament . i am reading the text these days a little bit different than i used to. i am not reading it as if it was written to me like so many seem to do but reading it to learn about the character of god and see how it describes right living. what are your thoughts

Me: i find it to be all over the place - not one coherent book written by god (even if via human mediums or whatever). some history, some allegory, some very useful wisdom, some utter tripe that have to have just been dreamed up by the author. the OT seems to portray a different god than the NT in my opinion

Friend: i somewhat agree

Me: and when i look at the whole of it, god's whole master plan, i have to think it's a really goofy way to do things, not logical at all i don't think. maybe god just isn't logical? i don't know...

Friend: i dont think god is a robot who has to be logical if that were the case worship science. that doesnt work for me. i expect god to be. but i am not sure as to what extent that be means. i put my faith in jesus and the idea of gods kingdom but that is about it. trying to connect with god but find that i am just as enlightened when i pray as when i meditate and clear my mind. i don't hear any voice other than my own. i would expect that god has a voice that could be differentiated from my own. thoughts?

Me: honestly for me, i think about all my "god experiences" and i think those were really just things that i made happen and that i made into reality by putting a spin on them or by self-fulfilling prophecy. i don't know that i can really separate those things out into an objective reality outside my own head. i.e. i think it's all in one's head. so you can make it what you want. that's why there are so many religions and interpretations. if there was one objective god-reality then people could all agree on it for the most part, but that is so far from the actual case.

Me: i've been watching this series of documentaries on netflix call the nature of existence. really interesting all the different perspectives there are in the world about reality, god, spirituality, etc. etc.

Friend: see i am going to this small group and we have been talking about the john 15 scriptures of vine and abiding stuff. my thought is that this is being said to the disciples not me. i just don't get how we can take something so out of context and apply it to our lives and say things like god will prune me if i do not bare much fruit. i can get the idea of the bible being inspired and used for teaching and directing but to assume that these things that i read are written to speak to me is kind of crazy. at one moment i can believe the scriptures to be saying one thing and some time later be able to interpret them differently. historical context needs to be applied. the idea that God's word is personally guiding my situation is kind of funny. what if i am not of sound mind and really needy and start believing that god is speaking directly to me as scripture makes address to others in the context of the writing? it leaves so much conjecture and so much open eneded interpretation and doesnt make sense. if it can mean this thing and then that thing seems spooky. does it mean this or that. you know what i am getting at.

Me: yes, christians seem to be able to very casually can say that something like the pruning bit of scripture is for them but the "women shouldn't speak in church" thing isn't. what's with that? so some of scripture is not inspired by god? which bits were then?

Friend: now when paul talks about thinking on things that are praise worthy and good report. this is instruction that is and can be used in the modern moment. it makes sense to me. but some of the other stuff in the scriptures just does not. other things paul writes is a little goofy too. like gender roles stuff. hmm and slaves. dont forget the slave be good to your masters or something...

Me: christians seem to generally choose some scripture to keep and some to brush aside. i don't know that anyone really believes and applies all of it. at that point aren't you just creating your own religion and your own version of god? not to mention the varying interpretations of any scripture that is kept in the mix. i guess for me i'm looking for some objective reality that i can align myself with and i don't find that in the bible. see i know i can't fully trust myself - my particular spin on reality isn't necessarily real or true. i am selfish and biased. but so is everyone else. who can i trust?

Friend: interpretation seems very subjective. i don't like how it can mean this thing to you and have a total different meaning to me. it either means what it says or the story has a meaning . why all the mystery. i believe in the Jesus movement and that he showed us the way we to gain forgiveness but john also forgave sins at the beginning of mark. it is either we do not have to have our sins forgiven by the blood/sacrifice or we do. Jesus forgave sins as well before he died without sacrifice. it seems a little odd to me.

Friend: is scripture open to subjective (personal-ized) interpretation or is it to be interpreted in the context it was written in?

Me: so it makes it seem like the exact wording of the text is pretty important - like legal writing. but we know that minor modifications have been made to the text as it's been copied over the centuries. and then translations of course complicate that situation further. it's all a very fuzy business, lacking the precision that i really want to see

Friend: understand the story is what i think is most important and looking at pauls writings in essence i guess.

Friend: see hebrews 4:12 is the argument that many christians use to say the scriptures are alive. ... this i can get on board with. the holy spirit guides us into deeper understanding not the scriptures interpretted by me through my lens of disfunction just a thought.

Me: its a good thought. the only question is what is that really like? how do you know what's the holy spirit vs your imagination or your own internal voice?

God Delusion?

I was just reading this article on Life Hacker and it hits pretty squarely on some of my thoughts about religion.

http://lifehacker.com/5907299/embrace-the-supernatural-how-superstitions-placebos-and-rituals-encourage-you-to-achieve-your-goals

I feel like once I pulled back from religion and going to church, the whole God and Jesus thing became less real. So it seems like it's only real if you choose to believe it and make it real. Absent the constant encouragement to see the world a certain way - i.e. going to church and listening to sermons and other people talk about their "God experience" - it ceases to be real and true.

To be honest, since I haven't be "interacting" with God, he hasn't been interacting with me either (as far as I can tell). If he was a real entity and we were in a real relationship and he loves me regardless of what I do, why wouldn't he still at least try to maintain some connection? Why isn't he "calling me up" so to speak and asking me what's up? Surely he can see that I'm still interested. I'm taking the time to write this blog and attend a bible study and read books on the subject. So you couldn't entirely argue that since I've walked away from him he's just letting me be (or has gotten mad and walked away himself perhaps).

It just encourages me to think that God is more superstition that real person. Is it just self-delusion? I don't want that to be true. I want something to hope in. But I want that something be real, not a figment of my (or someone else's) imagination. Someone please tell me that Richard Dawkins isn't right.

God Changes His Mind

If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8, James 1:17), why did he change his mind about some stuff? I'm referring to Jesus' famous Sermon on the Mount where Jesus, apparently, makes some corrections to the Jewish scriptures that Moses wrote. For example, Matt. 5:21-22, Jesus cites the 6th commandment, "Do not murder," then says, "but I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement." He goes on to make a similar correction regarding adultery (vv 27-28): not only should you not commit adultery, but if you even think about it you're already guilty.

Then he makes what I find the most interesting correction to the law. In vv 31-32 he changes the rule about divorce. The law said a man could divorce his wife if he found something displeasing or indecent about her (Deut 24:1). Jesus said no you can't unless she was cheating on you. Otherwise any subsequent marrying would be considered adultery. So the really interesting aspect of Jesus' position on this happens in Mark 10:2-10 where the Pharisees come to question Jesus about this issue. The discuss in terms of "what did Moses tell you", not "what did God tell you in the law".

This is a can of worms opening in my mind. Now we seem to be talking about scripture, the books of God's law that Moses recorded, as if it is not the unerring word of God, but it is the possibly fallible word of Moses - which clearly needed some later correction. Then you get into trying to figure out which parts were from Moses and which were actually said by God. Who is qualified to make those decisions? I'm not and I wouldn't trust anyone else to do it either. Perhaps not all scripture is "God breathed"?

Or did God change his mind on those matters? "Crap. I really wasn't strict enough when I made those rules. I'll have to fix that when I send my son to earth."

I'll grant that those are not huge flip flops on the issues, but I would expect God would get it perfect the first time, no revision needed. What does this do to the idea that God doesn't change? Perhaps that doesn't mean he doesn't change his mind?

So the ultimate question for me is: Are the books of the Bible really the words of God, written essentially by human mediums? Or are they the words of humans, parts of which may be inspired by God, and perhaps none of which are inspired?

Misquoting Jesus

I like to listen to books on CD during my 1 hour per day round trip commute. Right now I'm listening to a book called Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman who is a biblical scholar. The book is about all the accidental and purposeful changes made to copies of New Testament books as they were copied over and over again. It's quite interesting so far. I'm maybe halfway through it, and up to this point he hasn't gotten to the real meat of what things were changed that changes the meaning of the Christian faith in any way. I'm eager to hear that part and so I hope it's getting to that. So far it's mostly talked about minor mistakes in copying and slight word changes. That's what I've always heard: There have been changes to the New Testament books over the centuries, but the vast majority of them are minor (e.g. speling errors) and anything more significant doesn't really change anything to do with basic Christian doctrine.

One good point he brings up though, is that while we may have lots of really old copies of these texts, we still don't have the originals (the autographs) of the original authors. And if these texts are the word of God himself, the exact wording of the exact originals is the only authority on what God really said. While I understand, if you have faith, you would argue that God has intervened to ensure that the text has been preserved, that would seem to be an assumption that can't be supported by actual facts. (I'm open to being wrong there, I'm not an expert after all.) And not having the original words of God would seem to be a bit of a problem for a religion that based almost entirely on books and the precise wording of those books (because they are THE word of God).

Tale of a Fateful Flood

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a fateful trip
That started from this mid eastern port
Aboard this tiny ark.

The mate was a mighty sailing man,
The skipper righteous and sure.
Eight passengers set sail that day
For a one year tour, a one year tour.

The weather started getting rough,
The tiny ark was tossed,
If not for the courage of the fearless crew
The ark would be lost, the ark would be lost.

The ark set ground on the side of this uncharted mountain range
With Noah
His wifey too,
seven pairs of every kind of clean animal
one pair of every kind of unclean animal
and also seven pairs of every kind of bird
Here on Noah's earth

(Based on "The Ballad of Gilligan's Island" by George Wyle and Sherwood Shwartz.)

Ok, so my version of the song kind of breaks down when I try to list all the passengers on the ark. Well, no kidding. There were probably tens of thousands of them.

Noah's ark was one of my first real problems with reliability of the Bible. (Read about it in Genesis 6-8). It just seems very implausible to me: A 450x75x45' foot boat being able to hold 8 people plus thousands and thousands and thousands of animals as well as food for all of them for almost a year - which is how long they were on the ark in total (much of that time was waiting for the water to recede and some dry ground to reappear). It's a decent sized boat, but not in consideration of all that was supposedly on board.

I know it can be debated what the word "kind" means in regard to the two of each kind of animal. It could mean something at a higher level than specific species, assuming then that micro-evolution takes over after the flood to (re)create all the species of animals we have today. It's still going to be a heck of a lot of animals plus food for all of them. Then also if you assume the evolution thing takes over after the flood, then you run into a time issue. The flood was only about 4000 years ago according to the genealogies in the Bible. That isn't a lot of time for natural mutations to add a lot of new species to the earth, especially from such a small base population. In addition, 4000 years isn't a lot of time for animals and people to re-disperse themselves across the rest of the world. There were no planes trains or automobiles, but they ended up everywhere - all over Asia, Africa, the Americas... And how did they all get to Australia?

Back to the boat, hopefully the carnivores weren't eating any of the other animals. But let's say Noah and the crew were able to compartmentalize them and keep that from happening. Or God sort of tranquilized them for the duration of the trip. But then what happens after they are let go again outside the ark? Wouldn't they be hungry and start eating other animals, which were in decidedly short supply, thus killing off those species or kinds almost immediately. They had to eat, right?

I'm not claiming to have done any rigorous research on this, but a cursory analysis of the logistical problems involved seems to me to be so insurmountable as to make further research pointless. (However, I'm open to debate on that.)

I will also add that I have no problems with miracles. That is to say, God doing something supernatural that defies logic. If he can make the earth and the whole universe, I would assume he can break the natural laws and do whatever he wants. But the only two parts of the flood story the Bible indicates as supernatural is the flood itself, and all the animals gathering nicely to get on the boat.

What happens is that if you can say that one part of the Bible seems to be inaccurate or untrue, then you have to ask what other parts might be. Then the slippery slope begins and you then have to figure out which parts might be true and which aren't. How can anyone really determine that? Who gets to judge that when there are differences of opinion?

I recently had a conversation about this with a friend whom I greatly respect and consider much smarter than me. Basically, his stance on Noah's ark is that he doesn't understand it, it doesn't make sense, but he believes it anyway because he doesn't want to go down that road of then calling everything in the Bible into question. I can't bring myself to do that. Its like lying to myself. What do you think?