Science and Religion...

Yet another post inspired by a recent Unbelievable podcast, I really must think for myself some day... 

Anyway, these thoughts spring from the show on "Can the Bible be retold as science?" featuring a discussion between Russell Stannard (Christian and Physicist) and Steve Jones (Atheist and Geneticist). Jones has recently published a book saying that the bible is really an early attempt to explain the world in a kind of semi-scientific manner, and the show discussed this. The fact that most of the bible clearly isn't anything like this at all didn't really come into the conversation.

This was one of the rare shows on Unbelievable where the usually impartial host Justin Brierley clearly picked a side to be on. Obviously, we know he's a Christian, but here he definitely sided with Stannard more than he usually does in such debates.

But anyway, the discussion eventually landed on the 'non-overlapping magisteria' theme. Brierley and Stannard were quite emphatic that there were some questions that science cannot answer, but religion can. Jones appeared to grudgingly agree with them. But they never got into the meat of how this actually happens. The whole discussion was expressed in terms of 'science' does this, and 'religion' does that, without actually asking the important question of how either of them answer anything.

The 'scientific method' is well established and basically goes like this:

1. Propose hypotheses
2. Carry out tests or observations to either confirm or refute hypotheses
3. Discount refuted hypotheses, perhaps modify unrefuted hypotheses
4. Repeat 2 and 3 until hypothesis is confirmed by a reasonable amount of testing and is not refuted.
5. Always be willing to let new evidence refute an 'established' theory...

In this way, science establishes 'facts' and increases our knowledge of the universe.

But what about religion? What is the 'religious method'?

There is a science vs religion flowchart that you've probably seen that caricatures religion is basically being a set of ideas that are unchangable, irrespective of how much contradictory evidence there is. That is simplistic and in many cases outright wrong. But the question remains, how does religion answer the questions of life?

In listening to the Unbelievable podcast, I couldn't help but think that most of the time when the folk were talking about 'religion', what they actually meant was 'theology', but even then that didn't help me in my line of thinking; how does theology answer the questions of life?

On reflection, I think there are three basic methods which 'religion' uses to establish truth:

1. Observation, hypothesis testing, etc. - that is, basically something like the scientific method.
2. Philosophical deduction, often linked with meditation on holy texts or traditional thought.
3. Revelation.

Of course, in religious thinking, revelation trumps philosophical deduction, which in turn trumps the scientific method. In other words, any 'facts' established by revelation are considered to be outwith the realm of scientific enquiry, and no amount of contradictory evidence can ever refute them.

To the scientific mind, of course, this line of reasoning is nonsense. If an established 'fact' can be refuted (beyond reasonable doubt), then we should dispense with it, irrespective of how the fact was established in the first place. Indeed, if the evidence refutes the 'fact', then this leads the scientific mind to question the validity of the method that established it in the first place. So not only is the 'fact' dismissed but the process of revelation is also given less weight, or is dismissed altogether. 

On thinking through these issues I have come to realise that pretty much everything asserted by religion (well, I'm thinking specifically of Christianity here, but presumably this goes for all the other religions that I don't know as much about) eventually can be traced back to some claim of 'revelation' or 'inspiration'. It may be revelation to someone a long time ago, which was then written down, which then became scripture, which was then meditated upon, which was then interpreted, which then became doctrine, and so on, but at the end of the day, if you follow the chain of thought back, somewhere we end up with inspiration or revelation, however implicit this is.

So, once we strip all the layers away, what religion is left with is claims of revelation. Within any given religious group, these may be taken as authoritative, but viewed from the outside, these are almost certain to be taken as worthless, irrespective of whether the outside observer is an atheist or a theist of another flavour. Indeed, even within a religion, say Christianity, large groups of adherents would consider certain claims of revelation or inspiration made by other groups to be worthless.

For example, the church I grew up in was very skeptical of the 'gift of tongues', so any message received by someone through the 'gift of interpretation of tongues' on hearing a 'message' delivered in an unknown language would have been completely dismissed by them. This revelation pathway would not be accepted as valid. Indeed, for the church I grew up in, the only valid revelation pathway is the existing bible. They firmly believed that God has nothing new to say that hasn't already been said in the bible or through Jesus. But other parts of the church don't hold to this kind of belief and the revelation pathway remains open.

But if an 'inspired revelation' today is not possible, then why should a similar revelation 2000 years ago be any more valid? We actually know less about the historical revelation pathway than we do about the modern one. In modern times we can find out about the person 'receiving' the inspiration, we can assess their trustworthiness, etc. Going back to biblical times, in many instances we don't know who the people were or anything about their trustworthiness, and we really don't know how faithful the transmission of the information was from the moment it was first 'received' (or conceived) until it was recorded in written form in the bible. To be honest, there are even questions about the accuracy of the written transmission in some instances.

Basically it boils down to this: how can you validate a revelation? And I think the answer has to be, unless it happens to you, you can't. (And even if it does happen to you there may be room for doubt.)

So what we find is that science has a tried and tested and justifiable method for establishing facts about the universe, while religion doesn't.

Science and Faith...

Just listened to an interview with 'the Pope's Astronomer' Brother Guy Consolmagno over on the Unbelievable podcast. He comes over as a nice and intelligent guy who knows science and who knows faith, and sees no conflict between the two.

I found his outlook on life very interesting, and he made one comment which I must share with you here...

He said: "Faith is what you do when you don't have the facts and you have to make a decision anyway."

Fascinating. For him, "faith" is an action, not a belief. Its not 'blind faith' but rather a way of using your belief structure (presumably at least partially based on experience and evidence) to make decisions in contexts where you have no information or insufficient evidence. Of course, people of all belief structures have to do this, whether theists, atheists, or whatever. By this definition, atheists use faith all the time. Hmmm.

Anyway, I also found his general outlook on life and reality interesting, if slightly frustrating. Without using these words, he has a 'presuppositional' approach to reality. He says that he starts with the fundamental belief in God and then studies the universe (he is an astronomer, after all) on the understanding that all of it is God's creation; he sees it 'through the eyes of faith'. Nothing he has observed contradicts his fundamental presupposition. His world view appears to be self-consistent. He also admits that he has friends who start from an atheist presupposition and have managed to construct entirely self-consistent atheistic world views. In other words, he is happy to believe that the all the evidence that the universe has to offer is simultaneously consistent with the presumption that there is a creator God and with the presumption that there is not. Fundamentally this means that he believes that study of the universe itself cannot be used to give evidence to answer a question 'is there a God?'

I don't know about you, but I find that mindset quite frustrating. For me, if there is a God, it should be evident in 'His' creation. If a detailed and thorough study of the universe cannot lead an honest seeker to an answer about whether there is a God or not, then what is the point? How can anyone justifiably believe in a God? Is it really just a matter of arbitrarily deciding to believe or not, and then living consistent with that? Surely there must be objective evidence one way or the other?

Brother Consolmango seems to think not: "One of the things I see as a trait of God is he always gives us plausible deniability, every time he makes himself known he also says 'if you don't want to believe in me, you don't have to, its your choice'".

The Great Angel by Margaret Barker

Margaret Barker's book has, as its core thesis, a concept so heretical that it almost goes full circle and comes back to being 'sound' again. I find the theory fascinating, and reasonably convincing.

It is fairly widely known and agreed by scholars that much of what we call the Old Testament was compiled and edited around about the time of the return from the Babylonian exile, that is to say a little longer ago than 500 BC.

Barker's central thesis is that during this time of compiling, the 'redactor' who compiled the work rewrote or selectively edited significant portions of the text to give a very biased account. Her specific main claim is that the pre-exilic religion of Israel had not been monotheistic at all, but had worshiped at least two gods, but this fact was written out of history by the (monotheistic) redactor, although vestiges remain in the writings.

Very broadly speaking, she says, before this the temple worship was directed to Elyon, the 'Most High God' and to his son Yahweh, who went by a number of names and was understood by some to have both male and female aspects, resulting in the female personification of Ashera/Wisdom.

Erm, so the theory is that there was an ancient religion with a Heavenly Father, an incarnated Son and a less well defined third persona linked to wisdom. Does that sound at all familiar?

Barker, by drawing on the books of the OT and a lot of extra-canonical writings, both from the OT and NT eras, does a fairly convincing job of demonstrating that her thesis is at least worthy of serious consideration, even if she doesn't necessarily manage to prove anything.

I'll admit I got a bit lost in her explanations of how the female persona of Wisdom was understood to be a second aspect of the second God, but I find her evidence that the pre-exilic religion worshiped both the 'Most High' God and Yahweh as discrete and distinct gods as compelling and even convincing.

Why is it heretical - from a Christian viewpoint - to claim that the Jews misunderstood the nature of their God and mis-represent God in the OT? We believe that the Father God and Jesus His Son are discrete and distinguishable persons, and that the Jews are wrong in believing otherwise. What if they once had the right belief and rejected (or lost) it in favour of monotheism? Is it just because their (wrong) belief got incorporated in our Bible that we can't consider that maybe they knew the right stuff and then rejected it?

Barker claims (and provides evidence) that while the monotheism of the redactor is the dominant belief of the written texts (at least, the canonical ones) from the OT era, that the 'common people' (i.e. those who were never carried away to exile) continued to worship the plural Gods long after the exiles returned. Indeed, when Philo was writing 500 years later, there is clear evidence of a plurality of Gods in his (just pre-Christian) writings. He even uses the word 'Logos' to refer to the second God, something that the writer of the 4th gospel would use for Jesus 50 years or so later.

What she suggests (but does not explicitly say in this book, I believe this is the core of her other book 'The Older Testament) is that, basically, the ruling class of Judah/Israel was removed to Babylon and indoctrinated out of their pluralistic belief into a monotheistic one, and then they were returned to Judea to impose the same beliefs on the common people. But the common people never really lost these beliefs, only those who were the recorders of history lost them. So when, several centuries later, Jesus comes along claiming to be the 'Son of God', the common people understood this, and exactly who he was claiming to be. However the priests and rulers, who had long abandoned the pluralistic beliefs, were the ones who rejected Jesus.

The book bombards the reader with evidence. To be honest, I'd have been just as convinced if about half of the stuff was removed - the chapter covering the writings of the gnostics, for example, was more confusing to me than revealing, as were some of the other chapters on "The Name" and the non-canonical 'Wisdom' writings.

However, the final two chapters (where she addresses the writings of the early Christians and the books of the New Testament) are probably the best demonstration of her thesis. Reading the final chapter is an ongoing 'why had I never noticed that before' revelation to the reader and more than convincingly demonstrates that, whatever else the early Christians believed about Jesus, they equated him (God the Son) with Yahweh (the God of Israel in the OT). This is demonstrated by comparing numerous NT passages about Jesus with OT equivalents about Yahweh. Its not that they saw Jesus as being like Yahweh, it is clear that they saw him as being Yahweh.

So even if the reader is not convinced by the other evidence (although I am, reasonably) then you still are faced with the final conundrum. If the first Christians believed Jesus to be Yahweh, and were taught by Jesus to pray to His Father, then who is the Father? The Father cannot be Yahweh, as he is the Son. Ancient traditions, although obscured in the OT, still clearly make reference to the Father of the gods, the Most High God. This is the Father of Jesus.

All this will make me read both Old and New Testaments in a new light...

Christian Humanist

For no particularly good reason, I've recently been considering how I should label myself when it comes to 'religious' beliefs. I think (for now) I've settled on the phrase:

Christian Humanist

You see, claiming to be merely 'Christian' no longer means anything in our society. If you declare yourself to be a Christian, people either expect you to be:

1. exactly like them, or
2. in some way inferior to them, or
3. a bit weird, but not interesting enough to find out more...

But fundamentally, people often don't think it has anything to do with how you live and has little to do with following the teachings and example of anyone called Christ.

By adding another label to it, particularly one that is often seen as an opposite stance (especially when prefixed with 'secular'), it will hopefully raise questions and provoke conversations.

And, of course, I believe that in many respects, Jesus himself was a humanist:

Luke 14v18-19 (my slight variation on the NIV translation; the original Greek has no mention of 'preaching' to the poor, its an interpolation)

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to be good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

If that's not humanist, I don't know what is...

How to Get Rich as a Televangelist or Faith Healer

I heard the author of this book interviewed on the Infidel Guy show a couple of months back. It was reasonably interesting, so I thought I'd buy and read the book.

Its a short book. You could probably read it in a single sitting if you had a few spare hours. It is also reasonably interesting and informative, even if it does have a few annoying characteristics, which I'll get to in a mo.

However, its not a particularly uplifting or affirming read (as you might have guessed) and is downright depressing at several points.

The author of the book is clearly a disgruntled guy who got taken in by some religious con artist a couple of decades ago. He presents himself as a once gullible, evangelical Christian, but doesn't really say what his beliefs are now, which is a big hindrance to fully understanding where the book is coming from.

Even having finished the book, I'm not sure if the author's main point is:

1. "All successful Christian leaders are charlatans and just out to make money out of your gullibility; there is no God really...", or
2. "These are the techniques the bad guys use to lead good Christians astray, watch out for them and keep following the good guys..."

I suspect the author's intent is actually somewhere between the two, while this is not stated in the book, I suspect the author was raised in a fairly fundamentalist church, had a bad experience or two and now is an agnostic or an atheist.

So anyway, the book is presented as a 'how to' guide, but is really more of a guide through some of the more colourful pseudo-Christian con-men (and women) of the 20th and early 21st centuries.

The book presents all of these characters as being corrupt and charlatans from the outset, whereas in some cases I have sometimes wondered whether some of these people started out with the right intentions and gave in to the temptations that their positions afforded, ending up being out for their own gain, but possibly starting off with a gospel agenda. I mean, some are clearly con-artists at the start, but maybe not all of them. Or maybe I'm being too naive.

I recently blogged about the Lakeland 'outpouring' and Todd Bentley. Given that this book was written last year, it never mentions Todd, but it is amazing just how much of a fit there is between the 'instructions' given in the book and the things that seem to have happened at Lakeland. A few good Christian people have told me good things about their experiences with the Lakeland thing, but I must admit that I am still agnostic on this one. I'm considering 'revisiting' Lakeland in another post soon...

So, you're probably wondering how to go about getting rich as a televangelist or faith healer. Well, there's a few easy steps to follow. These are:

1. Get some form of credentials, but not from a prestigious institution. Some small bible college that nobody has ever heard of is good. There are several online ones that will ordain you for cash. These are fine.
2. Present yourself as the mediator between God and man. Yes, the bible presents Jesus as the only mediator, but you need to present yourself as the mediator between the people and Jesus, who then mediates between you and God.
   
3. Build your mailing list. It is reasonably easy to persuade people to part with $1 or other small amounts of cash, but to make money this way you need a big mailing list.
4. Target Christians from specific denominations only. You'll get nowhere going for folk from the big denominations like the Anglicans and the Presbyterians, but rather target folk from the smaller denominations with names like "Full Spirit Assemblies of the Family of God"...
   
5. Preach the 'prosperity gospel' and look the part - your 'flock' will expect you to have a big car, a big house, expensive suits, expensive jewelry, etc.
   
6. If you're balding, wear a wig. Its all about image.
7. Learn some bible verses and quote them often, but be careful which ones you use.
8. Avoid actually preaching about what the bible says about Jesus - I mean, he doesn't exactly promote the prosperity gospel, does he? He loved the poor and saw riches as a hindrance to getting to heaven. What you need is 'Diet Jesus'...
9. Demonise your opponents. Anyone who says anything against you must be in the control of Satan.
   
10. Speak in tongues. Any random string of syllables will do.
11. Be careful who you attempt to 'heal'. You're not gong to be able to heal amputees. Bring people onto the stage in wheelchairs, but only those who are capable of walking. Only heal non-visible illnesses, cancer is good, etc.

There is other advice, but you get the idea.

The thing is, you come away from reading this book wondering if there are any genuine or honorable 'televangelists' out there. Are any of them serving the gospel or are they all con men?

There probably is an answer to that, but not in this book.

So, all in all, this is an eye-opening read but is probably not recommended for anyone as it will make Christians less sure of their own church leaders, and will give non-Christians a skewed view of honest preachers and genuine healers (if such people do exist).

Big picture? Small picture?

In response to this old post, someone called John said this in his comment:

The entire religion looks exactly as it would if no supreme interventionist being was behind it. It is obviously just another religion created by primitive man to explain the universe we inhabit.

I have a feeling I may already have made this point before, but I am kind of in agreement with that statement.

If you take the broad view and look at everything that calls itself Christianity, you cannot really see the hand of God in shaping this thing. It is fractured into more sects and denominations than I could name, bits of it more or less wage war on other bits of it. Looking back across the history of the religion, there are a great many unpleasant and certainly ungodly things there. That's the broad view.

But if you take the narrow view and look at individual people and groups of people, the opposite is true. Here you often see the hand of God at work. Prayers are answered, people are healed, people are transformed, worship works, amazing things happen.

Why is this?

An old post that still lives on...

It sometimes amazes me when people I have never met and have no connection to randomly end up on my blog and leave comments.

But I get an even bigger surprise when someone responds to really old posts.

One old post seems to have a life of its own:
Todd Friel vs the Infidel Guy

The discussion is in reference to a podcast which unfortunately has dropped off the bottom of the Infidel Guy's archive page.

11 atheist arguements

On the 'Faith and Freethought' podcast last week, Richard Spencer offered 11 arguements that he thought were compelling reasons to believe that there is no God. I will list them here without comment and then consider each in turn in future postings...

"Atheism offers the best explanation for..."

1. the physical forces that cause natural disasters
2. the presence of unjustified pain and suffering in the world
3. God's silence in the face of adversity
   
4. the physical dependence of the mind on the brain
5. the hiddenness of God
6. religious history (i.e. why God does not seem to favour followers of any particular religion and why horrible things have been done in the name of all religions)
   
7. religious confusion (i.e. why the 'true path' is not obvious)
8. the uniformity of religious experience
9. the evidence of evolution
10. the scale of the universe
11. seemingly poor design in nature

More to follow...

What are the 10 commandments?

You know the story: Moses went up the mountain, met God, got the 10 commandments on stone tablets, came down the mountain, broke the tablets in anger, later on went back up the mountain and carved the 10 commandments onto new tablets...

But the thing is, the first 10 don't seem to match with the second 10. Huh?

Exodus 20 The first 10 commandments And God spoke all these words: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Exodus 34 The second 10 commandments Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. [...]. Obey what I command you today. [...] Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land [...]. Do not make cast idols. Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. [...]. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. [...]. No one is to appear before me empty-handed. Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest. Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. [...]. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning. Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant — the Ten Commandments.

Which are the real '10 Commandments'? In the bible it is the second list that are actually referred to as 'the ten commandments', the first list are not.

Or do we have 17 commandments? Or do we only really have the three that are common to both lists?

Anyone got any inspiration here?

Did God ever want sacrifices?

Its amazing what you notice when you read a different translation of something for a change.

I have read the (whole) bible several times through, but most of this has been using the New International Version (NIV). So probably every time I have read Jeremiah 7v22 before, I'd have read these words:

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, [23] but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.

However, I read that verse in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) today and it says:

For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. [23] But this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.

What? The apparent meaning is totally different! The NIV translation implies that God gave the Israelites the command to obey Him AND instructions about sacrifices, while the RSV clearly states that God did NOT give instructions about sacrifices, but only gave the command to listen and obey ('hearken').

So I had a look at several other translations (NASB, NKJV, ESB, NLT, ASV,... isn't the internet really useful sometimes?). Almost all of them agree with the RSV; God did not give instructions or commands about sacrifices ('in the day [that they came] out of Egypt').

I know that it is a joke that 'NIV' stands for 'Nearly Infallible Version' but I had always been lead to believe that it was a good translation.

Anyway, all this by means of introduction...

While all the translations (except NIV) say that God did not give instructions about sacrifice 'in the day', it seems to me (from context) that the meaning of the prophecy of Jeremiah here is that God never gave any instructions about sacrifice to the Israelites - because God doesn't want sacrifice! (see also 1 Samuel 15v22, Psalm 40v6, Psalm 51v16, Hosea 6v6).

But if God doesn't want sacrifice and He never gave instructions or commands about sacrifice, then who on earth wrote all the stuff in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deutoronomy?!

Polygamy, polyamory and the bible

Um, sorry about this one in advance... the correct response to this post is "you really should stop listening to so many of that guy's podcasts..."

I listened to another of the Infidel Guy's podcasts yesterday. This was one of his 'Debate Hour' shows rather than a conventional IG show. The distinction is that the IG show generally takes the form of an interview about religious or atheistic subject matter, whereas the debate hour is generally a fairly formal debate between two parties with opposing views on a topic, which may not be related to religion at all. Generally each party has an opening statement then a chance to comment on the other's opening statement than a period of rebuttal and finally a question and answer session. This format was intended here but, due to the debaters, did not happen.

Anyway, the subject of the show was 'Alternative Relationships' - specifically Polyamory.

For those of you who don't know, the dictionary definition of polyamory is:

"participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships"

(Webster's New Millennium Dictionary)

The two debaters were 'Rayven', an atheist living a polyamorous lifestyle, and 'Deacon Greg Cooper' a Presbyterian with very strict bible-based beliefs. However, Rayven didn't really get the chance to say much as the bible-thumping deacon ate up most of the airtime.

In between Greg's rants, the Infidel Guy, Rayven and folk calling in managed to make some quite valid comments, which the deacon ignored or dismissed without thought. He really was an awful advert for Christianity. Anyway, I want to comment on some of the issues raised.

And just to be clear on this point, just because I am raising the issue and posing the questions here does not mean that I am in support of the alternative lifestyle or the opinions expressed. OK?

Greg made it quite clear that his opinion was entirely based on the bible and it is this: that the only non-sinful sexual relationships are those between one man and one woman within the confines of a marriage. Greg also voiced the opinion that his interpretation of the bible could not possibly be wrong on any issue. He was that kind of guy. In fact, his attitude and manner made me inclined to take the other side in the debate when I really don't agree with it.

The others pointed out to him that many important characters in the old testament: patriarchs, kings and prophets, had multiple wives and were not condemned for it at any point in the bible. Indeed many of them were held up as being 'men of faith' and even 'righteous'. Indeed, the sins that the Kings David & Solomon were taken to task about had nothing to do with their multiple wives. Furthermore, in Exodus 21v10 there is a law which clearly governs the behaviour of a man taking a second wife. This practice is not condemned in the old testament, it is regulated.

This is true, whatever Greg said to dismiss it. If we believe that the old testament law came from God, then we must accept that God allowed and regulated multiple marriages. Also if God does not change his mind then this allowance still is in place... right?

Or is it one of those cultural things that God allows because it neither helps or hinders his agenda? Is it morally neutral?

During one of the moments that she was allowed to speak, Rayven said a few things that really surprised me. These related to the beliefs of 'polyamorous Christians' - I wouldn't have thought that such a group would exist, yet apparently it does. A simple websearch took me to their wesite too... Rayven took their side in the debate, primarily to annoy the fundamentalist, even though she said that she cannot see how you can reconcile the bible to a polyamorous lifestyle. The poly-Chrisitian apparently accepts that when people are united together to become 'one flesh' this needn't necessarily be a union of only two people - they see no biblical reason why three or more people cannot enter into a commited relationship with each other... I'm so gobsmacked there that I actually can't come up with a rebuttal!

But anyway, as I was generally inclined to find fault with the fundamentalist's position, I was quite miffed that nobody pointed out one of the key beliefs of the fundamentalist's belief structure - that of the Trinity. While the concept is not made fully explicit in the bible, the generally held belief amongst Christians is that there are three distinct characters in the Godhead - God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit - and these three are eternally united in a loving, intimate relationship. Now I'm not saying that sex is involved there, but from my understanding of what was said on the show, sex is not an essential of the polyamorous relationship either - it is a loving union of more than two people... sounds like the Trinity to me...

So how can we defend the position that our loving relationships should only involve two people, when our God apparently exists in a three-way relationship?

(and yes, I know what some answers to that question might be, but I thought I'd ask anyway...)

The revelation of Abram

I read the story of Abram this morning, from his first revelation from God (Genesis 12) through his name change to Abraham to the birth of his son Isaac (Genesis 21). I also flicked through a few of the surrounding stories.

What I noticed was this: Noah had direct revelation from God. Abram did too, but this was over 300 years later. The bible does not record any direct revelation from God between the two.

If you look at the biblical history stories later on in the bible, you will notice that the people are quick to turn their backs on God, be deceived, be confused and follow false religions (or perversions of the real one) mere moments after the revelation has been received. Just look at what happened when Moses went up a mountain for a few days - he comes back and the whole nation are worshipping a golden calf! If that's how far people stray in a few days, how far must folk have strayed in 300 years? How confused must the peoples' belief systems have got?

A few days ago I blogged about the character of the Most High God. It seems to me that as Abram went on his travels he encountered folk like Melchizidek, a priest of the 'Most High God' (Genesis 14) and others who worshiped 'Jehovah' and still others who worshiped 'El-Shaddai' and so on - I wonder if these were perceived by the Canaanites as being distinct gods?

That being the case, Abram had a great revelation - that the 'Most High God' and 'Jehovah' were one and the same (Gen 14v22) and further, God directly revealed to him that He was also 'El-Shaddai' (Gen 17v1).

It is hard to think back to Abram's day. He did not have any of the bible that we have, he did not have the same theology that we have, he saw the world in a totally different way to how we perceive it. But he heard the call of God and followed.

---

I believe that (for lack of a better term) the Christian 'religion' has evolved over the years. It more-or-less started with Abram and the few things he knew about the God who called him. Over the years it has grown as different beliefs have been added on - some by revelation, some by deduction, some through experience and so on. Occasionally some of these deductions have been wrong and experiences have been misinterpreted, these mistakes have often been corrected by new revelations and prophecies. However, I expect some errors are still in the mix today. While we worship the same God as Abram, we have a totally different understanding of Him - hopefully this is a more mature understanding in many ways, although that sometimes doesn't seem to be the case.

What is my point here? That belief is a dynamic thing - it will change with new revelation, deduction and experience. We will see further than those who went before us, because we do stand on the shoulders of giants (as it were). That doesn't mean our forefathers were wrong, only that they saw things differently.

God has revealed himself to us in discrete chunks. I believe that revelation must be ongoing, because there is so much more to learn!

In some ways its kind of like a jigsaw - Abram put the first few pieces together. Moses assembled a few as well, and so on. By the time of Jesus there were many sizable chunks of the picture already assembled. The cross was the missing piece which united all these assembled chunks together. Once the cross was in place the picture could mostly be seen. But I don't think the jigsaw is finished yet - there are still pieces to be added.

We still need more revelation today.

The Most High God

Deuteronomy 32v7-9
Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you. When the Most High [Elyown] gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he [Elyown] set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel [or 'sons of God' in several of the earliest manuscripts]. For the LORD's [Jehovah's] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance. (NIV)

If you read this passage from a modern monotheistic perspective, the meaning of the text is clear; God divided the nations but kept Israel as his own.

However, if you read the passage at face value, with no presuppositions, the meaning is totally different. Here you read of one character 'Elyown', the Most High God, who splits the nations of the world and gives each to one of his (many) sons. 'Jehovah' is only one of those sons and it is he who gets the nation of Israel as his inheritance.

That is the meaning that would have been understood by most readers in the polytheistic times that the words were originally written in.

Archeology has uncovered several ancient artifacts which clearly show that the ancient Canaanites worshipped Jehovah as one of many gods, not as the only God, and combining this text with that evidence suggests that there was believed to be a God even higher than Jehovah - 'Elyown' - the Most High God.

So who do we worship today?

Is 'God the Father' really 'Elyown' and 'God the Son' (Jesus) really 'Jehovah'? What about the other 'sons of God', what happened to them?

Revelation to only one

I listened to an interview with a Raelian the other day. Raelians base their system of beliefs on the stories told by one man. This guy, Rael, claims to have had a revelation in 1973 (and again in 1975) - he claims that the aliens who made us contacted him (and only him) to spread the word about them; that there is no God, that we were created by aliens and that we should live in peace and harmony.

Most of what they believe is, of course, nonsense. It denies modern science in a way that even the most fundamentalist of creationists does not - for example, they believe that the seven races of men were independently created by the seven races of aliens who visited us (these aliens are called 'Elohim' by the way).

The main issue I have with this belief system is it all comes from an alleged revelation made to only one man. Nobody else had the revelation, or indeed any proof of the things that were 'revealed'. Everyone else who believes has been won over by the persuasiveness of that one man.

The same, of course, applies to the Mormons - their beliefs are all based on an alleged revelation to only one man, Joseph Smith. He allegedly found the ancient book of Mormon and he alone was able to translate it (with some special glasses he was given) into English. Once again, nobody else had the revelation, believers were taken in by his persausiveness, and by the persuasiveness of those who followed.

It is easy to pick out other cults or religions that were established through the alleged revelation to one man (I can't think of any that were revealed to a woman). Indeed, I can't think of a religion, who's origins aren't lost in pre-history, which doesn't owe its origins to the teachings of a single man. Muslims believe the revelation was made to Mohammed, Buddhists believe that the Buddha discovered the path to enlightenment, and so on.

Can you trust a belief system or way of life which is based on revelations only made to one person?

I would say no. Why wasn't the revelation to more than one? Why no proof? If any way of life is based on the sayings of one man only, as a result of revelations he has allegedly had, I would exercise extreme caution - even if the way of life seems to work and there are no apprently negative aspects of it.

But is Christianity any different? Our faith is based largely on the teachings of one man too. This man was held to be the Son of God by his followers (although, apparently, he called himself the 'Son of Man'), but the followers didn't seem to receive any direct revelation at first, did they?

Some skeptics claim that Christianity was actually founded by Paul - who had a revelation experience on the Damascus road - and that it was his persuasiveness that got the whole thing started. Could that be the case?

Or is Christianity the 'religion' that is different? Was the revelation actually to the initial twelve disciples, and then to Paul, and also to Peter and John the divine later on, and so on? Have we assurance that it is not simply through one man that we are persuaded?

And does Christian revelation happen to people today?

Epiphany

I've been good. I've not been doubting any of the Christmas stories over the past few weeks. Well, not doubting them in public anyway. But now we come to Epiphany and the visit of the Magi...

Who were these guys? And most importantly, did any wise men from the East actually come and visit the baby Jesus having followed a star to Bethlehem? Or is this just a myth?

On the face of it, it sounds like a myth. For a start, three of the gospel writers make no mention of this incident, only Matthew includes it. Then, there is the oddity of the star - the wise men see it and travel to Jerusalem. Only after they've asked about the baby king and are told to go to Bethlehem, does the star apprently give any guidance.

Also, if you look into it, you'll find that the pre-Christian god Mithras was visited by Magi from the east at his birth. Given that there are an awful lot of similarites between the stories about Mithras and those told about Jesus, might it not be that some stories had been muddled together in the oral tradition, and by the time Matthew heard it the story said that Magi visited at the birth of Jesus?

But supposing it did happen... Who were these guys? Not Jews, that's for sure. If they were star-gazers from the East, chances are they were Zoroastrians. Or possibly Hindus or Buddhists.

I read an interesting (and highly dodgy) book some time ago called 'The Lost Years of Jesus' by Elizabeth Prophet (new-agey type, her husband was possibly a cult leader) which supposedly presented the evidence that Jesus had gone on a pilgrimage to the east duing his lost years (the gospels say nothing of him between the ages of 13 and 30). Most of the book is nonsense, but there was one slightly compelling bit of reasoning why this should be. The reasoning went as follows: if the Magi came to see Jesus as a child, surely they would have come back to check up on him in later life. Apparently there was a tradition in certain Buddhist circles of identifying the 'chosen one' (who will grow up to be Dali Lama or equivalent) at birth, but not taking them away from their home for training until they are about 13. Perhaps Jesus was identified as a chosen one and trained in the east before returning for his ministry... This would explain some paralles in the teaching of Jesus with some earlier Hindu texts (although the parallels all fall in the gospel of John, so maybe John knew the Hindu texts, not Jesus). Anyway, I'm not totally convinced by the reasoning in this book, even if it was interesting. But the point remains, why don't the Magi return later in the gospel story?

Anyone got any insights here?