With Due Respect: Don't all religions lead to God?

In pluralistic, sensitive and secular Singapore, it is often regarded taboo to talk about religions, much less the exclusitvity of a certain religion. To even say in public that "Jesus is the Way, the truth and the life" (according to John 14:6) can be frown upon and considered to be disruptive in society.

After all, given the huge number of religions in the world, isn't it bigoted to say that Christianity is the only way to God?

Think about it first:

The statement that all religions lead to God presupposes a few assumptions, and I will handle some of them.

1) It is arrogant to say that any one religion has exclusivity to God
 The statement firstly assumes that anybody who claims to have monopoly on the truth is standoffish and unnecessarily divisive.

However, this statement is unconcerned about the nature of truth (i.e. whether something is true or not) and is more concerned about sensitivity (whether people will be offended or not). It has no bearing on truth claims.

Furthermore, the statement by its own rules is also arrogant. This statement is also exclusive in stating that no one religion can be exclusive.

2) All religions talk about the same God
The statement also assumes the God that all religions talk about is the same. However, there are many irreconcilable differences between the differing religions.

For instance, in Hinduism there are many gods. In Christianity, Judaism and Islam, there is only one God. To cite another example, Christianity claims that Jesus is God, while Judaism and Islam rejects that notion.

Hence, to be completely logical and coherent, only one of the following is possible:
A) All religions are wrong OR
B) Only one religion is right

The idea that all of them lead to the same God, or rather the same conclusion is logically inconsistent.

Conclusion
Instead of engagning in senstivity mud-slinging and accuse each other of arrogance, I encourage all readers to come and explore this site and others like it. Come and see if Jesus is truly God or not!


For further reading

Bethinking

Theology 1.0: Did Jesus have a wife?

Oh no, were the Gnostics right?
Earlier thie year, a Bible scholar, Professor Karen King of Harvard University discovered an ancient manuscript that claimed that Jesus had a wife. This echos the view of the Gnostics (early Christian heretics) who also claimed the same thing.

But wait..
We have to give Professor King her due-- at no point did she say that the text proves that Jesus was married, or that the text was even geniune.

Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind the following.

1) The text could be a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic gospel.  Gnostic gospels are not considered to be accurate historical accounts of Jesus as (amongst other reasons) they were written about two hundred years after the events in the cannonical Gospels.

2) If the text is an original, dated to be about 4th century (since Coptic, the language on the manuscript emerged as a written language in the 3rd century). This means that this script is written many years from events of Jesus's lifetime. Of this writing, the mauscript has yet to be subjected to carbon dating.

3) This authenticity of the manuscript has been doubted.

Nevertheless..

We should give credit to Professor King for discovering and working on an accurate translation of the manuscript. However, the question on the reliablity of the document is still in question.

Additional references

Bethinking

Textual criticism

With Due Respect: John Calvin is a murderer!

Calvin's Institute of Christian Religion

John Calvin was one of the major participants of the Reformation. However, like Martin Luther, he was not free from controversy. One of the reasons why many biographies of Calvin tend to be biased is because of his involvement with the execution of Michael Servetus (Reeves, 2009).

Who is Servetus?
Michael Servetus was a Spanish doctor and theologian. Like the reformers Luther and Calvin, he started to have dissenting views from the Roman Catholic Church. Unlike them, he held anti-trinitarian views (he did not believe in the Holy Trinity).

In the 1540s, he began corresponding with Calvin via letters. He published his book, Christianismi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity), which expressed his anti-trinitarian views and criticised Calvin's views on predestination. In reply, Calvin sent his copy of Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutes of Christian Religion)to Servetus. Servetus wrote corrections to Calvin's work and returned it to him.

As their exchange grew, things became more heated. Calvin eventually ended their conversations, and confided in his friend William Farel in 1546,

"Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word; for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive." (Durrant, 1957)

In 1553, Servetus was arrested by Roman Catholic authorities in Vienne, France for heresy. However he escaped. Despite being warned that he would not be guaranteed safe passage in Protestant Geneva. Servetus fled there. Geneva appointed Calvin as his prosecutor, and in 27th October 1553 he was sentenced to death by burning.

Was Calvin a murderer?

Yes Calvin was involved in Servetus's execution. However, to portray him as the mastermind behind the demise of Servetus is hardly fair. Let's put a few things in perespective:

1) Calvin was not in charge of Geneva
Calvin had been driven out of Geneva in 1538, and was asked to return in 1541. He had a frosty relationships with the Genevan city council (Reeves, 2011) till 1555. Due to a legal technicality, Calvin was chosen to be involved in the case against Servetus (he could identify Servetus due to their earlier interactions).

Furthermore, Calvin could not appear in court with Servetus due to poor health (Whitcomb, 1971).

2) Servetus broke the laws of Geneva (and Europe)
By having anti-trinitarian views, Servetus already broke the laws of both Protestant and Roman Catholic Europe. In fact, Protestant Geneva was already seen as heretical by Roman Catholic, and was been watched to see if the Protestants were simply rebelling against Rome for the sake of rebelling (instead of theology as they had always insisted).

After consulting several Protestant cities and leaders (including Phillip Melancthon, Martin Luther's successor), everyone (including Servetus himself!) agreed that the punishment for heresy was death.

Furthermore, Servetus tried to persuade anti-Calvin parties in the city to imprison Calvin and have him tried in court (Reeves, 2011).

3) Calvin pleaded on Servetus's behalf
Calvin tried to prevent the burning of Sevetus, and personally visited Servetus in prison to change his views. When Servetus refused to recant,  Calvin recommended the more lenient sentence of beheading (Reeves, 2009; 2011).

While beheading might sound barbaric now, it was considered to be less strict than burning. Calvin himself was reprimanded by his friend Farel for being too lenient (McNeil, 1961).

In summary....
It is unfair to portray Calvin as some sort of despot who took over Geneva and sentenced dissenters to death. Yes, the punishment for heresy at that time was death, and Protestants and Roman Catholics were executing dissenters in the sixteenth century. Why should Calvin be singled-out? Severtus's death should be seen as the fault of the age, rather than the fault of Calvin.

References

Durrant, W. (1957). The Story of Civilization: VI The Reformation.

McNeil, J.T. (1961). The History and Character of Calvinism.

Reeves, M. (2009). The Unquenchable Flame.

Reeves, M. (2011). On Giants' Shoulders.

Whitcomb, M. (1971). The Complaint of Nicholas de la Fontaine Against Servetus, 14 August, 1553. In:  Period of the later reformation (Translations and reprints from the original sources of European history).

Also watch
James White

Alternative Culture: Ah Boys to Men review

Recently, I caught the latest Jack Neo film, Ah Boys to Men. This film mainly covers the experiences of Ken Chow (Joshua Tan) as he is conscripted into the army as part of the National Service policy of Singapore. Having hating the idea of enlisting in the first place, Ken soon finds every day spent in the military is a waste of time.

Theology of Ken
In this post I want to focus on Ken's ultimate aim in life, as portrayed by the film. Without spoiling too much, Ken's aim was to reconcile with his girlfriend, even at the cost of his own health.

To Ken, his relationship with his girlfriend was the most important thing in his life. Thus, it is little wonder why he views army as a bane, as it keeps him away from his girlfriend. As part of his basic military training, he has to be kept on Pulau Tekong (the military training camp) for two weeks. However due to a mistake, he has to stay in the camp for a further one week, causing him to be hate the military even more.

As we can see in film, what we make as our most important thing in our lives can affect how we treat other things. Following what I mentioned above Ken's almost divine view of his girlfriend results in his self-destructive behaviour.

So forgive me if I twitch a little everytime someone suggests we leave religion at the backdoor. The question "Who is God?" is the most vital question that we can ever ask Because what we treat as the "god" or the most important thing in our lives affects how we treat everything else. If we get this question wrong, then we get everything in our lives wrong.

Ken's theology was lacking because his view of "god" was unrealistic (his girlfriend was unable to satisfy his need for identity) and unsatisfactory (his girlfriend was not as faithful as he expected). That should serve as a warning to all of us.

I guess that's why I'm thankful as a Christian. This God is not only loving, faithful, but also true. This God is more than an opinion. So why not explore this God, come and see?

Overall
I enjoyed the movie. The way the actors communicated sounded genuinely Singaporean and the 1970s flashbacks were accurate and enjoyable. I also loved the way the supporting cast argue over the relevance and contributions of National Service in the context of Singapore as it expresses the concerns of Singaporeans reliably.

Nevertheless, there were some flaws. I did not like the unrealistic combat scenes in the opening minutes (how can an armoured vehicle shoot down a helicopter so easily?). I also felt cheated as the context behind the opening action was revealed.

I give the film a 70/100.

Further reading
Bethinking on identity

Alternative Culture: The Third Jesus Review

One of the most intriguing things about Jesus is that he attracts so many people to him. One of the latest views about him was highlighted in this book, The Third Jesus.

The premise
Deepak Chopra, as the title states presents us with his view of Jesus, the third Jesus. The first, historical Jesus is apparently unknowable and lost to history.

The second Jesus is the one the church presents. Deepak Chopra asserts that this Jesus had been hijacked by the church who wanted an "abstract, theological creation".

Here Deepak Chopra presents the third Jesus-- a Jesus who suits his worldview. This includes a Jesus who accepts the reality of karma, encourages a joining to the world-consciousness and attained enlightenment.

My gripes
Let me be fair to the author-- this book is not an apologetic. Deepak does not defend any of his views, and just states how his view of Jesus was useful to his life.

However, as a Christian who has a commitment to truth, I am not merely interested in what is useful; I am more interested in what is true. There are many issues I take issue with, but I real highlight a few.

1) We cannot know who the real, historical Jesus
I cringed as I read his assertion that we cannot know Jesus. There is an overwhelming evidence that attests to Jesus of the Bible. Even if he were to disregard the gospels, he has to consider extra-biblical sources such as Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger.

2) Pot calling kettle black
Even if Deepak Chopra is correct in claiming that the church manipulated Jesus to fit their views, the author fails to realise he is doing the exact the same thing. The author portrays Jesus to fit his own karmic and universal-consciousness worldview.

For instance, he claims that Jesus usage of the world "light" (based on John 14:6) refer to enlightenment-- if we are thinking about going to movie, this was a thought that "came from the light". Even a cursory read of John 14:6 reveals that Jesus was saying that he was the way to God, not some inner light.

Conclusion
It is a real pity-- Deepak Chopra is a fluent writer, and I enjoyed his writing style. However his nonchalant approach to something as important as the divinity of Christ was utterly disappointing. I wished he was more academic in his book.

References
Chopra, D. (2009). The Third Jesus

Alternative Culture: Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter Review

Some months ago, I caught the film Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, a movie based on the mashup novel of the same name. Having low expectation due to the ridiculousness of the title, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie-- it was a lot better than I had anticipated.

Synopsis
Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) witnesses his mother murdered by a vampire when he was young. Thus he swears revenge against the vampires, and gets mentored by a vampire hunter named Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper).

However Lincoln realises that even if he slayed his mother's killer, he would have only killed one vampire. The vampires run the slave trade in the United States in order to obtain an ample supply of food (i.e. slaves). Thus Lincoln runs for president and makes abolishing slavery his top priority. This brings him into conflict with the head vampire Adam (Rufus Sewell).

Theological thoughts
Although the film itself is probably not meant to be thought-provoking, there was one scene that made me think deeply. In one of the scenes, Lincoln finds himself pinned against the floor via a chair. Adam then goes into a long harangue, telling Lincoln that slavery was an inevitable consequence of human existence.

From the Jews in ancient Egypt to the Africans in the colonial times, Adam reminds Lincoln that some men are meant to be ruled. However, he goes further than that. He asserts that even if Lincoln was opposed to the slavery of the blacks, Lincoln was already a slave-- a slave to an ideal.

Does he have a point?
You might find it surprising that I think Adam is right. Slavery is inevitable, especially when it comes to ideals. Some of us are slaves to money, slaves to power and even slaves to celebrities.

The point is this, no matter what we do, we are a slave, or are chained to our desires. And the Bible accepts this metaphor to: Consider what Romans 6:16 says

Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

As we read on in Romans 6: 17-18:

But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

So the only way to be free to be follow God. However, if we read carefully, we would not stop being slaves -- we become slaves to righteousness. Even Jesus says in Matthew 11:28-30 that he offers a yoke:


“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Why is being a slave to Christ better than being a slave to our desires? Ironically Christ's death for us frees us from the death that results from sin, if we read on in Romans 6:19-23:

^"I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Christ is the only one that frees us from our sinful desires.


Back to the film

I surprisingly enjoyed the film and loved the action scenes. I give this movie a 70/100.

Theology 1.0: How does the principle of embarrassment support the historicity of the Gospels?

The central message of Christianity is that a man called Jesus claimed to be God incarnate, physically died for the sins of mankind and bodily rose from the dead. One of the factors of whether or not we should accept these assertions depends on the historical reliability of the New Testament. The aim of this post is to explore the the reliability and accuracy of the Gospels using one of the historical methods-- the principle of embarrassment.

What is the "Principle of Embarrassment"?

According to law professor Annette Gordon-Reed, this principle states that "Declarations against interest are regarded as having a high degree of credibility because of the presumption that people do not make up lies in order to hurt themselves; they lie to help themselves."

In other words, this principle surfaces itself when an author makes negative remarks against the cause he is supporting; this adds weight to the author's testimony as the author would not write against his intentions, unless the "negative" alleged events really did occur.

1) Women as the first witnesses of the resurrection
In all four of the gospels, women were reported to be the first witnesses of Jesus's resurrection. To the modern reader, nothing seems to be wrong or embarrassing about this. But in the ancient world, an woman's testimony is worth less than a man. If one wanted to advance the story of a risen Christ, one would certainly not want to include women as the chief witnesses to the resurrection (Habermas, 2003). The only plausible reason to include women is that it really happened; that the first eyewitnesses to the Jesus's rising were female.

2) The disciples' portrayal in the Gospels
The disciples were portrayed as cowardly. For instance, Peter denied Jesus three times under pressure (Mark 16:66-72) and the Jesus's followers fled when he was arrested (Mark 16:50). Even Jesus's own brother, James was described as unbelieveing (Mark 3:20-25; John 7:5). Why would the authors placed the people close to Jesus in such a negative light, to the extent that some of them doubted his divinity (eg: John 20: 24-29; Mark 16:14)?

This seems to suggest the events really did happen, and the authors were concerned about reporting as factually as possible.

The counter-argument
I suppose opponents (people who believed that the Gospels are fiction) might argue that the Gospel writers might have included such negative things make the Gospels more convincing to unbelievers. However, this would not have worked in the Roman Empire, especially to pull the people away from their strong array of gods.

Conclusion
Based on the principle of embarrassment, the Gospels show a strong likelihood to be first-hand, factual accounts on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. (I'll explore other historical methods and arguments in another post.) So why not come and see what makes Jesus so compelling?

References

Gordon-Reed, A. (1997). Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy

Habermas, G.R. (2003). The Risen Jesus and Future Hope.

For further reading

Bethinking