Halleujah. Job is a parable!!
Thrid century Rabbi Resh Lakish has suggested that the Biblical character Job, ''Never was, and never existed''.
Oh the freedom.
It frees me anyway from the problems that Job gives us in terms of God's morality. I for one want no part in a God who wagers a man's life with Satan himself.
If the book of a Job is a parable then, these details may be overlooked and the truths of the book of Job become clearer.
But it also offers me a head ache. In refuting the negative aspects of God in Job, we must surely refute the positive ones too, that is God's response in Job 38 and 39, possibly one of the greatest portions of literature ever written.
I guess what we might be able to cling to is at least Job 38 and 39 seem to fit with what we know about God in other bits of the Bible, whereas God placing bets with Satan....isn't.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
ramble
I have a lot to blog about on all blogs, but I think this one is a priority.
I used to go to a bible study that focused very much on conversion. Each week before the actual study, we would compare stories, positive or negative, about the advances we were making with our 'non-christian' friends. This made perfect sense at the time, but recently I have been wondering about this. Last year I spent a lot of time looking at what the bible has to say about the hungry, and the poor and this has re-raised the classic old question of
'Is a 'good' non-christian damned and a 'bad' christian saved'?
My response has always smugly been, "well what is 'good' really?" Well that's crap, because we know what 'good' is, the bible I believe makes that quite clear. We are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, look after the orphan and the widow, basically help those who need help. So now what if someone (and there are many people like this) devotes their lives to helping people. They are infuriated by the condition of the world and so decide to get their hands dirty and make a difference, this is what the bible teaches, do they go to 'hell'. And what about the christian who knows fine well what Christ has done for him, and is more then happy to sit in his mansion and ride life out (me?) are they to be rewarded?!! What if you had to choose; go around preaching the gospel to people, or give someone who needs food and water? What would you do?
I have been a reading the most fantastic book, and today it made quite the revelation.
It said that Jewish people, in general, are quite baffled at the Christians interpretation of certain sections of the book of Isaiah. It points out that Christan's see Isaiah very much as the book which prophesies most about the coming of Jesus. However it takes two sections and totally rebuffs them. The first is a reference to a virgin birth which Christians take to be concerning Jesus' birth. But the word in Isaiah doesn't actually mean 'virgin', it means young woman. And so the verse is actually talking about the current King's (Ahaz) imminent new daughter from his wife. The second talks about someone 'suffering for God'. Its late and I'm pretty sure that's not exactly correct but it serves the same purpose. Isaiah here is actually not talking about Jesus, but the suffering the current Jewish population is enduring.
This then is very frustrating as we do not know what else 'Christian' translators have messed up to serve their own ends?
I used to go to a bible study that focused very much on conversion. Each week before the actual study, we would compare stories, positive or negative, about the advances we were making with our 'non-christian' friends. This made perfect sense at the time, but recently I have been wondering about this. Last year I spent a lot of time looking at what the bible has to say about the hungry, and the poor and this has re-raised the classic old question of
'Is a 'good' non-christian damned and a 'bad' christian saved'?
My response has always smugly been, "well what is 'good' really?" Well that's crap, because we know what 'good' is, the bible I believe makes that quite clear. We are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, look after the orphan and the widow, basically help those who need help. So now what if someone (and there are many people like this) devotes their lives to helping people. They are infuriated by the condition of the world and so decide to get their hands dirty and make a difference, this is what the bible teaches, do they go to 'hell'. And what about the christian who knows fine well what Christ has done for him, and is more then happy to sit in his mansion and ride life out (me?) are they to be rewarded?!! What if you had to choose; go around preaching the gospel to people, or give someone who needs food and water? What would you do?
I have been a reading the most fantastic book, and today it made quite the revelation.
It said that Jewish people, in general, are quite baffled at the Christians interpretation of certain sections of the book of Isaiah. It points out that Christan's see Isaiah very much as the book which prophesies most about the coming of Jesus. However it takes two sections and totally rebuffs them. The first is a reference to a virgin birth which Christians take to be concerning Jesus' birth. But the word in Isaiah doesn't actually mean 'virgin', it means young woman. And so the verse is actually talking about the current King's (Ahaz) imminent new daughter from his wife. The second talks about someone 'suffering for God'. Its late and I'm pretty sure that's not exactly correct but it serves the same purpose. Isaiah here is actually not talking about Jesus, but the suffering the current Jewish population is enduring.
This then is very frustrating as we do not know what else 'Christian' translators have messed up to serve their own ends?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The second till last frontier and a bunch of assumptions
I heard a guy talk today on the relationship between Space, the universe and God. That wasn't the title, but its my sort of summery. He's a cosmologist so knows his stuff. It was very interesting.
But I thought of a question during his talk. Does someone born in Space (as I am sure we can't be too far away from) require forgiveness (from a Christian perspective)? Now the natural and impulsive answer is of course he does. But we're not here to be natural or impulsive, we're here to think.
Why do Christians believe we need forgiveness? Well, because of the first sin of Adam and Eve and what they call 'the fall' resulting in humanities decline. Whatever you believe about the creation story, most would agree that 'the fall' affected humanity. So my first question is actually Is Sin genetic? Again, i assume the easy answer here is no. Let's roll with that assumption; Sin is not genetic, it is not passed from one human to the next. I think the assumption is correct otherwise the right genetic 'mutation' might deem someone 'sinless'. So are we just covered in a blanket of sin?
I heard a wonderful argument concerning the Noah's arc once. The chap was addressing the question of how Noah managed to get every animal on an Arc considering the given dimensions for the Arc. He put forward a theory that, assuming that is was a regional flood, not every animal ACTUALLY had to be on board. The story of the Ark was relatively near the beginning of humanities ejection from the garden, and thus had not even come close to conquering the world, but only the middle East. With this in mind, only the animals which had been in contact with man's sin needed to be destroyed, not every animal. A polar bear for example needed no attention because as far as it was concerned man did not exist and therefore sin didn't either.
Now this may well be a theory loaded with holes, but it nevertheless contributed to my thought process that things could be affected by sin.
God created Earth. God created man. Man sinned. Now that seems fine, but what if, and obviously I do mean if, someone was not only born in Space, but billions of light years away, assuming God has allowed us the technology, are they still covered by sin? really?! Are you telling me that the effects of eating an apple and disobeying God just once has poisoned the entire universe?
My head hurts.
But I thought of a question during his talk. Does someone born in Space (as I am sure we can't be too far away from) require forgiveness (from a Christian perspective)? Now the natural and impulsive answer is of course he does. But we're not here to be natural or impulsive, we're here to think.
Why do Christians believe we need forgiveness? Well, because of the first sin of Adam and Eve and what they call 'the fall' resulting in humanities decline. Whatever you believe about the creation story, most would agree that 'the fall' affected humanity. So my first question is actually Is Sin genetic? Again, i assume the easy answer here is no. Let's roll with that assumption; Sin is not genetic, it is not passed from one human to the next. I think the assumption is correct otherwise the right genetic 'mutation' might deem someone 'sinless'. So are we just covered in a blanket of sin?
I heard a wonderful argument concerning the Noah's arc once. The chap was addressing the question of how Noah managed to get every animal on an Arc considering the given dimensions for the Arc. He put forward a theory that, assuming that is was a regional flood, not every animal ACTUALLY had to be on board. The story of the Ark was relatively near the beginning of humanities ejection from the garden, and thus had not even come close to conquering the world, but only the middle East. With this in mind, only the animals which had been in contact with man's sin needed to be destroyed, not every animal. A polar bear for example needed no attention because as far as it was concerned man did not exist and therefore sin didn't either.
Now this may well be a theory loaded with holes, but it nevertheless contributed to my thought process that things could be affected by sin.
God created Earth. God created man. Man sinned. Now that seems fine, but what if, and obviously I do mean if, someone was not only born in Space, but billions of light years away, assuming God has allowed us the technology, are they still covered by sin? really?! Are you telling me that the effects of eating an apple and disobeying God just once has poisoned the entire universe?
My head hurts.
Damn Tracts
I picked up a tract the other day. For those of you who are unfamiliar, a tract is sort of a little booklet or summary of the 'Christian message' that normally gets handed out. I don't know if that's the correct definition, if it was some other religious message I'm sure that would be a tract too. Now I must say I'm not dead against tracts, in fact I've been known to defend them as well as the guy who stands on his soap box and preaches to the weekend shoppers or nighttime revelers. But I think my stance is changing. This tract was basically a cartoon storyboard of a mans life from start to finish, and to be honest it was going quite well until he got into his mid-50s. The cartoon showed this man and his family on this very large road, crammed with people all going in the same direction. The metaphor I presume was this is what life is like, everyone all going down the same road, zombie like in appearance. The 'hero' in our story is a gentleman who offers an escape. There is a small offshoot on this large road and it appears to lead up a thin rocky mountainside. I would even concede that we are OK up until this point. However it is the gentleman's sell which is disturbing. His sell is a classic one, and one we have heard many times before regarding the 'road to destruction' and the 'road to heaven'. But is that what Christianity is? Is it a trap door into another portal? Is it a revolving bookcase to another dimension? Is it as simple as choosing the red pill? I'm going to hold my hands up here, if it is then great, show me what I have to do!
The Christians I have been speaking to would suggest that that is not real. If I just flick the switch and I'm guaranteed a spot in heaven......then great......for me. But how does 'me getting into heaven' help anyone else? Well in its rawest form, it doesn't, which would make Christianity a very selfish religion. Would the tract dispensers be happy with that definition? probably not, but I believe it is exactly what their tracts tell the rest of us.
The Christians I have been speaking to would suggest that that is not real. If I just flick the switch and I'm guaranteed a spot in heaven......then great......for me. But how does 'me getting into heaven' help anyone else? Well in its rawest form, it doesn't, which would make Christianity a very selfish religion. Would the tract dispensers be happy with that definition? probably not, but I believe it is exactly what their tracts tell the rest of us.
Friday, April 25, 2008
I can not stop thinking about something I read last week. In my experience, the things that strike me most, are the things that I already believe but am either too scared to voice an opinion or too lazy. So every now and again someone says something that deep down I have felt for a long time, but articulates it in a way I never could and says it with a confidence that I never could. The chapter was talking about image, or at least that's what I took from it. If you believe that at one time there was a 'fall' of man, then this chapter put forward one very important consequence of this original disaster. The idea goes that at some point humans and God where in an extremely tight relationship and, as I'm sure you can imagine, being in such a close relationship with God had its advantages, one of which was security. The fact that humans felt accepted and loved was never disputed or discussed, it just was. They just were, and they knew of no other way, how could they when they walked and talked with Love itself. Now the chapter very convincingly suggests that ever since the fall, and the subsequent separation and fracture of this relationship, humans have maintained this natural obsession with acceptance and love. Nothing new there, but then, none of this is new. Humans, desperate to satisfy this craving, look hopelessly to each other as the answer to their problems. Think of parasites. Humans are love parasites. They are acceptance parasites. But a parasite can't get anything it needs from another parasite, it needs say.....a sheep. Something that will satisfy it for life, you see where this is going.. But back to the book. It was talking about clothing, or electronics or houses or anything that we do, say or buy in a desperate effort for someone else, (who is no different) to think better of us. Why do we care so much about clothes? or looks? will it help? We'll be doing it our whole lives. Now I'm not convinced you need to believe in God, or a God to agree with this, but I'm struggling to wrap this post up with anymore then one alternative. What if we could be 100% confident in ourselves? what if we got the results back, and by doing absolutely nothing we where accepted? Not just accepted but ACTIVELY loved and pursued. What if before going to the mirror we knew we where beautiful?
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Infinity and Moses
The one interesting thing I did read today was regarding Moses and Abraham. The suggestion was that we can be sure that they where called by God to do what they did, but we can't be sure they where the first to be called. Is it not possible that God may have tried to persuade others to undertake the assignments, but through stubbornness or fear they ignored the call. Perhaps Abraham and Moses weren't called because they where spacial, maybe they were special because they heard the call and gambled. I'm not sure. The same book also pointed out that in the Bible Moses was ''the most humble man in the world''. Now assuming that were true, then that would be reason enough to go straight to him. However in Abraham's case, It might not be so clear cut, and perhaps he may not have been the first.
I was also thinking about infinity. As far as I understood it, infinity was......infinity, that was it. Whilst it is not a number, it is a concept and I would define it as something without end, numbers being the classic example. Google definitions suggests int may be ''time without end'' but I don't know how that definition can be reconciled with numbers. But it would appear after some preliminary research, that there may be different levels of infinity, but does that mean different levels of ''Time without end''?......
I don't get it.
The theory as I understand it goes thus; There is an infinite number of whole numbers, I believe that would be undisputed (although I would like to see a proof). However, between the first two numbers (1 and 2) there would be infinite amount of irrational numbers, as there would between 2 and 3. So the thinking was, if you tried to match up all the irrational numbers with the rational (whole) numbers, you couldn't do it. Hence there are different levels of infinity. This has been put forward by smarter people then me, but they don't have blogs so I feel free to challenge it. At first glance it would seem true, but the whole concept of infinity is such that you couldn't 'match' any infinite item up with anything else, it surely can't be done. Does that mean that there are infinite levels of infinity? Well no, because then infinity would just be another word for a ''number'' as the same is also true. I hope I'm not coming over as a smart ass here because I genuinely just don't get it.
If anyone has any proofs for why there are infinite numbers, I would love to see it.
I was also thinking about infinity. As far as I understood it, infinity was......infinity, that was it. Whilst it is not a number, it is a concept and I would define it as something without end, numbers being the classic example. Google definitions suggests int may be ''time without end'' but I don't know how that definition can be reconciled with numbers. But it would appear after some preliminary research, that there may be different levels of infinity, but does that mean different levels of ''Time without end''?......
I don't get it.
The theory as I understand it goes thus; There is an infinite number of whole numbers, I believe that would be undisputed (although I would like to see a proof). However, between the first two numbers (1 and 2) there would be infinite amount of irrational numbers, as there would between 2 and 3. So the thinking was, if you tried to match up all the irrational numbers with the rational (whole) numbers, you couldn't do it. Hence there are different levels of infinity. This has been put forward by smarter people then me, but they don't have blogs so I feel free to challenge it. At first glance it would seem true, but the whole concept of infinity is such that you couldn't 'match' any infinite item up with anything else, it surely can't be done. Does that mean that there are infinite levels of infinity? Well no, because then infinity would just be another word for a ''number'' as the same is also true. I hope I'm not coming over as a smart ass here because I genuinely just don't get it.
If anyone has any proofs for why there are infinite numbers, I would love to see it.
not important but maybe interesting.
I have created a new Blog which will act as my online journal. This will be this Blog will be a place for me to document all my thoughts of a more deeper category. I do not suppose many people will read this, and I suspect even less will care, but that is not my intention. When I read or think, or even discuss, I always like to be able to document these thoughts or questions, and I see no obvious reason to keep these ideas to myself. I will also be able to playfully wallow in the freedom this blog will allow me from my greatest fault and Achilles heal; the need to make things entertaining or funny. There is a very real chance this blog will be neither entertaining nor funny, but I do hope it will at least be interesting in terms of content as it will certainly not be aesthetically pleasing. So there it is, the quiet backroom of my web log.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)