religion

by

Southern Baptists Espousing Racism?


First, I am obligated to give credit to the Sunday Boston Globe (June 13, 2021) for certain of the beginning thoughts here.

Tennessee and Oklahoma have recently passed certain laws in regard to what is taught in public schools about race and racism. At the heart of these laws is a restriction in how racism is taught. This is the result of many factors, not the least of which is the political divide of the very conservative wing of the Republican party and its evangelical proponents. This coming week there is a meeting of the white Southern Baptist ministers in Nashville. These far-right wingers claim to be strict adherants to Biblical law. The difficulty here, of course, is the very definition of Biblical law, every church having its own interpretation.

The Baptist Church of the south split from its northern bretheren in 1848 over the issue of slavery. The historical boundary was laid in place and where the northern churches have been far more inclusive, the southern churches have clung to “old south” ideas. But problematic here is the very nature of church and state. Everyone thinks of the 1st Amendment as the “freedom of speech” amendment, which it is and includes religion, however, within that amendment is a bar against making laws that support any single religious idea. And so, it would seem that the newly enacted laws in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Idaho, along with a dozen more southern states with plans to enact similar laws, fly in the face of the 1st Amendment.

What bothers me most about these very conservative churches is that while they swear they are following Biblical Law, it sounds like their tendency is more towards Mosaic Law, Old Testament, than New Testament Law. Two phrases in the Gospels of the New Testament have always been a guide to me as to how Jesus meant us to live our lives. He was asked twice about how to act and said, in so many words, do unto others as you would have others do unto you, and, whatever you do unto the least of my children, you do unto Me. As far as I can tell, conservative southerners do not follow either of these principles. They seem more comfortable with the “eye for an eye” concept, as rendered in the Old Testament. But they are unwilling to accept that highly educated theologians of all walks have long argued over the veracity of both Old and New Testament verses. The best example of this comes under the guise of Moses. The problem here is that there is no proof that a person by the name of Moses ever lived. To wit, the Egyptians of those days kept very exacting records of events and no where is the name of Moses or anyone akin to him mentioned. This in turn puts into doubt all stories about the Ten Commandments which many historical theologians have placed at more along the lines of 500 commandments.

I only bring up those Biblical references as examples of religious dogma and its affect upon modern society. In our country, Christianity makes up 67% of all beliefs in the U.S. No other religion commands more 2% to include atheists. Of the Christian religions, 25% of all are Evangelicals, 21% are mainline and black protestants, and 21% are Catholic. But, according to today’s Bostn Globe, Evangelical religions have been enduring a decreasing membership which have the southern bishops fearing they are losing out to more centrists beliefs. But, since Evangelicals hold substatial polical sway in all southern capitals, they are doubling down of their efforts to stem the tide. This, as shown above, is coming at the expense of truth in history and society. The 1925 Scopes Trials first brought into view the problems with religion dictating what is taught in our schools. It would seem that nearly 100 years has put this landmark decision into the fog of history and allowed those who have forgotten it to return to more primitive times. It would seem the time has arisen for a second Scopes trial, only this time it must be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court to stem religion’s hold on public education.

It is our responsibility to allow our children the full view of both history and society, and to allow them the purview to make up their own minds as the progress in life. It is ill-advised to allow blinders to be put on our children to hide inconvenient truths, to the stains of our past, the the need for civility and acceptance of all people regardless of their beliefs for if we do not, the ability of our democracy to survive will be put on trial.

by

Politics and Religion Do Not Mix!


The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is actually very complex taking on no fewer than 5 separate issues. My interest here is in only one of them, religion. I will start with the man who wrote this amendment, James Madison. Madison was central to writing the base document as well. Madison was an Episcopalian. His colleagues in writing the basic document were:

http://www.internationalman.com/articles/framers-of-the-american-constitution

 

Adams was a Congregationalist, Dickinson a Quaker, Edmund Randolph was an Episcopalian, and Thomas Jefferson was a Deist which meant he did not adhere to any religion in particular. Such was the make-up of those who wrote the Constitution and helped with its first 10 amendments. But only a few of them could be found with any regularity at the church of their choice, except for Madison. The wisdom among each of these men was their ability to compromise because they recognized that to have the new country not only get off to a successful start, but to have a secure future. Going back to 1775, the only man of repute who helped get our country started but held disdain for organized religion was Benjamin Franklin. And yet to this day he is revered.

Strangely, the early 21st century, where politics is concerned, is sounding a lot like the early 19th century when America experienced the 2nd Religious Revival. Politicians from the Republican Party are particularly enamored allying themselves with Evangelical Christians. Curiously, only about 13% of the entire population clings to Evangelical beliefs. As a country, the US is about 71% Christian. Therefore, even among all Christians the Evangelicals can claim about 18%. Why is such a minority so important? When lawyers investigate certain types of individuals during a criminal investigation they are told to follow the money. I believe that it exactly what is happening in the Republican Party today and that is a real shame.

The historical man Republicans love the most is Abraham Lincoln, and for good reason. He brought the party back to life and gave it direction. But Lincoln never joined any particular religion. It was not important to him.

Why then, are today’s Republicans so intent on infusing their religious beliefs on American society in general? Follow the money! Even though I have no proof, I believe many of the Republican PACs are funded mostly, if not entirely, by Evangelicals. This needs to stop, now!

I am not a big fan of Bernie Sanders politics, not because I am a Republican which I am not, but because of his socialist beliefs. And yet he has done something truly remarkable. He is waging a pitted battle against Hilary Clinton but Bernie receives zero PAC money while Hilary relies upon it. But Bernie has made an extremely strong statement in the way he is funded and that is he does not owe a PAC anything. With the exception of Donald Trump who can fund his own campaign, all the rest of the Republican candidates are deeply indebted to multiply PACs. And they know that the Evangelical based PACs are particularly adept at energizing the public to support their candidate.

“Their candidate” should be seen as a curse to every American. The two people who run for president representing their political party should be our candidate. Bernie is on to something because he has shown that individual Americans are more than willing to support a candidate at a level that makes the candidate viable. I expect Hilary will eventually become the Democrat candidate for president and that she will ask Bernie to be her running mate. He is charismatic and will energize the public, particularly young people.

Religion has no place in the American government. Our first amendment says as much. But more importantly, Americans need only look to otherwise democratic countries which do allow religion to mix with the government. In general they are a mess.

It is really quite simple, Jews do not want my Catholic ideas impressed upon them. Southern Baptists have absolutely no interest in embracing Unitarian beliefs, and so forth.

I ask only one thing:

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

 

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

 

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

 

 

 

by

And God Spoke to me……


I get a kick out of people who love to quote the Bible and take particular pains to tell me exactly where what they are saying exists in the Bible, like that John 3:11 thing that pops up all the time.  And so, to find out what exists there, I dug out my handy dandy Catholic Bible.  It made me laugh, not because of what it said, but because whoever wrote the passage seemed to think that it must be put in quotes.  By definition, the use of quotes in such circumstances means you are relating the exact words which were said.  And so  you ask me, what’s wrong with that.  When Jesus was wandering about Palestine no one was writing down a single thing he said.  If they did, well, it got lost because not a single text of that sort exists anywhere in the world today.  Now that does not mean Jesus did not say words to that effect, but I find it a real stretch to believe that it is in fact a quote.

The four gospels were written no earlier than 37AD but more likely close to 100AD.  But even at 37AD there exists an obvious problem.  How good was the memory of the writers and who were the writers.  Now here comes the real problem.  In 2012 scholars made a claim they had found the oldest surviving text of the four gospels.  It dates to around 125AD but it is just a small portion of the Gospel of Mark.  The oldest for Matthew dates to 100AD, for John 137AD, and for Luke 200AD.  Worse, none of these gospels is complete.  They are fragments, literally.  Scholars have had to rely on more recent, circa 400AD manuscripts to compile a single Gospel.

The next problem is equally significant.  All four writers of New Testament Gospels were present with Jesus during his life.  And yet, you can easily find time and again a passage in one which seems to disagree with its complement in another Gospel. There exist other Gospels by other writers which the Catholic Church has never accepted.  One of the Gospels is the Gospel of Mary.

Did you ever see the movie “The Life of Brian” done by Monty Python?  It is a parody, not meant to be taken seriously or to be offensive.  There is one portion where a man, Jesus, is speaking to a large crowd.  A second man is standing at the rear of the crowd, is a bit hard of hear, and is constantly asking the man standing next to him what was just said.  Invariably  the man repeating Jesus’ words gets it wrong.  And that is in the moment!

Most people of the day were illiterate.  I suspect Peter was definitely illiterate because he was a fisherman and his father probably never saw the need for that sort of education.  I also suspect that was true for most of the other apostles too.  The solution was an easy one and one oft used in those days, scribes.  But scribes cost money and money for Jesus and his followers was probably something they saw very little of.  There existed a second choice, the “story teller.”  The story teller existed right here in North America among the Native Americans.  Most of them did not have a written language and needed their legacy remembered.  And so all tribes had a story teller who would remember events, messages, and everything else in very exacting language.  They would learn it so well that they could pass on these messages, stories, etc. to the next generation in perfect form.  Each word was remember in it precise location and proper meaning.  Such people existed at the time of Jesus as well.  Unfortunately we have no evidence that those who traveled with Jesus were given such a task.  But just to make a point, the Koran is extremely accurate from its most early days precisely because people were tasked with perfectly committing it to memory and passing on the exact language.

Jesus was literate.  The speaking in tongues, as related in the Bible, speaks to his ability to speak not just in the prevalent native language, Aramaic, but quite possibly in Egyptian, Turkish, Mesopotamian, and the dialects of the various tribes he visited.  His was a mission to deliver the “good news.”

Now if you look at the four gospels closely you will find that there are really only a very few principles He preached constantly: faith, love, good works, acceptance, understanding and forgiveness. And so I just ran across this passage, it is from Matthew, Chapter 7, verse 1: “If you want to avid judgement, stop passing judgement. 2 Your verdict on other will be the verdict passed on you.  The measure with which you measure will be used to measure you.”  My take on that, he new who the gay people were and loved them.  He knew who the prostitutes were and loved them.  He knew who the thieves were and loved them.

Consider this, Jesus never founded a church because he was both born a Jew and died one.  He only preached in the synagogues towards the end of his ministry.  I expect he did this because he felt he could reach a lot more people by mixing with them in their daily lives.  We have ample example of that happening.

But the most curious of all statements in the New Testament is where some theologian thought to put the phrase “I have not come to change the law.”  I do not believe for a second Jesus ever said that because that is exactly why he came when he did.  The law was imperfect and needed changing.  He even went so far as to say the “eye for an eye” concept of the Old Testament was changed to the New Testament principle of “turn the other cheek.”  Jesus was a radical, an extreme liberal of his day.  Those Jews who felt offended by His ministry and said such were really just revealing their own guilt.  Jesus ended the ancient Jewish custom of stoning by saying “he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”

I believe that Jesus purposefully made certain that no exact record of his adventures was ever made because as he said, “go in peace, your faith has saved you.”  He led by example and showed everyone the righteous was to act hence forth.  In the early days following the death of Jesus, His followers were of course outcasts of the Hebrew religion but the did not know what to call themselves.  The chose to say they were followers of “the word.”  That was good enough and said everything.  The apostles remembered well what Jesus had taught them and went about spreading “the way.”  But it was certainly by the year 100AD that they called themselves Christian for the first time.

I was talking with a priest recently and said to him that it is my belief if Jesus decided to come back, but not in a “second coming” sort of way, He would most certainly visit the leadership of all the various Christian churches to voice his displeasure in how they are acting and what they are saying.  I think he would start with the Pope and ask him why Rome has found it necessary to accumulate such large caches of wealth while millions of followers go hungry each night.  He would also question the need for all the pretense of the Pope and his selected cardinals.  He would certainly question their requirement of tending to the poor, the sick, and the poor in spirit.

He would like remind many of the conservative Protestant churches of what was said in Matthew that I quoted above.  He would ask about their pride in being intolerant and intractable.  We could use a little Jesus about now.  Christians seem to have forgotten what his mission was and have made it into something that serves their desires while ignoring the intent of the words as Jesus spoke them.

God once said to me, “How dare you question my love for any of mine!”  I had asked the question of what to do when I come into contact with those who condemn gay people and state that “God hates fags.”  And in that one little statement a great deal was said.  We cannot know the mind of God as we sit here on earth but we do know his intent, Jesus gave us the words.  God simply wants us to do our best, to be kind to anyone and everyone we meet, particularly those who would quarrel with us.  He wants us to love all people as if they each were a blood brother or sister.  He tells us not to fear sin, but simply to make our amends and change that which took us into that sin.  And God has no preference of religious practice, one is as good as another as far as He is concerned.  No one religion is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.  And to put a point on that, He loves his Hindus, His Buddhists, His agnostics and His atheists.  He gave each person the right to be what he believes to be right.  He knows the best of Catholics or Jews is no better than the best of agnostics or atheists.

 

 

by

The Jesus I Know


The historical figure Jesus lived and died 2000 years ago. His public live lasted only 3 years. Prior to that we know precious little of his life. In his day Jesus was a religious leader and pointedly eschewed all things political. He rather pointed said that people should give the Cesar those things which are Cesar’s and to God those things which are God’s. That mean prior to people like John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and their peers, he had already separated the life of politics for the religious life.

But then he said something very curious, at least according to the New Testament. It is something I believe either translates very poorly or is otherwise poorly explained. He stated that he had not come to change the law. He was referring to the ancient Mosaic law, the laws of the old Testament. And yet, that is exactly what he did. He made the state that instead of an eye for an eye, the aggrieved person turn the other cheek. Is that not a change to the old law? He also said prior to the stoning of a fallen woman that only a man without sin could throw the first stone. Again, a long held Jewish tradition, he changed.

The Jesus I know was a man who was the penultimate radical of his day. He chastised many of the Jewish leadership for their preference of worldly things over heavenly. But once again we have a departure from the traditional belief. Jews historically do not believe in an afterlife and yet Jesus, a lifelong Jew, spoke frequently of it. What did he know that the others did not?

But all those things are merely the lead-in for his more important message. The New Testaments of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are filled with “parables.” The word parable is an archaic word for story. That means Jesus told a lot of stories. It is unlikely that most of the characters in his stories were people he had known, although that cannot be dismissed out of hand either, we simply do not know. Either way, Jesus told these stories to make a point. My favorite is the story of the good Samaritan.

In the day of Jesus, Samaria was a region in the Middle East. The Samaritans were a group of people the Jewish population felt ill towards. They simply did not like them. And what does Jesus do? He puts a Samaritan in a situation where that person’s actions can only be thought of as being highly commendable. He tells us that this is the type of person we all should strive to be like.

Jesus spoken in the language Aramaic. His words were first put into the printed work in Greek, as far as we know. The book of Matthew, for example, is not a single text but an amalgam of several ancient Greek texts pieced together to give us the best and most complete version. But we must remember, someone who spoke primarily Aramaic had to tell someone who spoke primarily Greek the actions and words of Jesus. How good are you at remembering something, particular the words, spoken to you 60 years ago or more. That is exactly the situation the early writers face.

I mention all this not to take away anything from the four Gospels but rather to suggest that the words contained within them are the very best version of what happened and what Jesus said that we have. Each is a book of concepts meant to guide mankind in the years after the death of Jesus.

Unfortunately, there are Christians who take each word at face value never considering them to be a list of ideas and ideals. They prefer exacting principles to interpretive ideas. Even more, they fail to recognize the historical setting within which these words were first said, and then translated. For example, Christians believe in the virgin birth. This concept actually did not come into being for several centuries after the life of Jesus when Rome was translating the texts, again, and struggle with the word for virgin. They knew it was synonymous in the days of Jesus for the word “young girl.” Their true struggle was the concept of sex coupled with the fact that a 30 or 40 year old man named Joseph could possibly have had sex with a girl who may well have been only 12-years-old. In today’s society that is unacceptable, of course, but in the days of Jesus, it was not all that unusual and well within the Jewish tradition of arranged marriages. This is my long was of referring you back to Jesus saying “judge as you would be judged.”

It Is not the truth of historical facts that hurts a person like Jesus but rather the half-truths and out right fantasies.

Jesus took on a very traditional and very conservative religious culture by giving them a new way of looking at things. He never shied away from taking a position which ran contrary to accepted beliefs. He was in his day viewed as a radical, a revolutionary. But more importantly, he was hugely popular with the common man, and his popularity grew as his ministry continued. And yet, he never claimed to be anything other than a Jew. Even at his death, the Romans, in what was meant to be derisive, condemned him as “King of the Jews.” Jesus never portrayed himself as being such, but he absolutely was the most charismatic figure of his day.

When Jesus died and the Apostles came out of hiding, they referred to their new form of Judaism as “The Way.” They never called themselves Christians. That was an appellation which took about 100 years to evolve.

“The Way” was quickly spread throughout the Middle East, Turkey and Greece, well before it arrived in Rome. The Apostles insisted that Jews was in fact a deity. But that did not sit well with everyone in the Middle East. In the year 610 and Middle Eastern prophet named Mohammed started a religion we know today as Islam. Mohammed was well away of Jesus, his follows and predecessors. Mohammed, like many others where he lived, saw Jesus as a prophet and so when he was tasked with how to refer to Jesus, John the Baptist and earlier Jews, he referred to them as prophets.

Jesus does have a prominent position in Islam but not as a deity. They acknowledge him as an important figure within their own religion. I think it likely that the writers of Koran used some of the principles Jesus proposed within the Koran and carrying great weight. Mankind has a long history of adopting the ideas and ideals of predecessors into their own tradition for simple reason that they are good and worthy.

The two principles Jesus espoused the most were peace and love. I think we he to once again walk the surface of the Earth he would be aghast by what he would see by those professing to be “Good Christians.” I feel he would have huge problems with the amount of wealth accumulated by the Catholic Church in Rome and by other Protestant religions at their headquarters. Jesus most certainly believed in the redistribution of wealth. He once told a man to give half of everything he owned if that man had hopes to enter into heaven. I really like Jesus the historical figure over the religious Jesus so many religions have made him into. I think the two are so disparate as to defy almost all comparison.

by

Can the Roman Catholic Church Be Dragged Out of the 12th Century?


I was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church.  It was a curious upbringing because my mother was the Catholic but my father was a Unitarian.  It was the odd confluence of an extremely conservative church, Catholic, with an extremely liberal church, Unitarian.  And in those days, the 1950s and 1960s, marriage of Catholics to non-Catholics was discouraged, to say the least.  My parents were married in 1946 in the Rectory of St. Michael’s Church in North Andover Massachusetts.  Church weddings of that sort were prohibited in those days.  My mother saw to it that I was in church every Sunday and in Sunday school immediately following.  As I got older I was required to attend religious classes once a week after school.  First communion and confirmation were a given and something we all actually looked forward to.

In the early 1960s Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI oversaw certain transformations in the Catholic Church.  Prior to then the Catholic mass was said entirely in Latin.  Latin was removed in favor of the language spoken locally.  The American Catholic Church embraced the idea of bringing folk music into its services.  It seemed the Catholic Church was embracing the idea of change and was becoming a friendlier and less feared church than it had been.  In the years since the church also embraced the idea of having deacons, lay people who passed out communion, and lay people who assisted in performing the mass.  Also, most nuns’ habits gave way to ordinary clothing.

Unfortunately, since the death of Pope Paul VI, the Roman Catholic Church seems to have reverted to its extremely conservative ways.  In doing so it has once again turned its back on the needs of Catholics word-wide.  The church seems to be in total denial of its responsibility to its membership.

The Archdiocese of Boston, one of the largest diocese by membership in the country, has such difficulty in attracting young men to its seminary that it usually graduates and ordains new priests in numbers less than 10.  I suspect the reason for this is simple, the church still requires a lifetime promise of celibacy by its priests.  This is contrary to every human predilection known.  And of courses, priests cannot marry.  Some years ago I had a good friend who was a priest who had just entered his 40s.  He could no longer deny his attraction to women and observe his vow of celibacy.  He was an excellent priest but found it necessary to leave the priesthood as he found the requirements imposed upon him to be untenable.  I think this is a very common occurance.

Along this same line, I had to travel to Oklahoma City for business about 15 years ago.  My stays out there became extended and encompassed weekends.  I visited one of the 3 Catholic Churches there where I found an aging priest.  He told me he could not retire because there was no one to replace him even though he was in his late 70s.  I also found out that there are many small cities in the plains states that have Catholic Churches but no priest assigned.  They are served by traveling priests.

The obvious solution to this problem seems simple enough, allow priests to marry.  But for reasons which defy logic, the very conservative College of Cardinals steadfastly refuses to even consider such a change. Here is their logic as presented on catholic.com: “Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ. As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.”  But this was a change the Roman Church made in 1139.  The Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and others, never adopted this belief.

Pope Francis recently reminded, and reaffirmed, that divorced Catholics who had remarried and not gotten an annulment of their first marriage, are “living in sin” and therefore cannot receive communion!  I believe the Catholic Church is the only major church in the world which prohibits its member from remarrying without getting an annulment.  I once asked a priest about an annulment and he explained that in essence it is a declaration that an actual marriage never existed.  For me to have pursued, and received, such a declaration would have been essentially perpetrating a huge fraud.  I was married to that woman for 14 years and had 3 children by her.  Of course it was a marriage!  But the Catholic Church states it wants me to still attend mass but I just cannot take part in the most important part of the service.  This is like inviting me to a birthday party but telling me I cannot have any cake and ice cream.  The concept is absolutely absurd!

Next we have birth control and abortion.  I absolutely understand the church’s stand on abortion, it is entirely contrary to its most basic beliefs.  And while I absolute agree with the prohibition regardless of circumstance, I also believe it to be an entirely personal moral dilemma and that each woman needs to make a decision based on her on conscience and without the intrusion of outside influence.  It is a discussion between her and the God of her understanding.

But other forms of birth control are an entirely different matter.  The use of condoms and contraception are a modern day necessity.  For a married Catholic to follow the church’s teachings exactly, they would need to go contrary to the basic and loving desires, forgoing all sexual contact out of fear of pregnancy.  This is an absolutely absurd idea and prohibition.

Finally is the church’s stance towards gay people.  Their stance is easy to understand in the light of what the Bible says. I have two problems with that however.  First, all the various versions of the New Testament today are translations from ancient Greek.  But the problem is that Jesus Christ spoke in the Aramaic language, not Greek.  This means at the very least there was a translation made.  But was that translation from an oral tradition or the written word?  No one knows.  But we do know that Aramaic had about 5000 words total.  Now compare that with the over 1 million words in the English language today to get a feel for the problem.  Noted writer, Dr. Isaac Asimov, related how the word for young girl and virgin in Aramaic are the exact same word.  It is my belief that the first person relating the story of the birth of Jesus was referring to Mary as a young girl because we believe she was likely as young as 12 when she married the much older Joseph.  That she was a virgin was a more important concept to 10th century Rome than 1st Century Palestine, Turkey, and Greece.  The mysticism surrounding a virgin birth was more valuable to Dark Age church leaders than explaining a sexual congress between Mary and Joseph.  By the 12th century the Catholic Church was all about putting even the mention of sexuality into the closet.  What does all this have to do with being gay?  Simple, it is my belief that large portions of the New Testament are both incomplete and incorrect translations.  The Gnostic Gospels sheds some light on this with its Gospel of Mary, something the Roman Church has chosen to distance itself from.  But more to the point, it could mean the admonition of one man laying with another may have originally been a prohibition of adult men bedding boys, something which happened frequently in those days, particularly in traveling merchants.  That gay men existed at the time of Jesus is undeniable.  But so did pedophilia and I believe Jesus saw that as a much more serious problem than man’s inability to understand gay love.  One is an abuse of power, position, and children, while the other is a different sort of love.  I do not understand love between same sex individuals but I do accept it.  It just as real as any other sort of love and that is all I need to know.

To be fair, the Roman Catholic Church is not alone in favoring certain absolutes of human behavior.  Evangelical and other conservative Christian churches in the world espouse many of the same tenants.  But it is a requirement of any church to tend to the needs of its followers.  The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely failing in this respect and that is likely the primary reason it has seen church attendance plummet and parishes closes even though the number of people who identify themselves as Catholic rises.

The Roman Catholic desperately needs to make itself more attractive to all its members, not just those who adhere to its rigid tenants.  I suspect that if all those Catholics who regularly attend church today were to suddenly stop attending church because they violate one or more of these basic tenants, Catholic Churches worldwide would become empty.  The Catholic Church does not lack for theologians, both lay and ministerial, who desperately want the changes I have mentioned.  But as long as a very small and very conservative group of Cardinals are allowed to continue as they have, church attendance and membership will continue to fall.  But worse, the church will continue to ignore many of the most basic teachings of Jesus Christ.

by

On Easter Sunday, I Give You the Real Jesus


Today is Easter Sunday which for Christians is the most holy day of the year.  But have you ever asked yourself what the word Easter means?  There is no apparent connection to Christian belief.  I had no clue either until a few moments ago when I looked it up in my handy dandy Webster’s.  It says: “word history:  The word Easter . . . had its origins in pagan times.  Eastre or Eostre the Old Germanic English spelling of Easter, was originally the name of a Germanic goddess who was worshiped at a festival at the spring equinox.  Her name is closely related to Latin aurora and Greek eos, both of which mean “dawn.”  Easter is also derived from the same root word as east, the direction of the sunrise.  The Easter Bunny is another story entirely and for another time.

Theologian scholars have provided us with a plethora of information of where modern Christianity formed its holy days.  Christmas is a fabulous example of this as those same scholars seem to universally agree that Jesus was born in the spring and not when we celebrate his birth.  Early Christians, the early Roman Church in particular, were wont to end what they saw as pagan practices, in this case the pagan holiday of Saturnalia.  I make mention of these two well-accepted facts as evidence the early Christian church was extremely interested in co-opting paganism, and thereby killing it off, than historical accuracy.

Conservative Christians of today have the unnerving tendency to use the Bible as their sole source for information about the ancients.  But the truth is, there exists far more than those texts.  For example, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls which refer to daily life and customs at the time of Jesus.  Even though they were discovered in 1946, a complete and accurate description and final translation of them in far from finished.  Still, they provide us with a very different view from that of the New Testament.

And this brings me to the time of Jesus.  Was Jesus the son of God, something He never actually says himself but infers heavily, an angel of God, which would be very much in keeping with ancient Hebrew beliefs, or simply a great prophet?  Maybe He was all three.  But what we know of Jesus seems to fall far short of what we would like to know.  For example, he is born, secreted to Egypt for fear of his life, disappears entirely for 12 years at which time he shows up at a Temple and declared a rabbi.  Then he disappears again entirely for another 18 years for which we know nothing.  And even those final three years of his life the “facts” given are quite thin and many beg for clarification.

As a degreed historian, I can say with authority that such books as the Gospels are to be placed in the category of folk lore.  And this is not to say that folk lore in either unreliable or untrue, but as folk lore exists, it must be, in this case, assigned to stories of faith.  The veracity of such stories must be questioned.  But as with anything of the sort, there is likely truth to them as well.

Many books have been written about the “Historical Jesus.”  I have seen a few and as books go they vary in veracity.  That is, the ability of the author to keep his personal views and his prejudices apart from his writings is not always complete.  Even so, they are attempts to find the real face of Jesus.  In this respect I will add my own perspective which I can guarantee you are entirely prejudiced by my own views and are only my own view of this great and historic man.

One final thing; we also know for certain that the Gospels of the New Testament date back, at best, to 60 years after the death of Jesus.  They are also written in Greek, not the native tongue of Jesus which was Aramaic.  This means, just on the face of it, that a translation was made from one language to the other. And regardless of whether it was translated from one written language to the other or, worse, one verbal retelling to the other,  translations from disparate languages speak to the astuteness of the translator to understand what he is translating.  Historically, societies kept people who were customs keeper, story tellers, to insure a record of their being and beliefs was passed forward.  Such existed even to the early parts of the American experience in the 17th and 18th century.  The most valuable, and recognized as likely to be correct, is the first hand eye witness account of events.  But these stories were usually, and at best, second hand.  With regard to the life of Jesus, those original stories are second hand at best.  But people of faith with tell you, rightfully so, that his was a mission of faith and thus the stories of his life must be viewed in the same light.

I find it curious in the presentation of the Gospels the claim that Jesus said he had not come to change the law, the ancient Mosaic Law is what he was referring to.  But soon after when He is questioned as to the “eye for an eye” taken of the Old Testament, he responds with “turn the other cheek.”  It seems to me that is a direct contradiction and changing of the law.  I think the New Testament is replete with inconsistencies in logic, sometime from one verse to the next.  There exist too many mixed messages and incomplete thoughts.  Did Jesus actually expand upon such thoughts at much greater length?  I think it reasonable to say that He most certainly did, and probably many times over.  But such lengthy, and probably more enlightening thoughts, are lost to the ages because they were not transcribed as they were being pronounced.

Jesus was by all accounts a radical of His day.  He struck fear into the established religious leaders of the day.  Why?  He was, contrary to what the Gospels claim, turning old Jewish law on its head and providing His followers with a completely new way of looking at things.  He advocated peace.   He was the first historical figure to suggest the separation of church and state when he said to give to Rome which is Rome’s and to God which is God’s.  He advocated for the poor suggesting in his story of the good Samaritan, that those of means give half of what they own to the poor.  He very pointedly stated that man was by his very nature a sinner and that time best spent was that in bettering himself rather than pointing out the shortcomings of another.  And to that point, Jesus never once condemn anyone to hell, as modern evangelists like to do.  For that matter, he never mentioned the place which would have been in keeping with Jewish tradition which had, and still has, no heaver nor hell.

His actions suggest that He actively sought to modify ancient traditions.  Baptism, as He underwent with John, was nothing new.  It was the symbolic cleansing of the spirit.  It also was not done with children but with adults who were ready to admit their sins and ask to be cleansed.  But if Jesus were God it is impossible that He had sinned so why do it?  Quite simply because he understood extremely well the role of the leader.  He knew that charisma, which He had in spades, was the manna which fed the souls of those who chose to follow His teachings.  I think it entirely possible that Jesus was proposing the ideal of spiritual health over religious dogma.  He did, after all, seek out the dregs of his society and only asked of them that he believe in His teachings.  Not once is he heard to say that a man must attend the temple and must contribute monies to keep His church healthy.  Why do you suppose that was?  Is it possible He believed a church was truly inside a man and not within four walls?

In the time of Jesus, and for most of the centuries which have followed, women were second class citizens relegated to the rear of the temple and denied any say what-so-ever in its conduct.  Unfortunately too much of that exists today.  And so enters the most misunderstood character of the New Testament, Mary Magdalen.  The early Christian Church had absolutely no idea of how to handle her existence in the presence of their messiah but she was mentioned in the Bible so they also could not ignore her.  Certainly, they thought, Jesus looked upon this woman as they did, a woman of low moral character who only came to beg for forgiveness and her penance was to wash His feet with her hair.  The problem with such a telling is that it bears no relationship to the truth.  That truth is theologians have never found a woman of that name or conduct.  But they have found a similar woman, or possibly several women, who can account for that personage.  Likely Mary was a woman of means who had been moved by Jesus’ ministry.  Maybe she was a woman from Samaria, people seen as only slightly better than the brutal Romans and equally hated.  But for her to seek audience with a rabbi, a man of such stature and position was unthinkable at that time and for many centuries to follow.  But Jesus, being who He was, denied no one for any reason.  And I suggest, and I think it likely, she, along with several other women, became one of His Apostles.  Remember, at the end of His crucifixion it was only the women who saw to His removal from the cross, transportation, preparation, and final burial in the tomb.  No man, certainly no apostle, was anywhere to be found.  You ask, if they were truly Apostles why not mention it?  Simple, it was an “inconvenient truth.”

A rather famous atheist, Dr. Isaac Azimov, most well-known for his science fiction writings, but also a professor of bio-chemistry at Boston University, made an interesting observation about the writing of the New Testament.  He noted that the Aramaic language in the day of Jesus had around 5000 words.  Today’s English language, in contrast, has over one million.  He observes that the Aramaic word for virgin is identical for the word for young girl.  Does this suggest the early Christian Church’s aversion to the discussion of sex?  I think it extremely likely.  How would the historical figure of Mary as something other than a virgin square with the telling of the birth of Jesus?  It would have necessarily meant that Mary had engaged in sex with Joseph.  I think it likely the church desired nothing less than something which could be passed off as miraculous.  And a virgin birth suited their interest.  They also do not mention Mary’s age, which could have been as young as 12 and Joseph as a man who could have been well into his 50s.  Not unusual in those days.

But back to Jesus.  To the established high ranking Jews of the day, Jesus appeared a threat to their power.  We know for fact that Rome had absolutely no interest in the crucifixion of Jesus, to the contrary.  The ministry of Jesus had suggested radical changes to long standing beliefs of the Jews but never once challenged the power of Rome.  And the ultra-conservative Jews of the day simply could not stand for that.  I am suggesting that this ancient Jesus was in fact seen as some sort of liberal reformist who was bringing needed change to old conservatism, a conservatism which was contrary to the best interest of the Jewish masses.  But that would have meant the illuminati of the Jewish religion would have had to accept changes.  That is something to this day conservatives find difficult if not impossible.

When Jesus died his Apostles and other disciples were at a loss for what to call themselves and they saw themselves, justifiably or not, as out-casts of accepted Jewish society.  For a long time afterwards they simply referred to their religion as “the way.”  The idea of calling themselves Christians had not yet formulated.  Those early follower quickly moved away from Israel, a place they knew they would be persona non grata, first to Turkey and then to Greece and finally Rome.  But it is also likely that these early leaders of the church were illiterate.  The only formal education of the day existed strictly for the rich and those who devoted themselves to become Rabbis.  Scribes were probably the only exception that, they being drafted into such a career by the ruling class.  The Apostles could neither read nor write but such was not a part of their mission.  None had come from background of what we might see as middle class.  All are shown as being from the most humble of means.  And a few, like Peter, were shown to be fairly rough and tumble.  It is my belief that scribes were at some point enlisted to write down what had been witnessed by the Apostles, and others, as custom dictated.  But the scribed did not write the New Testament!

When eventually these people arrived in Greece, a truly enlightened and literate society, those Greeks who embraced this earliest form of Christianity, ensured the survival of the faith buy putting it into print.  But whoever they were had to immediately been confronted with the problem of the translation from Aramaic to Greek, which is where we derive our present day texts.  If in history there ever was a more meaningful time for the expression “lost in translation,” this was it!  It stands to reason that certain words either translated poorly or not at all from the original Aramaic to Greek.  I can almost hear the conversation of the person from Israel trying to explain the concept, the word, he is expressing to his Greek counterpart, and finally the two agreeing upon a word the more or less expresses the thought.  There is no way to know how much of that happened but it is a certainty that it did.  And furthermore, what if one Gospel, say that of Matthew, had very differing views of events from that of Luke or John?  How would they deal with that.  Could it be that they simple chose the one which showed Jesus in the most favorable light?  Or could it be that they allowed their own prejudices in and chose the one which most suited them.  We will never know but it can help explain how four men who supposedly witness the life of Jesus gave differing versions.  If I were a man on that day and was sitting down to lunch with Jesus, at some point I would certainly ask what he did before he started his ministry.  Such a story would be immensely fascinating.  Was such a story told but the early authors could not see the value of including such references?

But does this also explain the large gaps which exist from one Gospel to the next.  This birth of Jesus is related at length in only one, so why not the others?  Were they simply edited out?  Did one story contradict the other leaving the Greek and Aramaic writers left to choose one telling of the other?  The same thing happens at the death of Jesus.  Also, were there records of Jesus’ ministry that were viewed as uncomplimentary which were left out for that reason?  Remember, Jesus did have a fit of violence when he threw the money men from the temple. Which bring about the question as to why that is the only story from his birth to age 30? Also, did Jesus’ retreat to the desert for reflection really last for 40 days or was that a number of convenience because it squared with other 40 days incidents of the Old Testament, Noah in particular.  And remember, the time from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday is also 40 days.  Forty was a magical number in those days as was the number 13, the 13 generations of the house of David being one.

Modern day Christian fundamentalists have co-opted Jesus to their own selfish beliefs.  They love literal translations and have little problems chastising anyone who suggests anything different.  Today’s compelling argument for them is their anti-gay theme comes from Jesus saying that a man should not sleep with another man.  They have not considered the fact that it was common practice in those days for men who led caravans to take along with them young boys with whom they would have sex and feel they have not violated their marriage vows.  Could this have been what Jesus was speaking of and that He, being God and being fully aware of the gay people of his day, had been referring to pedophilia and not homosexuality?  I think that to be much more likely.

I absolutely believe that Jesus would have a lot of problems with those who use their religious beliefs in the conduct of their political desires, ergo his give unto Rome that which is Rome’s admonition.  I suspect the writers of our Constitution felt the same.  I also believe that Jesus would have serious problems with the top 1% of wealthy today.  He might refer such people to his saying what profit a man who gains a kingdom and loses his soul.  He might ask them if they believe that what they practice is what He taught.  And while I am certain he understood that wealth had its place, he repeatedly spoke of being generous with such wealth.  He spoke of casting the first stone, turning the other cheek, treating others as you would want to be treated, judging as you would want to be judged, and absolute kindness and understanding.

If I were a part of the conservative right in this country, I would fear His saying to me, “you have already received your reward and now you will be judge harshly just as you did the least of my brethren.”

by

Science Proves God Exists!


My title, of course, is fictional but I firmly believe that one day it will be science that definitely proves, or disproves, the existence of God.  The best of all possible outcomes would be a theologian, who is also a scientists, is the one who finds that proof.  It is not any religion’s task to prove God’s existence, theirs is one of providing faith to their followers.  But faith, by definition, is a philosophical belief system which works in the absence of proof.  That is a good thing.  But some religions, the more conservative, seem to believe it is their job to proclaim that certain theories and facts of science are nothing more than the work of the devil, or that such science is in direct contradiction to either the teachings of God and Jesus, or contrary to what is said in the Bible.

It seems that the Bible, of all things, is the root of some problems between certain religions and science.  Those people who believe that the Bible is the source of many absolutely which man needs to accept, fail to allow for certain conditions that must exist when dealing in absolutes.  That is, when someone, in this case the writers of the Bible, declare something to be true it is their responsibility to offer either empirical or first hand proof.  The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses.  Moses’ only first hand experience appears in the book of Exodus.  He certain lived long after the book of Genesis as he relates it and offers no proof.  The rest of the Bible was written by at least 40 different people none of whom claim first hand experience.  This includes the New Testament.  Theological scholars have dated the earliest New Testament documents having been created at least 60 after the death of Jesus.

The New Testament is full of quotes attributed to Jesus.  It is my belief, however, that most of those quotes are truly paraphrases.  The most basic problem of that day is the extreme lacking of literate people at the time of Jesus and for many centuries following.  By tradition, stories of family, history, and religion were passed along by story tellers.  These story tellers can be compared to today’s television news reporters.  They take a story reported to them and pass it on to others.  The story tellers of Jesus’ day were paid to do their job, just as news reporters are today.  The Hebrews, Romans, and all other civilizations required such people to maintain their traditions from one generation to another.  A scribe was a rare person who was usually connected to persons of political position or wealth.  The population of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was approximately 50,ooo.  The number of scribes in that one city likely did not exceed 10, most of whom would have been assigned to Roman politicians.  And in looking at who the 12 disciples of Jesus were, it is unlikely any were literate, to include Jesus himself.  Scientists today know that human memory of any particular incident is accurate for about 48 hours.  After that, without a concerted attempt to remember, our ability to recall details quickly diminishes.  This is not to say that people living at the time of Jesus could not have remembered with great accuracy what he said it did, but that it would take much effort to do so.

Theologians know for fact, for instance, that Moses actually brought in excess of 500 commandments to his people for his supposed meeting with God.  This, of course, raises the question of what to believe.  The Bible says there are only 10 commandments, but theologians know there were truly at least 500.  Jesus lived 1500 years after Moses.  Unfortunately, whatever progress there was in creating the Bible was insignificant if you want to use it as a document for historical fact.  More moderate theologians will tell you it is a book a faith.  What is certain, in this case, is that it cannot possibly be both a book of fact and faith.  Either the “prove it” or “disprove it” argument necessarily win out.  It is best left as a book of faith to be interpreted by each person according to his own conscience.  Left in that sphere, it is an exceptional book worthy of much study and faith.

Most scientists do not deny that certain aspects of creationism have associate truth.  But conservative religions fail to give that same respect to science.  What they fail to realize is that their most basic belief, that God created everything, necessarily means God created science, and with it all the laws of science.  In His creating the universe, God created all the laws of science which scientists use every day.  God gave man the blueprint to find Him, but only if man choses to look.  For reasons which confound me, it seems conservative religions do not care to see God.  Science named the Higgs Boson as the “God particle.”  And Steven Hawking has stated that when we figure out the “big bang” we will see the hand of God.  These are not idle comments made by extremely intelligent people to poke fun at religion.  It is their true belief.

Recently, astro-physicists have offered pictures of the universe as it existed about 250 million years after the big bang.  In astronomical times, that is very close to birth.  The truth is, scientists have absolutely no desire to disprove, or prove for that matter, the existence of God.  Their job is to tell us, in as exacting terms as possible, why things are happening, and how they happened in the past.  That being the case, like a good detective novel, you eventually find and prove “who done it!”

by

Mankind Versus Religion


When I was young, an adolescent or young teen, I as my father, once Sunday noon over our traditional Sunday meal, why I never saw him in church.  He responded, and rather quickly too, that “when they stop preaching politics from the pulpit, I’ll go back.”  The backdrop on this is my father was a Unitarian and my mother a devout Roman Catholic.  When they were married, in 1946, the Roman Catholic Church did not allow for marriage between two people of different faiths.  And while they did not prohibit Catholics from marrying those of other religions, such marriages were never allowed in the church proper.  And so, my parents, two really good people who genuinely loved each other, were married by a priest but not within the walls of the church.  To be fair, the Catholic Church was not alone in such practices, and while that practice no longer exists today in the Catholic Church, it does in other religions.

My first crisis of faith happened at age 15 when, having suffered a very traumatic experience at the hands of another, I sought out a priest, an Augustinian, who after hearing my story told me I should ask forgiveness for my sin.  He showed absolutely no understanding, no empathy, and to my mind, not to slightest knowledge of New Testament Bible teachings.

And now we arrive at the Bible, the basis of all Judeo-Christian religions.  I have actually read it!  Even when I was young, many parts of it did not make much sense to me.  But I was instructed that it is a work of faith, and I must have faith in its teachings.  Really?  I cannot help but wonder what is to be learned from the Old Testament teaching of “an eye for any eye” except that we will end up with a bunch of blind people!  And actually, the New Testament contradicts that saying with Jesus telling his followers to “turn the other cheek.”  Now that makes a whole lot more sense.  Except that one of Jesus’ first pronouncements was that he had not come to change the law.  I am assuming he was referring to the old Mosaic Law.  And that law, if you considered it based on the 10 Commandments, was freely lifted from the ancient Egyptian “Book of the Dead.”  Such facts make me wonder about the honesty of religions.

Conservative Christians today are quick to condemn gay people to hell claiming it is God’s will.  I find that curious since the New Testaments clears states that you should judge someone in the same manner you wish to be judged.  I don’t think they believe such an admonition applies to them.  They are quick to point at the passage in the New Testament condemning one man laying with another.  But the proper historical perspective on that saying comes from the fact that traveling merchants of the day would take young boys with them who would satisfy their sexual needs.  It was not a commentary on people who were gay but upon the corruption of old men using innocents for their own selfish needs.

One of the most basic problems for all religions today is their interpretation and application of the Bible.  If you were of no religion and desirous of joining a particular religion based on the Bible it used, you would first have to read through literally hundreds of Bibles, the Catholic Bible, King James Bible, New American Bible, Mormon Bible, and so on.  The Hebrew Bible, of course, contains no New Testament, while Christian Bibles vary as to which Old Testament Books they include.  What that alone tells us is exactly how personal religion is.

Here in the United States we have many religions which do not have the Hebrew-Christian-Islam God.  Buddhists believe in Buddha and Hindus believe in an eternal spiritual truth.

Probably the most divided church today is also one of the largest, Roman Catholicism.   Millions of Americans, I am one, call themselves Catholic but cannot remember the last time they went to church.  Why?  Disillusionment with its archaic laws and teaching.  I suspect other religions are experiencing the same issues.  Historically, religion has badly trailed present-day issues its followers must face.  Unreasonable restrictions and admonishments by those church do little to comfort and much to confuse, frustrate, and cause anxiety among its followers.  It is hard to believe, at least in Christian churches, such church orthodoxy would be embraced by its founder, Jesus.

It might be good for man to consider that it was not God who created religion, but man.  Man has always searched for answers to those things he did not understand, and to bring meaning to life.  For the answers to things he did not understand he created science, and for the meaning of life, he embraced God.

If God had intended for all humans to be alike he would not have allowed for free-will, for considered decisions, or for humans to have a brain that would function on a higher level than another other animal on the face of the Earth.  And yet, there it is.  We are endowed with minds that allow us to make individual decisions and, even more importantly, allow each of us to be unique in our own way.  But it is that very uniqueness that does not allow us to think and act exactly as another other human being.  And that is a good thing because oh what a boring place this earth would be if we were all alike.

It would shock many Christians to hear that monotheism pre-dates Moses, and by thousands of years at that!  But it does not change the fact.  The fact is man has been working on the idea of one religion fits all philosophy.  If one thing the over 5000 years of recorded history should have taught us is the fact that that idea has failed miserably.  But it has always been small-minded men who have had a vested interest in securing places of power within their followers, who have usurped the God-given right to think for themselves.  To be fair, there exist a few religions that actually promote this think for yourself idea.  And if you think about, that is the only thing which makes sense when trying to ascertain “God’s will.”  Therefore, by definition, each person’s relationship with God is a very personal one and can only be defined in that one-on-one relationship.  It is certainly not the job of religions to tell us what that relationship should be defined by or look like, but our own personal responsibility.  It is the responsibility of religion to assist, the lend help, to show compassion, and to be there at the time of a person’s greatest need and without the least bit of judgment.  And on that last point it is my belief that most religions fail miserably.

This brings me back to my father.  Although he was a member of a particular church, I never associate that church with him.  I look at him as the person he was and cannot help believe, though he was absolutely of a different religion form me, he was none-the less, a literal saint of a man.  He died monetarily poor and richly loved.  I should be so fortunate.

by

The Face of God


universe

The above is a picture taken by the Hubble Deep Space telescope.  Every one of those points of light is a galaxy.

For some time now I have been trying to come to grips with a question I have had, is God and the universe one and the same?   I have come to the conclusion that the answer is a resounding YES!

Yesterday I heard a noted English scientist who is also a priest in the church of England say that science is all about figuring out what things are and religion is all about why things are.  In essence he said that science and religion complement each other.  Problematic to such a belief is the fact that many noted scientists contend God does not exist, while many religions say large amounts of scientific data is wrong.

Jinx 003

The above is a picture of my cat Jinxie.  She has no knowledge of there being a God and as long as I feed her and give her a place to sleep, she does not care a wit about science.  But in her, as in all creatures, is the hand of God.  But her ancestors looked more like the picture below.  This is a scientific fact, but it does not discount “intelligent design.”

cats

Man is famous for coming up with answers and solutions to things and problems he does not understand.  Until Copernicus, everyone believed the Earth to be the center of the universe.  To suggest otherwise was considered heresy which is exactly why Copernicus did not publish until just before he died.  Copernicus only moved the center of the universe to the sun but that was a huge step, and one most people of his day could not accept.  Now, we not only know that the sun is not the center of the universe, but that our sun is no where near the center of our own galaxy, and that is a good thing!  No one with a lick of sense argues this fact any more either.  Why?  We improved our knowledge of all things around us.  But all good scientists accept that every answer gives birth to at least two more questions we had not previously considered.

A Roman Catholic priest, of all people, George Lemaitre, came up with a theory in the 1920s that we all know as “The Big Bang Theory” today.  After Edwin Hubble figured out earlier that decade that the universe was expanding, Lemaitre came to the logical conclusion that as you went back in time the universe must have been smaller until it was a single tiny point of energy.  The two question that answer brought forth are, “What triggered the big bang” and “Where did that point of energy come from?”  To this the physicist, Steven Hawking, said that to know that answer is to understand the mind of God.  Not bad for a guy who is seemingly an atheist!  But in Hawking’s statement we find the perfect answer to science’s most thought provoking question.

Even more, in a funny way, the Bible’s book of Genesis is proven true, at least in its first instance, the declaration that prior to anything there was darkness, and the first creation was light.  This is 100% in line with the Big Bang theory.

For some time now quantum physicists have been looking for the every elusive “Higg’s boson.”  This particle is also known as the God particle.  This is important because it is believed that this tiny particle is the most basic part of “mass.”  Mass is what gives everything weight, or for that matter, existence.  They think they’ve found it, but are still discussing the fact.  It is called the “God particle” because they believe it was the first most basic particle at the time of the Big Bang.  They are saying, “here’s what God started with and went on to make everything else.”

Another group of scientists, astro-physicists, figured out what the chances are that we human beings came into being at all.  What they came up with was the odds are so slight that under any other circumstance, in consideration of anything else, we would entirely discount to possibility.  At that point you can rightfully insert that when, 13.7 billion years ago God caused the Big Bang, He also created the absolute certainty that, at least here on Earth, we would come into existence.  Now, remember back to my original statement of how many stars are in our galaxy and how many galaxies exist?  The math states that there are at least 200 billion billion (200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars in the universe.  Given that intelligent life evolved once, why not twice, or ten times, or a million times?  Science cannot discount such a possibility and God has not.

Historical man goes back 7,000 years, more or less.  But it is only in the last 100 years that we have evolved enough to begin to understand our place in the universe, and for the most part, we really do not know very much.  But the fact is, God did not give us brains so we could sit on our hands!  It is only logic that intelligent design that built intelligent beings would want those beings to educate themselves.  It is a fact that every answer to every single question we have, God has placed in plain sight.  But it has always been up to us to see and understand what is right in front of us.  The only thing which keeps us from understanding God is our own prejudices and biases.  God certainly is not hiding anything, so why would anyone want to deny the possibility of anything, including God!

by

Whose God Do You Believe In?


I think the most personal thing anyone has are his religious beliefs, his personal philosophy.  It is something that we humans have held dear since before recorded history.  We find it useful mainly because it gives meaning to our lives.  Even an avowed atheist has atheism as his core belief system.  It is a religion unto itself, and atheists have banded together, just like those who believe in a god, to profess their beliefs.  And that is exactly as things should be.  Every person has a right to his belief regardless of what anyone else thinks, regardless of how abhorrent some may think them.

Americans have an almost unhealthy pre-occupation with religion.  Too many spend countless hours trying to convince others of their religious wisdom, and their general righteousness.  To that end they become, to some degree, intolerant of religions other than their own.  Sadly, this intolerance, and ignorance, has hit an almost fever pitch with too many Americans when the subject of Islam is brought up, and the belief of Muslims.

I was brought up in the Roman Catholic religion and led to believe that it is the one right and true religion on Earth.  I have since learned, fortunately, that not only is that not true, but it is not even close to the truth.  But the autocratic method that the Catholic Church used in its doctrine did not allow for other religions to be in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ, or so they said.  That too, of course, is a bunch of bunk as I came to realize that the man named Jesus had in mind a reformed Jewish church and no designs of starting a new church.  In fact, those who had known him when they preached in the lands removed from Palestine simply referred to the beliefs that Jesus taught as being “the way.”  None even once thought of himself as a “Christian.”

Before Christianity there was Judaism, many Asian religions, and the religions of the first inhabitants of the Americas, the Inuit, the North American tribes, the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans, to name a few.  Even those religions of pre-Christian times of the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, and many others, all had a single highest god, with lesser gods all around.

Religions, even those that are regarded today as having been pagan, had loyal and devout followers, who, lacking other information, found their religion fulfilling.  They were good people who were generous, kind, good parents, good leaders and were so because of, or in spite of, whatever religion they practiced.

History teaches us that those who are in high political positions tend to be far less religious than they portend to be.  The best leaders recognize that their own personal religious beliefs will align only with a small minor of those over whom they govern, and because of that, they speak of religion in the most general of terms and seldom refer to their own religious upbringing.  They recognize that speaking in terms that the majority agrees with is their best way of controlling their population.  Good leaders have always known this.  Machiavelli wrote a book on it, “The  Prince.”

That brings me to the concept of God.  Everyone has a concept, usually and largely derived from their personal experience and upbringing.  The only question that needs to be asked is “Is your God the same God that Muslims pray to?”  And by extension, is your God the same God another other religion believes in?  For me, that necessarily has to be answered “yes!”

A number of years ago I was introduced to the concept of “the God of my misunderstanding.”  That is, it is impossible for me to define God, to thoroughly understand God, so I am bound to misunderstand God by definition.  That quite simply means that I am required to accept another person’s belief of God regardless of how contrary it is to my own.  But, that also relieves me from having to accept any person’s, or group’s, definition of God and how to follow God.  I do take the God of my father as my God even though I have absolutely no idea of how he saw God.  And since my father is dead, I have no way of ever knowing.  But my father is one of the finest human beings I have even known and so I desire to believe as he did.  He was a Unitarian by upbringing, but the only day I ever saw him in a church was when he was in his coffin the day he was buried.

I have one basic and simple request of everyone, please keep your religion out of my life.  I expect us to have differences, sometimes big differences.  But religion being what it is, I have no right to arrogantly insist that I am right or that you are wrong.  We Americans love to think of ourselves as a well-educated group of people.  But that has not stopped us from being ignorant of other religious beliefs, and in that, being intolerant.  I know for certain that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea of what Islam is all about, of what Muslims believe.  I include myself in that group.  But I am smart enough to recognize that the actions of an extremely small and militant group of people calling themselves Muslims, is hardly representative of the beliefs of Muslims in general.  To the contrary,  I think the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful good people who have no use for the violence proclaimed in the name of the God they pray to.  But that God is the same God the very conservative evangelical American Christian pray to.  It is the same God liberals believe in, that Jews believe in, and that probably any other monotheistic religion believes in.

My point is a simple one.  Do not let the defined God of any other person draw you into their fight, their beliefs, their misconceptions, without due research on your part.  You will find that your God resembles that of many other people, but in no way will that God be identical to any other person’s, by definition.