On my faith

[professionalhenchman]

This post's inspired by my lovely wife's recent postings on the subject. Many of you probably know that we're Christians - if nothing else, our wedding made that clear to many of you, but for all the other things that I feel easily able to talk about and share with my friends, this is the one area that I find myself actively avoiding bringing up. In large part, this is in reaction to the statements made by the loudest members of our family in Christ, who I tend not to want to be associated with. I realize though that by not speaking up, I allow them to become the public face of Christians everywhere, and I'd really prefer that people realize that we're not all like the ones who keep making the news. So, here's where I stand on a few issues where I differ from the public perception of Christians. I could expand at some length on these, but I'll keep them short for the moment.

I am Christian and I am a scientist. I see no conflict between my faith and the scientific method, evolution, or any other parts of my chosen profession.

I am Christian and I see no objection to same-sex couples being married, nor to poly relationships, nor any other sort, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. I truly do not comprehend why being homosexual or allowing same-sex marriage is such a big deal among some Christians - there's very little in the bible that can be construed as condemning homosexuality, and compared to many of the world's problems which we are much more clearly called to try and solve, it's a trivial matter. As for Poly, people these days seem to miss the parts in the old testament about the multiple wives of some of the major figures - where do they get this thing about Marriage only being between two people stuff? It's certainly not biblical as far as I've found.

I am Christian and I firmly believe in the separation of church and state and freedom of religion. Historically, having a state religion has resulted in far too much fighting about religion, and trying to force your beliefs upon someone else is a terrible tactic for convincing them that you have the correct answers. Moreover, I do not believe that any one religion has all the answers - I simply cannot reconcile the idea of an all-powerful etc. deity with the idea that we can fully understand such a being enough to know God's mind. I believe that a major reason for Jesus' incarnation on earth was to give us a figure we could relate to. Also to let God experience what it is like to be human - from my reading of the Bible, it seems pretty clear that God's been learning how to deal with us humans all along, and likely still is. One of the principles I really like in Methodism is the reasoning behind having committees for so many things - because each of us understands God differently, and so as a group sharing our understandings, we can together come closer to comprehending God than any one individual can. I think this holds true overall as a reason to welcome and interact with people of other faiths.

Comments

[satyrlovesong.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much for sharing.

Re: Science and Religion

[celledhor.livejournal.com]

As a now resident of the laughable state of Texas, I am more and more running into and explaining the concept I refer to as "Small God Syndrome". After all, if God is all powerful, then isn't it just possible to have created a complex system that changes, adapts, and evolves to various stimuli? Science tries to figure out how all the mechanisms work, in my opinion. To those who get hung up on creation and religion vs. science, I generally respond with, "I'm sorry you have such a small god"

It's not generally taken very well. Especially not here.

Alternately, I refer to it as the "Lazy God Theory". After all, if humanity is made in the image of an almighty being, and humanity is lazy and ingenious, then it stands to reason that the being is also lazy and ingenious. Thus, it makes sense to build a system that one no longer has to monitor or take action in to keep it functioning.

Just my two cents.

Re: Science and Religion

[exzebachay.livejournal.com]

The "image" in question isn't a perfect isomorphism, y'see. Laziness might just be a result of the specific "God-to-human" mapping, but not anything inherent to God himself.

;)

Re: Science and Religion

[celledhor.livejournal.com]

Maybe not, but it makes a decent posit for a theory and uses one of the lynchpins of the conservative christian viewpoint to make them distinctly uncomfortable. Which helps to contemplate things that would otherwise be dismissed. I consider expanding horizons to be a good thing, generally.

Re: Science and Religion

[exzebachay.livejournal.com]

Well, I do to.

...'s just that I'm really pedantic, these days.

Re: Science and Religion

[ribbin.livejournal.com]

Some people believe in the God as the Clockmaker theory: God made the universe, and then stepped back and let it go like a giant clock, without interfering.

Then there's the God as the Puppetmaster theory: God directs our every move.

Personally, I believe in the God as the Chef theory: We are like a dish that has been partially prepared and is now simmering, unfinished. Eventually, God will come back and put the finishing touches on us and we will be finished, but for the time being He's in the other room watching the Simpsons.

Re: Science and Religion

[battymaiden.livejournal.com]

*squee!* I like your analogy.

Re: Science and Religion

[barnabas-truman.livejournal.com]

What, and when we're "finished," God comes back and eats us? Is your god named Cthulhu by any chance?

Re: Science and Religion

[buffaloraven.livejournal.com]

Nope, that's just God's dinner guest.

Re: Science and Religion

[kay-gmd.livejournal.com]

Wow, I got to the God as Chef theory and said "Wow Ribbin just said exactly what I was thinking that makes my head hurt" then I read further, and found we disagree slightly. I think God's still actively poking at the dish adding a little spice changing the temp etc.

Re: Science and Religion

[emilia-romagna.livejournal.com]

There's also the fact that science and religion deal with completely different realms. Stephen Gould's article "Non-overlapping Magisteria" is a great thing to show to people who get confused about what the two do.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

[exzebachay.livejournal.com]

As I see it:

For the first, perceived conflict is the result of lack of understanding of either religion, or science, or both.

I forgot what I was going to say next. Um. Wizards first rule?

[zhaneel69.livejournal.com]

Thank you for sharing and adding your voice to the mix.

Zhaneel

[masterfiddler.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[emilia-romagna.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I really appreciate seeing both scientists and those who practice some sort of religion (whether it be Christianity or anything else) acknowledging that science and god are not at odds - in fact, they don't really have anything to do with each other. The article I linked in an above comment has been required reading in a couple of my classes now, and I really wish that I, and many of my classmates, had read it in high school.

Time to put on the Mr. Skeptic hat

[barnabas-truman.livejournal.com]

What is Christianity, then? What does it mean to be a Christian?

Also, there's plenty of Biblical basis for seeing homosexuality as evil--most of it Old Testament, of course, but some in the late New Testament as well. How do you reconcile use of the Bible as a guiding reference and personal disagreement with some of its passages?

As for freedom of religion and understanding God in different ways--what about John 14:6? Jesus himself seems to be saying that his way is the only way to salvation. Extreme evangelism, then, seems quite justified--allowing someone to believe "wrong" beliefs is allowing them to go to hell. Analogy: isn't it morally right to attempt to convince someone with scurvy to ingest some vitamin C, even if he is opposed to vitamin C for religious reasons? Similarly, isn't a non-evangelical Christian immoral for allowing others to go to hell?

Re: Time to put on the Mr. Skeptic hat

[groblek.livejournal.com]

What is Christianity? Well, people have been fighting wars over the definition of that one for a long time now, but to me, Christianity involves a belief in a divine being (God), a belief that the Bible holds insight into God and what it wants of us humans, and a belief that Jesus' teachings on God and relationship with our fellow humans are a model we should try and follow in our own lives

On the Biblical basis for seeing homosexuality as evil, actually if you read the passages argued as being against homosexuality, nearly all of them aren't anywhere close to clear-cut. The clearest one is the one which refers to a man lying with a man being an detestable/abomonation/distateful to God/whatever your translation uses - at any rate, the same wording used to tell people in another part that God dislikes us eating shellfish. So it's at worst a minor sin, and lesbians are off the hook entirely. Regardless, compared to the evils of the misuse of wealth, oppression of the poor and powerless and other issues mentioned much more strongly and unambiguously, the one of homosexuality is a minor issue in the Bible, and should be one for Christians too, I believe.

Also on that one, I believe that the Bible is inspired by God, but it is not the unaltered and unalterable word of God - I couldn't reconcile that with the differences in meaning from various translations. As a Methodist, I've been raised with the teaching of the founder of our particular denomination for assessing any aspect of faith and belief, which is to look at it in reference to scripture, tradition in the church, my own experience, and reason, giving each of these equal weight. This is how I reconcile my disagreement with some of the passages. And having done some serious study of the Bible, I know that there are parts in there that I find troubling - I certainly don't claim to have it all figured out.

As for John 14:6, I will admit that that one is unambiguous in the statement, but I tend to believe that part of Christ's purpose in coming to the world and suffering on the cross was to reconcile all of us who had strayed too far from God to God. That none of us could get there without what he did, but I don't believe that belief in him is strictly necessary to make use of that connection. Through Christ, God has offered salvation freely to the whole world, whether one recognizes it or not. So, since I don't believe that allowing someone to maintain wrong beliefs will condemn them to hell, the issue doesn't come up. Even if I did, I'd disagree with the evangelicals on strategy - I find that trying to scare someone into belief by telling them that they're doomed to hell if they don't follow Christ is a good way to get them to ignore you. I believe that I'd do best to provide an example of what it's like to live a Christian life and hope that others find it compelling enough to want to imitate me. And really, God's all-powerful, if he wants you to believe a certain way, you'll do it - He can do his own damn recruiting. :)

Re: Time to put on the Mr. Skeptic hat

[barnabas-truman.livejournal.com]

Serious Barnabas:
Thanks, that clears up a lot.

Silly Barnabas:
*gasp* You eat shellfish?? Evil! EEEEVIL!

Annoyingly Nitpicking Barnabas:
In Matthew 15 Jesus implies that violating the old food laws isn't sinful, but doesn't say anything about the other laws.

More Honest Barnabas:
Except of course for Mark 12:28-34. Probably the awesomest part of the whole Bible. 'Nuff said.

Re: Time to put on the Mr. Skeptic hat

[groblek.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm with you on that passage in Mark - it's the part I try the hardest to live up to, and I hope occasionally succeed.

Re: Time to put on the Mr. Skeptic hat

[barnabas-truman.livejournal.com]

It is said that a goy once told Rabbi Hilel that he'd convert to Judaism if Hilel could recite the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Hilel stood on one foot and said "Do not do to your neighbor what is hateful to him. The rest is just commentary."

Re: Time to put on the Mr. Skeptic hat

[buffaloraven.livejournal.com]

Another aspect is that, unless you are referring to a different quote than I believe you are, any new testament quotes are from Romans, Timothy, or Corinithians, none of which claim to be the teachings of Jesus. I know that I personally, as a Christian, reject the writings of Paul as delusions of a man who was far to obsessed with his supposed sanctity to be a useful individual =P It's about Jesus, not Paul.

As to the second, John is one of the most problematic gospels anyway, being a latecomer and certainly following different traditions than mainline, or even fundemental/evangelical, christianity follow today. Additionally, John, a Gnostic gospel, was in competition with Thomas, another Gnostic gospel, for Gnostic Christian believers. The likely purpose of that statement, and other exclucivist statements attributed to Jesus is to slam Thomasian Christians for not being Johanine. For further thought, I direct you to the story of Doubting Thomas, only found in John.

Re: Time to put on the Mr. Skeptic hat

[barnabas-truman.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I have problems with a lot of the New Testament stuff that was written decades after the fact. Some of the writers seemed to have no idea what Jesus was actually talking about, and some of the really good stuff got left out because it didn't fit in with The Church's teachings at the time.

Re: Time to put on the Mr. Skeptic hat

[buffaloraven.livejournal.com]

Exactly. :) It's even more complicated by the early church's tendancy to, rather than appointing a pastor, appoint a 'Jesus' who would be filled with the Holy Spirit and then occasionally 'prophecy' and these words were written with no distinction between the fake Jesus and the real Jesus, hence some of the passages that linguistic scholars think didn't come from Jesus.

[kevinbunny.livejournal.com]

You're leaving out the main bit: You're 'good people'. That goes a lot further than any religion, as far as I'm concerned. Mainly because I've known way too many people who can speak about the love of God/Christ/Etc with one breath, then scream words of venom and hate with the next.

You also are not self-righteous. You are good people *and* you are Christians, not good people *because* you are Christians. You don't look down upon those of different faith as bad people, or worse, threats to your own salvation.

You are a credit to your faith.

[kevinbunny.livejournal.com]

On a wholly unrelated note: You were right, we *don't* hang out enough. See you guys at Earl Gray!

[kay-gmd.livejournal.com]

You know, I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. My prideful side (which, although I like to think I hide it well, is probably the sin I have the most trouble with) likes to think that I'd be good with out being Christian, and I definitely don't imagine that I'd be less good if I were practicing a different faith, I do find that I'm a much better (as well as happier) person when I'm in church more often.

[barnabas-truman.livejournal.com]

I read an interesting essay by Joann Sfar (in the epilogue to Klezmer) in which he speculates that perhaps God is happiest with us when we succeed on our own, without the need to pray for a miracle. Isn't a teacher or parent proud when a student can finally do something by him/herself?

[kay-gmd.livejournal.com]

I don't know that God wouldn't be, but I know that I can't.

I know that I come closer to being the perfect me being in a faith community, and I suspect that if I somehow achieved it continuing in the community to help others move towards perfection would make God as happy as having me stick out on my own.

[kay-gmd.livejournal.com]

Also continuing in the community that had helped get me there would probably help me stay there.

[rochndil]

I have to agree with the bunny. People are good on their own merits, NOT because of their faith. I've known many good Christians, but they were not good BECAUSE of their faith. I've known many more Christians that were jerks, idiots, or intolerant bigots. Again, these characteristics were NOT because of their faith.

A person can be a moral, decent citizen without any religious faith at all. A person can also be an amoral, criminal deviant and have a strong personal faith. There is an unfortunate misconception that the two are inextricably connected.

Rochndil, who is many things, but not a Christian...

[kelsied.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure you can separate the two that easily. There are different types of Christianity, and they encourage different virtues and vices. People who grow up in one tradition tend to develop differently than people who grow up in a different one...

[kelsied.livejournal.com]

I keep thinking I want to see this meme continued, and I keep thinking I'm not the right person to do it...

[groblek.livejournal.com]

I don't know about that - I'd certainly be interested in hearing just what your faith is and where you stand. I have a good idea of some of it, but still.

[ealasaidh.livejournal.com]

Rock on! The world needs more sane and reasonable Christians speaking up. Good on ya. Folks like you and kay_gmd help me to remember that not all Christians are utter nutjobs.

[davefreer.livejournal.com]

I'd be curious on your take on Howard's faith in Slow Train? :-) (In many ways I had him evolving towards your veiw of Christianity. I've always suspected that it's a case of humans being too small to deal with God rather than God being needing to learn to deal humans - but perhaps that is more the result of my being very disenchanted with Anglicanism as a branch of faith.