Thinking About the Gospels (Part 1)

Here is an example on how awareness of 1st century literary style when reading the Gospels is important:

The Jesus story is tooooo fake!!! I read the first part of the bible story if fit [sic] into todays context, you will realize its the same as a conman story. Just that the people illustrated in the bible seems gullible or maybe uneducated.

If Jesus exists in todays era, do you honestly think u guys will be his disciple and s**t like that?

Example, his disciples Simon and Andrew the fishermens.

Here it goes:

As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” 20At once they left their nets and followed him.

This story is soooo Disney channel fairytale. Someone just ask u follow him then u will immediately follow him?

I try to convince my self that Jesus is the saviour but the more i read the more skeptic i became thats why i stop reading the bible to at least save my doubt towards the bible storyline

This person was posting on a Christian forum thread about his experience reading (presumably) the Gospel of Mark.

You can tell that:

1. He is reading and treating the story of the First Disciples from a modern perspective.

2. The Gospel stories as such read somewhat absurdly (he compares it to a Disney fairy tale, which tells as much how he has been influenced by such narratives)

3. Unfortunately he doesn't read the parallel narrative in Luke 5 which explains in more detail why the disciples decided to follow Jesus

4. Even more importantly, he is not aware that Mark is the shortest gospel and paints events with broad strokes. As such much detail had to be omitted.

Other important considerations - the Gospels were meant to be read aloud, hence had to be kept short. Likewise, scrolls for writing were not cheap or abundant.

Thus, don't expect a description in minute detail - with footnotes - when reading the Gospels.

This is why asking someone to read from the Bible without giving him or her a proper introduction to the genre, style and content of the book is a bad idea.

Another example would be Revelation, which is routinely made fun of, with no awareness whatsoever of the apocalyptic genre. Also Genesis. To be fair, both Christians and non-Christians fall into the same exegetical errors.

Coming back to the Gospels, we should realize that since these are probably the first books to be given to non-believers to be read it should be important to introduce them to the respective books properly. There are traps that people can fall into when reading the Gospels, such as taking Jesus commands literally (e.g. "hating parents").

By emphasizing on what the Gospels meant to the original audience vs. what it means to you (the example cited above is an example of what happens when the reader is left to interpret it entirely by himself, without recourse to other tools) we would have a much clearer message and help cut down on the sort of responses as that of the reader of the Gospel of Mark above.

Thinking About Evil (Part 2)

Theodicies* often raise more questions than they answer.

In attempting to sketch out a brief theodicy, I make no claim to providing all the answers. In fact, I suspect if there can ever be one - the most satisfactory answer I have heard being was a Christian apologist's final admission of "I don't know".

In a way, it doesn't hurt to say that you are ultimately ignorant of God's intentions (God being God, this is quite understandable).

Here, I will argue that an "imperfect" ("Imperfect" here is an extremely relative term) world may actually be one that is the "best" (Again, a relative term).

The Role Playing World

Almost all role playing games (offline and especially online) have a leveling system whereby a character starts at the level 1 and works his or her way up to a maximum level (or in some cases, there is no limit).

The character often starts without anything and works their way up. They gain experience, items and money.

This is considered to be quite enjoyable, rewarding and even fulfilling for most people.

Yet it raises an interesting question - why don't we have a perfect world where everybody is equal in level and has unlimited money, experience and items? Ask any RPG player and most, if not all, would give you a bewildered look.

This is because anyone who has played such games know that the most fun comes from building up your character and that a character that starts out with a maximum of all possible benefits will bore the player very very quickly.

In my personal experience of cheating to get a maximum of everything immediately, the game gets old very quickly. The excitement and challenge is gone, there is nothing left to do.

Granted, RPGs mimic real life. Yet, if it is so much better to live in a "perfect" world, why do people find such worlds immensely boring, indeed, even silly or "bad"?

And there is a limit to this analogy. People don't really die or get hurt in these games. Yet the basic premises are there and the results are intriguing.

An objection would be that God could create a perfect world where people won't get bored.

Firstly, some religious scriptures do claim this, just not yet.

Secondly, could he actually? Or, would he actually? After all, if he could and if it was better, we would be living in a perfect world right now. Perhaps a world where people need to learn and build themselves up is somehow a better one.

True, the end goal might be perfection or as close to it as we can get.

Yet from experience, an immediate state of perfection often leaves people somehow unsatisfied.

I offer this as a preliminary sketch. My thinking on this, of course, constantly develops.

If, however, I was asked where is the point of a little child being brutally murdered - either for the sake of the sanctity of free will, of learning from experience or for some other higher purpose I would still honestly say, "I don't know".

_______________

* That is, a reconciliation of God and evil.

Thinking About Evil (Part 1)

It is often argued that a good God would not allow evil* to exist or occur. This argument is usually based not from any particular religious scripture, but on moral intuition.

As it stands, the idea that "God would not allow evil" is at best conjecture. Indeed, many non-theists admit that this is an unfounded theological assumption, to say that God "must not allow evil" - which amounts to saying what God can or cannot do! Of course, they would then go on to say that if such a God would allow evil to occur, then he is not worthy of our worship (another moral intuition).

Let me therefore introduce another reasonable assumption. Suppose God exists and evil exists. Is it not reasonable to assume that our moral abhorrence of evil stems not from ourselves, but from the God who created us?

In this scenario, the same morality which we use to dismiss God is the same morality which was give to us by God.

The question still remains as to why would God allow evil. However, assuming that our knowledge of good and evil is equivalent (actually, I would argue that it is inferior) to that of God we must therefore look to other alternatives as to why a good God would allow evil to exist (rather than concluding that he therefore does not exist, which is a non-sequitur).
________________________________________________

* I would like to note that the problem of evil is not an objection to God's existence but to God's character.

The Quiet Life of a Contemplative Christian

Prologue

Everyone seeks to place his or her life within the context of a greater story. This can be religion, family or friends, work or a pursuit of a goal. In other words, we need meaning in our life. And how have I framed my last two decades?

Unfortunately I can't say much for the first, but my memory is much clearer for the last ten or so years.

I was raised in a Christian home. I say "Christian home" because this was how our life was framed - with church at Sunday being the "end" (or beginning) of the week. From young I hated Sunday school (you either enjoyed it or hated it) and when older found "youth" gatherings uncomfortable (rare was the occasion where I was ever comfortable among my peers). The worship I never enjoyed (always preferred hymns) and the sermons were immensely boring. I would very much life to blame my lack of appreciation of the latter on myself, but eventually I have come to suspect that the individual in the pulpit had something to do with it as well.

All in all, I was not a very good churchgoing Christian. And yet, why have I chosen to call myself a Christian?

First, a little about the label "Christian". Often, when I am consequently asked, "What kind of Christian?" and I have found the additional labels required unhelpful. Protestant, I believe, is woefully archaic. Charismatic - as the churches I have been going to would have been called - could hardly apply to me (my personality is hardly that interesting nor inspiring). Evangelical may be suitable except that nobody understands it anymore. And don't get me started with the "post-" prefix that seems to be getting stuck onto anything nowadays.

So then, a Christian I am. But the perceptive reader would notice another word stuck in front of Christian in the title. So let me explain that.

The quiet life

Like all introverts, I am drained when I am around others and energized when I am alone (actually a rather crude and simplistic description, but close enough). This is not to say my family and friends don't mean a lot. They mean as much. But solitude is something I very much enjoy as well.

But what is more important is what I do with my time. Have I been productive, useful? I certainly hope so. At least the plans and goals (and for this I am very grateful for the opportunities others have given me) to which I have been able to accomplish.

My job, thankfully, allows me a lot of free time. I have become engrossed (once again) with historical study; reading fiction is now a necessary chore (!). I wish to start writing again, so many stories still in my head. Outlines of some are on paper, still waiting to become pixels on the computer screen.

So then...

A Contemplative Christian

Simply put, my goal is to become thoughtful (which is part of humility - to think before acting, the opposite of which is rashness and pride). Not just as a human being but specifically as a Christian.

How should one be thoughtful?

My listening and not just responding immediately (kneejerk responses usually not the best!). Returning to Scriptures for the Truth. To consider the opinions and arguments of other people. Pray.

My belief is not just a result of a conversion experience (actually I remember none) but also a dialogue with others, believers and non-believers. I have participated in extensive conversations - some extremely edifying, others unhelpfully repetitive. I have spent hundreds of hours in related literature, building upon the thoughts and experience of others. I have learnt immensely.

So What?

Well, I have spent a lot of time talking about myself. Hopefully this gives you some insight to the writer. But I write this not only to share, but to provide a coherent outline of my thoughts.

I have grown and learned a lot. My beliefs and attitudes have changed so many times (and, I hope will continue to do so for the better).

The fact is, I have seen too many people take the end of youth to mean the end of all growth (both literally and symbolically). It does not and cannot mean so. If there's one thing my non-institutional education (wink wink) thought me is that learning is a never ending process. Applying this to every aspect of our life is important and, as a Christian, is crucial.

Let this be my own pledge to continue the race.

S.D.G.

Bersih 2.0 - A Review

Walking through KL yesterday I could not detect any hint that a massive rally had been held on the day before. It was business as usual. Regardless of your opinion of Bersih, you have to admit that the Malaysian demonstrators have outperformed their first world counterparts (see the recent Greece and Canada rallies and riots) when it comes to peaceful assembly.

For the government though, peaceful or not, it was still an illegal rally and they treated it as such. Teargas (which, at least in the developed world, is only used to disperse violent protestors), arrests (to the police's credit, they released most fairly quickly without charges) and massive propaganda campaigns before and after. My favourite is the advertisement on TV3 where a boy asks why all the shops are closed. The shopkeeper laments that this was due to the rally.

TV aside, a glance through Facebook and I could see some unfortunate folks who got stuck somewhere in KL. At least one was calling Ambiga and Bersih some not very nice adjectives after he got stuck in KL Sentral for several hours. Of course, one can blame Bersih for shutting down public transport and traffic. Some sharp people would point out that it was the government who shut these down, not Bersih. And even more sharper people would point out that if the EC had heeded Bersih's demands there wouldn't be a rally in the first place.

Yellow Shirts, Red Shirts

The Patriot rally was mostly a fizzle (RM50 and free t-shirts don't get you far) and its few memorable moments was a banner calling the rally "BERSHIT" (to which people responded by referring to them as "Patriotaik") and Khairy standing alone being escorted away by a policeman.

Needless to say it was the yellow shirts (actually, much less yellow shirts this time - most joined the rally in standard civilian attire probably due to fear of being targeted for arrest) that carried the day. There wasn't really any hope of making it to Stadium Merdeka and as irony would have it, since the government shut down the stadium they had no choice but to take it to the streets.

Reformasi?

Some made a big deal about the chants for "Reformasi". Is this 1999 all over again? Well, reformasi can mean many things, including reformation for the election system. Slogans aside, the "Allahu akhbar" chants could be disturbing for a few, but in a country where Islam and politics (for good or for ill) have become inseparable this is no surprise.

I have always stated that I agreed with Bersih's goal (reforming the electoral system) but not its ends (rallying to do so). Rallies work better as a means of venting frustration and as a desperate attempt for change (see the Middle East) or as a means of gaining attention to a cause where other democratic means are unavailable (one could not vote to end Black discrimination nor to gain Independence).

But no, I'm not making the "we have elections so why rally?" argument. The Constitution itself guarantees the right to peaceful assembly. Whether the Bersih (or Patriot or whoever) rallies had a point or not is irrelevant. People still are allowed to peacefully demonstrate.

But Bersih's points could be gotten across more clearly. The alternative media's arm is wide open. Publicize how corrupt the electoral system is. Make people realize what the rally really was about (or should have been - most Bersih attendees didn't really come there to express their displeasure at the electoral system but towards the present government)

"Deeply Divided"

After George W. Bush won his second term, Kerry called to congratulate him but also to remark that the country is "deeply divided". Of course, this was a rather obvious statement. The USA is and will continue to be divided at least along Democrat/Republican lines. This is not a such a bad thing but rather a hallmark of mature democracies. People have different views and as such there are different parties to represent them.

In my conversations with others I have found that there are people (surprise) who are not very sympathetic towards Pakatan Rakyat and they have some pretty good reasons. Besides PR's non-existent (or at least, poorly publicized) plan of governance should it come to power, very few people are aware of its agenda. The recent Buku Jingga was a decent effort but almost comically idealistic. Obama's hopeless vague but extremely effective "change" and "hope" slogans won him his presidency but made us realize that in the end, the real world of politics doesn't tolerate such idealisms. (Another case of irony then, as the Obama administration's most memorable achievement was not in healthcare or other reforms but in the "war on terror")

The results of our 2008 General Election should show as much. The popular vote was split nearly evenly (PR's seat gains don't nearly reflect this as much). PR supporters should realize that people still support BN (and BN supporters should realize that support for their coalition is eroding)

Yes, you can still vote. No, don't expect everyone to vote for your favorite party. This is democracy.