Updates: My career

Hello readers, as you all my know (or may not know), my teaching career has now taken full swing. As such, I am now unable to update this blog regularly.

Nevertheless, this blog will still be operational, but posts could come quarterly. Don't expect high quality apologetics or theological articles, but I'll try my best.

Thanks for reading faithfully!

Regards,
Defensedefumer

With Due Respect: My Christian friend is a bad example!

"The worst people I know are Christians"

When I was in the military, one of the reasons I hesitated in becoming a Christian was because some of the worst people I worked with were Christians. They would avoid responsiblities, feign illnesses and were undependable. Their terrible work ethic and moral behaviour were reprehensible to me.

Why should any non-Christian be attracted to Christ in the light of the behaviour of his followers?


Some Christians have done terrible stuff
Now I have to admit this: Some Christians have done terrible stuff in history. Many people have listed the examples of the Crusades and the Inquisition that have caused many deaths in the name of Christ. Torquemada, one of the Spanish Inquisitors, deported more than 40,000 Jews and was estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 2,000 people during the Spanish Inquisition.

If following Christ maybe leads to people doing horrible things, it is little wonder people find Christianity a turn-off.

Some non-Christians have also done terrible stuff
However, we need to be fair. Non-Christians have also done many terrible things in the name of their worldview. During the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao of China caused the death of millions for his view of atheisitic Communism. During World War II, the Japanese killed millions in the name of their divine Emperor or Shinto Buddhism.

If not following Christianity also may result horrific things, where does this lead us?

What about the issue of truth?
However in philsophy, this line of logic (that the argument is bad because the person saying it is bad) is an ad-hoc argument (Sire, 2006). In other words, an argument is cannot be considered invalid just because a person is of bad character.

As someone who is seeking the truth, one must be able to explore statements independent of whoever says it.

Conclusion
In our effort to discern the truthfulness of arguments, one must be wary not to focus on the ills of the speaker. However, in Christianity we have Jesus saying that he is God. Why not spend time discerning his claim?

References
Sire, J. (2006) Why Good Arguments Often Fail

Alternative Culture: Persepolis review

Before I begin this review, I would like to say I'm a big admirer of Persepolis, the comic series by French-Iranian artist Marjane-Satrapi. I was pleasantly surprised to find a copy of the film adaptation in the library, and did not hesitate to borrow it.

The premise of the film

Similar to the comic book, the film covers Marjane's life as a child under the Islamic Revolution to a teenager wandering the streets of Europe to a young adult leaving Iran for a second time. She struggles

The theology
There are many issues I would like to blog about. For instance, I would like to blog about how Marjane's uncle faith in the people was misplaced, on the ideology of the Iranian government or even on Marjane's teenage experiences in Europe. However, what I would like to highlight is how Marjane's view of God has changed overtime.

Marjane and God

At the start of the movie, Marjane is portrayed as an ordinary young girl who idolises Bruce Lee and hopes to be a prophet of God in the future.

This "God" is loving and kind, and would never let any harm come to Marjane's way. This "God" is like a cosmic Santa Claus who gives Marjane a good life, without preparing her for the suffering to come.

So it was no surprise that Marjane's theology was shattered when her uncle was executed by the Iranian state. Angered by powerlessness from her "God", she bids him to go away. As she becomes a young adult, her view on God has become more deistic (a "God" who does not care) and answers her queries with a "Yeah, yeah" emotionlessly.

Although the film does not explicit state Marjane's current religious belief, she has stated her lack of belief in God. I find her current belief unsurprising since her theology was not strong in the first place.

Her theology should serve as a warning to Christians. So often, we Christians also have a "Santa Claus" theology: God will reward us if we behave well, and punish us if we behave badly. If Christians are not prepared to have a theology of suffering, then we will have an incomplete theology (Carson, 2006). After all, Jesus had warned in John 15:20 that "the world will persecute" Christians.

In addition, when we face suffering, we often complain of the unfairness of suffering, just like Marjane confronts "God". But why do we expect not to suffer? Were we expecting our wealth, family and social status to protect us from the reality of the world?

Left with a poor understanding of God, we too might abandon our faith unwittingly. Christians should be mature about their faith.

Overall
I particularly am humbled by her experiences in Iran during her childhood days, and her struggle for identity during her adolescent years. I cannot even begin to imagine what it was like growing up during the Iran-Iraq War, or to be discriminated against when in Europe (even though I did my university studies there).

I rate this 85/100.

References
Carson, D. (2006) How Long, O God?

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