Thursday, February 28, 2013

What Does the New Testament Say About Interpersonal Conflict?

Check out today's episode

I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about Interpersonal Conflict. Other entries in this series:
Pic found here
  1. Slavery
  2. The Apocalypse
  3. Women
  4. Violence
  5. Sexuality
  6. Obedience
  7. Fear
  8. Blasphemy
  9. Wealth
  10. Binary Thinking
  11. Faith
  12. the Afterlife and Free Will
  13. Suffering
  14. Family
  15. Forgiveness
  16. Love
When it comes to dealing with interpersonal conflicts, the New Testament has a fair bit to say. As is typical with the Bible, the quality of that advice is somewhat of a mixed bag, some is good, some is bad, and some is contradictory. We'll start with what is probably the most cited in my experience, the golden rule (Matthew 7:12). This is great advice, and many would argue that it is the basis of all morality, we are basically just talking about empathy here, putting yourself in someone else's shoes and treating them like you would want to be treated in their place. The mistake many Christians make is that this originated with Jesus, which is just ludicrous. Not that this is such a bad thing, the fact is the golden rule is in the bible and it is a good thing, but an honest person has to acknowledge that it was around before Jesus.

In addition to simply stating the golden rule, there are a number of verses which I would argue are good corollaries it. Titus 3:3 tells us to remember the mistakes we have made in the past, and give other people leeway when they make mistakes. James 3:10 reminds us that a thoughtless word can be really harmful to someone and and urges caution. Colossians 4:6Titus 3:2, and 1 Timothy 2:8 tell us to be polite to people and to avoid quarreling, even when we disagree with people (I like this as long as we still allow friendly disagreement and discussion). Phil 8-9, 14 tells us that polite requests are better than orders, and finally Matthew 18:23-34 tells us that when people are kind to us, we should pay it forward. I think all of these things make sense through the lens of the golden rule, and I like them all.

The next most often quoted verse is turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). While there are situations where this is the appropriate action, I think it is poor advice for everyday life. I agree that if someone "strikes" you it is usually not the best idea to "strike" them back, if we do that we are going to be retaliating all the time and getting into endless cycles of violence. But allowing someone to repeatedly harm you just sets you up for a lot of pain, and telling people that this should be their default move sets them up to be taken advantage of. Turning the other cheek is of course in contrast to eye for an eye (Matthew 5:38), which Jesus is saying is not the right thing to do. If we look at what the rest of the new testament says about eye for an eye, we can find verses agreeing with Jesus (1 Thessalonians 5:15 and 1 Peter 3:8-9), hilariously enough though, there is a verse (2 Thessalonians 1:6) which disagrees with him. 

1 Peter 2:12 tells us to act honorably, even in the face of slander. This verse I like much better than turn the other cheek as the idea is more to rise above the bad things other people are doing to you, rather than telling you to let them keep doing it. Another verse that is also commonly quoted and sort of fits into this narrative is Matthew 5:44 which tells us to love our enemies. I've never been entirely sure what this means, if it means you should allow them to keep harming you like "turn the other cheek", then I hate it. If it means that you should rise above your differences, and try to consider your enemies as people and try to make peace, then I like it.

There are quite a few verses that tell us not to judge one another. I think this is good advice to a point, in life we come in contact with a huge number of people, and we make snap judgement of them. Largely this is simply by necessity, we have to judge who is trustworthy, we have to judge which situations are safe (which is largely dictated by the people who are around), and we have to judge who we think is the most capable to  accomplish whatever task is at hand. While we judge people very quickly, it is important to allow our initial impressions to change with new evidence, you don't want to think someone is crap because they were having a bad day when you met them. If that kind of thing is what the bible was talking about I would like it, but it doesn't read that way to me, Matthew 7:1Luke 6:37Romans 14:1-12, and 1 Corinthians 4:3 all simply say to not judge people. It's possible it is supposed to mean what I said, but I read it as not to judge at all, and I'm not even sure how to function that way, you simply have to make judgement about people to survive in society without being taken advantage of. Hilariously, 1 Corinthians 2:15 goes back on all of this, and says that if you are spiritual you can be judgmental of everything, and you are not subject to the judgement of others. Basically, we will judge you but you can't judge us back. This is the religion that I recognize. Of course, the bible tends to try to have things both ways, and in John 8:7 we are told to not judge people by different standards than we judge ourselves (he who is without sin should cast the first stone). This is a good message, and to the credit of most Christians it is the one they tend to focus on, but you have to acknowledge that both perspectives are in the bible.

I have heard Christians say to each other a number of times that they have to "get good with God", which just may be a reference to 2 Corinthians 7:12. While this might sound like a good thing initially, I would tend to ask why they need to "get good with God". Did they do something wrong? Many people interpret this to mean they need to ask God for forgiveness, when what they should be doing is fixing things with whoever they have harmed. Indeed, the verse itself suggests that we don't need to worry about the person who was wronged, but getting good with God is the primary concern. This is crap. Another idea that sounds decent until you look more closely comes from Matthew 5:25-26 and Luke 12:58 which tells us to try to settle legal matters out of court. On the surface this seems like a good idea as going to court is costly for the individuals involved as well as society at large. If we can solve our conflicts without the court it is better for everyone. But if we look at the verses more closely this is not the purpose here, they are in a situation where going to court will likely result in being thrown in prison. Once that reason is removed the command in the verse loses its meaning.

Given that this post was a little more schizophrenic than I would like, I would like to take a second look back at it. If you look at the concentration of verses, it becomes pretty obvious to me that the New Testament is overall pretty good on interpersonal conflict. More than anything it talks about variations of the golden rule, which is great. Also, most of my problems here are subtleties which can potentially be interpreted in different ways. In fact, in my experience, most Christians do interpret them in the reasonable fashion, which either means I'm being too nitpicky, or the average Christian is better than their holy book (I imagine it is a bit of both). But you have to admit that some of the verses I've highlighted here are pretty ridiculous.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

What Does the New Testament Say About Love?

Check out today's episode

I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about Love. Other entries in this series:
Is God Love?
  1. Slavery
  2. The Apocalypse
  3. Women
  4. Violence
  5. Sexuality
  6. Obedience
  7. Fear
  8. Blasphemy
  9. Wealth
  10. Binary Thinking
  11. Faith
  12. the Afterlife and Free Will
  13. Suffering
  14. Family
  15. Forgiveness
An extremely common thing I hear from Christians is that the bible is all about love. God is love and the bible encourages us to love one another, love your enemies (Matthew 5:44) is very often quoted. It seems that there are a great many such verses, so lets dig in. We can start with verses that simply say that love is a good thing (Romans 12:9-211 Corinthians 13:1-3Galatians 5:22-23Ephesians 4:1-2Philippians 1:9Colossians 3:12-151 Timothy 6:11Titus 2:22 Timothy 2:221 Peter 3:8-9Revelation 2:19) and that we should love one another (John 13:34Romans 13:9Galatians 5:14James 2:81 John 3:17). 1 Timothy 1:5 tells us that loves comes from a pure heart and good conscience, I'm not sure about that, but it sounds nice. 1 Peter 4:8 tells us that love can repair rifts caused by sin, that also sound nice. Ephesians 5:1-2 tells us to use Jesus as an example to love one another, and 1 John 3:18 takes things a step farther and tells us that talk is cheap and that we should show love with our actions. This is probably the best we have seen so far, it is a shame it is not a more common message, I'm guessing that many Christians would argue that this is implied with the rest of the verses. I disagree with that assessment (it should be explicit more often) but I'm glad that it is their takeaway.

We now have a great many verses that tell us that love is good and that we should love one another. This is good, but it isn't the whole story. 2 John 5,10-11 give us 2 sides of the same coin, while verse 5 says we should love one another, verse 10-11 says that we should turn away anyone who doesn't agree with your religious ideas. This certainly doesn't seem very loving to me at all. Furthermore, in Hebrews 8:9 we see this same attitude from God himself, he has no concern for people who didn't keep his covenant, certainly he doesn't love them right? If he's not even concerned with them he doesn't love them.

But that is just the beginning, if we look at some of the other things from the New Testament we can see plenty of examples that don't really demonstrate this love. Just look at my articles on slavery and women, the way we are instructed to act towards slaves and women in the bible does not sound like love to me. We are supposed to lead people with fear, and the people are supposed to obey. It's very important for people to suffer, and if your family doesn't agree with you about religion you are supposed to ditch them. None of this stuff sound loving to me. What if we look at God himself? He's violent, if you don't follow him he'll torture you for all of eternity, and yet sometimes he will remove your free will and not even allow you to follow him. He wants you to follow him without good reason, and if you say something bad about him he will never forgive you for it. Is the God of described in the New Testament a God of love? I would say no. He tells us he is a God of love, but he shows us that he is a monster.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

What Does the New Testament Say About Forgiveness?

Check out today's episode

I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about Forgiveness. Other entries in this series:
Pic found at this blog
  1. Slavery
  2. The Apocalypse
  3. Women
  4. Violence
  5. Sexuality
  6. Obedience
  7. Fear
  8. Blasphemy
  9. Wealth
  10. Binary Thinking
  11. Faith
  12. the Afterlife and Free Will
  13. Suffering
  14. Family
The New Testament seems to be pretty clear on forgiveness, it seems that whenever this comes up the instructions are that we should forgive each other. Of course, we have a few verses (Ephesians 4:31-32 and Colossians 3:12-15) which are big lists of things and therefore a bit unfocused, but they do tell us that forgiveness is something that should be praised. In my opinion the more valuable verses are the ones that are much more direct, and we do have a few of those. 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 tells us that we should be quick to forgive those who have done us wrong, and Matthew 18:21-22 tells us that we should keep on forgiving those who do us wrong. This is a really good thing, I think holding a grudge is a bad thing on a few levels. First, holding a grudge against someone can be emotionally draining, if you instead forgive them and move on you will be better for it. Second, if you never forgive someone, you can get into long standing feuds and if you retaliate you can get into some pretty long cycles of violence. It's much better to forgive and move on.

There is one potential downside here, I honestly don't think it's a very good argument against the bible, but it is a potential argument someone could have so I think it's worth discussing. The one potential danger I can imagine here is someone taking advantage of you, or harming you in some way. If you keep forgiving them and then letting them harm you again and again that is obviously a bad thing. But I said this is a bad argument against the bible, notice the verses here don't say to forgive and forget. It's possible to forgive someone and not hold grudges against them, and yet still protect yourself from further harm. You can forgive them and still remove yourself from a situation where they would be able to repeat the offense, whatever it was. As I said, this seems like a potential argument someone might try to make, but I don't think it holds water.

My primary source for these summary posts is my list of verses which I picked out as I read the New Testament. Given that I only have 4 verses about forgiveness, I wanted to look a little bit deeper, so I did a search for the words forgiveness and forgive. I missed a few that would fit perfectly well into my first paragraph (Matthew 6:12-15, Mark 11:25, Luke 6:37, Luke 11:4). There are also a few verses that don't seem quite so nice. Luke 17:3-4 seems to say that you should rebuke people if they sin, and only forgive them once they repent. I suppose the message is still that you should forgive them, but it does seem a bit different from what was said before. Also, in John 20:23 Jesus is telling his disciples that they have the power to forgive people of their sins, but they also seem to have the option to withhold that forgiveness if they wish. I'm honestly not sure what to make of that, but it doesn't seem too nice. The rest of the verses in those searches seem to be all about God forgiving us of sins.

Of course, simply searching for forgiveness is not quite enough to get a whole picture, we need to think of the other side of the coin, I suppose anger is a good place to start. On my list, I have 4 verses about anger (Ephesians 4:31-32Ephesians 4:26-27Colossians 3:8-9James 1:19), all say that anger is a thing to be avoided, which fits right in with the main message we are seeing here, so we have some consistency, that is good. The other thing that seems natural to look at here is violence. Looking back at my previous post on this topic, we are generally told not to be violent ourselves, but God is extremely violent. We've got a bit of a "do as I say not as I do" situation. I guess that is not too different from the message about forgiveness itself, we are told to forgive people over and over, but God is unwilling to forgive us for blasphemy, and he will only forgive our sins if we follow his rules exactly, otherwise we burn. Nevertheless, I think the overall message from the New Testament is that we should forgive people, and I definitely think that is a good thing.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Bitter Pill: Every American Needs to Read this Article

Go Read the Cover Article


I was reading the Time cover article "Bitter Pill" by Steven Brill this morning. It's all about how screwed up our medical system is and how the billing works. It's super long, it will piss you off, and you need to read it. Seriously, go read it!

Jon Stewart also interviewed Steven Brill and had an extended interview, it is worth watching as well.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I'm not really sure what else to write about here, as I was reading the article I highlighted some quotes that I figured I'd share here, but mostly I just want everyone to read this article. If you have a blog of your own, I highly encourage you to read the article and do a post on it as well, even if it is pretty simple and just let's all of your readers know it exists. I really would like everyone in america to see this thing. Regardless of your political position, I imagine you are hard pressed to not find the problems in this article compelling. We might disagree on the solution, but we should at least be able to agree that there is a huge fucking problem. If you don't have a blog, share it on twitter, facebook, and all of those other social media ker'jiggers that you young folk do nowadays.

From page 1:

When we debate health care policy, we seem to jump right to the issue of who should pay the bills, blowing past what should be the first question: Why exactly are the bills so high?
And what is so different about the medical ecosystem that causes technology advances to drive bills up instead of down?
In the U.S., people spend almost 20% of the gross domestic product on health care, compared with about half that in most developed countries. Yet in every measurable way, the results our health care system produces are no better and often worse than the outcomes in those countries.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and health-care-product industries, combined with organizations representing doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, health services and HMOs, have spent $5.36 billion since 1998 on lobbying in Washington. That dwarfs the $1.53 billion spent by the defense and aerospace industries and the $1.3 billion spent by oil and gas interests over the same period. That’s right: the health-care-industrial complex spends more than three times what the military-industrial complex spends in Washington.
From page 2:

According to the hospital’s latest filing (covering 2010), its total expenses for laboratory work (like Janice S.’s blood tests) in the 12 months covered by the report were $27.5 million. Its total charges were $293.2 million. That means it charged about 11 times its costs.
In relation to the chargemaster (a list of the prices of things in the hospital)
“It’s a list we use internally in certain cases, but most people never pay those prices. I doubt that Brian [Grissler] [a hospital CEO] has even seen the list in years. So I’m not sure why you care.”
Orstad also refused to comment on any of the specifics in Janice S.’s bill, including the seemingly inflated charges for all the lab work. “I’ve told you I don’t think a bill like this is relevant,” he explained. “Very few people actually pay those rates.”
But Janice S. was asked to pay them.
An “NM MYO REST/SPEC EJCT MOT MUL” was billed at $7,997.54. That’s a stress test using a radioactive dye that is tracked by an X-ray computed tomography, or CT, scan. Medicare would have paid Stamford $554 for that test.
From page 3:
there is little patient pushback against higher costs because it seems to (and often does) result in safer, better care and because the customer getting the treatment is either not going to pay for it or not going to know the price until after the fact.
In health care, being nonprofit produces more profit.
60% of the personal bankruptcy filings each year are related to medical bills.
From page 5:
 A note at the end of an Ernst & Young audit that is attached to Mercy’s IRS filing reported that the chain provided charity care worth 3.2% of its revenue in the previous year. However, the auditors state that the value of that care is based on the charges on all the bills, not the actual cost to Mercy of providing those services — in other words, the chargemaster value.
Pharmaceutical and medical-device companies routinely insert clauses in their sales contracts prohibiting hospitals from sharing information about what they pay and the discounts they receive. 
MD Anderson’s charge of $7 each for “ALCOHOL PREP PAD.” This is a little square of cotton used to apply alcohol to an injection. A box of 200 can be bought online for $1.91.
From page 6:

“[Steven (a patient with lung cancer)] kept saying he wanted every last minute he could get, no matter what. But I [Steven's wife Alice] had to be thinking about the cost and how all this debt would leave me and my daughter.” By the time Steven D. died at his home in Northern California the following November, he had lived for an additional 11 months. And Alice had collected bills totaling $902,452. The family’s first bill — for $348,000 — which arrived when Steven got home from the Seton Medical Center in Daly City, Calif., was full of all the usual chargemaster profit grabs: $18 each for 88 diabetes-test strips that Amazon sells in boxes of 50 for $27.85; $24 each for 19 niacin pills that are sold in drugstores for about a nickel apiece. There were also four boxes of sterile gauze pads for $77 each. None of that was considered part of what was provided in return for Seton’s facility charge for the intensive-care unit for two days at $13,225 a day, 12 days in the critical unit at $7,315 a day and one day in a standard room (all of which totaled $120,116 over 15 days). There was also $20,886 for CT scans and $24,251 for lab work.
From page 7:
In fact, Palmer — echoing a constant and convincing refrain I heard from billing advocates across the country — alleged that the hospital triple-billed for some items used in Scott’s care in the intensive-care unit. “First they charge more than $2,000 a day for the ICU, because it’s an ICU and it has all this special equipment and personnel,” she says. “Then they charge $1,000 for some kit used in the ICU to give someone a transfusion or oxygen … And then they charge $50 or $100 for each tool or bandage or whatever that there is in the kit. That’s triple billing.”
“People, especially relatively wealthy people, always think they have good insurance until they see they don’t,” says Palmer. “Most of my clients are middle- or upper-middle-class people with insurance.”
From page 8:
The pharmaceutical industry’s common explanation for the price difference is that U.S. profits subsidize the research and development of trailblazing drugs that are developed in the U.S. and then marketed around the world. Apart from the question of whether a country with a health-care-spending crisis should subsidize the rest of the developed world — not to mention the question of who signed Americans up for that mission — there’s the fact that the companies’ math doesn’t add up.
According to securities filings of major drug companies, their R&D expenses are generally 15% to 20% of gross revenue. In fact, Grifols spent only 5% on R&D for the first nine months of 2012.
All the numbers tell one consistent story: Regulating drug prices the way other countries do would save tens of billions of dollars while still offering profit margins that would keep encouraging the pharmaceutical companies’ quest for the next great drug.
From page 10:
A $121,414 Stanford Hospital bill for a 90-year-old California woman who fell and broke her wrist became $16,949. A $51,445 bill for the three days an ailing 91-year-old spent getting tests and being sedated in the hospital before dying of old age became $19,242. Before Medicare went to work, the bill was chock-full of creative chargemaster charges
From page 11:
The real issue isn’t whether we have a single payer or multiple payers. It’s whether whoever pays has a fair chance in a fair market. 
We should outlaw the chargemaster.
we should embarrass Democrats into stopping their fight against medical-malpractice reform and instead provide safe-harbor defenses for doctors so they don’t have to order a CT scan whenever, as one hospital administrator put it, someone in the emergency room says the word head.
They know what the core problem is — lopsided pricing and outsize profits in a market that doesn’t work. Yet there is little in Obamacare that addresses that core issue or jeopardizes the paydays of those thriving in that marketplace. In fact, by bringing so many new customers into that market by mandating that they get health insurance and then providing taxpayer support to pay their insurance premiums, Obamacare enriches them. That, of course, is why the bill was able to get through Congress.
Put simply, with Obamacare we’ve changed the rules related to who pays for what, but we haven’t done much to change the prices we pay.
Have you gotten to the bottom of my post and haven't read the source article yet? Dude, go read it, seriously!

Sunday, February 24, 2013

What Does the New Testament Say About Family?

Check out today's episode

I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about Family. Other entries in this series:
pic from here
  1. Slavery
  2. The Apocalypse
  3. Women
  4. Violence
  5. Sexuality
  6. Obedience
  7. Fear
  8. Blasphemy
  9. Wealth
  10. Binary Thinking
  11. Faith
  12. the Afterlife and Free Will
  13. Suffering
Christians will often point out that the bible is pro-family. There are certainly a few verses where this is unquestionably true, but is that the overall picture we get from the New Testament? Let's start with the sermon on the mount, in Matthew 5:23-24 Jesus says that if you are involved in a religious ritual and you realize that you have some unresolved issue with your brother you should temporarily abandon the ritual in favor of patching things up with your brother. The clear message as I read it here is that even though the ritual is important, family is even more important. Take care of those relationships first. This is a great message, I like it.

There are also a number of pro-family verses that take the opposite perspective, talking about what not to do, rather than what to do. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 is giving a list of bad people, and includes "those who strike their fathers and mothers". This I also find pretty hard to argue with, so we have 2 verses so far that I imagine everyone would agree are pro-family. There are also a number of verses centered on obedience, Colossians 3:20Romans 1:29-32, and 2 Timothy 3:2-5 all instruct children to be obedient to their parents. This is generally a good thing, but really does need to be tapered off as the kids grow older, and of course some parents are abusive and obeying them is not necessarily always a good thing. As often happens, the bible takes a good rule of thumb and pushed it too far, but nevertheless, as a rule of thumb telling children to obey their parents is probably a good thing. Ephesians 6:1-4 also tells children to obey their parents, but it adds that father's shouldn't provoke their children to anger, good but strange advice, it makes me wonder what environment we are talking about where this even needs to be said. While we are talking about obedience, 1 Peter 3:1,5 says that wives should also be obedient to the husband (well it says be subject to and to submit to their husbands). This is just garbage, although there are many Christian communities where this is how things are run, men are in charge of their wives as it says in the bible.

There are a few other things that the religious right here in America would like to consider "family values". Hebrews 13:4 says that you shouldn't have sex before marriage. This might sound reasonable on the surface, especially from the perspective of a parent who doesn't want their child to be hurt, but drawing that line at marriage does create some problems. The most obvious (to me) is that it encourages people to get married before they are really ready. This is particularly bad because, as Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 tell us, divorce and remarriage is the same as committing adultery. And as long as I am talking about marriage, I will once again bring up that odd verse Luke 20:35 which says that if you are married then you can't get in to heaven. So strange! (Note from later: TWF mentioned in the comments of a post where this came up before that the verse is really talking about getting married after you die. If you look at the surrounding verses, this verse seems to be telling us that we can get married in this age, but not after the resurrection. Although that produces a different problem, I certainly don't like the idea of not being married to my wife in the afterlife. What does it say about how Jesus views marriage if we are only married for a small finite piece of our infinite existence?)

So far, we have a few verses that are very clearly pro-family, and we have a bunch of verses that talk about family dynamics whose value can be debated, are there any verses in the bible that are very clearly detrimental to the family? There absolutely are, Jesus repeated tells people that religion is more important than family, I imagine many Christians would be surprised to find these verses in their bible. In Matthew 4:21-22 when Jesus was gathering his first disciples, he saw 2 brothers out fishing with their dad repairing the nets. I think it is safe to assume that this was not just a family activity, but their livelihood, upon being prompted by Jesus, they followed him and abandoned their father. In Luke 18:29-30 Jesus says that anyone who leaves their family for the benefit of the kingdom of God will be rewarded in the afterlife, and in Matthew 10:34-39 Jesus says that anyone who loves their father, mother, or even their own children more than they love Jesus, they are not worthy of him. What kind of an ego-maniac would say such a thing? This is not just for other people though, Jesus treated his own family like this as well. On 2 occasions (Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:20-21) Jesus' mother and siblings came to see him, and he refused to see them, saying instead that his followers are his family. This last interaction I find slightly amusing actually, he's calling his followers his family, clearly implying that being family is a good thing, while simultaneously ignoring his actual family, implying that family isn't that big of a deal.

My comics archive
So ultimately, we have a few verses that are pro-family and a few verses that are anti-family, and a number that can be argued either way. But ultimately it seems to me that the argument that the bible is pro-family just doesn't hold up here. Sure, Jesus tells us that resolving things with your brother, but when it comes time for him to do it he refuses to see his brother. He says that you should obey your parent but he refuses to see his mother. Actions speak louder than words. 

Saturday, February 23, 2013

What Does the New Testament Say About Suffering?

Check out today's episode

I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about Suffering. Other entries in this series:
  1. Slavery
  2. The Apocalypse
  3. Women
  4. Violence
  5. Sexuality
  6. Obedience
  7. Fear
  8. Blasphemy
  9. Wealth
  10. Binary Thinking
  11. Faith
  12. the Afterlife and Free Will
The vast majority of the time when the New Testament mentions suffering, it talks about it as if it is a good thing. Romans 8:17Colossians 1:242 Timothy 1:82 Timothy 2:3, and Hebrews 2:9-10 all praise suffering, it is a good thing that brings us closer to Jesus. Hebrews 5:8 adds that through suffering we learn obedience, which I suppose is true, if someone was causing me to suffer I would obey them to prevent further suffering. 1 Peter 4:1,13 adds that if you have suffered then you have ceased from sin. The big problem here is that suffering itself is being glorified, instead of the cause or the result of that suffering.
Sometimes God sounds like Maddox
What naturally comes next? If suffering itself is good, then the rational thing to do would be to go out and seek out some suffering. To be happy when it comes your way. The New Testament even pushes us in the direction by supporting a persecution complex. Galatians 4:292 Timothy 3:12, and 1 John 3:13 all tell Christians that they should be expected to be persecuted, the world hates them for being Christians. But it actually goes farther than that, Luke 6:22 and 2 Corinthians 12:10 take things a step farther and tell Christians to rejoice in being persecuted, and why not, the message we see is that a good Christian should be persecuted, an easy message to get here is that if you are not being persecuted then your faith is lacking. I think we can see the effects of this in America, Christians yell persecution at the drop of a hat. It's gotten to the point that they call it persecution when we stop try to stop them from discriminating other people. Obvious examples of this are gay marriage and contraception (they can make these rules all they want, but when they try to control what non-Christians do then we have a problem). 

The issue I have with the above verses about suffering is that they praise the suffering itself. The message that comes from those verses is that suffering is good, you should suffer and be happy about suffering. That message is crap, but there are actually a few verses that advocate suffering that I agree with. 1 Peter 3:17 and Acts 21:13 say that you should be willing to risk suffering and even death for your principles. It obviously is highly dependent on the specific circumstances, but it is a great thing to risk personal safety for something you really believe in. Just think of a soldier in the military, or perhaps a fireman, they are risking bodily harm and death for a good cause, they are rightly praised. But we aren't praising them for their suffering, we are praising them for being willing to deal with some suffering for a good cause. I could just out of a third story window and break my legs and experience a great deal of suffering, you wouldn't praise me for it, you'd probably call me an idiot. It's not the suffering that is important, it's the reason for the suffering.

Of course, not all suffering is a result of a standing up for good cause or stupidity. Sometimes we just wind up suffering as a result of an accident or maybe we catch a disease. It can be easy to think that we are alone, that we are the only one having to deal with our unique situation (whoa, flashback to high school). It is nice to know that other people are dealing with similar situations, and many people have done so in the past and got through it just fine. 1 Peter 5:9 tells us exactly this, there are other people dealing with the same kinds of suffering throughout the world. It's nice to see a little bit of good advice coming out of the bible, even though, as usual, it seems that the good is heavily outweighed by the bad.

Friday, February 22, 2013

What Does the New Testament Say About the Afterlife and Free Will?

Check out today's episode

I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about the Afterlife and Free Will. Other entries in this series:
  1. Slavery
  2. The Apocalypse
  3. Women
  4. Violence
  5. Sexuality
  6. Obedience
  7. Fear
  8. Blasphemy
  9. Wealth
  10. Binary Thinking
  11. Faith
For all that we focus on it nowadays, the New Testament actually says surprisingly little about the afterlife. But it does say a few things, so let's dig in. The first thing we should probably explore is what the afterlife will be like. For those who will make it to heaven, the modern view is that they will live in some kind of a perfect paradise. This idea is backed up very vaguely in 2 Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:23 which simply make the statement that it would be better to die and be with Jesus than to keep on living. A grim point of view, but a demonstration of how amazing heaven will be. And of course there is a description in Revelation 21 of what paradise is like, but many of the details seem downright silly. And one picture of heaven seems downright torturous to me, according to Revelation 7:15 heaven will be serving God night and day. Speaking of torture, what about those who don't get into heaven, is there biblical justification for the eternal torture that we think of today? As far as I can tell, it's not nearly as elaborate as people tend to imagine now, but Revelation 20:15 does talk of being thrown into a lake of fire forever.

The next thing we want to explore is who gets in to heaven. 2 Corinthians 5:10 says that when we die we will be judged by what we did in life. This is certainly the picture that most people seem to have in their heads, Saint Peter at the pearly gates. Apparently he is checking to see if your name is in the book of life, which is mentioned in a few verses such as Revelation 20:15 mentioned above. But the specific rules are sparse and fairly peculiar, according to Luke 20:35, Jesus thinks that only single people are eligible for heaven. But that is certainly an isolated verse, perhaps it should be rejected via the one verse rule, after all, God wants everyone to get into heaven (1 Timothy 2:4) certainly he wouldn't exclude every married person.

More of my Comics
But is this really true? Does God really want everyone to get into heaven? He certainly doesn't seem to be doing a lot to try to get people to believe in him, I have never seen a shred of proof that he exists, you would think that an all powerful God could convince me he is real. But the extent of God's inaction is much worse than this, in Revelation 20:7-9 Satan tricks people into following him and God does nothing to stop it. Furthermore, in Revelation 19:20-21 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 people are severely punished for being tricked in these ways. But it's even worse than that, because it is not just that Satan has tricked people and God is complicit through inaction, in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 and Revelation 17:17 we see that God actually tricks people himself for the express purpose of punishing them. 

That is where this post veers into the territory of free will, how much chance to the people who have been tricked by extremely powerful being (maybe even God) to be saved and wind up in heaven? I would say zero. If God himself wants to punish you, and is willing to send you a delusion to trick you into doing evil things, then it is impossible for you to be good. You will do the wrong thing (perhaps thinking you are doing the right thing) and you will end up in hell. Those people did not have free will. This certainly seems to go against the idea that we all choose our own fate, that we all have the opportunity to be saved, we only have to choose Jesus, but it's up to us. Free will is even the defense many people give against the problem of evil. But the New Testament seems to be pretty clear that we do not have free will to determine whether or not we get to heaven. According to Ephesians 1:5,11 and Revelation 17:8, the book of life was written at the beginning of time. Whether or not we get into heaven was determined long before we were even born. So how can we have free will, if there is nothing we can do to change whether or not we will go to heaven?

Thursday, February 21, 2013

What Does the New Testament Say About Faith?

Check out today's episode

I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about Faith. Other entries in this series:
  1. Slavery
  2. The Apocalypse
  3. Women
  4. Violence
  5. Sexuality
  6. Obedience
  7. Fear
  8. Blasphemy
  9. Wealth
  10. Binary Thinking
When talking about faith, the first question we probably want to ask is what faith means exactly. Atheists will often assert that Christian faith is blind faith, while Christians will say that their faith in God is no different than the faith we all have in things like the sun coming up tomorrow. But what does the New Testament say? It seems to be on the side of the atheists here, Hebrews 11:1 says pretty explicitly that faith is blind faith, it says "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.", that sounds a lot more like blind faith to me than our shared 'faith' that the sun will come up tomorrow. 1 Peter 1:8 talks of loving Jesus even though you have never seen him and 1 John 4:12 quite explicitly says that no one has ever seen God. Further, in John 20:29 Jesus is talking to people who believe in him who have known him, but highly praises those who believe in him without having that benefit, clearly blind faith is being praised here. In all of these cases we are supposed to believe in and love God despite having never seen him. Seems to me that the bible really does mean blind faith when it says faith.

This will be a surprise to no one, but the bible considers faith to be a virtue. Romans 4:5Philippians 3:91 Timothy 6:112 Timothy 1:52 Timothy 2:22Revelation 2:10, and Revelation 2:19 all mention faith as something to strive for, as well as many other verses that I, quite frankly, just got tired of keeping track of during my reading. So what does all this faith get you? Matthew 7:7Mark 9:23, and 1 John 3:22 all say that we will get whatever we want from God if we ask for it. John 14:12 says that whoever believes in Jesus will do the works that he did, which seems to consist largely of miracles. Several verses get more specific on this point, Luke 17:6 says that if you have faith you can command a mulberry tree to uproot itself and plant in the sea. And Luke 8:48Luke 17:19, and James 5:16 all make reference to faith healing.

You might think that these last items would give us something to look into more deeply. If faith healing works we should be able to set up some kind of an experiment, or we could ask someone who has faith in God to command a tree to uproot itself. However, such experiments are explicitly forbidden. In Luke 4:12 and 2 Corinthians 13:2-3 we are told that testing God is against the rules. It makes me wonder what they are so afraid of, if faith really works wouldn't we be encouraged to examine its effects? It would seem that someone who doesn't want their record analyzed has something to hide. The idea of examining evidence itself is interesting, as the New Testament gives us instructions on how we should do this, it is easy, anything good is God's doing, anything bad is man's. This might seem silly, but Philippians 4:13James 1:13,17James 3:15, and 2 Peter 1:3-4 all push forward this philosophy. Honestly, it is somewhat brilliant in its simplicity. If you can get people to swallow it, no matter what happens will turn out favorably for God, everything good is from him, everything bad is us puny humans screwing up his plans.

This brings us to the opposite of faith, which is skepticism, there are actually a few verses which promote skepticism. 1 John 4:1 tells us to test spirits to see if they are really from God. This sounds great, but I'm not sure how we are supposed to carry this out as we saw in the last paragraph that we are not allowed to test God. It would seem that we would need to know whether or not it is from God before we test the spirit to see if it is from God. Furthermore, Luke 2:46 and Colossians 2:3-4 tell us to ask question and to learn, although they are really talking about learning about Jesus from the church leaders. And while the pro-skepticism messages are quite weak, the anti-skepticism messages are very strong. James 1:6 tells us to keep the faith and never doubt, while 2 Timothy 3:14 instructs us to just keep believing what we already believe, citing an argument from authority. We are told to ignore details (2 Timothy 2:161 Timothy 6:20) and to not ask too many questions (Titus 3:9Philippians 2:14-152 Timothy 3:7Colossians 2:8), that certain things shouldn't be learned (Matthew 16:121 John 2:27) and in Titus 3:10-11 we are even told that if someone asks too many questions that we should never talk to them again. So if we are not allowed to gain knowledge through skeptical methods, how are we supposed to learn things? Apparently faith is the best way to gain knowledge (Philemon 6).

More of my comics
One final thing I want to talk about to day is the idea of faith versus works. What does it take to get into heaven, is it just faith in Jesus regardless of what you do, or do you have to earn your way into heaven with works. In the church I grew up in, the idea that works matter was discarded completely, faith in Jesus was the one path to heaven and nothing else matters. But what does the bible say about it? It actually takes both sides of this issue, Galatians 3:1-9 takes the same position as my church growing up, that faith matters and works don't. However, James 2:14 seems to say that works are also necessary, it says that if you don't do works as well as have faith then the faith is dead. What does that mean? It seems to say that works are necessary too, but I think if we look at 1 John 2:4 we get a slightly clearer picture. It says that if you truly have faith you will want to do those works. It's not that those who don't do works will not get into heaven, the works themselves are not required. However, those who truly have faith will do the works anyway. This perspective actually makes a lot of sense to me, and it fits well into the picture they draw of what it really means to accept Jesus into their hearts.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...