Is Jesus the Man of Steel?

I've seen a few articles commenting on how Warner Bros paid a theologian to market the new Man of Steel to Christians by comparing it to the story of Jesus. It's a great marketing idea, it seems pastors are always looking for some kind of new media to demonstrate the gospels through. But is this polluting the gospel to compare the sacred stories of Jesus in the gospels to this modern Hollywood blockbuster?

I would say no. It's not wrong or polluting. In fact, I think we can see Christ's symbolic presence in almost any captivating story that contains good vs evil. Of course the story is going to be different and have its own spins on theological symbols within it, but that is to be expected of symbolism in general. I just saw Man of Steel this past weekend with one of my friends, so I thought I would look into some of the symbolism here. Is Jesus the Man of Steel? This post will contain spoilers.

At a first glance it is easy to see the Christian symbolism. Clark is living among humans, yet he is so much more than that. He is constantly hiding who he is because his "time has not yet come" to show his true identity to the world. When Zod, a Kryptonian general, comes to earth, he seeks Clark by threatening the whole world to give him up. Clark, after reflection at a church, decides that he will not submit himself to Zod, but rather submits himself to the human race. He willingly lets the military bind him and takes him in for questioning, despite the fact that he could escape at any time. The military reluctantly hands him over to Zod to appease him. Aboard Zod's ship, which has been designed to replicate Krypton's harsher environment, we see Clark weak for the first time. He spits up blood, and passes out. After a psychic conversation with Zod, Clark confirms that Zod is trying to replicate Krypton's environment on the earth, which would wipe out humanity.

Clark, with the help of his Kryptonian father's electronic consciousness, Jor-El, escapes, and after quite a bit of planning and battling he sends Zod's companions back into the Phantom Zone and goes head to head with Zod himself, where Clark emerges victorious, being forced to kill Zod when he was trying to fry some humans with his heat vision. The end shows Clark, now established as Superman, throw down a military drone in front of a sergeant, who was trying to use the drone to find out where Superman dwells. Superman makes it clear that he is on humanity's side, but also that he can never be controlled by the government.

Christ metaphors abound. The human child who is "not of this earth." The choice to submit to human rulers when he could have easily resisted. The fall of a hero, only to rise up and reveal his identity to the world and to save it simultaneously. That much is easy to see. But what really intrigued me the most in this allegory was Zod. If Superman was Christ, who was Zod in all of this?

The easy answer would be Satan. It would just make sense, right? Well, not really. Zod had good intentions: he wanted to restore his home. Does Satan have any remnant of good intentions? In the final battle between Superman and Zod, Zod emerges from the ashes of a ravaged city, and tells Superman that he destroyed Zod's purpose and the future of his people. He tells Superman, "My soul... that is what you have taken from me!" and then proceeds to attack him.

Zod seems too human to me to be Satan. I think that he is the Jews of the gospels. Now bear with me, this movie was not antisemitic. In the gospels the Jews thought they were God's chosen people. They wanted a political Messiah who would come to return Israel to its former glory. They demanded Jesus death despite the reluctance of Pilate. They sound like Zod to me.

As with all allegory, we must look past the metaphors and fictitious elements to see the point that is being portrayed. The point of the movie was not to demonize 1st century Jews. Instead, allegories work to inspire ideas with modern implications. So what can we infer from investigating the heavy Christ allegory in Man of Steel?

That's easy. We want to be like Superman, and therefore like Christ. We want to protect humanity despite any alienation we experience from it. We want to have the willpower he has to always do what we know is right, despite any power we possess. But more importantly, we don't want to be like Zod. We don't want to let our power get the best of us when it comes to getting what we want. We don't want to perpetuate a culture that brings violence to other worlds, coldly restricts personal rights and liberties, and is oblivious to the realty around it, such as an imploding planet core. We don't want to be the Jews as described in the gospels.

Christians today, however, seem to confuse Jesus' identity like the Jews of the gospels did. They say they love Jesus because they want to fit under the "right" faction in their religious worldview, but they really tend to like the Jews as portrayed in the gospels more than Jesus. They say that Christ is a personal savior, but really think he is mighty king to come at the end times to judge with an iron rod, separating the worthy from the unworthy. Does this sound like Superman or Zod? Jesus' nature, or the nature of the Messiah the Jews of the Bible wanted?

In the same way Christians often try to establish Jesus as a political ruler, which is contrary to his nature (John 18.36). They want America to be ruled by a religious code enforced through the government, like a ban on homosexual marriage. They say we have kicked God out of our country, which may be true, but is forcing our own religious culture onto an entire country Christ-like? Could perhaps this be symbolized by Zod's terraforming machine? Many would argue that culture and values are always being forced by the government, which I am not arguing against. But since when were Christians supposed to be part of the ways of this world? Jesus changed the world through inspiring others through wisdom and selfless love, not control. It seems like most Christians want Christ to be what he was not: a controlling Messiah. They are putting new wine into old wineskins. They are dressing Zod up as Superman.

I think the allegory in Man of Steel does a fantastic job of showing the flaw of typical fundamentalist theology today: it's caught in the middle between Superman and Zod. It wants to show God's selfless love to others, but often wants to do so through control and forcing one culture onto another. Does that sound like something Superman would do? Or, more importantly, is this something Jesus did? Nope.

Is Jesus the Man of Steel? I don't know, but he sure as hell isn't Zod.

Reality of our Faiths: Objective vs Subjective Truth

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

I was having an interesting discussion with a Jehovah's Witness buddy of mine at work about the nature of faith. He asked me what I have faith in, and I had to pause. It's not that I never thought about it before, but it can be very difficult communicating with fundamentalist Christians. This is not a jab at them, it's not because they are all really thick and irritating to talk to. It's because we use the same terms to mean different things. I could say Jesus. But the Jesus I believe in is not the Jehovah he believes in. I can say "God", but if we have radically different interpretations of the bible, our perceptions of God will be quite different. After thinking about it through my break, I answered with this: I have faith in an idea.

Vague, right? I'll explain later. For many Christians, they need to put faith in objective realities. They need to believe that Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago. They need to believe that the bible is inerrant. Otherwise how could they believe in the gospel? They hold history as their authority, yet look to the bible and pastors to provide them their history over historians. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's kind of like going to a pilot to learn about advanced theory of aerodynamics instead of a physicist. They both work with the same laws of aerodynamics, but one will understand it a lot better than the other. The physicist is trained in understanding physics, the pilot in manipulating physics. But despite their methods, they place their faith in a perceived objective reality: something cemented in space and time.

Objective truth holds a number of disciplines, like science and history. To be clear, I am aware that objective truth may be unknowable, but that is not the point. The point is the methods of objective studies treat their subject like it is a cold hard fact by critiquing it and testing its environment, and not assuming things without reasonable probability. There is, however, such a thing as subjective truth. We see subjective truth in things like ethics and philosophy. We cannot through testing affirm that the Holocaust was wrong, but I still believe it was! We can say that it was inconsiderate of human life, but how can we show that being considerate of human life is right? We can't. That's a subjective truth. We believe it is right, and it is generally accepted as right, but it is not objective truth. It is not a physical occurrence, but rather a reaction to an occurrence which reflects our values.

So we have our two types of truths: objective and subjective. The former holding physical and temporal reality, the latter an idea concerning the former. What I was trying to explain to my coworker was that I have faith in the subjective truths found in Jesus' teachings. I don't have faith that the earth is only thousands of years old. I don't have faith that Jesus literally resurrected. But these are relatively unimportant. We cannot test these claims, or show them to somehow be likely. However, through studying the bible I have learned to put faith in the truth that God loves humanity. And that to truly live fulfilled I must love all people as myself. And that my mistakes don't define my existence, but rather my mindset about them do. These things cannot be shown to be wrong or unlikely by others. How could they? It's personal experience and reflection that I put authority in, guided of course by the teachings from the bible. It is these subjective truths that change how we live, how we think. We are transformed not by faith in an objective reality, but by subjective truths in response to reality around us.

Religion gives us all a unique framework to think about life. They reflect our culture, our values, and our desires. My faith is who I am. But it cannot be shaken through history or science, nor must I insist on my own version of history or science to keep it alive. Personal transformation is a powerful experience, but you won't find it through cold hard facts. It's how the facts are arranged and valued. It's the mythic element behind our sacred stories, it the passion that inspires our movies and music. It's like being in love: it inspires us to be better people for something greater than ourselves. My faith is not stuck in reality, and it's something so much more powerful than fact.

Lailat al Miraj: The Importance of Daily Prayer

I haven't talked about a whole lot of other religions besides Christianity, so I thought today would be a great day to talk a little about Islam! Today is Lailat al Miraj, the Islamic holiday celebrating the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem where he met with the former Prophets while ascending the Seven Heavens, referenced in the 17th sura of the Qur'an.¹ The angel Gabriel comes to Muhammad with the Buraq, a mythical winged horse who is known for carrying other Prophets. Muhammad rides to Jerusalem, where he ascends into the Seven Heavens with Gabriel guiding him. In the First Heaven he sees Adam looking at the good and bad souls of his descendants. In the Second Heaven he sees Jesus and John the Baptist.² In the Third Heaven he sees Joseph son of Jacob (the man from Genesis with the colorful coat, not Jesus' earthly father). In the Fourth Heaven he sees Enoch.³ In the Fifth Heaven he sees Moses' brother, Aaron. In the Sixth Heaven he sees Moses. In the Seventh Heaven he sees Abraham. Gabriel then takes him into Paradise, where he talks with Allah about the great importance of daily prayer.

On his way back to Mecca, Moses asks Muhammad how many times a day are the people to pray. Muhammad answers with 50. Moses tells Muhammad to go back to Allah to ask for that number to be reduced.⁴ Muhammad agrees, and after going again to Allah he returns, telling Moses the number has been reduced to 10 times a day. Moses again said that this number was too high, and so again Muhammad returned to Allah. When he returns he tells Moses that the number has been reduced to 5 times a day. Moses again says that this is too many, but Muhammad says that he would be to embarrassed to go back again.

This myth (I'm using the term to mean a sacred story, not implying falsity) works to explain the Islamic practice of salat, or daily prayer, which is supposed to be done five times a day. Before each prayer, one should clean his hands, face, mouth, nose, teeth, and feet. Prayer should be done by positioning oneself facing Mecca and bowing on one's knees all the way to the ground. Of course, this rule is only applicable to those who are physically capable.

While I am not a Muslim, I think this practice is pretty cool. It's a way of frequently reminding themselves that following God means submitting to God and his will, a reminder that many of us need all too often. Praying five times a day may be more than I practice, but I can appreciate the commitment and humility that comes with practicing the salat.

1. Islam's Seven Heavens
The Seven Heavens in the Islamic worldview are not levels of the paradise most Westerners think about when they hear "heaven". Instead, they are realms in which Prophets and angels dwell. The paradise where people go to dwell for eternity with Allah is called "Paradise", and its gates are located in the Seventh Heaven.

2. Jesus as a Prophet
In the Islamic tradition, Jesus is regarded as a holy Prophet, but not as God himself, unlike what is taught in the Gospel of John. He is found in the Seven Heavens along with many other Prophets.

3. Enoch
Enoch is mentioned in Genesis as a descendant of Adam through Seth and a great-grandfather of Noah. While he is vaguely described as a righteous man in Genesis and briefly referenced in Hebrews, he is the leading character in the ancient Jewish work titled The Book of Enoch, which is accepted as canon by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

4. Moses Challenging God
While this may be surprising to some readers that Moses disagrees with Allah's commandment regarding the amount of times to pray each day and changes Allah's mind, it seems to be part of their relationship. We see this in the Torah as well in Exodus 32.9-14:

The Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.” Then Moses entreated the Lord his God, and said, “O Lord, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, ‘With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Faith: Trust Despite Uncertainty

I was talking with some awesome LDS Sisters last week and one of them told me that she was "100% certain" that her faith in God, Jesus, the Bible, and the Book of Mormon was true. That really got me thinking: can we ever be certain in our faith?

Now, for clarity, I want to define my terms. She used the phrase "100% certain", which is redundant. We have this terrible habit of saying redundant things, like "PIN number" and "co-mingle", and this falls into that category. Because we can never be less than 100% certain of anything. We say things like "99% certain", but that's not really certain. You are either certain of something, or you are uncertain. So basically she was telling me that she was sure that her faith is true. 

With that grammatical mini-rant finished, let's get back to me thinking "how can you be certain of these things?" If our religious faith lies in the unknown, i.e., things we cannot sense and test around us, on what grounds can we find certainty? I suppose many will say that they have SO MUCH faith that they just know, but religious interpretation is by no means black and white, so what they are really saying is that they have SO MUCH faith in their own understanding of doctrine and interpretation of scripture that they are "certain". But isn't that "leaning on our own understanding"?¹ It seems to me that in order to truly have faith, we must be uncertain. This does not mean that we cannot trust our faith or believe what we have faith in is likely to be true. It just means we cannot be certain.

While this may seem like just a silly philosophical topic, I believe it is quite important to reflect on. After all, I think 99% of Christians would agree that the founding block of Christianity is faith in Jesus. So it's incredibly important for us to understand what faith is. And if we can assume that faith in Jesus is for our benefit, then we need to reflect on why it is we need to BELIEVE who Jesus is and not KNOW who Jesus is.²

I think the best place to start this reflection is to look at the setting where Jesus jumped into some flesh: Palestine under Roman control. The Jews were expecting a legendary king to rise out of the line of David and kick the Roman's asses out of their Promised Land and restore the Kingdom of God. In the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) Jesus is constantly trying to hide his identity, and for good reason. Jesus' teachings were attracting large crowds, and the people were itching to revolt, especially if they thought Jesus was the political ass-kicking Messiah they were eagerly expecting.³ In this situation it makes a lot of sense for Jesus to preach that his followers must BELIEVE in his identity. Because KNOWLEDGE of his identity allows misconceptions of who he is to become cemented in our minds. It was by having faith in who Jesus was, i.e. allowing themselves to be uncertain, that his followers' perception of a political Messiah could be transformed into understanding his role as a spiritually liberating Messiah. Without that kernel of uncertainty, i.e. faith, they could never escape their faulty misconceptions of who Jesus truly was.

Now let's fast-forward 2000 years and look at our faith today. How do we know that we are perceiving God correctly? If we think we know who God is with absolute certainty (now I am being redundant; it's for dramatic effect), then we are sealing a force far beyond our own cognitive capacity into our very limited mental mold. We aren't giving any room for further understanding God, or giving ourselves a chance to be corrected if we have actually been perceiving God in a foolish way. By being "certain" of who God is, we are merely leaving ourselves vulnerable to wallow in our own ignorance, and therefore limiting God's transforming power in our own lives.

Now for my "clean up" speech: I am not saying that Christians should just live any way they feel like living with the excuse that we just don't know if our faith is true. That is also "leaning on our own understanding". The term "faith" also has a strong implication of trust despite its implication of uncertainty. But if we want our faith to grow like a mustard seed, we need to give it room to grow by acknowledging that God can work in ways beyond our understanding of him and that we, as humans, are very capable of being misguided.

1. Proverbs 3.5
This is a reference to Proverbs where we are warned to fear God and not let our own "wisdom" fool us. While this is often used to crush ideas about God that challenge traditional acceptances, if we read further into the chapter we see that we are not to "loathe His reproof". But if we are only willing to be "certain" in our understanding of faith, then how can we welcome God to reproof us if we misunderstand?

2. Believing
To "believe", as used in the bible such as the popular John 3.16 passage, is πιστεύω. It can mean to "trust, put faith in, or rely on". 

3. The Political Tension of 1st Century Palestine
Sparking political revolt was a very valid concern. In fact, in 66 CE the Jews did violently rebel against the Romans, only to have Jerusalem sacked and their beloved temple destroyed in 70 CE.

Boethius' Theodicy: Fortune and Her Wheel

I read Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy for my Medieval Heroes and Villains class about whether Fortune, personified as a woman who doles out good or bad fortunes depending on the random spin of her wheel, is a force for good or evil. Boethius, being a Christian, wrestles with this very question, revealing his own theodicy, i.e. how he reconciles evil in the world with an all-good God. Boethius, a once influential and righteous man, was sentenced to death after supposedly be falsely accused of conspiring with the Eastern Roman Empire.

In The Consolation of Philosophy Boethius is grieving over his death sentence when Philosophy, a woman, appears to him to console him. Rather than fixing his environmental problems, she instead lifts him from his sorrows by critiquing and correcting the way he is inwardly viewing his situation and how he came to be “punished” for being a wise and moral man. Philosophy deduces that at the root of his suffering is confusion regarding his nature (Book I: VI).

Indeed, in Book II Philosophy proposes that Boethius believes that he has truly lost his good fortune. However, she also points out that this is untrue to the nature of Fortune (like Philosophy, personified as a woman):

If you recall to mind her character, her methods, and the kind of favour she proffers, you will see that in her you did not have and did not lose anything of value.
(Book II: I)

Philosophy challenges Boethius’ notion that good fortune is truly his. If it belongs to Fortune and her wheel of chance, how can he be upset when Fortune does what it is her nature demands, which is to change (Book II: I)? Therefore Boethius is being foolish for wishing for Fortune to act against the nature he knows she has.

This, however, bring up this important question: is Fortune a force of good or evil in the lives of men? From the text, it would appear that she is indeed a force of goodness. In chapter II of Book II Philosophy argues in Fortune's stead, and reminds Boethius that:

When nature brought you forth from your mother’s womb I received you naked and devoid of everything and fed from my own resources.
(Book II: II)

It is fortune that allows for men to experience physical blessings to begin with. Even Fortune’s nature to change from “good” to “bad” is put into good light, for without this possibility of change hope for better things could not exist (Book II: II).

Fortune is only perceived as a bad thing when one mistakes her blessings as a source of happiness. Philosophy argues that the root to goodness is happiness, and Fortune can never be the true path to happiness due to her ever changing nature (Book II: IV). She reaffirms that it is our perception of what good fortune is in life that makes it bad for us. She even flips the usual perception on itself and claims that bad fortune can actually be more beneficial to us since it encourages understanding of reality, such as who one’s true friends are willing to be loyal despite bad fortune, in contrast to good fortune which deceives one to the true nature of his friends, as many appear to be friends to those they perceive as fortunate in order to put themselves in a situation where they could possibly profit (Book II: VIII). This contrast points to the irony that it is bad fortune that reveals one of the most valuable blessings: true friendship.

Book III explores the nature of God, concluding that he is both pure goodness and omnipotent. Towards the end of Book III, Philosophy uses these conclusions to say something about the nature of evil itself. She argues if God is all powerful, then he can do everything. However, God cannot do evil; therefore evil is nothing (Book III: XII). This applies to Fortune as well as God. Fortune is shown to be a source of blessings and hope, despite her changing nature and the resulting bad fortune. And if God is assumed to be the creator of all things (Book I: VI), then his creation and design, including Fortune, are all good. It is one’s perception of the nature of things that makes it bad.

Therefore for Boethius, it is Fortune who works as fate to dole out "good" and "bad" fortune, but neither is truly good or bad. The perception of evil is only ignorance in the human mind, unaware of the ways of their perfect creator. Our liberation in faith does not come from promises of Heaven or Hell, but rather through true happiness that comes through experiencing the world as God does.

For those who are curious, Books IV and V work to further break down the mechanism that is personified by Fortune. Philosophy looks into the nature of Fate, distinguishing it from Providence. Providence is the simple plan of God through a chaotic medium that we call Fate. This of course brings up the seemingly paradox of fate coexisting with free will (Book V). Philosophy challenges Boethius' perception of understanding. While we are temporal beings who only experience the present, God is an eternal being that experiences all simultaneously outside of time. Therefore his will (Providence) is penetrating all the willed actions that we make, since we do make decisions on a timeline. We have will, but God sees all wills as happening at once, so he can work through our wills without creating them. Here are the closing remarks of Philosophy:

Hope is not placed in God in vain and prayers are not made in vain, for if they are the right kind they cannot but be efficacious. Avoid vice, therefore, and cultivate virtue; lift up your mind to the right kind of hope, and put forth humble prayers on high. A great necessity is laid upon you, if you will be honest with yourself, a great necessity to be good, since you live in the sight of a judge who see all things.
(Book V: VI)

Facing Armageddon: the Natural Clash Between the Traditional and the Progressive

About a month ago I posted some things on my Facebook wall poking at some of the Christians who supported Proposition 8. I kept seeing memes flying around, but couldn't contribute to the discussion because I was very busy. I finally made time to research it and found out it was about the label "marriage". I found this to be dumb, and got annoyed that people are using my own religious terms to justify politics that do not coincide with my religious beliefs. This annoyance is natural, as I am sure the conservatives who were offended by my posts have the same annoyance from me. This was my first post:

To Christians who interpret the Bible to mean that it is your obligation to display your beliefs by wishing to exclude homosexuals politically: When a religion that has its roots in love and inclusivity tries to suppress a movement from within that encourages it, they lose. The Pharisees failed to suppress Jesus' interpretation of scripture. The Catholics failed to prevent Protestantism. The Ku Klux Klan failed to limit Black rights and immigration policy. While they may have their victories and good deeds in history, in the end they will either evolve (which many do, such as the example of Catholicism) or diminish. A recent poll indicated that 58% of Americans support gay marriage, and 81% of young Americans (18-29) do as well. To quote Agent Phil Coulson: "You're gonna lose... It's in your nature."

I didn't think it was too offensive (although perhaps a little too blunt), and my point was that values change in time, and that's a good thing. To be conservative is to naturally be under attack by progressive and modern thought. I am currently reading Peter Rollin's Fidelity of Betrayal where he talks about how betraying our religion is part of the way of Christ. Values do change, and it is our duty to apply the essence of Christ, that of love and acceptance, into the changing values. This concept is also brilliantly illustrated in the graphic novel Kingdom Come by Alex Ross and Mark Waid, which I just read in preparation for a grad class next year (the theme being "are super heroes the modern mythology?"). Here Superman and the other, now old, Justice League members are trying to force their values onto a modern world full of metahumans (humans with super powers). These metahumans do not hold onto the values of the heroes from the "Golden Age" with Superman leading the Justice League, and there is constant fighting going on between them simply to climb to power. The Justice League had been in isolation due to Superman's absence, but upon his return they once again follow him in his quest to aid mankind. However, what place does Superman have in this new world? There are countless metahumans causing panic. Superman's goal is simple: recruit those who see the need for his old time values of heroism and "educate" the others. This "education" obviously has its problems. What will he do to those who refuse to "learn"? Superman constructs a super jail to house all those who continue to harm mankind. But the prisoners break out, and a war ensues that threatens the entire world. In the end, it is a nuke sent from the U.N. that destroys nearly all those fighting.

Depressing, right? But it has a wonderful point. Superman is a god to us. Originally he represented Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Only now you won't see the "American Way" referenced. Because in modern society the "American Way" means obesity, corrupt capitalism, homophobia, and drone attacks. Superman has changed to reflect our modern values. But in Kingdom Come, he does not adapt to modern values. He keeps his values, which don't offer a valid help to the hypothetical modern world with metahumans running around unchecked. Did he do some good? Yes, he was seen as a beacon of hope, but what could he actually DO about the chaos metahumans caused? He constructed a prison to house those rogue metahumans, but under his own authority, not "the people's", and his "reeducating" system looked like tyrannical brainwashing. And ultimately, the conflict he caused put the whole world at risk. In the end, it was people that had to make the decision to nuke both heroes and villains alike in order to save mankind. The old ideals, as super as they were, were simply not enough to solve the new world's problems. There had to be an Armageddon. This tension between those trying to save the old world and those trying to shape the new world will always be in society.

Our super heroes are much like the gods of old, and even our concept of God now. We say that he is more than human, yet we relate to him through our human life. For us, God is not a mere tribal god that acts selfishly and whimsically, he is the ideal human. He is just, loving, protecting of the innocent, and to many a guardian angel. He is what we want to be, what we value in humanity. It's no wonder Freud in his Future of an Illusion thought that our need for a god in our life comes from our want for the perfect father figure, and our disappointment in our actual father. This wasn't always the case, even the Greeks saw gods as imperfect and troublesome to men at times. But they had so many gods to capture the things valued by all men. The Judeo-Christian tradition of course maintains that there is only one god. The ancient Hebrews saw him as a tribal god. In the Old Testament we see God be persuaded by man and even regret creation. By Jesus' time the concept of God had already been influenced by Greek thought and other mystery traditions. And when Christianity started to get formalized in the Roman Empire, it was neoplatonic thought that was used to explain and validate Christian doctrine. Neoplatonic thought includes ideas like there being one, perfect god who is the creator of all things. He is eternal. All good. Omnipotent. Omniscient.  These are the things that Christians still hold onto today. So now our understanding of God sees him less as a person but more of a general force for good. And "good" is relative, so it is natural to see God in our own image and our own ideals. But our ideals reflect our values, which are always changing from generation to generation. Therefore God seems to change from generation to generation.

Of course, if God is all perfect, he has no need to change. The ultra-conservative will try to live just as the Bible commands, regardless of cultural norm. But I think that misses the point. Christianity is all about the lifestyle. Before it was even given a formal name it was referred to simply as "The Way". Living like Christ was the essence. And Jesus showed that it is not simple action that is right or wrong, but the nature of the action. After all, Peter saw a vision allowing for him to eat pork and other "unclean" animals. Paul said that circumcision of the penis is not important. Jesus challenged Moses' allowance for divorce. Jesus claimed that if a man lusted after a woman in his heart, he had already committed adultery. Sin is in the mind (or if you prefer the older term for our processing organ, the heart). So if the point of the Christian faith is to keep our minds in a pure and loving and righteous nature, our perception of God SHOULD change. Humanity is constantly learning new things about itself, and values that are not seen as important to the essence of love should be dropped if they are harming or hindering others. Since the medieval times the Bible has been used to justify slavery. But then we realized as a culture that is was treating humans inhumanely. The "Christian" thing to do was to abolish slavery. Did God change? Or did our perception of him change?

A modern day example would be homosexuality. Christians have seen homosexuality as an abominable sin for centuries. But as a culture we are realizing that homosexuals do not appear to be so different than heterosexuals in psyche, both sexually and socially. If there is no crime involved, and it is not hurting anybody, why can't two men show their love for each other through marriage? With our new understanding of the nature of homosexuality comes new ways to show love to people who are marginalized by society.

This is a scary thought. Is stepping away from what was previously thought to be godly wise? I would say yes. Humanity is changing, and it needs different values to evolve in whichever way it does. I think the real duty of the Christian is to reflect upon his actions and change them to be as loving and as accepting and as personally holy as he possibly can be. Keeping the nature of Christ is much more important than keeping the tradition of the Bible. This is what Rollins calls "the fidelity of betrayal". In order to stay loyal to one's faith, one must betray it to maintain the nature of one's faith. But this is not easy. Someone actually got really upset with me for my Facebook posts. He is a pastor in Texas, and very conservative. It is sad for me to see that he is a dying breed (that is, fundamental Christians are dwindling and being perceived as out of touch). I love him, and want him to be successful in life, but I see why he must face his own Armageddon. The world he holds dear must come to an end so that the new world can come. He may have been a Superman in the past, but now he simply does not fit into the way the modern world works. But who knows what the future holds, and I have no doubt that I will one day face my own Armageddon. One day the world will reject my values, and I will be the crazy guy saying "the end is nigh." But the beautiful part is this: the world will go on so that love can flourish in ways that I cannot fathom.

World Naked Gardening Day 2013: Theological Nudity

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, then you will see the child of the living one and you will not be afraid."

-Gospel of Thomas 37.2-3

Sadly, this year I will not be celebrating World Naked Gardening Day, as I still do not have a garden nor my own place, but I still wish to honor the idea of healthy nudity. I know some of you are wondering what happened to Ignakedio Zaragoza from last year's World Naked Gardening Day / Cinco de Mayo. He is no longer with us. We had some good times, but sadly I neglected to water him, as I am easily distracted. And I'm not much of a plant guy.

So is that it? Am I just going to talk about my past plants and not about the lack of pants? Sorry, that was bad. But no! Since I cannot celebrate properly, I will instead talk about what nudity means to me theologically speaking. Nudity is not merely an inner rebellion to tell society "screw you, I will be naked if I want to be", it is more than that. Because that is what faith and theology do: they bring meaning and symbolism to things that may look mundane to outsiders. Nakedness is very much a part of my faith.

My favorite myth of the Bible is the Garden of Eden. Here we see God making things how they are meant to function. He makes a beautiful garden, where man lives among nature and is happy, until he feels lonely, to which God responds by making a woman out of his side. Both are naked and are not ashamed (Genesis 2.25). Of course, the Promethean serpent talks Eve into eating the fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil, and as a result Adam and Eve feel shame. God asks them how they know they are naked; how could they possibly have a concept of nakedness if they were never clothed? And then we see blame being shifted, a sin which springs up from the original sin, which as we know quickly keeps rolling out of control. Cain kills Abel, etc, etc. It seems like nakedness is no longer a valid option. Sure, shame may be a product of our own insecurities, not a sin, but who cares, we are in a fallen world where we are prone to such contrasts to Eden, right? WRONG. Jesus of Nazareth comes and teaches us to be clean from our sins. Unlike the previous notion of atoning for these sins, Jesus teaches that God loves us as a father, and we don't need to worry about being forgiven if that is what we sincerely want. But he goes further, he teaches us that God's Kingdom, the realm on earth in which man lives as God made us to, is RIGHT HERE. What? Is this real life? And he teaches that we don't need to worry about what we do as much as we worry about our minds, because that is where sin starts. Righteous action naturally follows the righteous mind. This is not to say that we shouldn't be concerned with our actions, but rather that radical transformation starts by transforming the mind, not trying to manipulate actions. We don't need to "cut off our hand" out of fear of it causing us to sin and being cast away from God's presence, because our hand can't cause us to sin in the first place! We can be around sinners and heretics and prostitutes and taboo people, because we are responsible for our sins, not society or anything else! Our minds are the only thing keeping us from God's love. Pretty neat. So now, if we are supposed to be striving for God's Kingdom, AKA Eden, we can be naked. We don't need to let shame inhibit us from the liberation that comes from living life as God has created us to live despite our sins.

So nudity to me is not just being naked, it's about freedom. It symbolizes the freedom from the senseless shame that sin can bring, things that humans have concocted in their own minds. It's a symbol for my life in a world which I am actively working to be unstained from. In fact, early church baptisms were performed totally in the buff, including women (The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, 3rd century CE)! Modesty was highly valued then, yet nothing but your body was permitted to be cleansed in the baptism. Baptism represents the purging of this-worldly corruption. It symbolizes rebirth. In this new life, this acceptance of Jesus' teachings, we can truly stand naked and unashamed before a world that is constantly trying to clothe us with shame. This nudity showed renewal.

Early Christian painting of baptism in the nude

So that's what nakedness is to me in the mythic realms of my mind. It is liberation from wallowing in sin; it is intimacy with God by living how he made me to live; it is a badge of my rebirth. I hope you all can get naked and go water something, and have a great World Naked Gardening Day!

Sophoclean Theodicy: Fate and the Role of the Gods

I haven't really focused much on religions other than Christianity, with the exception of the popularity of my reading review I did on the Yoruba religion, which I'm guessing is due to the fact that if you google image search "naked Yoruba religion" one of the pictures I used is the first option. But whatevs, I'm happy for the traffic. Anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to talk about the religion of the ancient Greeks! I recently wrote a paper on how Sophocles uses fate in his plays to inspire his audience of citizens in a religious way. While it is common knowledge that the Greeks are known for their tragedies, Sophocles uses these tragedies to explain theodicy. Theodicy, coming from the Greek words "god" and "justice", is a theological attempt to explain evil in the world, while still maintaining the notion that a god(s) is good. While Greek thought obviously varied on theology, I will show how Sophocles used two of his plays to address theodicy and inspire religiously. I will be looking at Oedipus the King (also known as Oedipus Rex) and Antigone. I will not be summarizing the plots for either of these two plays, as the plot of Greek plays are rather complex and rely on known myths, so click on their titles as previously mentioned for a summary.

The general Sophoclean formula used for both of these plays contain a Winner, a Loser, and a Seer. The Winner, being the character who values the will of the gods, ends the play in a positive light; either being blessed or by getting what they want. The Loser, being the character who values their own will over the gods' will, end up devastated and lose their will to continue normal life. The Seer is an oracle who holds three roles: a human nature, a listener to the gods, and a seer of fate. This character, while seemingly the one who could influence the play the most, is actually the character who seems to be stuck outside the realm of action.

Oedipus solving the Sphinx's riddle

In Oedipus the King, Oedipus is the Loser. He is shown to be arrogant, likening himself to Apollo, and disrespectful to the voice of the gods, the Seer Teiresias. He ends up finding out about his already-occurred fate: he killed his father and married mother. This results in his mother/wife killing herself, and Oedipus, in his despair, gouging out his own eyes and losing his kingship to Kreon.

Kreon, in turn, acts as the Winner. He is shown to be considerate of the will of the gods by Jocasta and the chorus of Theban elders. He won't even banish Oedipus from the city once it is learned that it is him who is polluting it and causing the plague until he double checks what to do from Apollo's oracle. While Kreon was falsely and irrationally accused by Oedipus early on in the play, it is Kreon who inherits Oedipus' kingship and power in the end.

Antigone mourning for Polyneikes

In Antigone, it is actually Kreon who is the Loser. It is important that to know that these two plays, while both written by Sophocles, were independent works, not continuations. Kreon is shown to be arrogant, being more concerned for the respect shown to his city than the rites the gods demand to be done to the dead. He, like Oedipus, accuses Teiresias of being corrupt when Teiresias tries to warn Kreon to bury the Polyneikes and free Antigone for his own sake. By the time Kreon reluctantly agrees to Teiresias' wise words, Antigone has already hanged herself, which results in Kreon's son, Haimon, who is in love with Antigone, to kill himself, which results in Kreon's wife to kill herself. Kreon is left devastated and wishes for death in the end.

Antigone, despite her death, is the Winner. Throughout the play Antigone is shown to be a stubborn, independent woman who would rather die than compromise. While she makes this choice in the end, she didn't need too: she had beaten Kreon in the battle of wills. She, a woman, bested Kreon, a king. It is this same woman who inspired the name of the play.

This may seem like a simple theodicy approach: if you don't live by the gods, the gods will punish you. But this isn't the case, and if it were it would probably not inspire many. The gods do not come down and curse anyone for their actions. Instead, it is fate that causes strife, revealed by the agent of the gods, the Seer. This separates the gods' will from fate itself. Yet whom does fate affect? Those whose lives do not honor the gods. It implies that that fate is in fact naturally and unavoidably punishing those who do not honor the gods. Which further implies that the gods' laws are for our own benefit, not theirs. This gives the inspiring message to those who saw it: it promoted the goodness of the gods' role in their lives and showed the consequences of those who did not honor that role. This mechanism shows that one should not honor the gods out of fear of punishment from mere divine bullies, but rather one is to honor the gods who are looking out for our best interest, knowing of a separate force outside of their control, Fate.

Why Do Kids Turn Away From the Church?

I see a lot of Christian friends on facebook (particularly the older ones) who show genuine concern that they are losing newer generations from the church. Kids will be raised going to church, and then mysteriously stop when they get older. I have seen some good articles and some bad ones, so I thought I would make my own explanation from my own experience. Here are the 2 biggest reasons I see why my generation is dropping their religious devotion:

The Outside World is Demonized
Growing up, many Christian families get caught up in the hype about the modern world being evil. While undoubtedly there is a lot of evil out there, Christians tend to get all "gung ho" to throw a witch hunt against issues that often times are ridiculous in nature. I was not allowed to read the Harry Potter books as a child because there were witches and wizards and witchcraft in it. However, I was encouraged to read the Chronicles of Narnia, which also contained witches, wizards, and witchcraft. Parents weren't looking into the content of those books, they were just looking at how it got accepted by the general Christian community. Now, of course, I love Harry Potter, and ironically so do my parents now. Christians are also generally told to avoid abbreviations like "X-mas", that our children are being brainwashed because they took prayer out of schools, and that the world is only a few thousand years old, science is wrong because it is straying from God. When children question these things, they generally find that these are all misinformed. "X-mas" has historically been an abbreviation used by Christians, X being the Greek letter "chi" (Χ or χ), which is the first letter in the Greek word for Christ, which is Χριστός. Children can still pray in schools, it just can't be led by teachers so that students don't feel religion being pushed on them by authority. And there is a lot of literature to suggest the world is billions of years old, not thousands, which is vastly supported by the academic community. Children who were raised in the church start to see that the secular world isn't all that bad, and actually seems to make sense.

Church Kids Are Not Knowledgeable
When kids leave the bubble of their families, they find all sorts of questions being thrown their way. Youth groups tend to focus more on feeling God than thinking about him. I stopped by a proxe station to participate in with my bible study last year. For those of you who don't know, a proxe station is a booth set up by Christians to talk to strangers about God. I love talking to strangers about their religious views, so I was excited. When I got there, a Christian girl who I didn't know was talking to a non-Christian who had really good questions. He asked her about the Trinity. How did she respond? She simply restated that she believed that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ would grant eternal salvation. He asked about the authorship of the New Testament. She responds with her relationship with God. Now I understand that the Trinity is a hard concept, but she actually had someone asking questions about her faith and she ignored them! I actually jumped in the conversation and engaged his questions and cut the girl off when she was ungracefully trying to avoid his questions. The guy left and shook my hand and thanked me for talking to him, asking what my views were. I said I was a Christian and he was surprised. As was the girl. This is a very common problem: Christians are willing to die defending their belief in "God's Word" but are generally uninterested in reading it or studying its background. They don't know how to deal with hard questions because, generally speaking, they are less interested in understanding their worldview than sharing it. For a Christian looking for answers once they leave home, this is a major turn off. It seems like Christians are more interested in feeling good than understanding reality.

So how could either of these things be avoided? As parents, look into what you are deeming "sinful" or "evil". Don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon if churches are eagerly boycotting something. If your child asks you a difficult question, answer honestly. If you don't know the answer, research it on your own. Group mentality is a scary thing, and when it's under a religious label, your children might be wary to put that label on themselves if they think it is ridiculous to the real world. And if you are currently a youngster or a Christian or anyone for that matter, ask questions! Look for answers! Understand your faith and be able to tell people why it is you are living differently than others. In the modern age it is one of the biggest insults to be labeled "ignorant". If you are wanting to share your faith, do so in a intelligent way. Or if you really feel uneasy about your lack of knowledge, do less evangelizing with your mouth and focus on sharing your faith with your actions, which I would argue is the most persuasive form of sharing the gospel.

Now of course there is a lot that cannot be avoided. Attitudes towards premarital sex, gay marriage, and general place of religion in everyday life have changed a lot throughout the years and the conservative church is naturally under attack. There's a good chance that kids will change their views. But what better way to defend your child against heterodoxy than through understanding and genuineness? While Christians tend to not want to "lean on their own understanding", a religion cannot continue to grow unless it is supported by rationalization. That doesn't mean than your own rationales should replace your faith, but it should instead support it to make it stronger.

Pub Theology: The Trinity

I recently went to the Wesley Foundation on Western Michigan University's campus to check them out. It was recommended by a coworker, and I thought it seemed pretty cool. The people were nice, and their mindset seems to be very liberal in comparison to the Intervarsity chapter I have been attending, which was admittedly refreshing. One of the programs they offer during the week is called "Pub Theology", which is a bunch of students 21 or older who go to a local bar (Waldo's) and discuss certain theological ideas. I thought I would bring some of that discussion on my blog. This week:

Topic: The Holy Trinity

Beer: Bell's Sparkling Ale

First of all, the beer was good. I get teased by my friends for my supposedly feminine drink selection, so when I heard they had a "sparkling" beer how could I not get it? It actually wasn't carbonated, but it was a nice sweeter beer.

Regardless, the topic of discussion was the Holy Trinity. What is the Trinity? The Trinity is the common Christian term for the three representations of God in general Christian doctrine: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity has been treated differently by various forms of Christians. For instance, many Evangelical churches have used the water comparison to demonstrate the essence of the Trinity: while drinking water, ice, and steam are all water, they are still different. This, however, is a heresy to the Catholic church known as Sabellianism.

What's wrong with this analogy? The problem is the notion of the nature of the Trinity. Sabellianism falls into a branch of heresy called Monarchianism, emphasizing the existence of one god and denying the independent existence of Jesus (or the logos). In other words, the water metaphor implies that each form of water is a "mode" of God, as oppose to them all having distinct existences. It is believed Jesus was not simply a form of God for a small time on Earth, but was actually existing and functioning with God from the beginning as it states in John 1.1-3. Therefore the Trinity is made up of three independent pieces that make up one omnipotent, all-powerful God. Ice can become water or steam, but the Father cannot become Jesus or the Holy Spirit. They are distinct.

So how does this make sense? How can three equal 1? Great question. And Christians have been asking this for a long time. Does this make Christians polytheists? Generally speaking, no. Part of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is that these three persons equal one God. While this might not make a lot of sense to many of us, it is part of that piece of doctrine.

A great question posed by the leader of the study was: why was this doctrine important? The big reason that this piece of doctrine is required is to explain how Jesus is God AND that he interacts with God, yet to still call Christians monotheists. Christianity stemmed from Judaism and Judaic scripture, therefore monotheism was clearly important to maintain. However, Jesus was used to parallel Caesar, who also claimed divinity. The doctrine of the Trinity helped keep both of these ideas alive within Christianity.

While it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of logical sense, we must remember that if we are to believe in a concept like God, his nature and mechanics won't make a whole lot of sense to us. I've talked to Christians today who reject Jesus' divine status, Christians who believe in all three parts of the Trinity still functioning today, Christians who believe that all three parts of the Trinity are physical beings who were once born and work together (Mormonism), and many evangelicals who fully support Sabellianism. What we think about the Trinity reflects on what we value, whether that be traditional thought, cultural acceptances, personal experiences, or modern thought. While people will disagree on the subject, it is a great subject to talk about over a beer.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 4D: My View of Mormonism

How do you view the LDS Church? 

I use Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (also known as Mormonism) references often in discussions. This is because I have spent a lot of time debating with Elders who walk around my campus. I think their church has its pros and cons. I don’t like the scripture its preserves, as I have found it to have no historical backing. While I find its origins less than genuine, I am encouraged by their organization and commitment to reaching out to others. Of the multiple Elders I have spoken with, I have not met one who was overly pushy or judgmental. They can be perceived that way due to their constant presence in public, as they are eager to share their faith. And while I am not a fan of the Book of Mormon, they also use the King James Bible, and share a lot in common with typical evangelical churches today. Of course there are some drastic differences too. So in short, I see them as confused brothers and sisters in Christ, putting too much emphasis on "knowing" their faith is all true (much how I see Evangelicals). They can produce a wonderful “fruit” with their actions, but not the soundest of doctrine. But as a shameless plug, I will say that I would encourage anyone who is even remotely interested to talk to Mormon elders and sisters. All the ones I have met have been awesome, and they have all been very kind and slow to judge in discussion of differing faiths.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 4C: My Selection of Scripture

How can you believe in some parts of the Bible and not others? 

This is actually a rather silly question. Do you believe Abraham was a righteous man and father of the Hebrews? The typical answer is yes. Do you believe that Muhammad is the last prophet of God? The typical answer is no. Right there the typical Christian just believed certain parts of the Qur’an and not others. The only difference is that they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. If I do not believe this, then this question is meaningless. This would be a good question for those who believe the Bible is the inspired literal Word of God, but who choose to believe parts in it are wrong.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 4B: My Skepticism

How do you know when to draw the line with your skepticism? 

This is a popular response. Most wonder how I differentiate what is important belief and what is not. According to scripture, faith in Jesus is essential to salvation. So how do I make sure I don’t start doubting any of the required beliefs to get into heaven? This is a line I am uncomfortable drawing for anyone else but myself. How can I tell you your convictions? I can tell you my own heart draws the line for me, and I will admit I have crossed my own lines in my life and have admitted error, it is easy to use skepticism to bend the Bible into any form you want. But I can tell you that my own conviction is to pursue religious truths, because that is how I feel close to God. If you feel like you are betraying God by questioning too much, then don’t. While I would highly encourage you to reflect what exactly God means to you, the last thing I am trying to inspire is people to abandon their convictions. And it should be stated that skepticism should never be used as a simple justification to do what you want to do. If one is going to be critical of scripture, one must study both the content and context of the Bible, and attempt to view them objectively to see what the authors are really trying to say instead of what one wants them to say. And of course, it is always possible to disagree with what scripture says, too. But then we must ask ourselves "why?" Why do you disagree? Is it because science or scholarly work points to something different? Or is it because the rule in question in a modern context doesn't quite fit Jesus' message of love? I find either of these two reasons to be generally valid, but that is in accordance to my own convictions.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 4A: My Knowledge

Part 4 is a few questions asked frequently in response to my beliefs about the Bible.

What makes you think you are smarter than the men who wrote the Bible?
Define “smart.” Do I think I am more intellectual than these men? I have no idea, I have not met them. I can say through my reading I highly doubt I was as intelligent as Paul. While I do not share all of his beliefs, he is someone I admire. But that does not make his writings divinely inspired. I think I have more knowledge than these men. Do you think the author of Genesis comprehended the earth being spherical? Do you think he understood that the sun and moon do not govern the day and night, but rather the earth's rotation around the sun determines such things?¹⁷ I think that’s highly unlikely. And yet there are those who are determined to believe that the author of Genesis must have had a better understanding of the earth’s mechanics than modern scientists (or at least were inspired to write down things regarding advanced knowledge that they themselves didn't understand). Just because I challenge what those men wrote, does not mean I’m smarter than them. Jesus challenged the scriptures as well, including the Torah itself.¹⁸ While I certainly believe Jesus was smarter than me, I take it as my responsibility to learn from his methods and value what he valued. As long as one strives to keep an open mind and an eagerness to embrace correction, I don’t think interpreting scripture for oneself is corrupting if you take the scriptures seriously. You do not need to be smarter than the person you are questioning. It’s actually better to not be, that way you will learn. Even the wisest of human minds are not complete with knowledge, it’s an ongoing experience.

17. The sun, moon, and earth according to Genesis
If we look at the first creation account in Genesis 1, we see the level of knowledge available to the author(s). Genesis 1.14-20:

“And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.”

What should be noted immediately is the logical inconsistency of the creation. As is commonly known, the first words spoken by God in the Bible are “Let there be light,” in Genesis 1.3. This takes place on the first day. Yet in the above passage, the fourth day, God creates the sun. While it is generally assumed that God can do all things, it seems more likely that the author(s) of this passage simply did not understand that we get our light from the sun. Also the “great lights,” i.e. the sun (the greater light) and the moon (the lesser light), are described as “ruling” the day and night in the sky dome. This description depicts an apparent functional view of the sun, moon, and earth, but it has little scientific substance. We know the sun and the earth’s orbit around it are what determine day and night. We know that the “lesser light” (or moon) is really not a light, but a reflector of the light produced by the sun. We know that there is no sky dome above us to place either of these two things in.

Another thing to note is that while this may be scientific nonsense, it has theological value. Ancient religions generally worshipped the sun, moon, and stars, and here they are not even named. Their function is explicitly given as time keepers, nothing more, reflecting the theological idea that God is more than a physical object, even one as great and mysterious as the sun. Instead, he is the creator of all physical objects. 

18. The scriptures challenged by Jesus
While Jesus certainly knew his scriptures, he challenged them, too. In Mark, Jesus is asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Mark 10.2-9:

Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

This is a response to Deuteronomy 24.1-4:

Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife. Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the LORD, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a possession.

While there is no indication that Moses (or Yahweh depending on how you choose to look at it) promoted the practice of divorce, clearly it was not seen as unacceptable. There is no law prohibiting divorce or even looking down upon the practice. However, Jesus amends this to indicate that not only is a man not to remarry his ex-wife after she has been with another man, but no one is to get a divorce (with perhaps an exception to infidelity). Thus Jesus did not see scripture as pure. If it were indeed the perfect Word of God, how could Jesus correct it, or at least show it to be lacking? While it can be argued that it was what God needed to tell the Israelites at that specific time, that train of thought raises this question: how can we know that the content of the Bible is relevant today? 

My Analysis of the Bible Part 3: My Role in the Church

While it would admittedly be difficult to get a pastoral job, I have nothing against the church. In fact, I often enjoy church services and other activities with fellow Christians. While I believe that the church can perpetuate unrealistic beliefs, this is generally not its primary function. And I don’t have all the answers, so I am not going to jump on the bandwagon of some of those vocal atheists that are anti-religion and claim that the church is spreading lies. They are spreading unreasonable methods of discovering truth, perhaps, but not necessarily lies. I am also, therefore, not one to be immediately jumping to attack others’ religions. This does not make me a Universalist, because I do believe in a God whose nature I have understood through Christian texts and the Hebrew Bible. It is not the Buddha, Confucius, or Muhammad that I am placing as “Lord” over my lifestyle, but Jesus. I believe in truth, but some truths are more important than other truths. For example, is it true that Christ was born of a virgin? This is not an opinion, it either happened or it didn't. But does it really matter? Does believing or doubting this impact my life? No. Do I have a belief about Jesus’ conception? Absolutely, but why does that matter? Now let me ask this: is it true that God wishes for us to help those in need? This is absolutely important for those who believe in a God and want to serve him, or even merely want to live as they were designed to. For if this indeed is God’s will, we are to follow it. This directly impacts our lives, and therefore this is a more important truth, even if we cannot find solid facts to prove it.

It is for this reason that doctrine does not concern me too much. It is through religious doctrine that the world sees ultimate truths, important truths. Are some spreading lies? Yes, if one is to believe in an idea like truth actually existing some religions have to be perpetuating lies. But this is only occuring if we place emphasis that our understanding of our faith is inerrant. And who has the authority to put their foot down and explain who is right? That’s the real problem. While if you are a Christian, you will undoubtedly answer “Jesus,” but then you need to inspect your sources, as Jesus isn't currently walking the earth. So then you can put faith in those Jesus is said to have trusted, his disciples and apostles, ignoring Judas Iscariot, perhaps. But of course, they aren't walking around either. So the records attributed to these men must be authoritative, and thus we get the “Word of God.” While a man cannot walk the earth forever, a text can be preserved. While this is a convenient authority, it comes from a place far beyond faith in Jesus alone or following in his footsteps. This attitude has also preserved ancient tradition and texts, which is certainly positive, although I find it a bit naïve to seriously think it preserves everything perfectly.

This is part of the function of the church, to preserve tradition and doctrine. It is through the passed down teachings and writings of men that we hold records of the leading figure of our religion, and therefore preserving these must be important. However, that is only one function of the church. Another is in the business of helping others and changing lives. This is, in my opinion, the most important aspect of the church. This is why I join in church activities. It’s not to worship God with others, I do that in my everyday life through my actions (or at least I do my best to). It’s to help create a community that values helping those in need, and an environment that encourages people to seek help in attempting to follow Jesus and live righteously. Songs and communion are fine, but not nearly as important to me as the face time your make with others, or the opportunity to be there if someone wants to open up or is looking for help or guidance. I actually consider social events more important than church services, as there is generally more conversation and face time with others. That’s where I think the biggest impacts can be made by the church (i.e. Christians). And of course, let us not forget another aspect that some churches forget: the church should also be willing to help those in physical need as well as emotional (or what some might call “spiritual”) need.

This might leave you curious as to why I would bother writing all this out, or having these discussions with others. Is my search for truth getting in the way of others coming to Christ? I don’t think so, because I am not alone. People like me are generally repelled from church groups because they feel they cannot ask questions and seek for realistic answers AND be a Christian or part of a church. I have literally been criticized for supposing the earth was not created in a literal 7 days as being a burden to those with questions seeking distinct answers. I think that it is just as important to incorporate modern knowledge into religion as it is to incorporate ancient wisdom. If we only rely on modern science and philosophy, we are missing the very roots of our religion, and if we only rely on traditional thought, how are we going to find a place in a modern world? Seeking truth is productive just like preserving tradition. While both camps bump heads fairly often, it’s important to step back and remember that we, as Christians, share a primary purpose: to be a saving force to mankind. Ultimately, that is why a progressive like me supports churches as well as traditional Christians. We are on the same side. While the conservative and liberal Christians have different roles, we are working towards the same goal, and ultimately we need each other if we are to accurately represent Christ as well as enable the modern world to accept him.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2G: Other

You have some other reason of which I am not aware

Possibly you have some other reasoning that I did not think to mention here. While these responses have been inspired by real conversations, it would be arrogant to think that there is no other possible reason to believe the Bible to be God’s Word.

Many people use a combination of these reasons as justification for their belief. Religious issues are generally complex in nature, and they are personally connected to how we view our purpose in the world so it's no wonder we use subjective reasoning to defend our beliefs. However, if we are to look to pursue truth, we must be able to perceive views that are not our own and acknowledge and/or limit our subjective reasons. We must not be egocentric in our discourse with others if we want that discourse to mean anything to them.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2F: The Holy Spirit

You feel the Holy Spirit is telling you the Bible is God’s Word 

You feel in your heart that the Holy Spirit is confirming that the Bible is God’s Word and it can be trusted despite reasons for thinking differently. It just feels right.

That’s nice. I feel like my heart is telling me to seek truth within the Bible and to question it and put it to the test, which resulted in this essay. Where does that leave us? To quote Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5.19-22: "Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But exam everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." So, according to the "Word of God," if we are to test the Spirit, and we use the Spirit as a reason to give the Bible authority, then we must test the Bible's authority. This is what I am doing... and I think it falls short of the title "Word of God" for reasons stated in Part 1. At any rate, if one is to take this verse seriously, simply saying one believes the Bible to be the Word of God because one feels the Spirit giving it credit is inappropriate to the very nature of the supposed "Word of God," unless there is some testing to back it up.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2E: Prophecy

You believe the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible testify to its authority as a whole

The Bible has many prophetic books, and many of the prophecies have occurred. This speaks to the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Bible as a whole.

There are many prophecies in the Bible, some of which have come true. For instance, in Mark (believed to be written prior to 70 CE) Jesus mentions the Temple being destroyed, and it is a historical fact that the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.¹² That is pretty cool! However, if you look at other prophecies with the openness that the Bible may not have been written when it was thought to have been traditionally, some are questionably genuine. Also, you are missing a step of rationale: if the prophecies are true, how does that justify an entire collection of writings as being the “Word of God?” The prophets do not mention which books ought to be included, and given Matthew’s reference to a prophetic work that is not mentioned in the Old Testament it seems by that logic there is some divine inspiration outside the Bible.¹³ While this is certainly a fun topic to look into, it does little for an argument that the Bible is 100% God’s Word, although it could perhaps imply that God’s Word can come in written form.

To be fair, this is not something I have studied extensively, although I hear plenty about the biblical prophecies every family get-together since interpreting the Bible’s coded prophecies has become a fascinating hobby for my aunt and grandpa. But prophecy is a difficult thing to test. For instance, we see a prophetic messianic poem in Micah 5 describing the emergence of one coming out of Bethlehem to rule Israel.¹⁴ This is popularly interpreted by Christians as a reference to Jesus, who was reported to be born in Bethlehem in both Matthew and Luke. This prophecy seems straightforward: it predicted a ruler of ancient origins coming out of Bethlehem; Jesus of Nazareth seems to fit this in a spiritual sense. However, a Jew will likely not interpret it as such. Jews were expecting a messiah of a different nature, one that would restore the nation of Israel and liberate its people. We read other “prophecies” such as Psalm 2 where the begotten son of God is predicted to rule the other nations with force.¹⁵ Jesus did no such thing, but was actually of a peaceful nature. He did not liberate the Jews in a political sense. He physically destroyed no nations. Does this mean the prophecy was wrong? The typical Christian response is “no, this just has not happened yet,” referring to Jesus’ Second Coming. It has been about 2000 years after Jesus’ time, and he has still not returned. I am not suggesting Jesus will not return, but am demonstrating how unfalsifiable prophecies are. In other words, it cannot be proven wrong. If an event is prophesied to occur, it will either occur or not occur. To people believing in a prophecy, it literally cannot be wrong. Because if it does occur, it must be right; but if it does not occur that means it will happen later. There is absolutely no way to test accuracy without a distinct time frame, which, to go back to our biblical example, even Jesus did not know when the Second Coming will be.¹⁶ Therefore while there are some seemingly fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, very few of them could have been shown to be false, and therefore cannot be taken as objective evidence to support accuracy of the Bible.

12. The destroyed Temple prophesy
Many scholars agree that Mark was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE (although it also important to note that many do not). The rationale behind this hypothesis is the description of the temple’s destruction in Mark is vague compared with Matthew and Luke. In Mark 13, Jesus is describing the future for his followers. In it he describes how they will be beaten in synagogues and be tried by kings and a chaotic state where families will be in conflict with one another and how the inhabitants of Judah will flee to the mountains. Surely there is implied conflict upon the region, but nothing hinting at Jerusalem being sacked or the Temple’s destruction. Jesus, however, does make a claim about the temple before he describes the coming times of distress. Mark 13.1-2:

“As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!’ Then Jesus asked him, ‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’”

This is the only specific reference to the destruction of the Temple. This would very likely be referenced more specifically given its importance to the Jewish people. In Matthew, we see Jesus giving a parable about a king whose son is to be married. The king sends slaves out to seek out the invited guests. The guests, however, have different ideas and did not take the invitation seriously, some even angry and killing the slaves. The king is therefore full of wrath, described by Matthew 22.7:

“The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.”

The king then sends his slaves out to anyone they can find to come to the banquet. This parable is a clear allusion to Christ’s movement within Judaism. The Jews, or the originally invited guests, refuse to accept God’s son, symbolized by the king’s son’s wedding. Therefore, in the parable, their city was destroyed. This seems to be a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, interpreted in this parable as God’s wrath for rejecting his son, Jesus. In Luke there is another specific reference to Jerusalem’s destruction. When Jesus approaches Jerusalem, he weeps for its fate in Luke 19.41-44:

“As he came near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, ‘If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Indeed, the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you, and hem you in on every side. They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another; because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.’”

While the detailed accounts of Matthew and Luke are suspected to be due to the authors’ knowledge of Jerusalem’s destruction (in other words, since they were both written after 70 CE), Mark’s account of Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction probably occurred before the historical events. While this does not prove that this is divinely inspired prophecy, it is possible.

13. The prophet outside the Bible
In Matthew the author uses quotations from the Hebrew Bible to demonstrate Jesus is the messiah which the Jews had been waiting on. There is one such quotation that is accredited to the prophets that is not found in the Hebrew Bible. Matthew 2.23:

“There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’”

This could mean that there was an oral tradition or an unknown text to which this is referring to. Since the other quotations in Matthew are from the prophetic texts of the Jewish Bible, an oral tradition seems unlikely. This calls into question Matthew sources, possibly implying an unknown divinely inspired text. Other scholars have searched for context, believing that Matthew is paraphrasing a prophetic work that the modern reader would not understand.

14. The messianic prophecy of Micah
Micah, a younger contemporary of Isaiah, was supposed to have lived in “the days of Kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah” (an excerpt from Micah 1.1). These kings ruled Judah from 759-687 BCE. This is critical in understanding the context of Micah, since in 722 BCE the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) was conquered by the Assyrians. This emphasizes the need for a king of Israel to rise against its surround enemies. Micah 5.2-5 is a short poem alluding to such a king:

“But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth from me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall live secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth; and he shall be the one of peace.”

Ephrathah is the name of a Judahite region, emphasizing it is the Judean Bethlehem that will produce the future king (as opposed to the Bethlehem in the north, which is located in the future region of Galilee). This is important, as it symbolizes a connection to King David, whose birthplace was also the Bethlehem of Judah. David being long dead, “origin of old” is believed to be placing this coming king in the line of David. This is why in the Gospels Jesus is referred to as the “Son of David” at times (I will also note that while this flows with Christian interpretation of the prophetic works, some Christians have believed “origin of old” to refer to Jesus being the literal Son of God). It is this reason that Matthew and Luke mention Jesus’ Bethlehem birth; it is not a mere trivial detail.

15. The messianic “prophecy” of Psalms 2
I suppose I should first explain my skeptical quotation marks. While there are many works that claim to be prophetic in the Bible, this is not one of them. Psalms 2 is about the relation of God to his king of Israel. It seems almost certain that this is about Israel’s king’s rule in the context with his close relationship with God. The problem lies in Psalm 2.7-9:

“I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Here the Psalmist is writing about an earthly king. Surely this is not about Jesus, as the Psalmist reports being named the son himself. In fact, the title “son of God” was an old title for a Jewish king. However, this came to be associated with the coming messiah, and therefore with Jesus by Christians. Jesus never broke the nations with a rod of iron, or used any means of violence. His messianic identity proved to be of a spiritual rather than physical sense. This is why so many Jews rejected Jesus: he does not fit the bill as one who restored Israel to its former Davidic glory. The idea of a Second Coming explains this seemingly prophetic error. In other words, it is believed Jesus will return as a militant king in the end of days. While this very well may be true, it cannot be tested nor shown false, since any absence of such events in history merely suggests to the believer that it has not occurred yet. Prophetic interpretation is an entertaining and often inspirational hobby for Christians, but it does little to show evidence when the authenticity of “God’s Word” as a whole is being questioned.

16. The timing of the Second Coming
In Mark 13 Jesus is describing his Second Coming and the end of days. In regards to a timeframe, Jesus says in Mark 13.32-33:

“’But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come.’”

The Matthew counterpart is in chapter 24 verse 32 (for Mark’s influence on Matthew, see note 1):

“But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Since no one knows when Jesus will return, it is impossible to prove this prophetic claim false. That does not mean it is false, but it does mean there is no way to know if it is or is not a genuine prophecy; it is a matter of faith rather than reason.