Intellectual Honesty or Jesus?

It seems today that when it comes to religion, many people confront an unfortunate dichotomy. The choice is between intellectual honesty and Jesus. Many believe there is no way to reconcile the two.

The purpose of me writing this post is not for me to say why my interpretation is superior, but instead to present an alternate view that often goes unnoticed… too often different views can be silenced by the surprisingly large fundie presence online (i.e. the blog-o-sphere).

If you were in a room of 100 Christians, and asked, “how many of you knew someone that grew up in a religious environment and then walked away from their faith upon leaving for college?” then you would see 100 hands raised in the air.

Let me suggest why I believe this happens.

PR for the Pope’s Recent Comments

[This is a follow-up to my post entitled, “Jesus doesn’t save – the Pope does“]

After I wrote the post I went through and read the comments you all suggested. One of you (Justin II) went ahead and sent me an official “Q and A” released by the Vatican in response to the backlash that resulted from Pope Benedict’s decision that Catholicism is the true church of God/Jesus.

I went ahead and read the document. I was happy to see that some of my questions were asked and that the Vatican was making an effort to answer some of the issues caused by the Pope’s religious assertions. I’ll admit that I came off kind of harsh in my last post, and the document sent to me helped me approach the issue with more of a level head.

However, despite the helpful PR handout that “Justin II” gave to me, I still found myself shaking my head (with a hint of disgust) at the actions of the Vatican. I took the liberty of pulling out a few areas that I found concern with.  If you want the full document, please email me via the Contact section.

So let’s begin.

In the intro of the PR document (as I will call it from this point forward), it says the following

“Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.”

I can agree to an extent about the “universality” of the Catholic doctrine on the Church [I interpret “Church” as believers in Christ]. Still, what is meant by “universality”? If they are referring to various rituals like the Eucharist, then they are only half right as many churches don’t view this the same way despite going through the same routines. For example, Catholics believe in transubstantiation while others believe it is a ritual based on symbolism. In fact, many sects emerged because of beliefs behind the Eucharist alone.

Moving on from the introduction, I was particularly interested in the answer to question two. The question was the following:

Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

The response to this question was quite lengthy, so I am only going to pull out certain parts. Here is the first part I want to address:

Response: Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community,”[5] that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic []. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.”[7]

Now when I read this, the part that stuck out the most was the reference to Christ establishing one Church being a “visible and spiritual community”. I agree 100%! The church is spiritual (all of those in Christ) and it is a obviously a community (i.e. Christians). The problem emerges because the Catholic church is asserting that their religious institution is the “one Church”. However, I strongly contend that Jesus was not about establishing religions, He came to abolish it; to free humankind from its oppression. Hierarchies within any denominations involve politics, a human invention.

I should also note that all the numbers in the brackets reference a decision made at a Vatican council. It looked like this:

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution, “Lumen gentium,” 8.2.

This was disappointing because when I saw the numbers, I thought they would reference actual Biblical passages for support.

In the effort to further answer the second question, the following answer was included:

“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]”

 Again, for one to accept this argument, they must accept that the Vatican Councils are divinely inspired, that is, the hand of God. If one does, then concluding that the Catholic church is the “one” Church would be quite easy. I still contend that the “one” church still exists, but as those spiritual in Christ (and note that not all who profess Jesus are of His Church…as He quite clearly lays on in the Gospels).

Last, I want to look at question five. The question and part of the answer are below:

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: “According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.[20]”

What bothers me the most is that the Catholic Church is claiming that other sects “have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery”. Again, this goes back to what I said in response to the first question I analyzed. It makes me wonder what they meant by the “universality” of Catholicism, because this statement excludes those who do not believe in transubstantiation.

To put it simply, the Catholic Church is saying that the way you view the Eucharist (eating bread and drinking wine) dictates whether you are part of the true body [Church] of Christ. Very sad reasoning indeed.

Like I said, I am happy to have gotten this document from “Justin II”. It did clarify some things that I may have misunderstood, and it allowed me see the Catholic side of the story.

So perhaps I have not lost “all” respect for the Pope…maybe just a “great deal” of respect.

Jesus doesn’t Save – the Pope does!

According to a document that was signed by Pope Benedict on Tuesday, if you are not a Catholic, you are not a Christian. I guess all of us ‘other’ believers are screwed.

I am pretty disappointed by Pope Benedict’s GIANT step backwards. Pope John-Paul did wonders for breaking down the barriers between religions; he often demonstrated the love and compassion that carried no distinction.

It is quite apparent that Benedict is not half the man or religious leader compared to John-Paul.

What the Pope is failing to realize is that the “church” is more than a building or institution, for those things are man-made. The “church” refers to those that are of Christ. Can you imagine dying and then being confronted by Jesus, “sorry, you were a ________, and we only accept Catholics”. It’s a good thing Jesus doesn’t follow our silly rules.

I’m sure that the Pope believes he speaks for God, and I bet that many people believe that too. Interesting though, that some within the Vatican believe that:

“[the Pope’s decision] could be a question of internal church politics or a message to certain theologians it did not want to singe out.”

Politics huh? Well, being that the Pope is human, he certainly is influenced by politics (not very heavenly and certainly not from God). Some will contend that the Pope is above politics, but that’s just wishful thinking.

In the end, the Catholic church that the Pope is trying to create reminds me of the Pharisees’ temple establishment. He is creating walls and trying to put forth a “holy” prescription for salvation, one that values exclusion and limits Christ’s power.

I have lost all respect for this politically influenced human.

Recharging the Religious Battery

The following scripture was read yesterday when I was in Church.  I enjoyed it so much that I wanted to share it with you.  It is from Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians (starting at 2 Corinthians 13).

 It is written: “I believed; therefore I have spoken.”  With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak, because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence. All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.

Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

To the believer, this spiritual truth fills us with joy and hope – yet the unbeliever reads it and laughs.  But, I believe this passage encompasses the philosophy and theology of the ages.  Naturally, the “seen” (science’s domain) is temporary.  Believers focus on the unseen because we know that this realm is where the importance lies.  At a certain point, there is no use in asking an unbeliever to understand this concept – in most cases, they have become lovers of themselves, and therefore cloud their ability to comprehend Godly truths.

Although I often enjoy conversing with unbelievers in the effort to demonstrate the real truth of scripture, I must admit that I do enjoy falling back on the heart of God’s revelation with fellow believers.  It’s like re-charging my religious battery.

The Cult within Christianity

Christianity’s Downfall Series – Part Three
(Read Part One and Part Two before continuing) 

So far in this series I have outlined the first immediate dangers of fundamentalism (strict literalism), as well as explained how to gain the most out of Biblical reading (by acknowledging symbolism, metaphors, and the like while respecting context). In this part of the series, I am going to point out two specific fundamentalist movements that are quite possibly the most dangerous in society today.

Before I begin, let me just say that I am not going to call out these ‘ministries’ by name, as my point is not to attack specific individuals or campaigns. Instead, I will focus on the nature of these movements and explain why they are simply missing the point with Christianity.

First, I want to focus on the religious groups which focus on segregation. What do I mean? Well, these types of groups are generally strict literalists that take it upon themselves to tell others why they are “going to hell”. The focus of these groups is to inform others of their sin in a malicious manner (key word: malicious) that Jesus would have never endorsed (although the Pharisees may have). Campaigns against homosexuals come to my mind when I speak about this issue. Extreme Fundamentalists (and yes, note that this is the extreme of extremes) in this country have become obsessed with stripping homosexuals of their humanity – and for what purpose? Self-righteousness? Seems like it; because it certainly isn’t a higher calling.

Unfortunately these individuals are missing the log in their own eye while attempting to take the speck out of their neighbor’s. Or how about: let he without sin cast the first stone. Are you getting my point here? The campaign of this kind of interpretation might be the most un-Christian I have ever seen. It creates walls instead of breaking them down; it neglects the teachings of Jesus the Messiah; it halts any kind of spiritual progression of the individuals preaching the message of hate. Note that this isn’t just limited to homosexuality. I used this example because it is the most prevalent in society as of late.

That being said, let’s move on to the biggest downfall in Christianity to date – the Christian groups that are utterly obsessed with the “End Times”, or, The Second Coming. Now, before you jump straight to the comment section to defend your beliefs, understand that not too long ago I was over my head in all the hype surrounding this kind of Christianity. In other words, I could not get enough of “discerning the signs” and I felt it was my job to tell people to be ready. Heck, I even read the entire LEFT BEHIND book series!

Well, I’ve changed (for the better).

Having this belief is perfectly fine, although as a word of caution, the concept can become intellectually addicting. Sadly, ministries with this focus miss the point of Jesus. Sure, He told us to be aware, but He also said that no one will know the Day nor the Hour! Fundamentalists that are bent on the Second Coming need to let that point sink in.

In the mean time, we have to grow in Christ. Yes, Paul preached about Jesus’ return (he thought it was going to be in his lifetime), but he spent more time teaching and progressing spiritually through Jesus.

These groups are not doing much for the Kingdom of God – they are not releasing the chains of death or guilt from humanity. No, instead they pray for a steadfast return of Christ…which we all know comes with death never seen before in this world. So, in essence, they are wishing for carnage on an immense level. This is similar to one Islamic sects belief in a 12th Imam returning to bring peace (but only after havoc never seen before in this world – following which he requires complete submission to Islam or else face gruesome death).

People obsessed with this theology certainly don’t demonstrate the compassion that Jesus preached. There is no love, none whatsoever. There is a sense of urgency in the Gospels, but there are greater lessons and teachings that lead humanity in the proper spiritual direction.

Is it important to know that Jesus will return? Yes. Is it right to obsess over it and make complete ministries to tell people that the world is at its end? Well, it certainly doesn’t correlate with the spiritual lessons from Jesus. Also, I should note that ever single generation (from the Christian perspective) has thought they were the last…perhaps we are, but why waste time over-analyzing the newspapers if no one will know the time or hour? (Not even Jesus knows, but only the Father in Heaven).

The two examples I discussed are like a poison to the faith.  The first preaches hate and superiority while the latter undermines the true teachings of Jesus.

That is all for this series. I suspect I’ll start a new one on some other topic in the future. In the mean time, enjoy the political and religious articles on this blog.

God Bless,

Justin

How to Describe Jesus

Much of what we characterize to Jesus comes from the Gospel accounts of His life. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any passage that effectively outlines in detail His personality. Sure, we can easily come up with adjectives that describe is nature, but what about a deeply descriptive outline of Him.

It seems quite apparent why first century writers would have a difficult time portraying the man Jesus was. Jesus taught spiritual truths with passion – but Jesus was one of, if not the only man, to ever fully live what He preached; He was goodness incarnate…how does one describe such a thing? Think about if you encountered someone like this today, someone who followed righteousness without flaw and complete self neglect. How could you possibly put into words what that individual embodies? Perhaps “love” is the closest thing we have, and it doesn’t do nearly the justice deserved.

It may surprise you to know that such a description exists, and it comes to us from Paul in 1 Corinthians 13. The passage is as follows:

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in truth; love bears all things, believes in all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

This passage about love is not to be read as if Paul is describing a quality that we already know of (love), but instead it is a descriptor of the nature of Jesus. Simply replace “love” and its references with “Jesus”…see below:

Jesus is patient; Jesus is kind; Jesus is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. He does not insist on His own way; He is not irritable or resentful; He does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in truth; Jesus bears all things, believes in all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Jesus never ends.

Jesus’ name is Love – and Love is who, and what, Jesus is. Go about your day with confidence and joy in knowing the endless love of Jesus.

Religion is too “Religious”

Would you consider yourself a religious person? How about spiritual? Most people don’t believe that there is a difference between these two concepts – but there is a very important difference. Some individuals I have run into are very religious, but not spiritual. However, spiritual people are always religious. To get a better understanding of what I mean, let’s look at the definitions of each word.

According to dictionary.com, “religious” is defined as:

“Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.”

and “spiritual” is defined as:

“Of, from, or relating to God”

As I said, I have met plenty of people on the blog-o-sphere, at work, and in church who I would consider religious. They show that they have a belief for one God (“for God or a deity” implies singularity). I know people who have the belief and don’t show it; I know people who show the belief but don’t truly have it. Nonetheless, let’s look at what it means to be spiritual.

It is apparent from the definition that being spiritual is different than being religious. To be frank, it is easy to be religious – it doesn’t require any intellectual effort. To be spiritual means understanding you are of or from God – that He is the creator. Such a realization cannot come without being accompanied by feelings of love. Sure, it is easy to say “I love God”, but being a spiritual person means you love God completely, and feel His love in return.

You feel His returning love because a spiritual person forms a relationship with God. Unfortunately, most religious people do not have a healthy relationship with God, that is, they often pray for help and things they think they need (i.e. raise in salary). This is a one-way relationship. Have you ever had a friend that asked you for help and only came to you with their problems? They are likely not your friend anymore because you simply couldn’t put up with the one-way relationship – it becomes tiring.

Well, luckily God doesn’t get tired. He wants us to be more than religious, more than a churchgoer. In fact, if being religious were enough, then Jesus would not have needed to come and teach us. The Jews in first century Palestine were some of the most religious people ever – they believed and showed reverence to God daily. However, Jesus came to show them that they needed to change their thinking to a spiritual paradigm.

Simply put, being religious is not doing justice to God, and it certainly isn’t following the teachings of Christ. Make it a goal to not to just be religious, but to be a spiritual individual as well. You can only benefit as it will help enhance your relationship with God.

Christianity’s Downfall

Christianity’s Downfall – Part One

This post marks the beginning a multi-part series that I have wanted to do for a while now. As a disclaimer, I want to say that I know not everyone is going to appreciate this series, perhaps some will even become offended. I understand that there are millions of people who believe and read scripture with a fundamentalist mindset. My goal is not to attack, but to educate.

That being said, it is important that I explain a few things. I believe that fundamentalism is dangerous no matter what religion (look at the radical Islamist for a perfect example). However, being that I am a Christian, it makes the most sense for me to address it within my own religion due to familiarity and exposure.

According to Dictionary.com, Fundamentalism is defined as:

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

This definition is not too far from what we see today in regards to fundamentalism. For instance, someone who is a fundamentalist and reads the Book of John is more likely to have a negative position towards the Jewish people because it adheres to intolerance and rigid acceptance. A “negative position” can include anything from hate, anger, disgust, etc.

An alternate, more specific, definition is as follows:

a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

At this point I should mention that fundamentalism adheres to the specific doctrines that make Christians who they are. For instance, there is a shared belief in only one God, that Jesus is the son of God, that Jesus died to save humanity, and so on.  Attritubes such as these are fundamentals of Christianity – not to be confused with fundamentalism, a distortion of Christianity.

There are two immediate dangers with fundamentalism. First, in many cases, the fundamentalist Christian believes what he (for sake of simplicity, we shall use he throughout) does because it was told to him. He goes to church, listens to the preacher, and then goes on his merry way. There is a danger in doing this. Folks, God wanted us to use our intellect, reasoning, curiosity, and to put it frankly, he wanted us to use our minds! He does not want us to be robots with our faith. I address this issue in my post “Responsible Christians are Rare”.

The second danger is that in the case a fundamentalist Christian does refer to the Bible, he reads it at surface value. Now what do I mean by “surface value”? Essentially, reading scripture at surface value is when one neglects the context of the particular story (and sometimes the context of the writer). What I am saying is that sometimes there is more to a story than what it seems (Jesus’ parables give us a good example of what this means).

Fundamentalists will generally take a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. Friends, this is a disservice to the religion. For starters, it discredits Christianity. When one reads at surface value, apparent contradictions appear in scripture (and atheists often point these contractions out. In fact, most atheist only attack the fundamentalist approach to religion). Fundamentalism tends to ignore logic, inspection, and science. Interestingly, these contractions don’t exist if you read the Bible the way it was intended to – symbolically.

Symbolism transcends time (again, Jesus’ parables) in the way that literalism cannot. Perhaps you are saying to yourself, “that is not true, the Bible is the word of God and we must read and follow it literally”.

Well here is a test to see if you are doing a good job at the literal interpretation. Open up to Mark 9:42. To paraphrase, in this verse Jesus is telling his followers (us Christians) that if our hand causes us to sin, to cut it off. Or, if our eye causes us to sin, then to rip it out and cast it from our body.

Well, I’m going to assume that if you are reading this, then you still have your eyes; if you write a reply to this post, then you still have your hands. But why? In a literal sense, if you do not do this, you are not obeying Jesus!

This begs a few questions. First, why is it that so many Christians like to read literally? Simple – because it is easy. It is easier to read a sentence and interpret it based on our own context and experience than to do a little research and intellectual investigating to see it from a different angle. It is easy and people find comfort in a “set of rules” to follow. But remember, Jesus didn’t come to establish a religion (Christianity), no, He came to rid the world of religion; He is irreligion.

The second question that arises is how exactly do we read the Bible? I mentioned this earlier, but in the next post in this series (sometime in the near future I hope) I will give you a good example of why it is important (using contemporary science in my example/explanation).  In the mean time, take a look at this post for some further Christian insight.

Until then, have a great day/night!  (CLICK HERE FOR PART TWO)

God Bless.

-Justin

Science’s Overlooked Problem

 It is no secret that science and religion have been butting heads since the 20th century (particularly against the fundamentalist sect of faiths).  Yet I have been a firm believer that science cannot, and does not, provide ample explanation for things such as life, purpose, or even God (despite rather poor attempts).

I think it would be beneficial for you to reflect on the insight from religious scholar Huston Smith.  Essentially, scientists are being forced to reconsider their “bottom-up” reasoning theory of causation (the one that challenges, say, the Christian position).

Since science is empirical, everything in it spins off from our physical senses.  The fact that those sense connect only with physical objects and that the entire house of science is founded on our physical senses has led scientists to assume that matter is the fundamental ‘stuff’ of the universe.

Their familiar scenario begins with the Big Bang, from which issued the smallest conceivable entities – quarks, strings, what have you – that grouped themselves into progressively more complex entities until the latest nanosecond of cosmic time life and consciousness emerged.  It’s upward (bottom-up) causation all the way.

Smith has outlined the basic (dominant) theory and beliefs from the scientific perspective.  However, as he will point out, this type of causation is being question for very important, yet surprisingly obvious reasons.  Smith continues…

What is causing scientists to reconsider that scenario [the one outlined above] is their dawning realization that it contains no explanation for WHY [emphasis mine] complexity increases.  To say that it rides the Big Bang’s momentum is no good, for no one completely knows what powered the Big Bang in the first place.

And to say that the complex forms emerged fares no better, for emergence is a descriptive, not an explanatory, concept.

It would be wise to mull around what you just read and really let this overlooked point sink in.

Open-Minded People are Rare

Let’s face it, finding people with an open mind can be difficult.  So, as a result, I have decided to start a search!  Today I am awarding the following blogs/websites with the “Open Mind Blogger Award”.  These individuals demonstrate respect towards others, research and consideration of oppossing views, allow free-flowing conversation with commenters, and have an overall spirit of civility and openess.  It is time we recognize such commendable behavior on the internet.

Congratulations to our Five Winners:

1. Nick Queen
2. Polliwag’s Pond
3. Agnostic Atheism
4. Hell’s Handmaiden
5. Open Book

*Winners, CLICK HERE to see what to do next*

This is my thanks to these men and women for living live with an open mind.  If you won, remember to acknowledge 5 people in your blog experience who you feel deserve to be recognized.