Summer Blog Plan

School has ended, and I really don't have any closing thoughts on what was taught. Finals and papers, that's about it. You are more than welcome to read my paper defending Enoch placement in the canon of scripture though: http://reborndead.deviantart.com/art/A-defense-for-Enoch-as-Canon-161641588

The Summer Blog Plan is as follows:
1. Learn Koine Greek via http://biblicalulpan.org/
2. Possibly read through Bible in 2 months
3. Q & A ? / Current Events

It will be fun.

Week 13.2 - Jesus, Judgement, and Social Justice

Our passage for this blog is Matthew 25:31-46. Those with Bibles may open then, otherwise, utilize the wonders of biblegateway.com! Either way, you may recall it as "The sheep and the goats." It was our ending passage for The. of Poverty this week, oddly connected with Pslam 82. I won't participate in such theological gymnastics myself, and will be instead focusing on Jesus' words.

I'll ignore the many questions that can arise with the first verse, and skip to the next fascinating introduction. The gathering of the goyim, the nations. A Jewish reader would immediately recognize this as "everyone but me." Everyone not Jewish. If you want to read this through Christian eyes, even so, the term is used for the unbelievers, those outside of the covenant. As an Atheist, I can safely include myself in this group brought before the King (? ).

We are then divided into two groups, The two groups are, basically, those who participate in acts of social justice:

" For I was hungry
and you gave Me something to eat;
I was thirsty
and you gave Me something to drink;
I was a stranger and you took Me in;
I was naked and you clothed Me;
I was sick and you took care of Me;
I was in prison and you visited Me"

I can imagine the Atheist and Agnostic here chiming in, like those here in the passage do, and asking "when did I (or didn't I) do that for you? I never saw you, heck I don't even know who you are!"

We are then informed that the "I" is actually the "least of these brothers of Mine." Basically, without going into it, the people around you who exhibited the above needs.

It's a good sermon indeed, and preached often! I, however, would find this to be an immediate soteriological problem.

The problem? These acts of social justice and care for the poor is what the nations are being judged upon. Not "did you say the sinner's prayer?" not "did you believe I existed?" not "did you love me with all your heart, soul, and strength?"

This shouldn't at all be a problem if we look at the Old Testament. We see many cases of YHWH being a god actively concerned for the poor. All throughout psalms we see a god who rises up to defend the needy and put low the rich and greedy. Throughout the Torah we find laws bent towards taking care of the orphan, widow, and sojourner. Laws such as do not glean to the edges of your field, with the purpose of leaving behind sheaths for the poor (see Ruth for an example). If anything, God doesn't seem to give a hoot whether you believe in Him or not when it comes to the poor. People in the OT are not judged for unbelief, but for acts of unrighteousness. I'll add here that tsedek, righteous in Hebrew, is synonymous with charity!

So where do we get this idea that those who inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world are those who believe Jesus is God, believe there is a God, and believe that Jesus died on a wooden cross as the only way to forgive you of your sins and thus let you into said kingdom?

Well... that's another blog in itself! A fun one at that. But for now, and with this passage, it seems quite clear how we are eternally judged. And me? I have no problem with that.

Week 11.2 - Do we need immortality?

As an Atheist, I am continually given the question "what is the point of life if it ends?" and demanded to answer. In PHI441, we faced the issue of immortality by first opening our Bibles to 1 Corinthians 15 and reading aloud the entire chapter (I suggest you do the same). Besides my initial reaction that Paul is spouting nothing more than the recent Greek philosophical trend, I took note of the verses that were, no doubt, of theological significance:

v.14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is without foundation, and so is your faith

v.16For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

v.40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the earthly ones

v.40 addresses another related topic: the intelligibility of what is philosophically called the disembodied life. Fact is, besides the main point that will be made here, a disembodied existence is completely unintelligible. Without of physical capacities, life can not be defined. What is a consciousness without input and stimuli? If you saw nothing, felt nothing, heard nothing, sensed nothing at all, how would your thoughts progress? We are of course assuming you have thoughts at all after your neurons cease to fire, which is a leap in itself! Religion then seems to make the claim, as Paul does here, that our minds/souls are transcended to this indescribable "heavenly body." Which is all good and well, and I will leave religion with that concept and continue to the main discussion:

Why do we so need eternal life?

Because this discussion took place in a Christian context, I withheld most of my comments. The Bible says explicitly that the Christian faith is meaningless without the possibility of resurrection. Whether you interpret that as just Jesus' resurrection or ours as well, is besides the point, here it seems the later is the one fought for by the line of Christian thought represented by this college and these Christian philosophers.

Such questions are asked such as:

(1) How can God's love permit us to cease to exist?
(2) How can the sufferings we have incurred be reconciled without an after-life?
(3) Wouldn't God's plans and purposes go unfulfilled?

These are, naturally, theological questions more than philosophical ones. However, being a theologian, technically, I will address them briefly with the excessive help of Grace M. Jantzen who's title of her work I borrowed for this blog.

(1) Grace makes an excellent point from which I can add very little:

"..Christian theology does hold that there are other things which are precious to God and which, in spite of that, perish forever... We cannot have it both ways. 'Are not three sparrows sold for a farthing?' Jesus asked. 'Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your heavenly Father's knowledge.' These words of Jesus have often (and rightly) been taken as his teaching of the tender concern of the Father for all his creatures; what has not been noticed so often is that Jesus never denies that sparrows do fall." *

Simply, the question is, why must we live eternally onward for God to love us? The analogy is in the sparrows who fall, and yet whom God loves. As Grace says, if "taken to its logical conclusion, the implication, surely, is not that we will not die but that our death will not go unnoticed."

(2) I spin this question on its head and leave it there: How can an after-life reconcile for sufferings incurred in this life? Does it? Perhaps the lolli-pop at the doctor's office remedies a child's experienced trauma, but can eternal happiness truly remedy traumatic experiences? Does heaven make up for a woman's violent rape? Does heaven make up for brutal, senseless murder? For holocausts? Genocide? Torture?

Perhaps the theologian will respond with something similar to the unfathomable love and peace of The Comforter. Which perhaps, the atheist would have to leave alone with upward palms, but would hardly be converted to anything more than Agnosticism given the lack of empirical evidence for such unfathomable comfort.

But the proposition of the theist is, it seems, to solve the problem of evil with a life after this reality. It is as if God pulls a big "April Fools!" on everyone by informing them after death that those 70-120 years, or whatever, were all a drop in the bucket and existence will hence forth continue in peace and goodness and love.

Which leads to another level of the sub-topic, the rationality of eternal-life. Besides it's logical rationality (does it make sense) there is practical rationality (is it useful?) It would seem to me this type of theology is too nihilistic in nature and can, and has lead to great harm. The doctrine of martyrdom, for example, in many religions leads to tragic harm! The seductive belief that this life is just a step into the better after-existence has caused many suicides and dangerous life-styles that eventually lead to one's death. Is this a rational way to live? The answer is obvious a emphatic No! if this life is all there is!! That is for certain.

(3) This is really just a sub-question of (1).The answer is another simple question, why can't God's plan for us go unfulfilled in this life? Unless one assumes God's plan for us is to live forever, of course! Which is fine and dandy, but not a necessary belief by a long-shot.

*Exploring Philosophy of Religion: An Introductory Anthology by Steven M. Cahn. "Do we need Immortality" by Grace M. Jantzen (1984). pg 279

Week 10.1 -Adultery

A lady or two left the classroom during this discussion/lecture tangent in, as I perceived (biased as I am), denial. The tangent was original from a discussion on the Woman Caught in Adultery passage found in John 8:1-11. It had started off as a linguistic discussion on the Hebrew baraz translated into the English "caught" and a cross-referencing to Numbers 5:13. Apparently there are Rabbinical traditions that take this to be a physical catching. In other words, rape. We usually read it in our English equivalent of "to be caught"as the woman being "discovered in adultery."

The discussion turned, shortly, to adultery. The fact is, only a woman commits adultery. Biblically. A man is never spoken of as committing adultery. A man only commits adultery if he sleeps with another man's wife (Deuteronomy 22:22).

Go ahead. Look it up. I'll wait.

How many examples can you think of off the top of your head of men sleeping with women they aren't necessarily married to without any consequences? The rest of the context of Deuteronomy furthermore makes it clear the male preference. Especially verses 28-29. Keep in mind at this time it is common for a man to have multiple wives.

Furthermore, it was discussed in class that if a woman is raped, though she has not sinned, she is still considered adulterous. Again drawing from Deuteronomy 22 and other verses and examples she can not marry, she is not a virgin. How terrible for the woman!

With the Woman Caught in Adultery in John 8, notice there is no man present. Reread 22:22 and you'll see both the man and the woman must be stoned. Which rules out her being, as the English would render it, discovered in the act of adultery. So, she must have been raped and our physical rendering of "caught" must be applicable here. So, why are the religious leaders wishing to stone her? Probably because of the formulated tradition that a woman is an adulterous whether it is willing sex or forced sex. This isn't new. There are other nations who do not blame men for rape but the women. The question is, is this a right and good theology? Should we be basing our theology of adultery on the Bible?

I would not, that's for sure. And who's to say I can't have multiple husbands, but a man can have multiple wives? Well, that's another discussion.

Week 5.2 - Biblical type scenes

In Bible as Literature we have been discussing the construct of type-scenes as used in ancient and particularly biblical literature. English majors might enjoy this if I can articulate it well enough.

Basically, biblical literature often times fits into what are called type-scenes that have inherent expectations. A modern day comparison is Western movies. You have the sheriff of the town who is a great shot, the best. He comes into conflict with a criminal of some sort. They have a shoot-out, draw, whatever they call it. The sheriff wins due to his quick hand. We all know the tales! Furthermore, genres in general usually have their own type-scenes. Ever watched criminal sitcoms, or soap operas so often that you can tell what is going to happen? We know that she is going to fall in love with him before anyone else, we also know that he is not the killer because it's too early in the show and we know the real discover always happens at 7:52!!

Likewise, there are such conventions in Biblical literature, it seems, that would have been predictable to the audience reading it.

As discussed in class, there is the woman at the well type scene. What happens in these scenes is a journey into a foreign land, a meeting of a woman at a well, a drawing of water, a running of the woman, testimony of the woman to family, feast and betrothal of man to woman. Isaac met Rebekhah at a well, Jacob met Rachel, and Jesus met the Samaritan woman. Deviations are found in each, but deviations are put in place for a meaning, to make a point. When in a Western the sheriff is someone crippled, we know the story may follow the same conventions loosely but will be making a special point. Or if they find the murderer sooner, we know something else will be revealed later.

Taking type scenes to another stretch, we have this strange type scene in Genesis of lying. Abraham lies twice concerning Sarah being his sister to Pharoh, and then to Abimelech. We then see his son doing the same with his wife! (Genesis 12, 20, and 26) In each case, we have a further elaboration of the specifics. Why? To make a point.

I want to focus on Abraham and Sarah. Check out Genesis 12 and 20. Notice the basic framework: the telling of the lie/half truth, the "taking" of Sarah, the discovery (by different modes, compare with 26's discovery) of her married status, the plague upon the nation, the offerings for forgiveness/vindication.

Although the structure is fascinating, and there are many ethical issues here, there is a slight deviation and language issue that is even more interesting!!

12:15 "...was taken into Pharoh's house."

12:19 "... so that I took her as my wife"

Most of us have been taught to read this innocently. Sarah was taken into pharaoh's house, Pharaoh was shown that Sarah was actually Abraham's wife,, and Sarah was released. What we don't realize, is that we are imposing the facts found in 26 because we assume each account is the same, not stopping to read what is said.

It says she was "taken," which in Hebrew is a euphemism for a sexual taking.

Pharaoh explicitly says he took her as his wife.

Chapter 20 elaborates this story more, almost seeming to attempt to clarify the questions in the previous chapter (theologically) but literarily we can't help but notice the differences as meaning something!

Notice the repetitions in this account. We have a repeating of "take" in verse 2 and 3. Then we have the repetition of claims of innocence by Abimelech and we can't help but be reminded of our dear President Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman!" Why else would someone so emphatically claim his own innocence but by the fact that he is guilty? Even God in this passage says he has "done this" out of the cleanness of his hands, but done what?

Then notice Abimelech's address directly to Sarah, what man speaks directly to a woman in ancient times? We rarely see this in biblical accounts and here we have a king addressing her, saying that she is giving her husband money to vindicate her. Vindicate her for what?

And the clincher, immediately after this is chapter 21, the birth of Isaac.

=)

It seems here what should follow is a state address by Abimelech "I did have sex with that woman..."! By Abraham's treatment of Sarah, I think it's fair to assume he didn't like her much. Maybe she wasn't barren herself, but Abraham had some failings in performance with her. Stretch? I think not if you read these two stories. Doesn't it seem odd that this affair with Abimelech is immediately followed by Isaac's birth?

Week 2.4 Biblical Rape

Judges 19

If you have not, read it.

We discussed this class in Bible as Literature class and it was a surprisingly quiet session. I could tell this was the first time some of the students have ever seen this passage in their Bible. No one ever preaches it, that is for sure! So who can blame them for their silence?

The passage, as you can speaks of rape, murder, and gender differentiation.

I am in the process of asking Christians, through forum discussion and 1 on 1 to discuss this passage and its implications in the Bible for me. So I will update on the study if it bears fruit.

As a non-believer, I ask myself why is this passage in a holy and sacred book? The first, obvious answer is that the author is describing a historical event. This did in fact happen and the Levite did in fact cut up his concubine (alive?) and mail her pieces to the 12 tribes, and the 12 tribes did in fact go to war because of this display and event.

However. The event and actions of the Levite speak so much more, ojectively and textually than just a historical fact. It speaks of cultural traditions. For one, we know that in middle eastern societies, even to this day, people have the social demand that if a stranger comes to your town, you must offer him your hospitality for 3 days. So we know that the person who invited in the Levite was exhibiting a social duty. We also know that he of course would protect him against any attackers coming to his door.

But is not the Levite's concubine also a guest? Is not she also protected?

Apparently not. Which is where the problem begins. Why is the woman tossed out, a guest, and the guest's concubine? The host knew what these men were going to do, rape her. He also knew they had evil intents and would probably cause her deadly harm, besides the initial trauma of being gang raped. Yet he threw her out to them to be their toy all night. What does this say?

A lot. Now what does this say to someone who believes that the Bible is the guidebook for humanity? How does someone rationalize God's silence in a book that is supposedly the Word of God?

Reactions I gleaned from the class discussion? My professor said the first time she read it was when a friend of hers, who had been raped, read this passage for the first time and called her weeping and asking her "why is this in the Bible???" My professor said, shocked, she opened her bible and read it for her first time. She also wept. She didn't have an answer then, and doesn't have an answer now.

Belief and Spiritual Atheism

Wittgenstein taught that the term "I believe" did not convey anything and was in itself meaningless. What does belief add?

His example: When you say "I believe it will rain" is it not the same as saying "it will rain"? For you state to state it, it must follow that you believed what you just stated to be true.

This seems to make tremendous philosophical sense. Practically, why do we use "belief" terminology? Perhaps because of religious texts that push "faith," believing in what can not be substantiated/seen. So the article of faith demands a person use the precursor "I believe." For if you believe in something that can not be found to be true, for example, again, "It will rain today" you are making a statement that can be validated. (I added "today" simply because if you do not put a timeframe on the statement, it elongates my argument's point.) Either it will rain today, or it will not. Thus, you are either making a true or false statement. Belief is neither true, nor false. Although certainly we can say belief can be grounded, or absurd!

However, when it comes to God, we also encounter the issue of existence. Which... well I would suppose will have to be left to another post because it's another deal all together. But basically, if someone can give a definition of that thing which exists, we can then seek to find that thing! But people make God such an incomprehensible concept, that the discussion is meaningless. I can not substantiate whether X is true if you don't tell me what X is! Especially if there are other incomprehensible variables in the equation. You can have one X in an equation, and most of the times solve it, but only if you can provide an equation that can be solved.

Which leads to my personal application of this information and the issue of spiritual atheism. Is it feasible? The latest book I read, "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith boiled down Atheism to its core: lack of theistic belief. Since then, I have born the label. But I wonder, is this misleading? Certainly, many bear many titles and do not fit the supposed mold! But is it acceptibile? Can one be open, and be an atheist? Can one be open, and be a Christian? I frown upon the label of agnosticism for many reasons, so I will not address that supposed "middle-ground" here, but can the title of Atheism fit someone as I who is open to God existing, just makes the decision not to believe in it?

Going back to the issue of belief, why state belief in something that can not be validated? Thus, a*theism for me.

But I wonder, can the concept of God be discussed philosophically in his existence's favor? I pondered this in class, as our professor offered himself as an example of one venturing into the philosophical world as someone who can "bring something new to the table as a Christian." I couldn't help but wonder, just how he goes about philosophically supporting this God's existence without completely stripping it of all understandable definitions and thus, return back to the prior point.

Unless.

Belief is a decision? Hence our created, emotionally-wired word "faith." If faith a choice? Is faith a logical choice? Or is it absurd?