The Love Series: God is All-Knowing and All-Powerful

Last week, we talked about the importance of establishing a sound foundation for our ideological frameworks and we established what it means when we say that God is love. God’s love for us isn’t limited to God having the “warm and fuzzies” when we obey a long list of do’s and don’ts. God’s love for us is the very essence of who He is and everything He does is rooted in that love.

This week, we’re going to go over what I believe to be the other two most important aspects of who God is: His omniscience and His omnipotence.

Omniscience

“The Bible teaches that God is all-knowing or omniscient. The word “omniscient” comes from two Latin words omnis signifying all, and scientia signifying knowledge. When we say that God is omniscient it means that He has perfect knowledge of all things. He does not have to learn anything and He has not forgotten anything. God does not have to reason things out, find out things, or learn them gradually. He knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. God also knows every potential thing that might happen. God even knows those things that humankind has yet to discover. This knowledge is absolute and unacquired. The omniscience of God means that He has perfect knowledge, perfect understanding, and perfect wisdom as to how to apply the knowledge.”

Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed (1 Samuel 2:3)

O LORD, you have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from far away. You search out my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, O LORD, you know it completely. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is so high that I cannot attain it (Psalm 139:1-6).

Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5).

Known to God from eternity are all his works (Acts 15:18).

Omnipotence

“When we speak of God being omnipotent or all-powerful we must understand exactly what that means. It means that God is able to do anything that is consistent with His holy character. He is not able to lie, do anything sinful, or do anything that is logically impossible. This does not limit His power. He can do everything that is holy and wise.”

Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out,

“Hallelujah!
For the Lord our God
    the Almighty reigns. Revelation 19:6

Come and see the works of God; he is awesome in his doing toward the sons of men. He turned the sea into dry land; they went through the river on foot . . . he rules by his power forever; his eyes observe the nations; do not let the rebellious exalt themselves (Psalm 66:5-7).

But Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for me? (Jeremiah 32:27).

“Omnipotence does not mean God cannot exercise self-limitation. God cannot contradict His nature or the nature of things as they are. It is not possible for God to either lie or to die. Neither can He make two plus two equal five.

The biblical God has limited Himself only to acts that are consistent with His righteous, loving character. Therefore, God’s power is self-restrained. He cannot do evil and He cannot do anything irrational. He cannot go back upon His word. He is all-powerful when it comes to doing things that are right, but He has no power to do things wrong.”

The Big Picture

You’re probably wondering why all of that is so important. Personally, I wholeheartedly believe that God is unconditional love, that He is all-knowing, including having foreknowledge, and that God is all-powerful. The overwhelming majority of what I disagree with regarding traditional Christianity conflicts with either God being love, God being all-knowing, and/or God being all-powerful. Too much of what is generally accepted, from how we view the cross to how we view sin and salvation, can’t truly be reconciled with who God is supposed to be. Before we get into debunking some of the flaws in the reasoning those things are based on, there has to be a consensus on who God is, and if anything should inflexible, it’s that. If God is x, then y must be true. And if God is NOT x, then y CANNOT be true. No exceptions. No excuses. 

So there you have it: the foundation, and I actually don’t think any of those concepts are especially controversial in theory. The problems arise when we try to apply them practically to established doctrine and what’s already been accepted as true. In my opinion, the biggest hurdle to accepting these traits at face value is how we conceptualize sin. 

I think a lot of people view God’s response to sin as being reactionary, i.e. God had a plan, humans messed up the plan, and God had to send His Son to die and save us from ourselves. But I don’t worship a reactionary God. I worship a God of power, love, foreknowledge and intention. And if God is not reactionary, if God had the power to prevent sin from ever existing, if God created humanity despite knowing what the consequences of creating humanity would be….the question is….why?

Tune in next week to find out!

The Love Series: God is Love

We all have ideological frameworks, which are networks of information that form our belief systems and our values. Once an ideological framework is built, it’s incredibly difficult to alter it without conscious effort. If we’re not careful, our brains may even be inclined to automatically reject information that seems to conflict with what we already believe to be true. 

Learning is the process of acquiring new, or modifying existing, knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, or preferences. Often times, learning something new is as much about unlearning old information as it is about processing or modifying your ideological framework based on new information. 

With that in mind, the first step toward TRULY understanding Godly, unconditional love is unlearning. This could mean unlearning the idea that unconditional love is weakness. It could mean unlearning the idea that unconditional love means doing whatever you want or letting other people do whatever they want, no matter who it hurts. It could mean unlearning belief in behavioral justification. Whatever it is that you have to unlearn, the goal is to level your ideological framework and rebuild it from the ground up…starting with resting your spiritual foundation on two things: one, that God IS unconditional love (meaning that love is literally the essence and most important part of who God is); and two, that love is the ultimate test of discipleship.

So let’s start with unlearning. What do you already believe? Personally, I’d been taught that God loved me, but that God hated the sinfulness that was inherent to my humanity. I was taught that sinlessness was perfection and that I was supposed to strive toward sinlessness. After all, all things are possible through Christ and His goal was to help me get to a place where I didn’t sin anymore. 

The problem with that was that God’s love wasn’t the bottom line. God’s love was an afterthought, an exception, rather than the rule. The “rule”, as it turned out, was justification, either through righteousness by works or righteousness by faith. It just depended on who you asked. 

Righteousness by works is more in line with the teachings of Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Methodist Christians. They distinguish between initial justification, which ordinarily is viewed to occur at baptism; and final salvation, which is accomplished after a lifetime of striving to do God’s will. Catholics believe faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man. Forgiveness of sin exists and is infused, but justification can be lost by mortal sin.

Righteousness by faith is a Protestant doctrine, under which sin is considered to be merely “covered”, and righteousness imputed. In Lutheranism and Calvinism, righteousness from God is viewed as being credited to the sinner’s account through faith alone, without works. Protestants believe faith without works can justify man because Christ died for sinners. There’s one big “but”, though: anyone who truly has faith will produce good works as a product of faith, as a good tree produces good fruit. For Lutherans, justification can be lost with the loss of faith.

Whether by faith or by works, justification is important. To most Christians, all of that sounds perfectly logical, and the concept of righteousness isn’t the issue in itself. The problem is reconciling what we already believe about righteousness with God’s essence being unconditional love. And I mean honestly reconciling it, not twisting unconditional love to fit the pre-established narrative.  And an even more important question is whether that’s even how it works in the first place. Should I be reconciling who God is with what I already believe God wants? Or should I first take the time to discover and establish who God is and THEN use that as a basis for determining what God wants?

I believe that we have to start by establishing who God is, and I believe that the three most important Biblical truths regarding who God is are: God is omniscient, God is omnipotent, and God is unconditional love. Today, we’re talking about love.

God Is Love

Theologian A.W. Tozer once stated, “Nothing God ever does, or ever did, or ever will do, is separate from the love of God.”

1 John 4:7-12 

Agape is a Greco-Christian term referring to love, “the highest form of love, charity” and “the love of God for man and of man for God”.The word embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance. It goes beyond just the emotions to the extent of seeking the best for others. 

Within Christianity, agape is considered to be the love originating from God or Christ for humankind. In the New Testament, it refers to the covenant love of God for humans, as well as the human reciprocal love for God; the term necessarily extends to the love of one’s fellow man. 

“While the person who loves ‘is born of God and knows God,’  the person who doesn’t love doesn’t know God and has no deep and abiding relationship with God.  Love, then, is the acid test of discipleship.” – Sermon Writer Bible Commentary

1 Corinthians 13:8-13

Romans 8:31-39

It’s imperative to get the foundation right, because everything anyone believes is ultimately based on what that person believes about who God is. We should be able to ask ourselves, “Would a loving God do this?” and give an objective answer rather than trying to explain why something that intuitively contradicts love somehow still constitutes love. We should be able to examine our beliefs and their origins with integrity and objectively determine whether those beliefs align with who we say we believe God to be. 

If love is the essence of God’s character, if everything God does is out of love, if love is the greatest commandment and nothing can separate us from God’s love….love should be the foundation, not an exception. We shouldn’t be looking for any reason or excuse to conform love to something that fits what we already believe to be true. We should be willing to strip away fear and conditioning and worldliness….take a step back from what we think we know….and build from the ground up, examining our beliefs through the lens of God’s love and determining whether what we say God wants is a reflection of who we want people to believe God is. 

This week, I challenge you to ask God to break down your ideological framework and strip away what you think you know. I challenge you to ask God to reveal Himself to you in ways that only He can and to expand your mind and open your heart to allowing Him to be as big in your life as He possibly can be. I challenge you to ask God to move you out of His way and to give Him permission to do a new thing. I challenge you to ask God to remove any fear and to help you embrace the spirit of power, love, and a sound mind. 

Biphobia, “Preferences” and Why Personal Accountability is the Answer

By Kara M. Young

If you’ve been on social media within the last couple of weeks, you know that Netflix’s “Love is Blind” has taken the internet by storm, not only because of “The Experiment”, but also because, *Spoiler Alert*, male bisexuality seemingly ruined one of the relationships. This sparked a Twitter firestorm and #BisexualMenExist has been trending. In particular, people have been debating whether or not it’s “biphobic” for people to “prefer” to date someone who is not bisexual. It got my wheels turning, and I think this discussion illustrates an issue a lot of us talk about, but few of us seem to fully grasp: preferences.

Society has taken a turn towards broader inclusion and representation of demographics who have previously been relegated to the fringes. This has been met with both praise and criticism, but one of the mostly hotly debated aspects of the conversation has been acceptance and inclusion on a personal level, particularly with regard to romantic relationships. Things that were previously viewed as mere “preferences” are now being associated with the negative stereotypes and biases against certain groups that have been perpetuated by society. On the one hand, many agree that it is important to address personal biases that cause one to have an irrational aversion to certain characteristics. However, many people feel attacked when what they feel are harmless preferences are labeled as being rooted in bigotry, patriarchy, misogyny, phobias, self-hate, ignorance, etc. Preferences in favor of marginalized characteristics are less likely to be criticized and, generally speaking, the most vocal opponents of a given preference are those whom the preference excludes.

The biggest question in my mind when I encounter these debates is, “What do we do about it?” I think a lot of conversations are had about a lot of things but, in my opinion, very few of those conversations end with practical solutions that make sense for everyone. For example, we can acknowledge that it’s wrong to mistreat or exclude people from entertainment and media solely based on what they look like or who they love, but how does acknowledging that and re-working the system ultimately change what people believe or feel towards others? Fun Fact: the Supreme Court kind of addressed this in Shelley v. Kraemer. In Shelley, a Black family sued after buying a house that came with a restrictive covenant that did not allow Black or Asian people to occupy the property. The court held that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause doesn’t allow states to enforce racially discriminatory housing covenants. However, the court also held that private parties could abide by the terms of racially restrictive covenants. Essentially, the government isn’t supposed to be racist, but people can be, and while the government can protect its citizens to an extent, it can’t change what’s in someone’s heart or mind. Society can’t really do that, either. We can bully people into silence, but we can’t make them appreciate or agree with things they’re dead-set against supporting. If anything, bullying the bullies just creates resentment and makes them double-down on the negative views they already have.

So what can we do? For starters, we can inform ourselves and take the time to understand the differences between preferences and biases, phobias, bigotry, etc. Next, we can self-evaluate and figure out what about someone else’s opinion makes us feel insecure and what our own preferences and biases are. Lastly, we may not be able to change other people, but we can work on ourselves and impact the people around us and the spaces we occupy.

What are “preferences” versus what makes a person “phobic”?

Preferences and phobias are not the same thing, but sometimes they’re used interchangeably for the sake of making a point, so let’s clarify: phobic means “having or involving an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something”; a preference is “a greater liking for one alternative over another or others.” Now, let’s illustrate using the conversation surrounding biphobia as an example. Biphobia is an “aversion toward bisexuality and toward bisexual people as a social group or as individuals. It can take the form of denial that bisexuality is a genuine sexual orientation, or of negative stereotypes about people who are bisexual (such as the beliefs that they are promiscuous or dishonest).” A preference is a greater liking for heterosexuality over bisexuality, homosexuality, etc. There is a difference, however, it is possible for preferences to be informed by or based on an irrational aversion to certain characteristics based on negative stereotypes, bias, ignorance, etc. This is often demonstrated by people using negative stereotypes or other statements rooted in bias/ignorance as a basis for justifying or explaining their preferences.

Continuing to use biphobia as an example and based on the definitions we now have of preferences versus phobias, it’s fair to conclude that it is not inherently biphobic to prefer to be with someone who is heterosexual. However, it is biphobic to allow stigma and ignorance to inform your preferences, and that’s an important distinction to make. For example, saying “My religious beliefs don’t align with the beliefs of someone who feels comfortable living that lifestyle and being in spiritual alignment with my partner is important to me” or “I’m heterosexual and I want to be with someone who is heterosexual” is not the same as saying   “I can’t be with a bisexual man because he’s obviously a closeted gay man who’d probably end up cheating on me with men and infecting me with HIV (I know that sounds harsh, but it’s a summation of some of the more common myths associated with bisexual men).”

The takeaway is that you can have preferences and like who you like without perpetuating stereotypes and bigotry as a means of justifying your preferences. That applies to everyone and everything, not just biphobia.

The Big Picture

Taking what we just learned about preferences and phobias and applying them more broadly, I think it’s important to take a hard look at how and why we convolute the two. Often times, it appears that people immediately get defensive at any expression of a preference that doesn’t include them or any criticism of people they share certain characteristics with, automatically being offended by it….but that’s not really fair, is it? First, why do so many of us have such a “knee-jerk” reaction to hearing that there’s something about us that someone else doesn’t like? What causes that? And is it that person’s fault for saying how they feel, or is something going on inside of us that sparks a visceral response? Second, why assume the preference is rooted in something negative? Or, even if it’s clear that the preference is rooted in something negative, what does that mean for you? Are you bothered by it because this particular person’s preference actually impacts your life? Are you bothered by it because you’re taking it personally? Are you bothered by it because it speaks to old wounds caused by someone else? And what can you actually do about any of it? Are you managing your expectations and being honest with yourself about what is actually within your power to change/control, or are you investing your time, energy, and emotions into responses/solutions that ultimately won’t address what’s going on inside of you and/or make you feel better?

These questions are important to consider because the answers have serious implications on how we address issues of inclusion and what we require from others versus what we require from ourselves. Inclusion and acceptance are important, especially systemically, but taking it to extremes on an interpersonal level suggests that everyone has to be open to involvement with anyone who might be interested in having a relationship with them (this can apply to platonic relationships, too) because there aren’t any “valid” reasons for preferring one characteristic over other alternatives. That doesn’t sound like too much fun, does it? Because the truth is that, if we’re being honest with ourselves, we all have preferences. We all have biases. We all have things that we are and are not attracted to and things that we are and are not willing to bring into our everyday lives and spaces. And maybe most importantly, we all have things about us that someone somewhere probably doesn’t like. At what point do we decide to own who we are rather than looking for outside validation and start appreciating the people and the spaces that make room for us as we are? Or if those people or those spaces don’t exist, creating them rather than trying to force our way into places where we aren’t wanted?

It’s a lot to think about lol but that brings us to the accountability piece. How do all of the questions and all of the thinking translate to change? First, acceptance is the initial step. You have to accept that you aren’t for everyone and everyone isn’t for you and that is OKAY. Second, you have to ask yourself some questions and give yourself some honest answers, because those answers will give you clarity for the last step, which is: figuring out what you have to do to heal and move forward and then doing it.

The Solution: Personal Accountability

As has already been stated, You can’t change other people; you can only change yourself. It may seem a bit cliché to say, but it’s true. We can’t make other people be different or do better, but we CAN heal, we CAN set an example by holding ourselves to a higher standard, and we CAN show compassion towards others because we understand that personal accountability is a journey, not a destination.

Healing requires accepting that you’re responsible for your own healing. It’s nice to receive apologies or to have our feelings validated, but we can’t put our own healing on hold while we wait for someone else to acknowledge that they’ve mistreated us. That day may never come, meanwhile we’re stuck at a standstill because we’re looking outside of ourselves for something we can decide to overcome on our own. Personally, I usually only find myself getting defensive when someone touches on something I’m already insecure about. If I’m not insecure, I usually don’t care, because my emotions or my past pain aren’t clouding my view and I’m able to see that that person’s opinion isn’t personal, or even when it is, it has no bearing on my reality. I’ve really had to learn to be intentional about focusing less on what someone else said or did and focusing more on why it made me feel the way it did and what I can do on my end to avoid feeling that way in the future. Healing takes back your power. It allows you to refrain from getting defensive about things that aren’t personal and that most likely don’t actually matter in the context of YOUR life. It allows you to have clarity on situations where bias and phobias are exhibited, which enables you to address those things effectively, in a way that generates real solutions rather than mere catharsis. To be clear, I am NOT saying that we shouldn’t speak out against injustice, bigotry, hate, ignorance, etc. I AM saying that lashing out at people in anger/pain has proven to be ineffective. It often just serves to make things worse. There are ways to firmly and clearly communicate that something is wrong without attacking and alienating your audience. Also, keeping a clear head enables you to keep things in perspective, i.e. does it really matter if I don’t fit a specific person’s preference? Is this someone I really want to be involved with, especially given the information I have on their feelings toward characteristics that apply to me?

Personal accountability also means holding yourself to the same standards you hold others to. You can’t expect to receive a love and respect that you don’t give. You can’t perpetuate negative stereotypes or bigotry toward others and then be upset when someone else does the same to you. You can’t reserve the right to have your own preferences about what you do or do not like and then be upset when someone else has preferences that exclude you. Again, you’re not for everyone and everyone isn’t for you. The sooner you learn to own who you are and everything that comes with the territory of being you, the sooner you can stop worrying about the people who you don’t fit with and the sooner you can start focusing on the people who you do fit with.

Lastly, compassion is free. It takes nothing but intention and a little bit of effort to treat others the way you want to be treated. You never know what someone has been through and the world desperately needs people who are more committed to loving and setting the standard than they are committed to being “right” and giving an eye for an eye. You may not always receive compassion and you can’t control that, but you can choose to be kind to yourself. You can control what you put out into the world and how you choose to treat people. If you don’t like to be stereotyped or belittled or viewed as less-than because of someone else’s bias, don’t turn around and do that to someone else. Don’t be ashamed of being yourself and liking what you like, but be aware of what informs your preferences and always treat others with the kindness and respect you want to be treated with.

When we know better, we do better, so know better and do better because you CAN.

Do All Religions Come From the Same God?

This week, we’re dealing with a very specific question, so keep reading before drawing any conclusions. We’re not asking “Do all religions worship the same God?” or “Do all religions lead to the same God?”. Those questions work from the bottom-up, i.e. viewing God through the lens of a man-made construct. Remember, we want to base our ideas and beliefs on who we say God is rather than trying to conform our conception of God into something that aligns with what we already believe to be true. We’re asking a top-down question, i.e. has God used religion, in general, as a way of revealing the character of God to humanity and guiding all of us to the same ultimate purpose or goal?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The Baháʼí Faith is a religion teaching the essential worth of all religions, and the unity and equality of all people. Many indigenous people throughout the Americas are members of the Baháʼí Faith.
    • Baháʼí teachings are in some ways similar to other monotheistic faiths: God is considered single and all-powerful. However, Baháʼu’lláh, the founder of the Baháʼí Faith, taught that religion is orderly and progressively revealed by one God through Manifestations of God who are the founders of major world religions throughout history; these include Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, and Moses, with Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad being the most recent in the period before the Báb and Baháʼu’lláh.
    • Baháʼís regard the major religions as fundamentally unified in purpose, though varied in social practices and interpretations. Baháʼu’lláh taught that the religions of the world come from the same God and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.
  2. In 1997, Billy Graham gave a television interview, in which he said: “Well, Christianity and being a true believer–you know, I think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. And I don’t think that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that’s what God is doing today, He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.”
  3. In Acts 10:34,35, the Apostle Peter said, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.”
  4. In Romans 2:11-14, the Apostle Paul said, “For God shows no partiality. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

The answer to this question bears heavily on the idea that members of any particular faith should be encouraged, or even required, to convert others. This is especially true in places where there is an established state religion or attempts at establishing a state religion and exercise of other religions is discouraged and/or suppressed. Further, it requires us to examine the meaning of life and why we are all here. If God is the creator, what purpose does God have for our existence and how does religion further that purpose? Is there only one religious avenue by which to fulfill that purpose, and is our ability or dedication to following that one avenue God’s ultimate goal and priority for us? Or is purpose the priority, with religion and spirituality being provided as tools to enable us to fulfill that purpose?

What do you think? Do all religions come from God? Is religion a means to an end, or is it the priority? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

The Golden Rule: Can Religions Work Together?

“I’d been reading up on comparative religion. The thing is that all major religions have the Golden Rule in Common. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ Not always the same words but the same meaning.”

— Norman Rockwell

The concept of the “Golden Rule” is taught in all major world religions. It is a statement, in summary, of the basic requirements for all human behavior. While the sentiment may be expressed in different ways, the message is the same: treat others the way you would want to be treated. The concept may seem simple enough, but oftentimes, it appears to be easier said than done. Although the Golden Rule is a fundamental obligation in all religions, as Blaise Pascal put it, “[m]en never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” This week, we’ll be thinking about whether or not truly adopting the Golden Rule can allow people from different religious backgrounds and beliefs to work together to make the world a better place.

Studies have shown that religion can have a positive influence on many aspects of society, and throughout human history, nations have made religion a part of their governmental systems. For example, Judaism teaches that when God established Israel as a nation, He gave them a theocracy to help govern them. Currently, 20% of the countries in the world have an established state religion. However, in almost all of the countries where state religions exist, a variety of abuses and atrocities have taken place. Religion has been used to control people rather than to serve them.

That said, it is important to consider how and why something born of pure intentions becomes corrupted. How do we go from the Golden Rule to religion being used as justification for hurting and/or controlling people? Perhaps it is because of some combination of humans being imperfect, ignorance, and self-serving interests that religion can be turned into a curse rather than a blessing. Perhaps it relates back to a person’s perception of God being based more on condemnation and judgment than love. Perhaps religion is seen by many as a means to an end rather than a journey of growth and enlightenment. It’s important for us to ask ourselves what, if anything, we want to accomplish by believing and to assess how that agenda impacts us and the world around us.

If the Golden Rule is fundamental for everyone, is it so impossible that we could find a way to co-exist peacefully in purpose, even if not in belief? If nations or different ideologies wanted to become allies against anything that violated the Golden Rule…the Rule of Love…is it so impossible that they could do it as “equal-but-different” partners? Instead of pushing conformity to one thing over the other, is it possible to learn to accept and respect the fact that there will always be differences? Different people may be pursuing or encouraging different final goals, but why can’t the Golden Rule be the metric by which we gauge how we interact with each other right now? Couldn’t it be possible for everyone to encourage each other to achieve the best that their different traditions require of them while working together to oppose the negative things we can agree on?

The “fish-run principle”, which Zen Buddhists derive from Chuang-Tzu, states: “A fish-run is constructed to catch fish: we should keep the fish and forget the run. A snare is to catch a rabbit: we should keep the rabbit and forget the snare. Words are to transmit meaning: we should keep the meaning and forget the words.” We may not all speak the same languages or come from the same cultures or believe in the same things, but it isn’t impossible for different people to find common ground. If we can agree on things like compassion, love, respect, humility, empathy, and just treating others the way we want to be treated, who knows what kind of impact that collective mission and purpose could have.

What do you think? Is the Golden Rule fundamental? Is it possible for people from different religious backgrounds to work together? What areas of common ground do you think exist? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Does Humanity Need a Messiah?

In exploring Western Christianity’s teaching of original sin and the impact sin has on the human condition, a question that needed to be considered was: do other religions teach the need for a savior? While most religious groups outside of Western Christianity do not teach that humanity needs to be saved from inherent sinfulness, many groups do teach the existence of a “Messiah” figure that saves humanity from the effect sin has had on the world. A Messiah is “the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible” or “a leader or savior of a particular group or cause.” All three Abrahamic religious groups, amongst others, believe in a Messiah.

Here’s what we know:

  1. In Jewish eschatology, the term mashiach, or “Messiah”, refers specifically to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who is expected to save the Jewish nation, and will be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. Orthodox views hold that the Messiah will be descended from his father through the line of King David, and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, re-institute the Sanhedrin, and so on.
  2. While the term “messiah” does appear in Islam, the meaning is different from that found in Christianity and Judaism. The Quran identifies Jesus (Isa) as the messiah (Masih), who will one day return to earth. Jesus is believed to have been anointed by Allah at birth with the specific task of being a prophet and king. The Mahdi will appear and unite all Muslims, ridding the world of evil. After the death of Mahdi, Jesus will reign as the Messianic king, bringing eternal peace and monotheism to the world and eliminating all religions besides Islam. Unlike Christians, Muslims see Jesus as a prophet, but not as God himself or the son of God. Like all other prophets, Jesus is an ordinary man, who receives revelations from God. The Quran also denies the crucifixion of Jesus, claiming that he was neither killed nor crucified
  3. Within Christianity, Jesus is believed to be the Messiah, based on the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians believe that messianic prophecies were fulfilled in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus and that he will return to fulfill the rest of the messianic prophecies. When he returns to earth, he will destroy all evil and establish eternal peace on earth through his Messianic religion. The majority of historical and mainline Christian theologies consider Jesus to be the Son of God and God the Son, a concept of the Messiah fundamentally different from the Jewish and Islamic concepts.
  4. See also Buddhism (Maitreya), Java (Satrio Piningit), Taoism (Li Hong), and Hinduism (Kalki)

Some may find it interesting that while only the concept of original sin necessitates salvation from sin itself, most world religions still teach of a messiah figure who comes and makes the world better in one way or another. Another point to consider is that every “Messiah” is coming for the benefit of those who believe in that particular religion/conception of God. There is no universal “Messiah” who comes for the benefit of everyone.

What do you think? Does humanity need a Messiah rather than a savior? Are the concepts of “Messiah” and “savior” more or less the same? Has the Messiah already come, or are we still waiting? If he has come, will he return…and when? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Does Humanity Need a Savior?

Last week, we addressed the concept of “original sin”, so this week, we’ll be discussing “atonement” and the idea that humanity needs “salvation.” Atonement is “satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.” Atonement within Western Christian Theology generally “refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation.” However, in Judaism and Islam, atonement is the process of causing a transgression to be forgiven or pardoned directly by God (rather than through Jesus Christ’s death) through true repentance, fasting, prayer, and good works. So what’s true? Does God have the prerogative and authority to simply forgive sin? Or is forgiveness only possible through the blood of Jesus Christ?

Here’s what we know:

  1. Within Christianity, there are several theories regarding how atonement might work, including:
    • Ransom Theory of Atonement – this theory teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom sacrifice, usually said to have been paid to Satan, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin.
    • Satisfaction Theory of Atonement– a theory in Catholic theology that holds Jesus Christ redeemed humanity through making satisfaction (restitution) for man’s disobedience through his own supererogatory (the performance of more than what is asked for) obedience. This view acknowledges that God cannot freely forgive sins without any sort of punishment or satisfaction being exacted.
    • Moral Influence Theory of Atonement – an alternative to the satisfaction theory of atonement. Developed by Abelard, this theory focuses on changing man’s perception of God as not offended, harsh, and judgemental, but as loving. According to Abelard, “Jesus died as the demonstration of God’s love,” a demonstration that can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God
    • Penal Substitution Theory – teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty for mankind’s sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring satisfaction (restitution) for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer the death, punishment, and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.
    • Unlimited Atonement Theory – states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception. A doctrinal issue that divides Christians is the question of the extent of the atonement. This question typically goes as follows: “Did Christ bear the sins of the elect alone on the cross, or did his death expiate the sins of all human beings?” Those who take this view read scriptures such as John 3:161 Timothy 2:64:10Hebrews 2:91 John 2:2 to say that the Bible teaches unlimited atonement.
  2. According to Islam, one can be forgiven of sins through genuine tawbah (repentance) which literally means “to return.”
    • Unlike the Catholic concept of atonement, tawbah does not entail formal, ecclesiastical confession to a religious leader. Like Protestantism, Islam allows followers to repent directly to God. In addition, while Christianity and Islam considers humans as prone to sin, Islam ultimately views them as responsible for their actions and refutes the Christian concept of original sin.
    • In Islam, Muslims are discouraged from confessing their sins and sharing the wrongdoings of others. 
    • Also, according to Islam, Blood sacrifice cannot add to Divine Grace nor replace the necessity of repentance. However, sacrifice is done to help the poor and to remember Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son at God’s command (It is not their meat nor their blood that reaches Allah. it is your piety that reaches Him…”— Qur’an, sura 22, ayat 37).
    • When a human has offended or disobeyed God, ḥuqūq Allāh, penitence, remorse, and resolution are necessary in order to show that one is sincere, and will not repeat the wrongdoing in the future.
    • Repentance for sin can be accomplished through acts such as, “fasting, giving charity, sacrificing an animal, and freeing a slave.” In addition, going on the hajj can serve as a form of repentance.
    • However, regardless of one’s outward deeds, God does not accept the forgiveness of those who are insincere in their repentance and only do so in order to avoid Jahannam (similar to the concept of Hell within Christianity).
  3. In Rabbinic Judaism, atonement is achieved through repentance, which can be followed by some combination of the following:
    • confession
    • restitution
    • the occurrence of Yom Kippur (the day itself, as distinct from the Temple service performed on it)
    • tribulations (unpleasant life experiences)
    • the experience of dying.
    • the carrying out of a sentence of lashes or execution imposed by an ordained court (not now in existence)
    • Temple service (not now in existence, e.g. bringing a sacrifice).
      • Note: Which of these additions are required varies according to the severity of the sin, whether it was done willfully, in error, or under duress, whether it was against God alone or also against a fellow person, and whether the Temple service and ordained law courts are in existence or not. Repentance is needed in all cases of willful sin, and restitution is always required in the case of sin against a fellow person, unless the wronged party waives it.

While most religions included animal sacrifices as a part of their religious practices, only western Christianity teaches that those animal sacrifices represent Jesus Christ’s substitutionary death to atone for the sins of humanity. Even within Judaism, the sacrificial system only provided atonement for sins that were committed unintentionally. Intentional sin could only be forgiven by God through “a broken and contrite spirit (Psalm 51:16,17).”

The focus here should perhaps be less about whether or not humanity needs a savior and more about why God would set things up that way, if that’s actually what God did. Remember, everything we believe is ultimately a reflection of who we say God is and what characteristics we attribute to God. Does God make the rules? Or have principles been set in place that God is required to abide by? If God does make the rules, why would/did God create a scenario in which forgiveness can only be given and received through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice? And what does that mean for those who lived and died before Jesus Christ’s death or for those who lived and died without ever coming into a knowledge of Christ? Why would/did God allow the existence of something God knew humanity would ultimately need to be saved from?

What do you think? Does humanity need a savior? Is atonement for sin necessary? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Does “Original Sin” Nullify Free Choice?

This week, we’ll be examining the nature of humanity and how that impacts whether we are free moral agents. “Sin” is “an offense against religious or moral law.” Every culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin. In the Christian tradition, the concept of “original sin” is based on the premise that “the tendency to sin [is] innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall.” This western Christian concept was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. Other church fathers, such as Augustine (AD 354-430), also shaped and developed the doctrine. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as an inclination or tendency towards sin (referred to as a “sin nature without collective guilt”) to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt. Moreover, as a further consequence of the first iniquity, humanity is hopelessly lost in a state of sin and is powerless on its own to obey the will of God. That said, does “original sin” nullify our ability to choose “right” from “wrong” without direct intervention/influence from God?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The concept of sinfulness being an inherent tendency in humanity is unique to western Christianity. For example, the Eastern Orthodox version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil. They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine’s notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.
  2. The doctrine of “inherited sin” is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam and Eve for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some others who believed that mortality was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam’s sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.
  3. The concept of inherited sin does not exist in Islam. Islam teaches that Adam and Eve sinned, but then sought forgiveness and thus were forgiven by God. Quotes from the Qur’an:
    • But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.— Surah al-Baqara:36–37
    • Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance.— Surah Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122

This question is important to consider because the concept of original sin implies that humans are incapable of making genuinely “good” choices without God being the direct source of that choice. But to be clear, the issue is less about whether humans are inherently “good” or inherently “bad” and more about whether we actually have the ability to choose one way or the other. If the bad things we do are ultimately the result of our “sinful natures” and the good things we do are the result of God’s influence rather than our own decisionmaking/will power, does freedom of choice even exist? Both the Qur’an and the Bible seem to suggest that it does. The Qur’an says this with regard to individual responsibility:

That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense

Surah an-Najm:38–41

Further, consider this portion of an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses before his death as the Israelites prepared to enter the promised land:

“…when you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.  It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.”

Deuteronomy 30:10-14

What do you think? Does “original sin” nullify free choice? Is humanity inherently good, inherently evil, both, or neither? Do we have any control over the good and the bad things that we do? Let us know in the comments below!

Fear and Faith

Most world religions teach some form of an afterlife. Further, the idea of “bad” behavior being punished, both in this life and in the “life” to come, is often used to discourage people from doing what is considered to be “bad”. For example, 58% of adults in the United States believe in hell (according to the Pew Research Center). The word “hell” usually describes “a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the earth where the wicked are punished after death.” If the wicked are punished, it stands to reason that people would want to avoid being wicked, right? So this week, we will look at the relationship between fear and faith. Is fear a useful tool that God uses to get us to obey?

Here’s what we know:

  1. Fear is “an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.”
  2. A deterrent is “a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.”
  3. In the context of the criminal justice system, “deterrence — the crime prevention effects of the threat of punishment — is a theory of choice in which individuals balance the benefits and costs of crime.”
  4. The National Institute of Justice summarizes some of the research on deterrence:
    • The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
    • Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime. Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment.
    • Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished. The police deter crime when they do things that strengthen a criminal’s perception of the certainty of being caught. Strategies that use the police as “sentinels,” such as hot spots policing, are particularly effective.
    • Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
  5. Most world religions teach that reaching “heaven” (or paradise, nirvana, etc.) and avoiding “hell” is at least somewhat dependent upon doing and/or being “good”.

In an experiment involving 61 ethnically and religiously diverse undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia, the participants were asked to use mental math to solve 20 addition problems. Before the test, a monitor explained that there was a glitch in the computer program being used to administer the test and that the participants needed to press the space bar key immediately after each question appeared in order to avoid seeing the answer. Cheating behavior was measured according to whether participants followed these instructions. Once the test was completed, the participants were asked to fill out a “View of God Scale,” which gauged their conceptions of God as “positive” (i.e. forgiving, loving, gentle, etc.) or “negative” (i.e. vengeful, harsh, angry, punishing, etc.). Next, the participants were asked to complete a suspicion probe, the Hoge (1972)
scale of intrinsic religiosity, a Views of God scale, and a set of demographic questions.

The results published in 2011 in The International Journal for Psychology of Religion indicated that the students’ differences in religious beliefs had no bearing on whether the students cheated or not, but the participants who applied more punitive attributes to God cheated less than those who attributed positive traits of character to God.

Fear can be a powerful deterrent, but perhaps we should be less focused on whether fear itself is a bad thing and more focused on who and/or what we are afraid of. For example, should the good things we do be motivated by a fear of going to hell? Or should the good things we do be motivated by a “fear of” (it may be better worded as “concern for”) how the negative things we do impact us, the people we love, and the world around us?

Further, is a fear of going to hell really an effective deterrent? Is the fear of what may or may not happen when we die or some other time in the future enough motivation to do good now? Is the threat of more immediate consequences even effective? Children disobey their parents all the time, knowing that they could be (and oftentimes are) caught and punished. Discipline works up to a point, but ultimately, each of us has to decide for ourselves what kinds of people we want to be and the kinds of choices we want to make.

What do you think? How does fear interplay with your faith? Do you think fear is an effective deterrent? If so, why? If not, what motivates you to be the best person you can be? Let us know in the comments below!

Behavior Modification: Good or Bad:?

We all need to know where our beliefs stem from and why, but knowing what you think about something doesn’t mean much if you don’t spend time considering how what you think impacts what you do. Most, if not all, world religions/ideologies encourage us to be “good” people, but what does being “good” look like? Is being “good” based more on what we do (behavior) or on who we are (character)?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The word character refers to “the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.” The word behavior refers to “the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others.”
  2. Behavior modification is defined as “the alteration of behavioral patterns through the use of such learning techniques as biofeedback and positive or negative reinforcement.”
  3. Behavior modification utilizes the idea that good behavior should lead to positive consequences and bad behavior should lead to negative consequences.
  4. The four main techniques used to encourage behavior modification are:
    1. Positive Punishment – adding a consequence that will deter a person from repeating the behavior. Ex.: Giving a child an extra chore as a consequence for lying when asked if he cleaned his room.
    2. Negative Punishment – involves removing something from a person. Examples include taking away privileges or removing positive attention.
    3. Positive Reinforcement – giving a person something that reinforces good behavior. Discipline that relies mostly on positive reinforcement is usually very effective. Examples of positive reinforcement include praise or a reward system.
    4. Negative Reinforcement – a person is motivated to change her behavior because it will take away something unpleasant. Negative reinforcement can be less effective than positive reinforcement. Ex. a child who stops a behavior because her parent yells at her is trying to get rid of the negative reinforcer (the yelling). 

Most people would probably agree that positive behaviors are good things to encourage and be supportive of. Most people support things like donating to charity, being polite to everyone, giving a hug or a kind word to someone who is feeling down, etc. And individual communities and society as a whole provide both positive and negative reinforcement for all manner of things. That said, the question may be less about character development instead of behavior modification and more about how we go about finding a balance between the two.

Finding balance may seem pretty straightforward, but things can get tricky. Why? Because while there are positive and negative behaviors that most of us can agree on, there are some behaviors that most people can’t agree on. Some people believe certain things are okay, and other people believe those things are not okay. Further, some people disagree with certain behaviors to the extent that they believe that it’s society’s responsibility or their community’s responsibility to make sure no one engages in those behaviors. So how do we find that balance?

The important thing to remember is that love is the rule, so everything we believe AND everything we do should stem from the principle of unconditional love. In this context, love should perhaps lead us to ask ourselves questions, such as:

  1. What behaviors do I consider to be “good”, and why? Does my belief stem from my own understanding and conviction? Does my belief stem from someone else’s understanding/conviction and my concern for what they will think of me or do to me?
  2. How do I prioritize the behaviors I consider to be “good” (i.e. the positive behaviors that are the most important and have the most impact on the world around you may take priority over the positive behaviors that are less important because they have less impact)?
  3. When I do something I believe is good, what’s my motivation/intention? Do I do good because I want to be rewarded/viewed positively by other people? Do I do good because I’m afraid of receiving punishment/negative feedback from other people? Do I do good because I am convicted in my heart that I should?
  4. What type of punishment/reinforcement am I most responsive to? When I want to improve myself, what kind of feedback inspires me the most? Who, if anyone, do I feel safe and confident receiving feedback from? What makes me feel safe and confident in this person(s)?

And if you see someone exhibiting behaviors that you believe are negative:

  1. Is this behavior causing immediate and/or irreparable physical, mental, and/or emotional harm to this person, me, or someone else? Note: If the answer is yes, you may need to consider getting a family member and/or law enforcement involved.
  2. Does this person believe their behavior is negative?
  3. What is my relationship with this person? How well do I know this person? How well does this person know me? Have they explicitly invited me to give them feedback?
  4. What is my motive/intent in giving feedback? Are my intentions pure, unselfish, and genuine? Am I being honest with myself about my intentions?
  5. How does my feedback stand to benefit this person? Is there any way my feedback could potentially do more harm than good?
  6. What kind of punishment/reinforcement is this person most responsive to? Am I communicating my feedback effectively? Am I communicating my feedback in a way that reflects my understanding of the person I am sharing it with?

We don’t have the power to make people change or to force them to agree with us on what constitutes “good” or “bad”, but we do have the power to live our own lives consistently with what we believe and to support and encourage others in their pursuit to do the same. Loving means being present, being engaged, avoiding making assumptions, and putting our own egos and agendas aside in order to do what’s best for each other. We probably won’t always agree on everything, but being there for each other and working together towards being the best people we can be isn’t a bad start.

What do you think? Is behavior modification good or bad? What motivates you to change things about yourself: fear or conviction or both? Has anyone ever tried to change you? If so, how did that make you feel? What does being a “good” person or doing “good” mean to you? Let us know in the comments below!