BARB'S THOUGHTS ON FEAR

My friend Barb sent me this via text because she couldn't make the comments on my previous post for some reason or another.  I feel that what she said is important enough to publish as a post.

Thanks Barb!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bill:                                                                                               6/29/2015

Let's try it this way. I seem to have problems posting a comment on your blog. One particular sentence stood out to me and that is what I would like to comment on. You are talking about stricter gun regulations and this is what drew my attention: " these cries will have no effect on a population living in fear."

Fear is such an interesting emotion. There is real fear as in the fight or flight situation where our body recognizes the need for reaction before our mind does. Then there is the bump in the night fear where our mind talks to us. I am well aware of both types of fear. I believe most of us are.

Most, if not all, of my prejudices are based on the latter. Be they racial, economic, cultural or personal preference they come from a lack of experience or exposure or were passed to me by those I grew up with.

So what do I do with perceived fear? First I believe I must recognize it, then I must acknowledge it and only then am I free to choose to deal with it. As I move about in my everyday life I am exposed to all kinds of fearful situations. This world is a scary place and, let's face it, no one gets out alive. (Trite but true.)

So what do we do with fear? In what way does fear work for us? This isn't a question about how we overcome fear but rather one that should show us our inner workings. If I fear you because you are black or brown or white that allows me to not deal with the real you. If you are shabby and smelly and have your hand out then certainly I have reason to avoid you. You might ask something of me I am unwilling to give.

These and a myriad of other examples are my prejudices. And guess what? I DON'T LIKE THEM! So what is a person to do? Recognize that this is the human condition but is not the final word. I do not have to act on my fears. They really do nothing for me. I can choose to do that which makes me uncomfortable, that which makes my heart pound, that which makes me feel vulnerable. Even that which seems to take advantage of me. But it does not because I recognize all I have is temporary. It is mine (really?) for a short time. All that I love is only mine for a finite time. That frees me! I am freed from fear. That said, I will feel fear again tomorrow and I will have to make those choices all over again. And I will. I must. We all must.

Well this isn't the original post but somewhat close. I am so encouraged by the recent Supreme Court rulings. But they too have their prejudices. Racism may be part of our legacy but when you consider we are all from the same source it is a bit ridiculous. Mankind is tribal and therefore acts in ways to advance and protect their tribe. Perhaps the young generation with global access will do a better job of seeing all people as real. Thanks for your posts. They stimulate my thinking. Bob does much the same thing. There aren't many of you out there. I loved Sherry's post on marriage. I will be quoting that for awhile. Use of this whatever you want. It's a bit rambling.

Barb

THE UN-ELECTRONIC WORD

We received the following e-mail from Chris Basford in response to my post:  THE ELECTRONIC WORD.

Hi Bill & Uni,

Thought you might enjoy these photos.  This Bible was given to George Basford by his Sunday school class.  It passed to his son Joseph, to his son Carroll, to his son Robert (my father).  It will next pass to David (my brother) and then to one of David's children.  Imagine someone saying, I have my great-great-great grandfather’s E book.  On the other hand he will probably choose to carry his iPad on the airplane!        
                                

 

We were both impressed so we asked for permission to post it along with a little more of the story.  We received the following reply.

Hi.

Yes, feel free to post this.  

As far as more of the story, the story may actually be in the lack of a story.  My father didn’t know it existed until cleaning out the house after my grandfathers death.  I remember him saying he wondered how it came to be in his father's possession.  Growing up, my sister and I sometimes stayed with my grandparents during the summer.  I remember my grandmother reading to us from the Bible, but not from this Bible.  It was a paperback as I recall.  One interesting tidbit, is the Family Temperance Pledge.   The only person signing it was my grandfathers brother Emory.  He was an English teacher in a private New England school.  One of his notable students was George H. W. Bush.  I guess it seems that these Bibles were really meant to be sort of a focal point for the family and less a book  to be read and studied.

Best wishes to both of you, Chris Basford  

WHAT IS TRUTH? - 2
Guest post by my friend John Kulp

 

                                    

2/20/2014 

Hi Bill:

I started the below as a comment to your “truth” blog, but it got so long that I decided to send it as an email instead.  The first part you have heard from me before, but please bear through it again as context for my comments on scientific truth and the bible.  Your posts stretch my mind, I may be a heretic on this one, and I hope to hear your comments.

I will suggest that there are at least 3 important questions in correlating science, truth and the bible.  What is truth?  What is Science?  And what point of view does the Bible come from in the field of science?

Having held the title of senior scientist at one point in my career, and having known several University professors and PhD's in science who loved to discuss the philosophy of science, I will add my (their) answer to the second question.

Definition of Science:  Science is the construction and refinement of mathematical and conceptual models of observed physical phenomena; where the validity of a model is measured by how accurately the model predicts future events.

The repeatability of observation of physical phenomena gives me an intuitive sense that physical truth does exist, so I reject the postmodern view (that truth does not exist).  However, in science I am a philosophical anti-realist holding the view that physical truth (which does exist) cannot be known in a fixed and immutable way.  That kind of knowledge would, by definition, make a current descriptive model exempt from future challenge and improvement, and no scientific model is ever exempt from challenge and improvement.  Haldane said it well, that "the universe is not simply more complex than we understand, it is more complex than we can understand".   

In theology, conversely, I am a classical realist.  By faith I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God who came to earth to die on the cross to reconcile me to himself, opening the door for me to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe.  I believe this to be truth, fixed and immutable.  This truth, for people of faith like me, is exempt from from challenge and improvement in a way that no law of science has ever been or ever will be.

These concepts are difficult and rarely understood but they are, in my opinion, the real conflict when people try to merge faith and science.  One is immutable and unchanging; the other is dynamic with improvement of every current scientific model being the explicit goal of the discipline of science.

Now on to question 3, what point of view does the bible come from in the field of science?  

I will suggest that the writers of the bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did just what we do today, and just what writers have always done.  And that it was done for the same reason.

My pastor speaks about the “DNA of our church”.  That has clear meaning to each of us.  He is talking about who we are on the inside, our foundational building blocks, our blueprint for operation.  However, if a pastor in the early 1900’s had stood up and spoken about the DNA of the church, the audience would have been bewildered.  What is this guy talking about?  If he had given a late 20th century scientific explanation of DNA, they would have terminated him for being out of his mind.

Conversely, if we could look 100 years into the future we would certainly see a scientific concept of DNA that is very different than ours today.  The scientific models which describe DNA today will have been drastically modified.  If a minister in that world spoke about the DNA of his church, it would likely mean something completely different than it does here today.

So what is going on here?  Our pastor, and every other pastor, and virtually every writer outside of science fiction (including Bill Ball) uses language that is based on the current day scientific understanding of his or her readers.  Anything else would be at best meaningless and at worst confusing.  This is how man has written for the entire history of man; in the context of current science.  Anything else will not be understood by current readers.

And, since science is dynamic, the differences are related to time and not related to the concept of truth or falsehood.  The older writings simply use more rudimentary models of science and later writings simply use more advanced models of science.  People of the distant future will certainly continue this advance, looking back at today's writings on science as being “primitive” models. 

I will add here that there is a gigantic and very important difference between early scientific models and myth.  The sun and moon and stars moving through the sky was a legitimate scientific observation, and an earth centered universe was a reasonable early science model based on that observation.  Myths like the buddhist description of the earth being carried on two elephants causing earthquakes when they get out of step, are a very different thing.  They are silly by comparison.

So when John writes in Revelation about stars being small objects that can fall to the earth or into the seas of the earth we don’t have to twist like a pretzel to come up with some explanation to use in a futile attempt to go to war against science.  The explanation is simply that the current science when John wrote Revelation was that stars were small objects in the sky (a reasonable 1st century model based on 1st century observation capability).  If he had written that those tiny stars up there were really distant suns, many times larger than the earth people would have rejected the spiritual truths he wrote about because of his crazy theory about massive stars.

When Moses writes about the sun and moon and stars moving through the sky around the earth we don’t have to twist like a pretzel and come up with some stretched logic to align that view with Galileo’s model based on his observations of the moons of Jupiter.  The explanation is simply that the current science when Moses wrote Genesis was the model that those objects moved through the sky around the earth (it was a reasonable early scientific model based on valid observation).  If he had described it using Galileo’s or later more accurate models, he would have been ignored as a crazy person.

Virtually every writing in human history, other than myth, is written in the context of current scientific models at the time of writing.  Is it such a stretch to think that the writers of the bible did the same, simply because readers at the time of writing (and for hundreds of years beyond) would not have understood anything else?

John

My friend Mike (Canadian Atheist) suggested a while ago that we exchange posts on each other's blog.  You may read mine at:  http://canadian-atheist.blogspot.com/2013/09/some-thoughts-from-believer.html.  Following is Mike's post.  (Thanks, Mike for your gracious remarks.)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Why Is It Important That Atheists and Religious People Continue To Talk?

Bill has been kind enough to allow me to hijack his blog temporarily so that I can speak about something I think is very important to believers and non-believers alike.

Thank you, Bill, and thank you for allowing me to speak my mind on your blog and its comment section. While it may not seem like it at times, your blog is one of my favorites and I avidly watch for any new posts you might make.

As to the question posed in the title; I think it’s very important that atheists and religious people keep up a dialogue. Here are a few of the biggest reasons.

Reason 1

We all share the same space. Like it or not, atheists and religious people surround us in our day-to-day lives. It’s beneficial to us all if we can talk about our differences in opinion in an open, honest, respectful manner.

Reason 2

We have more in common than we do differences. In my daily life, I very rarely even think about atheism. In most cases, it doesn’t matter. Sure, I find the topic of religion and atheism fascinating, but it’s a very small (although important) part of who I am. In most things, I suspect I am just like you, dear religious person. I worry about my job, stress over my family, put my pants on one leg at a time and eat, sleep and love just like you do.

Reason 3

I work in the social service field and I often have to work with religious people and religious organizations.

You know what?

It doesn’t matter that I’m an atheist, and it doesn’t matter that they believe in God. When we work together to feed, clothe, raise money for the needy, the fact that we hold two different views on God doesn’t matter one iota. We work together and we accomplish our goals. This wouldn’t be possible if we didn’t keep up a dialogue. There are many things the religious an irreligious can work together on.

Reason 4

It’s easy to demonize a person if they’re faceless. It’s easy to call atheists immoral, Satan’s pawns etc. when you don’t know any atheists. By keeping up a dialogue, you can find out that atheists are much like you. In most cases, we want and need the same things. Besides, you might know an atheist but not be aware of it. They could be keeping their non-belief in God a secret. They might not talk about it or they might be questioning their faith.

Reason 5

I believe in the marketplace of ideas. I think that any idea should be discussed, and I think that eventually, the truth will win out. Obviously, I think the Christian God will go the way of Zeus and Odin, but we’ll never find out if we don’t talk about it.

So Christians, please keep in mind that atheists aren’t so different from you after all. I hope this blog post will pop into your head if you ever meet up with an atheist in the flesh. Just remember that we’re all human beings. We’re all flawed, full of prejudices and brimming with good and bad ideas. Let’s discuss these differences, but at the end of the day, I hope both sides remember that we’re more alike than not alike.

And last but not least, if you see me floating about in Bill’s comment section, feel free to ask me questions. I honestly don’t mind and I welcome the dialogue. You can also feel free to visit my blog.
I don’t bite. Honest.

As the bible says in John 15:17:  “This is my command: Love each other.”

Despite our theological differences, I think we can give that an honest shot.

Another view on LGBT rights & the church

The following is a guest post by Sherry:

Maybe I shouldn't have titled this "another view" so much as an expansion on Bill's last two posts and an answer to some of the comments on the first.  I should also add that this is for Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Non-Christians don't base their views about LGBT rights on the Bible and Christians with a more liberal theology don't interpret the Biblical passages on homosexuality the same way.

After reading Bill's last three posts and the comments, I have been thinking about God's ideal for marriage (sexual purity with no divorce) vs. the laws He gave regulating divorce.  These laws did not mean God had decided "oh they're going to do it anyway so I guess it's okay" but that God knew we were fallen and He wanted the rights of the societal lesser (ie, women in this case) to be protected. (See Deut. 24:1-4; Mt. 5:31, 32; 19:1-12; Mk. 10:2-12).  I think this is an example of how those who believe in the inspiration of all the Bible should view LGBT rights.

Laws protecting the rights of others do not mean all of their sins are okay, just that others shouldn't be able to take advantage of them. There have been two recent instances in the news that show just how much is denied to them solely becuz they cannot get married; it's CRUEL and it certainly isn't Christian or Godly or Christ-like or following the Golden Rule (given in at least 22 religions that I know of) to treat people like that strictly becuz of their sexual orientation.

My main thought though is that if we're going to deny America's civil rights AND basic human rights to sinners, then we need to deny them to ALL sinners. 
Which is everyone according to the Bible. 
Including me. 
Including all the religious folks out there screaming about homosexuality. 

But no one is proposing that; they just want to deny these rights to a particular group.  This time because of their sin.  Last time because of the color of their skin.  You see, the church has a long tradition of turning a blind eye to the sins committed by those within and focusing on the sins of those without.  Then once that sin is as prevelant within the church as outside (for instance divorce as mentioned in my previous comment) they shut up.

Jesus and Paul never did that.  They never lambasted non-believers about their sin.  Yes, on occasion they mentioned the sins of their unbelieving audience but with kindness and only to point out their need for salvation (see the story of the woman at the well - John 4:4-42).  Jesus and Paul talked the most and the harshest about sin to religious people - either saying that their hypocricy kept others from God or reminding them what God had saved them from.  Jesus made it clear in word and deed that He came to save those who are lost.  And He paid a mighty high price for it.

I thank God that He is willing to forgive my sin.
And I pray that His people will start looking at sinners as God does:
    as people in need of love and grace,
    as people He was willing to DIE for,
    as people who He LOVES. 
If we're all sinners as the Bible says, if He loved us all so much He would die for us as the Bible says, then maybe I should treat someone who practices a different sin than I do with that same love and compassion as the Bible says instead of sinning myself by showing hate toward another.   If instead we choose hate, then perhaps we need to reread the new testament.  First John chapter 4 is a pretty good place to start: "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." (I John 4:20).  And of course there's the story of the good samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)

And make no mistake about it, denying other human beings their rights as humans and as citizens, let alone as bearers of the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28) is not love. 
It's not treating your neighbor as yourself. 
It's not following the Golden Rule. 
It's hate.  If you're going to practice, acknowledge it.
And leave the name of my loving God out of it.

This isn't my first post here and some of what I've talked about relates to some of what I talked about in the previous post.  You see, I believe if we loved people as much as God does, we wouldn't marginalize whole groups (in that post it was single moms & the poor, in this post (and the two posts this refers to), it's the LGBT community) but would bring them into our churches, our homes and our hearts.  And until we love them that way, we are worrying about the speck in our neighbor's eye while ignoring the 2x4 in our own eye (Matthew 7:3).

Think that about covers that!  Unlike Bill, I don't normally open up the scriptures to others -- apparently about once a year and only on his blog LOL.  Thanks for the forum.


Now, to the person who accused Bill of teetering of the edge of apostasy, I have to say this:

Ever since I can remember, Bill has spent hours in the word on a daily basis, whether he was teaching or not. Since he moved up here, I’ve observed a real humble spirit towards learning what God wants him to learn, both from God's word and other sources (he probably had this spirit before, but now he's here for me to see it). While I know there is always the possiblity he could misunderstand something in the scriptures, I feel that it would be difficult due to the amount of time he spends studying and praying. The fact that he is willing to (1) apologize for his earlier legalism and/or judgmentalism and (2) fine-tune or even change his thoughts about subjects makes me believe God is answering him, not that he's falling into apostasy. 

God is so incredibly liberal with His grace and what I see in Bill's theological progression is a move toward a more liberal grace as well. This is totally in keeping with Scripture.

“SHE’S A GOOD HEARTED WOMAN …”

I received the following comment from Canadian Atheist on a recent post:  “Good piece, Bill. It brought to mind a piece I was thinking of working on. It's a bit off topic and political in nature but maybe it will give you an idea for another blog post. I've been wondering about the Republican Party there in the US and how they've been pretty much taken over by theocrats. The thing that bothers me is how they seem to favor things that would be distinctly against the things that Jesus supposedly taught, such as greed, power, the death penalty etc. Maybe you could give me your thoughts on that?”

The marriage of the Republican Party with “theocrats” bothers me as much as, or more than it does you.  My view, however, differs from yours.  What I see is more the other way around:  Theocrats have been taken over by the Republican Party.

In the more than half century since President Eisenhower, the Republican Party has moved steadily rightward, absorbing a diverse group of political views.  It now includes former southern Democrats, hawkish neoconservatives, libertarians and lately “Tea Partiers.”  Moderates have been steadily crowded out of the party.

During this same period, evangelical Christians have become more and more outspoken politically.  They have always, to some extent, been political, but it seems even more so during my lifetime.  At one time it was fear of Communism.  To some extent this was a legitimate fear, as Christians and Christian missions were often the targets of repression in Communist nations.  This of course, was blown out of proportion in America by McCarthyism and certain Communist-hating radio preachers.

Then it was fears of a Roman Catholic takeover when John F. Kennedy ran for president.  [Ironically a Roman Catholic running for the Republican candidacy for president in 2012 sounded more like the Catholic that President Kennedy was feared to be and yet received endorsements from many evangelical leaders.]

And then in the early 70s with the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion, the religious right came to the fore as a political movement.  The issue of abortion, along with greater freedoms granted to homosexuals, became the rationale for their existence.  And as “freedom of choice” and sexual liberty more and more came to be causes for the liberal left, their antitheses became causes for the right – the Republican Party.

And so, evangelical Christians became another addition to the Grand Old Party.  Some may see this as a marriage of convenience, but it appears to me more like a few marriages I’ve seen:  The well behaved, genteel young lady marries a rowdy young man who has little potential, thinking that somehow she can be a positive influence on him to change his rowdy ways.  Or as Willie and Waylon used to sing:  “She’s a good-hearted woman in love with her good-timin’ man!  She loves him in spite of his wicked ways that she don’t understand!”  She usually ends up excusing his behavior or becoming just like him.

And that’s what I think has happened.  Evangelical Christians have become so blinded to the faults of the Republican Party they’re married to, that they have adopted Republican “standards” as though they were biblical standards.

And now, what do we have?

A political party in which every member is bound by oath not to raise taxes; a party that wants to balance the budget by allowing the wealthy to get wealthier while taking away services from those who need them; a party whose main goal seems to be to assure that our current president fails; a political party where hate-mongers and conspiracy theories are not only tolerated but encouraged.

And religious leaders who go along with these pronouncements and policies, who almost seem ready to baptize them with a “Thus saith the Lord.”

Let me be clear.  I believe that abortion is sin; it is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life.  It needs to be addressed.  But there are other life issues that need to be addressed.  How many innocent people are put to death by wrongly applied capital punishment or by war as “collateral damage”?  These are issues that can be dealt with by government action.

And yes, the Bible clearly condemns homosexual sex as sin.  But it also condemns extramarital sex and premarital sex.  Why are we willing to overlook the affairs of our political leaders as long as they campaign against another kind of sexual sin?  Why do we think we can legislate sexual morality?

And isn’t our message a message of forgiveness, of redemption, not condemnation? 

And doesn’t the Bible condemn greed more often than these other sins?

My fear is not that the “theocrats” will take over this country.  Frightening as that may seem, it’s a long shot.  My fear is that by this marriage of the church to a political party, the message of the church is being compromised, that in our desire to change our country politically, we have become less and less relevant and soon no one will listen.

I am also concerned that there are may be those who will condemn me for speaking on this issue.  I’ve lost a few friends already.  But I’m not attempting to convert anyone to a political position.  What I am attempting is to urge my fellow evangelical believers into examining and rethinking their political prejudices in the light of the Scriptures.

And of course, to answer my friend’s question.