Art Project: Naked People of the World

I made this for my art class. The assignment was to mimic a painter from the 1900s in America, so I chose to imitate Jackson Polluck's style. Of course, the assignment also called for me to create my own meaning behind Polluck's method of painting. So I painted some general continent shapes and spattered flesh colored paint on top of it, symbolizing the naturalness of the human body. It kind of sucks in some ways, I should have watered down the paint some more to make better spatter patterns. And the brown blends in with the green a little too much. So you know, this was not supposed to be a racial commentary.

Update 1.11.13

I have finished with my essay on the Bible, and am now back in school and working. I will still blog when I have time. I am also taking a class this semester on human sexuality, and so I think that my next religious project may be concerning homosexuality. But I also just about finished a book on early Judaism which has gotten me pretty excited, so we'll see what happens. And I have an art project I did at the end of last semester for class, but just need to find my camera to upload it.

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.