Reconciliation

This text was my answer to a Mid-Term question that basically asked whether it was possible to reconcile the Old Testament and the New Testament. I chose to answer in the "blogger" tone so that the voice could go from passive to persuasive without attracting too much attention. Anyway...

RECONCILIATION OF THE TESTATMENTS

Before getting started, note that I will refer to a scenario where the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) do not differ in any material way as “matching”. So when I say that they match, I mean that they are fully reconciled.

On the question of whether it is possible to synthesize the Old Testament and the New Testament I would say NO.

Without citing any specific inconsistencies between the testaments, I will use one of the major inconsistencies to illustrate. That God is described so differently in the Old Testament vs. the New Testament that they are almost certainly describing different beings.

I would like to point out some of the broad differences between God from the OT and God from the NT. Most notably, God has direct relationships with certain, otherwise regular individuals, in the OT. There is no such personal relationship with God in the NT. In the NT the connection is more spiritual than actual. Furthermore, God was somewhat vengeful in the OT, or at least He was more prone to directly punish the sinful. In the NT, it seems as though God will allow the sinful to continue in their ways and hold his judgment/punishment until the end of days.

In general, the major difference is that in the OT, God was directly involved in the day to day affairs of people. He is somewhat more abstract in the NT. Not so much a physical force as a spiritual one. So, if the question is; Is it possible to make a synthesis of the OT and the NT? The answer is no but then, I don’t believe this to be the real question.

On the question of whether they can be made to match. That is, interpreted in such a way as to make those differences immaterial, I would again say no… not really. First, let me point out that there must be inconsistencies or the question would never have been asked on this mid-term. Then, is it possible to overcome these inconsistencies in order to perceive the OT and the NT as matching?

I concede that the intentions/meanings behind the writings can be corrupted by our perception, or even perhaps by the perception of writers themselves who were, despite divine intervention, merely human. We could then agree that they really describe God in the same way. Although valid, this argument is so broad as to make it meaningless. So if we return to the belief that the interpretations are (generally) correct and that the writings were also accurate, were are then left with and OT and a NT so different that they cannot be seen as matching without effort. By effort, I mean that the only way for them to match is to force it. To loosen our interpretations so much that the meaning expressed in The Bible is taken figuratively. The facts present in The Bible are disputable, so long as the deeper message they lead to is the same as that which as already been interpreted and agreed upon as correct by theologians.

So if the question is; Can they be made to match? I say sure, with enough loosening of our standards and enough imagination, why not? Well, because they don’t really match, all we have done here is change the definition of “match” so that the word is in effect meaningless. But, if we hold to my original definition of matching, that is, no material differences between the OT and the NT, then the answer to this question also is NO. In either case it’s somewhat irrelevant to the point I’m leading to as I do not consider this to be the real question either.

So, if the real question as I see it to be is not whether the OT and the NT match, or whether they can be made to match, what is the real question??? The real question is why do we want them to match? What is the reason that pushes us to want fully reconciled OT and NT? I don’t have an answer for this. If I did, I would not have identified this as the one real question.

That said, I can speculate. I see two likely answers; one more academic, the other, more spiritual. Academically, we believe that the writers of the gospels, and indeed Christ himself believed in the OT. If this is true, then the teachings of Christ must be consistent with the OT. Spiritually, these two books combine to give the faithful guidance, if they don’t agree with each other, how can the ordinary faithful determine which is most real?

The truth is, there may be as many different answers to this question as there are individuals to answer it. But still, it needs to be asked.

Concept Of Death In The Garden Of Eden

I'm currently taking a class who's focus is any literature considered to have significantly influenced western culture. The first (and the fourth) reading were from the bible. I had made a decision to take a believers approach for all the readings. This is far easier with The Republic or even Utopia than with The Bible. Keeping in mind that I’m atheist. I attempted to write an essay as a believer in The Bible. The result (shortened but otherwise not modified) is below.

If pressed, I could easily deconstruct the essay below. In this sense, it has little value as an analysis of the concept of death in the Garden of Eden. However, it does proves one thing conclusively; one should not attempt to defend a position in which one has no conviction.




IN THE BEGINNING
THERE WAS THE END

THE BEGINING
Genesis 2:16 “And the LORD GOD commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

These two passages in Genesis especially drew my attention. Taken literally, and chronologically, immediately after creation GOD gave life to man, planted the Garden of Eden then gave the commandment above to Adam. Woman was created after.

Why is this an issue? First, this means that from the very beginning, death was a part of life and that it does not follow the transgression of Adam. That Adam understood what GOD meant when He said “die”. The Bible therefore suggest that Adam had a precise understanding of death and that somehow, that understanding has not survived the generations that followed down to us.

1. DEATH DEFINING
Any analysis of passages from The Bible is made difficult because of the different methods of interpreting them by different people. Exploring the concept of death at creation is especially difficult since death follows life and each interpretation defines life differently.

Interpreting The Bible literally, the living, and by extension beings that can die, are beings which breathe. Man and beasts. This is illustrated in Genesis 7:22 “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life […] died”. Therefore the simplified definition of death according to Genesis is the cessation of breath in living beings. This is similar, though not as far reaching, as our modern biological definition of death "the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism” (http://www.dictionary.com/).

Interpreting The Bible symbolically, the death of Adam from eating the fruit could be defined as a sort of spiritual death. However, since GOD commanded that Adam should die “the day” of the transgression, that is, at a specific time, I will favor the literal interpretation.


2. DEATH SENTENCE
Was there a time, however brief, where death was not part of The Creation? Some would argue that The Bible itself answer this question in Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.” This implies that death is the consequence of sin and did not exist before it.

It is true that chronologically, death is mentioned as what will follow Adam’s disobedience of the commandment (GEN 2:17). Here death is expressed as the punishment for sin. A deterrent for anyone who would disobey GOD’s will. However, in order to be effective, Adam must desire NOT to die. At the time that St. Paul wrote Epistle to the Romans, death and suffering had been either experienced or witnessed by all. This led him to assume that fear of death was inherent. He probably assumed this to be the case in the Garden of Eden also. It is an understandable assumption. If asked, we would all assume that Adam feared fire, although, not having been exposed to fire yet; there would be no reason for Adam to fear it.

In general, we all assume death to be universally fear-inspiring, but I say it was not so in Eden? If we examine the root of the fear of death, we see that it could not have been present. Every one of us as individuals is afraid of death, but it was not always so. Infants exhibit no fear of death whatsoever. Young children seem to fear only excessively dangerous activities. Adolescents are far less risk averse and young adults. And so on. It is clear that our fear of death follows from our exposure to, and grows in proportion to our exposure to it.

Now, some would argue that it is not exposure but rather understanding of death which leads to increased fear of it as one ages. In fact, this argument only reinforces my conclusion as our understanding of death increases with increased exposure. It remains that fear of death is not inherent.

But what of Adam and Eve, who could never have witnessed human suffering or death? If fear of death can only be the result of exposure to death, what is the source of fear for Adam? Or the fear exhibited by Eve in Gen 3:3 where she clearly considers death as a deterrent from eating the forbidden fruit? The only conclusion possible is that they somehow had an understanding of death so clear and so profound that they need not have been exposed to it in order to fear it. Fear it enough to consider it a deterrent.

THE MEANING LOST
Whatever Adam and Eve knew about death and/or the after-life, it has not been transmitted down to us. Perhaps the knowledge was lost during the great flood. It may have been meant for man as he was before sin, when man was more in the image of GOD, as understood from Gen 6:3 “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh[...]”.

THE END

Thougths Of An Atheist.

THE MIRROR OR THE WINDOW

A recent conversation I had went like this:

Me: … even I believe that, and I’m not catholic.
My brother: What do you mean you’re not catholic?
Me: (look of disbelief)
My brother: If you’re not catholic then what are you?
Me: I’m Atheist, you know that!!!
My brother: Yeah, but I thought you would have outgrown that by now.

I spent long hours soul-searching for my faith. I found the answers that resonate with me are inconsistent with God (of any faith). This belief explains the world as I see it. You (the non-atheists), have found your own belief. And, just as you can poke holes at my belief, I can do likewise to yours. Accordingly, in this post, I will not defend my beliefs. Nor will I attack yours. Here I will only attempt to dispel some of the myths surrounding Atheism.

Many non-atheists try to understand it. The failure to do so adequately often originates from that they look at atheist through their own system of beliefs. I equate this with trying to observe by looking into a mirror. Success would more easily be achieved from an objective point of view, in other words, by looking through the window.

Please note that since Christians represent the bulk of persons who have expressed their curiosity of atheism to me, I use the word Christian to represent all faiths.



ATHEISTS ARE PEOPLE WITHOUT FAITH

MIRROR: From the perspective of people who share a widely held faith, this would seem obvious. By looking in the mirror, you suppose that anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong or imperfect, that those who do not believe lack a proper faith. Is this an exaggeration? Which of the two following questions do you ask atheists?

“Why don’t you believe in God?”
“What do you believe?”

WINDOW: Atheists also have a system of beliefs which are as important to us as yours are to you. It isn’t that I don’t believe in God. That is the lack of belief. It is that I believe there is no God. That is an alternate belief. The arguments in favour of one vs. the other are irrelevant to this argument. Whichever belief hold true in the absolute sense is debatable. Not debatable is the fact that atheism is not a lack of faith.



ATHEIST ARE REBELLING AGAINST CHURCH WRONGDOINGS

MIRROR: By looking into the mirror, you see atheist complaints about past church transgression as a weak excuse for their “desertion”. Christians who believe this have fallen victim to the “post hoc, ergo proctor hoc” fallacy. Atheistic beliefs are not caused by the complaints that precede them.

WINDOW: Bear in mind that the complaints are, in most instances, expressions of opinions on important historical events, not the source of deep-rooted beliefs. Atheists are well aware that, for every Urban II or Leo X, there were innumerable good Christians. No one feels that modern Christians have reason to be ashamed for the isolated instances of misconduct by religious zealots of the past.

However, the beneficial outcomes of organized religion do not excuse it from enquiry and criticism. Proponents of the enquiry adhere to the adage “he who does not learn from the past is condemned to repeat it”. This group not populated solely by atheists.




ATHEIST ARE REBELLING AGAINST RELIGIOUS PRACTICES

MIRROR: By looking into the mirror, Christians see atheism as an excuse on the part of indolent “would-be Christians” to disregard burdensome doctrines. This is the most self-righteous view of atheism of all. Rejection of dogmatic practices is not a benefit sought by atheist. They are simply incompatible with our own beliefs.

WINDOW: The source of my belief, as noted above, was thoughtful soul-searching. This is presumably the case for most atheists. Like many atheists, I believe organized religion is an outdated social construct. That belief however, is neither the root, nor the result of atheism.

Atheists find it difficult to see the relationship between the traditions, rituals, sacraments, etc, and a deeper connection with God. They will then express opinion of these religious practices. As an unfortunate side effect of the ensuing arguments, Christians are left with the impression that avoiding these practices is the reason for atheism. I have not yet to meet the atheist who converted to avoid the trauma of touching blessed water.

I hope you will indulge me in a short digression… Christians who hold the view above are those that I consider as most self-righteous. As if adherence to a code of conduct created by people was a real measure of devotion to ones faith. Only the truly sanctimonious cannot see a line between socially accepted doctrines and individually held beliefs.




ALL SECULARIST ARE ATHEISTS

This myth is, to some extents, excusable. I found two definitions of secularism on online dictionaries. The first defines it as religious scepticism or indifference. This definition is so broad that it could partially define atheist. It could also apply to agnostics, heretics or even less-than-pious Christians. Because of its over-extended reach, I will ignore it. The second definition of secularism is the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs and public education. The belief that this definition is interchangeable with that of atheism is also prevalent and is what I will address.

MIRROR: By looking in the mirror, you see the principles of your faith as an important source of guidelines conducive to social well-being. By focusing on the mirror, you might get the impression that no other source could exist and therefore, anyone who doesn’t see God as part of civil affairs must not see God at all.

WINDOW: If you look through the window, you will see that religion does not hold a monopoly as a source of guidelines conducive to social well-being. For example, I believe that, to continue to evolve, we must bring societal standards in-line with Utilitarian values, which is a philosophical view disconnected from religious beliefs.

If this perception of secularist comes from exposure to the minority who take secularism too far, note that the extremist are on the fringes of secularism and are no more representative of moderate secularists that the KKK is representative of Christianity. Most atheists are not offended by existing Christian influences in society. Most secularists aren’t either. I’m not sure that removing the words “God keep our land” would create any benefit for anyone.

In general, the arguments in favour of secularism are not to remove God from the system. Rather, they are o introduce a different set of values. When these are inconsistent with Christian values, secularists are willing to separate religion from the organization of societal systems. This separation is easier for atheist and agnostics, which creates the impression that all secularists are atheists. But, it is conceivable that some Christians believe their faith to be for individuals and not necessarily applicable to an entire society. Therefore secularism is not limited to atheists (or vice versa)



ATHEIST HAVE NO VALUES OR MORES

MIRROR: You follow the teachings of Jesus (or the equivalent for followers of other religions). Since that is the only source of ethics that you know of, it must the only one.

WINDOW: Until I questioned my faith I had never considered where my values came from. I simply assumed that I behaved in a manner expected of a good Christian, that my religion was the source and that all Christians behave similarly. In fact, that was largely true. But then how can I explain that I continue to behave that way now that I am no longer Catholic?

I said I did not intent to defend atheism in this post but this point is important so I will explain it in more detail while attempting not to be preachy. Over time, I came to understand that, what I described above as largely true was not that religion was the source of my values, but, that it was my source of understanding them. Religion was the source of the verbalization of my values and their meanings.

This is a difficult concept to grasp. If the origin is not religion; what is it? I could only speculate on the answer to that question. For example, it may be that values are evolutionary tools hard-wired into our DNA which help humans work together in a manner that promotes survival.

In any case, without being able to answer the question why values are ingrained in all persons regardless of religion, I still believe this to be true. Consider that people of all religion have so many similarities in their respective values; Christians, Buddhist, Atheists, etc. The similarities are not reserved to organized monotheist groups either. Consider the similar values of superstitious tribes as dispersed as those from the Amazon to Papua. Surely there must be a common thread besides religious beliefs.

Now I can return to the window. My ethics are generally utilitarian. Other atheist may derive theirs from a different philosophy. Whatever the case, there is no material reason to suspect atheists as being more likely to unethical behaviour than anyone else.



CONCLUSION

People in general have a habit of attributing characteristics to entire groups of people rather than getting to really know them. Although I can be guilty of this myself, my skin crawls when I hear things like “Catholics are a bunch of hypocrites”. Your’s should crawl too when you hear “Atheist are a bunch of (insert stereotypical observation here)”. This system of beliefs may be newly recognized but it is already far to complex to be stuffed into the little box of pre-conceived notions.

Now that you can see through the window, it’s time for the next step. Open it.

Sandro

"In the absence of evidence for or against God's existence, the wise man will choose to believe, since if he is correct he will gain his reward, and if he is incorrect he stands to lose nothing"

- Blaise Pascal

Faltering idealism

Last Thursday, I woke late. As I have a habit of doing, I watched CBC Newsworld during breakfast. The program was Nichola Goddard's father was delivering her eulogy. For those who don't know, Nichola Goddard was killed in action last week in Afghanistan. She is the first Canadian women killed in combat. The eulogy was moving more than I can ever recount so I won't.

Amidst the anecdotes, he recalled one discussion with his daughter in which she offered a more concise argument for my position on the unfortunate necessity of war than I could have ever dreamed.

The following retelling has been filtered of personal statements since I could never convey their meaning in any manner called just.

Himself an educator, her father (expectedly) argued that by educating populations you create a renewable and expanding resource that, over time, will pull the people from destitution. How the liberty to think freely (forgive my repetition) expands hope and knowledge, then becoming not only the means by which transformation is possible, but the very reason to undertake it. She responded saying “you can’t do that when the bad guys are running the show”.

And there it is. I have always felt that a world without any war would be ideal, but, on the other hand, it would be ideal. It’s nice to dream of equality and prosperity for all but, to help real people in real crisis', practical solutions are needed. In a world were many leaders refuse to comply and allow the simultaneous existence of world peace and prosperity, force is required, perhaps even virtuous.


I believe the war in Afghanistan will result in better living conditions for millions of Afghans now and for generations to come. Were there areas of more pressing need? Sudan perhaps? I don’t suppose to know the best ways in which to use military might, and I highly doubt that any reader of this can say better. I will only say this; Canadian soldiers are fighting for a cause they believe in. I choose only to believe in them.

SeZ

No man can sit down and withhold his hands from the warfare against wrong and get peace from his acquiescence.
- Woodrow Wilson