Reasons to Question

          Let’s start with a quote, shall we?

         “In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness. Do not be over-righteous, neither be over-wise—why destroy yourself? Do not be over-wicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes.” Now here’s a question: Where do you think this originated from? Where do you think this quote can be found? Do any of you who are Christian consider it heretical; unbiblical? Well, if you have never heard the quote before, you will probably be quite surprised to hear where it’s from: the Bible. Ecclesiastes 7:15-18.

         From what I’ve observed, a lot of very vocal Christians are not really all that familiar with Scripture. Even those who can quote any Bible verse off of the top of their heads often don’t know what the verse said in earlier Biblical texts, in other languages, or even in other versions of the Bible. Some will argue that it’s not important to know the background of Scriptures or the back story of your faith; it’s only important that you believe what the Scriptures say. In response, I say this: How can a person be sure that his or her Scriptural understanding is correct without knowledge of what the Scriptures originally said?

       Plenty of people will tell you that whatever we see in our modern Bible is an accurate representation of what was originally written. However, there is far more than one modern Bible. We have multiple translations and numerous different versions. While they all tell the same basic story, they tie together more loosely than many realize. They differ from one another in quite a few key issues. When you read the same verse in the NIV and KJV, it will say something completely different in one Bible than in the other. Study Bibles contain footnotes listing what various passages say in alternate (and sometimes earlier) translations. The variations are overwhelmingly vast, and we don’t have a specific version to use as a frame of reference. Even the early Greek manuscripts don’t contain all the authentic material, because we don’t have the first Scriptures ever written. We have copies of copies of copies. Regardless of how meticulous and diligent the scribes were in their efforts to copy everything verbatim, alterations were made. Some changes were intentional, due to political pressures or the desire to emphasize specific doctrinal points while downplaying others. Other changes were purely accidental. We know there were changes because we see them. We see how dramatically the words and statements change from one version to another, from one translation to another, from an earlier text to a later one. If you don’t believe me, do the cross-checking. Compare Greek and Hebrew words to their English translations. Compare a passage from the NIV or ESV to its King James Version counterpart. Don’t accept or reject my statements on their own basis. See for yourself.

          I don’t know everything, and I by no means claim to be correct about everything. I’ve prayed for wisdom and guidance, and asked God to remove any selfish motive that may be a part of my actions. I repent whenever I recognize undue pride in myself or start to feel like a know-it-all. However, I have combed through every word of Scripture again and again. I’ve done the cross-checking. I’ve researched more deeply than I had ever thought possible, and have come to conclusions about what I believe.

         So what do I believe now? I believe we can find answers in prayer, research, and introspection, but I don’t think we can assume that any book holds all the answers we’ll ever need. Only God does. A lot of people seem to worship the Bible as an all-knowing god in itself, rather than a vessel through which God communicates. Many worship their church, instead of using their church as an avenue for worship. I don’t actually equate doubting the Bible or doubting a church to doubting God. The Bible tells us to test all things by Scripture, so I tested Scripture by other Scripture. In doing this, I discovered that much of it doesn’t hold its own weight. I’m currently compiling a list of every single internal contradiction and inconsistency that I can find, both in the Old Testament and the new. I have filled up almost an entire notebook with what I’ve found. Once again, these are not careless assumptions. I’ve prayed over this and researched more than anyone can know. I’ve read and reread, and looked at it from every angle I can think of.

        Does this mean that I no longer believe in Jesus? No, it doesn’t mean that. I believe in Him because of my own experiences (expanded upon in earlier notes.) I believe in Him because the Old Testament includes quite a few Messianic prophecies that were later fulfilled. Before I studied the history of Judeo-Christianity, I didn’t know that the Old and New Testaments were written thousands of years apart. I thought they were all penned throughout the same time period, which would have made it less significant that those prophecies were later fulfilled, since anyone could write a story in which they include a “prophecy” and then detail the fulfillment of it later on. At the same time, some of the OT prophecies which were applied to Jesus didn’t really seem to be about him, or seemed to be self-fulfilling. In essence, I believe in the divinity of Jesus but not in the majority of revelation. From research into earlier manuscripts, I learned that not all of the stories about Jesus were originally included. I believe in the basic concept of Him and in the root of His teachings, but don’t believe every single thing that is written about Him or all the quotes which are attributed to Him.

        As to as the writings of the prophets and Apostles, I don’t believe everything they say God had told them. No, I am not calling them liars. I think they fully believed what they were saying, and wholeheartedly thought that God was speaking through them. The fact that they passionately believed what they were saying doesn’t prove that it’s true or divinely inspired, though. Two people of completely different spiritual views can both believe that God spoke to them. One can think they are receiving prophetic visions, but really be experiencing hallucinations.

        An interesting fact: the majority of diagnosed schizophrenic people who have auditory or visual hallucinations believe them to be messages from God. A Christian could argue that the “visions” are proven genuine if they’re consistent with the Bible, but several different facts refute this argument. First, a lot of different peoples’ delusions mirror one another, whether Biblically related or not. A great deal of delusions share similar themes: the belief that one’s phone is bugged, that the CIA is spying on them, or that they are a famous public figure. These ideas can be empirically disproven. Thus, the fact that they are common does not mean they’re true.

         Secondly, hallucinations and delusions are strongly influenced by a person’s environment. A Christian with schizophrenia or a similar psychosis-based disorder is very likely to have delusions or hallucinations that include Biblical themes, since the Bible is such an integral part of his or her life. Even if the “vision” includes Biblical information that the person claims to not have previously known, they may be underestimating the influence of their own subconscious. We see and hear much information that we forget, but some of it is stored in our subconscious memory.

         Lastly, schizophrenic and bipolar people of all different religions experience visions that affirm their beliefs. Not all religious beliefs are compatible, though, so not every person claiming to have a spiritual vision can be correct. Even if the vision does not line up with a person’s respective Scripture, they will interpret it in a way that affirms it. Why? Because nobody wants to believe they are having delusions, or having sensory experiences that are not “real.” If you can’t trust your own frame of reference, you are in a terrifying position. It’s a lot more comforting to believe you’re receiving exclusive messages from God (and therefore are especially valued by Him) than it is to believe you have a mental illness. Some have an aversion to psychiatric treatment because they believe that medication will mute God’s voice. I think that if God genuinely speaks to someone, His voice would easily penetrate through the effects of medication and prove the communication to be genuine.

          A great deal of people who call themselves prophets end up making more claims about themselves than about God. They may genuinely believe themselves to be speaking on God’s behalf, but end up thinking along the lines of “Anyone who doesn’t believe me is an enemy of God. I have the truth because God shared it with me, and anyone who doubts me doubts God by extension.” This allows no room for open discussion or flexibility or growth. If others disagree with or resent the self-described prophet, he or she frequently feels encouraged by the rejection. They reason that many other prophets were rejected, so it must mean they are in the same boat. Anybody can be rejected for any reason, though. As I’ve mentioned, consensus doesn’t prove a claim. However, if a lot of people share the same grievance about someone, it may be worth examining. I know this because I’ve been that way. For years, I struggled to get along with people. They weren’t all at fault. I was the constant.

           Let’s return to the issue at hand. There is inconsistency in the idea that a prophet is legitimized by how many people reject them. Those who think themselves prophets are encouraged by both rejection and acceptance. They feel that others mainly confirm their claims. If you are in a state of psychosis, the perception that others are verifying your prophecies may, in itself, be a delusion. This can affect those without mental illnesses as well. If you want to believe that others are affirming your visions, you will find a way to persuade yourself that it’s happening. Even if you surround yourself with people who hang onto your every word, it doesn’t necessarily prove that your visions are divinely driven. Just as you are eager to believe in your own prophecies, some others will be eager to believe them too. If they can’t find a direct connection between their experiences and your visions, they will make one. Churches are emotionally charged environments full of people grasping for confirmation of the divine.

             This is my main issue with revealed religion. We can’t be expected to just take someone else’s word at face value. Revealed religion hasn’t been revealed to us personally; it’s been passed along by people who regarded themselves as prophets. These “prophets” contradict one another, and often contradict themselves. Extraordinary claims merit extraordinary proof. If we’re supposed to believe something just because we are told so, then we are obliged to believe anyone who tells us anything. We need to determine that our sources are reliable, rather than self-referential. If we’re going to let an ideology govern our lives, we need to make sure that our sources are not using other sources that are self-referential. A circular argument doesn’t disprove the validity of its claim, but if a claim is only based on a circular argument or hearsay, it’s not very solid. We can’t rationally believe that the Bible is true simply because it says it is. We need to examine the reliability of our own perceptions and experiences, too. Some will say that the Bible must be entirely reliable because people have had so many personal experiences that confirmed the Christian faith, but people have had personal experiences that confirm (to themselves) the doctrine of any religion that exists. Not all religions can be right, but I think there's a common link to these occurrences: they cause the person who is having the experience to feel certain that there's a God. This God's specific identity is up to interpretation.

            My other issue with revealed religion is the blatant manipulation that is used to convert people. If you remove the punishment and reward factors from your belief system, would you still feel compelled to follow it? Would you still practice your beliefs if you didn’t hope for a cosmic reward or fear punishment for disobedience? Is it mainly about love for God, or self-preservation? I can’t answer these questions for everyone. People operate on different motives. I notice that demoralization is a large part of the conversion process. Evangelism usually involves a heavy dose of guilt-tripping and threats. It involves telling someone that they are wicked and awful unless they hold specific beliefs. I don’t think that all evangelists use these methods for the sole sake of demoralization, as many believe their own rhetoric and don’t exempt themselves from it. Still, the fact that these conversion methods are based on genuine beliefs doesn’t mean they’re commendable. The fact that they’re often heartfelt doesn’t make them any healthier or more productive. An argument that rests entirely on circular logic, subjective experience, red herrings, and personal accusations will not convince me.

          So, where does this leave me? Well, I have certain beliefs that are consistent with Christianity, and I do worship Jesus as God. If you think my doubts make me a hypocritical Christian, though, I’ll settle the issue. I won’t call myself a Christian. The title comes with too many connotations that don’t apply to me. I don’t mean any disrespect toward Christians. I’m not out to force my views on anyone; I'm just explaining them so you will know where I’m coming from. I would be lying if I denied my desire to convince people. Of course I want people to agree with what I'm saying, but I don’t want to be forceful about it.

        When I associated myself with the title of Christian, I think I was doing it more for others’ approval than anything else. I didn’t want to acknowledge that even to myself, but I need to be honest. Throughout much of my life, I’ve sought acceptance from those who will never fully include me. I saw the general Christian community as a group of people who would only approve of me on a highly conditional basis, and I sought to earn it. In a way, I viewed the Judeo-Christian God the same way. I saw Him as the ultimate standard of selective approval, and thus His love was the ultimate reward to be earned. It shouldn’t be about approval-seeking or social pressure, though. I want to base my beliefs on reliable evidence gained from research, prayer, and logic. I will strive for this from now on.

Oil and water

This is an old essay of mine, but I think it's still relevant. :)

*    *    *

I've been considering how there are two types of people who often struggle in romantic relationships. This isn't meant to be a generalization--just about all of us have struggled in our love lives, and there are far more than two "types" of people who are plagued with romantic problems. But I'd like to discuss a phenomenon I've come to recognize. It's a pattern which seems to effect two specific groups of people. The pattern follows them from one relationship to another, much like an STD (though luckily, it's not contagious).

The two kinds of people I'm describing are as follows: those with weak personalities, and those with personalities that are very intense and dynamic. When a person with a bland personality finds a vivacious partner, it's a toxic combination. This is why.

A dull person has very few opinions or interests. Every idea they express is borrowed from someone else. It's an adopted brainchild, rather than a biological one (so to speak). Some argue that there's no such thing as a truly original belief, because all of our views are influenced by others. While this is true to a certain extent, I think that originality does exist. I've heard plenty of people express unique ideas. However, I'm talking more about consistent beliefs. When someone has a weak personality, they have no core beliefs or passions that are central to their identity. They take on the hobbies, beliefs, and interests of whoever they are currently dating. They become their significant others' shadow. (When I say "shadow," I don't mean that they follow their partner around. I mean they take on the basic blurry form of their partner, but are not an exact replica. A "shadow" partner can't become an exact replica of you because that would require them to genuinely believe what you believe and to genuinely care about the things that are important to you, rather than feigning it. Also, I call this type of person a shadow because they cannot exist independently of you. They exist independently, but their personality does not. When the relationship ends, they shed their identity like yesterday's clothes, and change into a new persona that will match their next romantic partner's.) This is a parasitic kind of person. They may not mean to be that way, but they are.

Relationships with shadow people may seem like a dream come true in the beginning. The first few months may be filled with moments where you say, "Wow, we must be soul mates! We BOTH have liberal arts degrees, vintage cars, and oral herpes! It's amazing!"A person with a strong personality can't last for very long with a partner without one, though. If you have your own hobbies and interests and beliefs, you want a partner who does as well. Any conversation gets boring if it becomes a one-sided diatribe and the only response you're hearing is, "Me too!" And bland people can't adapt to meet their partner's needs, because it requires mental gymnastics and their brains just aren't that flexible.

People with strong, larger-than-life personalities also tend to struggle in relationships. This is because it can be hard for their partner to keep up with them. It's easy to feel eclipsed by someone who's so passionate and energetic, if you're a more low-key type. It's an obvious truth that we often forget: We can only be happy when paired with someone on the same emotional and intellectual wavelength.

I've also noticed that about 99% of the time, relationships fail if one person is emotionally unstable while the other is not. It sounds obvious, but many overlook this when getting to know each other. I've been the stabler person in a relationship. I've also been the less stable one. It didn't work out either time because nobody likes to feel wholly responsible for another person's well being, unless he or she a control freak who thrives on that sense of power. The idea of "rescuing" someone may seem appealing at first, but it rarely works. You can save a stray dog, but it still might turn against you (though, unlike a person, it's less likely to steal your credit card).

So, anyway, those are just some thoughts that have been floating through my head. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, too.

Existential essentials

Many people wonder what an existentialist is. A lot of existentialists don't know how to define the term, either. There doesn't seem to be a concise, clear-cut definition. Personally, I find that freeing. It allows for more variety in the ways we can apply the philosophy to life.

To me, existentialism is the belief that we are free to make choices. This freedom comes with a moral responsibility. It's not anarchical freedom. Our free will obliges us to discover what is right for ourselves and for the world at large. Then we are to act on it. Some associate existentialism with secular humanism, the belief that humans are the only organizers of the world and that we are governed by no supernaturally-sanctioned laws (and we are "free" from a deity as well). Some existentialists are secular humanists, but the two philosophies are not always combined. Christian existentialists (such as myself) believe that God grants us free will so we may learn and grow, and we ought to use it to serve Him. We serve and worship in a multitude of ways. Acts of kindness are acts of service because we engage in them for the greater good, and the greater good is synonymous with God. I don't view service to God as slavery, nor do I think God is a tyrant. The way I perceive it, we interact with God in the dynamics of a parent/child or teacher/student relationship. He lovingly guides us. We are able to err and to face the consequences of those mistakes, but only so we may learn and improve.

While I'm on the topic of existentialism, I can't help but think of my blogger name. It would be pretty interesting if Mattel actually sold an existentialist Barbie. She'd have to come accessorized with a mini Sartre book and a cute little bottle of Prozac.

Centered

             I’ve come to learn that the most surefire way to offend the most people is not radicalism. I think that many are drawn toward a radical stance in their ideologies, whether in politics or religion or merely personal tastes. The way to offend the greatest number of people is to be brazenly, unabashedly moderate.
            When you tread down the middle of the road, people on the far end of either side will try to run you over. Despite this fact, I think it’s the safest route to travel. You walk the yellow line and may lean more toward one side than the other, but you stay centered. You follow a line painted by someone who’s foraged the path before. At the same time, you draw your own.
            I’ve heard a myriad of mixed reviews on open-mindedness. Some seem to tout it as the only virtue worthy of achieving. Others regard it with fear and suspicion. Then there are the moderates like myself, who weigh the pros against the cons to try and reach a balanced conclusion. I believe it’s certainly possible to be too open-minded; to keep it gaping to the point where your brain falls out. This beckons empty philosophies and self-contradictory ideals to rush in like the crowd at Grand Central Station, boarding potentially harmful trains of thought. At the same time, if we keep our minds firmly closed, we may leave no exit for counterproductive ideas and instead deny entrance to the helpful ones.
            Some equate piety with closed-mindedness, but this in itself is a closed-minded view. If I hadn’t kept my mind open to new concepts, I wouldn’t have sought out spiritual answers and come to identify with Christianity.  In my experience with the faith, I don’t deadbolt the doors of my mind and peer nervously through a keyhole at foreign worldviews. I don’t think I have all the answers, nor do I believe I’m correct about everything. I’m open to revision because I refuse to be complacent. Complacency stifles our intellectual, emotional, and spiritual growth. Like vegetation, we need light to grow. How can we see the light if we refuse to look for it?
            In my opinion, a dominant cause of complacency is pride. Some refuse to step outside of familiar territory because questioning the world around them could lead to questioning themselves. David Wong, a writer for Cracked.com, explored this issue in an article called “10 Things That Atheists and Christians Can (and Must) Agree On.” It was a terrifically thought-provoking read. Wong expressed his views much more eloquently than I could, and I would recommend it to everyone. However, some will take issue with a few of his points.
            In his article, Wong stresses the importance of tolerance for others’ beliefs. People from all different faiths decry the concept of tolerating other religions and disagree with the suggestion that we try to coexist with one another. Because so many followers of so many different faiths hold this view, there have been millennia of bloodshed and oppression. The rivals can only agree that they disagree, but cannot agree to do so. People quote their respective Scriptures to defend behaviors that result in exclusion at best and genocide at worst. We have no just cause to do this. By “we,” I don’t only mean Christians. I mean all humans. This is why.
            The world population, for the most part, believes itself to have free will. If we believe ourselves to possess free will, we also must concede that others have it. It’s not just limited to ourselves and to those who will further our causes. It’s for everyone. This means we have the ability to adopt any worldview, whether religious or irreligious. It means we are able to follow any faith. This doesn’t mean that every religion is correct, or that every outlook is commendable. Free will just allows us to choose our own outlook, whether it’s right or wrong. Some may argue that there is no “right” set of beliefs because if there was, there wouldn’t be so many variations in our understanding of it. This is a good point, although difficulty in identifying an objective truth doesn’t prove that the truth doesn’t exist. Many people can err while solving a math problem, but that doesn’t mean the math problem has no solution. Some wrong answers will be closer to the truth than others. Likewise, some religions come closer to truth than others. At the same time, theological dilemmas are far more difficult to resolve than simple math problems. Religion features more angles than geometry does.
            The Bible instructs us to spread the good news throughout the world and make disciples. Some Christians have interpreted this to mean we’re obligated to convert all non-Christians, but I don’t think the Bible says this. The Gospels say that Jesus sent his Apostles to spread the word, but advised them to simply leave the villages in which no one was receptive to His message. They were supposed to share the word, but allow others to make up their own minds. In a world with free will, we must live alongside those who have different beliefs.
           Coexisting doesn’t mean we have to agree. Tolerance doesn’t mean we must view all other religions as equally “true”; it just means we have to recognize other peoples’ right to practice them. Jesus commanded us to love one another. In my opinion, this also extends to loving people of different faiths. Most Christians regard evangelism as an act of love, because we want people to go to heaven. According to 2 Peter 3:9, God is “not willing that any should perish.” We ought to share this feeling. That verse doesn’t mean we should try to force our views upon others, though. It doesn’t advocate bullying, violence, or incessant preaching to those who don’t want to hear it. I think it just means we should share our views, but be willing to listen to others. James 1:19 tells us to be slow to anger, slow to speak, and quick to listen. (It’s perfectly possible to listen to someone else’s point of view without agreeing with them. As Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated man to entertain a thought without accepting it.”) This implies a gentle nudge, not a shove (See 1 Peter 3:15 and Jude 1:22). Some object to the gentler approach, as they say that the Bible is meant to be an offense by its very nature. It’s a double-edged sword, in that it reveals our own sins to us. This is true, but “offensive” is a relative term. Liberal Christians may be offended by conservative evangelism, and conservative Christians may be offended by the more liberal variety.
            I disagree with the act of befriending people from other religions for the sole purpose of converting them. We don’t have to include our religious views in every conversation. We should be able to enjoy another person’s company without having a motive. Even if the motive is positive, we shouldn’t allow it to become a barrier to our friendships. It’s all right to spend time with someone simply because we are fond of them. When I consider this, it reminds me of how I feel when someone is trying to sell me something. The sales rep may be friendly, and might even endorse a great product. Still, I can tell that he or she is not just hanging around because they like me. Evangelism can sometimes come across as opportunistic if it’s carried out in response to grief. When someone dies, a Christian’s first inclination may be to discuss the Gospel in an effort to comfort the deceased person’s loved ones. However, it may not come across as a sincere gesture. It might seem like the Christian is using the tragedy to promote his or her own agenda.
           When pride comes into play, it can be difficult to untangle one’s own agenda from a larger, loftier goal. A Christian may tell himself that he’s angry at nonbelievers for rejecting God, but Christianity is so enmeshed in his own sense of self that to reject his beliefs is to reject him personally. Thus, his indignation can become more about himself than about God. Loving God unselfishly is an enormous challenge. It’s easy to obey Him mainly out of a fear of punishment or a desire for reward. It’s easy to love Him simply for the favors he bestows on us, rather than for who He is. It’s a daunting task to scrub the residue of self-interest off of our motives, but it’s important to try.
          Pride causes us to become complacent and intolerant. I’ve observed a lot of division within the Christian community that seems to stem from pride. Some make a big point of singling out “false” Christians. This can become a stumbling block for others. If a person sincerely considers herself a Christian but others tell her otherwise, it’s discouraging. After a while, she may get frustrated enough to give up. Her reaction may be, “Why even bother trying? None of these people think I have legitimate faith, anyway.” This type of accusatory attitude can alienate those both inside and outside of the faith.
          When I was stubbornly opposed to Christianity, I resented it due to the attitudes and behaviors that I saw in some of its followers. I saw legalism, a condemnation of anyone who didn’t adhere to various doctrines, and a highly conditional acceptance of people. I even heard some Christians smugly delighting in the prospect of their foes’ damnation, as if heaven is an eternity of gloating and reveling in others’ exclusion. It took me a long time before I learned just how many Christians object to those attitudes. I was ignorant to assume that the majority held such polarizing views. Upon taking a closer look, I’ve seen a great deal of support and compassion within the community. Still, I feel that we should make a stronger effort to peacefully coexist with those of different worldviews.
           Some of the more zealous Christians who oppose the concept of coexistence might cite OT passages in which Israelites were commanded to kill those who worshipped other gods. I feel that we have to look at the context of those Scriptures. They describe regulations for a drastically different time, in which drastic measures were needed to spread God’s message and ensure that the Israelites would prevail. Some claim that the laws can never change, but they can. Jesus said Scripture can’t be broken, but taught that many Old Testament laws are no longer relevant. He proclaimed that mercy, love, and compassion are far more imperative than animal sacrifices, rituals, or dietary restrictions. He preached that our words and actions make us unclean, not our food. In addition, the New Testament does away with the notion that circumcision is necessary for salvation. God cares about fortitude, not foreskin. (If you’re offended by the bluntness of that statement, please remember that the Bible mentions circumcision quite a number of times). My point is that some regulations are timeless, but other codes can be subject to change. Jesus was a reformer, and many accused him of blasphemy for this reason. They became so preoccupied with details and traditions that they turned a blind eye to the bigger picture.
            I’ve heard it said that we’re not supposed to adapt our perception of God so He suits us; we’re supposed to conform ourselves to His standards. I agree, but our views of God vary greatly. We will inevitably apply our own perception of perfection, and then mold ourselves to try and match it. We have such subjective views of God and Scripture. This is the danger in allowing religion to reign over laws and government. This is why the priestly collar basically became a noose throughout the Dark Ages. Scripture can be misinterpreted by those in power and used to justify anything they wish to do. It’s not always simple to discern which interpretations are correct, since there are so many of them. We don’t have the original copies of Scripture to use as a frame of reference. Even if we did, they would be subjectively construed.
            I’ve been praying and thinking about Scripture extensively. I think that some parts of the Bible are divinely inspired while others may not be. Some people decide that all of it must be true and divinely inspired because some of it is, and others decide that none of it can be true or divinely inspired because some of it isn’t. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, though. (Also, something can be a true factual statement without necessarily being inspired by God.) Much has been altered by translation over the years, and you can even see discrepancies when comparing different versions of our current Bible. In the end, I think we all end up relying on our own interpretations of what it says. If we’re unclear about a passage, we research it or ask someone else. In that case, we trust another person’s judgment about it. I’ve prayed and come to conclusions, but I also recognize that someone else could pray and reach completely different conclusions. In this way, I think that some truths are absolute and others are not so clear-cut. That’s not to say there is no objective set of morals. This is my perspective on the matter: there are very few actions which would be right for everyone to take. Not everyone should marry, have children, or pursue the same profession. However, there are restrictions which apply to everyone. Although marriage is right for some and wrong for others, pedophilia is wrong for everyone. Child and animal abuse are wrong for any person to commit. What, then, is universally right for all of us? To eschew such immorality and to do our best to combat it.
            It’s comforting to think that we can get every answer we’ll ever need out of a book, but I think that life and morality are more complex than that. I believe in Jesus and believe He’s divine, but I have difficulty believing that something is true for no other reason than because it’s written in the Bible. It’s hard for me to believe that our only purpose in life is to evangelize, that we exist solely to spread dogma, and that all truths reside within one book. Life is bigger than that. At the same time, I feel that God is the center of life. He’s similar to the sun, in that He provides our sustenance and we cannot look at Him directly.  In the same way that people used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, a lot of people believe that God revolves around us. It’s the other way around. We revolve around the Son. He is a part of everything good. As long as we live in honesty and love and kindness, I feel that we’re in touch with Him. Many of God’s truths are expressed in the Bible, but how can a finite book contain the infinite nature of God?
            The Bible itself advises us to test all things by the Spirit (1 John 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22). If we don’t critically analyze Scripture, I think we neglect a practical skill which God gave us. Some people refuse to analyze out of fear. Fear can shut and lock one’s mind as effectively as pride. With fear, we mercilessly police our own thoughts. Human rights would cease to exist if a government were to censor its citizens as severely as we can censor ourselves. Fear traps us in the dark warehouses of our minds, with no company but the neuroses we’ve stored up in there. Fear bars off unfamiliar doorways with yellow caution tape, ultimately blocking us from the exit.
            When we’re afraid, we don’t seek answers outside of what’s familiar to us. I know some Christians who scoff at science, and I think it’s due to fear. If we’re afraid to research things because we think they might challenge our faith, how genuine is our faith in the first place? I like to look at everything from an analytical standpoint—religion, philosophy, and science. This means that I don’t put immediate stock in what I hear, whether it’s metaphysical or scientific in its nature. I pray, research, and talk to people. In expanding my views, I’m stretching my faith to make it stronger and more flexible. I feel that knowledge is only rewarding when shared. It’s useless if we amass it just to hoard it selfishly, only using it for our own benefit. I’m not trying to present my interpretations as absolute truth; I’m just offering them on a food-for-thought platter. I welcome open discussion on these matters. Back-and-forth dialogue teaches us a lot more than a monologue, in my opinion.
            From what I’ve observed and experienced, the mind fares well with an open and moderate approach. Moderation doesn’t mean declining to take a stance, nor does it prevent you from being passionate about your beliefs or committed to them. Faith can reside at the center of your life as you walk the center of the road. Basically, I believe that you can be diplomatic without being neutral. Stray as far from both extremes as possible and you’ll end up centered, both literally and figuratively. The middle ground is fertile for the growth of knowledge and understanding.

"Slutwalk": Empowerment or Exploitation?

Today, I learned about a public event called “Slutwalk.” It’s advertised as a rally that's held to spread awareness of sexual assault, and for sexual assault survivors of all genders to meet and support one another. It was formed in response to a Toronto police officer’s claim that women wouldn’t be raped anymore if they just stopped dressing like “sluts.” Understandably, people were outraged and decided to protest. It all sounded like a good idea to me until I read this in the description: those who attend the rally are supposed to dress like “sluts” in order to “take back” their sexuality, and take back the word. They hold up signs proclaiming “Slut Pride,” and proudly wear the label.

            It alarms me how popular the Slutwalk movement has become, and I think it points to a larger social phenomenon of confusing exploitation with empowerment. There’s nothing wrong with encouragement and group support, but we’ve largely lost sight of what it actually means.

            The police officer’s statement was obviously grossly insensitive, as well as inaccurate. Victim-blaming is never progressive. Women (and men and children) can be sexually assaulted regardless of what they wear. Women who wear burqas are raped every day. Rape is a crime of violence. It’s more about power than about sex. Rape is born of a desire to dominate and terrorize; to force one’s will and one’s body on another person. Unfortunately, I don’t see how rallies like Slutwalk could combat rape or manage to be truly liberating for anyone.

            Firstly, I don’t like the title. It’s meant to highlight the police officer’s ignorance and to reclaim a degrading word. However, I have misgivings about whether such a word can even be reclaimed. Some women may attempt to use it endearingly, but society at large will not. It’s a pejorative term that measures a woman’s entire worth by her sexual behavior. (While a man can also be called a “slut,” it’s usually said jokingly and without any real disapproval of male promiscuity. As we all know, men are usually encouraged to sleep around while women are shunned for it.) In my opinion, it’s not a good idea to try to give the word a positive connotation. It’s not positive or healthy to be compulsively promiscuous, regardless of your gender. That being said, I don’t think that people who engage in risky sexual behavior should be demonized. More often than not, it stems from psychological problems which cause a person to crave attention and approval while fearing genuine intimacy. Those who have this problem should be treated with compassion and concern, not with ridicule. I don’t see how embracing the concept of promiscuity solves anything, though. You don’t solve a problem by pretending it doesn’t exist, nor do you solve it by lashing out at the people who suffer from it.

            My second objection to Slutwalk is the fact that those who attend it are encouraged to dress as provocatively as possible. This is also utterly counterproductive if the goal is to de-objectify women. I don’t think that women who wear revealing outfits are “asking for it.” It doesn’t place the responsibility of rape on their shoulders, nor does it absolve a rapist of his or her actions. Once again, nothing justifies sexual assault. I’ve heard people say that women shouldn’t have to take self-defense classes or learn to avoid risky situations. Of course we shouldn’t have to, since no one should get raped. In an ideal world, there would be no need for self-defense or any other precaution. Regardless of how things should be, though, it’s not the way they are. Things happen that shouldn’t happen, and people do things they shouldn’t do. As a result, we need to make an effort to protect ourselves. A college student who attends a frat party wearing a bikini and proceeds to drink herself unconscious does not deserve to be raped. Her apparel may mean that she seeks validation, rather than implying a sexual invitation. She may just drink to feel more comfortable within the setting. The rapist is at fault for violating her, not vice versa. However, this doesn’t change the fact that she’s more at risk of sexual assault than a student who attends a party with a group of friends, shows up with her body reasonably covered, leaves none of her drinks unattended, and arranges for a trusted friend to take her home. Is it possible that the latter student could also be raped? Absolutely. My point, though, is that it’s less likely. As women, we owe it to ourselves to look out for our own safety, as well as the safety of other women. It’s pointless to refuse to protect ourselves just because we know that men shouldn’t take advantage of us.

            As far as objectification goes, I think that going out of one’s way to wear revealing clothing (as Slutwalk endorses) does nothing to battle sexism. I understand the line of reasoning, which seems to be an increasing trend in popular culture as well. The rationale proposes that sexual exploitation is acceptable, as long as we’re exploiting ourselves. But whether we are exploited by others or taking the initiative in our own objectification, the end result is the same: we’re not taken seriously as human beings. We are valued mainly for sexuality (or a cheap flashy imitation of it), which comes to eclipse everything else we have to offer. Our bodies are not at fault; a body doesn’t objectify itself. Ironically, we use our brains to concoct new ways to exploit our bodies when we should be using them to defy such injustice. We talk a lot about the importance of women uniting to support one another, but how can we be united when we’re at war with our own selves?

            I doubt that the majority of men who attend Slutwalk will go with the intention of showing support for rape survivors. I predict that most will be sold by the name, and attend the rally to see women in skimpy outfits and possibly find a so-called “slut” to take home. Some women may even take part in it just for an excuse to wear an exhibitionistic ensemble like they’re at a Halloween party, which will completely negate the intended purpose. Even the original idea is self-defeating, since the police officer will not renounce his sexism upon watching a parade of scantily-clad women. It will only encourage onlookers to take a chauvinistic perspective.

            I’d like to leave you all with a quote from a very thought-provoking book called Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture:

            “The preposition that having the most simplistic, plastic stereotypes of female sexuality constantly reiterated throughout our culture somehow proves that we are sexually liberated and personally empowered has been offered to us, and we have accepted it. But if we think about it, we know this just doesn’t make any sense. It’s time to stop nodding and smiling uncomfortably as we ignore the crazy feeling in our heads and admit that the emperor has no clothes.

            Many women today, whether they are fourteen or forty, seem to have forgotten that sexual power is only one very specific kind of power. And what’s more, looking like a stripper or a Hooters waitress or a Playboy bunny is only one very specific kind of sexual expression.”

            I couldn’t agree more.

Faith and Reason: A Crucial Balance (Part 4)

The conclusion.

*     *     *

        Despite my doubts of inerrancy, I see a solid foundation of truth in Christianity. When I went to church for the first time, there was a moment in which everyone’s prayers seemed to merge into one. I could feel my heartbeat in my words, as if they had a life of their own. I lifted up my arms and felt as if I was touching God’s presence with just a brush of my fingertip. I used to be much more anxious and neurotic, but I now feel a peace I’ve never known. It’s not a placebo effect. I used to expect Zoloft to produce the same contentment, but it never did. All I can say is that God’s love feels like the Big Bang; like a whole universe bursting to life inside of you. It breaks you apart, showing you everything you are and aren’t and should be. While it cracks your spirit open, it also fuses you back together stronger than you’ve ever been. I wish for everyone else to share the same joy and to know they’re not alone in the world.

      Compassionate people and hateful people can subscribe to any faith, or the lack of it. There are “Orthodox atheists” who like to spread their gospel of Godisimaginary.com like bacteria. They harass prayer request websites, telling you that you’re stupid to pray because there is no god to listen. There are diplomatic atheists who are horrified by such behavior and wish those bullies would demonstrate the tolerance they preach. On the flip side of the same coin, there are hateful Christians who believe a woman’s only purpose in life is to pop out little bundles of bigotry. They boast that God speaks to them, but “God” only seems to tell them what they want to hear. Marx famously called religion “the opiate of the masses,” but I’d say it’s more of a stimulant than a depressant. It galvanizes people into action, which can either be positive or negative. Faith is good for congenial, honest, and gracious Christians who seem to emit more goodwill than they can contain.

            Where do I fit in the spectrum? I’m striving to become the kind of Christian I admire. I can’t be a fanatic who attends Harry Potter book burnings and thinks it’s sacrilegious to eat deviled eggs. I suspect you reach that degree of fervor once you no longer recognize that fanaticism exists; once you think it’s impossible to stretch too far. I can’t do that. I’m going to read Harry Potter books and dress up for Halloween, but God is still my first priority. I’m born-again. There were some complications with my second “birth,” but thankfully it came to term. I just want people to know that God is deeper, richer, and far more complex than anyone could completely capture within a book. Faith is not an all-or-nothing experience. Doubting some parts of it doesn’t entail that you have to disregard the rest. If you want the discernment to know what to believe, just use the judgment God gave you. It all comes down to Him in the end.

Faith and Reason: A Crucial Balance (Part 3)

Reasons for my beliefs, and why I continue to have faith in spite of my doubts.

*     *     *    

            In light of my plethora of doubts concerning Biblical inerrancy, you probably wonder how I can still call myself a Christian. After reading this, you may not consider me to be one. Please understand that I used to be more skeptical than this. Coming to believe any part of the Bible at all was a seismic shift for me. I consider myself Christian for these reasons: I believe that Jesus is the messiah. I believe He is divine, and He is our savior. I strive to follow His laws, and I answer to Him. As Jesus is both human and divine, I think the Bible is both divine and human. We are creations of God, but we pale in comparison to Him. In the same way, how could the Bible be equal to God? How can a book translated by human scribes hold a candle up to our creator?

            I’ve had a lot of experiences that revealed the supernatural to me. I shared some of them in “Reasons to Believe,” but there are more. A certain one was particularly jarring and unpleasant. When I was fifteen years old, I experimented with a Ouija board. A member of my family also became deeply involved with it, and we used it together. We were obsessed for about a week. We spent hours asking it questions. She carried it around with her. At one point I asked a spirit to “give us a sign” of its presence. Immediately, the light switched off. There was a tray of Snapple in the room, and the Snapple started sloshing around inside the bottles. No one was moving the Snapple, and no one was near the light switch. There was no wind, and none of the other lights in the house had turned off. We should have heeded the warning and stopped right away, but it wasn’t enough for us. We were curious and excited about the encounter, and wanted to see more. Later that week, the apparition of a face surfaced on my relative’s fingertip. It appeared suddenly and wouldn’t wash off no matter how hard she scrubbed it. The face was tiny, with a menacing sneer. It was the most disturbing thing I had ever seen. She showed it to my mom, who thought it had been drawn on her finger. However, the image was far too small and intricate for her to have drawn. We both saw it appear out of nowhere. She and I burned the Ouija board and I prayed for God to drive the demon away. Afterwards, the face finally vanished from her skin. It left us both very shaken, and neither of us ever touched a Ouija board again.

            I know that sounds quite far-fetched, and many of you will write it off. In fact, some of you might decide I’m completely insane and disregard anything I say from now on. It’s okay; you’re not obligated to believe me. I won’t expect you to believe it if you’ve never had a similar experience. I can only affirm that I witnessed this event, and that the other girl involved will verify it if you ask her. I don’t have a history of seeing or hearing unusual things. This was pretty much an isolated incident, and a few other people in my family saw the face as well. They tried to assign a natural explanation, as did I. I researched shared hallucinations and learned that if two people are psychotic or under the influence of certain drugs, they can influence each others' hallucinations by discussing them. The hallucinations are never identical, though. People can share delusions, but these differ from hallucinations. Delusions don't actually cause you to see things. She and I didn't discuss the apparition, though. We saw it, and neither of us have a history of psychosis. We both know what really happened. I learned not to meddle with occult games. There is a certain thrill to them, because they feel as if you are sneaking into the spiritual realm instead of knocking on the door and asking to be invited in. Regardless, the consequences are not worth the excitement.

         Aside from that episode, I’ve read and heard many stories that further confirmed my belief in the supernatural. I learned of a phenomenon in which identical twins feel pain when the other is injured or in danger, even if their twin is far away. I spoke to a woman who told me about a time in which she felt a sudden urge to take a new route home, and it turned out that she narrowly escaped a car accident that could have killed her. Numerous people report sightings of spectral figures. One of my teachers at the Fairfield Brio told me that her mother had passed away in the bathroom, and my teacher’s son was unaware of it. When he was four years old, he visited his late grandma’s house and his grandfather mentioned her. The child asked, “You mean the lady in the bathroom?”

        Upon reading these accounts, some may acknowledge that these sound supernatural but wonder why I identify with Christianity specifically. A large extent of my faith is rooted in the saga of Aunt Mary.

        After she died, I found a huge collection of her old diaries. I buried myself in them for weeks, hoping to find answers to the mysteries of her life. Soon, I noticed a distinct pattern. Whenever I was reading one of her journals and had a question about her life, I would find the answer on the next page. This happened so many times in a row that there was no way I could call it a coincidence, especially since the questions and answers were so specific. I wondered what she’d wanted to do once she graduated from college, and immediately found an essay she wrote about her wish to become an art teacher. I wondered if she’d written anything about my mother, and then found an entry about her on the next page. I wondered if she’d ever written about me, and found a poem on the following page which was addressed directly to me. She wrote it for me a week after I was born. It was a beautiful heartfelt message about how she was so thrilled to meet me and hoped I would have a wonderful life. At one point I was feeling sad as I read her journal, because she sounded depressed and lonely in so many entries. I wondered if she’d had enough joy in her life, and if I’d helped to make her any happier. I thought I had read all the entries. There was a long series of blank pages. I flipped through the book, and felt as if my fingers were magnetically drawn to a certain page. I didn’t know why, since I assumed it was blank. Amidst the bare sheets there was a page with a single sentence jotted on it. It read, “If I die soon, then everyone will know I had a good life. If I live longer, then everyone will know they helped make it that way.” When I read it, the hair stood up on the back of my neck and my skin prickled. I cried in complete relief and gratitude. It was exactly what I needed to hear.

       There is a lot more to Mary’s story, but the most poignant part came a month later. On September 10th, a month after she died, her friend called my grandmother’s house. A poem had popped up in his head and he didn’t know where it came from, but he knew it was addressed to Mary and felt suddenly compelled to share it with my grandma. This is the poem:

A Shepherd's Voice

For Mary

It is I who heals the memories of yesterday’s pain

Remember, I go where no man can go—in pure light

Yes, I, Lord of it all.

You will not travel through this darkness alone.

You’re my creation

Wherever you go, I will follow.

My lovelight, bear it bright!

Night and day, day and night.

We are partners in rhythm, partners in grace

Lock into Me, moving, a fiery embrace

We will each take turns whispering,

“Let me lead,” “Follow me,” “Love Me,”

“Walk on.”

            When Mary’s friend wrote this down, he didn’t know she had died.

            I didn’t realize how many Biblical layers are in this poem, but they run deep. First, there’s the reference to the Lord as a shepherd. Then it mentions the realm of pure light (the Father), where only the Son can approach. This tells me that Jesus is addressing her in the poem. I was initially confused by the line “You’re my creation,” but then I learned that Jesus did create the universe along with God. The Bible lists Jesus as a creator, and says that He always existed. God didn’t “make” Him. He did not always exist in human form, but He always existed in spirit.