Archive for category Religion

Lets talk about Sex

Warning: This article contains references and bad puns relating to SEX. If you have an aversion to such matters, I suggest you read this article anyway because I specifically mention you in it.

So apparently the not so “clean” among us all are pining for my views on a naughty little subject. I guess it comes as no surprise to me that every return on my invitation to pick a topic for me wanted me to spend time illuminating my views on the pros and the cons of good old copulation.

Where to begin. I mean really, this subject is probably the one thing above all that seems to alienate potential converts to the church. You tell someone as they are coming to finally believe that they now have to give up either the continuous act of sex or the idea that they wont be a virgin till they are old and ready to marry. It has sparked huge debates within the church and within its members. Is sex outside marriage a total sin? Is it forgivable? Is gay sex OK? Why is it that the stigmata of having had sex in the past haunting people within the church after they give it up? Who cares? Is abstinence just a waste of time?

While I’m not going to pretend to have all the answers to these questions I am going to at least try to touch on all of them. And all without citing the bible (cause if I did, I’m sure some “open-minded” person would have a fit of no logic being portrayed in this article.) But before I get into all of that stuff, what is it that makes sex not just appealing (it is), but that makes it perhaps the one thing that gets under everyone’s skin (pardon the pun).

When most of us christians hear the word “sex” or anything thats associated with it, more often than not, hordes of us squirm in our seats. Red faces abound, ladies titter, men cough, and old women gasp. For some reason, the one thing that makes our race possible seems to be the biggest elephant in the room. How is it we got to this point? If all those red faced and tittering women (no pun intended) were objecting to the fact that sex exists they wouldn’t be here, and neither would their children. Its as if the basest action of all should not be spoken of.

I have often wondered why so may christians seem to think that sex, or talking about it, is such a “horrible” thing. The only thing I have come up with that makes any lick of sense is that they are embarrassed because sex is a drug to them, their biggest weakness. A lot of christians have grown up in families where the speaking of sex was discouraged or even forbidden. Questions from teenagers to their parents over the workings of the birds and the bees are often met with the red face, the stuttering, and a “go ask your father” who then becomes angry that their child is thinking such things. Therefore the child grows with ever widening curiosity and wonderment at this forbidden thing their parents seem to want to hide from them. As anyone knows, tell a child that something is forbidden and all the more they want it.

And so little Johnny or Susie, aged 14 – 18 decide to go into the world and find out themselves. THey get mixed up with people who, like them, want to discover the forbidden thing. And so after much touching and awkward fumbling with clothes the fruit is discovered and the juices overflow (sorry). Now what we can all agree on, virgin and non-virgin alike, is that sex feels better than anything apart from illicit drugs. And as these children have been brought up in a home where talking about sex is a sin in and of it self, they now have no guidance, no map with which to follow. All they have are those good fashioned teenage hormones which are more than willing to take hold of little Johnny or Susie and lead them around by the genitals.

And so they grow up having known nothing but the addiction to sex. Eventually though, in their late twenties, after their wild and illustrious college days, they discover that their addiction has been a vice for them, that all emotion, or at least most of it, has been drained from the experience. They settle down, start a family, the addiction still playing in their mind trying to get them to start up again. And then one day their child comes to them asking about sex and they make the mistake of saying “go ask your father.”

Ok, so thats an over simplified version and a stereotypical one at that. We all know that they might have learned from their experience and taught their children otherwise. IN all actuality thats probably what would happen. The problem is with their peers. As these children grew up, their christian peers would have their parents tell their children “see susie? She’s a whore because she had sex, look at her now”. These are really the children who start the cycle again.

At any rate, the problem here is simple. Christian parents seem to think that sex is morally wrong, that its dirty, and that they should protect their children from it. THere is a fear of wanting to discuss it, like its some kind of sin to avoid, like its some kind of vice that if they speak it or hear it they will suddenly become a despot sex addict who will walk the streets in New York turning tricks by the dozen. This of course leaves the child with no where to turn but to their own hormones which don’t really have much to say other than “i want! I want now!”.

I say that parents need to talk to their kids about sex, often, and be accessible to them when they have questions. Ok maybe you don’t always need to explain to little Bobby why those two men are hugging each other like that when he’s only 12, but you get the idea. Let children know what sex is, what a great thing it is, and why its a good idea to wait to have any of it. Let them know that they are special, that they are worth waiting for. If you instill within them some self-respect they will realize that their virginity is something that should only be given to someone who really deserves it, not some guy who they just met the first day of college. With a little guidance, children learn that maybe having sex isn’t necessarily the best way to learn about it.

Which brings me to the next point. Why wait? Why deny ourselves the pleasure of sex? If two people are willing to give their bodies over to each other, what does it matter? To be honest, once you move out of the house, and once you are on your own and an adult, I don’t really care if you wait or not anymore. I’ve learned that at that point the person is going to be pretty much made up in mind about whether or not they are going to wait anymore. And at that age I would suppose they are able to grasp and deal with any and all consequences that rise from their actions (though few do sadly enough). My problem is with society at large telling teens its totally OK for them to bang each-other like rabbits. We not only tell them that, we encourage it. In high-schools everywhere, sex Ed is taught with emphasis not on “hey its probably a good idea if you wait, but if you cant wait heres how to be safe about it” but on “waiting is for losers, heres not only how to be safe but how to get more”. Condoms are passed out as high-schools like candy. Abortions on demand are common place for teens who wind up with an “inconvenient” consequence of their actions. And all this is perfectly OK.

My question is, these kids are still kids aren’t they? We ban child pornography in the U.S. We don’t let kids buy cigarettes cause they might be dangerous. We don’t let them have guns. But shoot fire if we don’t let them have sex at age 12. Heck, what they do is their business right? What have we disintegrated into? Like it or not, this pleasure seeking is playing with lives on a major scale. Not only am I saying here that the unborn are being played with, but the participants lives are being played with as well. Sex is a deeply emotional attachment in any relationship, especially to women. Having someone else enter their body for the first is a very meaningful experience. And today, more often than not, the person they made that attachment to dumped them like yesterday’s newspaper. What does that do to them emotionally? How are their future relationships affected? I can tell you one thing, its not a positive influence.

But thankfully this isn’t always the case. Sometimes people learn from their mistakes and decide that while sex is great, it should really be saved for someone who they really love, like a husband or wife. however, even if they do note the errors of their ways, these poor souls are normally the object of more ridicule in their church if they are Christians than if they were just loose and everyone knew it. Why? Because they are a hypocrite, especially if they ever relapse and fall into the trap again. What kind of encouragement is that? Pitiful if I do say so myself. I have seen more than my share of girls and guys, girls mostly, in churches become the objects of scorn because they messed up once than those who are known to be an easy lay. (mostly Pentecostals by the way)

So I Guess so far in this survey of sex I’ve skipped the most important question, is sex a good thing or not? Heck yeah its a good thing. Sex is the ultimate culmination of a relationship. After sharing thoughts, idea, dreams, tears, and laughter, you give your partner your very body. There is nothing more you can give them past this besides your life. It is no coincidence that God made sex an extremely pleasurable experience. And for those of you who are screaming “evolution!” let me just point out that humans are the only mammals that do no have a penis bone. What does that mean? it means that humans are the only mammal that needs mental and physical stimulation to become aroused. We aren’t designed to mate on demand as other species are. We have to have that mental stimuli. And yes, i, as a man myself, know how “stimulating” just the sight of a naked women is, but ask any married person, in all honesty, who fooled around before getting married, if sex without commitment was better or worse and almost to man they will tell you that with commitment is far better. The sensuality of being with someone you love rather and someone you “want for the night” is much, much greater.

So why wait? Why not just bang the chick you “love” right now? Well… you could, I guess. But why? Jumping into bed may sound like a good idea but is it really? Do you know how your relationship will fair if you bring that element into it? THe answer in most cases is “no” or “oh it will make it even better!” or worse “it will save the relationship.” In my years of talking with peers and others I have learned one thing: sex in a non-committed relationship leads to nothing but trouble. Sex for the sake of sex in the relationship can quickly degrade the couple into nothing more than “friends with benefits”. They keep each-other around just to pleasure themselves. If you think it will make it better consider what-else could make it better first, cause once you pull out the old sex card there’s not really much to top it except for marriage itself. Are you willing to skip all the appetizer and entrée and go straight to desert? if you think it will save the relationship, you are dead wrong. Its already doomed if you are at the point of considering this. All you will be doing is giving yourself a false sense of hope with the ultimate gift with the foreknowledge (and not the realization) that its going to end soon anyway. You are just delaying the inevitable.

So what if you are in a committed relationship? Is it really that committed? Heres a good test: would you let your significant other have control of your bank account? If not, then you’re not committed enough. If yes, and if you are really considering marriage and you are both adults, well, whatever. I cant stop you. All I can say is that you are old enough to realize the weight of your decision. I would still have to say its a bad idea though, why not just wait till the marriage? “We cant get married yet! I don’t have enough money! it’ll be some years off! ” yeah well… whatever. Knock yourself out I guess, but don’t say I didn’t warn your =P

So what have I ranted about here? To sum up this incoherent article on making love: talk to your kids about sex and why they should respect themselves enough to give their virginity to someone who deserves it, don’t sleep around, sex is good, and you would wait!. I think that sums it up pretty well. I know I didn’t cover everything I said I was going to talk about at the beginning of this article, but if you would like to know something more specific, just email me or ask.

2 Comments

Hellenism and the Maccabean Revolt

Few events in human history have so shaped the world as Alexander the Great’s conquest of the land in and around Mesopotamia in the 4th century BCE. Surely the conquest of the Persian Empire redefined the politics and the religious practices of the surrounding regions. Alexander united these lands into one under his name, however, he was more than just a mere soldier seeking fame, glory, and power on the battlefield. He was also a missionary, one that spread his homeland’s religious and spiritual beliefs to the far corners of the world known at that time. This Greek way of life, this center of the then civilized world was known as Hellenism.

Hellenism brought with it, where ever it was taken, a new way of thinking as well as a new pantheon of gods to be worshiped by the locals. In a small, nearly forgotten part of the world known as Judah, Hellenism would threaten and nearly crush the religion of Judaism practiced there. Its long established laws and rituals would be challenged by rulers, thinkers, and even its own high priests who were sympathetic to the Hellenistic influence which had come into their land. As a result, the locals revolted in a spectacular way. Led by just a few men, a small band of rebels liberated a nation and beat back the kingdom of Syria which had ruled over them after Alexander the Great’s death.

The spread of Hellenism throughout Judea threatened not only the Jewish way of life, but the very existence of the Jewish identity. The Maccabean revolt of 168 BCE was seen as a victory over the gentile way of life that had invaded their land, but did it actually defeat the Hellenistic thought that had already been introduced into the population? The evidence seems to indicate that although the Maccabean revolt did in fact win Judah religious and political independence from Syria and even though Hellenism did bring about benefits for the Jewish people, it would still leave an indelible mark on the people of Judah, so much so that its effects are still being felt today.

Before the impact of Hellenism on the Jewish people can be analyzed, its context needs to be explained. At the beginning of the Hellenistic influence over Judea, there was only Alexander who was championing the religion throughout his newly conquered lands. Even though he was spreading his religious system, he did not seem to be doing so by force. In fact, Alexander even appears to be accepting of the other religions of the empire. One account by Josephus in the Book of Antiquities tells of Alexander going to Jerusalem and offering sacrifices to the Jewish God 1. This account is disputed by historians, however, the fact remains that the mentioning of such an event, true or not, paints Alexander in a friendly light with regard to the Jewish people.

After Alexander’s death in 323 BCE, his empire was split up by his generals after seven years of war. In the end, in 315 BCE, four leaders emerged. These were: Antigonus, who controlled the central European Mediterranean coast to central Asia; Cassander, who controlled Macedonia; Ptolemy Lagi, who controlled Egypt and the southern part of Palestine; and Lysimachus, who controlled Thrace 2. Under Ptolemy’s rule, Judah was still able to function mostly as an independent entity. Although tribute was still paid to the Egyptian ruler, the Jews were still allowed to operate autonomously in respect to religion. This was until the High Priest Onias II refused to pay Ptolemy IV the tribute as was the law. Ptolemy IV saw this as a sign of defiance of the political power of Judea and therefore chose a man named Joseph to be the tax collector for the region, effectively stripping the High Priesthood of its foreign relations duties.

Soon after this, Palestine was invaded and seized by Antigonus who was then beaten back by the combined forced of the other three powers. The area of Judah was now a chip to be bantered back and forth between kingdoms for the next ninety years (283 BCE – 198 BCE). At the end of this period, Judah lay in the hands of the Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes. Also known as Antiochus IV, he was born in Athens and served as magistrate there for several years. He also spent twelve years in Rome as a hostage. After this he came the the Syrian throne with a sense of purpose, to spread civilization (read: Hellenism) to his kingdom 3. His means of doing so was not to quickly to subdue a minority nation and convert it to his religion. There was already a large section of the Jewish population who welcomed such a integration with the outside world.

The wake of this is seen in the changing hands of the position of High Priest. The orthodox Jew, Onias, who was of the line of Priests descended from Simon the Just, was in fact the rightful man to fill the position. However, Antiochus saw the position of the high Priest, not as a religious position, but one that was political. To that end he allowed a man named Jason, a Hellenistic sympathizer, to bribe his way into being appointed High Priest in Onias’ place. While the king had the right to do this, it was not done before because of the former ideal of letting Judah govern itself. But the bribe of large sums of money as well as an aggressive Hellenistic agenda persuaded Antiochus to place Jason in Onias’ place 4.

Under Jason, the orthodox Jews saw a decline in in the sanctity of the priesthood. They called him evil, ungodly, and unfit to be the High Priest 5. The priests that served under him did not even perform the services needed in the temple. Jason also had a gymnasium installed in Jerusalem. This was the first true tangible sign that the Hellenists were now firmly rooted into Jewish life. While many Jewish youths went to the gymnasium and practiced athletics nude, a slap in the face to the traditions of their forefathers, there rose a faction within the Jewish population called the Hasidim, or the “pious” 6. This split would only continue to grow as the next few events inflamed the situation.

After three years of rule, Jason was undercut by a Benjamite named Menelaus. Menelaus was not even of the tribe of Levi, the Isrealite tribe from which priests came. His bribing of Antiochus was enough to have Jason ousted and Menelaus installed as new High Priest under Syrian guard. A few years after, a false rumor began to circulate that Antiochus had died in battle while subduing Egypt. Seeking his power back after fleeing to Ammon, Jason rose an army and assaulted Jerusalem 7. Jason was defeated and driven back into Ammon, but the damage had been done. Antiochus had seen this as an act of rebellion and took out his anger on the city by launching an attack on the Sabbath knowing the orthodox Jews would not resist, and slaughtering large numbers of Menelaus’ opponents. The city walls were leveled and a fortress named the Akra was put in the citadel to keep the population under control 8. He himself then returned to his own land by way of Jerusalem. While there, he plundered the temple of its treasures and took the bounty back with him to Syria.

After his leave, Greek soldiers and the Jewish youth took part in Hellenistic rites in the temple courtyards which included the sacrificing of unclean animals and orgies. Circumcision, the keeping of the Sabbath, and Jewish feasts were outlawed and all copies of the Torah were destroyed. The Hellenists were converting the nation under force now and not under persuasion as it had been under Alexander and Ptolemy. However, there were those faithful to the Jewish law who refused to follow the new ways. One man, Eleazar, was flogged to death when he refused to eat pork. A mother and her seven children were killed for not paying homage to a Greek god. Another two women and their children were marched through the streets and thrown from a wall for performing circumcision 9.

As a result the split between the old way and the new way was becoming wider and more hostile. These hostilities and pent up angers finally reached and broke the boiling point when the Jews in the town of Modin were instructed to show their allegiance to Antiochus by sacrificing to pagan gods. The emissaries told the elder priest of the town, Mattathias, to set the example by going first. Mattathais though was not going to go along with it and refused. Through fear of the punishment refusal might bring, and unnamed Jew went forward to partake in the ceremony. Outraged at the unfaithfulness of the Jew, Mattathias went foreword and killed the Jew as well as the emissaries of Antiochus. Then he and his five sons destroyed the pagan altar and fled to the surrounding hill country fearing swift repercussions of their actions from Antiochus 10.

The early days of the revolt saw the inclusion of many who viewed Mattathias’ action as pious retribution for the hardships and infidelities the Syrians and Hellenists had put on them. In the early days of the revolt, victories came swiftly and in great numbers. However, one problem lay in their way, that was the Sabbath. One Sabbath, a Syrian garrison lay waste to an encampment of Jewish rebels who refused to even lift a finger to defend themselves. Seeing this as a huge impediment, Mattathias told his men that the defense of one’s body should be permissible on the Sabbath 11.

Soon after the beginning of the revolt, Mattathias died and his son Judas Maccabee took his place as leader of the rebellion. Using the same guerrilla tactics as his father had done, Judas amassed great victories. Antiochus had underestimated his opponents at first, thinking that it was merely a small skirmish. However, upon the annihilation of his detachments to the area, he realized his mistake and sent his general Lysias to secure Palestine as it was a vital stretch of land in the governing of Egypt. Judas was ready for them though and in a surprise night attack destroyed the entire army taking all the booty for themselves. This victory, near the town of Emmaus, cleared the way for Judas to march on Jerusalem.

On arriving there, Menelaus and his followers fled and Judas and his followers took every bit of the city excepting the fort of Akra, and destroyed all the pagan symbols. They cleared the temple and rededicated it to their God in an eight day ceremony now known as Hanukkah thus ending the three year use of the temple as a sanctuary to the Hellenistic gods. Soon after, Antiochus VI died and the war was continued by his son. Lysias had besieged Jerusalem after a small victory over a Maccabean faction trying to starve out the rebels. However, during the siege he learned of an assault on the Syrian capitol and wanted to head there to defend it as soon as possible. He offered Judas terms of peace which included the voiding of all the laws which outlawed Jewish practices, Menelaus would be removed and a less extreme Hellenistic named Alcimus would take his place, and Judas and his men would not be punished. Judas was wary of this peace because of the hold Syria would still hold over the political powers of Judah, but the Hasidim had only wanted religious freedom, not total autonomy, and so they voted him down at a council and accepted Lysias’ terms. Judas and a small band of men left Jerusalem as a result 12.

Not long after, Alcimus turned around and executed many of the anti-Hellenists in the city contrary to the agreement. Judas was forced to fight him with a now smaller army and was crushed from sheer number differences. He was killed in battle and followed in power by his brother, Jonathan. Jonathan fled into the desert with his men and grew a new army. However, being a better orator than a soldier, Jonathan formed alliances with Sparta and Rome which both had hostilities towards Syria. Jonathan was assassinated soon after he had taken Alcimus’ title as Head Priest and the job fell to his brother Simon. Simon played politics with the new Syrian king Demetrius who was trying to get his throne back from an impostor. In return for acknowledging him as king of Syria, Demetrius granted Judea full immunity from taxation, which in effect finally freed them from Syrian rule and ended the forcing of Hellenism onto the Jewish people 13.

At the end of the Maccabean revolt, the direct threat of Hellenism subverting the Jewish traditions was over. However, the damage had already been done. The Hellenistic traditions and thoughts had already found their way into Jewish life whether they had been wanted or not. The way in which Hellenism had its effects was twofold. On the one hand, Hellenism had immediate effects on the Jewish population and on their culture. On the other, it had left and indelible mark on the philosophy and way of life of the region.

Hellenism’s immediate effects on Judah are not very hard to understand. These range from the obvious suppression by force of the Jewish traditional laws to the building of gymnasiums and the willingness of the population to be involved in the outsiders’ way of life. At the beginning of the Hellenistic influence, soon after the Babylonian exile, a majority of the people of Israel did not live in Palestine at all. Most had remained in communities in the area of Babylon. Others had moved into greater Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, while a great number formed large communities in Syria. It is true that they never forgot their Jewish roots, since many still made pilgrimages to Jerusalem to pay dues to the temple. However, the dispersed Jewish people began to take on the traits and customs of the areas in which they lived. In particular, the Jews which had settled in Alexandria in Egypt were prone to taking on the traditions of their city. In so doing, they began to assimilate into the Hellenistic communities 14.

The temptation to join into the newer Greek society was not difficult to comprehend. The Greek way of life was easy and was more apt to have citizens consider their own pleasures instead of adhering to many laws and regulations to which the Jews were accustomed. Herein lay one of the greatest dangers to the orthodox law. With Hellenism focusing so much emphasis on the self, the old law of performing rites and conforming to codes of conduct did not appeal to the Jewish youth, not only in Alexandria and the rest of the dispersed peoples, but also in the land of Palestine.

For others, who did not perhaps find the ideal of an easy life appealing, there lay the new found occupation of being merchants, students, and artisans. The bustling trade centers in which the dispersed nation of Israel lived was a far cry from the shepherd life their fathers had known. Many Jews found great wealth in the trading of goods with foreign powers. Others found the allure of the great libraries that Alexander had formed places of great knowledge and they soaked up the ideas and literature of other cultures, in some cases displacing their own in the process. And still others went to the new Greek schools to learn from the great philosophers and take up the arts. In doing all of this, Judaism and Hellenism began to merge into a single entity for the dispersed Jews.

This synthesis was not all bad as some might think. In Alexandria, perhaps one of the most monumental feats of literature was accomplished. The Torah and subsequent Hebrew texts were translated into Greek, a work known as the Septuagint. Certainly this was done so it too could be added to the great storehouse of culture known as the Library of Alexandria, but also for the Jews of the region who had lost touch with the language of their ancestors. Having been so far removed, geographically and culturally, from their homeland, the Jews of the dispersed regions had began using the major languages of the areas instead of Hebrew which was fast becoming a dead language. Not only Jews benefited from this translation. Non-Jews as well were now freely able to learn about the Jewish traditions. In fact, most of the Septuagint is now part of the Christian Bible.

Hellenism’s immediate effects were not the most important that it brought to the Jewish community at large however. Perhaps the largest significant change the Hellenization of the Jewish people was their overall philosophy. As stated before, the difference was between a relaxed, easy going culture and one based on strict adherence to laws. However, the underlying foundation being the easygoing atmosphere of the Greek philosophy was that of the allegory. The allegory was the taking of the old texts and reading new interpretations into them. For example, the Greeks thought that the Hebrew Bible was too vulgar when read in the literal form, so they viewed the stories of the patriarchs as lessons of life instead of actual fact. This distinction was pleasing to Jews who did not want to abandon their faith per sea., but also wanted to see their texts reflected in a Hellenistic light 15.

The departure from strict interpretation of law to one much more lax and open to meaning may have seemed innocent enough to them at the time, but the wide interpretations had begun to allow the diversion of meanings to all equally be true 16. Since allegorical interpretation by its very definition is a subjective truth, no one group or personage may hold that their idea of truth is any higher than any other. As a result the Jewish tradition began to buckle under the weight of truths other than the one held as law. This social and philosophical collapse into submission to Hellenistic teaching may well be the reason so many Jews were unopposed to the building of the gymnasium in Jerusalem and the installation of non-traditionalist High Priests by the Syrian government.

Some Jews of course stayed orthodox throughout this process, all the while becoming more and more agitated at the increasingly liberal views of their kin. This opened a split in the Jewish community that would never heal properly. Even after the Maccabean revolt and expulsion of the Syrian influences that had brought Hellenism into the Jewish homeland, the split and the ideologies behind it remained.

The result of the split in the Jewish community between those who stayed loyal to the law and those who were willing to bend to the philosophies and religions of outsider nations was the formation of Jewish sects. This formation was something new and troubling the Jews who had until then lead a, for the most part, life of seamless integration into the tabernacle and Temple codes of law. There had been a unity among the Jewish people, but now there were only sects and division. Perhaps the most prominent example of this is the formation of the two main Jewish sects: the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

The Sadducees were a group of mainly priests and their followers who, while at the beginning were more apt to stay loyal to the law, where ready and willing to integrate with the Romans, who had by then taken control of the region of Judah from the Syrians. The Sadducees were men who would exchange the law for any philosophical view that would coincide with their own personal views. They could have been called Hellenistic sympathizers even though by the time they emerged, the direct Hellenistic threat to Judah was over. They were more sympathetic to pleasing the Romans than the orthodox sect of their own people 17.

In contrast, the other group to emerge was that of the Pharisees, a group who played a major role in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The Pharisees were the remnants of the Hasidim from the Anitochus IV period who were now even more apt to strictly interpret law as literal word from God. Their piousness was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they were trying very hard to direct the nation of Israel back into the fold of their forefathers’ laws, and for that they gained great respect from the orthodox. However, by the same token, their sometimes over zealous adherence to the law meant ostracizing important groups of Jews from their rule. Most importantly, their piousness became one of the chief arguments of Jesus of Nazareth for “abandoning” the old law in favor of one that expressed personal accountability rather than the pharisaical treatment of law as a list of things that must be followed.

The fact that Jesus’ following gained so much ground in the early years CE, especially in terms of a Jewish following, is a direct result of the split that occurred earlier. The Pharisees had been so busy trying to keep the people focused on the law that they forgot about the meaning behind the law. In the same way the Sadducees had spent so much time reinterpreting the law over and over, the law itself became something lost to them. The Christian movement then can be traced back directly to the influence of Hellenism and the rift it cause in the Jewish people.

Jewish literature also shows the fact that Hellenism had leaked into Jewish loyalists’ philosophy whether they knew it or not. II Maccabees is a good example of this. Written some time after I Maccabees and by a different author, the style of writing is Hellenistic in its nature rather than the Jewish nature I Maccabees had been written with. I Maccabees compares and contrasts the heros of the Maccabean revolt with the heros of Israel’s path. In some way, the writer could have been trying to equate the acts of God in the lives of the patriarchs and so forth of the past with the actions of the heros of the revolt. Perhaps this was a way of lending credibility to their actions. II Maccabees, however, speaks of the nobility and piousness of the heros of the revolt. These concepts were not of Jewish construction, they were brought in by Hellenism and were Greek in origin. The author of the second book looks at the actions of the heros themselves to lend credibility to the revolt. The author tried to show godliness through action and not action through God 18.

In the end, it can be argued that the introduction of Hellenism spelled the death of the biblical Jewish people. The ideological split in the Jewish faith, those for the Hellenistic takeover of Judah and those loyal to the traditional law of Moses, was one that the people would never recover. Even after the Maccabees had driven the originators of the influx of Hellenism out of their country and gained political and religious independence for the Jewish people, the imprint of Hellenism never left the minds of even the most pious and orthodox. The split caused further splits and sects arose from the crumbling Jewish traditional ways of life. The Christian sect arose out of these splits and also became somewhat Hellenistic in nature. The Jews were not ready for the Hellenistic influx into their land and because of this they ended up loosing their cohesion and their way of life.

Even today there are a multitude of Jewish sects and while they all identify with the temple as the Babylonian Jews had they still all have different ways of seeing the truth behind the scriptures. In the same way perhaps it could be said the same Hellenistic views which split the Jewish people into factions are doing the same to the Christian church. With the ideology that interpretation yields truth and each truth is equally valid, the Church is heading down the same road as did the Jews of the Maccabean and Roman eras.

The Hellenization did yield some good benefits for the Jews though. Their Holy Scripture was translated so that all peoples could have access to it and learn from it. Through war against it, the nation of Judah gained its independence, however short lived it was, from any other kingdoms and became autonomous. It forced them to be recognized as a nation with ties to Rome and Sparta. It can also be argued that the integration of new ideas into Jewish tradition lead to the Jewish people being accepted more in the world than they had previously. Before, they had been a backwater people whom most had never heard of and by the end of the Roman occupation and after Hellenization had taken place, they were a recognized people.

Hellenism and the Maccabean revolt mark a major event in the world’s history even though it is scarcely remembered today. From them, the Jews rallied around a central power which united them in purifying the temple. They are responsible for many of the sects which arose afterwards and which are still around today. They are even partly responsible for the rise of the Christian movement. Indeed, the events of the few centuries BCE shaped the world even though it all took place because a small group of religious people went to ideological war with a foreign religion.


  1. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments (Grand-Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1959), 69. []
  2. Ibid. 71. []
  3. Ibid. 79. []
  4. W. G. Jordan, “The Significance of the Maccabean Period,” The Biblical World (Vol. 38.5 (Nov. 1911), 301. []
  5. Apocrypha: Authorized (King James) Version (Cambridge, MA: 2004), 2 Maccabees 4:7-16. []
  6. Pfeiffer, 80. []
  7. 2 Maccabees 5:5-7. []
  8. Pfeiffer, 81. []
  9. Pfeiffer, 82. []
  10. Pfeiffer, 91. []
  11. 1 Maccabees 2:32-41. []
  12. Pfeiffer, 91-92. []
  13. Jordan, 303. []
  14. Pfeiffer, 84-85. []
  15. Pfeiffer, 87. []
  16. Marth Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” Poetics Today (Vol. 19.1. (Spring 1998), 27. []
  17. Lawrence H. Schiffman, “At the Crossroads: The Jewish-Christian Schism,” Jewish-Christian Relations. (Apr. 12, 2005. ), 3. []
  18. Himmelfarb, 21. []

No Comments

The Limit of God

As many of you know, today is Easter. At least, it is for Catholics and Protestants. Even though I don’t classify myself as either one of those, I suppose today is a good a day as any to discuss my thoughts on something which i have been accused of and which many people do not understand. As today is Easter, many people around the world are celebrating the ultimate power of God. That is to say, they celebrate the conquering of the Son of God over death. But really, what is the extent of power God has?

I suppose the best way to go about this is to set up the article with a story. A while ago, I received a complaint from a reader about the article I wrote on speaking in tongues. If i remember what he said correctly, it was along the lines of, “You are denying the power of the Holy Spirit and because of that, you are not a true Christian.” At first this deeply insulted me. I really hate it when people put words in my mouth or try to twist my words into something i never actually nor believe. But after I realized that this guy was probably just trying to get a reaction out of me, I decidedly put the “you aren’t a true christian” out of my head and instead focused on the other bit he had written.

The reader had claimed I was denying the power of the Holy Spirit. However, because he didn’t elaborate further i can only speculate what he meant and apply that speculation not only to his argument, but also to a broader scope of misunderstanding i see from Christians and non-Christians alike. The question that arose in my mind from this man’s comment was this: Is the Holy Spirit, and by extension God, a being of total unlimited power? That is to say, can God truly do anything?

Now before you jump on a knee jerk reaction and yell, “Of course he can!,” lets sit back and ask ourselves what this really means. God having unlimited power to do anything means exactly that, no ifs ands or buts about it. We often define who and what God is by this simple measure: that he can in fact do anything he pleases at any scope he pleases. Anything is a strong word. It does not limit itself to just things like “build a house” or “make an ocean” or “create the universe.” In fact it goes extremely far in its definition of things God could do. It means he could make himself not God. That is the scope of “anything.”

This classic definition that we human’s have placed on God is in fact extremely limiting. This is ironic. By saying God can do anything, we negate his Godliness. For example, the old and worn out argument used by atheists to discredit God’s existence is this: Can God create a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it? This is a dichotomy if you hadn’t already noticed. By saying, “God can do anything,” we have fallen into a relatively simple trap. Because saying yes or no to that question will negate God entirely. If we say “Yes he can make a rock so big he can’t lift it” then we are saying God couldn’t lift the rock. This would mean he couldn’t do everything. And of course, if we say no, the same principle applies.

So this begs the question, can God in fact do anything? The short answer is actually, No he cannot do anything. I realize that at this point the reader who commented before is now thinking I am a heathen, but thats fine. Let me explain my position. The fact is God is indeed a being of infinite power but not of infinite means. There are things that God cannot do. While this list of things he can’t do i short, it is never the less crucial to understand that his power does in fact have limitations.

The first thing God cannot do is negating himself. This is a simple and easy to understand proposition. God cannot undo himself. He cannot make himself not exist. Not that he would ever want to mind you, but the fact is he can’t do it if he wanted to. If he could then he would not be a God of love as the Bible clearly states numerous times. Negating himself would destroy all of existence, not just himself, but everything. There wouldn’t be any “there” anywhere.

The second limitation is much like the first. God cannot become evil. Again, he is the God of love. Becoming evil would make him a liar and would make him not God. You can make the long winded argument that “evil” is the going against God’s will, and if God himself can’t go against his own will because he is God then it wouldn’t really be evil. This is true, but its leaving out the fact he has specifically defined what is good in the pages of the Bible through Jesus. So since he has made a declaration already, he cannot go back on on his word. Granted though, he could unmake existence and start again being evil, but this is impossible from a God of love and mercy.

The third limitation on God is the fact he cannot contradict himself. Because he is the God of love, something that is defined within the Bible, to contradict himself would make him a liar. This is impossible given his nature as the benevolent God we know him as. It is true that he has smitten people before (e.g. Sodom and Gomorra), but this was in the time of the simple law. It was simply, “Do not disobey.” Of course since then the Law has matured, as has humanity, to the point where the Law is now “Strive to be like me.” However, the point is, throughout the history of the Law, it has not been contradicted by the writer while the Law has been in place. Let me be clear though, Jesus was the fulfillment of the law and therefore rewrote the law within the law’s boundaries. (This is a discussion though for another time) So there has never been a contradiction within the law.

Similarly, the entire argument of creating a rock too heavy for God to lift falls within this spectrum. It would contradict his nature as God. To create something that is beyond his measure would require there to be a being even higher than God, or at least a plane of existence beyond. God is it though, so there is no point in arguing it. His power is the limit to which power can be. It would be like asking a king in a country, because he has all the power in the country, to create rain. It is not in the scope of his being to do so. Nor would it be in the scope of God’s power to become more powerful than himself. It would be like telling a circle to become a square while still maintaining its circleness.

The final limitation on God’s power is his power cannot, by self-limitation, extend to negate the freewill of humanity. That is to say, God cannot make you or any one else, do anything against your will. This is true even if you have given your life to God in becoming a Christian. (i.e. just because you are a Christian does not give God the right to infest you and make you do anything against your will. This is the heart of the matter of the speaking in tongues thing.) This limitation is not a one like the others that would simply negate existence or his nature if he chose to have us be mindless robots. Instead, it is a limitation God put on himself before we were created. And by the previous limitation, he cannot go back on it. He did not have to create this limitation on himself, but he did anyway because he wanted to create being who would love him of their own freewill and not because they were programed. To wit, even the slightest messing with freewill in any human would inevitably cast doubt on whether we had freewill or not, so he cannot subvert his own limitation.

Now, before i go any further there are examples in the Bible itself that seem to not match the previous paragraph. The first would be the story of the Exodus in which God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. Ill try to be brief about explaining this and the other example as best I can. You must remember that the book of exodus was in fact written by Moses, or dictated by him, from mostly his perspective. Now does anyone really think Pharaoh was going to let his nice workforce go because of what he saw as coincidences? Remember, Pharaoh was god in Egypt, so he wasn’t going to just give in to some servant worker’s demands about his God and all the bad things that would befall him if he didn’t listen. You think Pharaoh was going to announce in his court that he in fact wasn’t the god he claimed he was? No sir.

The second example would be that of Nebacanezzar whom God purportedly put a curse on and went mad. For that, I never said that God wouldn’t allow a disease to take someone =P

In any case, the fact of the matter is clear. God cannot do anything. But the funny thing is, because he can’t do everything you can imagine, like making the big rock, he becomes the God we know. If he could do anything, he in fact would not be God at all. It’s a really hard concept to fully understand and frankly, i don’t think anyone understands God’s power fully. The fact though is that we need to understand that while God is a god, he is not a God above himself.

2 Comments

The Great Divide

The war isn’t going to end anytime soon. I think thats become apparent in the last series of articles that I’ve posted over the last few months. Science and religion seem to be at odds with one another despite however much I wish they weren’t. So far in this series, I have been focusing on the evangelical Christians and the fundamentalist Christians and their steps that have kept the virtual divide not only open, but widening in their wake. I have not said much about the other side of the fence though. That is, I haven’t made any strides to talk about how science as a community is helping to keep this divide between itself and religion open and widening. So in this last article focusing on science for a while, Id like to present something more personal as I find myself more and more on the science side of the chasm that separates us.

divide1.jpgI am often asked by people of both camps what my true beliefs are. I can firmly say that I have no idea. It is true I was raised a Christian but not as an evangelical one. That is, I wasn’t brought up with God and spirituality permeating every facet of my life. To me, God was simply there, just like air is there, just like the sun is there. It was one of those facts that just seemed to be without forcing itself into matters that had nothing to to with church. And so, without the constraint of religion interjecting itself into anything other than my spiritual life, I was free to study science as much as I wanted without finding myself at odds with my creator.

In fact, as the more I learned about creation and the universe as a whole, as well as how it all worked, I began to appreciate more and more how God had crafted such a universe that would give rise to us. I began to understand something fundamental that separates my form of Christianity from the evangelical fundamentalists. That fact I found out is probably the definition that divides Christians into two major camps, which I will get to in a bit. I realized that God did not create the universe because he loved us. He created the universe and then he loved us. In other words, he did not create the universe for our meager little species on some backwater planet, rather, the universe was created and we came alone, whether by natural phenomena or not, and God decided to show us love. Our species on a no name planet out back of nowhere received love from the creator of the universe.

divide2.jpgThis fact forces me at least to view Christianity’s creation standpoint from one of two camps. Those who think we are special, and those who think we aren’t special. To those who think we are, it frames their whole worldview, from their politics to their social life. To those who think humanity is special see their religion as the specialists of the special. In other words, they see Christianity (or islam or whatever) as the people who are chosen from the special people and therefore are above everyone else. This does not mean they are egotistical; though some undoubtedly are, but rather that they have some obligation to show everyone else how humanity is special and that we should all just know that we are the chosen of creation. The other side of this are those of us who see humanity as nothing special in terms of nature, but rather we are special only because God love us out of all of creation. I believe, as I think others do, that creation came first and that we came about in some manner God ordained but were not necessarily thought of before it all started. Therefore, we may have just been an after thought and God decided that maybe we could truly love him. I don’t know if thats a fact or not, but it would make us more humble if it were. Humility is the fact that governs these camps. One has humility because they are told to, the other just has it.

So how does this tie in with science? To me, the connection seems simple, science, by and large, is much like the second group I mentioned. They believe that humanity is nothing special, but not because of anything theological, simply because they can see how everything works and empirically deduce that if it happened here, why not somewhere else? That is to say, why should earth be the only planet out of countless trillions of planets with life on it? It is this empirical method that sets them apart from the first group I mentioned: the evangelicals. Evangelicals seem to like everything told to them, where as scientists want to find everything out. This difference is the second source of the divide, only between not just Christians.

divide3.jpgGive a true scientist a bucket of water and they will want to know what its made of, why does the water spin differently than the bucket if you spin the two, why does water behave that way, why why why? Scientists are fixed to a scheme of solving problems through observation. And on their side of the fence this is their source of the divide, though to be truthful, it’s of no fault of their own. Scientists want to measure and test. You by definition cannot measure or test god. Therefore God is not part of science. This does not mean scientists to not believe in god, some do, but it does mean God does not factor into experiments or theories. Why should he? If humans announced they could test God or measure him, how arrogant would we be? We would be admitting level with omnipotence. Scientists will admit their true goal in life is simply to describe how the world around us works. They do not postulate on why the universe is here or what our purpose in life is. They leave that to philosophy.

As one of a scientific mindset, I have no problem separating God from science because God does not factor into gravity, or air, or temperature. God is not a natural being, if he was, he wouldn’t be god. So I can see the scientist’s argument where “leave to Caesar what is Caesar’s” or “leave to God what is God’s.” God only factors into why were are here and where we are going. To say otherwise just doesn’t make sense. But I can see the point the evangelicals make too. They say science is atheistic and hostile to religion. To some extent, they are right. Science is at its basest level, skepticism. God is untestable so he’s also unverifiable. It’s hard to convince a skeptic to believe in something inherently unprovable. Despite what the bible says, you still must have faith in God to believe the bible. Faith in the unknowable disturbs scientists.

divide4.jpgBut scientists could use some yelling at from those of us in the middle. Just as I yell at the young earth creationists all the time, I should really spend more time yelling at the scientists and those of the scientific mind set like myself. But the major difference between the yellings at is the fact that to move creationists to the center you only need to get them to think analytically and not accept everything at face value. On the other hand to move a scientist to the middle require to get them to give up just a shred of analytical thought, something even I have a lot of problems doing. As analytical people we tend to miss the forest for the trees. Science gets bogged down in the details and sometimes misses the overall picture, especially when its not related specifically to science. It’s like looking at the old cliche of the pocket watch in the desert. The scientist would take the watch apart, see how it worked, note how the pieces were made and what from, try to find out when the watch was made, etc etc. He becomes so engrossed with finding these things out; I think he misses the bigger picture. He doesn’t once stop to think, who made it and why is it out in the desert? And if he does, the could use the old cop out, “well thats for the philosophers to debate.” That’s true, but for the person of the scientist I don’t think its good enough. Not to sound like an evangelist, but as a person, are you letting your lab coat dictate your personal beliefs in the spiritual? Just because they are untestable does not mean they do not hold merit. Some scientists have tried to evade the issue altogether by suggestion religion and spirituality are somehow biological. Maybe, but spirituality is not a natural phenomenon, at least in my mind, and should at least be given some credit. Because of our spirituality and our ability to envision something so much bigger than ourselves such as god, we identify ourselves are separate from the animals. I know there are other reasons scientists would say we see ourselves separate, but you have to admit, spirituality is something we can definitely point to as “human.”

Scientists may see things the way those of us in the middle ground see things, as far as how humanity is nothing special. However they either cant, or wont ask the important questions that are personally applicable to them. Its all well and good you know how the first cells might have formed from folding proteins, but will that help your personal life? Its great you know the universe is expanding, but will that help you in death? So many scientific friends I know are afraid of death because they believe in no god. But not because they are afraid of hell, they are afraid of mortality being the finality of existence. They are scared of not existing and all that entails: a missed opportunity to make a mark on civilization. In some ways this view of spirituality not pertaining to them or not being intelligent thought is the key to why they help split society.

divide5.jpgTheir side of the divide is to look down on those who use faith too much. Granted some of us use faith where faith is necessary, but we don’t use it to facilitate every aspect of our lives simply because we are told something by a preacher. Unfortunately, a vast majority of Christians are like the evangelicals. As a result they fuel the stereotype of Christians being anti-intelligent bible thumpers. Science looks down on them because they don’t use any thought at all for their worldview. Science on the other hand perpetuates its own stereotype of being ivory tower people who refuse to look at anything other then facts and trying to discredit religion (even though they don’t directly) by scoffing at those who are in religion. And in-between there are those of us who look at both sides and shake our heads. Science discriminates against religion because they don’t like faith-based assumptions. Religion discriminates science by making claims that go beyond the scope of what religion teaches (i.e.. creation science). As a result, both camps refuse to talk to each other and have taken to throwing mud. So many souls and so many minds could be saved here if they just got along.

In the end, there’s not a whole lot I, nor probably any one person, can do about it. Science people will continue to hate Christians because of the lot that tries to wedge the two apart. Christians will continue to hate scientists because science wants to be skeptical of everything, including god. In the end, I don’t think either side is “right” but if I had to pick one thats more right than the other, id pick the scientists simply because I’m sure there is a way to prove God through logic at least, not necessarily experimentation. The evangelicals only offer canned arguments and irrationality. But I think, really, that if the two sides at least agreed to disagree on a few little issues than both would benefit monumentally from each other. That’s just my opinion though.

3 Comments

The Great Divide

The war isn’t going to end anytime soon. I think thats become apparent in the last series of articles that I’ve posted over the last few months. Science and religion seem to be at odds with one another despite however much I wish they weren’t. So far in this series, I have been focusing on the evangelical Christians and the fundamentalist Christians and their steps that have kept the virtual divide not only open, but widening in their wake. I have not said much about the other side of the fence though. That is, I haven’t made any strides to talk about how science as a community is helping to keep this divide between itself and religion open and widening. So in this last article focusing on science for a while, Id like to present something more personal as I find myself more and more on the science side of the chasm that separates us.

divide1.jpgI am often asked by people of both camps what my true beliefs are. I can firmly say that I have no idea. It is true I was raised a Christian but not as an evangelical one. That is, I wasn’t brought up with God and spirituality permeating every facet of my life. To me, God was simply there, just like air is there, just like the sun is there. It was one of those facts that just seemed to be without forcing itself into matters that had nothing to to with church. And so, without the constraint of religion interjecting itself into anything other than my spiritual life, I was free to study science as much as I wanted without finding myself at odds with my creator.

In fact, as the more I learned about creation and the universe as a whole, as well as how it all worked, I began to appreciate more and more how God had crafted such a universe that would give rise to us. I began to understand something fundamental that separates my form of Christianity from the evangelical fundamentalists. That fact I found out is probably the definition that divides Christians into two major camps, which I will get to in a bit. I realized that God did not create the universe because he loved us. He created the universe and then he loved us. In other words, he did not create the universe for our meager little species on some backwater planet, rather, the universe was created and we came alone, whether by natural phenomena or not, and God decided to show us love. Our species on a no name planet out back of nowhere received love from the creator of the universe.

divide2.jpgThis fact forces me at least to view Christianity’s creation standpoint from one of two camps. Those who think we are special, and those who think we aren’t special. To those who think we are, it frames their whole worldview, from their politics to their social life. To those who think humanity is special see their religion as the specialists of the special. In other words, they see Christianity (or islam or whatever) as the people who are chosen from the special people and therefore are above everyone else. This does not mean they are egotistical; though some undoubtedly are, but rather that they have some obligation to show everyone else how humanity is special and that we should all just know that we are the chosen of creation. The other side of this are those of us who see humanity as nothing special in terms of nature, but rather we are special only because God love us out of all of creation. I believe, as I think others do, that creation came first and that we came about in some manner God ordained but were not necessarily thought of before it all started. Therefore, we may have just been an after thought and God decided that maybe we could truly love him. I don’t know if thats a fact or not, but it would make us more humble if it were. Humility is the fact that governs these camps. One has humility because they are told to, the other just has it.

So how does this tie in with science? To me, the connection seems simple, science, by and large, is much like the second group I mentioned. They believe that humanity is nothing special, but not because of anything theological, simply because they can see how everything works and empirically deduce that if it happened here, why not somewhere else? That is to say, why should earth be the only planet out of countless trillions of planets with life on it? It is this empirical method that sets them apart from the first group I mentioned: the evangelicals. Evangelicals seem to like everything told to them, where as scientists want to find everything out. This difference is the second source of the divide, only between not just Christians.

divide3.jpgGive a true scientist a bucket of water and they will want to know what its made of, why does the water spin differently than the bucket if you spin the two, why does water behave that way, why why why? Scientists are fixed to a scheme of solving problems through observation. And on their side of the fence this is their source of the divide, though to be truthful, it’s of no fault of their own. Scientists want to measure and test. You by definition cannot measure or test god. Therefore God is not part of science. This does not mean scientists to not believe in god, some do, but it does mean God does not factor into experiments or theories. Why should he? If humans announced they could test God or measure him, how arrogant would we be? We would be admitting level with omnipotence. Scientists will admit their true goal in life is simply to describe how the world around us works. They do not postulate on why the universe is here or what our purpose in life is. They leave that to philosophy.

As one of a scientific mindset, I have no problem separating God from science because God does not factor into gravity, or air, or temperature. God is not a natural being, if he was, he wouldn’t be god. So I can see the scientist’s argument where “leave to Caesar what is Caesar’s” or “leave to God what is God’s.” God only factors into why were are here and where we are going. To say otherwise just doesn’t make sense. But I can see the point the evangelicals make too. They say science is atheistic and hostile to religion. To some extent, they are right. Science is at its basest level, skepticism. God is untestable so he’s also unverifiable. It’s hard to convince a skeptic to believe in something inherently unprovable. Despite what the bible says, you still must have faith in God to believe the bible. Faith in the unknowable disturbs scientists.

divide4.jpgBut scientists could use some yelling at from those of us in the middle. Just as I yell at the young earth creationists all the time, I should really spend more time yelling at the scientists and those of the scientific mind set like myself. But the major difference between the yellings at is the fact that to move creationists to the center you only need to get them to think analytically and not accept everything at face value. On the other hand to move a scientist to the middle require to get them to give up just a shred of analytical thought, something even I have a lot of problems doing. As analytical people we tend to miss the forest for the trees. Science gets bogged down in the details and sometimes misses the overall picture, especially when its not related specifically to science. It’s like looking at the old cliche of the pocket watch in the desert. The scientist would take the watch apart, see how it worked, note how the pieces were made and what from, try to find out when the watch was made, etc etc. He becomes so engrossed with finding these things out; I think he misses the bigger picture. He doesn’t once stop to think, who made it and why is it out in the desert? And if he does, the could use the old cop out, “well thats for the philosophers to debate.” That’s true, but for the person of the scientist I don’t think its good enough. Not to sound like an evangelist, but as a person, are you letting your lab coat dictate your personal beliefs in the spiritual? Just because they are untestable does not mean they do not hold merit. Some scientists have tried to evade the issue altogether by suggestion religion and spirituality are somehow biological. Maybe, but spirituality is not a natural phenomenon, at least in my mind, and should at least be given some credit. Because of our spirituality and our ability to envision something so much bigger than ourselves such as god, we identify ourselves are separate from the animals. I know there are other reasons scientists would say we see ourselves separate, but you have to admit, spirituality is something we can definitely point to as “human.”

Scientists may see things the way those of us in the middle ground see things, as far as how humanity is nothing special. However they either cant, or wont ask the important questions that are personally applicable to them. Its all well and good you know how the first cells might have formed from folding proteins, but will that help your personal life? Its great you know the universe is expanding, but will that help you in death? So many scientific friends I know are afraid of death because they believe in no god. But not because they are afraid of hell, they are afraid of mortality being the finality of existence. They are scared of not existing and all that entails: a missed opportunity to make a mark on civilization. In some ways this view of spirituality not pertaining to them or not being intelligent thought is the key to why they help split society.

divide5.jpgTheir side of the divide is to look down on those who use faith too much. Granted some of us use faith where faith is necessary, but we don’t use it to facilitate every aspect of our lives simply because we are told something by a preacher. Unfortunately, a vast majority of Christians are like the evangelicals. As a result they fuel the stereotype of Christians being anti-intelligent bible thumpers. Science looks down on them because they don’t use any thought at all for their worldview. Science on the other hand perpetuates its own stereotype of being ivory tower people who refuse to look at anything other then facts and trying to discredit religion (even though they don’t directly) by scoffing at those who are in religion. And in-between there are those of us who look at both sides and shake our heads. Science discriminates against religion because they don’t like faith-based assumptions. Religion discriminates science by making claims that go beyond the scope of what religion teaches (i.e.. creation science). As a result, both camps refuse to talk to each other and have taken to throwing mud. So many souls and so many minds could be saved here if they just got along.

In the end, there’s not a whole lot I, nor probably any one person, can do about it. Science people will continue to hate Christians because of the lot that tries to wedge the two apart. Christians will continue to hate scientists because science wants to be skeptical of everything, including god. In the end, I don’t think either side is “right” but if I had to pick one thats more right than the other, id pick the scientists simply because I’m sure there is a way to prove God through logic at least, not necessarily experimentation. The evangelicals only offer canned arguments and irrationality. But I think, really, that if the two sides at least agreed to disagree on a few little issues than both would benefit monumentally from each other. That’s just my opinion though.

3 Comments