Fall (2005-2007)
You know, people say Autumn follows Summer, but for this post, I found Fall seems more appropriate.
I can't remember how it happened, but the service in the military destroyed me emotionally, socially and intellectually. As much I would like to blame the army for changing me, rather, I thank the military for exposing who I was at that time.
And I was insecure, selfish and snobbish. As the months passed by, I became darker and more obessive. I wanted to be respected and loved by any means necessary. So I was not above backstabbing and sabotaging people, in order to get a good grade on my army peer appraisal. Although it may sound stupid of me then, that was the way I saw the world.
But the same thing happened to me. I was also manipulated and plotted against. At that point of time, my heart demanded justice. But I halted myself. Why justice? Who am I to say something is more right than the other> To be fair, I tried arguing that all morality was relative, but somehow, that line of reasoning seemed weak to me. "Could there be a relative without an absolute?", I wondered.
And then there was another issue. After I was posted into my unit, I had a conversation about religions with some of my army friends. And painfully it was revealed how little I knew about the religions of the world. It was very easy for me to disbelief in caricatures, which was exactly the mental images of religions that I had. In other words, I was no true atheist-- I was ignorant.
So I decided to be agnostic, but I hated that term, as it seemed to imply that I didn't care about the issue. I did, so I went to the library often to read up on major religions. I read parts of the Bible, the Quran (the English translation), the Buddhist Sutras, but did not understand them. So I read books on them.
At that time I found Christianity most convincing as weirdly enough, I felt it was the most falsifiable. Here was a man claiming to be able to forgive the sins of all mankind, but to be God. If he really did the things he did, and said the things he said, then that would be really strong evidence for Christianity. On the other hand, if he never existed, never died or never came back from the dead, Christianity would instantly fall apart. (Interestingly, the Bible says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15: 12-19).
So I checked up on mainstream scholarship (Roman historian Tacitus and Jewish historian Josephus) and discovered that this man Jesus probably did live and did die and did come back to life again. But to be honest at that time, I still hard trouble accepting the Christian God as the on true God. So I was a less strong atheist, a weak agonsitc and leaning towards Christianity.
One of my Christian friends then challenged me. If the historical Jesus was as the New Testament described him, who did I say He was? Was he mad (for thinking He was God)? Was he evil (for misleading us)? Was he God (as claimed by him)?
And I could not answer him. Maybe it just wasn't the season yet.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Conversion Story-- Summer
Summer (2001-2004)
So there I was in the summer of my academic growth. To my own surprise, I was excelling in almost every academic subject. I could not remember what it was like to struggle barely a year ago. I remeber feeling as if I was a different person. I graduated from secondary school, finishing the top 10% of the cohort, and went on top one of the best pre-universities in Singapore (Victoria Junior College). Although I was not anywhere near the top student of that school, I am preety proud of the way I progressed. Thanks to the school, the Debate Society, the Writers' Circle and the Science Research Society, my analytical and critical thinking skills improved and by far.
Nevertheless, I thought that God could be reasoned out. The world was such a pluralistic place; how can anyone religion be right? When I was taught evolution, I realised we removed God from the origin of species. Why did we need God, when nature could show itself to create? In my despair, I remembered praying alone in school, hoping God would send a sign. But there was none. No thunder, lightning or even rain fell from the sky.
"That's it!" I thought in my heart. I thought God did not exist. However, I kept it from my parents, and still attended church regularly. The strong didn't need God. I was strong, both academically, and intellectually, or so I thought.
Little did I know, after my summer, I was due for a fall.
So there I was in the summer of my academic growth. To my own surprise, I was excelling in almost every academic subject. I could not remember what it was like to struggle barely a year ago. I remeber feeling as if I was a different person. I graduated from secondary school, finishing the top 10% of the cohort, and went on top one of the best pre-universities in Singapore (Victoria Junior College). Although I was not anywhere near the top student of that school, I am preety proud of the way I progressed. Thanks to the school, the Debate Society, the Writers' Circle and the Science Research Society, my analytical and critical thinking skills improved and by far.
Nevertheless, I thought that God could be reasoned out. The world was such a pluralistic place; how can anyone religion be right? When I was taught evolution, I realised we removed God from the origin of species. Why did we need God, when nature could show itself to create? In my despair, I remembered praying alone in school, hoping God would send a sign. But there was none. No thunder, lightning or even rain fell from the sky.
"That's it!" I thought in my heart. I thought God did not exist. However, I kept it from my parents, and still attended church regularly. The strong didn't need God. I was strong, both academically, and intellectually, or so I thought.
Little did I know, after my summer, I was due for a fall.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Conversion Story -- Spring
Hello readers!
As promised, my next series of posts will be my personal story, of how I became Christian.
I will write it in probably a four to five part series. So without further ado, I let me begin.
Spring (1986--2000)
I am truly blessed and loved. My parents never fail to remind me about that fact through their words and deeds. I have a caring family who brought me up in a stable home. Although I was never well-to-do, at least the income my Dad brought into the family was enough for three full meals for the five of us.
I guess that's one of the blessings of a Chinese Christian family. My parents, although strict with me, also showed great affection for me, and I can never repay them for that.
However, between me and my siblings, my parents did note something different about me-- I had a keen mind that was always questioning. At least that was what my teachers, parents and my peers remembered of me.
For instance, when I was 6, my teacher read the story of Snow White to us, and all the kindergarten children were happy with the story except me.
"What happened to the woodcutter?" I recalled asking (or along that line).
The teacher asked what I meant, and I remembered telling her that if I were the queen who dispatched the woodcutter to kill Snow White and he let her go, I would have taken my revenge on him.
On another note, my parents noticed how interested I was with the natural world, raving about dinosaurs and observing the movement of ant colonies above ground. At that age, I marvel at the wonderness of nature and atrributed it to a divine Creator. At that age, the reason why I really wanted to study biology was to know God better. At that time, God was still an abstract concept
However, I was not a really a well-behaved, or disciplined student in my early days in secondary school. I guess it was because the friends I made in primary school and the fact that I did not need to work hard to get promoted to the next level. Sometimes, I wonder if my secondary two teacher ever forgave me for the horrid time I gave her.
Then I realised I had to work hard-- due to limited resources, my school only could offer 1 biology class for the students. And the class was only available for the top students. After the Secondary 2 mid-year examinations, it was revealed that I was ranked 100+ out of about 160 students. I had to jump over 60 positions in order to make the top class of 40.
So I gritted my teeth and I slogged hard. I started reading and spending more time in my work. After the final exams, I was ranked 16th, better than I expected, and I made it into the top class unexpectedly.
I attributed my success to God, but my spiritual life was unprepared for the summer of my personal ego to come.
As promised, my next series of posts will be my personal story, of how I became Christian.
I will write it in probably a four to five part series. So without further ado, I let me begin.
Spring (1986--2000)
I am truly blessed and loved. My parents never fail to remind me about that fact through their words and deeds. I have a caring family who brought me up in a stable home. Although I was never well-to-do, at least the income my Dad brought into the family was enough for three full meals for the five of us.
I guess that's one of the blessings of a Chinese Christian family. My parents, although strict with me, also showed great affection for me, and I can never repay them for that.
However, between me and my siblings, my parents did note something different about me-- I had a keen mind that was always questioning. At least that was what my teachers, parents and my peers remembered of me.
For instance, when I was 6, my teacher read the story of Snow White to us, and all the kindergarten children were happy with the story except me.
"What happened to the woodcutter?" I recalled asking (or along that line).
The teacher asked what I meant, and I remembered telling her that if I were the queen who dispatched the woodcutter to kill Snow White and he let her go, I would have taken my revenge on him.
On another note, my parents noticed how interested I was with the natural world, raving about dinosaurs and observing the movement of ant colonies above ground. At that age, I marvel at the wonderness of nature and atrributed it to a divine Creator. At that age, the reason why I really wanted to study biology was to know God better. At that time, God was still an abstract concept
However, I was not a really a well-behaved, or disciplined student in my early days in secondary school. I guess it was because the friends I made in primary school and the fact that I did not need to work hard to get promoted to the next level. Sometimes, I wonder if my secondary two teacher ever forgave me for the horrid time I gave her.
Then I realised I had to work hard-- due to limited resources, my school only could offer 1 biology class for the students. And the class was only available for the top students. After the Secondary 2 mid-year examinations, it was revealed that I was ranked 100+ out of about 160 students. I had to jump over 60 positions in order to make the top class of 40.
So I gritted my teeth and I slogged hard. I started reading and spending more time in my work. After the final exams, I was ranked 16th, better than I expected, and I made it into the top class unexpectedly.
I attributed my success to God, but my spiritual life was unprepared for the summer of my personal ego to come.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Books I have read about Chrisitainity and other religions/philosophy
Hi readers,
Over the years, I have been reading a lot of books about Christianity. Although I am Christian, in a way I am interested in finding out what others view about religion/philosophy and Christianity in general.
So here's a list of the books I read so far, and a short review of them.
A) About Christianity
1) Mere Christianity
By C.S. Lewis
Even as Lewis speaks from the grave, his ideas were not outdated, leaving me speechless about Christianity. He presents Christianity without all its bells and whistles, muisc and lights, smoke and mirrors, and makes it clear, concise and reasonable.
This book is abptly named "Mere Christianity". I enjoyed the book, and appreciated his intelluctual honesty in his journey in coming Christian.
2) Reason for God
By Timothy Keller
This book is inspiring, and again presents the case of Christianity in a simple way.
Although not as extenisve on philosophy as Mere Christianity, it is simple and easy to read.
B) Science and Christianity
1) Finding Darwin's God
By Kenneth R. Miller
This book is more of a defence of Monotheism, rather than mainstream Christianity. It is an exciting read, especially if you are a science student.
That said, I didn't quite understand about the use of quantum theory in free will. The argument sounds like a God-of-the-gaps argument, which his book argues against throughout.
2) God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
By John Lennox
A philosopher and mathematician, John Lennox handles the limits of science and religion, and the relations the two have.
It is quite a fair and balanced book, as he handles misconceptions thrown out by the New Atheists.
3) The Language of God
By Francis Collins
A nice, honest and personal view of God from the ex-head of the Human Genome Project. I appreciate Professor Collins's bravery in standing up for his faith to be counted.
That said, he struggles with some aspects of philosophy. For instance, his argument for morality sounds as if it is an argument from ignorance.
C) Atheism
1) God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
By Christorpher Hitchens
This book was puzzling to me. At first it starts out as a platform than discussion, and then wraps the chracteristics of religion so bad, that I do not recognise it. For instance, the author makes it sound as if all bad things come from religion, and for the good things that happen, the religious people used secular principles for them. Case close. No further discussion needed.
That said, he makes good arguments against the participants of religion, rather than religion itself. For instance, how religion resulted in the War on Terror and the Crusades.
D) Islam
1) The Myth of the Cross
By A.D. Ajjola
This book examines the central claims of Christianity, but the version I borrowed from the library is riddled with many grammatical errors, making it a hard read.
Nevertheless, I did read it through and was appalled by the line of logic it makes. For example, it says that Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man does not make him divine, as Ezekiel was also called "son of man" in the book of Ezekiel. However, he does not bother to observe the differences of language (the captial letters, for one), the context, the audience and so on. Even if he could not bother to check the original Greek/Hebrew Bible manuscript, he could at least cite someone, which he does not either.
That said, it does give a rough explanation why my Muslim friends do not except Jesus as God.
The future?
Currently I am reading Can a Darwinian be a Christian? by atheist philosopher Michael Ruse. Unfortunately, I have yet to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (because it's on loan in the library). I have read about it (and a lot of other books) though.
I need to read up more about other religions, so if anybody can recommend me anything, go ahead.
Over the years, I have been reading a lot of books about Christianity. Although I am Christian, in a way I am interested in finding out what others view about religion/philosophy and Christianity in general.
So here's a list of the books I read so far, and a short review of them.
A) About Christianity
1) Mere Christianity
By C.S. Lewis
Even as Lewis speaks from the grave, his ideas were not outdated, leaving me speechless about Christianity. He presents Christianity without all its bells and whistles, muisc and lights, smoke and mirrors, and makes it clear, concise and reasonable.
This book is abptly named "Mere Christianity". I enjoyed the book, and appreciated his intelluctual honesty in his journey in coming Christian.
2) Reason for God
By Timothy Keller
This book is inspiring, and again presents the case of Christianity in a simple way.
Although not as extenisve on philosophy as Mere Christianity, it is simple and easy to read.
B) Science and Christianity
1) Finding Darwin's God
By Kenneth R. Miller
This book is more of a defence of Monotheism, rather than mainstream Christianity. It is an exciting read, especially if you are a science student.
That said, I didn't quite understand about the use of quantum theory in free will. The argument sounds like a God-of-the-gaps argument, which his book argues against throughout.
2) God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
By John Lennox
A philosopher and mathematician, John Lennox handles the limits of science and religion, and the relations the two have.
It is quite a fair and balanced book, as he handles misconceptions thrown out by the New Atheists.
3) The Language of God
By Francis Collins
A nice, honest and personal view of God from the ex-head of the Human Genome Project. I appreciate Professor Collins's bravery in standing up for his faith to be counted.
That said, he struggles with some aspects of philosophy. For instance, his argument for morality sounds as if it is an argument from ignorance.
C) Atheism
1) God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
By Christorpher Hitchens
This book was puzzling to me. At first it starts out as a platform than discussion, and then wraps the chracteristics of religion so bad, that I do not recognise it. For instance, the author makes it sound as if all bad things come from religion, and for the good things that happen, the religious people used secular principles for them. Case close. No further discussion needed.
That said, he makes good arguments against the participants of religion, rather than religion itself. For instance, how religion resulted in the War on Terror and the Crusades.
D) Islam
1) The Myth of the Cross
By A.D. Ajjola
This book examines the central claims of Christianity, but the version I borrowed from the library is riddled with many grammatical errors, making it a hard read.
Nevertheless, I did read it through and was appalled by the line of logic it makes. For example, it says that Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man does not make him divine, as Ezekiel was also called "son of man" in the book of Ezekiel. However, he does not bother to observe the differences of language (the captial letters, for one), the context, the audience and so on. Even if he could not bother to check the original Greek/Hebrew Bible manuscript, he could at least cite someone, which he does not either.
That said, it does give a rough explanation why my Muslim friends do not except Jesus as God.
The future?
Currently I am reading Can a Darwinian be a Christian? by atheist philosopher Michael Ruse. Unfortunately, I have yet to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (because it's on loan in the library). I have read about it (and a lot of other books) though.
I need to read up more about other religions, so if anybody can recommend me anything, go ahead.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Points on Letter to a Christian Girlfriend
Hi readers,
Hopefully, you have read the previous post, where someone replied to my arguments. I guess I am humbled by some of his points which I will clarify for sure. Most of it is due to my brief explanations, so it does cause some confusion, and I apologise for that. Thanks to the blogger (how should I address you? Local Atheist?) who pointed the confusing parts, despite our differing worldviews.
I respect LocalAtheist because what he could have said was "Look at this moron ( or something like that)-- he misrepresented Taosim!". But in his graciousness, he pointed out a few of my errors quire amicably in his post.
1) Puropse of my post (Reply from a Christian Observer)
I made a mistake of sounding too harsh in the post, that readers treated it as a counter. Although majority of the post counters the writer of "Letters to a Christian Girlfriend", I guess I wrote it more aggressive than I should. My purpose was to clarify some of the points he made that I felt were unfair for two reasons-- intellectual honesty, and to present Christianity as something reasonable to believe in.
2)Where do non-believers go?
I think I probably wrote this too poorly, resulting in the major misunderstanding by "Local Atheist" (the blogger). I didn't say that Christians were sinning by marrying non-believers. In fact, it is not a sin at all. That said, it is hard for Christians in such a relationship because of differing world views.
Everyone is doomed to hell (eternal separation from God) becuase they are sinners. However, in accepting Jesus to cleanse our sins, believers join God in heaven.
So in a way (bearing in mind I'm simplifying a lot), it's fair in the sense that God honours our choice whether we want to spend time with him eternally (in heaven) or not at all (in hell).
3) Science and the universe
This one, was a major mistake by me. I failed to clarify certain issues. I wrote "Atheism is not as pro-science as you think". What I mean to write was "Atheism is not ALWAYS as pro-science as you think". And I failed to add that in a sense I agree with Stephen Jay Gould, that science is equally compatible with atheism as with religious belief.
It's hard to understand the second part too. God is by definitation in and out of the universe at the same time. Persoanlly, I am troubled by it, because it does sound like a cop-out. And I was not using this explanation as evidence of God, but rather to clarify why in Christianty God has no beginning (and no end).
PS: I know the writer of Letters to a Christian Girlfriend is agnostic.
4) The what if hypothesis
I think the bigger issue I failed to highlight is that how do we know ANYTHING is true if everything is environmental (or genetic)? I think if we push this hypothesis to the fullest, it seems to argue against the concept of ultimate reality. In other words, if we cannot know reality as it is, then how can I be sure that something exists as real at all?
It's quite hard to grapse, I concede. I myself took quite some time to get my head around it.
5) Bible as moral compass
I admit this part of my response sounds the weakest, but bear with me, because I am still reading on it.
I guess when I write "in context", we must take the "text" in the time it was written in. You say if the Bible inerrantly true, it should be unmistakeable throughout time. However, you realise that societies change over time, and hence interpretations vary. And I agree. But some interpretations are just wrong.
Let's take the case of King David and the death of his unborn child in 2 Samuel 12. After finding out his baby died, he said that "I will go to him, but he will not return to me". Does that mean the Bible (from this passage) says that all fetuses who die before birth will go to heaven? Maybe, but you have to remember that this part of the Bible is written as a narrative (of what David said), rather than what God told David.
Admittedly, it's hard to get the context of the Bible in normal reading at times. Hence Christians are encouraged to attend sermons/Bible study/read various translations of the Bible. That said, reading the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek and learning the historical context of the times is the best way to go about it, but not everybody has that gift.
6) Evidence
I will handle this at the last part.
7) Religion/Philosophy/Science as a tool for harm.
I largely agree you on this issue. If you were next to me, I would hi-five you :)
Science in its purest sense, is just a tool with no bearing of right and wrong. That said, scientific naturalism as a philosophy can lead to people doing good or bad things.
8) Professors
I did not say that majority of academics believe in a Christian God. All I wanted to point out was that there were academics who were Christian, and it's not the odd one or two.
I heard that 40% of scientists believe in a "personal God who answers prayers" (i.e. a theistic belief), but this survey was done in the United States only (I think). (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are lying). I hear from cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller that for science academics, majority do not believe in God because we are simply trained to be skeptics. So scientists are less likely to believe in anything. I don't know about other academics, though.
9) Funeral rites
Again, I apologise for misleading people. Bowing is a form of respect for parents, I agree. But in some Chinese religions, it also involves asking the deceased parents for protection. Isn't it a form of worshipping too?
And one more thing, about the contradiction, it is not a sin, if it is simply respect. The issue is up to an individual. If his conscience is weak, then he better not do it. (i.e. if he feels that by bowing to his parents, he feels guilty, it is better he does not do it). You may oversimplify the funeral rites (eg: Josssticks to sandalwood, bowing as respect), but some of us do not. Admittedly, I was never in such a position (I was an atheist when my grandparents passed away), so I can't tell you what I would have done (or how I would have felt).
(For reference see 1 Corinthians 8)
10) The problem of evil
I admit that these is a problem I struggle with in Christianity. Like why does God let bad things happen? In letting bad things happen (eg: He lets Satan destroy Job's home, wealth and health in Job 1 -2), isn't He a direct cause of them?
Let me be clear: If you quiz me on stuff like what is the theological reason everyone except a boy died on a Libyan airplane crash on May 12, 2010, or why God let a tsunami happen, I will answer you honestly-- I don't know.
There could be a number of reasons-- a consequnce of natural law/free will, judgement (although for someone to say so conclusively is insensitive; see Luke 13:1-5), or a warning. The point is I don't know.
The main point I was highlighting was the fact that we can recognise something as evil, right or wrong, hints towards a God. Local Atheist suggest simulations (I'm not too sure what he means), but to do so seems to give free will without consequence.
You point out the benefits of a moral system, in primitive animals, and I applaud that. But I just want to point out that it does not mean that it being beneficial disproves God (nor does it prove God).
6) Evidence
As promised, the evidence for belief. While there are many hints towards God existance, such as beauty, moral systems, etc, I just want to get straight down to it and talk about Jesus, which is the strongest case of Christianity.
Mainstream historians (as far as I know), accept that there was a man called Jesus. He claimed to be God, did miraclous things (Roman and Jewish historians who did not like him said he did black magic), and died on the cross. They wrote that more than 500 eyewitnesses saw him alive three days after his execution.
However, the implications of this (ie: whether He was God or not) differ among historical scholars. I will cover this in a later post.
But I would say if you can prove that a) Jesus didn't exist, b) Jesus didn't die or c) Jesus stayed dead, you would disprove Christianity. Again, I will cover this in a later post.
Conclusion
I'm sorry if my points are brief.
To my friend LocalAtheist, I don't know if you will write a response to this, but if you do counter this, I probably won't write a reply, because I want to move on. I will either focus on my journey towards Christianity or why we pray.
For our next post, why don't we list some books that will be helpful for our readers?
And have a good week ahead!
PS: Can I link your blog to mine?
Hopefully, you have read the previous post, where someone replied to my arguments. I guess I am humbled by some of his points which I will clarify for sure. Most of it is due to my brief explanations, so it does cause some confusion, and I apologise for that. Thanks to the blogger (how should I address you? Local Atheist?) who pointed the confusing parts, despite our differing worldviews.
I respect LocalAtheist because what he could have said was "Look at this moron ( or something like that)-- he misrepresented Taosim!". But in his graciousness, he pointed out a few of my errors quire amicably in his post.
1) Puropse of my post (Reply from a Christian Observer)
I made a mistake of sounding too harsh in the post, that readers treated it as a counter. Although majority of the post counters the writer of "Letters to a Christian Girlfriend", I guess I wrote it more aggressive than I should. My purpose was to clarify some of the points he made that I felt were unfair for two reasons-- intellectual honesty, and to present Christianity as something reasonable to believe in.
2)Where do non-believers go?
I think I probably wrote this too poorly, resulting in the major misunderstanding by "Local Atheist" (the blogger). I didn't say that Christians were sinning by marrying non-believers. In fact, it is not a sin at all. That said, it is hard for Christians in such a relationship because of differing world views.
Everyone is doomed to hell (eternal separation from God) becuase they are sinners. However, in accepting Jesus to cleanse our sins, believers join God in heaven.
So in a way (bearing in mind I'm simplifying a lot), it's fair in the sense that God honours our choice whether we want to spend time with him eternally (in heaven) or not at all (in hell).
3) Science and the universe
This one, was a major mistake by me. I failed to clarify certain issues. I wrote "Atheism is not as pro-science as you think". What I mean to write was "Atheism is not ALWAYS as pro-science as you think". And I failed to add that in a sense I agree with Stephen Jay Gould, that science is equally compatible with atheism as with religious belief.
It's hard to understand the second part too. God is by definitation in and out of the universe at the same time. Persoanlly, I am troubled by it, because it does sound like a cop-out. And I was not using this explanation as evidence of God, but rather to clarify why in Christianty God has no beginning (and no end).
PS: I know the writer of Letters to a Christian Girlfriend is agnostic.
4) The what if hypothesis
I think the bigger issue I failed to highlight is that how do we know ANYTHING is true if everything is environmental (or genetic)? I think if we push this hypothesis to the fullest, it seems to argue against the concept of ultimate reality. In other words, if we cannot know reality as it is, then how can I be sure that something exists as real at all?
It's quite hard to grapse, I concede. I myself took quite some time to get my head around it.
5) Bible as moral compass
I admit this part of my response sounds the weakest, but bear with me, because I am still reading on it.
I guess when I write "in context", we must take the "text" in the time it was written in. You say if the Bible inerrantly true, it should be unmistakeable throughout time. However, you realise that societies change over time, and hence interpretations vary. And I agree. But some interpretations are just wrong.
Let's take the case of King David and the death of his unborn child in 2 Samuel 12. After finding out his baby died, he said that "I will go to him, but he will not return to me". Does that mean the Bible (from this passage) says that all fetuses who die before birth will go to heaven? Maybe, but you have to remember that this part of the Bible is written as a narrative (of what David said), rather than what God told David.
Admittedly, it's hard to get the context of the Bible in normal reading at times. Hence Christians are encouraged to attend sermons/Bible study/read various translations of the Bible. That said, reading the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek and learning the historical context of the times is the best way to go about it, but not everybody has that gift.
6) Evidence
I will handle this at the last part.
7) Religion/Philosophy/Science as a tool for harm.
I largely agree you on this issue. If you were next to me, I would hi-five you :)
Science in its purest sense, is just a tool with no bearing of right and wrong. That said, scientific naturalism as a philosophy can lead to people doing good or bad things.
8) Professors
I did not say that majority of academics believe in a Christian God. All I wanted to point out was that there were academics who were Christian, and it's not the odd one or two.
I heard that 40% of scientists believe in a "personal God who answers prayers" (i.e. a theistic belief), but this survey was done in the United States only (I think). (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are lying). I hear from cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller that for science academics, majority do not believe in God because we are simply trained to be skeptics. So scientists are less likely to believe in anything. I don't know about other academics, though.
9) Funeral rites
Again, I apologise for misleading people. Bowing is a form of respect for parents, I agree. But in some Chinese religions, it also involves asking the deceased parents for protection. Isn't it a form of worshipping too?
And one more thing, about the contradiction, it is not a sin, if it is simply respect. The issue is up to an individual. If his conscience is weak, then he better not do it. (i.e. if he feels that by bowing to his parents, he feels guilty, it is better he does not do it). You may oversimplify the funeral rites (eg: Josssticks to sandalwood, bowing as respect), but some of us do not. Admittedly, I was never in such a position (I was an atheist when my grandparents passed away), so I can't tell you what I would have done (or how I would have felt).
(For reference see 1 Corinthians 8)
10) The problem of evil
I admit that these is a problem I struggle with in Christianity. Like why does God let bad things happen? In letting bad things happen (eg: He lets Satan destroy Job's home, wealth and health in Job 1 -2), isn't He a direct cause of them?
Let me be clear: If you quiz me on stuff like what is the theological reason everyone except a boy died on a Libyan airplane crash on May 12, 2010, or why God let a tsunami happen, I will answer you honestly-- I don't know.
There could be a number of reasons-- a consequnce of natural law/free will, judgement (although for someone to say so conclusively is insensitive; see Luke 13:1-5), or a warning. The point is I don't know.
The main point I was highlighting was the fact that we can recognise something as evil, right or wrong, hints towards a God. Local Atheist suggest simulations (I'm not too sure what he means), but to do so seems to give free will without consequence.
You point out the benefits of a moral system, in primitive animals, and I applaud that. But I just want to point out that it does not mean that it being beneficial disproves God (nor does it prove God).
6) Evidence
As promised, the evidence for belief. While there are many hints towards God existance, such as beauty, moral systems, etc, I just want to get straight down to it and talk about Jesus, which is the strongest case of Christianity.
Mainstream historians (as far as I know), accept that there was a man called Jesus. He claimed to be God, did miraclous things (Roman and Jewish historians who did not like him said he did black magic), and died on the cross. They wrote that more than 500 eyewitnesses saw him alive three days after his execution.
However, the implications of this (ie: whether He was God or not) differ among historical scholars. I will cover this in a later post.
But I would say if you can prove that a) Jesus didn't exist, b) Jesus didn't die or c) Jesus stayed dead, you would disprove Christianity. Again, I will cover this in a later post.
Conclusion
I'm sorry if my points are brief.
To my friend LocalAtheist, I don't know if you will write a response to this, but if you do counter this, I probably won't write a reply, because I want to move on. I will either focus on my journey towards Christianity or why we pray.
For our next post, why don't we list some books that will be helpful for our readers?
And have a good week ahead!
PS: Can I link your blog to mine?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Letter to a Christian Girlfriend – the counter, and the counter-back
Hi readers, I'm currently busy with an olive tree project in Silwood Park , Ascot, UK.
Unexpectedly, I received a reply to my post on "Reply to a Christian Observer". I do not personally know the person, but I am hopeful we can have a good, honest discussion.
The replies are in two posts:
http://localatheist.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/letter-to-a-christian-girlfriend-the-counter-and-the-counter-back/
http://localatheist.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/a-reply-to-a-christian-observers-response-continued/
His posts are really enlightening to read, no matter what your religious/philosophical background is.
Unexpectedly, I received a reply to my post on "Reply to a Christian Observer". I do not personally know the person, but I am hopeful we can have a good, honest discussion.
The replies are in two posts:
http://localatheist.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/letter-to-a-christian-girlfriend-the-counter-and-the-counter-back/
http://localatheist.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/a-reply-to-a-christian-observers-response-continued/
His posts are really enlightening to read, no matter what your religious/philosophical background is.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Reply from a Christian Observer (to the "Letter to a Christian Girlfriend")
Dear non-christian peer,
I do not know you nor your girlfriend personally, and thus it would be inappropriate for me to comment on your relationship. As the Eminem song "Like Toy Soldiers" goes, I do not want to write about "anything I know nothing about". I may not fully understand your frustration, but I see that you are hurt, and I just want to pray for you.
Reading your widely publicised letter, I see that you are particularly antagonistic when it comes to religion, particularly Christianity. After you probably did derive the name of your letter from a book by atheist Sam Harris, Letters to a Christian Nation. Now, I see that you wrote it under emotional pains, so I am in no way condemning you. However, as I read on, I see that you bring up many, many good points, but most of those points are pure misrepresentations of Christianity. Let me start point by point, as you did in your letter.
Undone by Corinthians 6:14?
When reading the Bible, one must take things into context. You picked out one line from one verse in the Bible ("Do not be equally yoked with non-believers"), and then claimed that Christians believe they will go to hell for marrying non-believers.
Now, the apostle Paul did write it, but as a guideline for relationships. It is hard for Christian and non-Christians to get into a serious (but not impossible) relationship because they have different goals. Both want to please the spouse, but for the Christian, marriage is a way to bring us in a closer relationship with God.
I am unsure if you read the whole passage, but if you did, you will realise that the Bible did not say Christian go to hell for marrying non-believers. In the Christian doctrine, people go to hell because they are sinners. That is why we need Jesus to cleanse us from our sin to enter a relationship with God.
A reason driven life
I have no real comment about this section. I applaud your determination to better yourself though the ages. Like you, I was brought up to consider evidences carefully and critically, and I emphasised with you in this aspect.
You have great questions here-- Do Christians have unquestioning loyalty to God? Is Christian faith blind faith?
I would disagree. Even Jesus questioned the Father on the cross as He was dying (Mark 15:34). Do Christians have doubt about their beliefs? I do. And every time we do, we are encouraged to real about it and settle it for ourselves. If the evidence is lacking, should we continue being Christian, or search harder?
The sciences (Bang Bang, Age of the Earth, Noah's Ark)
As an undergraduate biology student, there a lot of things here I can say "Amen!" too. However, you have to bear in mind that Creationism and Christianity are two different things (even though some proponents insist otherwise). My issues with Creationism is the same as yours. That said, you must remember that although evolution is often named to be anti-Christian, the Big Bang was once regarded to be anti-atheistic (as it implied the universe had a beginning). Atheism is not as pro-science as you think.
But you bring up a good point is this. God is described as always existing, even though no natural analogue exists. That's just it-- the Christian God is not purely natural, but also supernatural. If you insist that the natural world is all that exists, it's not a scientific statement, but rather a faith statement. Then your probability of God is zero. However if you entertain questions like, "Does meaning exists?" and "Why am I here?", you will probably find God.
So many religions, which one is true?
I agree with you on the issue of many religions to a large extent. You say maybe all religions are true in some sense or another, and they can't all be right. However, I must impose here. To say someone's religion has a touch of the truth, is only valid if you have the whole truth.
Then you go on with "If you were born in country X (Japan/India), you would be Y (Shinto/Hindu)". In philosophy, this is known as a what if hypothesis. It is another faith statement. Would it make atheism/agnosticism any less true, if it was pointed out that you are like that only because you had a certain background? What if hypothesis is an interesting concept to explore, but meaningless to follow up on.
Bible being not a good moral compass/Cherry-picking within the Bible
Again, this might sound surprising, but I do have roughly the same issues. Why did God test Abraham on Issac? Why did God have such harsh laws? Why did God approve of genocide? It's something I do not have all the answers to, yet I am reading on them.
And I am glad you get the point that the God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament.
Just because we have issues about something does not render it invalid. You misunderstand what apologetics say about Israel in the Old Testament.The Israel of Biblical times were one nation following God's laws, to be God's representative on Earth. Thus their punishments were harsher (stoning for adultery etc). However, no one nation today can make that claim. You can't take something of the Old Testament out of context and accuse Christianity of playing double standards. Remember Jesus spared an adulterous woman from stoning in John 8. Oh, but you would not accept that, would you? However, if you read John 8 in its whole, it is exactly address the issue you made a fuss of, and that's not "cherry-picking".
By the way, your one line from Confucius can only triumph all Christianity if you accept it to be your epitome of moral perfection. But again, that is a faith statement to make.
Why did Jesus need to die? Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Punishment for sin is separation from God, and is not to be taken lightly. And through the Old Testament time, a sacrifice (usually a lamb) had to be used for a sin offering. So a death was necessary to cleanse us from sin. However, with Jesus's death, we no longer need to do it.
Disagreement among various sects
You say Christians differ on so many issues. I agree. However, disagreement does not render something invalid. Evolutionary biologists differ over punctuated equilibrium and systematic gradualism when it comes to the fossil record. Does that make evolution invalid. Some atheists promote a militant lifestyle (advocated by your hero, Richard Dawkins), while others are more accomodative (Michael Ruse). Does that make atheism any less valid?
(I would not consider Mormons Christians in any sense, for their perception of sin and salvation is drastically different from mainline Christianity.
Worldwide conflicts as results of religion
Religions can cause great harm, no doubt about that. However, so can science and political ideology (eg: Korean War). You have to tease out what is an excuse and a reason. For instance, if you asked the Northern Irish if they were Protestant, they would say yes. If you ask them if they go to church, they would say no, but they were from Ulster. Does mainline Christianity sound like it is involved there.
Radicalism?/Christians as good role models?
You cherry-picked a few issues to further suggest religion cause conflicts. I already covered it in the paragraph above, but your statement about scholars and religion is just wrong.
No religious scholars? Really? What about Christian scholars? Do they count?
As for scientific scholars (since I am in that field), there are definitely many of them. Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris and Kenneth R. Miller are few of the many Christian professors of science out there.
Contradictions between Commandant 1 and 5
I was most irritated by this comment, to be honest. Just because you cannot see how you can honour God by honouring your parents does not make it invalid.
Do you know why the converts do not want to carry out the full Chinese funeral rites? Because it involves bowing and worshiping the parents, which would place their parents above God. But I think you would object to that, saying that being filial is more important than following God.
Wait a minute, first you accuse Christians of not following the Bible to the letter to be hypocrites. And when they do, you paint them as blind and in this case, unfilial. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
The problem of evil
You described natural disasters issue very well. I have no idea why God would allow such terrible things to happen. But to say that disproves the Christian God you are assuming that there is no benevolent reason why an omnipotent and good God would allow a disaster to happen.
Furthermore, the fact that you can recognise something is evil must have come from something. After all, the fact that you can call something bad and good when it comes from nature is unusual, isn't it?
Satan as an excuse?
Satan, according to the Bible is the Prince of lies. However, no where in the Bible does it pin the responsibility of sin on Satan, but rather on men.
Conclusion
When it comes to examples of bad Christians how religions can be misused, you basically ace the test. However my friend, you know little about theology/philosophy and thus it drives you to misinterpretation at times.
I do not know you nor your girlfriend personally, and thus it would be inappropriate for me to comment on your relationship. As the Eminem song "Like Toy Soldiers" goes, I do not want to write about "anything I know nothing about". I may not fully understand your frustration, but I see that you are hurt, and I just want to pray for you.
Reading your widely publicised letter, I see that you are particularly antagonistic when it comes to religion, particularly Christianity. After you probably did derive the name of your letter from a book by atheist Sam Harris, Letters to a Christian Nation. Now, I see that you wrote it under emotional pains, so I am in no way condemning you. However, as I read on, I see that you bring up many, many good points, but most of those points are pure misrepresentations of Christianity. Let me start point by point, as you did in your letter.
Undone by Corinthians 6:14?
When reading the Bible, one must take things into context. You picked out one line from one verse in the Bible ("Do not be equally yoked with non-believers"), and then claimed that Christians believe they will go to hell for marrying non-believers.
Now, the apostle Paul did write it, but as a guideline for relationships. It is hard for Christian and non-Christians to get into a serious (but not impossible) relationship because they have different goals. Both want to please the spouse, but for the Christian, marriage is a way to bring us in a closer relationship with God.
I am unsure if you read the whole passage, but if you did, you will realise that the Bible did not say Christian go to hell for marrying non-believers. In the Christian doctrine, people go to hell because they are sinners. That is why we need Jesus to cleanse us from our sin to enter a relationship with God.
A reason driven life
I have no real comment about this section. I applaud your determination to better yourself though the ages. Like you, I was brought up to consider evidences carefully and critically, and I emphasised with you in this aspect.
You have great questions here-- Do Christians have unquestioning loyalty to God? Is Christian faith blind faith?
I would disagree. Even Jesus questioned the Father on the cross as He was dying (Mark 15:34). Do Christians have doubt about their beliefs? I do. And every time we do, we are encouraged to real about it and settle it for ourselves. If the evidence is lacking, should we continue being Christian, or search harder?
The sciences (Bang Bang, Age of the Earth, Noah's Ark)
As an undergraduate biology student, there a lot of things here I can say "Amen!" too. However, you have to bear in mind that Creationism and Christianity are two different things (even though some proponents insist otherwise). My issues with Creationism is the same as yours. That said, you must remember that although evolution is often named to be anti-Christian, the Big Bang was once regarded to be anti-atheistic (as it implied the universe had a beginning). Atheism is not as pro-science as you think.
But you bring up a good point is this. God is described as always existing, even though no natural analogue exists. That's just it-- the Christian God is not purely natural, but also supernatural. If you insist that the natural world is all that exists, it's not a scientific statement, but rather a faith statement. Then your probability of God is zero. However if you entertain questions like, "Does meaning exists?" and "Why am I here?", you will probably find God.
So many religions, which one is true?
I agree with you on the issue of many religions to a large extent. You say maybe all religions are true in some sense or another, and they can't all be right. However, I must impose here. To say someone's religion has a touch of the truth, is only valid if you have the whole truth.
Then you go on with "If you were born in country X (Japan/India), you would be Y (Shinto/Hindu)". In philosophy, this is known as a what if hypothesis. It is another faith statement. Would it make atheism/agnosticism any less true, if it was pointed out that you are like that only because you had a certain background? What if hypothesis is an interesting concept to explore, but meaningless to follow up on.
Bible being not a good moral compass/Cherry-picking within the Bible
Again, this might sound surprising, but I do have roughly the same issues. Why did God test Abraham on Issac? Why did God have such harsh laws? Why did God approve of genocide? It's something I do not have all the answers to, yet I am reading on them.
And I am glad you get the point that the God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament.
Just because we have issues about something does not render it invalid. You misunderstand what apologetics say about Israel in the Old Testament.The Israel of Biblical times were one nation following God's laws, to be God's representative on Earth. Thus their punishments were harsher (stoning for adultery etc). However, no one nation today can make that claim. You can't take something of the Old Testament out of context and accuse Christianity of playing double standards. Remember Jesus spared an adulterous woman from stoning in John 8. Oh, but you would not accept that, would you? However, if you read John 8 in its whole, it is exactly address the issue you made a fuss of, and that's not "cherry-picking".
By the way, your one line from Confucius can only triumph all Christianity if you accept it to be your epitome of moral perfection. But again, that is a faith statement to make.
Why did Jesus need to die? Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Punishment for sin is separation from God, and is not to be taken lightly. And through the Old Testament time, a sacrifice (usually a lamb) had to be used for a sin offering. So a death was necessary to cleanse us from sin. However, with Jesus's death, we no longer need to do it.
Disagreement among various sects
You say Christians differ on so many issues. I agree. However, disagreement does not render something invalid. Evolutionary biologists differ over punctuated equilibrium and systematic gradualism when it comes to the fossil record. Does that make evolution invalid. Some atheists promote a militant lifestyle (advocated by your hero, Richard Dawkins), while others are more accomodative (Michael Ruse). Does that make atheism any less valid?
(I would not consider Mormons Christians in any sense, for their perception of sin and salvation is drastically different from mainline Christianity.
Worldwide conflicts as results of religion
Religions can cause great harm, no doubt about that. However, so can science and political ideology (eg: Korean War). You have to tease out what is an excuse and a reason. For instance, if you asked the Northern Irish if they were Protestant, they would say yes. If you ask them if they go to church, they would say no, but they were from Ulster. Does mainline Christianity sound like it is involved there.
Radicalism?/Christians as good role models?
You cherry-picked a few issues to further suggest religion cause conflicts. I already covered it in the paragraph above, but your statement about scholars and religion is just wrong.
No religious scholars? Really? What about Christian scholars? Do they count?
As for scientific scholars (since I am in that field), there are definitely many of them. Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris and Kenneth R. Miller are few of the many Christian professors of science out there.
Contradictions between Commandant 1 and 5
I was most irritated by this comment, to be honest. Just because you cannot see how you can honour God by honouring your parents does not make it invalid.
Do you know why the converts do not want to carry out the full Chinese funeral rites? Because it involves bowing and worshiping the parents, which would place their parents above God. But I think you would object to that, saying that being filial is more important than following God.
Wait a minute, first you accuse Christians of not following the Bible to the letter to be hypocrites. And when they do, you paint them as blind and in this case, unfilial. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
The problem of evil
You described natural disasters issue very well. I have no idea why God would allow such terrible things to happen. But to say that disproves the Christian God you are assuming that there is no benevolent reason why an omnipotent and good God would allow a disaster to happen.
Furthermore, the fact that you can recognise something is evil must have come from something. After all, the fact that you can call something bad and good when it comes from nature is unusual, isn't it?
Satan as an excuse?
Satan, according to the Bible is the Prince of lies. However, no where in the Bible does it pin the responsibility of sin on Satan, but rather on men.
Conclusion
When it comes to examples of bad Christians how religions can be misused, you basically ace the test. However my friend, you know little about theology/philosophy and thus it drives you to misinterpretation at times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)