It's all about time

I find it interesting that in all the New Testament and subsequent comment, the name ‘Jesus’ (the Romanised vision of his name) is used in preference to  his proper Jewish name ‘Yeshua’ i.e. Joshua.

Why?  I can understand that the Romans might have felt that Jesus was a suitable Roman translation of the name, but surely we could manage better than that, particularly as there is a good reason to use the ‘English’ version as it appears elsewhere in the Bible.  Or better still, why not use the original Jewish ‘Yeshua’ to distinguish between the new and the old Joshua.

The previous ‘Joshua’, who is the subject of one whole book of the Old Testament, was the person who led the Jewish nation into the physical promised land.  The new Joshua (Jesus) is the one who has lead his followers into the spiritual promised land.

Having said that, it is quite unlikely that the name Jesus will be changed because the weight of history and the use of that name in so many languages and publications.  However, recognition of the link between the old and new testaments of the old physical promised land and the new spiritual promised land needs to be better recognised.

 

It is said that ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel’.

Perhaps we should add that blasphemy is the last refuge of the desperate cleric.

My thoughts about blasphemy have been prompted by recent events in Poland as well as not so recent ones in Indonesia and others in Pakistan and so on down through the ages.  The definition of blasphemy is sacrilege or disrespect for God.  But it is the religious institution that defines, directly or indirectly, what that sacrilege or disrespect is.

It is interesting that religious institutions see it as necessary to protect (its) God’s reputation.   Even though they claim that God is almighty and all powerful and therefore more than capable of protecting Him/itself!  Indeed, one might go so far as to suggest that notion of blasphemy involves presuming to take over God’s prerogative to deal with any such sacrilege Him/ itself.  The notion that God needs puny people to  protect Him/itself is laughable in itself.  And the notion that God might need a religious institution as an agent of retribution is no better..

So, if blasphemy is not actually about protecting God, what is it about?  It seems to me it is about protecting the power and control of the religious institution which is at the heart of the application of blasphemy laws.

For me,  the resort to charges of blasphemy is an attempt by religious institutions to suppress dissent when they come under challenge from individuals and/or other religions/organisations that disagree with them.  Blasphemy laws are a way of striking back when the institution can not sustain a convincing argument in its defence.

A critical point is that blasphemy charges can only be prosecuted when a religious institution has the ability to apply sanctions directly itself or when the state  legislates laws which apply those sanctions for it .  In effect, a charge of blasphemy is about the preservation of worldly power and has nothing to do with sacrilege or respect for God.

 

 

 

WHY DOESN’T GOD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT?

How often do you hear someone say ‘Why doesn’t God do something about that?’ Or, for that matter, how often do you think that yourself?

That is a question that has been asked since time immemorial. It hangs in the air unanswered: a plea, an accusation, a never-ending source of frustration.

I heard it myself just the other day from a friend as we were discussing pain. The usual answer of our free will came up. God just lets us get on with things and that includes all those unspeakable things that we do to one another. But that didn’t seem entirely satisfactory. Surely there must be limit to what God would put up with?

Anyway, it was too abstract. There didn’t seem to be any direct connection between individual free will and God’s failure to act in those horrendous things that evoke the question. And God answers prayer (sometimes) so why wouldn’t God act to stop what is patently awful.

So God is not above interfering in human affairs. Then why doesn’t God do something about those terrible things that happen, like the Holocaust, and the other genocides that are still occurring. And then there are those terrible natural disasters, such as the Indian Ocean and Japanese tsunamis. Surely God doesn’t actually want these things to happen?

I spoke to my friend about God’s suffering with those who were affected. Not just knowing about the suffering but actually experiencing the suffering with them. Did that somehow mitigate God’s culpability? It seemed to help, but I knew that it wasn’t a really satisfactory answer. After all, the people were still suffering something that God could have prevented.

I tried another tack. Wasn’t suffering just a necessary complement to joy? Without suffering, there couldn’t be any real joy? Joy would just be the ‘natural’ state of things, and without anything to compare it with, we would just think nothing of it.

I wasn’t so sure about that. How could one become immune to the thrill of joy? But then again how do we become immune to the wonder of the sky, and the air, and light, and birth?

It all seemed to be getting rather complicated, so I fell back on good old scripture. Job. That was the answer! The standard answer! God was too big to be questioned. You just can’t understand. ‘My ways are not your ways says the Lord.’ It’s all a mystery.

That seemed rather more satisfactory but, as my friend pointed out, that required a certain amount of faith. What if one didn’t have that sort of faith? People could believe in God and still want an answer that was more than just acceptance. Didn’t we have anything better to say to those people?

How would God do something about that?

So I got to thinking about some other way of looking at the problem.

What if God were to ‘do something about that’? What would that involve?

My friend had been watching a TV program that depicted the awful suffering of Napoleon’s soldiers as they retreated from Moscow. That suffering had evoked anger and ‘the question’. So I imagined, in that particular instance what God might have done.

For a start, the Russians had suffered a great deal also. So simply alleviating the suffering of Napoleon’s soldiers was not an answer in itself. What would be needed would be something wider than that. It would have to include the Russians as well. And not just soldiers but also the civilians who had suffered as much or more. Otherwise God would be playing favourites in suffering.

So really, God would have had to prevent the whole military campaign. In other words, to alleviate the suffering of Napoleon’s soldiers would involve changing the whole course of history.

But that, in itself, creates a quandary. How do we know that ‘history’ hasn’t been changed as a result of God’s interference? The history we have is what it is. We do not have alternatives to compare it with, unless one gives undue authority to sheer speculation. We have no way of knowing what God has done in historical terms (that is setting aside the bible and personal testimonies for the moment).

How do we know that things could not be much worse than they are? All we seem to be saying is that God shouldn’t have allowed the suffering that we are aware of. That is a very compassionate approach but where does one draw the line? Who is going to make the decision about what suffering is admissible and what is not? Is one death too many? A thousand? A million? It all depends on how it affects us. As newspaper editors might say, one death in the family is worse that a hundred in the town, a thousand in the country, and a million overseas. Is the criterion that God should allow no suffering at all?

Whose prayers to answer?

And then we have the problem of conflicting prayers.

In the example of Napoleon and the Russians, one could be sure that there were people praying for the soldiers of both sides. In just the same way, in the Second World War and probably every conflict, people have prayed for opposite outcomes. The answer to one set of prayers must inevitably be the denial of the other set.

While not every prayer is matched by an equal an opposite one, an answer to each prayer almost invariably has effects beyond those immediately involved. If we pray for someone who is ill and they get better, then they go on to do all sorts of things that they would not otherwise do (for good or ill). If we pray for something for ourselves, for example a particular job, and get it; then someone else does not get that job.

It is difficult to think of a prayer that does not have consequences beyond our immediate sphere. In most instances we have little or no idea of the total consequences of answered prayer.

So when we pray we are often praying blindly. We know what we want but we do not know how that might affect others. We have no way of knowing whether an answer to our prayer might ultimately mean a greater pain or loss for someone else.

And how would you check that it was God that was answering prayer

Even now there are scientific experiments going on to check the efficacy of prayer. In typical scientific manner, experiments are set up with groups of people praying for specific things, outcomes being measured, control groups, etc.

One problem is that if it were a truly scientific experiment it would be laughable. Why is that? Well if one considers a truly scientific experiment, all the possible variables have to be measurable, and preferably held constant, while the one variable one is interested in is manipulated. It is no good having the temperature, or pressure, any other variable changing while one is trying to sort out the effect of something else in a physics experiment.

Now, with prayer, in the experiments being conducted, it seems to be assumed that all prayer is the same, even though we know that is not the case. The prayer of Jesus was infinitely more effective than that of his apostles, and that of the apostles was greater than that of the priests of the day. So the efficacy of prayer depends to a great extent on who is doing the praying. Not only that but the state of those around at the time also has an effect. Remember, even Jesus could not preform many miracles in his own town because of the unbelief of those who knew him.

The faith of the person praying and the faith of the one being prayed for are significant factors in the efficacy of prayer.

So if one were to do a proper ‘scientific’ prayer experiment, one would have to be able to measure (and hopefully be able to vary controllably) the faith of all those involved. I can’t imagine how one might do that, since faith itself is essentially unquantifiable.

At its very heart, a scientific experiment about prayer is not possible because the variables (and particularly the essential ones) are not measurable or controllable.

So where does that leave us?

No Answers

My conclusion is that there is an inherent flaw in the question itself. Does the question involve God doing something about what is bothering me, or my friend, or of some group or other? Or is it more generally concerned with the pain and suffering that exists in the world as a whole? Are we questioning why God hasn’t made the world a perfect place or are we being specific and selective? Are we asking God to intervene at some threshold of pain or evil or disaster? None of that makes sense if examined critically, as in relation to prayer.

So what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to simply ignore the events that cause us to wonder about God’s judgement? Are we to suppose there is no God because these things happen? Or are we to accept the Job position? These are all possibilities but none of them entirely addresses the pain and bewilderment in the question. Perhaps the question might be better put as ‘Dear God I feel for those people in their suffering. Why do these things have to happen? Aren’t you supposed to be more compassionate than that? Surely there is a better way?’

To those questions I have no answers.

Occasionally people pooh pooh the Genesis account of creation by saying that modern science proves that the earth could not have been created in seven days.

By which, of course, they mean seven normal days on earth.  Even if that is what is meant, that assumes that days on earth are all the same; and they are not.

Putting aside any minor variations, the earth’s rotation is slowing.  So a day now is longer than a day a thousand years ago.

And of course, if we go back millions of years then the change in the length of a ‘day’ is measured in hours!  And so on, so a day is not a constant.

In fact, if one goes all the way back to the creation of the earth and the cosmos, as Genesis does, the length of a day becomes essentially meaningless except to simply imply some passage of time.  And instead of that time measuring how long it took for these events to occur, the events themselves become the measure of time.

So, as another part of the bible puts it, ‘With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day’.

Where did Jesus go, and where is he now?  Of course, the standard answer would be ‘in heaven’, but what does that actually mean?  Especially if we consider the time between Jesus’s resurrection and his ascension, when he came and went from the presence of the disciples in inexplicable ways.  Where did he go, physically, in between times.  Presumably, to heaven?

If Jesus came and went from heaven then in bodily form, does that mean that heaven is an actual, physical place?  That might fit in with some aspects of scripture but not with others.  And does that mean that Jesus is presently in a physical heaven in bodily form waiting to return to earth (our universe?) at the Second Coming?  And is that physical heaven a replica of our physical world, only ‘somewhere else’?

It is all very difficult once one goes beyond the simple notion that heaven is somewhere else that is inexplicable and mysterious.  Certainly there are many mysteries in the Christian faith (and all faiths).  But is it good enough to simply assign Jesus’s present whereabouts to the realm of mystery?  After all aren’t we promised that we will go there too!

I wish it were that simple, and I could safely tuck the whole question of heaven and Jesus’s whereabouts away as a mystery.  Unfortunately, the question keeps coming back and I want a better answer.

My present answer lies in the notion of time.  Wherever Jesus (and heaven) is, it is not shackled to our time.  It is totally independent of our world although it is linked to it.  So when Jesus leaves/left our world and returns to it, that does not need to have any relationship to the events of our world.  Jesus can step in and out of our time anywhere he chooses so to speak.  He is not carried along by time; just as God is not carried along by time.  So Jesus can depart from our world at any given point and ‘instantaneously’ reappear at any other point (even millennia apart) without spending any ‘time’ elsewhere.  So, in a sense, Jesus’ bodily form hasn’t gone any where; it is simply transferring instantaneously from one point of time in our world to another.

So the question of Jesus’ whereabouts is essentially tied to the parameters of our physical world.  The moment we depart from these limits to our world (especially time) this question ceases to have any real meaning.  Once more we return to a sort of mystery; but one that perhaps is a little more understandable.

 

 

Eternity is not just time going on and on and on. It is the sum total of all that is, was, and will be.

And the present is like a wavefront moving through that multidimensional eternity.

For a more extensive exposition, see Chapter 7 of “It’s About Time’.

It’s time to put an end to science’s demands for proof from religion/faith.

For a start, the very criteria by which science accepts proof: repeatability, independent verification, etc would, if met, remove any religious matter from the area of religion and place it squarely in the province of science. Any scientific proof, or attempted proof, would ‘ipso facto’ place the matter in the arena of science. So the demand for scientific proof amounts to no more than a covert assertion that science is the arbiter of all things. It would be confirmation that science cannot ‘accept’ anything beyond its own realm.

For example, should experiments concerning the efficacy of prayer ever meet the scientific requirements for proof, science could then claim that prayer was a ‘natural’ phenomenon. Scientists would/should then seek to find the ‘active ingredient’ in prayer; some particular brain wave pattern perhaps, as a part of normal scientific endeavour. Science could pursue the whole area in an attempt to use prayer for ‘useful’ ends.

I wonder how science would respond if it were asked to justify itself in religious/faith terms? It would see that as a ridiculous notion. Perhaps, rightly, because science is simply not equipped to operate in those terms but, more likely, because it just cannot (by definition?) acknowledge anything outside of science.

Let us not confuse ourselves by thinking that either science or religion can place demands on the other. However, that does not prevent individuals from understanding where each belongs.

One of the impediments to people believing in God is why s/he allows suffering. It is a good question and has not been satisfactorily answered, though various explanations are offered.

However, it is worth looking at how God is involved in suffering to come to a better perspective on the subject. Most people assume that God somehow stands aside and dispassionately watches suffering but I contest that understanding.

If we accept that God is omnipotent and omniscient then it follows that there is nothing that God does not know about: not only in the material world but in the spiritual and emotional world as well. If God is to comprehend everything then s/he must not only ‘see’ what we see and ‘hear’ what we hear but also ‘feel’ what we feel both physically and emotionally, as well as ‘thinking’ our thoughts. God cannot be truly God if s/he somehow lacks this complete knowledge in relation to every living thing.

So when we (and all living things) suffer, God not only knows all ‘about’ that suffering but also ‘feels’ that suffering to the degree that we do. Otherwise God would lack the total knowledge that is essential to being God.

Consequently, while the mystery of why God allows suffering remains, the unanswered question should be tempered by the knowledge that God also completely experiences all that suffering. What I suffer, God suffers with me. Not only that but God ‘feels’ the suffering of the whole world from the smallest thing to the largest.

While that may be of little consolation to us, it surely puts God’s relationship with suffering in a new light. It also sheds light on God’s involvement with the suffering of Jesus himself.

It is often stated that the primary question is whether people believe in God or not. But I suggest that the primary question is whether or not people believe only in the physical, material world.

I do not consider this to be a trivial suggestion, because the jump from nothing to God is often too big a jump for people to make. It is much more sensible to confront people with the simple choice of whether or not the material world is all there is.

In discussing my faith with a group of friends who were somewhat mystified by it, I realised that fundamentally they could not come to grips with anything other than this physical world.

I could see that, while they were not dismissive of my belief, they simply could not comprehend that there might be something more that this world.. And I sympathise with that. There are times when I sometimes wonder if I am not the one who is deluded.

If one believes there is nothing beyond the purely physical/material then the question of God (or anything spiritual for that matter) simply does not arise. And that is effectively the end of the conversation unless one is prepared to attempt to try to change that point of view.

If one believes that there is something beyond the physical world then various possibilities arise.

It is only by examining these possibilities that one can then raise the question of God.

The position of there being nothing other than the material world automatically infers atheism though the reverse is not necessarily true. It is logically possible to accept that there are forces at work beyond the material world that are not God(s) but merely blind, undiscriminating powers. As such they would be beyond being influenced in any way and, consequently, not within the normal understanding of a god.

It is only when one has considered these possibilities that one can logically move on to conclude whether or not there could be ‘a’ God or gods.

Thus the primary question is, perhaps, the nature of pre-evangelism.

It’s About Time – When Science Meets Religion

It’s about time this conflict between science and religion came to an end.

I am sure that the great majority of people accept both science and religion (or at least some spirituality) and there is no need for this rancorous debate to go on.

The bridge between them lies in a proper understanding of the nature of time itself.  Time is not absolute and is tied to the existence of the universe.  This has been accepted scientifically since Einstein.

In addition, both science and religion have their own area of application and each complements the other.

Very briefly, at the Big Bang (Creation) not only did matter and space come into existence but also time came into existence as well. Without matter and space, time cannot exist. Try this little thought experiment. You are in the ‘void’ before creation. You close your eyes and then you open them again. How much time has passed? A nanosecond? A billion years? In fact there is no time because nothing has changed; there is nothing to change!

And since (if?) God made time along with matter and space then God is not bound to time like you and I. God simply ‘is’ simultaneously in the past the present and the future. That reality has significant implications for notions of predestination and prophesy, just to mention two religious concepts.

But formal religion is largely stuck in a medieval mindset, seeking all answers in scripture and ignoring the insights that modern science has to offer.

As for science, it is not on as solid a foundation as it might appear. The deeper it goes the more mysterious it becomes. Quantum mechanics and the principles of uncertainty, at the most fundamental levels of particle physics, have resulted in strange possibilities such as other dimensions and universes. Science’s certainties are melting away and it is becoming increasingly clear that it cannot save the world.

People are now stranded; removed from God by outdated religious notions, but left behind by increasingly incomprehensible science. Now more than ever we need our lives to be brought into harmony if we are to find the wholeness that we all crave.

Perhaps my book ‘It’s About Time’ might help to consider a number of other implications of the nature of time and science as well.