I was having a conversation with a very good friend a few days back, and we turned to the topic of religion, as we sometimes do (I don't really like the idea that certain topics are taboo). He mentioned that he could finally understand why people would accept harsh punishments rather than give in on what they believed to be right. The example that was used was from the Holocaust, where Jews would state that they were Jewish, even though there was rumor going around about what would happen to them.
I was thrilled that, finally, someone else that I routinely converse with seemed to recognize a key truth. Therefore, I was naturally disappointed a few days later when they said that they now had changed their mind. After some simple questioning, I found that the reason for the about-face was they were taking their new-found view to an absurd length, and a mutual friend had corrected them about the extremity. Unfortunately, that also undid the truth from the original statement; that there are some things worth standing up for. Eventually, our conversation rested on two scenarios, one mine and one from my friend.
My scenario was fairly straightforward. In certain areas of the world, it is still very dangerous to be a Christian. One day, a law official knocks on your door and tells you, in no uncertain terms, that they had discovered that members of your family were Christian. They do not know if you are Christian or not, so they are there to ask you. If you state that you are Christian, then you are under arrest and subject to severe treatment. If you deny that you are Christian, then you are free to go, if you fully disassociate yourself from your family members who are Christian and accept the fact that their future is not your concern.
My friend's scenario was somewhat different. You are in a country hostile to Christianity, but with no relatives outside of your household. Someone comes knocking on your door one day and asks if you are a Christian. They give you no reason for their questioning, and you know that they will leave you in peace if you answer no and nobody will question again. If you answer yes, then someone may come by later to arrest you.
Our discussion ended with a polite agree to disagree, but I'm still troubled. In the United States, we are often mocked for our beliefs, but seldom are we put in danger for them. It is easy for us to forget that there are areas, even today, where Christians are brutally murdered for no other reason than their faith. Ironically, they are often the ones who are doing good things for the community in which they are murdered. I am troubled because of the question that I asked of my friend: If you deny that you are a Christian in either scenario, are you, in fact, still a Christian?
The question is still relevant to us, who live in a culture that is openly hostile to the Christian ideal. Are we willing to stand up for our beliefs and risk tribulations, or are we better off keeping our beliefs secreted away, attempting to live our faith in private only? Are we ready to accept ridicule when Christ and culture part ways, or will we join in the throng demanding that the church modernize or die?
I believe that God has great mercy and that He will forgive us if we ask. Perhaps that is why the question is so troubling. Is it better for one to deny Christ, then ask forgiveness and continue the Christian mission, or is it better to embrace Christ and accept what that means for your future? I have settled on an answer, but I am very curious as to what others think about it.
Showing posts with label faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label faith. Show all posts
Monday, March 2, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Checking Your Sources
A disturbing trend has been plaguing my attention lately. It began near the top of the year when atheistic activists began decrying the phrase "So help me God" in the presidential oath. However, given more thought, evidence of this trend can be found most places within modern life. The trend is simply, if there is no (consistently) documented proof, then the statement (or tradition, custom, etc) is invalid.
As a general rule, people today like having information. For most, a small article is enough, for others, many lengthy texts. For myself, I've found from experience that scanning articles is fine, but if something seems wrong or if there are holes in the arguments, then more research is in order, especially if I want to discuss the issue. The internet being the wonderful tool that it is, the source can often be found and most lingering questions put to rest. But what if the source is unavailable? What happens when the event happened a long time ago and the author is not available for comment? What does one do when the written record is interpreted differently by many scholars?
In times before our information age, people went to tradition. Religious traditions in particular are very rich, as they tend to last. Even those who disagree with a faith-based mindset have to agree that religions are steeped in tradition and enjoy longevity as a result. However, traditions related to national history are also very difficult to disturb. Why? Simply, because to tell people that their traditions need revising is to tell them that people they revere are mistaken or liars.
Until recently, this would be a horrible accusation to level against someone, especially against parents or other figures of authority. Lies have always carried with them a strong social stigma and rightly so. Someone who has a history of falsehoods obviously cannot be trusted and as such it is very difficult for them to operate in society.
However, this attitude has begun changing. After many political leaders and other public figures have been caught in one scandal or another, perjury seems almost cliche. The public has become jaded about our leaders, almost expecting them to lie. As a result, other long-held beliefs based in tradition are being opened to attack. If I can't believe what my political leaders are telling me today, why should I believe my historical leaders, or religious leaders?
Which brings us back to verification. If something is documented, then at least we have some "proof" that we have not been lied to through the centuries. Best to check that several sources exist, just to make sure that one wasn't a mistake. We modern people often rely on scraps of information to "prove" large theories, or discount important points that, at the time, would have been considered as common or base knowledge, not something that needed to be spelled out for posterity. Somehow, a written record, something that can be seen and touched, makes the past and its traditions real. Without that evidence, those traditions are completely invalid, unless someone can take them on faith.
Interestingly enough, the only area where physical, historical evidence is not accepted as evidence that the tradition is valid is in the area of faith. People on both sides of a religious debate can attain a great deal of information that proves or disproves their points, but those who counter them are seldom moved. The birth of most religions is so far removed in history that there are only a rare few individuals who can even comprehend such a large span of time. The traditions of those religions got to the present somehow; the believers will say from a particular source, the non-believers from a misconception that got out of hand.
In the end, people either believe or do not believe in traditions, religions, or whatever else, for their own reasons. Maybe the opposition conflicts with their worldview. Perhaps the person is a natural skeptic, or naturally trusting. For those who must have everything empirically or scientifically proven to them, faith is a mystery, mere arguments for validity need not apply. For those of faith, proofs are nice, but are not required.
As a general rule, people today like having information. For most, a small article is enough, for others, many lengthy texts. For myself, I've found from experience that scanning articles is fine, but if something seems wrong or if there are holes in the arguments, then more research is in order, especially if I want to discuss the issue. The internet being the wonderful tool that it is, the source can often be found and most lingering questions put to rest. But what if the source is unavailable? What happens when the event happened a long time ago and the author is not available for comment? What does one do when the written record is interpreted differently by many scholars?
In times before our information age, people went to tradition. Religious traditions in particular are very rich, as they tend to last. Even those who disagree with a faith-based mindset have to agree that religions are steeped in tradition and enjoy longevity as a result. However, traditions related to national history are also very difficult to disturb. Why? Simply, because to tell people that their traditions need revising is to tell them that people they revere are mistaken or liars.
Until recently, this would be a horrible accusation to level against someone, especially against parents or other figures of authority. Lies have always carried with them a strong social stigma and rightly so. Someone who has a history of falsehoods obviously cannot be trusted and as such it is very difficult for them to operate in society.
However, this attitude has begun changing. After many political leaders and other public figures have been caught in one scandal or another, perjury seems almost cliche. The public has become jaded about our leaders, almost expecting them to lie. As a result, other long-held beliefs based in tradition are being opened to attack. If I can't believe what my political leaders are telling me today, why should I believe my historical leaders, or religious leaders?
Which brings us back to verification. If something is documented, then at least we have some "proof" that we have not been lied to through the centuries. Best to check that several sources exist, just to make sure that one wasn't a mistake. We modern people often rely on scraps of information to "prove" large theories, or discount important points that, at the time, would have been considered as common or base knowledge, not something that needed to be spelled out for posterity. Somehow, a written record, something that can be seen and touched, makes the past and its traditions real. Without that evidence, those traditions are completely invalid, unless someone can take them on faith.
Interestingly enough, the only area where physical, historical evidence is not accepted as evidence that the tradition is valid is in the area of faith. People on both sides of a religious debate can attain a great deal of information that proves or disproves their points, but those who counter them are seldom moved. The birth of most religions is so far removed in history that there are only a rare few individuals who can even comprehend such a large span of time. The traditions of those religions got to the present somehow; the believers will say from a particular source, the non-believers from a misconception that got out of hand.
In the end, people either believe or do not believe in traditions, religions, or whatever else, for their own reasons. Maybe the opposition conflicts with their worldview. Perhaps the person is a natural skeptic, or naturally trusting. For those who must have everything empirically or scientifically proven to them, faith is a mystery, mere arguments for validity need not apply. For those of faith, proofs are nice, but are not required.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
I'm gonna go to the place that's the best
I read a book over the weekend by C.S. Lewis titled "The Great Divorce." It is written in the style of a novella and is thoughts on Heaven and Hell. The story is masterfully done (Lewis always is, in my experience), with the reader able to clearly pick out key arguments about the existence of a Heaven or Hell, as well as why people end up in one or the other.
One thing stuck out for me as I read the story, and has stayed in my mind since. In the story, there are many characters, each of which has their own hangup about something with the afterlife. Some are upset that a certain individual made it into Heaven. Others are frightened. Others attempt to seduce those in Heaven. Some are unwilling to forgive past transgressions. What struck me was, though each character had their own reason for being wary of Heaven, all were tied by a single thread: inability to put God (or anyone) before themselves.
After I finished the book, I pondered on it for a long time. The idea that people condemn themselves to Hell because they are incapable of accepting that something is more important than them is a very powerful one. Take a look at the so-called "seven deadly sins":
Lust - "I want that person for my own gratification";
Gluttony - "I don't have to control myself. I can consume whatever I want";
Greed - "I want more";
Sloth - "I don't have to work, others will do it";
Wrath - "How dare you! I am right!";
Envy - "I want what you have";
Pride - "I am more important"
If we go into Christian doctrine, time and time again, we see that we must abandon the self in order to recognize that God must come first. When Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment, his response is the core of the faith: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV). Browse through the Ten Commandments, and you will find the same sentiments. Go to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, the "Love Chapter" in the Bible and you'll see it there too. We are told to love our enemies and to forgive those who sin against us, because in doing so, we are letting go of our pride and anger and whatever else. Forgiveness, therefore, is a willingness to put aside our selfishness to gain something greater.
While the story points out in the beginning and again at the end that one should not take its view of Heaven and Hell literally, I believe that the points it makes are still valid for determining how one would attain Heaven. Essentially, our lives here are to gain experiences and build ourselves. Once we die, we do not gather more experiences, so we must rely on what we know. If all we know of in our lives is selfishness, then we cannot enter Heaven, because we don't know how to love God above ourselves. However, if in this life we can learn how to remove ourselves from the position of ultimate authority, and instead trust God, we are already preparing ourselves for eternal life.
Note that, if this observation is true, Christians are not given a free pass. We, too, must continually be reminded that we are not to live selfish lives. Becoming Christian is not enough, you must live it. Proclaiming that Jesus is Lord is not enough, you must follow Him.
One thing stuck out for me as I read the story, and has stayed in my mind since. In the story, there are many characters, each of which has their own hangup about something with the afterlife. Some are upset that a certain individual made it into Heaven. Others are frightened. Others attempt to seduce those in Heaven. Some are unwilling to forgive past transgressions. What struck me was, though each character had their own reason for being wary of Heaven, all were tied by a single thread: inability to put God (or anyone) before themselves.
After I finished the book, I pondered on it for a long time. The idea that people condemn themselves to Hell because they are incapable of accepting that something is more important than them is a very powerful one. Take a look at the so-called "seven deadly sins":
Lust - "I want that person for my own gratification";
Gluttony - "I don't have to control myself. I can consume whatever I want";
Greed - "I want more";
Sloth - "I don't have to work, others will do it";
Wrath - "How dare you! I am right!";
Envy - "I want what you have";
Pride - "I am more important"
If we go into Christian doctrine, time and time again, we see that we must abandon the self in order to recognize that God must come first. When Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment, his response is the core of the faith: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV). Browse through the Ten Commandments, and you will find the same sentiments. Go to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, the "Love Chapter" in the Bible and you'll see it there too. We are told to love our enemies and to forgive those who sin against us, because in doing so, we are letting go of our pride and anger and whatever else. Forgiveness, therefore, is a willingness to put aside our selfishness to gain something greater.
While the story points out in the beginning and again at the end that one should not take its view of Heaven and Hell literally, I believe that the points it makes are still valid for determining how one would attain Heaven. Essentially, our lives here are to gain experiences and build ourselves. Once we die, we do not gather more experiences, so we must rely on what we know. If all we know of in our lives is selfishness, then we cannot enter Heaven, because we don't know how to love God above ourselves. However, if in this life we can learn how to remove ourselves from the position of ultimate authority, and instead trust God, we are already preparing ourselves for eternal life.
Note that, if this observation is true, Christians are not given a free pass. We, too, must continually be reminded that we are not to live selfish lives. Becoming Christian is not enough, you must live it. Proclaiming that Jesus is Lord is not enough, you must follow Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)