Re-Thinking God: Introduction

"Re-Thinking God" - I use this term a lot and I also talk extensively about finding the God of the Bible not the one that is commonly taught. Part of this comes from the simply fact that I had to discard the faith I once had in favor of something else otherwise; quite frankly, I was going to become an agnostic.

The dirty little secret is that most of our views of God have very little to do with taking the Bible at face value for what it says and more to do with a Western Philosophical view of God based on the Greek philosophers and (no surprise) what WE WANT God to be.

The problem is when you start to take what the Bible says for face value and compare it to what is traditionally taught by this Western theological- philosophy, you have contradictions and problems that abound from logical and common sense understandings. In some cases, the logic simply does not work at all.

In 2007, I ran head-long into this because of a personal crisis. The year before, I had resigned my second church and after fighting hard to keep my kids in that town till semester break, we eventually had to retreat back to my hometown. In March of 2007, I got a job at the same place I had left in 2000 to take my first church. After seven years I basically was right back where I started from, in far more debt, had lost a house and quite frankly I was angry at God. OK -- I was pissed off at God. So much so I had decided to quit everything - ministry, family, marriage - and start over. I was of the opinion, that quite frankly I had just wasted a lot of time and energy serving a God that was false. In the end, I decided I would give God one more try but I was going to be hard on Him. I decided to read the whole Bible in chronological order and search to see if there was anything that would change my mind and I was determined not to change it. I had some issues with God I wanted to see if 'His Word' would resolve them:

1. If it is so awesome to serve God, why do good people with perfectly good faith get screwed.
2. Does God in anyway change as revelation unfolds -- does he become different or do things differently as time goes by.
3. What does the God of the Bible say about himself compared to what I commonly understand.
4. I was also really wrestling with the Problem of Evil and wanted some answers.
5. I was also looking for anything that would allow me to keep my faith.

At this moment I had became an agnostic and was asking the simply question -- why should I believe in Christianity anymore? Unlike some, I kept this a secret, because I have seen how understanding Christians are when they have a fellow brother or sister have a crisis of faith. Kept going to church, kept singing songs and kept being respectable simply so no one would fire bullets.

In the end, I pretty much changed everything I believe about God. My views on his nature, attributes, character and will. They had all completely changed in many respects.

This series is about how I 're-thunk God' by simply taking His Word at face value. I want to contrast what is traditionally taught about God and the Bible. In short, I want to tell you what most people believe and then show how it is contradicted by the Bible when it comes to God. Topic Covered will include:
1. Gods Nature: Immutability, Imminence and Transcendence
2. God's Attributes: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence
3. God's Character: Loving, Holiness and Justice
4. How God's Will Relates to Man.
5. Does God Always Get What He Wants?

It should at least be a fun ride if nothing else.

"Whose Side Are You On?"

I had someone ask me this once. My problem is that Christianity today makes it so easy to switch sides; which I why I have had to completely rethink it to keep my own faith intact. It wasn't simply to rethink the answers to the BIG questions, but to rethink the way Christianity needs to be practiced.

I suppose I should be worried out on a limb like this but I am in good company -- Jesus was very much a guy who was not afraid to take on the religious people of his day. You know those Pharisees that made their rules more important than the Bible. In the end, I had to create some questions to test myself:
1. Am I seeking to enslave people with my religious rules or am I liberating people through the Gospel?
2. Am I following my Master's command to do good to those who hate me and praying for those who are my enemies or am I engaged in political action to get them to see things my way and conform?
3. When dealing with unbelievers am I practicing wisdom or contempt?
4. Is it easier to pass judgment and think the worst or exercise grace and believe the best?

I follow these rules and now I find myself in a position more and more to talk to unbelievers because by doing this I have found myself listening more and talking less. One thing of note is that no dialogue takes place when we treat people with contempt or engage in name calling -- save that for the self-righteous.

In the end the issue is one of living the commands of Christ, not just acknowledging the truth of them and still doing what you want.

That is why at times I seem to be on the side of agnostics and atheists because they are bringing up valid points, but Christians as a general rule seem to be more interested in creating their own safe Christian world than ministering to the world outside.

Petra's song 'Looking Through Rose Colored Stained Glass Windows' has become more true each year.
"Looking through rose-colored stained glass windows
Never allowing the world to come in
Seeing no evil and feeling no pain
making THE LIGHT as it comes from within so dim."
Petra off the album 'More Power To Ya" (emphasis mine)

Whose Side am I On? Christ's: but I am learning that following his teachings and fulfilling them are the real mark of whether that is true or not. I find the more I understand this, the less time I have call down judgment on the world because I know that He himself said: "For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" John 3:17. Jesus was more interested in bringing the sinner to repentance than condemning that sinner's lifestyle and trying to regulate it through legislation.

I now value openness between sides so they can talk. If Christianity truly is the truth, then there is no question that should throw it or that Christians should not be able to come up with a reasoned and rational response. If it is true, there should truly also be no evil done to us or around us that we cannot respond to with compassion and love. If these things are not true of Christianity then there is something wrong and it needs to be corrected. We can't expect respect until we give it.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 19 -- Ruth - Romance at Last?

The story of Ruth is included in the Bible for a multitude of reasons, but chief among them is to show the lineage of David. Given that this lineage is at the end of the book of Ruth indicates the story may have been handed down by David's family but not put on paper till many years later.

Many look at this story as a Biblical romance that illustrates that true love can find you anywhere, but that is a modern spin on the story and honestly I do not think the original readers would have looked at it this way.

I think the real reason is that David, a Jewish King, is known to have a Moabitess (Ruth) in his lineage and how that came about needs to be explained. The issue is mixed marriage between a Jewish man and Moabite woman.

The story chronicles Naomi, a Jewish woman, who's husband if from Bethlehem as they head into Moab to stay a while. While there, Noami has two sons and those two sons marry Moabite women. All the men in the story die and leave Naomi without resource and the legacy of the father is ultimately up in the air. While the other daughter in law leaves - Ruth stays with Naomi. Ruth in effect swears off her former nation and decides to become a part of Naomi's.

In the course of events, Ruth, while gleaning in the fields, catches the attention of Boaz who makes his workers drop extra behind so Ruth can glean more. Ruth tells Naomi and Naomi begins to seek for a way to get the two together. I involves going into the threshing floor while Boaz is sleeping and uncovering his feet and laying at them till he wakes up. She then makes her request and Boaz acts to take Ruth to be his wife. This involves convincing a closer kinsman to Ruth to give up his claim and let Boaz have it. The end result is Ruth and Boaz married and a baby that becomes part of the lineage of David.

1. The mixed marriage issue seems to not matter here. It kind of illustrates what I am talking about with women of this era being trading cards. When Ruth marries an Israelite male, which she does in Ruth 1:4, she technically (because of her virginity in this first marriage) stops being a Moabitess and becomes an Israelite, even though she is called a Moabitess in the rest of the story. Through marriage she has changed nationality.

2. Indicates the contract angle of marriage as well. The fact is when Naomi's son's die, the closer kinsman would not only been able to marry Ruth but in some senses obligated to to raise up a son for the inheritance. Ruth and Naomi don't press this angle because they perhaps see more of an advantage to themselves in Boaz. Boaz basically has to buy Ruth's contract for himself.

3. The threshing floor incident is actually a calculated risk on the part of Naomi that puts Ruth in danger. Had Boaz decided to expose her, she would have been treated like a harlot from that point on. Instead, I think Naomi is playing on the fact that Boaz is a man with a reputation of his own and would handle the situation justly. She may be also hoping that the two have developed feelings for each other. The fact remains though this is a couple of women trying to better their situation in life through marriage.

4. Age is an issue, Ruth might have been between 25-28 years old but based on Boaz's own words to her, he must have been quite a bit older than her (40s-50s). How old we do not know. For us in the western world having such a discrepancy in ages would be somewhat odd, But Boaz seems pleased because it showed to him that Ruth was a wise woman. In this culture, women were almost always far younger than the men they married.

Romance? Maybe a little, but the fact is everyone is acting on cultural forces and trying to better their own situation. The issue is to get the contract of marriage that is the best situation and then raise up an inheritance and legacy through that union. Both are accomplished and the fact that Ruth and Boaz may have fell for one another might have simply been looked on as a bonus.

Next: Elkenah and His Two Wives

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 3 - Herod's Slaughter of Infants.

I know you were expecting: "Are Parts of the Bible not the Word of God?", but as I was studying to preach this passage this week, I realized it fits this series so well. Therefore, the interruption is a good one.

Matthew 2:16-17 records one of the most disturbing events of Scripture, Herod the Great slaughters all boys two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem. The goal is to destroy what he perceives is a threat to the throne. Now what makes this passage troubling is not that Herod the Great is a butcher; that is a well documented fact of history. What makes the passage troubling is that God seems to direct it happening:

1) He tells the Magi to not return to Herod - had they done so, the innocents in the story would have been spared probably at the cost of the Magi (Herod was a butcher), but the exact target would have been known and Mary and Joseph could have escaped anyway through God's warning. The only problem would have been Herod would have known exactly who he was looking for and assassins could have been sent -- even into Egypt. In the final analysis, to protect His Son, the warning of the Magi seems the best. The problem is the cost is tremendous.

2) This is the most disturbing problem -- Jeremiah prophesies about this event. This means for God's Word to be fulfilled, the innocents HAD to die. Or did they? My views of how prophecy works have greatly changed since becoming an open theist. Here is the point -- Jeremiah the prophet sees Rachel weeping for her children in Ramah. Is he seeing this event or getting a feeling that something is bad is going to happen in involving Rachel and her city -- Bethlehem.

One thing I have learned about the gospel writers is that they play far more fast and loose with OT Scriptures (particularly prophecy) when they say they are fulfilled. In short, is this a direct correlation or is it Matthew seeing a connection after the fact. The thing with prophecy, I now believe, is that God leaves His options open in HOW he can fulfill them or simply that the prophecy fulfills itself with no action on God's part at all, but an observer sees the connection. In this case, the slaughter occurs through Herod, but the connection is seen with Jeremiah and Matthew, who is using prophecy to prove Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, uses that connection to further his point.

The other point that could be made here is that the ultimate fate of the innocents is generally believed to be Paradise. Is there really any harm done from an eternal perspective? Baby killed; it goes to heaven. For critics this is unsatisfying because the concept of heaven, or that innocent children go directly to heaven if killed, is something that is not directly provable and suffering here is caused because God is involved regardless. May not be His direct hand, but He is involved. Could He not have prevented it?

One thing to consider, though it does not really help resolve it completely, is the fact that infant mortality was high in the ancient world. Meant people were 'used to' infants and children dying; but that does not really help the main question because just because a culture may get used to something, still does not remove the evil of it.

For reasons that still baffle me, God has a great deal of respect for the freewill of man. It may be because of this, that events play out the way they do. God directs those who listen to him, but does nothing to directly stop Herod because the slaughter is ultimately in Herod's court and thus his responsibility. Herod is not listening to God but following his own desires. God ultimately will pass judgment on Herod's evil, but for the time being lets the rogue king have his way. Perhaps God could have changed Herod's heart like he did Pharaoh's in Exodus, but have you ever noticed God only seems to reinforce what is already in a person's heart, not completely change it in reverse. For that to happen requires repentance and Herod never will do so.

We may never have a really good answer to this one and it still remains a troubling passage. Between my open theist beliefs and my understanding of God's respect for freewill, I have come to terms with the fact that the slaughter is ultimately Herod's action that God, respecting the freewill of everyone involved, guides those who can escape it to escape it. Matthew when writing his gospel sees the connection between the event and the passage in Jeremiah but the fulfillment of that passage could have happen other ways as well. Perhaps this is not the answer, but it is the best one I can see for this troubling passage.

Next: Are Parts of the Bible, Not the Word of God?
Previous: God Goes to War! 

The Real Nativity

I suppose I am being technical but most nativity scenes are about as realistic as a cartoon. The basic image may be right but a lot of details get left out or are plain distorted.

The big first thing is where is this stable? I ask was there really as stable? Luke only reports that Mary laid Jesus in a manger. A manger is a place to put straw for animals to feed, but that still leaves us some options. A stable could have been used, but there is also the common marketplace square where the caravans would stop as well. It would have been covered along the edges but with open air in the middle and the mangers for the animals were along the sides.

Another thing is Mary and Joseph always seem to be in isolation with no one around. Odd for a town that was packed because of the census. Truth be told even if it was a stable, it is quite possible that they were not the only ones in the place. It does not fit our idea that Mary had Jesus in seclusion but it could have been a very public event. I think our modern sensibilities just can't accept Mary giving birth in a public place with onlookers but it is a very reasonable possibility. For ancient women, this was simply a practical reality that could happen during any pregnancy.

Other things that surround the nativity that bug me are the constant reference to Mary and Joseph as poor peasants. I do not think Luke would have referenced the inn if they didn't have the means to pay for it should it have had a vacancy. Yeah, they buy two turtle doves to circumcise Jesus indicating low means but not abject poverty. I really look at Mary and Joseph along with Jesus as really the 'everymen' of life in the ancient world. Not poverty stricken, but getting by.

Recently there has been a phenomena where Mary is looked on as a unwed mother and perhaps that is why she was denied in the inn. Unfortunately for this theory, there is the simple fact that Joseph took her as his wife before they left for Bethlehem so the perception of any innkeeper would have been a young married couple looking for a room. The other one I love is depicting them as homeless. Not really, they had a home in Nazareth, it is just they are in Bethlehem because Caesar has decided to make some money and needs a census to set the taxes. They might have been travellers without a place to stay, but they were not homeless. In addition by the time the Magi arrive, they are staying in a a house.

That of course brings us to the most common gaff in many of the nativity scenes out there. Including the Wisemen with the shepherds and all that is not accurate at all. The Wisemen arrive after both Jesus is presented at the temple and circumcised. In Matthew, the word even changes from the Greek word for 'infant' to 'child' indicating possibly a small child. Considering that Herod slaughters babies two and under based on what the Wisemen say Jesus may have been a walking around toddler by then. As mentioned before, the scene has also shifted from manger-side to a home. There is also the fact the Bible does not actually record how many Wisemen there were but I think there we a lot: a) they disturb the whole city with their arrival and b) they have enough clout to get an audience with Herod. Not a small group of three, but a caravan more likely.

Why does this matter? In one small way it illustrates how what is said in the Bible can be supplanted by traditional understanding and changing cultural standards. How we need to be careful never to accept traditional interpretations or cultural understandings to cloud a genuine interpretation of what the text of Scripture says.

It also matters because it is about rightly dividing the Word of truth. The facts of Scripture must come before our wants and desires of what we would like the text to say so we can push a certain social agenda.

Merry Christmas to all and remember Jesus was an 'everyman' who died for everyman and rose again for everyman. That God became Flesh is the most astounding miracle of Christmas. Lets just tell the story right.

Science Fiction and Theology - Part 8 - Robots

Just for the record -- I thought I, Robot with Will Smith was fairly well done, but also for the record, it is a conglomeration of various stories told by Isaac Asimov in his robot series of books and short stories. The movie is based on them but the story told in the movie never appears in Asimov's works at least as far as I know.

Robots are not just science fiction anymore as they do indeed exist and are getting more complex all the time. They real problem with them is cost. It is simply easier in many context to have a human do it because to design a robot to do it and build it would be far more expensive. Until they truly design a robot that can do and act like the ones in I, Robot and are affordable, I just don't see them on every street corner.

The movie and books brought out many of the social issues that could be faced with robots being reality: a safer world with the cost of human ability and freedom. But the largest issue was one of -- can we eventually design a machine that replaces us to the point that that machine is 'alive'? Seems to be a foolish question to Christians as most of us believe life comes from God, but how do we handle it when robots get advanced enough that humans talk about giving them rights? How do we convince people that there is a difference and can we?

There is also a flip side to robots that has been portrayed in movies like the Terminator Series -- what if they take over? Scary option and a bit ironic as the creator becomes enslaved by their creation.

Next: God and Science Fiction

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 18 -- Many Things Resurface

Time to get back on this series as I suspect it is going to take a while.

Now as we journey through Joshua and Judges some events reinforce what we have already talked about in past articles.

1. Caleb gives away a daughter to the man who captured a city for him. Nice prize.

2. While Gideon is probably most famous for his fleece (above), In Judges 8:30-31 he is noted for a couple of other things a) he had many wives and b) one of those wives was a concubine. Polygamy and concubinage

3. Jephthah was the son of a harlot, not a wife, of Gilead so when Gilead has other sons they drive him away. Difference between the wife and non-wife when it comes to legal obligations for the man become evident here. Also, it seems there are consequences for the children as well.

4. Samson illustrates several things: 1) The intermarrying issue comes up again as Samson desires women outside the Israelite camp and 2) Samson's original wife is given away to another man -- wives as trading cards again.

5. Judges 19 -- A Levite's concubine is raped and it is because the Levite and the host where they were staying offer her up to the Benjamites. Demonstrates the real second class citizenship of concubines in this culture. Even though later this rape would fire a civil war in Israel, throwing her to the dogs was apparently not a difficult decision.

6. Judges 21 -- the need for wombs in the tribe of Benjamin means women are acquired from two sources that involve kidnapping and battle. The tribe needed baby making marriages and they found the wombs necessary and married them to the surviving Benjamites.

Your probably wondering how the women felt about all this -- truth is because of living in this culture they would have accepted it. As long as a man was providing for her and her children as well as giving her respectability by being married and not a harlot or beggar, a woman had no personal problem sharing her bed with a man. She would have considered it her duty and obligation as a wife.

Next: Ruth - Romance at Last?

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 2 - God Goes to War

Numbers 31 is a troubling Scripture from the standpoint of modern westerners. It is not just the fact that God orders a war but genocide.

The chapter is basically about Israel's war with the Midianites in which God orders that Israel to utterly destroy the Midianites. To leave no male alive and to only spare women that were virgins so that they could become wives to the Israelites. For all practical purposes this would mean the end of the Midianites forever as the virgin girls would be suddenly Israelite the moment they had sex with and Israelite male.

I really have no problem with God going to war. In the Law there are laws about murder, but there are also laws about how to divide the spoil after a battle. The context for killing, and the Hebrew word for 'to kill' are different. One is premeditated crime of an individual; the other the act of the state in its own interests. If God therefore wants to act as king of His country (A state of affairs that would last until the monarchy of Saul) and wage war on his enemies, He has just as much right to do so as any other king.

Genocide is a different story. To wipe out an entire people group is a harsh action. The question is it justified? One could argue that God is in a better position to judge these things or has a different standard for himself involving justice. Perhaps the first is true about God being in a better position to judge these things, but God is said to be just and the definitions of justice simply don't change just because one entity has more power that others. Justice is justice.

No the real question is genocide sometimes justified? What we are asking here is can a group of people get so corrupt and so vile that they whole lot of them deserve death. Looking at this time period for not just the Midianites but all of Canaan the answer might be 'yes'. Worship of the gods of the time period involved some pretty disgusting rites:

1. Ritual drunken orgies are the norm with temple prostitution as the chief means of support for the temples. Incest was a common accepted practice in religious rites. That's dads with daughters; sons with mothers; brothers with sisters, etc.

2. Human sacrifice in particular the burning to death of a man's firstborn son. Not a quick burning either, but the child was basically placed in a hole in a bronze idol that was then heated from the inside slowly cooking the child to death while drums beat so the child's cries could not be heard.

The whole area is wracked with wars and disputes which were filled with brutality and rape. Slavery was common and while the Law of Moses allows for a kind of indentured servitude, it was not the brutal, for life, under the lash that the people of this time in Canaan practiced.

It wouldn't have been so bad but the local politics, culture and religion supported these activities and promoted them.

There is also the practical advantages of genocide to consider in this case:

1. The fact that Canaanite worship survived became an absolute plague to the Israelites that got them into trouble with God on a regular basis.

2. The fact is the surviving Canaanites and the the Israelites would battle for centuries in which more people would die, more women would be raped and more misery and suffering would be dealt out over the long term than if the Canaanites had simply been destroyed. In short, kill a few now over a short time inflicting short term misery or kill a a whole bunch more over a longer period of time causing continued, long term misery.

3. Had all of Israel's enemies been destroyed, the odds for a lasting peace in the region would have been far higher.

God would be in a better more knowledgeable position to judge these things and see the bigger picture and the lasting impact. Even so, this is troubling to my humanity because to fulfill this you would see soldiers breaking into homes and they find a woman nursing her baby boy, then by the order of God, they would have to spear them both. But in truth as a king going to war in this region, He would have been no different than many others, only in this case the objective is to ultimately crush evil in an area of the world.

Perhaps we should consider that, we may not like the means but had the full will of God been carried out, evil in Canaan would have been destroyed. It is just perhaps we simply do not like the means with which God had chosen to do this act. But then again He is God, it seems in the authority structure that he would have the right to choose any means He wants.

I will be honest, this one still keeps me up at times because God here seems unfair. Why give the Israelites the power and the right to wipe out a sinful race when they at times were just as vile. In truth, there are a lot of races could be condemned to death but are not. So why at this time and in this way? In this case, we may simply have to exercise faith in the justice and goodness of God.

Next: Herod's Slaughter of Infants?
Previous: Marriage and Rape 

Prayer and the Problem of Evil - Part 1 -- Conditions and Possiblities from James

Now I bet there are some out there that have prayed for a dying loved one and have watched them still die. After thinking on that you also came to the conclusion that you prayed in faith and they still died. So did God then lie?


Now I do not believe it was the will of God that death came into the world at least not for humans. The more deterministic camp says so but then they have God being the author of sin and evil and that is out because the Bible is pretty clear God is not the author of these things; He fights them.


Another option is that God knew evil would come and created the world anyway -- makes Him still the author of evil because once He creates the world evil and death are going to come. He still caused them because He could have stopped them by not creating the world in the first place or creating a world where the possibility of evil could not exist.


A third option is God only knew evil as a possibility. This is known as the open view or open theist position (the one I hold) where God sees evil as a possible but not inevitable end, because He has given Mankind a choice. Eat the tree --'death and evil'; don't eat the tree ' no death and no evil'. Both possibilities exist even in God mind and He is ready for either one. Mankind blows it so God begins to work against evil and redeem us from it and it's consequences. God is only responsible for creating the possibility of evil but did not actually create evil or suffering, they are simply the product of the disobedience of the human race.


Now in this evil world God still lets us talk to him and request things from him through prayer, but because of the evil unleashed things are still going to have multiple possibilities and because we still get carnal from time to time we can very much think we are right with God even though we are not. Evil and sin are always there to possibly screw things up.


Two great passages on prayer are both found in James: 4:1-6 and 5:13-18


James 4:1-6 actually offers up several conditions to answered prayer: 1) You have to ask, 2) You must not have wrong motives in particular that we are praying to consume the results on our own lusts with worldly gain of any type, and 3) You must pray in humility. That is in submission to God's desires. Now that is from God perspective, not ours.


James 5:13-18 was a favorite of many when I was in the Pentecostal church. Particularly, the part that says: "and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick...". There was always a heavy emphasis on the WILL part, but once again the conditions were often overlooked 1) calling for the elders of the church 2) anointing with oil but even here the meaning of this is subject to debate -- it could be anoint like in pour on the head or like in the case of the Good Samaritan where oil was used in a medicinal sense. 3) Do it in the name of the Lord -- humility again -- it is His authority not your own. 4) Offer the prayer in faith (Note: this is not the only condition to answered prayer as some would claim). 5)Based on verse 16 there is also confess your sins to one another and prayer for each other.

Given all these conditions one thing is for sure, you are not going to get an answer to prayer just by praying -- there is a lifestyle of holiness, community and faith that must be lived as well. There is also being the part of a church with a trust level high enough where confession of sin to each other is not only possible but brings about forgiveness. Not to mention that there are many other verses in the Bible that offer up conditions to answered prayer.

What this ultimately means is a prayer offers a possibility to God, one which He can choose to take or not to take depending on the spiritual condition of the person praying and their relationship to Him and the church. Praying does not force God's hand it simply gives Him one more thing to choose, but not a possibility that He must to choose.

In prayer, what I think is often forgotten is that God is the one in charge and we really can't tell Him what to do but we can petition Him. How he fulfils His Word is strictly up to Him.

Part 2 - The Lord's Prayer

Is There Absolute Proof That God Exists?

Now before I begin I want to let people understand something about faith. Everybody regardless of belief system (including atheism and agnosticism which I will get to in a minute) has a measure of faith to it. Faith being trust and belief in something that goes beyond their senses and into the realm of pure belief. I believe, though others may be free to argue, that everyone has beliefs that are basic and essential to them to function beyond their basic five senses:
1. We all believe in the existence of person hood in others. That the people in our lives are people like ourselves.
2. We all could not function without memory beliefs. When I get out of work I get in my car and head home even though the existence of my home is not evident to my five senses.
3. People believe in love -- hold it, measure it, describe it visually, can you hear it, taste it. Hmmm. Seems love and other stuff like it are basic beliefs that are not really evident to the five senses.

Now -- atheists have this same problem though they deny it. They believe in a Big Bang -- they have never witnessed it. They believe in evolution -- ditto. Then they laugh at me for believing in a God, I can't see -- irony. There is an arrogance of mind to atheists who look in the face of their colossal ignorance of mankind about the universe and its nature and say they understand exactly how things were and are and will be. The statement --"There is no God" is ultimately just as big a statement of faith as "There is a God". Logically, 'There is no God' is a universal negative and universal negatives are the most hard to prove. To prove it you would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time and have the power so nothing could block your ability to assess the question. This is not possible for any human and so the atheist is taking something very much on 'faith' when he says: 'The is no God.' It is actually a great leap of faith given that he is a finite being with a limited knowledge and only his limited education in his life and experiences to go on.

Agnosticism I can take better because they are at least willing to admit how ignorant they are and that there are some things that they may never know including whether there is a God or not. Most dismiss religion as an attempt to control and for the most part they are right. Most of the better ones though come back with the idea that there indeed may be a religion that is right, but how can you know which one? I understand the issues of agnosticism well because I considered it for a long year. I believe that it is a sensible option, but it may have its perils. Agnostics put faith in their reason and humanity much like atheists, but I think we can all admit that faith in both of these things can fail as well because of their limitations.

Now, what about the person who says -- There is a God. In some respect he is in a better position logically universal positives do not require as much effort to prove -- once you find evidence of God's existence that would be conclusive you can stop searching the universe. The problem is given the same limitations we can't do this either.

What we are left with is the hope that said God will reveal himself to us and show us He is real. Now that is what all religions in one sense or another claim has happened in one form or another. They all claim some divine revelation from a divine source that proves that their version of God, or the gods, or Karma or etc. is true.

What remains then is to assess if a religion has had a genuine visitation by the divine that can be verified. Which one the rises to a level where it stands highest in the most likely to be true.

Can we prove God exists conclusively -- no, but I believe that it is possible to prove which version of divine reality is the most true and provides the surest foundation for faith -- which all humans have.

Why Personal Religious Experience Does Not Prove Christian Faith

I wrote on this in my post on The Second Reformation but perhaps a closer look would help.

A little background on me, I grew up in a Pentecostal church, I have been a pastor of two Pentecostal churches and have had Pentecostal experiences and I still feel things like tongues, healings and miracles happen and are legit, BUT I have also witnessed things that have convinced me that part of the movement has a dark side and more than just a few bad apples. I have witnessed the charlatans on which Steve Martin based his movie Leap of Faith. The tricks are numerous and the doctrines that are used, to be blunt, are absolute crap with one design -- relieving people of their money and the accumulation of power for the preacher. I saw more and more of these as I got deeper into the leadership of the movement. I am now convinced that many will believe anything as long as it thrills their emotions and gives them a feeling of power over their circumstances.

One of the things that frustrates me is how people who have had a religious experience or a 'feeling' of God in their lives use this as absolute proof that God exists and that their faith is the real deal. It does nothing of the kind.

1) All religions and faiths have religious experiences of some kind. If personal religious experience proves faith, then every faith is proven true.
2) The manifestations of tongues, healings and various miracles are not unique to Christianity, other religions have them.
3) In just about every religion in the world there is some claim of special revelation from some divine source.
4) Feelings are not fact, they are not right or wrong -- they are just feelings and the fact is you can have a feeling of spiritual wholeness from a cup of hot chocolate on a cold day. Doesn't prove I should worship hot chocolate.
5) It is hard to prove a religious experience is genuine and given that some are easily manipulated through their emotions, some experiences may not be religious just emotional releases.

I am not saying that they have no value whatsoever but ultimately they are only valuable to the ones who have them and only as a seal of assurance, not as proof of faith.

I believe this is why you can find so many former Pentecostals out there, they start to think too much. I know I was accused of this often. Once you get past the emotional part of the experience, sometimes it was difficult to say what the experience was. What this means ultimately for someone who has based their whole faith on these experiences, is complete despair and disillusionment when they come to the realization that these experiences do not in any way prove their faith is true.

For Christianity, there is only one event at stake and if it is not a historical fact then as Paul says: 'our faith is useless' - The Resurrection. If Jesus did not, in fact, literally walk out that tomb than Christianity is a complete and absolute waste of time and we would be better off 'eating and drinking for tomorrow we die." See First Corinthians 15, if you do not believe me.

Science Fiction and Theology - Part 7 - Cryogenics

Time to finish this series up.

Cryogenics is the science of trying to freeze living matter to the point of death but with the ability to revive that matter back to normal life. In science fiction this has been put to various uses.
1. Storage of clones as extra body parts
2. Putting criminals 'on ice'.
3. Use for space travel in that the crew is frozen for long duration while the ship travels.
4. Medical -- store the person until a cure can be found or a donor comes along.
5. Effect a form of immortality. Body is slowed in function, but brain is allowed to roam a virtual world (The Matrix)

Where this crosses into theology is in the field of ethics -- medical and social.
1. Medical ethics - is a clone life? Robert Heinlein theorized in Time Enough for Love, that cloning could get so advanced that an entire body could be cloned without a true functioning brain so that when a person got old their brain could be moved to the new body. Along with other rejuvenation technologies, this could give a person effective immortality. What happens to "appointed once to die and then the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27)
2. Is it really punishment to put criminals in cryo-freeze based on the Bible? Not really, just prolongs things and releases that criminal back into society unchanged. Not really justice from a Biblical point of view.
3. Space Travel has been discussed but what are ethics of volunteering for a trip from which you may not wake up should technology fail on the way?
4. In the case of medical waiting till a cure is found I can see some uses but at what point does it end and how do we determine who is valuable enough for this?
5. Living in a virtual world brings in the whole ethical questions of the what is life and how do we live it? Effective immortality or slavery?

Next: Lest We Forget - Robots.

Apparent Contradictions and the Progressive Revelation of the Bible.

Just a word before I begin about contradictions in Scripture - if you are looking for them you will find them. Some people make a living off of finding apparent contradictions. Like all interpretive techniques once you adopt a certain lens you stick with it, but it should be noted that when I hear people talking about contradictions in Scripture they are contradictions AS THEY SEE IT. To be fair though, some people have a way of reconciling those contradictions and can go to great lengths to do so. They are doing things as they see it as well. What we learn from this is sometimes whether a contradiction is a contradiction is usually in the eye of the beholder. Both sides can be guilty of reading into Scripture what they want to be there.

I want to look at how some contradictions are reconciled by the fact sometimes it is a matter of the writers perspective and aims in his writing in a previous post so what I want to do is look at how the Bible being a progressive revelation of God can affect apparent contradictions. I want to use two examples from the teaching of Jesus in relationship to the Law of Moses: 1) The 'Eye for and Eye' controversy and 2) Moses and Jesus differences on divorce.

1. The Law of Moses is the first place the expression "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' appears. It does so in three places (Exodus 21, Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19) and every time it is in relationship to the idea of punishment and restitution for the victim of a crime. If the victim loses an eye, justice demands that the person who caused this loss also lose an eye. There were alternative restitution methods in this but the standard was established based on equality. In our language -- 'let the punishment fit the crime'.

Thousands of years pass and Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. (Note: this is not the same sermon as the one in Luke 6 although they are similar. Ancient speakers had to repeat themselves often for different groups so teaching would be repeated as the crowd changed. Remember no way to record words and no public address systems. It should also be noted that neither of these sermons say it was Jesus' first time speaking) He says "you have heard it said 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." We could say that Jesus is changing things like he does elsewhere, except he begins this sermon with a bold statement that that is not what he is doing -- that no part of the law will pass away until everything is fulfilled. That being said what is going on here?

The answer lies in the fact that the revelation of Scripture takes place over time. During the gaps people develop interpretations, establish schools of thought and have their own ideas. When Moses writes the law it is about justice. The passage of time has corrupted the interpretation of the idea from one of justice to one of justified vengeance. Also consider that politically the times are different. Israel is free under Moses; Jesus lives under Roman rule. The things Jesus advocates are a direct reaction to that fact. 1)Not resisting is a reaction to the idea of using 'eye for eye' as a justification for rebellion against an 'evil' empire. 2)being struck on the cheek was a common discipline action of Roman soldiers, Jesus says don't strike back but submit to further discipline as the law requires 3) Roman soldiers could compel a non-citizen to carry their stuff for a mile. Jesus says to not only for that but volunteer for a second mile 4) a Roman soldier could demand stuff from people Jesus is saying give them what they want and then some, etc., etc. In the end what Jesus is doing is correcting the bad interpretations of his time that allowed for both rebellion and vengeance in the name of God, but he never attacks the idea of eye for eye being used as a standard of justice.

2. The whole story for this can be found in Matthew 19 where Jesus is asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus says 'No', giving only sexual unfaithfulness as a grounds for divorce pointing them to the story of man and woman being one flesh. The follow up is where things get interesting where they ask him why Moses then allowed for divorce with simply a certificate. Jesus replies that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of people. Which leads to a question: Was the certificate of divorce in the Law given by Moses inspired or just Moses doing something on his own? A similar question comes in 1st and 2nd Corinthians when Paul says he has no command of God on a subject but he speaks by permission. Are these permissions and allowances the Word of God and if not then is it not possible that other parts of Scripture are also not part of THE Word of God but are just nice stuff or fluff.

The thing I think needs to be considered is the nature of God as he reveals himself to people over time. The thing I propose as an open theist is that while God in his essential nature does not change (His character) his experiences with humans do change and require a modification of principles or rules as humanity changes on relationship to God. God may not change but his experiences with us are ever changing. Adam and Eve are one flesh, but sin enters the world and men's heart become hard. knowing this God allows Moses to allow divorce. When Jesus arrives God is working to re-establish true salvation by providing a means to change hearts. There is still an allowance for sin in Jesus' words but now it is about strict infidelity, not any other thing like --'she burned my toast'. The progressiveness of God's revelation to man and the ever changing humanity means the standards change as time goes by.

It is this changing relationship aspect of the God and man equation that factors into a lot of things in Scripture. It does not answer all the seeming contradictions but it does address some of them.

The Second Reformation

Well, you have to hand it to Martin Luther, the guy had guts. In our modern language -- balls. What is needed now is a whole bunch of Christians with the same testicular fortitude. Why? Because there is a second reformation of thought needed in the church in the Western World again. There are several reasons I think this is needed:

1. Religious Experience Has Failed to Prove God to a Secular World: Now my former brethren the Pentecostal/Charismatic types are going to hate me for saying this but your experiences with God don't prove a blessed thing. The problem with religious experience is all religious people have them and that extends beyond Christianity. A Quote by a Christian lady on Facebook to my agnostic friend:"we don't need to prove anything to no one because everyday we wake up we can feel God in the wind, in the sunshine. We know clearly there is a God..." Hmmm. I wonder if a Hindu could say the same thing: "We don't need to prove anything to no one because everyday we wake up we can feel Karma in the wind, in the sunshine. We clearly know Karma exists..." See my point? A religious experience or feelings about spirituality only prove something to the one who has them; change the perspective or belief system and experience can be duplicated in other religions. As proof that a faith is ultimately true personal religious experience is for the most part useless. From my own experience in the Pentecostal movement, I have seen preachers fake an extraordinary amount of things and try to teach me how to do it as well. Psychological manipulation is very real in religious societies and so experiences in that regard are not proof of anything but gullibility or emotional need and susceptibility. One thing Christians need to remember is 1 Peter 3:15 -- 'and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you of the reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." That means to anyone at anytime. It is not a waste of time to give a reasoned response to why you believe based on what they understand and believe, in fact I would say it is the command of the Lord.

2. Theological Hardness: On the flip side, reformed thought of the Calvinist variety has so dominated for so long it no longer, or perhaps never had, the flexibility to change in the face of new questions. The answers that convinced people of the truth of Christian faith in the last 300 years no longer work. Reformed theology ultimately just adds fuel to the fire of the problem of evil and in the end seems like an arrogant mind that refuses to budge in the face of Scriptural questions. Many, not just in the Reformed camp have got to the point that no new ideas will be accepted about any doctrine of theology. Meekness (see 1 Peter 3:15 above) is needed to realize that no person has God in a box or completely figured out and to not leave room for change in our thinking is just our pride talking.

3. The Increase of Knowledge. Hate to say it there is so much information and options out there it makes your head spin. I would even say there is a new group of religious folks out there that I can only label the "TryAnythings". The move from one faith to another to try it out and see if it fits. One thing this has caused is a despair that a thing called "TRUTH" even exists. This is all made possible because Christianity is no longer the only game in town and the other options are easily found. The Technology of Today makes any religion no matter what or where it is accessible. This has led to a smarter and more knowledgeable population who have seen a lot and while Christianity may claim uniqueness, they can see similarities and that is what they treat Christianity like any other faith.

How is such a reformation going to happen? I don't think a fat monk is going to come along and nail 95 thesis to the door again, I don't think that the second reformation will belong to any single person. It is about a change of spirit so large that is going to be one of those quiet revolutions that is in many ways already happening. The Emergent Church takes a lot of flak from some corners of Christianity, but at least they are listening to what unbelievers are saying and formulating a response. That is however only one response; there are more.

One thing that is also happening is that Christians are returning to their Bibles and reading them for themselves and formulating new beliefs based on their own reading about God, Salvation and Christ. I am going to say this -- it is about time! It may take the passing of an old guard of thinkers in favor of a new one to make these changes. This means an inflexible denominational systems are going to fail to attract new people as more and more people will want a church where they can be free to believe differently than their brothers and sisters in Christ and still be accepted as part of the family of God.

Technology may provide accessibility to other religions but it also means that information about Christianity is also accessible like never before including about the historical questions about the Scriptures and Jesus Christ. It is also leading to a phenomena I and others call --faith without borders where Christians don't inhabit certain countries anymore with dominate cultures; they are everywhere. Those that are embracing this no longer dominating but permeating the world are part of the reformation to come.

It is already happening and like a snow ball rolling down a hill it will grow and then change everything when it reaches full maturity. The only real thing that stands in its way is a Traditional Protestantism but that is dying. It is just a matter of time.

Five Reasons Why the Church is Failing

This post is in part a response to the more common reasons people leave Christianity and partially my own rantings.

1. The Church continues to fail to provide an adequate response to the Problem of Evil when someone has a personal crisis. In part this is because of some very bad doctrines and theological systems but mostly comes down to the fact that there is a very pat simplicity in our answers and an unwillingness to face the fact that maybe our ideas of God may be the problem. This is especially true when someone comes to us and says: "God huh, why did God kill my daughter?" Truth be told, the average pastor and his doctrine cannot answer this one, because the answer they have formulated is based on a certain concept of God they are stuck with. It is one that we have created that is comfortable to us, not what the Bible ultimately says about God or what God says even about himself.

2. Lack of deep thinking on the part of most Christians. The prevailing attitude in most churches, for some reason, is that if you think about your faith or use your brain to engage God, that it will destroy your faith. This is particularly prevalent in churches that are based on emotional experience for their core beliefs but all of them have it. The flip side is a cold intellectualism about faith where God is indeed a mean SOB. This creates a difficult environment for someone who wants both genuine answers by using their brain or common sense. The church unfortunately, seems to have forgotten the lesson of Galileo: "I find it hard to believe that the same God who has endowed us with reason and common sense, would require us to forgo the use of both." As long as reason is a perceived enemy of faith, the church will watch a more knowledgeable and secular youth and young adult population head to the door.

3. A Theological stuck denominational system. What I mean here is that many times people maintain doctrine or theology because of tradition. I have been continually amazed how many clergy and bible college and seminary professors are simply blind recordings of their denominations doctrinal system. New theological ideas are often met with same response as an atheist. There is actually only one root cause for this -- spiritual pride. We apparently think when we described God in theology and doctrine we got it right the first time. I remember when I first purposed open theism (a different way of looking at God's knowledge of the future) to a friend -- "Well that's wrong, because it denies the way we traditionally understand omniscience." Apparently we are so smart we got our understanding of God right the first time.

4. Hyper-fundamentalist Holiness. Simply put, we spend far to much time attacking people for their morals and 'incorrect' view of life and not enough time understanding the real meaning of grace and then putting some love and compassion into action. Between this and the fact that most standards of holiness in churches are too high for anyone to attain and you have to live a double life to fool everyone, it is no wonder people head for the door. We are becoming very good at proclaiming something publicly, but denying it in our lifestyle and yet keeping it covered up. What we are really creating is not holy saints but sneaky sinners.

5. Continued silence on why Christianity is superior to other religions and belief systems. There are two enemies here: 1) Ignorance because most people in Christianity simply don't know the foundation of their faith and 2) Misguided Tolerance -- 'lets just say there is no distinction between us and other religions'. Then why be a Christian, what is the imperative of Christian faith then?

My personal belief is that if these things are not ultimately corrected we will watch the church become nothing more than a footnote in history of the Western World.

Troubling Passages of Scripture -- Part 1 - Marriage and Rape

This post is a response to a friends comments on facebook. In particular the subject was about some passages that seem to show the God of the Old Testament as a mean, nasty S.O.B. In most cases, the bigger issue when looking at these kind of verses is that we judge the people in them by our standards and ethics based on our western culture. In short we paint someone, including God, as a mean because to our culture they are mean but to their culture what they are doing is perfectly normal.

This is particularly true in the cases involving rape and marriage.

Our Western culture and the Ancient Oriental Culture are very different and because of that it is often difficult to understand what is going on in some passages or at best we will misunderstand their meaning:

1. Marriage -- in our culture people choose who they marry, it is a mutually accepted event. In the Ancient Orient culture of the Bible -- marriages are arranged by parents and there is often very little choice in the matter. In that culture marriage meant obligation not romantic love.

2. Sex -- this also creates a difference in the understanding of the purpose of sexual intercourse. In our culture sex is about expression of love and romantic feelings, it can lead to children but when we have sex that is not the main reason we go at it so to speak. In the Oriental Culture, the opposite is very true -- it is about creating children and secondarily it was about enjoyment. Sex was about the fulfilment of a contract of marriage to them so that a man would have descendants and a woman was to provide the womb in which those descendants would be made.

3. Rape -- In both societies rape is something evil, but the consequences are very different. In our culture, the stigma of rape, while still bad for the woman (unfortunately), does not mean that another guy might not marry her and love her. Not so in the orient culture as such a woman is considered 'spoiled goods' and would have only two options for the rest of her life -- begging or prostitution.

4. The Role of Women -- in our society women are equals, heck they are sometimes superior to men as far as roles ands power. In the ancient culture this was not the case -- women we somewhere above cattle and they have very few options. There main things in the culture of the Old Testament that gave a woman value was 1) her ability to produce children and 2) who she was married to. Marriage was something a woman wanted to give her both so she would be respectable. Otherwise her options became very limited.

These things taken into consideration some of the things in the Bible are a little more clear.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 -- seems kind of harsh to westerners that if a woman who is not engaged is raped she has to marry her attacker. But in that culture this is actually an action to protect the woman. In all other cases of rape the man is put to death because the woman is either engaged or married and thus she has someone who is obligated to take care of her. Not so with the unmarried woman who is not engaged. If the Law had the man killed, the woman would either become a beggar or a prostitute. The man is forced to marry her and thus that makes him obligated to provide for her. He also looses his right to divorce her which means he has to take care of her for the rest of his life. This also meant he would loose face and in this culture that means no other family would deal well with him. He would live with the shame of his actions forever and at the same time the woman is provided for. This is not a mean law but an act of compassion in this culture.

Judges 21 -- Now one thing we need to remember is that the Bible sometimes simply records events but makes no moral judgement and parts of the Bible have no actions by God recorded. Such is the case of Judges 21. The people have slaughtered the Benjamites to the point that the tribe if for all practical purposes - gone. The reason for this slaughter was actually a rape of a Levite's concubine in the previous chapter. When the whole tribe of Benjamin decides to protect the rapists (thus becoming gilty as well after the fact), the rest of Israel decides to go to war with them and destroy them. They succeed. Now at this point THEY are troubled that the tribe is gone but it never says God was troubled. What follows is, in my opinon, the actions of misguided people who feel they are doing God's work but are really just being idiots because they have made rash vows. This causes them to destroy a group of people, so the women could be used be the few remaining Benjamites as well as kidnapping some women from another town.

In this culture, though, the odd thing would have been this -- the women would have accepted it. To them, as long as a man was providing for her and giving her an opportunity to have children, most of them would have been content with this arrangement because neither marriage nor sex was about romantic love but obligation and procreation. Hard to believe to our Western ears but true.

Next: Part 2 - God Goes to War

Is the Bible Inspired and Infallible?

What follows is a typical quote about the Bible from a church denominational statement (in this case -- The Assemblies of God):
"The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct"
There are many others like this one but in the end most of them have the following features:
1. The idea of verbal inspiration
2. The Bible is God's revelation to man
3. The Bible is infallible
4. The Bible is authoritative to the point that it defines what we should believe and and do.

Verbal inspiration means that the belief is that God just didn't just give the authors the ideas they used but the exact words to use -- word for word.

Infallibility means that the Bible contains NO errors. Some denominations add the condition -- 'in the original autographs'. This is done to accept the reality that as the Bible has been copied and translated over the years some things may have been changed, altered, etc. by humans either accidentally or on purpose. Textual Criticism (the branch of scholarship that deals with these changes and how they occur) states though as a whole the Bible is the most free of these things of all the documents of antiquity.

Now, I am going to make a statement that I think that this doctrinal statement has some errors in it. Not because I don't believe the Bible is inspired by God or the rule of faith and conduct for the Christian, but I feel the definitions of what it means to be infallible and inspired go beyond what the Bible even says about itself.

What Bible does say about itself is this:"All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate,equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17 -- NASB). Now some translations prefer to bring out the idea of inspiration being "God breathed" which is good as the word in the Greek does have multiple levels of understanding.
Comparing these verses to the doctrinal statement above though there are some discrepancies.
1. The word 'verbal' does not appear in the Scripture itself, not here or anywhere else. The fact is the concept of HOW God inspired Scripture is a debatable point. When a individual or group says that the Bible is 'verbally' inspired they are making a theological statement not a Biblical one. More on this in a moment.
2. The Bible tells people it is trustworthy to lead them to God and can give them direction, etc. but it never makes claims at absolute infallibility. I think there is a reason for this which I will share in a moment.

What is telling to me is how God is conceived in inspiring the Scriptures.
1) In verbal inspiration, God is so fearful that the human writer might get it wrong he literally takes over the writers brain and hand a writes what he wants written. In short the human writer is nothing more than a automation that does not think or write for himself.
2) In a 'God breathed' scenario the image is different. The idea is that God breathes on something and thus animates and exalts its meaning and effect. The idea is the writer is facing a real practical situation and God breathes on that situation and thus animates (gives life) and exalts the final product to a different level. Picture the writer as a candle and God breathing on the flame to make it more intense and bright. This view has both God and the writer working together where the mind of God and the mind of the writer are in harmony but God does not dominate the writer but works with the writer to make their work together inspired.

The implications of this are staggering for the idea of the infallibility. That God may allow the idea He inspires to be taken by the writer and creatively used may mean that the discrepancies that people see in scripture may simply be that God allows interpretive freedom for the writer and that is why the differences and discrepancies. That the Bible is both a Divine and Human work, means that the same event can be looked at in different ways and be interpreted differently by the authors of Scripture themselves.

Probably the best and simplest way to illustrate what I am talking about it is to use the Gospel writers:
Matthew -- tax collector, eyewitness and one of the twelve. Writing to his Jewish brethren
Mark -- eyewitness to some events but not all, disciple of Christ but not one of the twelve, possible one of the seventy. It is believed that Peter was at his elbow as he wrote offering his views. Mark is writing to Gentiles. particularly Romans.
Luke -- Gentile believer, historian, doctor, not an eyewitness but someone who did interview eyewitnesses. Acting as a guy writing a documentary.
John -- One of the twelve and eyewitness, in addition he was one of the inner three disciples (Peter, James and John) giving him first hand experience with some of the events that others did not see. Tells other things the first three do not and offers up details they do not cover as he is writing some 30 years after the other three.

Lets take the the account of The Gerasene Demoniac (Matthew 8:28-34; Luke 8:26-37 and Mark 5:1-20). Picture each author as doing a movie about the life of Jesus.
Matthew's would look like saving Private Ryan -- through an eyewitness lens that is moving very quickly. He notes the main events and moves to the next one without pausing for detail or getting a look at the other parts of the picture. The Demoniac is a Gentile so has little appeal to the Jewish audience he is writing to, so the account is quick and accurate but the details of what happened to either man are unimportant to him-- there are two guys and Jesus casts out the demons into the swine and then leaves -- end of story.
Mark is different -- his is like an up close look at the human side of Jesus and so his details are more specific . Matthew writes like someone at a distance, but Mark like he is right there in the middle of the thing dealing directly with the situation. Peter may be chiming in with the details he remembers as well. The Demoniac is a Gentile and because Mark is writing to Roman Gentiles, he focuses on him for 20 verses as a central character to make his point for his message that Jesus cared about Gentiles. The second guy is missing, but it may be the simple fact that this guy stayed and the other ran off. Mark only really knows about this one, so he doesn't mention the second guy because there would be no point to doing so for his purposes.
Luke is doing a documentary film. Picture interviews after the fact and Luke basically saying --'this is what can be confirmed by all witnesses' like a narrator. No second guy here either, but what Luke is saying is the second guy just dropped out of sight and he simply can't confirm he existed and truth be told from the standpoint of making a point about the accuracy of Jesus' life, the second guy really is just a blip on the radar.

In both the case of Mark and Luke, the second guy may simply have been left out because from the standpoint of significance to the story of Christ he isn't that significant. They are simply editing their film so to speak and leaving him out because he isn't essential to what they are trying to do with their gospel. It does not speak of inaccuracy of anybodies account just that each were allowed by God to tell the story from their point of view with their objectives in mind and thus they are allowed to EDIT the story.

What does this mean for the doctrines of infallibility and inspiration. That we not only need to look at passages of Scripture from God's divine inspiration of the passages involved but that each author put something of themselves into the Scriptures as well. It means the Bible is both Divine and Human in a curious but wondrous mix of God's inspiration and human creativity.

Certain fundamentalist types will object to this (guys I call hyper-fundamentalists) because they feel if the Bible allows human creativity it could lead to error. My point is that if we don't allow for human creativity than God is of divided mind telling different accounts of the same story like he couldn't get it right the first time. By bringing humans in to the inspiration process, it changes what we mean by both inspiration and infallibility that such differences are not only allowed for but expected because each person -- including the Biblical writers -- is different.

The Book of Revelation -- Part 17 -- The Seventh Trumpet

The seventh trumpet ends in climactic fashion as it starts a vision of worship -- all of heaven worships the LORD. The twenty four elders, all the voices of heaven, etc., join in to praise the Lord.

One interesting thing is the mention of the ark in the temple surrounded by acts of power both great and terrible.

The seven trumpet simple ends this phase of the book and open the door to a very different vision.

Next: The Woman, the Dragon and the Man Child.

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 6 -- Space Travel

I know this is hard to believe but my daughter picks on me. In specific she pick on me because of an app game I play on Facebook called Starfleet Commander. I play this one along with its twin sister Starfleet Commander Extreme. I am accused of being a nerd. It is just the thought of space travel has always fascinated me.

Not to mention theological issues abound.
1. Colonization of other worlds would change the way the Bible is interpreted. Particularly Revelation where current thought is earth centric.
2. Depending on the type of space travel -- issues abound as people are separated by distance. Relativity and all that. But even more puzzling is that realistic space travel you are dealing with cold sleep. This means either unmarried people or entire families would have to agree to travel together. (More on this later) The social issues of marriage come into play. Particularly if you get a separation due to travel that has no hope of returning to each other.
3. The vastness of space -- The universe is a HUGE place. I wonder what thoughts we would have about God actually travelling through the vastness of the universe?

Next:Cryo Sleep

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 17 -- Wives as Gifts

One thing that happens several times in the Old Testament account is on several occasions a man will give his daughter to a man in marriage for acts of valor or favors.
Do you get the feeling that this was about more than the surface? It was about making that man a part of his family. The obligations of this were BIG.

The only thing I wonder is how the girl would have felt about marrying someone simple because of obligation.

Next: Many Things Resurface.

The Book of Revelation -- Part 16 -- The Two Witnesses

The more I look at this passage the more I am convinced the symbolism is deliberately designed to conceal the identity of the two witness -- we are not supposed to know who they are. What is supposed to be significant is what they do:
1. The prophesy for a great length of time
2. They are called by God the two olive trees and lamp stands that stand before God on the earth.
3. Every time someone tries to stop them they are destroyed by the fire that comes out of their mouth
4. They engage in major prophetic acts that are designed to bring people to repentance but no one does.
5. It is not until they are finished that the Beast is allowed to kill them in Jerusalem
6. They rise from the dead and the whole world see them do so.

It is only after the last action do the people glorify God.

What can you say about this? Not much there is no recorded historical action that fits this vision and no clear answers as to who they are.

What is clear is that these two witnesses are powerful prophets who defy everything to do God's work.

Next: The Seventh Trumpet

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 5 -- The Information Hyperhighway

Computers, cell phones, Internet, etc. etc. Do you ever feel overwhelmed with how much information you can access? Is it becoming alarming to you how much people can know about anything? It is to me.

When science fiction popularized the notion of computers and cell phones long before they existed people thought only of the wonders of it, now the problems of such information overload are becoming evident.
1) Privacy -- anything you put out there, is out there all over the place in seconds. A person who posts a picture of themselves must take not that someone can view it on the other side of the globe in minutes. What gets more disturbing is the fact that these cell phone things can take such pictures and download them. Is there really such thing a privacy anymore?
2) Information overload -- how much can you absorb? We are getting to a point where you almost need an information sorter to filter out the junk.

The future of this promises more speed, more info and greater access. Will we one day forget the real world for one that is digital?

Next: Space Travel

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 16 -- The Law of Moses

Looking Back at the Law of Moses concerning the issue of marriage I think it is safe to say we can make the following observations:

1. In many ways marriage can be defined in the Law a a contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of having and raising children.

2. This definition is significantly different from the idea of a man and woman becoming 'one flesh'. To be husband and wife in this sense goes a little beyond just having a contract to have children. The idea of being open and intimate with each other start right at the beginning 'naked and unashamed' is what Adam and Eve were before sin enters the picture.

3. As human history unfolds, the nature of marriage changes in many ways. a) Very quickly on we realize incest as we know it must not have existed because Cain and Seth would have had to marry their sisters, but at this time this is not forbidden by the law. Only later is the idea of incestuous marriages introduced by the Law. b) Polygamy is introduced very early one as an acceptable form of marriage. It becomes one of the chief characteristics of many of the characters in Genesis -- Lamech, Abraham, Jacob and Esau all follow this model. In some senses polygamy almost seems to a necessity in the producing of children in case the first couple fails to conceive, the handmaiden can be brought into the mix to produce a child.

4. Marriages are often arranged by others. There is little of romantic love involved. This is not a bust however as many of the arranged marriages work out.

5.One issue is intermarrying between the godly lines and the ungodly ones. The results are often disastrous so in the end the Law forbids the children of Israel from intermarrying.

6. One law that puts an interesting wrinkle on things is the law of an older brother's seed being preserved through a younger brother. It really brings home the 'sexual contract' only view of marriage.

7. Another Law is the law that requires a man to marry a woman if he seduces her and in so doing gives up his right to divorce.

8. That brings about the issue of divorce -- marriage as contract whose obligations can be set aside by the husband.

The thing that is sure is that at the beginning you have a situation where marriage does not exist so much as two people become one flesh but once sin enters it seems necessary to provide marriage as a way of enforcing the idea. This contract idea begins to express itself in different ways but always culture intrudes to bury the original intent of 'husband and wife".

Next: Giving Brides as Prizes

Facebook vs. Breastfeeding Mothers -- What's The Biblical Response?

I don't know how many people are aware of it but right now there is a heated battle going on between breastfeeding mothers and Facebook. Now, I have written on the topic of what nakedness is at length and this is one of those practical issues involving the subject. Back then I came to understanding of Biblical reality that basically said that nakedness is spiritual and that if Christians were going to try to make a Biblical case against a woman exposing her breasts in public from Scripture they would find it nearly impossible to do. There is no verse of Scripture that says that women's breasts are in and of themselves either sexual or a temptation to sin. Quite the opposite exists where women's breasts are either praised for their motherly role in nurturing children or for their beauty (Song of Solomon). Biblically there is no case to be made. In fact, you might say that the Bible is very positive about the use of the female breast to feed children and blesses it.

So what to do about mothers who want to post pictures of themselves breastfeeding their children? Biblically, there is no case against this and oddly enough maybe a case for saying this is good and wholesome. Church culture will of course disagree thinking that the morality they have created outside the Bible is still right.

Facebook has however done some stupid things on this. Above is a photo of a breastfeeding mother that was banned. At the same time here is a photo they cleared:

Now could someone tell me which of these two photos is more sensual? Shows more breast?
Another thing is that whoever is deleting these photos must be just pushing buttons at random sometimes. Another banned photo:

Even More Funny is this one:

So now great art work is to be banned because it has a breast in it and even female pigs are subject to being banned for showing their breasts?

Why do I mention this? Because this may be the issue that brings this whole thing national. If these women succeed in their petition and possible court cases as getting this defined as sexist and discriminatory that will of course pave the way for women should have the right to go topless, or topfree if you prefer, for the purpose of nurturing children or otherwise, simply because you cannot make a legal discrimination between the nipple of a man and a woman.

Organizations like TERA the Topfree Equal Rights Association make it crystal clear that to them this is not about religion but about equality under the law. There is also a statement that they do not believe the Bible says a woman should not expose their breasts -- they are right.

This fight is going to get ugly but in the end I believe that the law and the Bible may be on their side. IMHO