Evolution Conversation, Part 2: Evolution Like Gravity?

Below is the start of the meat of this conversation. We let Chip go first, since he is older, and you will find his opening statement below. Mark then responds with his own opening statement.

I confess I have not read anything by Darwin, but I have a pretty good grasp of the three elements claimed to be necessary for evolution to occur. They are:
1) Natural selection, which simply says that organisms better suited for survival tend to live and pass on their genetic material to later generations while those ill-suited for survival tend not to pass on theirs.
2) Genetic mutation, which means that new characteristics can appear unpredictably in the "family tree" of an organism.
3) Lots of time, which is required for an essentially random processes to generate changes that might actually give an organism a survival advantage. Of these three, I think the first is noncontroversial. Most everyone seems to agree that natural selection occurs. We have observed it in all kinds of organisms from the famous
peppered moths to the parasite that causes malaria.

Many Christians take issue with the third element, claiming that the earth is nowhere near as old as scientists make it out to be. Some even adhere to a strict interpretation of Genesis that puts the creation about 6,000 years ago. This is despite overwhelming evidence that the earth is far older. For example, many Christians love to point to some instances in which material taken from living trees was declared by carbon-14 dating to be hundreds of years old. They seem to think that this discredits all the evidence from radiometric dating. But radiometric dating has been shown to be highly reliable, and the amount and proportions of various radioactive materials present in the earth's crust are consistent with an earth that is at least 5 billion years old. If God created the earth 6,000 years ago, he gave it a great backstory, which scientists have been trying to piece together. My only quarrel with the way Darwinist's make use of time is that they don't have nearly enough of it. If the universe were 100 times as old as it is generally believed to be (about 15 billion years), it would still not be nearly enough time for all the random changes needed to produce the astounding variety and complexity of life on earth.

However, the biggest problem for Darwinism is what we know about genetic mutation. We know that small mutations are rarely significant. We know that big mutations are always catastrophic and usually produce sterile offspring. The problem is that small mutations cannot account for the complex structures that suddenly emerge in the fossil record, and big mutations can't produce any evidence of viability.

Another problem for Darwinism is the inadequacy of its explanations for how living things began in the first place. All attempts to produce the most basic self-replicating organisms in the laboratory from inorganic material have failed. About the only thing they have shown is that life could not have arisen from nonliving antecedents. It begins to look more and more as if the first living things must have been intentionally designed to be complex, self-replicating structures.

Mark offers his opening statement in response to Chip.

I'll start off by stating that there is no debate in the scientific community in regard to macro evolution. Like gravity, macro evolution happens, there is no doubt about either. It's a fact. What is not established fact are the mechanisms for macro evolution. What scientists debate is not if gravity and evolution happen, but how.

The "controversy" about evolution is generated by those who do not understand or do not accept the fact of evolution. I'll say that I'm not keen on debating the fact of evolution. To me, it's as pointless as debating whether the Earth is round or flat.

Here is a picture showing some shared genetic traits between two species. Scientists consider this genetic evidence "overwhelming."

Two Peas in a Pod
It's a fact there is only one way for parents to pass genes to their offspring and that's through inheritance. A creationist would say that God created these species as is. There is no science to support this. So then, what is the scientific explanation of the shared genes evident in this picture? Common ancestry, of course. If there is an alternative scientific theory that explains HOW species share the same genetic traits, the world hasn't heard it yet.

Just to clarify, I'd like to ask Chip, what position are you advocating? Do you take Genesis literally? You don't believe the Earth is 6k-10k old rather, 4.5 billion years old? Are you a theistic evolutionist? If it's the latter, I'll grant you that God could have created the very first micro organism and used evolution from then on in a "guided" process through natural selection. If nature selects which traits survive, it's certainly not a random process at all. If evolution were a true random process like a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters to produce Shakespeare, then 4.5 billion years wouldn't be enough time. Here is an experiment that debunks notion evolution is a random process and demonstrates the effectiveness of mutation coupled with natural selection ...

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker (It's less than 10 minutes long)


Another point mentioned is that evolution can't explain the origin of life. This is off topic. Evolution posits nothing about life's origin. You're actually speaking about abiogenesis.

The issue I'm most interested in exploring in the course of our conversation is what motivates Christians to attack evolution, probably one of the most established scientific theories since Galileo and the scientific method 400 years ago. The only people who have trouble accepting common ancestry are theists. To me, this indicates that their objections are largely religious in nature, not scientific. Why for example, don't theists advocate "intelligent falling" instead of the theory of gravity? Scientists don't even know what gravity is. It's a huge "gap" in gravitational theory. Perhaps God is responsible for gravity.

In the end, those who take the Bible literally cannot accept the fact of evolution because it contradicts Genesis. It would topple their world view. So, fundamentalist Christians (using the term only to indicate biblical literalism) are forced to deny that which is obvious to the rest of the world. Isn't it strange that secular peoples all over the world have no scientific objection to common ancestry? Most opposition to evolution seems to be localized to Christian fundamentalists in the United States, for religious reasons and not scientific objections.

You said,"I also agree with Nick that science has limits. In particular, it is very good at answering "how" questions and very poor at answering "why""

If science is very good at answering "how?" and religion is good at answering "why?" then why is religion attempting to answer "how?" specifically, in regard to evolution? Science answers "how?" with evolution. Religions answer with different "truths." Not surprising really, since religion is geared to answering "why" and not "how."

"Whenever human beings make an honest effort to get at the truth, they reliably transcend the accidents of their birth and upbringing. It would, of course, be absurd to speak of “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra.” And there is no such thing as Iraqi or Japanese -- as distinct from American -- science. Reasonable people really do have a monopoly on the truth." - Sam Harris

I find it interesting how they take different approaches early on. Chip has referred to some of the classic problems with Evolution. Rather than to go on the defensive right away, Mark focuses on the "overwealming evidence" for Evolution. In addition, Mark makes a great point about who it is that actually has a problem with Evolution, saying "Most opposition to evolution seems to be localized to Christian fundamentalists in the United States." A very interesting point.

How would you respond to this?

Evolution Conversation, Part 1: Introduction

The next series of articles I will be posting will be the results of a conversation I initiated and moderated while two friends of mine had a conversation about Evolution. I call it a conversation for a reason, and as I have written before, I think that is a very important practice that needs to happen in order to challenge our thinking, stretch our minds, and weed out our faulty notions. A conversation has give and take, humility, respect, and does not include certain elements that are so prevalent in the constant bickering that goes on in the blogosphere, particularly the Christian blogosphere, things like name-calling, and worse, offering "trump card arguments" like, "the Bible says it, and that is all the truth I need!" Whether or not that is true, we as Christians have the burden to be able to back up our claims with well reasoned dialogue and reasons that can hold up under scrutiny.

This state of affairs seems particularly true when matters of science are brought to the forefront. Christians seem to be hesitant to talk about scientific matters. So, in order to fight against this stereotype, in this first conversation (of many?) I moderated this conversation about Evolution. Evolution is quite a hot topic in the world today and in the continuing dialogue between the growing team of outspoken atheists and Christians. Before I tell you about the people in the conversation, let me share with you the rules that we layed out before the conversation started.

1. I am calling this a conversation for a reason, because a debate tends to sound angry and hostile.I what there to b give and take, respect, and grace given to each other. Obviously there should be no name calling or personal attacks.

They followed this one fine. There were some condescending tones, but they were certainly towards arguments and ideas rather than people.

2. Please try and respond in a timely manner (within 48 hours).

3. Please be sure to click "reply all" to keep me in the loop.

4. Try to keep all references to outside info contained in the conversation as much as possible. For example, if you reference a site/book and link to it, summarize your point so we are not left having to read a 15 page article with no commentary from the poster.

This one too was followed for the most part. Mark did link to videos and pictures that took some time to view, but it was never a burden. It flowed well with the conversation.

With that I will tell you a bit about how I know each of the participants. Chip has been a friend of mine for several years. He and I attended the same church and we have had many conversations about a myriad of issues regarding faith, science, math etc. He is very wise a a good thinker. He also loves Jesus and does all he can to live for him. Here is the bio he wrote for himself at the beginning of the conversation.

My name is Chip Burkitt. I am over 50, which I think is accurate enough for our purposes, and I've been married 23 years. I have six children all of whom are highly intelligent, remarkably good-looking, and impressively talented. I agree with Nick that Christians are usually abysmally ignorant of science, and too willing to discredit science that does not agree with a literal interpretation of the Bible despite overwhelming evidence. But I have to say that the nonChristians I have known are equally ignorant and prejudiced, and, lest I sound too elitist, I confess that I have sometimes said stupid things, too.

I also agree with Nick that science has limits. In particular, it is very good at answering "how" questions and very poor at answering "why" questions. I am not a scientist myself, nor do I have a background in science. My background is in English literature (especially 18th century British) and desktop computing. Nevertheless, I believe I can understand any rational explanations commonly offered in defense of most scientific theories. I have read and understood Einstein's Relativity and most of Hawking's Brief History of Time.

Mark, who refers to himself as Cineaste, I have never known face to face, but I have read and dialogued with him for some time in the blogosphere, most often at www.timellsworth.com, where you can always find him stirring the pot and making people angry by his arguments. I immediately took a liking to his disciplined thinking and how he did not put up with bad logic and bad answers by Christians. He is an aggressive debater, but he seems to be always good humored. Here is how Mark introduces himself.

Name: Mark
Age: 36
Occupation: Consultant
Status: Single, in a relationship
Residence: Chicago, IL
Favorite Film: Ikiru directed by, Akira Kurosawa
School: Virginia Military Institute
Religion: None, though agnostic in regard to Spinoza's God

Guiding Philosophy: Existentialism - A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

Countries visited: Canada, Mexico, Philippines, Japan, New Zealand, England, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, and many other European countries. I'd like to visit Greece next.

My conversation style: I reference videos, articles, cartoons to help make my points.

With Chip and Mark now introduced, I want to make a few comments about what this is and what this is not. First of all, this is a chance for us all to stretch our minds and challenge what we think. Jesus said that we should love the Lord our God with all our minds. Christians seldom do that. I also believe the old cliche that "all truth is God's truth." Our goal in this conversation is that we are looking for truth, and I think if we take that attitude, we will all be better off.

Secondly, this is not an attempt to convert Mark to Christianity or Chip to Darwinism (or anything else). Conversations are for learning and growing, not to "take another prisoner into our camp." You will see that the conversation does not yield much practical good. They did not solve the abiogenesis problem, for example. But they do make us think.

Lastly, this is not a time to get angry. I would ask you to lay down your right to get angry or offended. In these contexts, getting angry does not help. It only middies the waters.

Also, as a practical note, I have left Chip and Mark's comments in tact as much as possible. On the occasions where editing is needed, I have done my best to get their original point across. Both Chip and Mark will be following along with us, so if I get what they say wrong, you can be sure that they will correct me :)

I will close part one with the questioned that I offered them at the start, to guide their thinking. Think of how you would respond to this.

What are the facts about Evolution and what are the holes, does/can God fit into Evolution and, if so how, and does Creation make more sense?

In part 2, we will hear there opening statements and get into the conversation.

Reaction to Tragedies

Tony Campolo has a reputation for, among other things, his reactions to disasters and trajedies. Naturally, whenever a trajedy happens or a natural disaster occurs, you will hear talk about "Why did God let this happen?" Campolo is right in asserting that there are some very bad answers to this question, including statements like "God is punishing America" and others. But how does he respond?

There are three examples that I will point to of reactions by Campolo about disasters. The first is from an article written in 2006 shortly after hurrican Katrina pounded the Louisianna coast. Campolo says this:

Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined.

In scripture we get the picture of a cosmic struggle going on between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. The good news is that, in the end, God will be victorious. That is why we can sing in the Hallelujah Chorus, "the kingdoms of this world [will] become the Kingdom of our Lord."

He also says that when the hurricane hit, that God was "the first one who wept."

Campolo would also argue that saying "all suffering is part of God's plan" is also wrong. He would argue that God is not the author of evil.

This takes us to the second example of Campolo's response to another trajedy. This response comes from Campolo's podcast where he is duiscussing the Virginia Tech shootings that happened earlier this year.

I say things that get incredible uproars because people don't think, and it's as simple as this: God is not in control of everything. I know that is going to sound like heresy because we love to say in the midst of everything that's going on "Oh, God's in control, God's in control, God's in control." Well that is absolutely absurd. God did not bring about Auschwitz. God does not bring about these horrible events on this planet. They are the doings of human beings in most instances.

May I say this: It is obvious that God is not in control by God's own choice. When God created Adam and Eve he gave them freedom. Now, you can't give your children freedom and still say you're in control of them....If you're a father or a mother and you say I'm going to give my children freedom to make their own decisions. Great, but when you do that have you not relenquished control over them? Have you not said "I am not going to be in a determining position in their lives"? I'm going to let them make their own mistakes. I'm going to let them screw up their own lives if they want to. I hope they do the right thing but I've done as much for them as I can and now it's time for them to stand on their own two feet so I'm going to give them their freedom." When you give freedom, you relenquish control. God gave the human race freedom. He had power. He relenquished that power. He gave to human beings the freedom to make decisions both negative and positive.

It's important that we recognize that this is essential, because God want something special from all of us. He wants us to love him. Love cannot be coerced. Love cannot take place when you're in a controlled situation....[God says] "I'm gving to each human being the freedom to love me or to reject me."...It is a decision that is made freely without coercion from God. That means that God is not in control of everything that happens.

If god was in control of everything, everybody would be saved, everybody would be a Christian. There we be no sin in the world if God was in control of everything. God has had to give up control in order to make us into free beings; creatures who are cpable of loving him in return and loving each other in return. What we do with that freedom has been horrendous, but it has also been glorius.

The final example I will share also comes from his podcast, and it is referring to the tsunami that hit off the coasts of the Soloman Islands. Here is his response:

One of the things I say that gets me into a great deal of trouble is the fact that, Christians particularly, are not ready to face up to the fact that when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden causing the fall...that it not only effected them and the destiny of the human race, but it's quite clear from scripture that all of nature was effected....Nature is fallen. It is not the phisical world that God has inteded for it to be. That is a basic Christian doctrine. And when we talk about salvation, we are talking about salvation not only for we ourselves, if you go to the eighth chapter of Romans, go ahead and read it startng with the 17th verse, not only we ourselves need salvation, but all of creation longs for restoration, longs for being saved from its present state. The fall of humanuty in Adam brought about horrors not only for the human race, but horrors for the whole natural world, the whole physical world. and so it will be that when all of humaity is saved and redeemed upon the second coming of Christ, so will the physical universe be delieverd from its present suffering.

Okay, so there is the information, given to you in context as best I can. How do we respond to this? Some have gone as far as to boldly call Campolo a heretic for his beliefs on this issue, which I think is absolutely rediculous. I will admit if you take a statement or two out of context, like "God is not in control...", it is a bit alarming. However, I think when you see his arguement in context it is much more orthodox than we would like to think at first.

There are several levels to this issue. The second example cited above is nothing more than the age old arguement between Calvinists and Armenians concerning the sovereignty of God versus human free will. If you believe that humans have free will, then Campolo makes a great arguement in the second example that God is not in control of everything.

Where he begins to push the envelope a bit more is when he begins to talk about natural disasters (weather) and creation. I'm not sure what he would say spicifically about this, whether God can and does control weather sometimes, or whether God is not in control of weather at all. Certainly we see in scripture God controlling weather, sending rain etc., so I doubt he would say God cannot control it. Regardless, it seems clear that Campolo believes that nature is fallen and that God is not directly responsible for the evils that come from natural disasters.

Okay, now here is my question: Why is that so contraversial? And, even if you disagree, is it enough to call him a heretic? Perhaps it is simply a discomfort we feel when we hear someone say that God is not in complete control. We want to know we are safe, defended, protected. In response I would say that we are forced to accept one uncomfortable believe: either God is in complete control and cause/allows things to happen, or he is not in complete control of everything. so, again I ask 2 questions: 1) What is so wrong with what Campolo is saying?, and 2) Where do you come down on this centuries old disagreement?

Update:
Someone asked where they can find more info about this stuff. Here are a couple links.
Tony Campolo's website
The link to find Campolo's podcast and sermons

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation

There is a new spiritual discipline that is emerging in the world today. Actually, to say that it is emerging is to ignore thousands of years of history where this has taken place. This new discipline that is becoming so popular is conversation. When two people agree (explicitly or unexplicitly) to set aside the destructive habits of name calling, put downs, cop outs etc. and have an actual conversation, where both opinions are valued and listened to, amazing things can happen. Let me dive into this a little deeper by responding to some questions that may arise.

Why Spiritual?

This is a spiritual discipline because I am talking specifically about conversations that have spiritual implications. This discipline can certainly exist outside the bounds of spirituality, as some other spiritual disciplines do (i.e. study, giving etc.), but I am referring to the discussion of issues with spiritual implications.

Why is it a Discipline?

It is a discipline because many people find it very hard to listen these day. In addition, so many people have trouble clearly articulating what it is they think and believe in an honest, rational, clear manner. That takes discipline. To be clear, those are the two essentials to this spiritual discipline: listening and clear, rational communication. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to be humble, consider opinions other than their own, and allow themselves to be stretched. So many Christians only read books they agree with, listen to speakers who think just like them, and surround themselves with people who confirm their presuppositions. this spiritual discipline of conversation is the answer to that dangerous circumstance.

Why is it important?

First an foremost, it is important because it forces us to humble ourselves. tony Campolo says that none of have a perfect theology, and in some sense are all heretics. That is a good place to start: to realize that we don't have it all figured out.

Secondly, it is important because it helps us find truth. In the middle ages, the corrupt Catholic church was unwilling to listen to any voices that challenged it, as it wielded the sword of excommunication or burning at the stake. It took Martin Luther and a hammer to speak out. Note: this was not a conversation, it was an intervention. But, had there been two way communication, perhaps it would not have gotten as corrupt as it did.

In addition, there was a significant time period where the majority of white people, even in the church, believed that the enslavement of African Americans was okay. Luckily, through conversations among churches and followers of Christ, some were led to stand up for their black brothers and sisters and eventually slavery was abolished. Without important questions being asked and important conversations taking place, these changes may never have happened.

Why is it becoming so popular?

Two reasons I can point to. First, the Emergent Church is moving away from dogmatism and towards conversation. They are teaching us this spiritual discipline through humility and the quest for truth.

The second is the rise of the blog, in which millions of people are interacting and sharing ideas much easier than before. There is a lot of weird stuff out there, but there is also a lot of great stuff, good ideas, and well reasoned theology. If you want to stretch yourself, all you have to do is stroll around some of the blogs that are out there and you are forced to think.

One other thing to note: the rise of conversation is not to say that there is no absolute truth. There must be a good balance between listening, thinking, and considering, as well as with understanding biblical truth. however, we would all agree that the Bible is interpreted in a myriad of ways, so often times it is those interpretations and the carrying out of this interpretations that we are conversing about.

I say all this as an introduction to a conversation that I have been moderating as of late. A personal friend of mine, Chip Burkitt, and a blog friend, Mark Cineaste, agreed to participate in an email conversation about Evolution. The former is a Christian man who continually struggles with the balance of science and religion, and would argue that these are not in tension. The latter is an Existentialist agnostic who believes both micro and macro-evolution as fact. Both are great thinkers. Both are very wise. Both are great at this spiritual discipline of conversation.

My next series of posts will be sharing this conversation. I was the initiator and moderator, but they are the minds and the voices. Allow their conversation to stretch what you believe and even what you know to be true. Be sure to stay tuned!

"Live in Peace With All Men"

"Make every effort to live in peace with all men..." Hebrews 12:14a

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Matthew 5:11

I don't about you, but these verses seem to be at least the slightest bit in conflict. I mean, that second example does not seem to me to be loving at peace with all men, considering the lying, insults and persecutions that are going on. I had always heard this cute little saying popping around Christianity that says "If you are at peace with God, you will be at peace with the people around you."

And that is when I read something that got me thinking. I am reading the cutting edge book by Craig Gross, the founder of XXXChurch, a leading ministry in tackling pornography and providing services to help people get free, and J.R. Mahon called Starving Jesus. In it, J.R. makes this interesting statement:

Please not that: I'm at peace with God. That's important to know because while I'm at peace with him, I am not completely peaceful with all the human beings around me, and some of them I don't even know. Starving Jesus pg 4

I started thinking about how offensive this radical message of Jesus can be, asking people to surrender all and lay down there lives. And, how the darkness hates the light. and, what Jesus saud above about persecution and insults and all that and it seems that the cute little saying breaks down when we investiagate it more closely.

So, it appears that, as thew writer of Hebrews says, we should "make every effort to live in peace" with everyone, both Christians and non-Christians alike. We should be as shrewd as snakes but as innocent as doves. As I have said before, the gospel is offensive enough without us adding offense to it. At the same time, though, may we understood that there will be times when we are lied about, insulted, even hated.

May we continue to love, even in the face of evil and hatred. May the Spirit even give us the words to speak at times like that. Lord, help us to love like you loved.

Jesus: The Opponent of the American Way

I was listening to a great sermon from Greg Boyd of Woodland Hills Church here in St. Paul and it inspired some interesting thoughts. I am stealing from him the outline (framework), but the title, thoughts, and analysis are mine.

I think we would all agree that Jesus was radical. If you disagree with that, you probably don't know Him. We embrace the radical Jesus when it comes to him talking of the status quo of his day: the hand washing rituals of the Pharisees, capital punishment, authority. But we tend to be less intuitive when it comes to applying these critiques to our present day. What would Jesus say to us, middle class Americans, about out status quo? What would Jesus critique?

Perhaps we should start, as Boyd does, with the essence of what it is to be American. We need to ask some very serious questions about what we see as our role as "a good American" and whether that clashes with our life as a Christian. So here is the framework Boyd used as a critique, the triple pointed basic rights that we owe to all in America and all owe to us. How does this fit with Jesus?

Life

We believe, politically, that we have the right to live, to seek life, to safety, to not be killed. Others are not free to infringe on my right to be alive. this is perhaps the most basic of all human rights. It makes a great deal of political sense.

Jesus, however, asks that we lay down this right. He asks us to take up our cross, certainly a symbol for death, and follow him. We are not even allowed to follow Jesus unless we are willing to die! Certainly this has been the literal reality for many people throughout history, from the Twelve who followed Jesus to out present day faithful ones who are laying down their lives every day. We, as followers of Christ no longer have this basic right to life. Radical, and a bit scary.

Liberty

We also affirm the right to liberty, that I have the right to live my life however I want, as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others. In addition, I have the right to vote and have a say in who governs me. This, too, makes a great deal of political sense. This is perhaps the most fundamental thing that is somewhat unique to America of these three. It is a form of government that we have both died and killed for en masse.

If we are followers of Jesus, however, we have also given up the right to live however we want. Jesus defines for us certain way in which we have to live. I no longer have a choice on whether I should help the poor, Jesus has declared that I must. i no longer have the option of hating or holding a grudge against my neighbor. Jesus says I must love and forgive. I can't even spend my money however I want. Jesus tells stories that show how all that I have belongs to God, and I am required to be a good steward with what he gives me. Once again, very radical, and uncomfortable.

(The Pursuit of) Happiness

Lastly, we see the right to pursue happiness as a fundamental right. Whatever you want to strive to be as an American you can, you have that right. You can buy what you want, make your own decisions on how to live, what gives you pleasure, and with whom you spend your time. Happiness becomes your goal.

We again find that being a follower of Jesus conflicts with this American dream. Happiness is not our goal if we are disciples of Jesus: we would never strive for something so shallow. We realize that happiness is often a byproduct of our journey towards God as we live out his call to love him, love people, and build community, but it is not the goal. Joy and contentment with what we have are preferred over the empty pit of happiness and pleasure. In fact, we are called to revolt against materialism and endless consumption in our culture and fight for the joy and happiness of all. It is no longer the individual's or the family's quest for happiness, but the communal striving towards the needs being met of everyone, that we might all have enough, and in our enough, find contentment and joy. Quite radical, and even offensive.

Perhaps this picture of Jesus does not sit quite right with you. Good. The message of Jesus is never meant to go down easy. It is revolutionary and uncomfortable. It is radical and offensive. It is a hard journey. But, it is also a full life that leads to true joy. A life that offers grace and salvation. May we resist the urge to make Jesus palatable, but also the temptation to add our intricacies to him. The gospel is offensive enough without us adding to it. May our identity be as followers of Jesus before it is as Americans. And may we live out Christ's dream of the Church rather than the American dream.

Around the Blogosphere

Here are a few interesting posts that I have come across recently that you may enjoy reading.

1. Ben Witherington offers some good advice as we prepare for the presidantial election a year from now.

2. Witherington also offers great insight on the 6 "Prosperity Gospel" Ministries that are being audited

3. My frind Chip offers a good analysis of the Lawsuit against Westboro Baptist church

4. Lastly, Tim Ellsworth posted about abortion being a theological issue, which led to some serious discussion

Fake Interview Hints at Truth

Christian Charity Raising Money To Feed Non-Gay Famine Victims

This is a fake article/interview courtesy of the Onion. My jaw dropped open for about the 30 seconds that I thought this was real. This is good satire: well done, funny, and has one foot on the side of truth and one in fiction. The sad truth is that some (many?) Christians are so homophobic that this may be only a step or two away from the truth. And then we Christians have the audacity to say things like "Christians are being persecuted in America." What a joke, especially when you consider that suicide is now the 2nd leading cause of death among homosexual males. What does that say about our society? And here is another one: why is homosexuality such a hot issue, when issues like divorce, greed, and lying are so prevalent in our society? The Bible certainly has more to say on these issues than it does on homosexuality, yet we have dicided to major in our opposition to this one issue.

I could say more, but before I do (in future articles), let me turn your attention to a cutting edge message by Dr. Tony Campolo called "Struggling with the Gay Issue." Campolo is gaining a reputation for his views on homosexuality, that are certainly progressive, but he makes some amazing points. This would be a fun issue to have a discussion about, so post and dialogue with me if you feel so inclined.

Until next time,
-NF

A Great Reminder From C.S. Lewis

From Mere Christianity:

The Christian way is different: harder, and easier. Christ says, "Give me All. I don't want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good... Hand over the whole natural self, all the desires which you thin innocent as well as the ones you think wicked--the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours."

Some Pros and Cons of the Emergent Movement

We are getting to the point where the Emergent Church movement is no longer a new trend. It has been around long enough now that it has established itself, in some sense, in the Church universe. There is still the sense that when we use the term Emergent that people don't know what we are talking about, because people mean different things when they use the term. Mark Driscoll has this great soundbite where he separates out four streams within the Emergent Church movement. The characteristics I am listing below tend to be in place at the core of the whole group that Driscoll talks about, though perhaps not each specific congregation that would deem themselves Emergent.

That being said, I was very positive on the Emergent Church when I first learned about it a few years ago (and still am), but I hesitated to write much about it because it was still working out its kinks. At this point, I think I am ready to offer a look at some of the best things about the movement as well as some pitfalls. Let's start with the good stuff; those things that, from my perspective, the EC does very well. It is important to note that the EC is a reaction against the church as it existed in the 80's and 90's, the church the EC leaders would have grown up with. That is to say that they are reacting against a largely ineffective, dying, and out of touch institution. Most of their pros (and cons) are reactions against this form of doing church from the past 20 years. Here we go.


Pros

1. Relevance

The Emergent churches tend to greatly value relevance and they do a very good job of being relevant. In many cases the churches emerged from culture, so it was born relevant, if you will. The days of organs, pews, shirt/tie etc. are over for the emergents, because that is not what the target group is about. In addition, impractical messages on the theological significance of the Nephilim of Genesis 6 are scarce, whereas messages on social justice, love, peace, and losing a loved one are in, because those are the issues we see and hear about every day. Every part of the Emergent church is much more relevant than than you might find in other churches.

2. Conversational rather than Dogmatic

The tone of the church in the past was "We have the truth, you should (must!) listen to us." The tone in the Emergent Movement is "Let's have a conversation about death. You tell me what you think and I will tell you what I think and we can ask each other questions and stretch one another with our differing perspectives." Why the different approach? Because people felt abused and brow beaten by the church for so long. It is the old adage that "people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care" put into practice. The Emergents put a good deal of stock into listening to science, the media, the world, in order to learn and gain credibility. Emergents earn the right to be heard, and it is working very well.

3. Emphasis on Community

In the past fifty years, the church has seen salvation and spiritual growth as a very individual thing. The Bible, on the other hand, was written to communities. God created us to live and experience life (the highs and lows, the good and bad)in community. The EC has latched onto this and places a high value on community. The church has been bad at this in the last 50 years, but the EC is living this out in a very real, alive way. Emergent authors such as Joseph Myers and others have written profoundly on this topic.

4. The use of Story

The church of the past did its spiritual formation around certain propositional truths. "Here is the list of things you need to believe. Now change your beliefs to these and go live them." The EC communicates far differently, primarily in the form of stories. That is not to say that they don't communicate truth. Much is communicated when telling a story. The vast majority of the Bible, and specifically, the teachings of Jesus, is story. There is not one bullet point in scripture, as Donald Miller says. The EC has done a great job of effectively using this method.

5. Emphasis on Social Justice

The Evangelical church of the past has been pretty bad at making an impact on the world in the avenue of social justice, and they have certainly paid a price for it not the least of which is the perception to the world. The EC, on the other hand, takes God's call on His people throughout Scripture to care for the poor and to fight for justice for the weak seriously. The Emergent Churches have been the pioneers in the last few years on making social justice issues a big deal again, and the rest of the churches out there would do the right thing to join them.

Cons

Remember, most of what makes up the EC characteristically is a reaction to mainline denominationalism in the last 20 years. These following "cons", in my opinion, are areas where they have reacted too far and over corrected. That does not mean that the swing in the polar opposite direction is correct, but usually that a balance of the two extremes is needed.

1. Culture Supersedes Truth

One of the dangerous pitfalls of the Emergent Movement is that at times it seems that culture can take a precedent over God's truth. This certainly isn't true in all churches that label themselves this way or in all areas, but it can be true. In the attempt to be culturally relevant, they sometimes take it too far and find themselves in error. This is a question that some Emergent Churches still need to answer: when it comes down to matters of doctrine (i.e truth), will Scripture or culture dictate what is right and wrong?

2. Potentially Misleading as to Motives

This is a weird one, because it is a bit contradictory within the movement. What I mean by this is that in some cases Emergent ministries have some sort of a front, be it a coffee shop, bowling alley, whatever, that is there face to the community. Behind the scenes, however, are Christians looking to do ministry without telling you so up front. This seems to contradict the EC's value of authenticity, which I could have put above in the pros. I would say that this is certainly the minority of cases but again, in the attempt to be relevant, the EC can become misleading.

3. Can be Anti-Authority

Lastly, in a reaction against the horrific failure of leaders in the past 20 years in men like Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker, not to mention the countless others who didn't make such lofty headlines, the EC has really downplayed leadership and authority. It has come to the point in some places to seem as if there is no real , or at least no real power in the authority that exists. Again, this is extreme, and in my humble opinion, error. God established authority and did so for very good reasons. Certainly the failures of the past can be taken into account and accountability can be in place, but to over react and make authority almost meaningless is equally as bad.

There you have it: my amateur thoughts and critiques of a movement that I am certainly no expert on. Disagree as much as you wish. If you feel led to say "Hey! I'm in the Emergent Movement and my church isn't like that at all!" it is okay. I am not pointing to a specific body, and I think we could agree that there is enough variety within the EC that one does not represent them all.

I have a lot of respect for the Emergent Church Movement and see it to be a great thing that God is doing. Despite some flaws, it is certainly a net gain and is reaching a whole sector of people for the Kingdom that the church of 10 years ago never would have.

Mr. Bean Goes to Church

After a series of very serious, academic, and perhaps stuffy posts on apologetics and scholarship, check out this classic and halarious clip of Mr. Bean doing what he does best.

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 4: Josephus and Other Resources

In the final part of our look at the web documentary Zeitgeist, we are going to be looking at some of the most audacious claims in the documentary.

The point they are making is that the historical evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus does not exist. The claim is that only four first century historians mention Jesus. Three of them, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger only mention Christ or Christos, which, since that is a title and not a name, they argue could be a reference to anybody. The fourth reference, and by far the most significant, is made by a Jewish Historian named Flavius Josephus. This is the place where the documentary makes that amazing statement, saying that Josephus has been "proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years." Here is the Josephus quote in question (from Antiquities 18):

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

I studied a lot of Josephus in college. My professors quoted him regularly. I had never heard anything discrediting or even doubting Josephus as a source. Needless to say, I was shocked when I heard this, and had no idea what to say.

Again, here is the response of Dr. Wave Nunnally:

Lastly, they attack the writings of Josephus, saying that he has been "proven to be a forgery for 100's of years." This was completely new to me. Had you heard this before? On what grounds do they discredit him and his writings?

The works of Josephus are accepted as genuine and as legitimate sources for the reconstruction of intertestamental Judaism and NT backgrounds by EVERY expert in the field, whether Jewish, Christian, or non-aligned, and whether conservative, moderate, or liberal. This might well qualify as one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard in my entire career that was supposed to be associated with an "academic" discussion. I can only hope that whoever said it is not allowed to procreate…

An interesting response, to say the least. The response goes to show the difference between the anonymous, nonacademic, unsupported and unreferenced claims made by the creator of the documentary verses many years of study from world renown Colleges and Universities as well as trained professionals in the area of Biblical Studies. This is the initial response you will see a lot from the top experts when presented with some of the outrageous claims floating around today, including books by Michael Baigent in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Jesus Papers. There is quite simply a huge difference between good, well researched, respected scholarship and the popular pseudo-scholarship that people like Baigent and the creator of Zeitgeist are furthering.

However, just to see the initial response of respected scholars is not enough. We should be able to talk about specifics. In a radio interview, the Creator of Zeitgeist elaborated a bit on his Josephus claim. Here is my paraphrasing of the claim in a question to Dr. Nunnally, followed by his more detailed response:

The claim: Josephus references 13 different Jesuses. The quote we see of this often quoted section about Jesus, talking about him raising from the dead, does not appear until 200 years after the death of Josephus, despite the fact that early Christians, Justin Martyr and others, would have been very interested in referencing this, though we don't know of them mentioning it at all. This section about Jesus was added later. Any further responses to this?

On the antiquities 18 passage, the answer is yes. First, all Josephus scholars acknowledge that SOMETHING was there in the original version of Josephus. This is because there is another passage (20:200) that mentions him without further explanation, which means he must have already introduced him and given sufficient information for his readership to have connected the two passages so the second would be understandable. Again, all Josephus scholars recognize this argument as being legitimate. Second, historically, there have been three different schools of thought about the originality of this passage. The earliest simply took it at face value. With the rise of critical scholarship and more careful analysis of ancient texts, two additional schools of thought emerged. One reconstructed it to read as a very negative statement about Jesus, and the other emended the passage somewhat, but retained the generally favorable tenor of the “original.” Both agreed that the original text had suffered from “creative” Christian scribes in antiquity. The problem was basically laid to rest in 1971 when Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines published an Arabic version of Josephus which followed none of the three earlier schools, but instead provided a “neutral” reading of the Josephus text. The point is, it was there and now we have a legitimate version of it with ancient textual support.

This is great, because it gives us the history of the argument. This is only scholars word for it, so if you would like to read more on this issue, check out Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament by F.F. Bruce and Jesus Outside the New Testament by VanVoorst.

Here are a few more resources. Here are three interviews posted on Youtube with Peter J, the creator of Zeitgeist. They are each in 4 parts.

Interview on 6/28/07 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Interview on 7/13/07 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Interview on 7/22/07 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Also, in case you are interested in part two of the documentary, which I have not discussed here, here are two videos that represent both sides of the 9/11 argument. Zeitgeist, as you can imagine, is a bit one sided. These videos are here and here.

Also, a fellow blogger and fellow student of Dr. Nunnally, Nate Watson has written a bit about Zeitgeist as well. Check out his blog My Friend Ivan and the Zeitgeist material here and here.

Lastly, you can purchase the complete works of Josephus from Thomas Nelson Press very cheap. I got it at Barnes and Noble for $17. Here it is on Amazon for $12.73! A very good deal.

In conclusion, I think not only has this experience shown some more good reasons why many of us ascribe to the Christian faith, it has also shown us once again that you cannot believe everything you hear. In addition, I feel that we have a responsibility as followers of Christ to educate ourselves about these issues and be able to have meaningful, informed conversations about them. May we always demand good information, even if it challenges what we believe. May we stand for truth in all circumstances. And, may we love one another while doing it.

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 3: Jesus the Copycat

In our third look at the online documentary called Zeitgeist where we are responding to the allegations that are brought up in the first third of the movie about Jesus and religion, we will look at the most vicious and serious attacks the the documentary brings against Christianity. Remember, you can watch the movie by clicking here. Also, check in with parts 1 and 2 of this discussion below. Here we go.

The documentary claims that Jesus is a copycat of a number of other religious figures whose stories are remarkably similar, either Horus, or Mithra, or whoever (there are hundreds). In fact, when you list the essential events of Horus' life, who dates to 3000 BC, 3000 years before Jesus, they are very similar to the essential events in Jesus' life. For example:

Horus was

Born on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced in the east and attended by three wisemen.

He is of royal decent

At age 12, he was a teacher in the temple and baptized at age 30

He had 12 disciples

He did many miracles, including walking on water

He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days, and resurrected

He was called "The Way, the Truth and the Life," "The Messiah," and "the Word Made flesh" among others

Do these things sound familiar? Yes, they all existed in the life of Jesus. And, if these elements really were in a common astrological, Egyptian mythical religion that predates Christianity by thousands of years, that would be very suspect. This part of the video troubled me more than any other. So, I went to work to find the truth.

The first step was to talk to a friend who is smarter than me. Here is my question and the response of Dr. Wave Nunnally, professor of Theology from Evangel University:

What is your response to the mentioning of, for instance, the Egyptian god Horus, who dates to 3000 BC, and has very much in common with the birth, life and death of Christ? In fact, there seem to be many examples of this; figures whose stories are very similar to that of Jesus, some of which seem to be older. Your thoughts?

As you learned here, there were many dying and rising god myths in the ancient world. In his NT intro, Robert Gundry dismisses any true parallels with the Jesus event by noting that these stories are all about events that supposedly happened in eons past, for which there was no eyewitness testimony. Also, their deaths were not true, but rather ethereal, quasi-deaths. Finally, their dying and rising were actually ways to personify seasons and other forces in nature. None of these things can be said of the death of Jesus, so the "parallels" are more or less over-generalizations that don't really work out when the details are analyzed.

Interesting response. However, it was too general. I wanted specific evidence of the claims being false. So, I kept going, and there seem to be several issues in play.

My first clue to this should have been the first quote that flashes up on the screen of the documentary: "They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." The author of that quote was listed as G. Massey, or Gerald Massey. Massey was an English poet and (supposedly self taught) Egyptologist who was a somewhat famous conspiracy theorist and Christ-myther (this is a label you will probably see again, there seem to be a whole fraternity of these guys, including the makers of Zeitgeist). If you did a quick search of his name on amazon, you would find many of the books he wrote, but the 2 most notable are The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, and Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World. Also notice that though he has been dead for like 100 years, that these books have been re-released recently (because religious conspiracies are so huge right now!).

This is all just background to the point I want to make. Massey is the source used by Acharya S, a female author of the book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. She is the source of most Christ-mythers today and the primary source for this documentary, as cited on the sources page. So, if you are following the trail, Zeitgeist uses Acharya S, Acharya S uses Massey. Massey never sites a source. Aparantly Massey made all this up, because we find no evidence of this before him. The lies are passed on and on.

All of these sources and all of these Christ-mythers make the same mistake. As I debunked on this website a few years ago, you have probably heard of the similarities often cited between Abraham Lincoln and JFK. Upon further scrutiny, however, it is pretty easily seen that the similarities they claim that exist are either not spectacular, distortions of the truth, or flat out lies. This is exactly what has happened with the list given on Zeitgeist.

This is a great list, looking at the similarities between Horus and Jesus, as cited by Massey and taken from the Egyptian Book of The Dead (which, by the way, you can find at any Barnes and Noble. But, be warned, it is very weird). Using the website, it is not hard to debunk the list that is above, like so.

Horus was

Born on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced in the east and attended by three wisemen.

Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue:

Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Horus was supposedly born on the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak, which corresponds on our calendars to November 15th.

Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the east

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old).

Acharya's source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . " Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part. And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.

He is of royal decent

This one’s true! But it's not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendant of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.

At age 12, he was a teacher in the temple and baptized at age 30

He never taught in any temple and was never baptized.

He had 12 disciples

Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers.

He did many miracles, including walking on water

He did perform miracles, but he did not walk on water.

He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days, and resurrected.

Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.

He was called "The Way, the Truth and the Life," "The Messiah," and "the Word Made flesh" among others.

The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.

Upon further scrutiny, it is clear that these supposed similarities are not that at all. Few are true, but those are very general (miracles, royal decent). Some are distortions, and others are flat out lies. If you click the link that compares Jesus and Horus, it gives more comparisons and goes deeper in the explanations. Here is the root site, that goes into more depth about this issue and also tackles the comparisons between Jesus and dozens of other god myths, in which you find the same issues at play. The site is a fantastic source. I think a quick look at it will pretty much settle the Jesus/copycat issue. It has for me.


While I was in the process of researching this and writing about it, I stumbled across Lee Strobel's new book called The Case for the Real Jesus, which is a response to the attacks that have come against Jesus in the past few years through sources like The Da Vinci Code and The Jesus Family Tomb. One of the issues he discusses in the book is the idea that "christian beliefs about Jesus were copied from pagan religions." Strobel addresses this issue very well. He interviews two experts about this issue and they weigh in on the validity of the argument. Perhaps the most revealing quote in this section is by Dr. Michael Licona who states "I know of no highly respected scholar today who suggests that these vague fables are parallels to the resurrection of Jesus. We only hear this claim from the hyper-skeptical community on the Internet and in popular books that are marketed to people who lack the background to analyze the facts critically." The Case for the Real Jesus p163. To be clear, this is exactly what we are dealing with: the highly skeptical community on the Internet as well as a production marketed to the laymen who typically don't have the background to argue with the claims.

If this has not convinced you, grab Strobel's book and read his chapter on this issue. It is very worth the $22 as it deals with a number of other scholarly issues that Christianity is facing today.

One more resource I should mention briefly is this page on the Always Be Ready website. It is simply a list of scholarly quotes that respond to many of the issues in Zeitgeist. It is worth a quick read, and the site as a whole is a good resource to bookmark as well.

This has been a very long post. Perhaps I should have made it two parts. Nonetheless, it is good info. Next time we will look at the documentary's attack of Josephus. Stay tuned!

-NF

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 2: Astrology

In the second post about the movie Zeitgeist, a highly skeptical documentary that contains, among other conspiracy theories, that Christianity is a lie, I am going to address address the films claims about astrology. To watch the movie, see the post below. You really should watch it before reading this, otherwise much of what I write about won;t make sense. Here we go.

The video essentially claims that for thousands of years the Egyptians have worshipped the sun and stars, and that all religions that exist today are derivatives of this initial belief system. Keep in mind that the makers of this movie put no stock in astrology. They are merely using it (a ridiculous belief system) to show that Christianity is a ridiculous belief system.

In addition, they claim that the Bible is riddled with astrological claims, saying "this text has more to do with astrology than anything else."

I am still friends with many of my professors from college. Here is the question and response of Dr. Wave Nunnally from Evangel University on this issue:

I'm sure you have heard some of these Astrological theories before (i.e. the idea that the Bible "has more to do with astrology than anything else."). Do you have any general comments?

The doc[umentary] as a whole seems to be poorly conceived. The Bible actually polemicizes against astrology in a number of ways. Moses, for example, describes the sun, mon, and stars as created "signs" that have no life within themselves and are to serve God and man. The writers of the historical books and the prophets denounce Israel's decent into paganism when the worship the "host of heaven." Despite this, authors like Marilyn Hickey and David Wommack have written volumes asserting that the gospel can be found in the stars.

There are several examples they attempt to give of of Christianity copying off of astrology and the bible referring to such, and I will address three of those instances here. Let me say that i am no astrologer or expert in astrology. However, since they are claiming that the bible makes astrological claims, I feel I am educated enough to weigh in on what the Bible does say.

First, they claim about Luke 22:10, "this scripture is by far one of the most revealing of the astrological references." They say "When Jesus is asked where the next passover will be after he is gone" that he replies saying "As you enter the city, a man carrying a pitcher of water will greet you. Follow him to the house that he enters." The documentary claims that this is referring to Aquarius, the man carrying water in the signs of the zodiac, and that Jesus is essentially saying that he (Jesus) is the representation of God in this age, but that a different age is coming, called the Age of Aquarius, in approximately 2100 AD. Keep in mind that the creator does not actually believe Jesus said this (because doesn't believe Jesus ever existed), just that this is what the writers of the bible wanted to communicate. The only problem with this interpretation of Like 22:10 is that this is not the question that the disciples asked Jesus. In fact, there question has nothing to do with the future. In verse 8 Jesus tells them to "Go and make preparations for us to eat the passover." "Where do you want us to prepare for it?" they asked. That is when Jesus tells them to go into the city, find this guy carrying water, and that he would give them a room that is furnished for the passover. Not future, now. Not in the next aeon, but right now. They gave the wrong context (as mentioned before) and it changed the entire meaning of the verse. Not only is it not astrological, but as it is, it cannot even be bent to be astrological. This terns out to be nothing more than bad hermeneutics.

Second, they say that Moses comes to power in the age of Taurus, the bull, but he represents Ares, the ram, and that the exchange on Mt Sinai marks the transition. And, it was because the people were stuck in the previous age is why he was angry about the golden calf, not because they were worshipping a false god. This is again solved if we look at the context. Ex 32:31 shows Moses repenting for the people, saying "oh what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold." Clearly it is that they are worshipping false God's, and not a mix up of the "ages" that has Moses (and God) so angry. They also attribute the blowing of the shofar (or rams horn) during this time as signs of ares. They don't consider that there are only a handful of instruments available at this time (harp, lyre, tambourine, and shofar etc.). The Israelites are only guilty of using instruments in worship, not of announcing the age of ares the ram.

Third, they claim that Jesus brings about the age of Pisces, the fish. Now, despite the fact that Jesus is oftentimes ministering in areas where there is a lot of coast, where fishing would be a large part of the commerce, and a large percentage of the men would be fisherman, and that the majority of the meat that is clean for Jews to eat is fish (I'm sure none of these could be the reason that fish are mentioned so much in the NT), we know why the fish became the symbol of the early Christian movement. The fish, or ichthys (pronounced ick-thoos) which is the Greek word for fish is an acronym, with each of the letters standing for a word in the phrase "Jesus Christ, Son of God." That is why the symbol of Christianity in the first hundred years and today is the fish, not because we are in the age of Pisces.

Some of these claims in the film are so outlandish that you can nearly laugh them off. If you know anything about the Bible, it is hard not to immediately find where they go wrong. this is just another good time to encourage us all to be diligent students of God's word, and to be intellectually honest and look for proof and evidence. If you except everything on faith, then when a documentary like this comes by, you have no way to answer it. However, if you have studied the history, archeology, and other disciplines that back up Christianity claims, it is not hard to come against these outlandish statements. Faith is good and absolutely necessary. but we don;t believe for no reason. We believe because it make sense, because there is a long line of evidence and experience to lead us to believe the way we do.

Next time I will be diving into the claims that Jesus is a copycat of the pagan religions. Stay tuned!

-NF

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 1: Introduction

If you haven't yet seen or heard about the web movie Zeitgeist, you probably will. It came out this summer and is causing a bit of a stir among young people. The word Zeitgeist is a German word meaning "spirit of the age," and the film is essentially trying to get at the primary laws and frauds of our society.

The movie is about 2 hours long and can be seen here. It is divided into three parts. After an intro and overview, Part 1 is titled "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and is about Christianity. The movie makes many outrageous claims that I will discuss further, but is essentially claiming that Christianity and the Bible are based on astrology and that Jesus never existed but was a copycat of many pagan deities and false gods. The 2nd part is titled "The Whole World is a Stage" and focuses on what they call the 9/11 conspiracy; you know, how the government is really responsible for 9/11. The third part is "The Men Behind the Curtain" (or something very close) and is about the Federal Reserve and how the men who control it are bent on world domination.

Now, I am no expert about 9/11 conspiracy theories or the Federal Reserve, so I won't comment any longer on these parts. I do however, know a little bit about the attacks on Christianity in part 1. I have decided to do a four part series on the Christian elements in Zeitgeist and address some of these claims that the creator makes. Before we start, though, you really should watch the movie, at least Part 1, so we are all speaking the same language (click on the link above). It is about a half an hour long and, be warned, there is some profanity. But, what I am going to be discussing will refer to the video, so it is better if you have seen it.

At this point, by way of an introduction to the film, I am going to make some general comments about the Movie as a whole. Here we go.

1. May we keep in mind that this is a conspiracy theory, put out by conspiracy theorists. They have an agenda (both anti-God and anti-government) and they are (apparently) trying to convert people to their side (i.e. making a free web movie to disperse freely and widely). These are important to note because they are obviously not objective sources. Now, to be fair, neither am I. I too believe something strongly and that, at times, can cloud my rational thinking. I too have an agenda; to share my knowledge and relationship with God with others. I must, therefore, be good at thinking critically even if the results are not always what I want. Ultimately we should want truth. So, that is the first thing to remember, that these are not impartial movie makers that decided to tackle this subject. Quite the opposite, in fact. They are radical conspiracy theorists who are dedicated to a belief system that is unfolded in the documentary.

2. This is that the documentary is not very academic and certainly not scholarly. They would like to claim differently, but many of their claims would be laughed at in the presence of scholars. The creator chooses to remain anonymous and we have no reason to belief he has any scholarly credentials. But, the goal of a conspiracy theory is to stir up the laymen, the common man. So, scholarship is not that important. They only need to be convincing enough to convince you and me. Some examples of this is that they do not quote scripture correctly. They never quote more that 1 verse in a row. Apparently context is a peripheral issue for them. There is no meaning without context. When they quote scripture, they either give no context at all, or they paraphrase the preceding context, which they get wrong (more on this later). They also misuse some terms, like "immaculate conception." This is a common mistake, but should not show up in well researched, scholarly work.

3. The scholarship they try to employ in this documentary is what would be described as liberal (this has nothing to do with politics). That is to say that when dating the books of the NT, you can date Paul's writings as early as the 50's, which would be the conservative view and, in my opinion, clearly the most accurate. You can also date Paul's writings as late as 140AD or later, and claim that it was not Paul, but someone else who wrote this as folklore to an existing group called Christians. This is the liberal view. This is convenient to conspiracy theorists because it removes any eyewitnesses from being involved in the writings, and thus discredits the documents.

The are some overarching generalities that are true of most conspiracy theorists. Next time I will dive into the meat of the documentary and challenge some of his claims. If you have seen the movie or watch it soon, post and let me know. I am interested to hear what is being said and what your responses are.

Thanks!
-NF