Pages

Friday, August 19, 2011

Am I/I am a Christian./?

If I had to base my belief as a Christian on the image projected by high-profile media political and pop-culture Christians, I could not be one. Gandhi once said: "I like your Christ, but not your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." I try to life my life day based on my understanding of God and Christ. Not other peoples interpretation of God and Christ.

19 comments:

  1. This echoes my own personal experience with *some* (not all) Christians - present company not included :) I've so frequently encountered Christians who spout their beliefs in one breath and then lie, cheat, steal, etc in the next. Their hypocrisy calls into question the validity of their belief-system. Note that I said "their belief-system", not Christianity per se. My questions and scepticism towards the Christian belief-system stem from other sources.
    This is not to say that you are not entitled to your beliefs, my friend. Far from it! To paraphrase a popular saying:'I may not believe as you do, but I will fight for your rights to believe however you choose'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you Raphael. Please share with me the source of your skepticism so that I may better understand, not just you, but others as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Goodness, there's a lot of it, but ok. ;)

    Firstly, I have doubts about the validity of the Bible. This is a book that was compiled by a committee 200-300 years after Christ's death at the behest of a Roman Emporer who was dying and trying to hedge his bets for the afterlife, then translated (poorly, might I add) from the original Hebrew, Greek, etc. The inconsistent translations have lead to all sorts of issues; some benign, others resulted in the misery and/or deaths of many. (Robert Alter has done a re-translation of the first five books of the Bible from the original languages, and that gives some indication of the issues I'm talking about, but for example the first man in the Garden of Eden was (apparently) not named: "Adam" is a misinterpretation of the old Hebrew 'adaman', which means "Man"). Another example is the word 'satan', which only means 'adversary' - it's not a name of an individual. So in short, the word of God has been compiled by humans, poorly translated, has multiple versions and interpretations (e.g. Catholic Bibles have chapters in them that Protestant Bibles do not; then there's King James, NIV, etc).... yet I'm to accept that this is the literal word of God?

    Secondly, as a medieval re-enactor, I have learned that in days of old when many weren't literate, lessons were transmitted via parables: stories that weren't necessarily true, but which contained a moral or a lesson. OK, so it's not a huge leap from that fact to assume that some of the stories in the Bible may in fact be parables rather than literal fact (Noah's flood, for example). This only becomes an issue when I encounter an individual who wishes to force their belief in the literal interpretation of the 'word of God' upon me, but it's a contributing factor to my scepticism.

    Thirdly, as a psychology graduate, I have learned how people can (deliberately or by accident) change a story via re-telling. The childhood game of "chinese whispers" is a good example. From this, it can be argued that some part(s) of the Bible have been altered by accident (historians have noted that some Popes changed the text deliberately, but that's another arguement for another day). So perhaps Christ said "I am a son of God" which in later tales became "I am THE Son of God" ... again, not a huge factor, but a contributing one nonetheless - and an easier explanation in my opinion for some of the events / miracles attributed to Christ. The influence of psychology upon my scepticism runs much deeper than I have outlined here, but in truth it's a whole line of arguement in and of itself, and probably needs to be saved for another day.

    Thus, when I am confronted by a Christian spouting how the Bible is the literal word of God, I have doubts and issues with that statement. When said Christian tells me how the Bible gives me instructions on how to live a holy and 'good' life, and then said Christian lies to his/her child, or steals from his/her neighbor, or cheats on his/her spouse, I have doubts. When a Christian group/church tells me about the love of Christ for humanity, and then said Christians display hate and denegrate homosexuals for their orientation (which medical science has a great deal of empirical evidence stating it is biologically-based and not a "choice" - another item I picked up through my psych studies), I have doubts.

    Yes, as humans, our actions are flawed, and I acknowledge that much of my scepticism outlined above is the result of the actions of humans - whether from 2000 years ago or last week. There is more that remains unsaid, but I don't wish to hijack any more of your blog than I already have. Nor do I wish my general criticism of the Bible and Christianity to be interpreted as a personal criticism of you and/or your beliefs: as I said previously, I will always honor you and your right to your beliefs no matter what they may be. So I'll sign off for now.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. All excellent and valid points. Thank you for sharing. I could, and maybe will espouse on some of the points you brought up in the near future.
    Thanks again. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I must disagree with your friend's views of the Bible and Christianity.

    It has been conclusively proven that the Torah (Old Testament) has not changed in over 5000-years (word for word) exactly as God commanded. While there may be some arguments over what New Testament books should have been cannoned, I have faith that God's guidance was with the men who did so. Just one proof in my mind is that they knowingly included the very first witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus as women (Matthew 28), who otherwise weren't even allowed to own property or testify in court. Why would someone who is making-up events use the worst of all possible witnesses to the most incredible event in the history of man? Simply because it is true; supported by the fact that no independent historians contemporary to Jesus' time document that anyone even tried to challenge that fact (Jesus' resurrection or undermining of the women who first reported it). Instead, out of fear and frustration, the Romans drove the early Christian movement underground by persecuting them when "normal" Roman custom was to allow local customs and religious practices to continue under their rule.

    As for the argument "it took 300-years"… It took our founding fathers, all highly educated men of means, who all generally agreed with the late Renaissance principles of individual rights and freedoms over 18-years from the time we declared independence to draft a relatively simple 6-page document (the Constitution) that was completely in-tune with popular thinking during the age of Enlightenment and early industrial era. Yet early Christians, mostly very common and uneducated folks until some of the ruling classes took notice of the faith had the most radical concepts in the history of man they were both trying to understand and establishing a completely new religion that was completely inclusive of all men, often under very hostile circumstances. Of course it took 300-years to canonize the Bible.

    No, while Gandhi was a great man who I will always respect: don't judge the entire faith by the actions of flawed followers - as we all are and the very reason Christ came to sacrifice himself for us. Even putting Mr. Gandhi on the same plan as Christ, his followers were no better than we are of the man, and Son of God, who came to teach us and take-away all of our sins.

    Yes, question your faith because God gave us free-will and just further proof of His grace and that He does not want blind zombie-like followers. However you should also consider surrounding yourself with believers whom you respect and trust if you want your faith to grow and mature.

    There is much more I can give or refer you to that may help boost your budding faith, if you want amigo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since Arin asked for the sources of my scepticism, I hope you'll allow me a chance to provide a quick response to Hugh's observations.

    Firstly, I didn't say that the Bible took 300 years to compile. I said it was compiled 200-300 years after Christ's death. Some portions of the New Testament were written several decades after Christ's death and later were grouped together by the committee was commissioned to do so. That there is a significant delay between the events outlined and there eventual compilation into a single book is sufficient cause for me to question the validity of the Bible.

    Secondly, I did not dispute whether the Torah had been altered. I'm willing to accept that the Torah, written in Hebrew, has remained unchained over the centuries. However the Bible isn't written in Hebrew: it's been translated from it's original Hebrew and Greek - sometimes directly into English - in some cases, via a Latin translation. My point was that the 'Pentateuch'(i.e. the first five books of the Bible) have been poorly translated, and I referred to the new translation by Robert Alter, a modern theological scholar well-versed in Hebrew. When Mr Alter found errors in translation in the first page of the Pentateuch, and these errors of translation continue through not just the Pentateuch but the rest of the Bible, then I find that my scepticism grows.

    I won't address Ghandi, since I never mentioned him. :)

    If my scepticism causes offence, I apologise. If Arin does not wish to hear my sceptical opinion, he need only ask me to keep quiet on this subject and I will do so without hesitation or complaint; he will still remain my friend regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Raphael, no offense by me amigo but I am also trying to balance your non-beliefs with a friend and budding Christian who needs it. If you get to know me you will find that I am one of those very inclusive Christian's who literally has risked my life over the past 30-years to protect and defend your right to have an opinion too. I will however never back-down from a good argument either since this old philosopher was a real warrior first.

    I know all of your arguments well, and while they are not wrong they are not right either. Yes, there are some poor translations, but I don't throw-out the baby with the bath water. In support of your arguments I offer-up us being made in "God's image". No, wrong: a better translation is "God's imaginings". However, does that make Him not God and us not His creation? Or, in lay terms - just because this old adopted Pollack doesn't understand calculus doesn't made it invalid now does it?

    The Gandhi goes back to Arin's original question using Gandhi's quote to ask the original question.

    Again, my problem with your problem over a simple 300-year delay is exactly what I said. Those were very common and primitive folks who were first trying to comprehend what they witnessed as well as some very radical ideas (e.g. resurrection and salvation is there for anyone simply to ask no matter how "bad" they have been in the past) while also avoiding persecution. The Books of the New Testament were traced back to the original authors who were first-hand witnesses or based on first those hand accounts. I know this because many of those very same events are documented by Josephus and other non-Christians historians of the era.

    The Greek and Hebrew language issue is where we must have a bit of faith and realize that some ideas are simply difficult to translate into any other language. For instance, Greek has 3-completely different words for the word "love". Or, in the Hebrew, the expression 40-days actually means "a really long time", not necessarily 40-days in a row.

    Again, my calculus professor is not a fraud because he could not make me understand it and someone made an error in the text book that added to my confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have lot's to say on both of your arguments, but never enough time to actually write it down.

    On the Gandhi issue, I do not believe that he was blanketing the whole of Christendom in his statement. I am fairly certain that there was a specific context to his remark. Unfortunately, it is only the quote that survives in the popular consciousness.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It was a NEWS interview sometime close to one of his hunger strikes and I cannot recall the exact context, but "no" he was not being critical of Christianity - just some of those same folks who others also point-out instead of understanding the faith.

    Take your time buddy. This is not an overnight experience except for the chosen very few. Not sure I would want that distinction anyway since most also became martyrs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hugh, I'm glad to hear that you're cool with my comments, and even happier to have a good ol' theological debate...er... discussion too! :)
    I probably should add that my writing style is heavily influenced by my psychology studies, so if I sound 'stuffy' or 'stilted', it's just the influence of my studies showing through - I'm not really a stuck-up bugger! :)

    If I may, I'd like to offer a counter-perspective for both the "made in God's image" and the "first-hand witnesses or based on first-hand accounts"?

    From a psychological perspective, its well-known that eye-witness testimony is not as reliable as we like to think. Not only is eye-witness testimony pulled apart in courtrooms all over the world, psychologists have shown time and time again that our brains do not record events as well as we like to believe they do. If we add an additional bias into the mix - such as a strong belief or conceptual point of view - a human will "see" what they want or expect to see. This again has been demonstrated in numerous empirical psychological studies. So I cannot accept that a "first hand account" is going to be strong evidence for the validity of the Bible...or at least those sections that are based upon the accounts of witnesses. Not even 'on faith'.

    As for "Man is made in God's image", author Douglas Adams once turned the phrase around: "God is made in Man's image". While some would consider this verging upon the blasphemous, Douglas also made a valid point. We (as humans) could have conceived of a God in a human form, rather than the other way around. Again, this is born out by psychological studies. I'm not saying that psychologists have turned up at the Pearly Gates with a questionnaire in their hands! :) But studies have demonstrated that it's possible that humans have conceptualized God in our image.

    Yes, Hugh, I will agree with you that what we're saying is that God does not exist just because someone made a typo. However if I may, I'd like to pull the discussion back to my original comments: It's not that I'm saying God does (or does not) exist. I'm saying that the issues I've raised cause me to doubt the validity of the Bible. Errors in translation - especially some of the more...shall we call them 'important' ones? These are the errors that cause me the greatest concern, and consequently the greatest doubts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. :::REPOSTED FOR HUGH.B:::

    Raphael, I fully understand your background since for my undergraduate degree (CJA, History and Chinese Language & Asian History/Culture) I had a very heavy concentration in the behavioral sciences too, plus even more for my post graduate education as a professional instructor-trainer in psycho-motor skills at my agency’s national tactical training academy (you, no actually your parents are the ones who helped pay for that and I “thank you and them” for it my new friend if you will allow me to be :-)

    Please forgive the way I express this (it is not personal to you), but I know that you are espousing some of the liberal crap being taught in most public and many private schools and colleges for over 40-years now, and one reason I won’t teach in my semi-retirement since they’d boot my ornery old ass in a heart-beat for speaking my mind. I also know for fact that God has been purposely and maliciously removed from our lives under the ruse of “separation of church and state” for many years now, but that is a completely different argument for a different time.

    I must also admit to you I had exactly the same questions in my youth as you and Arin, plus that a lot of my personal beliefs are based simply on good old fashion faith, which we all know cannot be proven.

    ReplyDelete
  13. :::REPOSTED FOR HUGH.B PART 2:::

    So now, how is it said at the SCA tourneys which Arin is preparing me to kick-ass with some sort of reasonably controlled style instead of this old Jar-head’s usual bull-in-the-China Shop, I am stronger and can take a hell of a lot more pain than you can techniques: “Lay on!” :-)

    First-hand accounts of witnesses have been the basis of establishing the basis of facts since the beginning of time. Trust me; I have been a court certified and nationally recognized expert witness in several judicial districts across the country for many years now. And yes, there are often flaws to first-hand accounts being influenced (biased) by personal perspective, but as I have already pointed-out, more than one non-Christian historians of the era clearly verify many of the very same significant events that are described in the Scriptures. Plus, I must also point-out that none of those who witnessed Jesus’ resurrection believed it at first either as best described in that of “Doubting Thomas” (John 20).

    What the believers really wanted and believed would happen was that their Messiah would come/return to earth as a strong and vengeful leader who would lead an army to run-off the conquering Romans; not someone who would stay with them for a while (before and after resurrection) to teach peaceful co-existence with and conversion of all peoples no matter what their ethnic group or background (not just the Jews as was believed at the time of Jesus) just a bit longer, then ascend to heaven basically with the promise of returning once more to see how well they had done.

    BTW, I and not condemning modern Jews either, but brevity requires not going there right now either.

    Now, back to that “God’s image” issue: Simply and again, as stated from the very beginning, I am saying that the best translation, to-date, is “God’s imaginings”; which not only makes a lot more sense to this adopted Pollack, it explains a lot more about God’s mind and His sense of humor too. Notice I said “sense of humor” and that is also based on both the Old Testament (Torah) and New Testament (Scriptures).

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. :::REPOSTED FOR HUGH.B PART 3:::

    “Joy” (as a root word or even phrase) is the most common word/phrase in the Bible that is often forgotten by both sides of this argument for and against the validity of the Bible. That point is so obvious that I won’t expand further except to say that I love to tease some of my “fellow believers” who are protesting my having a bit of fun during Mardi Gras by quickly pointing-out Jesus’ very first documented miracle was to turn water into wine for a bunch of drunks at the end of a 3-day wedding party (John 2). I'm not saying God wants us to be a bunch of drunken fools either, but I hope you do get my point.

    Now, if you can agree that the Torah (Old Testament) of the Bible has not changed in over 5000-years, exactly as God commanded, why can you not accept that those prophesies from the Old Testament of a God's promise for a Messiah are true too? Also, if God’s promise to the same Jews, of which Jesus was one, who preserved the Old Testament of the modern Bible (e.g. the Torah), that they (the Jews) are God’s chosen people who will lead the world to the glory of His kingdom - then why cannot the same God guide those more modern A.D. scholars 300-years latter to including the correct accounts of Jesus’ times and teaching that would be best revealed (when properly translated) in God’s own time?

    Today with the help of some of those very same scholars you are quoting maybe? I really don't know but...

    I’m sure now you can see my point is that the Bible is a living word as it has always been, and that maybe, just maybe we are lucky enough to be living during the times that were prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments, and where the truth will be revealed to us all. If not, no mas, since I also know (well, actually reasonably believe) that it is a living word, specifically designed by God to be somewhat ambiguous in places so that the meaning is very personal to the reader based on their own experience, perspective and needs at that very time in history – now and over 5000-years ago.

    BTW, I am not a Revelationsist, but I am a Christian who both wants to be prepared as commanded, who knows that the Scriptures will be fulfilled in God’s time (not mine, yours nor anyone else's), and that we all should be very, very skeptical of anyone who claims to really understand God’s mind or the Bible as a whole since all God has asked of us from the very beginning is to just have a little faith in Him and His good will and grace towards His creations.

    I also know that circular logic sucks, but it is the best I, or any truly faithful Biblical scholar can do is to stand on a lot of faith backed by a few documented facts to which we both already agreed (the unchanging Torah as God commanded), and that there is a God - thus my other contentions must also be more seriously considers plausible that the canonization of the Scriptures were divinely overseen.

    Tricky bastard (especially for a Christian) ain’t I?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Very well... "at the marshall's command..." ;)

    With regards to your comment regarding the "liberal crap taught in most schools"...No offense taken! It's not exactly accurate in my case simple because I wasn't educated in the USA. Heck, I wasn't even born in the USA - I only arrived here 4 years ago! :) Still, that's just me being pedantic, and not really to the point, is it?

    I think that my stumbling block regarding the Torah vs the Bible is that the Torah is still written in the language that it was first written in. The Bible isn't, and the translations have 'muddied the water' so to speak. As Hugh rightly states, faith cannot be proven, and I for one cannot put my faith in translations that have fouled things up so badly. For example:
    * in Genesis the Hebrew term used was 'adaman' which means simply "man", yet it was wrongly translated into 'Adam' (a name).
    * The word 'satan' simply means 'adversary' or 'an obstacle'. Likewise, the word 'devil' means 'slanderer' or 'accuser'. Neither term is an actual name or title, nor are they names for any particular being.
    * "Homosexuality" as a term was first brought into existance around 1900, and so cannot be used in any Bible that is a "true" translation. For that matter, to my understanding homosexuality isn't actually listed as a sin or specifically mentioned, although many prefer to believe it is inferred.

    These are just a few examples that come to mind where the english versions of the Bible differ from the Hebrew and Greek of the original texts. I'm afraid that I have little faith in something that is - to my mind, at least - a flawed translation. That you have faith, Hugh, is wonderful and I am truly supportive of that. :)

    I'd like to take a moment here to make a couple of personal observations - about myself, not about anyone else. :) I've never actually stated that I believe in God. Actually, I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, which is in keeping with my belief-system. Also, that the Christian faith tends to view 'conversion of others' as a requirement tends to 'get up my nose', so to speak... mostly because in my country, to push one's opinion forceably upon another was seen as the height of rudeness, but also because I have a different belief-system to Christianity and therefore according to some Christians (mostly my in-laws) I fall into that "heathen" category.

    Not that I'm accusing anyone in this forum of being rude or anything! Far from it! This has been a lively, polite and entertaining debate, which I for one enjoy greatly. :)

    That's it for now... I'll open the floor to commentary. :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Then Raphael, we must agree to disagree amigo.

    However, with your confession of foreign birth and my being a trained investigator - would it not be reasonable for me to deduce that your home country was the one who lead the first crusades in order to force conversions?

    Not attacking with that observation, but just having a little fun here now :-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hugh, my friend, that is not an unreasonable deduction. Unfortunately, it's not correct, but it's a good try. :) The English (and for that matter, the Scottish and the French) feature in my geneology, but none are my country of origin. For that you would need to go much further south... Once you've gone Down Under sufficiently, and you've found "the great southern land", you'll have arrived at the correct location. :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Enjoyed working with your AFP a few years ago before my retirement and your ladies as a young Marine on WESTPAC - but let's not discuss my misspent youth, especially considering the forum :-)

    Looking forward to meeting you.

    ReplyDelete