With Due Respect: Christians value the Bible over Jesus!

Recently, an article in the Guardian (a British newspaper) criticised on how much Protestants value the Bible over God. While it is well-written, I find some points raised questionable, and will attempt to handle them here. I encourage you guys to go take a look.

Bear in mind that I am probably not as well-read in Christian history or theology as the author (Stephen Tomkins) in Guardian (I am currently doing a Masters in Biology), so my reply would not be as refined as his.

The problem with Bible literalism
While the author seems to critique Bible literalism, he seems to suggest (he didn't write it explicitly) that just because the some parts of the Bible is not literal, it is not true (referring to the earth was "created in six days").  However, one must recall that something may be true, yet not literal. Take for Songs of Song for instance. It is definitely not literal, but it is an honest expression of Solomon for his beloved.

The author also suggests that we should read the Bible asking questions about context (eg: "What was St Paul saying to the Galatians?" and "How would first-century Asia Minor have understood these words?"). I agree with this point, and would also like to add that I have never been to a Bible study session where we did not consider context.

Jesus vs the Bible
The author raises up an important question-- who do Protestants value more, Jesus or the Bible. While sounding witty and intelligent, the author misses an important point-- which Jesus should we worship then? The Jesus of the Quran who spoke in Mary's womb? The Jesus of the Jesus Seminar who died and remained dead? The Jesus or the Church of Latter Day Saints who also appeared in the Americas? Or Jesus of the New Testament, who died for the sins of mankind. Ultimately, something has to be authoritative.

Furthermore, he also fails to mention that Jesus Himself regarded Scripture highly, and referred that Scripture was about Him (eg: Luke 24:44, John 5:39). So if the Bible is fine with Jesus, it's ok with me. The idea of Jesus vs the Bible is a false dichotomy.

Criticism of Bible writers
While it can be argued the intention of Biblical writers were riffed with political discourse, it's also perfectly possible they were genuine. After all, they were writing what they felt was divine. Wouldn't they carefully write it then?

Summary
While the question of the Bible's authority must be asked, one must to readily to reverse the questions on oneself--without the Bible, how do we know the nature of God? How would God reveal his nature to mankind?

Alternative Culture: Confessions (2010 Japanese film)

My friend, who is doing a Masters in art asked if I wanted to watch a Japanese film with her. The last Japan films I watched were of the Death Note series, and it was L: Change the World.

So wondering what the film was like, I decided to watch Confessions with her. After all, it was an Academy Award nominee, so it had to be at least a decent film.

Confessions tells the story of a teacher who seeks to avenge her daughter's death, by going after her killers. The two killers are her own students.

The storyline
Moriguchi Yuko (Matsu Takako) announced to her form class of 13 year-olds that she is resigning. She revealed that her daughter (Ashida Mana) had been killed by two students of the class-- Shiomura Naoki (Fujiwara Kaoru) and Murakawa Shinya (Amami Juri), even though the police concluded that her death was via accidental drowning. The rowdy class remained apathetic and rude until Yuko reveals that she had injected HIV-positive blood into the milk of Naoki and Shinya. Although none of them would be infected with HIV (you can't get HIV from drinking tainted milk! More people should study Biology, like me!). the class shrieked in horror as they back away from both Noaki and Shinya. Yuko reminded the class that "all life is precious" hypocritically and finally took her leave.

Confessions is unlike a typical revenge story, as it is told from five perspectives, thus involving flashbacks and flashforwards. Let's go through each of them.


Shiomura Naoki
Naoki suffered from inferoirty complex. He joined a sports school, but was not good at sports. He joined a cram school, but was not good in his studies. Everyone in class bullied him, and he longed for a friend. Everyone, except Shinya.

Sick of Yuko's attempts to help him, Naoki suggested that they should target Yuko's daughter to teach Yuko a lesson. On the day of the murder, Shinya rigged a purse to deliver an electric shock to render Yuko's daughter unconscious (but alive). Thinking that he had killed her, Shinya boasted that he finally did something note-worthy. He then confessed that he never liked Naoki anyway, and was just using him to lure a target. In other words, Naoki would never amount to anything, much less a killer.

As Shinya left the scene of crime, Naoki discovered that their victim was still alive. Remembering Shinya's words, he tossed the Yuko's daughter into a swimming pool, effectively drowning her to deny Naoki's claim to murder.

Upon thinking he was infected with HIV, Naoki dropped out of school, and refused to attend classes in the new term. He refused to let everyone and everything touch him, and scrubbed everything he touched, thinking that he had infected it (like Lady Macbeth).

New teacher Yoshiteru Terada (Okada Masami) naively attempts to reach to him with enocuragement and messages from the class (the class had made notes of encouragement for him, but contained cryptic messages to remind Naoki of his murder), but his attempts only drive him further to insanity. Kitahara Mitsuki (Hashimoto Ai), the class moniteress suggested to Terada that he was pursuing a lost cause, but this drive Terada (who does not knowthe whole story) to increase his efforts.

Mrs Naoki
Naoki's mother (Kimura Yoshino) is incapable to believing that her son's mediocrity is his fault. She blames society, Yuko, Terada, his classmates and herself (basically everyone except Naoki) for her son's condition. Continually absolving her son's innocence in the light of recent events, she finally hits a breaking point when Naoki confesses that he intentionally killed Yuko's daughter. Taking the blame of her son's action, Mrs Naoki wrote a letter of confession and stabbed her son in the chest. Naoki then demostrated what he was really good at-- killing, and stabbed his mother.

Kitahara Mitsuki
After the resignation of Yuko, the class began to taunt and bully Shinya, constantly reminding him that he was a killer. Only the class monitress Mituski refused to take part in such activities. Upon discovery of severe bullying, Terada reprimanded the class, and Mituski was immediately suspected as Terada's informant. So she shared the bullying with Shinya.

Such bullying made Mituski close to Shinya, and they become good friends. Believing her love for him would change him, Mituski confessed she admired Shinya's genius. To impress Shinya, she told the police the reason for Naoki's breakdown-- the frequent visits of Terada. This destroys the naive Terada's personality, confidence and ultimately his faith in the character of his students.

Murakawa Shinya
Shinya is a genius with a superiority complex. Despite winning a science fair, he craves fame, and was upset when news of a juvenile murdering her whole family made the front page. Abandoned by his mother (a professional physicist) when he was young, Shinya was hoping that his genius would allow his mother to finally accept him. He would show off his inventions in his blog (his source of confessions), but she did not reply.

He went to the extent of intenting to kill Yuko's daughter but failed. This denied him the chance of fame. He finally broke and decided to blow the whole school up. When ridiculed by Mituski for his craving for fame (as mummy issues), he beat her to death via a blunt object.

Despite planting the bomb at the school hall, it failed to detonate as he activated it. What happened?

Moriguchi Yuko
Yuko had planned everything all along. Refusing to over her evidence to the police (as they would have pressed light charges to minors), Yuko took revenge into her own hands.

She had played on Terada's enthusiasm, and advised him to keep visiting Naoki (counting on the nastiness of her ex-class to ruin Naoki further). As Mituski regularly met up with her, Yuko learnt about Shinya's family issues. She was the one who had moved the bomb, and confessed this act to Shinya over the phone, and that the bomb was placed at his mother's office. In other words, Shinya killed his mother.

Confronting Shinya (who was now in tears), Yuko told him that he had tasted his own medicine (death of a loved one), and now he had to work on a road of reformation and redemption. "Just kidding," she ended, rejecting his possiblity of redemption.

Discussion
Social responsiblitiy: Classic Liberialism and Conservativism
One of the ideas the film explores is the idea of responsibility. Who is responsible when a person commits a crime. Traditional Liberialism (sounds like an oxymoron) tends to place the blame on society, while Classic Conservativism places blame on the individual.

And to some extent, the film explores both cases. Naoki can be easily seen as a leaf in the ocean, being pushed an influenced by Shinya, his classmates and his mother. He bases his self-worth on his friends and parent, and he slips into depression upon Shinya's betrayal and the painful reminders by his classmates.

Shinya, on the other hand is a force of his own. Other than motivated by fame (his self-worth), he attempts to kill Yuko's daughter and the school, and actually kills Mituski and his mother himself. Despite his genius and strong personality, he fails to choose what is right. This is most poignant when Yuko rightly pointed out that Shinya could have chosen not to detonate the bomb. But he did.

Self-worth
The film places a lot on self-worth. It does not take a philosopher to underline the importantness of this question. For Naoki's mother, it is her son. Thus when realising her son was beyond redemption, she murders him. For Shinya, it was his mother's respect and the need for global recognition. Upon wanting those, he planned to murder a school to make headline news.

However as Christians, we have to remember that our self-worth is in God. After all, if we believe in God, then we are reasonable to believe in our own value. God made us his unique creations, possessing unimaginable, intrinsic worth.  Furthermore, each child of God has a unique gifting from the Spirit, indispensable and irreplaceable (1 Cor 7:7).

In the film, we see how family, fame and love can lead to destructive circumstances. Although the three can be admirable things, they can be devestating once made the ultimate goal in life. As you can see, theology matters.

For more details on self-worth, read this.

Redemption
The film lastly suggests that some people are beyond redemption. Naoki's mum saw it in her son. Yuko saw it in Shinya. Even Mrs Naoki's and Mituski's attempts to redeem Naoki and Shinya respectively ended in failure and death. In fact Yuko concludes the movie by stating that redemption for Shinya is a joke.

However, in the Christian view, we have to remember that no one is beyond God's reach (John 3:16). It's not about what we did, but what has been done for us. It's not about where we been, but where our brokeness leads us to. And it's not about what we feel, but what He felt to forgive you. And that's what we preach a Gospel of Christ crucified, to redeem all mankind.

Review
I did like the movie, but found it unnecessarily brutal. I cringed at Mituski's death and dismemberment. I kind of thought that the movie missed out the views of Terada, the new and enuthsiastic teacher, to provide a optimistic framework to the pessimistic tone of the movie.

I give it a 68/100.

Alternative Culture: Proof

Premise
Based on a play with the same name, this 2005 film starts of with Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) attempting to get over her father's (Anthony Hopkins) death. Her father, Robert was a great mathematician who had declined into insanity in his older days. Robert's student, Harold (Jake Gyllenhaal) frequently goes through Robert's notebooks, hoping to find a mathematical breakthrough. Catherine's sister, Claire (Hope Davis) visits Catherine,  hoping to free Catherine from her depressing state by taking her to New York.

Halfway into the film, Harold finds a notebook in Catherine's house, with a groundbreaking mathematical proof about prime numbers. Suddenly a plot twist is revealed-- Catherine claimed to have written that proof.

Four who ye frightful
The story centres between the four characters of the story, and their approaches to truth claims. Let's explore them in detail:

Claire
Catherine's sister, Claire is one of the most straightforward characters of the film. She is almost as frustrating as the ultimate sceptic. She seems to cast doubt in everything Catherine says, including the existence of Harold. Even when Harold was presented, she still refuses to change her behaviour to Catherine.

When Catherine claimed the mathematical proof is hers, Claire expectedly doubts her sister straight away, insisting the handwriting is her father's (even though Claire is not a handwriting expert). When challenged on what would convince her, she laid down an unreasonable demand-- Catherine must recall the proof from her mind.

Naturally Catherine protested, as the proof is forty pages long. Claire's scepticism even goes as far to suggest that in an effort emulate their father, Catherine had deluded herself.

Harold
Despite knowing the brutal honesty of Catherine's nature, Harold initially doubts Catherine's claims, and is indecisive on taking a stand. When Catherine offers to explain the proof to Harold, he is insists that it would changed nothing-- Robert could have written the proof and explained the proof to Catherine first.

Unlike Catherine's sister, Harold is determined to work on the evidence that he has rather than demand unrealistic ones. After consulting several of his peers, he comes to the conclusion that Catherine was the author (based on writing style and the mathematical techniques used).

Catherine
Catherine's approach to the proof is the most personal, yet the most fragile of all. She knows she wrote it. However, under the pressure from Harold and Claire, her faith in her knowledge crumbles. Pushed beyond her breaking point, she broke down and sobbed, confessing that she was not the author from the proof. Even when presented with the evidence by Harold, she rebuffed him, stating that evidence themselves do not "prove anything".

Robert
The father of both Catherine and Claire, Robert suffered from the worst approach to truth. He is unable to discern reality, and as Catherine shared at the funeral, he would write "19-20 hours a day", thinking he was producing eloquent mathematical proofs. However, he was simply scribbling nonsense (such as "as the number of students approach infinity, the number of months approaches 4").Worse still, his insanity seemed to take a toll on Catherine, whom Claire assumes she inherited her mental state from.

My interpretation
Like other works I reviewed, I felt this film is very applicable (probably unintended by the filmmakers) to the Christian worldview.

Lessons for non-believers
The film portrays two types of sceptics-- one honest and another ignorant. The ignorant one (Claire) is happy to make a conclusion before examining the evidence and even putting unrealistic demands with the available evidence.

The honest one (Harold) is willingly to prove/disprove Catherine's claims logically and with expert opinion. And he was the one to come up with the truth. He did not allow his doubts to hinder his search for the truth.

Lessons for the Christians
Despite knowing the truth, Claire crumbles under pressure. Eventually, Harold vindicates her. Similarly as Christians, we should not be afraid to exposing the Gospel to scrutiny. After all, Jesus said he is the 'truth, way and life'.

However some Christians can be so caught in a world of their own like Robert, that they not only fail to become relevant, but unable to discern truth from falsehood.

Conclusion
I really like the film, and I give it 75/100. I was a little disappointed that the film only picks up halfway through, and that some scenes (such as the sex scene) were unnecessary.

With Due Respect: What about the Lost Books of the Bible?

Is the Bible complete or is it not?
I wonder what people usually mean that when they claim the Bible is missing some books. I guess it maybe comes from the view point whether the Christian Bible is divinely or humanly inspired. I always found it logically inconsistent on both accounts.

Divinely-inspired
Few critics who say this would also claim that the Bible is God-breathed. Let's for argument's sake assume that the Bible is divinely-inspired (which I believe).

By extension of the argument, then the Bible has a supernatural flavour to it, and thus God has the overall responsibility to protect His word. God does not forget, change his mind or gets confused over right and wrong. Why would God lose His own book if it is under His protection?


Humanly-inspired
However, most who present the 'Lost Books' argument often assume that the Bible is humanly inspired. Fine, let's again for argument's sake assume this is true. In other words, the Bible would be a collection of statements of spiritual beliefs determined by the early church leaders. By that definitation, then don't they have a right to determine what goes in and out of those statements? The fact that the early church leaders suppressed the Gnostic Gospels (such as the Gospel of Thomas) does not diminished Christianity, in fact it strengthens the historical accuracy of the Bible as a reflection of the early Christian beliefs.

In fact the people of Jesus Seminar have not decided rearrange the Bible because of 'Lost Books', but rather, because they believe that the Bible is not divinely-inspired, and that they should choose books based on what they believe to be spiritual truth.

Conclusion
Whether you accept that the Bible is divinely-inspired or not, it makes little sense to speak of the 'Lost Books' of the Bible.

Theology 1.0: What is the Trinity?

What is the Trinity? Do Christians worship three gods?
This is one of the most misunderstood ideas about Christianity. In fact, some critics of Christianity accuse Christians as worshipping three gods (i.e. polytheism) instead of one.

Although complicated to understand, Christians do not believe in three gods, or that God himself dons three masks in the course of human history. Rather, it is one God who revealed Himself in three persons-- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

One God
The Bible is clear that Christians worship one God. In Isaiah 44:6, God says there is no other God but Him, but he is the first and and the last. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the Bible states that God is one. And in case you were wondering, this view is echoed in the New Testament as well. (see Ephesians 4:6)

Pluarlity of God
Yet, the Bible also makes another thing clear-- there is pluality in the unity of God. In Genesis 1:26, God said, "let us make man in our own image". "Us" and "Our" aren't mistranslations or references to angels.

But what about the trinity, then? one might ask. The word "Trinity" does not is not found in the Bible, but one of the many clear references is in Matthew 28:19. Jesus told his followers to make disciples of all men, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This showed Jesus placed all these enitities as equality with God.

Conclusion
Although it might be difficult to comprehend and explain, the Christian God is one, but yet in three personalities.

For further references
historic case for trinity

Verses quoted
“This is what the LORD says—
   Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
   apart from me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (Ephesians 4:6)

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Genesis 1:26)

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28: 19)

With due respect: A powerful and loving God would not allow pain and suffering!

It is one of the most powerful questions I ever encountered, and it was one of the questions that drove me away from Christianity in my younger days. Yet years later, the same question drove me back to Christianity. So let's try to handle the question-- how can a omnipotent and benevolent God allow evil in the world?

Assumptions
Let's put into things into perspective. The question states three things:

1) God is all-powerful
2) God is all-good
3) Evil exist

And that all three things cannot exist together logically. However, the accuser would be right if one of the two following assumptions was true--

A) There is no logical reason why an all-powerful and all-good God would allow evil in the world
B) It is God's will for us to be senily happy

Poor apologetics
Before I start, I would like to say I will be handling the philosophical/spiritual problem of pain and evil. In other words I skip over the practical reasons of evil, such as evolutionary explanations for pain. For example-- the fact that our nerves can detect danger enables us to survive hazards.

That said, any defence that a Christian makes must not reject any of three realities-- that God is all-good, all-power, and that evil exist. For instance, the Christian cannot 'justify' evil. To justify evil is to deny the existance of evil (the reason why something is evil is that it cannot be justified). Are there reasons for evil? Yes reasons, but not justification.

Free-will defence
 For God to be good, (and fair), He has to allows us to experience consequences of every action anyone (or anything) makes (Lewis, 1940). There is no point giving us freedom to choose, while taking away consequences of the choice. If one chooses an evil act, he and others must face the results of that choice-- be it death or imprisonment.


What about natural disasters?
While most people can accept that evils commited by men, few can "excuse" God from the reponsibility of natural disasters. But the thing is that either for God to be omnipotent, He is involved in everything, or nothing. The natural laws that run our universe cannot be broken by any whim and fancy.

On other hand, I have no problem accepting miracles do happen, but they should happen rarely (hence the term 'miracles'). Although one may claim that God is unfair in saving others, one must remember, nowhere in the Bible claims that it is God's will for all of us to be healthy and wealthy. It is His will for all of us to be reconcile with Him ultimately.

Then how is God good?
In Christianity, God allows evil, yet it is not His will. He may use our acts of evil, to bring about His will (Genesis 50:20). God hates evil, but respects our decisions to choose it over Him (Platinga, 1977).

Problem with naturalism
The problem is simple-- without God, how do you know something is evil? Yet the thought process complex-- one may attribute morality to the natural world, but if nature is "red in tooth and claw", why should we view something that happens naturally such as death and destruction as evil? CS Lewis (1952) explores this concept in Mere Christianity, claiming that if anything,the existance of evil hints towards a god. Afterall, one does not call something unjust, unless he/she has an idea of what justice is.

Conclusion
Although the problem of evil has often been touted as a problem for a Christian God, from the Christian view it is not, and from a theistic view, it hints towards the existance of God. In fact, most philosophers regard the logical problem of evil to haven been sufficiently refuted (Gutting, 2009).

Postscript for the Christians
Yet for the followers of Christ, Jesus never promised freedom from suffering or pain from this earth. He told us that that in this world we will have trouble, but we can take heart -- He has overcome the world (John 16:33)

References

Lewis, C.S (1940) The Problem of Pain

Lewis, C.S. (1952) Mere Christianity

Gutting, G. (2009) What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy

Platinga, A. (1977) God, Freedom and Evil

Merry Christmas!

Hello readers!

Currently I am busy with school so this blog has not been updated for a while. Nevertheless, I will post something soon.

In the meantime, MERRY CHRISTMAS!

God bless,
defensedefumer