Wandering the savage garden…

savageAuthor Archives

Down with Religion?

Right now there are lots and lots of posts online about how religion is unnecessary for being a good person — too many posts to actually include, actually.

It’s interesting to see, as a defense mechanism.

It indicates a value in being a “good person,” while offering a definition of what being “good” means – often offering empathy, independent thought, tolerance, and openness as metrics – while suggesting that religion tends to restrain these very characteristics.

I can totally agree. Religion of all stripes, Christian and otherwise, tends to be exclusive. You’re either in or you’re out, and that makes it into a status rather than a condition. It becomes external rather than internal.

For myself, I have no problem with discarding religion.

I don’t think God has a lot of problem with it, either.

I was saved while contemplating Amos 5:21, which says:

[21] “I hate, I despise your feasts,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
[22] Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them;
and the peace offerings of your fattened animals,
I will not look upon them.
[23] Take away from me the noise of your songs;
to the melody of your harps I will not listen.
[24] But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

(Amos 5:21-24 ESV)

It struck me that the trappings of religion – the feasts, the assemblies, the offerings – all served as replacements for actual ethics, for completeness. Look at Amos 5:24! That verse hit me like a ton of bricks – I sat in the dark, the glow of a single desk lamp facing my Bible – a Scofield KJV, of all things, because that’s what I had handy – looking out my window, stunned by the majesty and glory of a God whom I’d hidden from myself, a God whose light and love reached my heart and broke down my shields and anger at one stroke.

I have no problem with religion – but I, too, despise how it creates divisions among those who’d use it as a mark.

I don’t see how religion actually defines whether God exists or not. He does. Our ability to value ethical behavior in and of itself serves as a proof that God serves as a the common thread for mankind, and that people use it as proof to the contrary is more proof of the majesty and glory of God.

Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream – encompassing, surrounding, comforting, and directing.

Extrabiblical Evidence for a Historical Jesus

Bible History Daily recently published an article entitled Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible. It’s an interesting article, citing in particular two non-Christian sources as references that show a historical Jesus – without whom, of course, there could be no Jesus as Christians know Him.

The two sources are Tacitus and Josephus; Tacitus records Nero’s suppression of Christians and Josephus mentions Christians in passing as part of his history of the destruction of the Temple.

The thing that fascinates me, however, is the silence greeting those two scholarly references. No, they’re not extensive – it’s not like we’re talking about historians whose works were published enough that they lined birds’ cages, and wrapped fish in the market, but they were known and were respected authors – and remember, this was a time when writing histories was something few did.

Other historians would have read their works, and would have noticed even mentions in passing of a Christian movement, especially since Tacitus records Nero’s suppression as a central issue. (Remember, the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned is the event being described – something that we know of today and use as a colloquialism.)

But they read the history and the claims of these Christians, followers of a Christ, and this was not met with protests that said anything other than that this was a valid history. Nobody stepped up and said, “Hey, wait a minute – you’re slandering Pilate, this bloke didn’t exist.”

It’s possible that reality and history was seen as malleable – an eastern view of the world – and therefore other historians might have looked and said, “Well, to Tacitus the fellow existed, I suppose.”

However, someone would have presented the other view, a contrarian point of view, especially given that Christ’s existence would have been a problem unless He actually existed historically.

So I’d say that it’s a valid point, to cite Josephus and Tacitus as extrabiblical references – and I’d also add the absence of contrarian claims in antiquity to the chorus of evidence.

Jesus Christ was real. He died on a cross, in Jerusalem.

Christianity says that He died such that all who accepted His sacrifice in their stead would be glorified in Him, for His purposes.

Have you accepted Christ?

In case you can’t tell…

This is a new blog installation. I’ll update the theme to match more of what it was as soon as I’m able. For now, at least the blog is where it’s going to end up.

Samuel was a loan to the Lord?

In my Bible-in-a-Year task, I am in the books of Samuel at last; I’m in for another strong dose of history. It should be interesting.

Today included I Samuel 1, which is where Hannah prays to the Lord for a son; this son is Samuel. She takes him after he is weaned to Shiloh, where he will serve the Lord under Eli.

[26] And she said, “Oh, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who was standing here in your presence, praying to the LORD. [27] For this child I prayed, and the LORD has granted me my petition that I made to him. [28] Therefore I have lent him to the LORD. As long as he lives, he is lent to the LORD.” And he worshiped the LORD there. (1 Samuel 1:26-28 ESV)

Verse 27 is what stood out to me about this text: Hannah lends Samuel to the Lord, even though Samuel was given to her by the Lord in the first place.

It says something about how the creation belongs to its creator, albeit abstractly. I don’t think it’s something from which to derive copyright law, mind, but still…