"Religion poisons everything"

On the blog-o-sphere, I have noticed a good many posts that have responded to Christopher Hitchen's God is not great: How religion poisons everything. I have not read the book itself, though I have read a few reviews about it, so while I have a good idea at the basic premises, I can not directly respond to the charges made by Hitchens. However, my intent isn't to disagree with the basic premise, but I am actually in agreement, up to a certain point. If I were to write a book about the topic I would write "How most religion poisons everything."

True religion I would say it pure and poisons nothing but purifies the world and makes it a better place. However, much of religion, even religion that professes to be Christian, is actually an exercise in self-justification and exorcising our own guilt without personal responsibility. I think the greatest example of this is a commpon Protestant idea that some have; that we are justified WITHOUT having works, but with only an intellectual belief in the existence God and the role of the Son (and not a trust in God and Jesus). As such, this form of religion serves only as a tool to ease ones own conscience. This type of religion fosters slothfulness and carelessness. Some of the most hateful people I have met are conservative Christians in the middle of the Bible Belt, because the religion is most self-serving. There is more talk about forgiveness of ones own sins than us forgiving the sins of others. There is a greater focus on what we receive instead of what we should give. It paradoxically calls man a great sinner but yet bestows on him a status of blessedness, and this fosters with many people little desire to change their ways.

True religion, on the other hand, does not focus on oneself and what one procures, but it focuses on what we should give. Instead of talking about receiving grace, it talks about trying to be a means of God's grace. We recognize what blessings we receive, but only so far that it enables us to better serve God and our neighbors. True religion rids us of rabid individualism (like that here in America) and creates a sense of community. The ego becomes expanded to include all humanity, because we should love our neighbors just like they were a part of us.

Mere religion does make person a less moral person because the personal responsibility is lost, or made secondary. True religion makes personal responsibility our central goal, and our blessings are secondary.

True religion also does not exist to serve itself and its hierarchy. It does not exist to serve the institution of religion. When religion becomes about the institution itself, it ceases to fulfill its purpose and becomes merely internal and exclusive community (though there is to be some internal and exclusiveness in the Church).

True religion requires three things in order to be true religion. It calls for a rejection of oneself (or in other words, true humility), it make personal responsibility to God and our neighbors our primary focus instead of God's blessings to us, and finally it exists not to merely serve its hierarchy and institution. If any of those three parts are lacking, religion loses its saltiness.

And the problem is, people are much more prone to seek self-centered religion, as it doesn't require for a true humility. True humility is not merely an admittance of sinfulness, but an admittance one MUST change. To say I am a sinner, but I am accepted by God is not true humility, but it is a pride cloaked in humility. But most people do not want to accept true humility, a true rejection of oneself. Jesus spoke of this when he said that many are invited but few are chosen. Most religious people do not want to put on the proper wedding clothing of true humility. And without humility, there is no room for grace to transform us, because God is opposed to the proud, and He gives grace to the humble. True humility is scary to many, because it leaves no room at all for disobedience and faithlessness to God.

In the religious landscape today and throughout a lot of history, I will agree that much religion poisons everything. But to those who truly have received grace, they do more to better the world than the rest of humanity does itself. A few faithful, praying men can change the world greater than a plethora of programs and initiatives, both from the government and from the general populace. And I would say that the few faithful have made this world a better place, though we fail to see it and many even try to explain it away. So on the net, I would say religion does more good than bad, but many reject or explain away the good and only see the bad in order to reject religion as good (also known as confirmation bias). But if it was not for the bad of mere religion that lacks the true nature of it, the world would be even better. But then, that hits at the sinfulness of humanity and how few will really enter God's grace.

What is Courage?

While reading Paul Tillich's "The Courage to Be" (not through it all yet) I have been inspired to think what the meaning of courage is. This is not meant to be a response to Tillich's book at all though, but only a musing of mine.

What is Courage?

Courage is to face the situations of the world in which the outcome is unsure and one could very well face negative results as a result of participation. Courage can not be had in a situation where we know for certain the result will lead to a negative outcome for oneself. This might be termed a sacrifice if we act knowing we will suffer and a form of confidence, but this is not courage itself. Courage is to walk into the fog, not knowing whether there is a cliff to fall off or not. To walk off a cliff unobscured by fog and knowing that it is there is not a courage to risk ones life because at that point ones life is not a concern anymore. There is no fear for the consequence of one's own death (though it might be courage to face what comes after).

Courage is necessary to reach for an ideal for something better, even if it means the possibility of worse for our own well-being, it is even inspired by that ideal. But the greatest amount of courage is formed when we believe the outcome will turn out good, even if we should suffer. But this trust can not be had in worldly thoughts, because the world and the universe itself appears cold and callous and is apathetic to our plights of suffering. Such a faith can only be had in a personal Being over creation, one whom can control the world and the universe and loves. With faith in such a Being, God, comes greatest pinnacle of courage, when it is a trust in God for the good to be good and the bad to be turned into good.

But then as our trust in God to bring about the ultimate good grows so as to be a certainty in God's promises and not a mere bet, courage ceases to be courage as we know it. It becomes paradoxically both courage and not courage. It isn't courage because one knows the result will be good in the end, but yet it is courage in knowing that bad may be a temporary result. And so, this courage is the greatest courage of all. While it is yet courage, it is unmovable because it does not accept pain and suffering as the real or ultimate consequence but only an obstacle in the way of facing the greatest good. It both accepts the possibility of a negative outcome and disregards it entirely.

This is why we must live by faith (or rather trust) and not by sight. Living by sight, there is so much uncertainty. We can only see so much and can not see all that is being done. It is impossible for us to get rid of uncertainty. It requires such a great amount of personal courage that is based upon ones own self to act. But to trust God does not require a great personal courage, but only a simple courage to face the "obstacles" that come along with a certainty that all will be well.

But this is not to say that courage is minor to the Christian. It takes a major role in the faith. It takes courage to trust in an unseen God whose actions we do not directly see. It is to step into the fog of not knowing for certain that there is a God, with the result that if there is no God at all, what we do is for naught. In addition, we may suffer more so than we would have if we had not trusted in God. So it does take courage to trust God. As God vindicates our trust in Him, we no longer need a simple courage to trust God as we currently do, but our trust becomes closer and closer to certainty in our minds. In turn, this trust in God that turns to certainty begets a greater, more stable courage (if indeed it can be called merely courage) that is unmoved.

The Word of God

Is the "Word of God" (not referring to pre-incarnate Jesus) every word contained in the Bible, or is it the actual words attributed to God, such as in the prophets or in the Gospels (like from Jesus and the few times coming from the Father)? This is not to question the theological and spiritual importance of all the Bible by any means, but instead an investigation for a phrase that we have come to associate with the Bible in its entirety.

In other news, I received a hit to this blog for "God hates evildoers" in a Google search. If I don't watch out, I might be getting Fred Phelps to come by and give my blog an endorsement....

Mystifying the New Testament

While Judaism without the appearance of Christ was a religion in mystery, we have in theology gone backwards in some areas and produced more mysteries where they were none, such as Christ's imputed righteousness or the act of redemption of all of humanity. While certainly, there are some more mysteries brought upon by revelation (such as the nature of the Trinity), we should not continue to mystify a religion only to bring up a new revelation to address the mystery that is no where itself mentioned specifically.

God's love

Over at Chrisendom, Chris Tilling has had an interesting series of posts on Universalism which I have been engaged in (keep in mind, Chris is not a Universalist but plays the devil's advocate, for the most part). This brings to remembrance the many discussions I have had regarding Universalism (or more specifically, Universal Redemption).

There are many basic fundamental misattributions I find that Universalists ascribe to the teachings of the New Testament. I could go in detail with them, but I will address one that is actually an idea that is prevalent throughout Christianity today (even in circles that are not Universalist), and that is the nature of God's love.

The typical assumption that has been made within much of Christian teaching is the idea that God loves every individual. The conclusion is that since God loves everyone, He will redeem everyone. This stands in contrast with the more Calvinistic view that God loves only the elect. I find both of these views to be wrong.

Secondly, another assumption is made that God loves everyone equally, and that what we do has no effect on how much God loves us whatsoever. But then the opposite of this would be that God's love is purely based only on our obedience. Again, I find both of these views to be wrong.

Lets look into the first statement. We are all familiar with John 3:16, which starts out as "For God so loved the world..." The assumption that is made from reading this is that "world" stands for every single individual residing within the world. From this, many conclude that God loves each and every single individual. However, the Old Testament testifies against this idea. For instance, Psalms 5:5 states that God hates evildoers. Thus, many people will draw the meaning of "world" to refer to the elect, so as to get around this contradiction that "world" equals every individual. This ignores the fact that "world" (kosmos in the Greek) that clearly does not refer to the elect, as John 3:19 indicates the reject of the light that came into the world by men. Both of these ideas are wrong IMO.

What is being said instead is that God loves the world corporately, one might say. God loves the people of the world, though this is not to say that this is without exception whatsoever. The focus is that God loves not a select group, but both the righteous and unrighteous, and because of that love, He sent His Son, who is to be the source of salvation by being a teacher, an example, and a sacrifice. But does this preclude God's hatred of specific individuals? I would say not, and in saying that, John 3:16 is speaking generally and not concerned about the few exceptions there may be if there are some (because that is not the point that is trying to be brought up).

The idea is clearly from the Old Testament that God have a hatred towards some, such as in Psalms 5:5, 11:5, and Malachi 1:2-3. Now the nature of this hatred is not specifically clear, but that it does include wrath and precludes God being pleased with the person and wanting to fellowship with them as they are right there. In saying all this though, it is not as if God does not desire the salvation of even those he hates. Many people hate certain people (wrongly), but if that person would change how they were, they would be willingly accepted and no longer hated. Likewise, God does not desire the death of anyone (Ezekiel 18:32), so if those who he hates would repent, God would no longer be angry with them.

And secondly, God's hatred does not preclude kindness towards those He hates, as Matthew 5:45 testifies. God has some love, some concern for even the unrighteous, that He would show them kindness, although this kindness is that they might repent and turn (the gist of the meaning of John 3:16-21 and Romans 2:4).

Now does Psalms 5:5 and 11:5 mean God hate any person who sins? No. Does it mean that God hates any person who is not a Christian? If one does not believe in total depravity, no. That statements made in Psalms 5:5 and 11:5 are not of those who are merely unrighteous, but those who are of the most diabolical nature, such as a Hitler or a Hussein (though being in power and terrorizing large quantities is not a prerequisite). It is a person who has no regard for the laws of God and spurns every kindness provided to them by God (Incidentally, Clement of Rome speaks of condemnation coming as a result of spurning God's kindness in the 21st chapter of 1 Clement).

The basic point in all this is to say that, God does indeed hate. He is not the picture of this God that some people have of a being whose feelings for people are not affected by their disobedience or obedience. God's love for people is in part based upon our obedience to Him. The idea that obedience allows us to be loved is mentioned in John 15:10. So in part, God's love is founded upon doing as He says. However, it would be wrong to say that God's love is solely based upon obedience. Romans 5:8 says that God loved the sinner.

Now all of this may be confusing, so I will sum it up in a few points.
1) "Love" and "hate" does not mean the same thing in every instance it is used in the Bible. They may have somewhat different (though related) meanings in different places.
2) God does have negative feeling (hate) towards those who are the most disobedient, and maybe even some for those who are disobedient though not diabolical, though a bit less.
3) God does have some positive regard (love) for humanity even though they are disobedient, as they are His own creation.
4) God has greater positive regard (greater love) for those who are obedient to what God commands of them.

A brief non-theological statement

I am making this due to the great amount of political statements I see on some theology and Christian websites.

When you starting judging political leaders as liars, crooks, etc. etc without actually seeing the situation first hand yourself and only briefly looking into the facts (reading a few news article does not entail a great education) you are being judgmental and it is not Christ-like. If you are a Christian, quit calling politicians liars, criminals, murderers, etc., etc. You don't know the situation at all.

Disagree with policies by all means, but the vitrol, if not hate, of many bloggers is anti-Christian and it disqualifies us of any grace that God might give us. God is merciful to those who are merciful, and He does not show mercy to those who lack it for others.

So quit judging.

And yes, I am talking about the hate directed towards Bush or Cheney in American politics (but would feel the same if it was directed towards Democrats). I don't agree with a lot of their policies by any means, but I can't call them the names I have seen many call them because I quite frankly don't have all the facts and when I don't, I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Politics is not an excuse to judge people.

The book of Hebrews and Clement of Rome?

In my recent study of the First Epistle to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome for my Christian and Jewish literature blog (which has still yet to get off the ground really), I began to notice some similarities between the styles of the author of Hebrews and Clement's letter. Maybe they are juss coinicidences, perhaps a result of sharing similar backgrounds (the author of Hebrews seems to have been from Italy, like Clement, as Hebrews 13:24 indicates), or a variety of other possible explanations.

I have yet to really focus in on the idea though, so I haven't fully collected my thoughts on it. However in brief research online that I have done, it apparently has been suggested in the past that Clement authored Hebrews.

Here are a few things I noticed: Both letters have a heavy reliance upon the Old Testament. Additionally, the quotations can be quite lengthy in both. Third, both are from Italy. Also, both authors are fond of using Old Testament people as examples for behavior (see Hebrews 11). Finally, the tone of the two letters seem similar. Now, I haven't compared the two letters in greater detail, but it is something I am probably going to pursue.

Now certainly, there are some difficulties with Clement being the author. For instance, Hebrews 2:16 seems to suggest the author himself was an Israelite. In order for Clement to be the author, either we have to go against the generally accepted idea that Clement was a Gentile (though by no means proven) and declare him to be a Jew or we have to see the references to the descendants of Abraham not in the literal sense of physical descendants, but rather in metaphorical sense to include all people who mimick Abraham in his faith (like Paul in Romans 4:16 and Galatians 3:29).

The latter is possible, since Clement may have been a disciple of Paul (if he is indeed the Clement of Philippians 4:3) and the author of Hebrews seems to have a disciple of the apostles (Hebrews 2:3-4). However, past conjecture, we have little exegetical means to ascertain that the author was speaking metaphorically in Hebrews 2:16 instead of literally. Secondly, if it is metaphorical, then we will have to probably change the idea that the audience is Jewish. That is problematic with the amount of quotations from the Old Testament and the detailed exposition of it, indicating a good knowledge of the Old Testament by the audience. However, then again the letter to the Corinthians by Clement does contain plenty of Old Testament quotations.

This is just a brief look at the question of the authorship of Hebrews. I will perhaps, with some more in depth comparison of the two letters, write a longer post on the topic. However, I am curious as to what you all think about this possibility of Clement authoring Hebrews. Any other similarities that could support it that I haven't gotten to you, or problems that could lead one to deny the idea?

Wanted: A place for good theological discussion

For many of the theobloggians out there, I am sure they are in an environment where they can be sharpened by other theological thinkers. Either they have developed a set of friendships or acquaintances who they can discuss things with. And a lot of others I am sure are in some sort of seminary or divinity school (or another religious education environment) where they are immersed in discussion. But then there are people like me who are not in the actual seminary environment (taking courses online next semester), nor have they developed much of a network in which to discuss things. I am essentially on an island here, which is generally not a good thing. While I read blogs or books in order to give me food for thought, it isn't the same as interacting with someone who is in turn interacting with you.

I have participated on certain message boards in the past, but they are so full of vitriol with more concern for dogmas and being only a teacher instead of giving and taking from each other that to find any edification is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

And yes, while there are the comments on blogs, they are very impersonal and are difficult to have a good discussion IMO.

So this is an open call (and a bit desperate, might I add) for people to contact me that want to actually want to discuss theology personally. I don't bite and I welcome talking to new people. Also, this is a question asking if there is a secret place where all the theobloggians go to (that would explain the Barthian themes across the blogs.... :) ). I am halfway interested in creating a Google group for theobloggers...


Also, I am busy trying to redo the design of this blog. Unfortunately, I do not have great web mastering skills anymore (used to be a whiz at it)... Either that or I am too lazy to do much on it. So, I am essentially playing around with the template and the colors. So you will see some changes. I am wanting a more simple look, but the plain black and white is too blah-ish for me. But if any of your are experts with colors, fell free to lend me a hand. Or even if you are not, you can tell me my design sucks and I'll take it into consideration. The previous design though just wasn't a good feel though.


Finally, how about this for google search to come to my blog... "would god the father strike someone down for not going into the ministry?" I feel sorry for this fellow as he is probably
going through a tough time at the moment. But I must wonder how my blog would show up for that site.

Restricting God

In theology, we must never speak of what God must does or how God must act. This speaks of God in a way that He is bound by something than higher than Himself. God is not bound by anything. He is perfectly free to act as He will. He was not obligated to create the world, nor was He obligated to offer a way for redemption. Nor is He obligated to love us.

What God does, God does because it is in His nature. He loves because His nature is in part to love. But He is not obligated to that. To say that is as if to say I can not possibly physically murder a person because of my nature. My nature is not that of a murderer and as a result I do not murder. But yet, I am not forcefully bound to choose not murder because of my nature. I could choose to go against my nature, but yet I do not and will not. The same with God.

Additionally, we must be careful not to restrict how God acts according to the laws God has given us. While yet, the way we are to act is to act like God is, we are not commanded to do the exact same things as God in all realms. We are commanded not to seek vengeance. Vengeance is God's realm. We are morally bound in some ways that God is not. God's nature and power is not restricted to the way we are morally bound.

To commit this error of a restricted God, either in being "forcefully bound" or being obligated because we are, is where plenty of errors in theology can creep in. A pure theology must never say how God must act, or restrict God in any way whatsoever. We should talk about God only in the way that He has shown Himself to us, either in revelation or other manners. But we must never use logic and reason to dictate God, nor use our moral obligation to restrict God either.

1 Corinthians 6:17 and the Trinity?

Amidst the many attempts to try to understand the nature of oneness the Holy Trinity, I have to ask whether there is an analogue to it with the relationship between the believer and Christ.

1 Corinthians 6:17:
But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

John 10:30:
The Father and I are one.

Now I know there is a context to each of these verses, but my simple question is, do these two verses have the same idea of oneness here? If so, then 1 Corinthians 6:17 could help us better shed some light on the nature of the Holy Trinity. Keep in mind also John 17:20-22.

John 17:20-22:
"I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one.

A new ambition

I have a new project.... which, if it goes like my others, it will end before it starts. But nevertheless, occasionally I actually pick something up and continue with it for a while.

Anyways, I've thought about dedicating a blog to reviewing, summarizing, critiquing, analyzing, (Another multi-syllable smart sounding "ing" word), (Yet another multi-syllable smart sounding "ing" word), the obligatory etc. (ok... enough of that) of ancient Jewish and Christian literature, ranging from the Church Fathers to the Old Testament Pseudigraphia. I would probably eventually delve into the Nag Hammadi stuff. AND I may even, on occasion, include some more modern stuff (Barth... Barth... Barth.... thats guaranteed to catch the eyes of 50 theo-bloggers), but I mainly want to focus on the literature that helps us to understand the context of the Bible.

I want to do this because it could help others to make sense of the Christian literature. But also, if I actually get going with it, it will motivate me to actually do some more reading, and reading that will be more helpful to my Biblical studies. Theology reading is fun and all (I swear I've enjoyed reading Barth, I swear...) but I would also like to include some stuff that could, y'know, help me in the study of the central source of doctrine in the Church.

So what say ye? And were the multiple sets of parenthesis in only a few small paragraphs distracting?

BTW the new blog, if I do continue it, is located at http://cjlit.blogspot.com/

Religious leaders

Many different religious leaders and founder have claimed a certain supernatural calling or power, whether it be equality with God or claim to be a prophet from God. From traditional religious founders like Jesus (though a bit more secretively) and Muhammad to cult leaders like David Koresh. And yet orthodox Christians believe that claims of Jesus are true, whereas the claims of other religious leaders are false. And why did the Christian religion spread like a wild fire in the early years while under severe persecution and without a central religious figure physically present with them to guide them (like Muhammad initially with Islam)?

I can not speak of the cognitions of all Christians as to why they accept Jesus' claims over others, nor can I give all the sociological factors to explain the resiliency of the early Christians. However, the one thing that defines Jesus is not just His miracles, though they would certainly attest to Him. But rather the miracle that Christ received, the resurrection. Such a momentous event that could not be humanly explained in that day or presently (witnessed by rejection of the resurrection by some because it isn't scientifically viable) would attest to Jesus' claims better than a million miracles or a millions followers.

Now certainly then, this calls into question the historicity of the resurrection, of which I am not going to address here. But with few exceptions, those who disbelieve the resurrection will not believe by the evidence I might provide, and likewise most of those who believe will not cease to believe by the evidence present by someone who does not believe in the resurrection. So while the resurrection would attest to the claims of Christ generally only going to be accepted as proof for those who do believe, just like personal experience.

And what of the claims of other religious leaders? Do we automatically call them liars? I can not judge the nature of other claims of divinity or divine calling, but it would not be unlikely in my mind for some religious leaders to have had hallucinations (the source of which I will not speculate), so to them it was real. And yet one might claim that of Jesus, but what are the odds of a mentally disordered person with divine claims playing the central role of the greatest act in human history, if the resurrection is true?