CHRISTIANITY - A HYBRID RELIGION

In this post, I will attempt to gather my thoughts (some of which I have already expressed in past posts) on Christianity as a hybrid religion.  To anyone who has followed my posts, it should be clear that my views on Christianity are changing.  Naturally, I am influenced by what I read.  All of which contributes to my evolving understanding of Christianity.   

THE WAY

Christianity began as a sect of Jewish followers of Jesus who identified themselves as "The Way."  Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his informative book on Jewish life, "A Letter in a Scroll,"  explained that the term, "the way," was an ancient Jewish term regarding the study of Torah as journey of faith throughout one's life.  Rabbi Sack's definition of "the way" gives us some insight on how the earliest followers might have perceived Jesus' teachings.  "The Way" originally could have meant for the earliest followers of Jesus, what Rabbi Sacks says it means for all Jews, the study of the Torah, albeit for Jesus' earliest followers, in the light of Jesus' teachings about the Torah.  

As I have mentioned in other posts, Jesus' teaching were nothing new to his Jewish audience; in that, they are rooted in the Torah and the writings of the prophets.  What was new was how Jesus taught and applied them through his sermons (his collected sayings) and his parables. According to the Gospels, his manner of teaching was, to some of the rabbinical scholars of Jesus' day, a new teaching, which Christians have misinterpreted as something entirely new, but as Rabbi Sacks suggests, a "new teaching" was a term of interest in that it introduced a new interpretation of scripture, which rabbinical scholars would have been interested in and would have debated - something which most Christians are not use to when it comes to their understanding how the scriptures should be treated.   

According to the Acts of Apostles, the earliest followers of Jesus lived communally, giving up their personal property and wealth. This was likely based on Jesus' parables like the rich young man in which he was told to sell all of his property and give the proceeds to the poor and then to follow Jesus, when he asked how he may obtain everlasting life.   Following such mandates from Jesus was seen as " the way."  In was in this communal soup of Jesus' earliest  followers, that those who personally knew Jesus, shared their stories and what those stories meant to them.  It was in that community that Jesus was kept alive, was resurrected, if not in body then in spirit, as Paul described the resurrection in his first letter to the Corinthians.  Flavius Josephus, who knew of this community of Jesus' followers commented on how much they loved Jesus, which undergirds the notion that their love of Jesus did not permit him to die.

PAUL

The earliest followers of Jesus continued to worship in the Temple, which is largely ignored by Christian theologians.  It begs the question, did they continue to offer sacrifices or did they merely go there to pray? 

In his letter to the Romans Paul writes this, 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.  And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.  Romans 5: 8-11

A most telling event regarding whether Jesus' earliest followers continued to participate in offering sacrifices at the Temple is found in the Acts of the Apostles.  

When Paul arrives in Jerusalem, he is brought before the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem and James the brother of Jesus.  There he is questioned about converting gentiles without following the rite of circumcision (to become Jews in order to become Christians) for which Paul and those accompanying him are required to do a form of penance in form of following the Jewish rite of purification.  In Act 21:26 it states, "Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them."  

Obviously, the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem continued to worship and offer sacrifices in the Temple. Paul obviously felt compelled to acquiesce to the the church's leadership, which also raises a question as to whether these earliest followers of "The Way" thought that Jesus death on the cross was a sacrifice for the sins of the world, thus no longer seeing the need for further sacrifices which later Christians.  Obviously the Jewish Church in Jerusalem continued to participate in the rites of Temple worship and maintained their adherence to the Torah, the law, which Paul from time to time repudiated through anxiety ridden, convoluted arguments that the law was fulfilled by Christ's atoning sacrifice and no longer requires strict adherence; that those who follow the law are condemned by it, and those who don't are not (or something to that effect.) 

Paul of Tarsus was a controversial figure in the early church, which is clearly identified in Luke's Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles that Paul wrote.  His an appointment as an apostle to the Jewish communities in Asia Minor and Greece was not without dissension on the part of leadership of the Church in Jerusalem.   While he was sent to spread the Gospel of Jesus to the Jewish communities in the Greek-speaking world of the Roman Empire, it was the Greeks more than the Jews who became attracted to what he said.  While early Christianity identified as a Jewish sect who followed Jesus' way of being Jewish, expansion of Christianity among the  gentiles of Asia Minor and Greece saw Jesus as a liberator from imperial domination and civic duties, which were deemed pagan.  

Since Paul was having better success in converting Greeks than Jews to Jesus' way, he considered circumcision to be an obstacle to conversion and he unilaterally decided it was unnecessary for male gentiles to become Jews before being baptized into the church.  As noted above, this caused great concern amongst the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem.  The foremost of whom was Jesus' disciple, Peter. (See Galatians 2 to read about Paul's view on circumcision.)  While a controversial figure in the early church, Paul becomes a pivotal figure in Christianity becoming a religion in itself.

As I have pointed out in several other posts, the greatest historical event that impacted both Christianity and Judaism was the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD.  As Rabbi Sacks points out, the destruction of the Temple eliminated the Sadducees and destroyed the Church in Jerusalem.  The result was that the Pharisees remained the primary Jewish group whose worship had been primarily centered on the synagogue. With the destruction of the Church in Jerusalem and its leadership, the only authoritative voice that guided the Christianity became the epistles attributed to Paul.  In fact, the Synoptic Gospels were likely written after Paul's time and were greatly influenced by Paul's epistles.  The only other theological work that greatly influenced Christian thought and theology at the start of the 2nd century C.E. was the Gospel of John in which Jesus is raised to being God incarnate through whom all things came into being. (John 1)  

THE HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE

Christianity is largely is formed by and reflects two schools of theology; that of the letters attributed to Paul and the Gospel of John.  The significance of this reflection is that these two schools move Christianity beyond its Jewish roots to a particularly significant Hellenistic influence and dare I say to a polytheistic perspective while casting it in a Jewish hue.  In fact, I would go so far to say that Christianity adopted where it could the polytheism of the Roman Empire of the time while ambiguously retaining the Jewish concept of one God.  As such, Christianity claims to be part of the Abrahamic tradition of monotheism.  The reason for this adoption and adaptation of Hellenistic polytheism is simply to make Christianity more appealing to the people living within the broader Roman Empire.  

As a whole the canon of the Christian New Testament is overtly geared to an Hellenistic understanding.  Thus we have the virgin birth story of Jesus, the institution of Holy Communion, and the physical resurrection of Jesus.   Given these articles of Christian doctrine, one can trace which school of thought they proceeded from.  The virgin birth story and physical resurrection of Jesus are theologically rooted in the Gospel of John, while Holy Communion and Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world is established in Paul's epistles.

Biblical scholars and theologians will be quick to point out that all of these doctrinal teachings are supported and rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament.  If they are honest, however, they will have to admit that the virgin birth of Jesus and physical resurrection are read back into selected Old Testament scriptures as what those scriptures were foretelling, not necessarily what they mean to the Jews of Jesus day or for Jews today.  

Jews would have been and are extremely skeptical about such a thing as God causing a virgin to become pregnant and thus permit God to become incarnate in a demi-god son, Jesus.  In a like manner, Jews would find the notion of Jesus claiming to offer his flesh and blood in the rite of Holy Communion repulsive as the Gospel of John notes in chapter 6.  There we are told a number of Jesus' disciples no longer followed him when he told them that unless thy eat his flesh and drink his blood they could not have eternal life.  Interestingly, there is no Old Testament scripture that supports what John is saying.  There is, however, a polytheistic connection to Holy Communion.  

The Gospel of John,  in many respects, presents Christianity as mystery religion in which one can enter into eternal communion (life) with God through participation in the mystical body of Jesus. There is an obvious connection with the mystery religions of Ancient Greece.  Most notably what comes to mind is the Eleusinian mysteries which also deal with death and resurrection, in the story of Demeter and Persephone, who annually returns from underworld.  Bread and a wine-based drink would be offered to a successful initiate that would ensure freedom from the fear of death and a beneficial afterlife. 

It is interesting that the oldest mention of the rite of Holy Communion is recorded the 11th chapter of Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthian where Paul states, "I  received from the Lord (Jesus) that on the night he was betrayed he took bread... ."  It seems obvious that writers or later editors of the Synoptic Gospels borrowed and inserted what Paul received into their versions of the Gospel.  The writer or writers of John does it one better, he or they created a Gospel that in essence is all about a journey from Holy Baptism into Holy communion with God through Jesus.   Water, bread and wine play a significant role in this Gospel.  

As one of several mystery religions in the Roman Empire, Christianity would have been appealing to a wider and more diverse audience.  That Christians in Rome had to hide in the catacombs of Rome to escape notice from the Imperial police is, in part, probably true. It is more likely, however, that they met in catacombs as a sort of death and resurrection cult.  It is known that Holy Communion was performed in the the catacombs with libations of bread and win poured into holes drilled into the coffins or sarcophagi of Christians who died.  Such a hole is reported drilled into the tomb of St. Peter under the high altar of the basilica where he is buried for this very purpose for the purpose of such a libation, a noted in "The Immortality Key -The Secret History of a Religion with No Name" by Brian Muraresku).

Like many mystery religions of the past, the early Christian church utilized initiation rituals.  Catechesis (instruction) and baptism, which remains in many mainline churches today, was required for full membership in the body of Christ.  Perhaps the most appealing aspect of Christianity at the time was that it was open for anyone to be initiated, slaves, women, nobles, and eventually Roman soldiers.  Even in the time of Paul, it was noted that members of Caesar's household (most likely trusted imperial slaves or clientele of the imperial family) were baptized.  

THE PAGAN CONTINUATION HYPOTHESIS

"The Immortality Key -The Secret History of a Religion with No Name" by Brian Muraresku, like Jonathan Sack's "A Letter in a Scroll" has led me to reconsider the origins of Christianity.  I highly recommend to my readers that they read both Sacks' and Muraresku's books.  What Brian Muraresku has led me to consider is that Christian theology regarding who Jesus and who God is may be more rooted in the stories and cults of Greek polytheism than in the Hebrew Scriptures.  In the "Immortality Key," the archeologist Kaliiope Papangeli, who continues to work on the archeological site of the Eleusinian Mysteries is quoted, "Whatever they (Christians) cannot extinguish, they keep."  

The question this poses is how much of the polytheism of Greece has made it into Christianity?   I personally have come suspect that the "mythic" beliefs and rites of the ancient Greeks have had a greater impact on the teaching about Jesus found in the Gospels than the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament.  As mentioned above,  the birth of Jesus, his being declared the "Only Begotten Son of God," the Last Supper, the meaning of his crucifixion, and his resurrection and here I would add the doctrine of the Trinity are rooted in polytheism rather than Hebrew Scripture.  

Gods like Zeus having trysts with women they desired often led to demi-god offspring like Hercules and Achilles.  The god, Bacchus, was believed to have been born from the thigh of Zeus.  Jesus, in the Gospel of John 1:18 was born or originated from the "lap" or bosom of God.  Most modern translations gloss the original meaning of the ancient Greek text. The cult of Bacchus or Dionysus places the birthplace of Dionysus in Nysa a city that was part of the ten cities know as the Decapolis in the New Testament. Nysa is approximately 30 miles from Jesus' childhood home of Nazareth.  

As mentioned earlier, rite of Holy Communion which Paul claimed occurred at the Last Supper where Jesus offers bread and wine to be or symbolized his body and blood has no corollary in the Old Testament or Jewish thought. While Christianity has cast this event as being associated with the Jewish Passover and thus remake of the spreading of a lambs blood on the lintels of the Israelites homes in Egypt. The Passover and Holy Communion do not correlate beyond theological speculation.    

Resurrections occur in many polytheistic religions at the time Jesus.  The mythic story of Prometheus comes to mind when it comes to the crucifixion.  Prometheusis literally nailed to the side of a mountain for saving humankind by giving us fire.  In fact, in some myths Prometheus is actually credited with creating humans from the dirt of the earth, something the Olympian God found rather disgusting.  In giving us fire and the knowledge to use it result in Promethus being eternally sacrificed for his sin by daily having his liver eaten by an eagle. 

Persephone comes to mind with regard to the resurrection, that one confined in the realm of the dead is allowed back into the land of the living. Again, her story is entwined with that of her mother, Demeter who pleads with Zeus to have her released from Hades once a year.  One cannot help but see in Demeter the template for Mary the mother of Jesus.  Of course, there are other polytheistic stories that correlate the stories about Jesus found in the canonical Gospels.

The doctrine of the Trinity, although derived from constant references to God as Father, as Holy Spirit, and Jesus as the Son of God. The idea of three persons or personification in and of one God is more polytheistic than monotheistic.  I am skeptical that Jesus of Nazareth, a devote Jew, would have entertained, much less,  approved of such an understanding.  Jesus might have thought himself in terms of being a messiah, although there is considerable evidence in the Synoptic Gospels that he rejected that notion.  That Jesus thought he was God was never expressed in the Synoptic Gospels.  That doctrine is clearly an afterthought and supported by the theological Gospel of John. As I have suggested in other posts, the idea that Jesus being the only begotten Son of God was intended to be a poke in the Imperial eye of the Emperor being the Divine Son of God.  

With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, the polytheists of the Roman Empire would not have found it scandalous at all.  In fact the Triune God, Jesus as a demi-god, and the concept of saints being intercessors would not have required much of an intellectual leap as it would be for Jews.  Once Christianity was established as the official religion of the Roman Empire and 381 CE, the empire felt secure enough to rid itself of the divine blessings of its ancient gods and goddess and replace them with one religion that had one God in three persons, a new order of priesthood ,and new hierarchal system in which the emperor as the "Pontiff Maximus" became the vicar of Christ which, in essence, made him more divine than any of the past emperors and more godlike than any of the old gods of the Empire.  

THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS

The non-canonical Gospel of Thomas gives further evidence that the canonical Gospels are heavily influenced by the polytheism of the Mediterranean.  The Gospel of Thomas contain only the saying of Jesus.  There is no birth story, no death story, no resurrection story.  Miracles are not mentioned, only his teachings.  Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas may, in fact, be one of the earliest Gospels as it shares the same source of the Synoptic Gospels.  In my opinion, that it didn't make it into the canon of the New Testament is simply due to its being void of any mythic qualities that would have appealed to the those living in the first four centuries of the Roman Empire.  In some sense it was probably perceived as being too Jewish to be Roman.

Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, is said to have established Christianity in India around 52 CE  We don't know much about the earliest followers of Jesus other than what can be gathered by legend, which tells that Thomas converted a royal household.  Around 600 C.E. Indian Christianity followed the Syriac Rite and were considered Nestorian. 

The point that I feel is relevant to this discussion is that the Gospel of Thomas, being void of all references to Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection, is probably the most unedited Gospel in existence. It may have originated in India, but it found its way back to Egypt were it was found among the Nag Hammadi scrolls  in 1945.   Even the early Gospel of Mark, which does not include the birth of Jesus was subject to editorialization; such as, its inclusion of Paul's concept of Holy Communion and later additions regarding the resurrection of Jesus at the end of the Gospel.  

With that said, it is time to restore the Gospel of Thomas to a place of prominence in any Christian discussion.

WHAT NEXT?

In my next post, I will explore what all of this means to Christianity today.  

How does Christianity deal with such information?  

Does it ignore it?  Does it embrace it?  

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm 

EPIMENIDES' UNKNOWN GOD

As a way to introduce this post on Epimenides' Unknowable God, I am beginning with a portion of a homily I delivered on May 21, 2017 at Christ Episcopal Church, Yankton, South Dakota.  What follows provides the legendary history of Epimenides connection to the altar of the Unknown God, which the apostle Paul obviously knew very well to the point of being able to repeat the same phrases Epimenides used in his poem, "Cretica" and comments Epimenides made about how religious the Athenians were.

                                                                                 * * *

[Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. For ‘In him we live and move and have our being.’ From Acts 17]

It’s not every Sunday one can give a homily based on Greek legend, Geek mythology, and the New Testament. So I couldn’t pass up this opportunity to do so. 

In order to fully appreciate our first reading from Acts 17, we need to know why Paul addressed the Athenians at the Areopagus and why he cites two poems about the Greek god, Zeus. The author of Acts, Luke, likely assumed that everybody of his day, two thousand years ago, would have known why, but knowledge can get lost in two thousand years.  So let’s take a moment to rewind and review:

The Areopagus is a rock outcropping in Athens that was used in Paul’s time for conducting public trials. Here the Athenians wanted to discern if Paul was introducing a new religion into their city as Paul’s preaching about Jesus and his resurrection seemed to indicate.  Introducing a new religion was considered corruption, a serious crime in ancient Athens; a charge that resulted in the death of Socrates in 399 BCE.  

On his way there, Paul passes an altar to “The Unknown God,” the history of which Paul uses in his effective defense, along with citing two early Greek poems to support the premise that he was not preaching something new. 

The poet cited is Epimenides who wrote a poem called, "Cretica." In "Cretica," Epimenides argues with his fellow Cretans that Zeus was very much alive as evident in our being alive after they had built a symbolic tomb declaring him dead:

They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,

                        Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies. 

                        But you (Zeus) are not dead: you live and abide forever,

                        For in you we live and move and have our being[1]

 As a side note, the line about Cretans being liars is cited, verbatim,  in Paul’s letter to Titus (1:12) and is the basis for Epimenides Paradox which states if being a Cretan himself, Epimenides, in calling Cretans liars is also a liar by telling a truth applicable to himself.

In fact, the altar to The Unknown God has a close connection to Epimenides:

During the time of the great Athenian law giver, Solon, the Athenians suffered a horrendous plague attributed to an act of treachery on people who they granted asylum and then killed. To rid themselves of the resulting plague, they tried appeasing their gods through sacrifice, but nothing was working.  

So they approached the Oracle at Delphi who informed them that there was a god they failed to appease.  When they asked which one, she said she didn’t know but they should send for Epimenides, a prophet in Crete, who would help them.  So they did.

When Epimenides arrives in Athens he comments that they must be very religious because of the many gods and goddesses they have. He told them there is a good and great unknown god who was smiling on their ignorance but was willing to be appeased. When they perform the proper rituals throughout the city, the plague is ended and they erect altars to this unknown god throughout Athens. [2]

* * *

In recent times, Epimenides' definition of Zeus as that "holy and high one" in which "we live and have our being" is becoming popular with Christians as a general definition of God.  I see it as a bridge between God, as understood in religion, and God, as understood in science.   God in religion is largely understood as being primarily concerned with us humans living on this planet. As such, God in religion is portrayed as being concerned with our moral behavior and incentivizing good behavior  by rewarding it and punishing bad behavior.  

On the other hand, God in science, if and when the term is used at all, is understood metaphorically to identify the laws that govern the physical universe or the currently nebulous, but hoped for, Theory of Everything.  What God becomes in this sense is the totality of all that is, which relates well with Epimenides' unknown god, the being in whom "we live and have our being" and who "smiles on our ignorance."  God in the scientific use of the term is not concerned with our moral behavior, but rather represents the laws (the forces) of nature which control cause and effect within nature and to that extent explains our life experience as also being a result of causes and effects.  While one might be tempted to claim that such causes and effects belies a universal moral code, the universe does not reward or punish moral behavior.   Behavior is simply behavior.  

There is something personable about a god who "smiles on our ignorance."  This unknown god is not presented as a capricious god, such as the Olympian gods.  This god is approachable at least to the extent that this god wants to be approached.  

Epimenides' unknown god is both nameless and imageless, and yet, to stave off the plague devastating Athens, this nameless and imageless god required recognition through ritual, which the Athenians perform and after which the plague is ended.  In everlasting gratitude, the Athenians built altars to this god, and Paul, like those ancient Athenians is saved by acknowledging this god and equating it as the one god above all others.  Paul goes a step further than Epimenides in attributing a line from Epimenides' poem on Zeus, "For in you we live and have our being" to this unknown God, which Paul claims to have knowledge of as being the one God Paul claimed as a Jew without directly making such a claim.   

* * *

Epimenides' unknown god undoubtedly raises some questions.  Where did Epimenides come up with such a concept?  Was it divine revelation or a theological deduction that such a god existed?  Or was some sort of intuition, some insight into an obvious problem the Athenians were blind to?   Remember the Oracle at Delphi told the Athenians to seek as prophet fro Crete by the name of Epimenides.  If there is one thing we know about prophets, it is that they are good at exposing the ignored obvious. 

What catches one's attention in this legendary story is the observation that Epimenides made regarding how religious the Athenians were because of the the many gods and goddesses they worshiped.   Where there were many gods and goddesses there were undoubtedly many temples.   Temples were and are places where people gather, especially when there is trouble afoot that people do not know how to respond to.  

Given the experience those of us living today have had with the Covid pandemic, we know something about the effect that large gatherings had on spreading the Covid virus.   It is more than likely that the Athenians were filling the temples with the sick, pleading for divine intervention, which ultimately led to more deaths.  This would help explain why they thought they were being punished by the gods.  

It is interesting that when Epimenides told the Athenians about the unknown God who would help them,  he instructed them to go out into the fields and where they found a sheep laying down, that was spot where the Athenian were to offer that unfortunate sheep to the unknown god, as a sacrifice.  In essence, what might have saved the Athenians was getting them out of the Petri dishes that was their temples and into the fresh air. 

Of course this is all speculation on my part.  One can't be certain what went through Epimenides' mind when he was summoned to Athens.  Did he invent the idea of an unknown God or was it an intuitive revelation?  We will never know.  The bottom line in this story is that it worked, whether by getting the Athenians outside of their city and temples or because there is such a god who smiled on their ignorance and saved them.  

* * *

In my opinion the story of the unknown god represents the nexus of the two version of God that I wrote about in previous two posts, God in Religion and God in Science.  In a sense Epimenides' unknown god, led the religious people of Athens out of their temples and their gods to experience god in science, an unknowable god that nevertheless exists in the background of our existence, that embodies us in the parental way that Epimenides spoke of in his poem "Cretica."  Although, Epimenides was speaking of Zeus, he changes Zeus from an immortal god living on Olympus to a universal being that generates and embodies our being. 

 

Most theistic religions get to the point where God becomes a paradox who is both one (the totality of all that is) and a multi-dimensional, who is both intimate with creation and other (holy) than creation.  God is ultimately inscrutable whether in religion or in science.  Perhaps the best understanding of such a god iswhen God in the story of the burning bush explains to Moses, "I am that I am (I will be what I will be)" or when Epimenides described the unknown god as one "who smiles on our ignorance. "

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

[1] Translated by Prof. J. Rendel Harris in a series of articles in the Expositor (Oct. 1906, 305–17; Apr. 1907, 332–37; Apr. 1912, 348–353;  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides

[2] “To An Unknown God,” Christians in Crete, Connecting God’s Family http://christiansincrete.org/news/to-an-unknown-god/

 

 

  

  

GOD IN SCIENCE

                 "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of  the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.  I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves... Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." *

Albert Einstein 

* * *

The above quote by Einstein is as good an example of how many scientist might understand and accept the concept of God; in that the term God is used to identify "something impenetrable " but which  nevertheless is a manifestation of deep reasoning and awe inspiring beauty of the observable universe.   Like most scientists, Einstein did not believe in a personal God, who doles out punishments and rewards based on human conduct.  God represents the inscrutable, the unknown order that eternally manifests the order observed in nature.

While Einstein describes this as his religion, God, in Einstein's perspective, is not the God of theistic religion that seeks a personal relationship with human beings.  God when used scientifically is not understood as a being separated from or above that which is, but rather stands as a verbal symbol/expression of all that is and presents a sharp contrast to the ideal God of theology. 

Scientifically, God is not concerned with the moral behavior of humans; in that, scientifically speaking, God's purpose does not engage in making judgements about human or universal activity.  This is not to say there are no laws by which the universe functions. It is that they are not concerned with moral behavior. God understood scientifically is all about the laws governing the existence of the universe, laws which we humans have merely scratched the surface of to uncover their meanings and role in our lives.     

* * *

In reading Kip Thorne's excellent book, "Black Holes and Time Warps," I was struck by how many times I ran across the word intuition as he talked about various physicists and the theories that resulted from their intuitions.  I wish I would have conducted a word count on "intuition" because inevitably the progress we see in astrophysics and in quantum mechanics, according to Thorne,  is the result of a series of intuitive moments in which these intuitive experiences by various scientists build upon other scientists that are often triggered by mundane experiences that sparked an intuitive insight that prompted them to do the math  in order to validate such intuitive moments.

The difference between use of God in science and God in religion is the difference that lies between  intuition and inspiration.  Whereas inspiration in religious circles comes from without as a revelation given by a divine source, intuition comes from within as the result of an insight sparked by a mundane (natural) encounter that triggers a new understanding of nature itself.   For example, Newton's legendary falling apple and Einstein's childhood encounter with a compass prompted both to new insights into the laws of gravity. 

One cannot nor should not underestimate the tremendous effects the efforts of physicists and other scientist in the last century has and continues to have in our lives.  With each new discovery we not only understand the universe in which we live, the planet we live on, but also and more importantly the universe we embody within ourselves.  Medicine is merely one area that has been greatly enhanced by a deeper understanding of our universe and the quantum mechanics at works in our very bodies.

* * *

God in religion always resides in the forefront of human perspective as revelation, whereas God in science resides in the unknowable background of existence.  God in religion provides an unquestionable  theological answer to why we exist.  As such, the common believer knows only that which is deemed necessary to ensure some afterlife and is largely discouraged from questioning the causes of one's existence.  

The concept of God in science, on the other hand, is set aside in order to understand the workings of the universe in both a macrocosmic and microcosmic sense.  Science has yet to answer why we or anything exist.  For the most part,  scientists are content in not having answers to the question they encounter, which serves as the impetus to pursue what can be revealed through intuition and theoretical discovery.  Scientists are, for the most part, content with uncertainty whereas theistic religion tends to see uncertainty as a lack of faith.  Faith in theism is in the certitude of God's existence.  Faith in science is in the ability of humans to learn and discover the mysteries of the universe we live in and the universe that resides in our being.

* * * 

Perhaps this is the difference between the pursuits of theistic religion and science that comes down to punctuation marks.  God in religion is expressed by an ! that represents certitude; whereas, God in science is expressed by a ?that represents uncertainty. 

* * *

I understand and appreciate the atheistic repulsion towards the idea of a personal God who looks like and acts like us and judges us according to our sense of moral behavior.  I also, like  most atheists, marvel and express awe and wonder at the heights and depths of the universe we are part of speaks, as Einstein put it, to a religious sense of an, as yet, incomprehensible God-like order that is discoverable through human intuition supported by mathematical hypothesis and theoretical application.  

As such, I embrace my own agnosticism and am more comfortable with God as expressed as a ?.  

In addition, while I find the term, God, to be problematic, my own intuition, derived from personal experiences, prevents me from discounting an intuition of something residing in my life and indeed the life that surrounds me that speaks of there being more to life we all experience; something indefinable in itself, something paradoxical and yet, at some level of our existence, gives meaning to our being.

* * *

Norm 

* Quote taken from "Einstein's God" by Krista Tippett, (c) 2010, Penguin Books LTD, 80 Strand, London, England. pg.16

GOD IN RELIGION

When thinking of God and religion, what come to my mind is the God of Abraham.  To identify God as the God of Abraham is somewhat misleading because, as mention in my last post, the term God defies definition.  The God of Abraham, the version of God referenced in the Holy Bible. is being used  because it is the concept of God, I know best.   

Not every religion thinks of God as the God of Abraham, but three religions do: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  Theistic religion existed long before God called Abraham to go on a journey to a promised land that Abraham would never see realized in his lifetime, nor in the lifetimes of his two sons, their children and their children's children's and their children in the following 400 years, during which time, they mostly resided in Egypt. 

The God of Abraham is also the God of Moses, the God of Jesus, and the God of  Mohammed.  In the story of the burning bush (Exodus 3), God commissions Moses to return to Egypt and ask Pharaoh to release the enslaved Israelites.  Moses, being more than a bit apprehensive about returning to a land where he was wanted as a murderer, asks God, "Who shall I say is sending me?"  To which God cryptically responds, "I am who (that, which) I am.  Tell them (the Israelites) 'I am" is sending you."  

The Hebrew derivative of the this phrase is "Yahweh" is equally cryptic since, like "I am," it is linked to the verb "to be."  As the name of God, Israelites were forbidden to say it, substituting the word "Lord"  when speaking of Yahweh.  "God is" is very close to the non-descriptive concept of Einstein's use of "God" which I understand to be a metaphor for the ultimate Theory of Everything being sought by physicists.

* * *

In Genesis 4, we encounter the first religious acts recorded in the Bible.  The story of Cain and Abel identifies sacrifice as the first religious rite directed at appeasing God.  We don't don't know why Cain or Abel decided to offer sacrifices to God.  There is no mention of God requiring a sacrifice at this juncture in the biblical narrative, which likely means that the authors of Genesis didn't think it was necessary to talk about an origin of something they saw  as a necessity blood sacrifices were apparently deemed more appeasing than offerings of produce like wheat and barely.  

The most demanding and severe religious rite we know of at the time of Abraham was offering  a blood sacrifice of one's child as the gods or God would command.  So when God commands that Abraham sacrifices his only heir, Abraham obeys and takes Isaac to a mountain top to sacrifice him.  As Abraham is about to do so, an angel of God stops him and, finding a ram, Abraham offers the ram instead.  

Sacrifice is at the center of all religions as an act of submission to the will God (or the gods) even to this day.  This sacrificial sense of appeal and appeasement of a divine entity or entities is alive and well today, even though human sacrifice has been taken of the table in a legal sense, although it remains symbolically alive in Christianity.  Perhaps the most famous human sacrifice of all is that of Jesus of Nazareth, whose crucifixion by the Romans is considered by Christians as a sacrifice to atone (pay the price ) of humanity's sins.  The Sacrifice of the Mass (the rite of Holy Communion) in Christianity is considered a re-enactment of Jesus Christ's original sacrifice.  

Religion provides the basis for the moral paradigms that regulate or gives a sense of order to the lives of its followers.  The God of Abraham, for example, creates a covenantal relationship with Abram.  As such, God renames Abram to Abraham.   Then, in order to establish a religion, a binding covenantal relationship marked by ritual, God demands that every male in Abraham's service is circumcised.   The idea of circumcision obviously predated this event in Genesis  and was adopted to indicate that the household of Abraham, the tribe, had its own God. Again we see a form of blood sacrifice was required  to seal the deal.  

* * *

Theistic religions, as a whole, are associated with the acquisition of power through appeal and appeasement of a divine source.  Hence, the authority of rulers is rooted in religion and remains so to this day.  Even in secular governments and societies, the trappings of religion remain alive and well.  Sacrifice is still required to appease, if not a divine god then a god-like state.  The correlation between religion and the state is strong.  A patriotic allegiance to God and Country are virtually indistinguishable. 

The God of religion, above all else, is malleable.  That is why there are so many theistic religions in existence today.   A much quoted saying regarding religion attributed to Seneca states,  "Religion is true to the common person, false to the wise, and useful to the powerful."Religion is often coopted by leaders of a given state to exercise control of its citizens.

I find there is demonstrable truth to this statement being exhibited in the rise of religion-based nationalism throughout the world.  This is particularly evident in the rise of Christian Nationalism within the United States where God has been enlisted to serve the MAGA movement in portraying its candidate in the upcoming Presidential election, Donald Trump, as chosen by God to be elected president during the national election in November of this year.    

Of course the only people who will be impacted by such a prophetic prediction are those who are ardent Christian supporters of Mr. Trump.  If he wins, it will confirm the prediction.  If he loses, it will be (in the minds of his ardent supporters) because of a lack of faith in God, which is how ardent fundamentalism works in every religion; the prophetic prediction is never wrong, the people are.  

The wise are always in short supply, while the "ardent believer" is not hard to find and is there for the picking by an authoritarian who can plug into their blind trust in the authority of an apparent "strongman."  Such is the malleability of religion and the fickleness of the human mind.  

* * *

By in large, theistic religions don't encourage critical thinking.  Establishing an indoctrinated identity is the mode by which most theistic religions generally operate.  Like Abraham never being able to realize the promise of a Promised Land in his lifetime,  most theistic religions do not hold the promise of a promise land, a Nirvana, a heaven (or a hell) in this life.  Rather, they engage in a wait and see approach that depends  on whether a person merits some form of an afterlife or in many cases will be sent to a paradise or to a hell.  Theistic religion rarely allows for the possibility that we humans are capable of solving this world's (our) problems by addressing the evil or sin we create.  Instead, we are encouraged to defer to God and await a final judgment.

Raised an indoctrinated Christian, I understand the gravitational pull this has on one's life.  The promise of salvation based on believing in Jesus Christ dying for my and every other person's sins is mitigated by a host of "if, ands, and buts." The idea the some people are predestined to be saved while others, as the Gospel of John 3:18 puts it are "condemned already" because they don't believe promotes a sense of helplessness and hopelessness.   What an odd verse that is because, if people  are condemned already, what chance is it that they could ever believe and be saved?  There is no wiggle room in that declaration.  I personally do not believe Jesus said anything like that.   Such a statement is pure theological speculation, but it makes one wonder how many people have gone through life feeling condemned and hopeless because of it.  

Jesus' understanding of God was that of God being a loving father, and not just his father, but the Father of every living thing.  Jesus' teachings exhibits God's love for all creation, and in that love we humans have it within us the power of God to heal the world; that the Kingdom of God which he proclaimed  is attainable in this life if we would reach for it.  

* * *

For centuries, theistic religion was used by civil authorities as the purveyor of moral conduct which would ultimately carry out justice on the good and the evil.  Hope in the promise of an eternal life in some sort of paradise is the spiritual currency that has kept and keeps theism alive and well today, but this currency is losing value in an increasingly secular world; especially, when the moral leadership associated with theism is increasingly subject to scrutiny that frequently reveals a streak of hypocritical behavior within its ranks.

I am not suggesting that theistic religion will go away or that it should go away, but it could go away or be reduced to a cultic artifact as a primitive ideology.  The fact is people tend to be religious.   People need other people, which is the primary impulse to be religious.  

* * *

The concept of an indefinable God is not likely to go away.  I would suggest that what keeps the idea of God alive is its indefinability in search of a definition.  It is this indefinable property of God that keeps the term God relevant in our world.  God as the indefinable source and the metaphorical term for the Theory of Everything gives it a broad appeal in our search for meaning.  Theistic religion is slow to catch up with the reality that scientific discoveries necessitate a revision of its theologies.  What is becoming obvious is that it is not science that is playing at being God, but rather it is theistic religion that believes it speaks for God.

In my next post, I will examine the topic of GOD IN SCIENCE.

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

      

  

      

GOD

 God.  Whether one believes in "God" or doesn't, we talk a great deal about God.  Atheists are as obsessed with talking about God as theologians are; in the sense, of either arguing for or against the existence of God.  I have always thought the arguing against the existence of God makes one a theist as much as one who argues for the existence of God. It's simply a matter of having a negative or a positive opinion on the matter of God's existence.  

I'm not convinced that believing or disbelieving in the existence of God is the real issue that people are arguing about.  It seems to me that "God" is merely a term which is used to give identity to perceived and real problems related to theistic religion.   Atheists and theologians, alike,  are constantly addressing the problems that stem from theistic religion.  

* * *

When it comes to this word, "God,"  what are we talking about?   

Are we talking about a "who" or are we talking about a "what?"   

In theistic religion, God is understood as a "who;"  a being that is a totally separate entity from other beings like us humans. This concept of God gives God a personality or sees God as a person one can relate to.  This is the God of theistic religion, the God of theologians.    

God as a "what" is a metaphorical expression rather than theological ideal.  In a scientific understanding 'God' is a force or is a term that can be used to describe the indescribable; as in, the"Theory of Everything," (TOE) the creative and governing essence behind all that is.   In other words, God as a "what" is Einstein's God who doesn't play dice.

* * *

That being said, there is another way to look at these two versions of God using biblical terminology.  For instance the Holy Bible describes God as light and as love.  God as light resonates not only with the God of theologians but also with the metaphorical "God" of science.  This is the description of God as a "what," the mysterious creative energy born on light since the beginning of time that orders and brought everything that is into being and as the light of inspiration and revelation.   

God as love is the description of God that answers "who," the emotive and relational God that humans throughout the centuries claim to relate to on a personal level, a God who understands our personal needs and to whom one can appeal.  This is the God of religion, a God that stands apart from us humans yet watches over us and seeks a relationship with us.  This is the God of the Book, the Bible,  the Koran, and other ancient scriptures. 

* * *

God.  I find myself uncomfortable with the term and have struggled with thinking if there is something better than the term itself.  God is not a name.  It is an attribute that defines the active source that creates and sustains all that is. I sometimes use Being or Being-ness to describe this creative being in which every being is a part of.  

I like the description the Cretan prophet and poet, Epimenides, gave in his poem to Zeus, when he described Zeus as the "being in which we live, move, and have our being."  This the description the apostle Paul later used in his defense to the Athenians in Acts 17.  In a sense the answer to the questions of what God is and who God is the same, "Being" or "being."  

* * *

Astrophysics interests me.  I'm increasingly inclined to see the term "God" as a term used to describe the indescribable and inscrutable forces of the Cosmos that we seek to know.   At best I'm a layperson who doesn't understand the mathematical language physicists work with, but I am able to grasp, minimally, some of what they are talking about when it comes to the macro and micro cosmos we are part of.  

My first sense of such a world came to me one night while I was a student of what was then Concordia Senior College in Fr. Wayne Indiana, studying as pre-seminarian with the goal of becoming a Lutheran pastor.  When I was supposed to be studying Greek and Hebrew, I was laying in bed thinking about the universe, how our solar system and our galaxy resembles the atomic world of the human body; that perhaps our lives are really a part of a much larger life that we call the Universe.  At that point, I didn't know about quantum mechanics and only heard the term "relativity" without knowing what it meant.    

I recall thinking about the linearity of time, a thought which seemed to come out of no where.  I had no idea about the speed of light or it's connection to time.  It was in that moment that God as a being in which our small world and our much smaller lives were part of struck me as a possibility but it was hard for me to escape the gravitational pull of the religion that held me in place for most of my life, Christianity.  I believe this was the first time I was willing to intellectually entertain the idea that God was not an all powerful human-like being enthroned in a place called heaven with angels and archangels hovering around him.  In that moment, ironically, God became truly immense.  God became a universe or much bigger than the universe.  As such, God truly became beyond my ability to comprehend.  I recall feeling very small at that moment and somewhat trapped by the immensity of it all.

* * * 

Being at an age when most people's religious beliefs become solidified, I find myself in a quite different mind frame.  If anything, I'm skeptical about the long-held beliefs of my younger days; hence the title of my blog, The Faithful Agnostic.  I'm more in line with Bertrand Russell's thinking who said, "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." 

I still go to church, but the gravitational pull of dogmatic Christianity is considerably weak.  While Christian theology has been an interest of mine for a long time, I don't place much credibility in it or in any other religion's theology or philosophy.  Paradoxically, I'm comfortable with not knowing while remaining interested in finding out what there is to know.   I have a lot more questions now that I'm getting old than when I was younger.  Answers I come across generally result in more questions, and I'm quite comfortable with that.  

Unlike some avid atheists or evangelists, I'm not at all interested in changing a believer's viewpoint of the God they believe in or don't believe in.  I have friends who deeply believe in the concept of "God" they grew up with and grew old with.    As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't see God as the problem as it is what religion does under the guise or in the name of God.  

* * *

In future posts, I will expand on some of the topics I have raised here about God and religion, in general.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

CHRISTMAS 2023

Christmas is my favorite Christian celebration.  I basically celebrate it all year long in the sense the I am constantly playing Christmas music performed by my favorite choir, King's College Choir, in Cambridge UK, besides my other go-to musical selection of the entire works of Bach, which I cycle through during the year.  

Now some might find my attraction to Christmas a bit baffling.  Those who read my post are undoubtedly aware that I see the whole Christmas story as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as a myth - something that didn't actually happen the way it is portrayed in those Gospels.  I'm not going to go into all of why I believe that to be the case, only to say that I see myths as an attempt to get at something that is true about human nature and, in the case of the Christmas Myth, something true about all of humankind; that we are all the children of the that Being in which we live, move, and have our being - commonly referred to as God.   

What I like about Christmas is that it reveals our common aspirations for world peace and goodwill among all people.   Such aspirations transcend religious boundaries because at their core they are the aspirations  that most humans throughout the world share, whether one considers oneself religious or not.   

* * *

As a mythic story, the Christmas story transcends any sense or need to be understood as a historical event. There is something universal in its telling, as I mentioned earlier.  That is not to say it doesn't involve history.  It does.  It's our history told from an ancient biblical perspective. Jesus exemplifies the mythic meaning of our life stories.   When I think of the original Christmas story of Jesus' birth, I wonder how we would tell it in today's context.   

For example. the Palestinian Christians in Jesus' biblical birthplace, Bethlehem, have done just that this year.  With a war ravaging the Palestinian Gaza Strip, they canceled their traditional celebrations and instead created a moving and thought-provoking manger scene in the drab gray tones of the bombed out streets of Gaza.  The holy family is not in a manger, but in a amid the rubble of a street that many Palestinians in Gaza are living in today.  If memory serves me there is only one shepherd, not coming, but heading out, and one wise man whose gift appears to be a pall, suggesting the others are missing in action.  Mary holds the infant Jesus, but you can't see him. Is he alive, or did he become a sacrifice to war before he could minister to the world?  

What she is holding reminds me of the mothers and fathers in Gaza who are holding their slaughtered infants wrapped in the traditional white funeral sheeting, ready for burial.   For Christmas 2023, this is the most poignant message of Christmas and it begs the question how we might write the story of Jesus' birth today?   It seems to me that there are worse places to bring a newborn baby into the world than a manger with cattle and sheep and the presence of a caring and joyful mother and father.  What of the mothers who give birth to their babies in a back alley, a bombed out apartment with no one to help or a hospital that has lost power and is a target for attacks.   This year, Jesus being born in a barn, with his loving mother and father present and caring for him is both heartwarming and heartbreaking when considering how some children are being brought into the world today.

This Christmas has a Herodian feel to it.  The slaughter of innocent women and children continues out of a sense of revenge and outrage at the events of innocent Israelis being killed and taken hostage by militant Hamas terrorist on October 7.  The only safe place for the children of Gaza this Christmas, however, is Egypt, if allowed.  The irony of that should not be lost on any Christian or Israeli.  

* * *  

Mary's question to Gabriel, "How can this be?" takes on a new meaning in light of the war in Gaza, the Ukraine, and elsewhere around the world.  In the sense of the mindless dehumanizing and murderous behaviors that wars result in, Mary's question can be reduced to a one-word question, "Why?"   

The Christmas story's proclamation of Peace on Earth and Goodwill to all humankind is the template for diplomatic dialogue because if there is a universal meaning to be derived from the story of Jesus' birth it is that in his story we come to learn that we too, the whole of humankind are the children of God.  The angelic proclamation of  peace and goodwill on earth has always been and remains the trajectory of our evolution as a species.  We should take it to heart that peace and goodwill amongst all humankind is more than possible, it is a calling we should embrace, now more than ever.  

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

THE OBSOLESCENCE OF WAR - An Existential Mandate

As a few of you will have noticed, I already had posted something on this topic about at the beginning of this month. After having read it over a few times, I came to the conclusion that it did not adequately convey what I was trying to say.  In fact, I want to start over without reference to the current conflicts that are taking place all over the world.   I don't want to spend time talking about why we have wars or offer some vague sense of how we can avoid them, apart from understanding them in terms of being an existential crisis and the epitome of  humanity's moral failure on a global scale.  How something that is so irrational, so inhumane, and so evil became considered a right and a moral mandate owed to the people of a nation or tribe that justifies wreaking havoc and death on a perceived perpetrator because they perceived a right and a moral mandate that justified them to wreak havoc and death on their enemy is beyond rational comprehension.  

There is no point in tracing the lineage of war.  Every war in every place is connected even if they took place thousands of years and thousand of miles apart from each other are memetic.  The trauma, the anger, the hatred, the fear of another perceived to be different from one's tribe or nation are transferable.  As people spread across the planet they carried with them their memetic trauma of war wherever they went.  It has become so embedded in our collective memory and cultural history that war has been and remains a way of life.  Wars beget wars.   Just as humans are capable of creating climate change that can destroy life on this planet, we are more so the creators of war, which have the capacity to destroy life on the planet in the matter of a few hours or even minute.  If we can stop contributing to climate change, we can stop going to war. 

* * *

As mentioned above, I do not pretend to know how to make war obsolete.  As in my two previous posts I didn't pretend to know how to develop a moneyless economic system or establish world peace through world governance,  I believe these three topics are interrelated; in that, a world economic system and world governance are key to bringing about the obsolescence of war.  Am I talking about establishing some sort of utopian world, in which everyone and everything is on equal footing and everyone will naturally get along?  Not at all.  Utopianism had never accomplished anything except to get us to focus on how dystopian we can become.  To save the world from human greed and envy by providing for a just world in which war is never considered an answer to our differences is going to take a lot of time, a lot of commitment, a lot of hard work, and a great deal of patience amidst the inevitable setbacks in order to engrain forgiveness as the ultimate goal of diplomacy and justice which when established will better defang the terrorism of the one or of the many than to perpetuate retaliation.  

I do not expect to see such an accomplishment in our life-time or the lifetimes of our children or even our children's children.  Rather my purpose in bringing it to the attention of whoever reads these posts of its possibility and potential.  If something is not said, nothing will happen.   The first order of creating a new world is to speak it into existence.  The end of war is possible. Lasting peace is possible.   Saving the planet is possible.  Healing the sickness is possible.  Eliminating poverty is possible.   All is possible should we collectively and sincerely desire it.   It is both as simple as that and as difficult as that.   To accomplish such an Herculean feat is to accept with equanimity the paradoxes of life.  

* * *

We humans tend to underestimate ourselves; especially, in our capacity to do good without doing harm amidst the chaos of life.   In our diversity lies the untapped source of our vitality.  If we have learned anything over the centuries it is that diversity is an outcome of our creativity; that at the core of our being we are the same.  The differences we experience are largely perceptual than actual.   Take away sight and sound and one cannot perceive difference. The cultural differences we see and hear should be celebrated and embraced.  We should learn from each other to see the immense richness in the human resource that every human possesses. 

* * *

Making war obsolete, should be an existential mandate adopted by the people of every nation on this planet. We can never be truly free until we are free of the self-made horrors of war.  By war I do not only mean the global conflicts between nations or internecine war within nations but also the wars waged by individuals against other individuals.  Violence and cruelty by humans against humans can never be adequately quelled by condemning a perpetrator to the same.  

I realize that saying this appears irrational.  Having worked my entire adult life within state run mental health institutions, I have personally witnessed extreme violent and cruel behavior.  In fact having worked in such state run facilities, it dawned on me that I was working in a microcosm of all the dysfunction found outside of such institution's walls.  

The world as we experience it is easily recognizable as one large mad house where human unpredictability reigns supreme.  To make wars obsolete is not about making humans more predictable, but honing the ability to see the person in the problem.  I know what it is to be alone in a room with someone so unpredictable, whose impulsive behavior could lead to be personally attacked and viciously harmed; especially, in role as a human rights specialist, an advocate for individuals who felt in some way or other mistreated or misunderstood.  

The most important aspect of my job was to find the person in the patient and understand, to the best of my ability, what it was the patient was saying regardless of the inappropriate and often violent behaviors the patient was engaging in.  Once the person in the patient understood that I was trying to understand the person, the dynamics of the situation changed from dealing with a highly unpredictable patient to having a personal conversation with another human being.  This was nothing more than the art of diplomacy on a personal level.  

Having worked in such a microcosm of human behaviors, both the surprisingly good and the horrifically bad, I found hope in the human potential.   Wars of any sort can be and should be understood as both a global and civil illness.  We humans have a heightened sense of self-preservation that can act preemptively before understanding a situation.  That we have become comfortable with viewing war as inevitable as death itself should prompt us to change our perspective of it.  While medical science is constantly searching for better means to cure and treat disease, politicians are constantly seeking ways to make better weapons of war as a means to deter war.  To prepare for war is to ensure its inevitable occurrence. 

* * *

Religion has done little to discourage the idea that war is an inevitability.  Even Jesus talked about wars and rumors of wars as if war was an inevitable facet of human existence.  In fact, every religion use the language of war; as in, fighting the forces of evil in the world, even when it comes to being good as in Paul's exhorting early Christians to "fight the good fight."  The language of war is so embedded in Christian hymnody, for example, that everything good is a matter of having had to fight for it.     

The simple fact of the matter is that we humans have created war.  And if we have created war, it is within our capacity to put an end to it without having to destroy our world in the process. 

In a world where we see the terrible effects of war over the internet and news media, we should not allow ourselves to be mere observers of someone else's suffering as if we are immune from what we see and hear.  And see it we must for war will inevitably come to us, wherever we are.  We must consider the pain, the taste of destruction, the smell of death, the toll of fear, and to lose sleep over those who have lost the warmth of their beds and feel the pain of hunger with those who scrounge for food to eat and feed their loved ones.

We must learn to see our face in the face of the homeless, the hungry, and the fearful.  Unless we see the person in the victim of war and human violence we will not address and treat the cause.   If human life and life on this planet is to be preserved, then the obsolescence of war must be an existential mandate embraced by all humans.

* * * 

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm