The following is an article I wrote on this day last year about in celebration of first day of Ridvan, a Baha’i festival.

Since man first gained consciousness of himself he has come face to face with forces that he does not understand. The concept of religion, whether named or not, has been around since the dawn of humanity. Thus, every single day there probably is a celebration of some festival of the past. Some founder of a religion is either born, or has declared himself to the world. I use “he” fairly liberally simply because religious leaders, and especially founders, traditionally are men, most likely compensating for something.

I feel that it is important to occasionally recognize the foundations of religions or to celebrate their birth. One such significant religion is the Baha’i Faith. Much like the founders of the world’s other major religions, Bahá’u’lláh received an explicit vision from God. The history of the Baha’i Faith reads like a condensed version of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. And like the Christian faith, the Baha’i was founded during a crucial epoch in history which would contribute to the exponential growth of the religion. As early Christians took advantage of the Pax Romana complete with safe passage on the newly built road system, the Baha’i have spread their message with the use of ocean liners, automobiles, and now the internet.

In Shi’a Islam there was promised to be a Messianic figure known as the Al-Qā’im (He Who Arises). In 1844, a young Persian merchant named Siyyid Mírzá `Alí-Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the next manifestation of God, fulfilling this title of the Al-Qā’im. He declared himself “The Báb” (The Gate). Within six years The Báb gained a multitude of followers which named themselves Bábís. After numerous conflicts with the Islam authorities he was executed before a firing squad in 1850. During his ministry, however, he wrote of a person whom “He whom God shall make manifest”.

Two years after The Báb’s execution, one of his followers, Husayn `Alí of Nur, was incarcerated in Tehran. At one pointHusayn `Alí of Nur changed his name to Bahá’u’lláh. During this time, as he later told his followers, he received a vision that it was indeed him “whom God shall make manifest”. The first time he pronounced this vision was on April 21, 1863. As Bahá’u’lláh’s mission continued to grow, he came into conflict with the appointed leader of the Bábís, Subh-i-Azal. This eventually led to the 1866 public declaration of his calling, which he had already told a few followers three years earlier. Bahá’u’lláh died in 1892 after living his entire life in exile or imprisonment.

In just over 150 years since that first declaration, the Baha’i Faith has become known as one of the most ethnically diverse religions boasting approximately 5 million adherents. It is often used as a functionary by the United Nations because of its distinct advocacy for human rights. It is one of the new independent major religions, meaning that it has transcended a “cult” like status and is taken seriously on the world religious stage.

However, the religious plurality, or more definitive, the religious relativity, of the Baha’i Faith occasionally runs into conflict when addressing certain congregations. The Baha’i Faith does not target conversions from the mainstream adherents of other rleigions, but to those who are disgruntled with the lack of tolerance and acceptance. I will end with the following message concerning the Baha’i Faith in relation to other religions.

The Changeless Faith of God

When Bahá’ís say that the various religions are one, they do not mean that the various religious creeds and organizations are the same. Rather, they believe that there is only one religion and all of the Messengers of God have progressively revealed its nature. Together, the world’s great religions are expressions of a single unfolding Divine plan, “the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future.”

People from all of the major religious backgrounds have found that the promises and expectations of their own beliefs are fulfilled in the Bahá’í Faith. Bahá’ís from Native American, African and other indigenous backgrounds, similarly, find in the Bahá’í teachings fulfillment of prophetic visions.

For Bahá’ís of Jewish background, Bahá’u’lláh is the appearance of the promised “Lord of Hosts” come down “with ten thousands of saints.” A descendent of Abraham and a “scion from the root of Jesse,” Bahá’u’lláh has come to lead the way for nations to “beat their swords into plowshares.” Many features of Bahá’u’lláh’s involuntary exile to the Land of Israel, along with other historical events during Bahá’u’lláh’s life and since are seen as fulfilling numerous prophecies in the Bible.

For Bahá’ís of Buddhist background, Bahá’u’lláh fulfils the prophecies for the coming of “a Buddha named Maitreye, the Buddha of universal fellowship” who will, according to Buddhist traditions, bring peace and enlightenment for all humanity. They see the fulfillment of numerous prophecies, such as the fact that the Buddha Maitreye is to come from “the West”, noting the fact that Iran is West of India.

For Bahá’ís of Hindu background, Bahá’u’lláh comes as the new incarnation of Krishna, the “Tenth Avatar” and the “Most Great Spirit.” He is “the birthless, the deathless,” the One who, “when goodness grows weak,” returns “in every age” to “establish righteousness” as promised in the Bhagavad-Gita.

For Bahá’ís of Christian background, Bahá’u’lláh fulfils the paradoxical promises of Christ’s return “in the Glory of the Father” and as a “thief in the night.” That the Faith was founded in 1844 relates to numerous Christian prophecies. Bahá’ís note, for example, that central Africa was finally opened to Christianity in the 1840s, and that event was widely seen as fulfilling the promise that Christ would return after “the Gospel had been preached ‘to all nations.'” In Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings Bahá’ís see fulfillment of Christ’s promise to bring all people together so that “there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

For Bahá’ís of Muslim background, Bahá’u’lláh fulfils the promise of the Qur’an for the “Day of God” and the “Great Announcement,” when “God” will come down “overshadowed with clouds.” They see in the dramatic events of the Bábi and Bahá’í movements the fulfillment of many traditional statements of Muhammad, which have long been a puzzle.

Sources and more info:

• On the Ridvan festival
• On the “Changeless Faith of God”

I will leave this here for the time being, but please, update your links to https://bradleyrichert.com 

So blah blah blah, right?  Well, not really. As I am working on several of these papers I would like to get some outside opinions. Two of these papers are directly related to topics I have discussed (and will discuss in more detail as this blog takes a little bit of a thematic turn): Absolutes and mystery religion. Of course leave it up to me to pick an impossible topic (the former). Let me clarify the topic a bit.

The course is Advanced Topics in Buddhism: Mahayana Buddhism. The topic I had developed was the idea of Absolutes within Mahayana Buddhism. HH the XIVth Dalai Lama onced proclaimed that if Buddhism had any absolutes it would be compassion. This stuck with me. Basically, I am investigating the relation between ontological and moral absolutism. Although I have yet to develop a hard thesis, my underlying questioning involves the validity of distinguishing between different sorts of absolutes. In Mahayana Buddhism the big topics are wisdom and compassion (moral absolutes?) and the relation between conventional and real truths (a hidden ontological absolute?). Any thoughts? Khalidmir, if you have any links of articles relating to the subject in classical or islamic thought, it would be much appreciated.

The second paper is for Early Christian Writings and the topic I have developed is the secretive nature of Jesus in early Christian writings. Any links would be helpful. I haven’t really started on this paper yet, but I doubt it will be much of a problem writing it once I narrow down what books I want to concentrate on (canonical and non-canonical).

Anyway, although I cannot get into much discussion, I would greatly appreciate any first thoughts or references. These papers, plus one afterwards, will be where my head is for the next couple of weeks, so don’t expect too much posting. As briefly stated above, you will probably notice a slight thematic change to the blog after the holidays. For the past month I have concentrated on mainly religious-oriented articles, and they appear to be much more popular (and more fun to write) than political posts – plus they don’t get me riled up as much. Finding much more success in the theme, I will concentrate on both academic and personal religious ideas.

As further extrapolation of this character through his dialogues will show, Vimalakīrti is ultimately reconciler of dichotomies that symbolizes the underlying principles of Mahāyāna Buddhism, which as we will see is the reason for the label of ‘The Jewel of the Mahāyāna Scriptures’. Vimalakīrti is presented as not only a respected figure, but also as one with corrective authority. Two entire chapters of the sutra are dedicated to explaining how reluctant the disciples and even the bodhisattvas are to console Vimalakīrti’s manifested sickness due to previous encounters in which Vimalakīrti would find fault with their actions and teachings.

Although Vimalakīrti is presented as a householder, a layman, it quickly becomes evident that Vimalakīrti is no ordinary man. Besides his understanding of the Buddha’s teachings and his miraculous abilities, there is one early clue to what Vimalakīrti may actually be. In a discussion with the disciple Subhūti, Vimalakīrti indirectly plays on the idea that a dialogue with Vimalakīrti is like having a dialogue with an incarnation created by the Buddha. Whether this is an allusion to Vimalakīrti being an emanated incarnation (nirmana) of the Buddha is debatable, but strongly enforced by a later chapter when Vimalakīrti creates an emanated incarnation. Even if this is not the case, Vimalakīrti is in the very least not just a layman, but is a bodhisattva from the Abhirati universe.

The most obvious comparison to Vimalakīrti is the Buddha himself, as it is extremely difficult to compare such a man to any individual bound by Western concepts. Vimalakīrti fits the mold of many religious figures, such as Jesus the Nazarene, who perform miraculous acts and teach subtle messages that few understand and confuse many. Vimalakīrti is considered the reconciler of dichotomies, whereas many call Jesus the reconciler between God and man. The closest comparison one can make would be in a comparison between Vimalakīrti and the Gnostic conception of Jesus: revealing and then reconciling the ultimate reality with the conventional.

Within the discourse of this sutra is the central teaching of the ‘Inconceivable Liberation’. The liberation that is called ‘inconceivable’ is available only to the Tathāgatas and bodhisattvas, although the message can be transmitted through those that do not attain it. The ‘Inconceivable Liberation’ is represented through the miraculous achievements of reconciling dichotomies such as in the example of placing a large mountain in the mustard seed without shrinking the mountain or enlarging the seed. Clearly, this is an incomprehensible feat. Thurman states that inconceivability is a reference to the ordinary conditioned mind that cannot break free of conceptual terms that continually grasp for conventional reality. The ‘Inconceivable Liberation’ is the liberation that surpasses the dualism of ultimate and conventional realities.

Vimalakīrti often explicitly distinguishes his teachings from mainstream Buddhism in his dialogues with the disciples of the Buddha. Vimalakīrti represents the Mahāyāna perspective by contrasting himself in many ways with the traditional values and doctrines of the śrāvakas. The divergence of teachings is set up in the third and fourth chapters when the śrāvakas and bodhisattvas explain to the Buddha why they are reluctant to visit Vimalakīrti: they are found wanting in their teachings and actions according to the wise Licchavi. Most importantly, each set of the latter teachings is presented as a rebuttal to Śāriputra’s mainstream understandings of Buddhist doctrine. During Vimalakīrti’s elucidation of the Inconceivable Liberation, he produces a set of statements that negate existing mainstream structures as revealed through the traditional abhidharmas. Essentially, Vimalakīrti’s main concern is that a person following the mainstream Buddhist doctrines attaches themselves to various entities: this could be the five aggregates or even the Three Jewels (Buddha, Saṅgha, and Dharma) or the Noble’s Four Truths. Vimalakīrti rejects outright simple adherence to the teachings, as that will result in attachment to them. Where this takes a radical turn is in its relation to liberation: attachment to liberation is a desire itself. The traditional belief that Vimalakīri contests is liberation as a teleological goal. This places nirvana, a compounded thing, as its own essence; Vimalakīrti states that the Dharma is free from compounded things as well as uncompounded things, such as samsara. These leads to a very Mahāyāna concept: to take interest in the Dharma is to take interesting in nothing. Anything other than this concept is a result of selfish desire and will not allow the ultimate, inconceivable liberation. Thus, Mahāyāna thought, as presented by Vimalakīrti, is not so much a different doctrine, but a different way of perceiving it in order to attain its highest purpose. As a result of a different way of perceiving the Dharma, traditional structures such as emptiness and form take on evolved meanings: ultimate and conventional truths (samvṛttisatya and paramārthasatya) are modes of reality rather than ways of being.

Judging by the hard repudiation of the śrāvakas and even the bodhisattvas, the Vimalakīrti-Nirdesa Sutra was definitely not written within the monastic tradition. The disciples are consistently presented in a poor light and are used as representatives of the inferior way (hinayāna); the attitudes of the disciples – notably Śāriputra – are often a result of attachment to monastic legalities and doctrines. The Buddha himself is a minor character in the sutra, surpassed in positive contextual influence by two particular individuals: Vimalakīrti and the crown prince Mañjuśrī. The commonality between these two are that they are both wealthy laymen, probably of noble or royal lineage and therefore are not monks. This rejection of a traditional monastic foundation is common within Mahāyāna literature, and the specific situation of this sutra likely indicates that the target was a royal audience. It is likely that the sutra was written by some ‘elite’ monks (that is to say monks attune to Mahāyāna thought) to gain favour from the privileged class of the Licchavi kingdom. The teaching of the Vimalakīrti stresses experience of the ‘religion’ rather than obedience to doctrines. The instruction advocates a form of truth not obviously integrated with mainstream Buddhism: the ultimate truth as state of peace that is unproduced and universally nirvana-sized – we just need to realize it through the skillful techniques of compassion.

As previously mentioned, the Vimalakīrti-Nirdesa Sutra is often referred to as the jewel of the Mahāyāna sutras. Readers who take the time to consider the teachings of this sutra can easily appreciate why this is the case. The sutra does not outline a doctrine of particular thought through the use of systematic apologetics or categorical imperatives. Rather, Vimalakīrti offers a striking rendition of a religion of reconciliation of dichotomies through the use of penetrating dialogue and flamboyant imagery. It stands out in comparison to other writings as a complete design, explaining the unexplainable and examining the very core of Buddhist thought by not only critiquing the status quo, but offering solutions to perhaps some very important philosophical problems.

Yet can this rhetoric continue to suppress the reality of war? Most of us have this amazing ability to simply turn the channel when those folks from World Vision start asking for money, sitting there with a child from Africa who is a quarter of my weight. We watch scenes of war and yet it has next to no effect on us. Perhaps it is because it is too far away. We are use to watching nothing but “actors” – professional deceivers. Everything we watch on television is manufactured in one form or another, and we know it. So how can extreme images of poverty and war effect us? Ollysk2 at Resist the Herd posted a recently released music video , “Bombs”, by Faithless ,which has apparently been banned by MTV for being too controversial. The album, “To All New Arrivals” was released a couple of days ago. Check it out:

 

If I don’t get out of this I I wish, I just want you to know that I really really love you.

 

So much more than I thought this world could ever hold
So much more than I thought this world could ever hold

 

We think we’re heroes, we think we’re kings
We plan all kinds of fabulous things
Oh look how great we have become

 

Key in the door, the moment I’ve been longing for
Before my bag hit the floor
My adorable children rush up screaming for a kiss,
and a story, they’re a gift to this world
My only claim to glory
I surely never knew sweeter days
Blows my mind like munitions
I’m amazed

 

So much heaven, so much hell
So much love, so much pain
So much more than I thought this world could ever contain
So much war, so much soul
Moments lost, moments go
So much more than I thought this world can ever hold
We’re just children, we’re just dust
We are small and we are lost
And we’re nothing, nothing at all

 

One bomb, the whole block gone
Can’t find me children and dust covers the sun
Everywhere is noise, panic and confusion
But to some, another fun day in Babylon
I’m gonna bury my wife and dig up my gun
My life is done so now I got to kill someone

 

So much heaven, so much hell
So much love, so much pain
So much more than I thought this world could ever contain
So much war, so much soul
Moments lost, moments go
So much more than I thought this world could ever hold

 

So much more than I thought this world could ever hold
So much more than I thought this world could ever hold

 

So much heaven, so much hell
So much love, so much pain
So much more than I thought this world could ever contain
So much war, so much soul
Moments lost, moments go
So much more than I thought this world could ever hold

During my time in Alberta I had developed relatively radical political views. Since this is not the topic of this article, I will only state that they were socialist-libertarian in nature. This, however, would have a deep impact on my religious views and the way I perceived mainstream religions (especially Christianity). As I may or may not have mentioned previously, the Sermon on the Mount several years earlier had already convinced me of the inconsistency of conservatism with the Scripture. Yet as I continued to look deeper into all things spiritual and religious, it became apparent that most of my critiques against any religion were reactions to institutionalization of religious or philosophical movements. The larger the institution became, the more corrupt and perverse so did the teachings. Hopeless attempts to correct this, such as the Protestant Reformation in Christianity during the 16th century simply became dead institutions in themselves. Radicals such as the Anabaptists became de-radicalized and joined mainstream Protestantism as they gained acceptance and their views became watered-down. New movements such as Pentecostalism relied on heavily charasmatic teachers and sensationalism with practices that would make most early 20th-century occultist jealous. Each of these attempts, at least initially, were not “wrong” or fallacious – they were examples of anarchist Christianity – tearing down the walls of stonelike institutions that deadened the theology or spirituality. Yet as time went on, they became re-institutionalized: the Protestant Reformation created a million Popes rather than rejecting one.

As you probably have perceived by now, this series was written piece by piece. The story may not have been completely coherent, but I hoped the discontent with my spirituality was obvious. It started with my own judgmentalism against Christians which led to a catastrophic questioning of my own faith. What was morality? How does politics play a part in Christianity? What does it mean to search for truth? Can a finite being know an infinite being? Is Scripture reliable? What about the billions of people who, according to my soteriology, are going to hell? These questions would come and go, reformulate and slowly be answered. Descartes took an afternoon, I took five years… and counting. Stripped of all presuppositions and conditioned cliches, I was able to genuinely search for truth. In the “end” my God was a small God. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – the God of the Hebrews and Israelites – the God of the Bible was a small God. So after much moral, philosophical, and political discontent, there would be three items that would come to define my faith: the problem of science, the problem of the Trinity, and the problem of Scripture.

The Problem of Science: Genesis and Damned Knowledge

I am sure that you have heard of the Theory of Evolution. I am sure you have heard of “Intelligent Design” (ID) and “Young Earth Creationism” (YEC). Problem: the Bible says God created the Heavens, Earth, and all of its inhabitants in six days, and took a breather on the seventh. Scientists say there was a New Years party in space around 13.7 billion years ago resulting in the creation of the universe – Earth of created around 4.6 billion years by who knows what and mankind evolved from a primordial goo. Evidence: traditional YEC supporters use the Bible as their source of evidence. Realizing this does not satisfy most people, a reformulation has arisen in the last fifteen years: Intelligent Design uses statistical probabilities to support its claims. Either way, both use negative-value evidence, hoping to show the inconsistencies or improbabilities of Evolution without positively enforcing their own claims – trust me, I have done the research, the majority of YEC claims to not attempt to show how science can support Creationism, but how Evolution comes up short. Evolution, on the other hand, uses something called the Scientific Method. The whole point of the method is to set out to disprove your hypothesis. If a scientist cannot disprove his hypothesis, he can publish it (more or less) – but if he or she did not test it rigorously enough another scientist will come along and disprove it (and is often rewarded for doing so). Science, unlike religion, celebrates those who disprove fallacies within its own sphere of research. Science, much to the dismay of YEC, is not a secular conspiracy to destroy the faith. It is an attempt to truthfully understand the world in which we live. This is not to say science is perfect and does not make mistakes, but the underlying principle of its method is an attempt to search for observable truths. Thus, science, much to Mr. Dawkin’s dismay, cannot disprove God no matter how hard he may try. God cannot be observed and thus cannot be scientifically disproven.

The fact is, YEC supporters do not target educated non-Christians. I have a problem with that. My problem is not that they are not targeting, but it is the reason they are not targeting anyone but their own people. YEC and ID are doing what they can to justify their religious beliefs – this is fair. What is not fair is the outcome this will have on believers. In 1992 the Roman Catholic Church finally apologized to Galileo Galilei – the only problem is that he had been dead for 350 years and his writings had been firmly accepted for several hundred years. Martin Luther had condemned Galileo as had the majority of the Protestants for quite some time. In the meantime, science had flourished and religion had waned. History had absolved the project of science time and time again, and every time religion dug its heels in it lost ground. The Church’s refusal to endorse science based on Biblical justification would do more to dismantle Christianity more than science ever would.

You will not find many evangelical, born-again, and/or conservative Christians studying Evolution. You may think, well, duh. Yet what this does is create a whole sector of people who refuse to even consider the possibility that God can work in whatever way God choses. Read Genesis again. Does Scripture itself negate the possibility of Evolution? If you have time, go pick up Francis S. Collins’ “The Language of God“. It takes less than a couple of days to read. Collins was the head of Human Genome Project and is a born-again Christian. Although the book is advertised as case for belief, his case for faith or belief in God is extremely weak – his case for acceptance of Evolution within Christianity is quite strong even with his fairly conservative theological views. If you do not have time, do not fret, I will have a comprehensive review of his on this blog at a later date (I will aim for December).

The Problem of the Trinity: A Herculean Tale

Ask any born-again Christian if he or she believes that Jesus the Nazarene was/is God. The average believer will immediately answer yes without a thought. A more perceptive believer might wonder why you said “Jesus the Nazarene” but would definitely answer yes. This problem of the Trinity will crossover with my next topic of the problem of Scripture, but will be dealt with assuming that you have not read ahead. For those of you who are not totally sure of the theology of the Trinity, do not worry, most believers are not totally sure how it works (technically, no one really knows – some think they do). Basically the Trinitarian model states that there is one God that exists simultaneously as three persons: Father (the Creator God), Son (the Saviour), and the Holy Spirit (the Mediator). Do not ask how this works. You cannot even begin to comprehend. What you need to know is that this “Three Persons in One God” model has been universally accepted by mainstream Christianity for the last 1700 years or so (although it was strongly supported by the end of the 2nd century). The history of Trinitarianism is an interesting subject, as are most early Christian doctrines. The doctrine was solidified in the Council of Nicea in 325 CE after a long are passionate theological battle between two schools of thought, one represented by Arius and another by Athanasius. The Council of Nicea, convoked by Emperor Constantine, became the judiaciary charged with deciding which was correct: Athanasius won and from then on Trinitarianism was the only acceptable form of Christianity. The Scriptural basis for this decision was relatively weak compared to the opposing ideas.

The Scriptural evidence for Jesus as God rests almost entirely in the Gospel of John (or those writings attributed to a John, ie. 1 John and Revelation) with one reference in the Pauline letters. Evidence against the Trinitarian model are numerous and found in many different canonical books: Psalms, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and 1 Timothy (respond if you would like some specific verses to think about). Some of these, of course, are stronger than others. However, in the pantheistic culture of early Christianity, any formulation which appeared as though there was more than one God would have been unpalpable to its Judaic roots and detrimental to the uniqueness of Christianity itself. Of course those of us who are the most skeptical would say that the Nicene Creed was playing politics in hopes of pleasing Constantine who found that a monotheistic God would work well for holding his empire together (I personally am not convinced of this, but I doubt very much that Constantine ever really did convert from his worship of Sol). What I find disturbing is that this discussion raved on for two hundred years, ended at the Council of Nicea and continues to this day without any form of opposition (apart from various small sects). At one time you could be considered a genuine Christian whether you believed that Jesus was God, the Son of God (without being God), or something akin to a “Son” of God. This discussion has been closed and its losers ridiculed and condemned.

The Problem of Scripture: Written by Man, Directed by God

The Bible has become an idol unto itself: perceived as the only and ultimate lens into the Creator – written by humans, but directed by God. When I was a teenager and believed the Bible as a literal truth, the most common expression I heard was, “What about all the contradictions in the Bible?” To which I answered, knowing that the person probably had never opened a Bible, “What contradictions?” This, more often than not, was enough. The problem with Biblical infallibility is that if one thing can be shown to be fallible, then so goes the whole concept – the Bible cannot be “almost infallible”. I could sit here all day, however, writing about the blatant contradictions within differing books, but I do not find such a project significant. Those predisposed to agree with me will do so, those predisposed to disagree will continue to do so. The fact is, the Bible was written by men – no one debates this. However, many Christians believe that the Bible is a result of divinely-inspired men who, at the time of the writing, could do no wrong – until they let down the pen. This may be true – a problem presents itself, however, when you try reading the Bible as it was written – seperately, but differing people with differing view on who Jesus was and what he taught. Endless works of apologetics have been written in attempts to reconcile the theologies presented in books of Romans and James, of Matthew and Mark, and Luke and John. Christian scholars often brush these views off as simply differing perceptions of Jesus, yet they do not take care to explain vastly different explanations of major concepts: faith, grace, work, etc.

The Bible was not written as a homogenuos entity. It is a collection of attempts by flawed, imperfect men to explain their faith, further their views, and spread the faith. Paul did not sit down and write to Ephesus thinking that what he wrote would be idolized as one of the few books in which God can be understood. No, it is how Paul understood God. And this is only for those books that are actually authentic. Books such as 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (the Pastoral Epistles) have been successfully shown that there is no way they could have been written by Paul. Yet many of the Church’s views continue to come from these books (All Scripture is God Breathed… Women should be silent… etc.). Some of the New Testament was written in the early 2nd century (pseudo-Pauline writings, John, Revelations, Luke, Acts, etc.) – a hundred years after Jesus. Early manuscripts have shown corruptions, additions and subtractions to our current Bible. Don’t take it from me, do some research.

The point of this “why i am a christian – iv” is not to convince anyone of anything. I do not present a case to deter you from your beliefs. It is simply to present a spiritual biography to show that I, like many people, was (and still am to a point) ticked off and questioning their Christianity or any other religion for that matter. And that I, to this day, reject the pseudo-science of Creationism and ‘Intelligent Design’, the classical Trinitarian model, and the infallibility of Scripture. Yet somehow I have faith. But in what? What is there left to have faith in?

…to be continued…

Buddhism, Eva K. Neumaier (Women in the Buddhist Traditions, “Women and Religious Traditions“) states, is one of the religions that begin with a historical founder and presents itself in the form of dialogue. Since the dialogue is within a cultural context it portrays itself as a contrast to the contemporary socio-religious framework of its day. Much of Siddhārtha Gautama’s responses towards women were counter-intuitive for the people of his day. An oft-used example is the general ascetic lifestyle. Ascetics in the Indic subcontinent were always male for females who wandered around would be considered shameful. As Gautama allowed women to follow him, they naturally took up this ascetic lifestyle, and furthermore was given allowance to do so by the Buddha. Neumaier points out, however, that despite this matter of respect in the new Buddhism that the women enjoyed dissipated in the later centuries.

It is apparent in many of Buddha’s teachings that he did not attribute much to sex differentiation, as that would only be part of the illusory realm. However, it is recorded that he was hesitant with installing a female monastic order and added subordination to males as a rule. The reasons have been interpreted in many different ways throughout history. Nevertheless, as the centuries progressed and Buddhism became institutionalized women’s equality within the Sangha degenerated to the point that they’re virtually obliterated from written history. Whether this was caused be the patriarchal interpretation of the text is arguable. The discrepancies between Buddha’s intentions and the institutionalized Sangha could be seen as being caused by the tension between orthodoxy and othopraxy in Buddhism. Unlike religions like Christianity and Judaism where discussions of orthodoxy (right belief) are prime, Buddhist discussion is centered on othopraxy (right practice). Since doctrine is not central to Buddhism, patriarchal politics is able to fill in the gaps left by the lack of a strict set of guidelines.

Many contemporary Buddhist women are attempting to reclaim what they say is the historical teachings of Buddha. The alternative to a patriarchal Buddhist society would understand early Buddhist teachings as an opportunity for women to develop spiritually as well as culturally. Early Buddhist teachings included the idea that a women could also attain the same spiritual development as males since sex differentiation is an earthly illusion. They easily disregard the Buddha’s subordination of the women’s monastic orders as either a latter installation of doctrine or as the Buddha’s understanding of male’s sexual weakness in a celibate order.

Contemporary women fight the so-called affinity to the desires of nature by emphasizing the compassionate and caring feminist nature of Buddhist ideals. Some female orders, such as the Mothers of the Ten Precepts, have stressed the emphasis on orthopraxy in order to gain a long-term credibility within Buddhist society. The concentration for this group is on the behaviour and practice rather than on politics and doctrine. This has given this particular order a special status within the Buddhist community, as they are not viewed with suspicion of corruption or spiritual immaturity. Other groups concern themselves with the reclaiming of the historic women monastic orders of full ordination. This again depends on the spirit of the Buddha’s teachings, as many of their male counterparts are concerned with the institutional doctrine of the subordinate ordination of women under men.

Whether Clarke’s positive outlook is realistic could be argued. Islam’s contemporary problem is that anything associated with “progress” is often construed as an influence of the Christian West and must be admonished – quite a reversal from a medeival Islam that had saved the ancient intellectual works that Christians had destroyed. This leads to a larger philosophical problem. Any sort of paradigm shift within Islam will require deconstruction of the faith. This would not only be viewed upon as Western, but perhaps even as heresy. The challenge, then, is to somehow express women’s issues within the Islamic faith without use of any major paradigm shifts. I am skeptical whether this could actually be accomplished.

However, Islam does not necessarily need a paradigm shift to re-interpret some of Islamic doctrine as women-positive. Many contemporary women point out that early followers of Mohammad were female and were important to the new community. The first person to believe the message of Mohammad was a woman as was the first martyr in his name. Seemingly detrimental passages that purport polygamous marriages can easily be explained as a protection of women who were unfortunate – a common practice of that time. Many contemporary liberal Islamic women (and men) emphasize this notion of protection and respect of women in all aspects of Islam and note that this has not been given fair due in the course of Islamic history. In order to fully critique or analyze the truth of this claim requires a fair bit of understanding of Islamic history and doctrine.

As I personally lack knowledge in Islamic studies the only response to the argument of a women-positive Islam can be in light of an existential analysis. How Islamic men treat Islamic women in the here and the now is the truth of whether Islam is women-positive or not. According to such a claim, Islam is not women-positive because that is not how it is currently practiced or even attempted to be practiced. If some women say Islam is women-positive they must actually view it as women-positive instead of whether it could be women-positive.

The account of a women’s role as generational teacher through times of persecution is for the most part historically accurate. However, a criticism of the concept could target the necessity of the delegation of women to the private sphere. To argue that the allocation of women to the private realm helped keep the religion or culture alive, however fortunate, is still extremely limiting to women. This would state that women cannot help keep traditions alive by being scholars, but by merely being a way of passing down patriarchal ideas. Had men been the ones delegated to the private realm the case would be the same. This cannot be used as a case for empowerment, but instead as a case for transmitting patriarchal values through the maternal delegation. It is also limiting in the sense that because that this situation was not necessary. The argument presented is fairly simplistic and does not rule out that the role of women could not be in the public realm. The passing down of Jewish values was not a conscious decision on the part of women, and many would not have a place in society if they had chosen not to raise their children from a patriarchal dominated Jewish tradition.

I thank thee, Lord, I was not created a woman. – Jewish prayer

Many contemporary Jewish women recognize that even looking for positive aspects of history falls short of truly giving value to Jewish women. Thus, many of these women are looking for ways to break down the sex-role differentiation that plagues the Jewish tradition so that they can re-value women within the Judaic context. Some argue that Jewish frigidity on the role of women may even lead to the irrelevancy of the religion itself. The problem that many Jewish women face, in common with women of other religious traditions, is that feminist values are often opposed on the basis that feminism is a western ideology (as though western thought developed by itself). Jewish society, unlike Hindu or Islamic, is immersed in western society. Thus the contrasting views of women are imminent and crucial to the Jewish tradition. This argument is valid, especially considering the proximity, influence and integration of Jewish interests with the west. If the Jewish tradition continues a road of inequal sex-differentiation it could very well be limiting itself and isolating the female gender within Judaism. If a gender is isolated in a time and place that gender isolation is opposed, it would be difficult for a religion or culture to survive.

Other world religions often use the lack of feminine deities to justify their positions against women. However, in Hinduism there are many feminine deities that men and women may recognize to be worthy of veneration. This should lead to a better status of women within the Hindu culture, yet it does not. Even those deities that symbolize so-called feminine traits do not transport their venerable status to their earthly counterparts. Such ideas of the life-giving female deity are not transferred positively to the women on the earth. This could be explained as a result of the concepts of karma, samsara and nirvana. As Hindu takes a patriarchal stance in its view of women, it easily puts aside any positive feminine deities in favour for patriarchal values. Concepts such as karma, samsara, and nirvana may not be patriarchal in themselves, but much of written and unwritten laws stem from ideas that attempt to explain and understand them. If men make all of the interpretations, the concepts will be interpreted exclusively in a male’s perspective, not allowing the opportunity for a female voice.

Hindu thought revolves around the idea of being saved from the constant cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth and so on. This cycle of reincarnation and death is called samsara. The antithesis of samsara is the “state” (or “non-state”) of nirvana, which is the escape from this seemingly endless cycle. There are several requirements for an individual to attain this nirvana or moksha (salvation), but the one that concerns us the most in a male’s perspective of women is this concept of karma. Positive karma is found though selfless action which is part of living within the harmony of life, or dharma. Part of living selflessly is to deny the pleasures of the earth (or of the flesh). The ascetic androcentric perspective, however, translates females as a tool of earthly pleasures. Females are then regulated and viewed through their sexuality, not at the fault of the female, but because of the weakness of the male.

This connects with other religions, as Hinduism also recognizes that women have a natural connection to the earth and thus must be dualistically opposed to the heavens or to the ultimate salvation. All the positive symbols and deities in the world cannot save the feminine from the androcentric religiosity. The worship of female deities does not translate into a higher respect for women because that is not in the interest of patriarchal values. Even the failings of earthly women in comparison to their divine counterparts are used as a hypocritical excuse for further degradation of womankind.

Nowhere in the Gospels, which contain the narrative of Christianity’s founder Jesus, is their any concern about the sexual actions or bodily functions. In actuality, any treatment of women by Jesus was positive and even counter-cultural. The Gospel’s explicitly state a positive treatment of children in particular, not distinguishing between male children or female children. Jesus, according to the Gospels, had female followers who were of all sorts of status, rich or poor, old or young, mother or barren. Sexuality most definitely was not a concern in the Gospels concerning Jesus or the Book of Acts (attributed to Luke), which follows an early history of the church.

The paradox of women begins quite early in the church as it grew exponentially. Unlike many other religions, the teachings or doctrines that attached patriarchal values did not accumulate over several centuries. Instead, the animosity towards women and their bodies seemed to develop within relatively early Christian writings, notably in the “Pauline” letters. It is no mistake that this is also where there is some discussion of Gnostic influences that create a dualism between body and spirit. However, many of the structures put in place at this time were not explained (ex. 1 Timothy 3:2-13). So although Jesus had seemed completely counter-cultural in many ways, the letters attributed to Paul by Christians seem to have re-instated many cultural values, notably against women. However, even this cultural animosity re-instated does not account for later church actions that solidified the dualism between women’s sexuality and her role as life-bringer.

Although scholars are not certain of time frames, many argue that Gnosticism (or at least Platonic thought) was apparent within Christianity from very early on. As “mainstream” Christianity fought to reject the Gnostic dualism is also picked up some of its characteristics for its own. Although extreme in some Gnostic sects, the dualism between flesh/body and spirit was moderate in mainstream Christianity. It was this dualism of body and spirit within Christianity that seriously affected the views on women. Sexual actions became associated, sometimes only implicitly, with the flesh, as did any sort of “earthly pleasures”. Since this association occurred in a patriarchal society, the negative perspectives of sexuality were placed upon the male’s sexual partner, the female. In addition to this Gnostic influence, Jewish traditions also attributed to the taboos associated with a women’s body.

The negative view of a woman’s body sharply contrasted and conflicted with the Christian respect for life. In Roman Catholicism, the Madonna is held in such high esteem because of her role as the mother of God. However, it could also be argued that the praise of the Virgin Mary is the reason for the confusing dichotomy of sexuality and motherhood. Naturally, women cannot give birth and thus raise children without sexual acts. However, the Virgin Mary is believed to have given birth and raised the Son of God without the need of a sexual act. Women subsequently cannot follow this example and are thus denigrated as imperfect because of their inability to reconciliate the seemingly unholy sexual acts of the flesh and pleasure with the praiseworthy act of raising children, especially those filled with the Holy Spirit.

What hasn’t been left out of the religious records are the 8 additional rules for the bhikṣuṇī (Buddhist nun). Although this has given a genuinely negative value to females within Buddhism, there has been positive (at least relatively) values attributed to the original demand for a female spiritual Buddhist life. The request for the Buddha to accept female followers was met with reluctance, but the steadfastness of women pressuring the Buddha’s foremost monk, Ānanda, to plead for them created a sense of perseverance for many female disciples. The reluctance on the part of the Buddha, it is said, had more to do with cultural considerations combined with the realistic incapability of celibacy and opposite sex followers. The Buddha often emphasized the pragmatism of his teachings and with that came the understanding that he was currently teaching in an overwhelmingly patriarchal society. Coalesce this factor with the impossibility of leading a celibate life while being continuously tempted with the opposite sex, the Buddha could be said to pragmatically chose the most plausible vehicle for delivering his message, the male monk. Despite these measures, women of strong mind and excellent intellectual and spiritual capacities have been recorded as being devout followers in the early Sangha, or Buddhist community. To this day, women that uphold the Theravada tradition continue to be known as great teachers of meditation by observing the precepts of the novice nun or female layperson.

The argument for equality has at times touched into the ontological realm. One could interpret some of Buddha’s teachings that sex and gender are part of this illusory world and thus these distinctions have no inherent qualities. However, I do not believe that by negating both the male and female sexes one will find a cause for true earthly equality. Cosmological arguments have also placed equality and superiority in female deities, yet like other major religions such as Hinduism this does not necessarily translate into the respect of females on this earthly realm. Female movements such as the Dasasila Mata (Mothers of the Ten Precepts) have come to realize the shortcomings of such ontological and cosmological arguments and have proactively sought out to change females within Buddhism in order to change Buddhism for females. Because of the successes of the Dasasila Mata many women are held in higher esteem than many of their male counterparts. Additional awareness for the situation of nuns has led to the formation of Sakyādhītā which monitors and discusses the female condition within Buddhism.

Perhaps the most powerful force of positive identity of females within Buddhism is found within the Vajrayāna, or Tantric, strand of Buddhist thought. Some have dismissed the positive reinforcement of women within Tantric Buddhism by attributing females as nothing more than the handmaidens of men and their male divine counterparts. However, this negative account of females within Vajrayāna Buddhist thought seems to be at odds with the majority of what is written. At least two very significant texts within Vajrayānan thought, the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa Tantra and the Caturaśītisiddhapravṛtti, expose a very positive light on female practitioners of the Vajrayāna way. Not only were women essential to tantric activities, but also were spiritual adepts whom were often guides and teachers who were not only equals to their male counterparts but were often in superior positions. In addition to the previously mentioned texts, a great awakening at Nāropa included one thousand women and only two hundred men. This event harkens to the many stories of the Buddha Gautama instructing his female followers how to find awakening and those who achieved it. Thus, even though parts of Buddhist written history has excluded women, the vast spectrum of Buddhist thought and practice has allowed for a strong positive infiltration of women in overwhelmingly patriarchal societies.

Women are heaven, women are the dharma
Women indeed are the highest austerity
Women are the Buddha, women are the Sangha
Women are the Perfection of Wisdom.
– Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa Tantra viii: 29-30 –

Starting tomorrow I will also have a little series on women and religion. I did not plan on this being right after my baby girl was born as I was always going to post it on these dates. They were written for a women and religion course I took over the summer. I cover a few of the world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism), but remember I am by no means an authority on the subject. I found the course very interesting and the articles are based on a combination of my western perspective growing up on the West coast and the books and article I have read on the subject. Most of the articles deal with how women have been treated by religions in the past with few additional comments about contemporary religion (which may or may not ruffle some feathers – the only real controversial ideas are quotes from women within their own religion – especially in Judaism). I appreciate any comments, as always, towards these posts – especially from those people who are within a religious tradition that I do not know much about – as I do think the subject is very important.

Everyone knows that by far the happiest and universally enjoyable age of man is the first. What is there about babies which makes us hug and kiss and fondle them, so that even an enemy would give them help at that age? – Desiderius Erasmus

It has been a crazy 24 hours. Kristy (my wife) and I drove to the hospital around 10:00am. She was induced around 11:30am, she started contractions immediately. For the next nine hours she grimaced almost every 3 minutes until they got her upstairs with the epideral (spelling?) going. At 02:47 this morning we had our first, a healthy baby girl, Sophia Faith. Kristy is still at the hospital and I am waiting for Sophia’s Great-grandma to fly in.

I will update this post with some pictures and other words once we get settled back home.

If men had to have babies, they would only ever have one each. – Princess Diana

But let us see what problems Mr. Friedeman has with his previously-beloved Republican Party:

• Too much money on education
• Too much money for farmers
• Too much money for prescription drugs

Hmm… No mention of the massive military increases by the nation that already makes up almost a half of the world’s expenditures on militaries. I am sure that the entire venture in Iraq surely has nothing to do with the increasing deficit of the United States. No, instead Mr. Friedeman wants to target any attempt of correcting the sad excuse America has for an all-but-in-name segregated two-tier education system, the aid to struggling farmers, and a feeble attempt to take care of the elderly. And then Mr. Friedeman has the nerve to call his “small-government” conservatism a “Judeo-Christian” ethic. What? I thought that they actually read Bibles in Seminar school – then again, only the students are required to read it. Last time I checked Jesus the Nazarene was not exactly promoting a political ideology of any form, not to mention an ethic that is more in tune to a hybrid between Nietzschean philosophy and social Darwinism. Please, Mr. Friedeman, explain to me how your lassez-faire conservatism is a Judeo-Christian ethic and I will extrapolate in painful detail for you how your system is more palpable for materialistic nihilists than the same guy who gave a sermon on a mount two thousand years ago. Mr. Friedeman, the GOP loss certainly was a good thing for evangelicals, but your reasons for thinking so are grossly misguided.

Speaking of things that do not ever change: the hearts and minds of Americans themselves. I attempt to give American individuals the benefit of the doubt, usually diverting my frustration with whatever administration is running the mammoth union. But as I watched as almost every single state accept a ban on same-sex marriage (and even Colorado’s stubbornness in giving homosexuals any basic relationship rights), I was, frankly, quite disgusted. Of course, many conservative commentators and supporters were appreciating this as some good news out of this election. Julaine Appling, the president of the Vote Yes for Marriage campaign was giddy: “This is a victory for marriage… people understand that marriage has a unique and special place in our society.” I am confused – this is coming from within the nation with one of the highest rates of divorce in the world. Marriage certainly is special in our society – until it just is not working out anymore. The way I see it, if the United States wants to hold on to these backward views, lets do it backwards in a way that is congruent with American marriage values: how about you grant homosexuals the right to divorce first, then grant them basic relationship rights, and then maybe, just maybe, this religious moralism which nations like America and Iran hold so dearly to, might pass way, and let two people who love each other get married.

Maybe that is just too big of a step. Maybe America will not be ready for awhile, I mean, I think they are still on the Imperial measurement system, aren’t they? How can we expect them to allow homosexuals to marry, sick people, artists, and hippies to legally smoke weed, and females to choose what to do with their bodies if they cannot figure out what a metre or a Celsius degree is? Eh?

Sorry, that is my American bashing for the year. I try to keep it to election days when all the troglodytes come out to vote. That said, although I appall their English as Official Language initiative, I commend Arizona on not banning same-sex marriage (if it indeed the “No” vote holds out).

For those of you who do not personally know me, last year Kristina and I got married in the comfort of our own living room with a pastor, Kristy’s parents, two witnesses, and twelve dozen roses after a two-day engagement. No, she was not pregnant (that would happen three months later). There just comes a point when you know you want to be with the person you love for the rest of your life – with no regrets. Neither of us are a fan of big weddings, and so we had actually decided to elope – at the last minute we were convinced to have some traditional aspect and so we did get a pastor. And so here we are – are only debts are academic rather than because of a wedding – married one year later. It may not be the twenty-year later “you’re still married!” achievement, but we both feel we’re still going strong and will last until – excuse the cliche – death do us part.

Kristina – I love you.

Olbermann on Kerry’s Joke

Olbermann on the Death of Habeus Corpus

Olbermann on 9/11: Five Years Later

Olbermann on Clinton versus FOX

Olbermann on Rumsfeld and Fascism

Note that I do not promote LaVey’s Satanism. If you are a Satanist (or a “Nietzchean” for that matter) feel free to comment on the article or the video. I welcome discussion from any religious adherents.

The Gospel that is attributed to Mark is agreed upon as an early source for later Gospels and thus has a certain accreditation of primacy among the works that we currently have regardless of the question of authorship. Mark’s account of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus is the shortest of the synoptic Gospels, with expectedly less rhetoric. Mark’s Gospel actually begins with the preparation of John the Baptist (Mk. 1:2-6), which suggests that John is a prominent, if not controversial, figure among the contemporary religious discourse. Mark skips right from the introduction of the characteristics of John to the messianic preaching which will set the stage for the baptism of Jesus. There is an implicit reference to John as an important figure as well in the “humbleness” of John’s pronouncement of a coming person of significance. Mark would not compare person of remote significance in order to elevate the importance of this mysterious newcomer.

Mark, interestingly enough, does not explain the purpose of John’s situation. He does not explain the theological or religious importance of John’s water baptism. This suggests that Mark is not interested in the theological significance of baptism itself, but in the situation of one prominent figure exalting a more powerful and importance one. Not only will this new “baptizer” be more important, but will baptize in a whole new way, one that strongly links to God (Mk. 1:8). Mark then immediately introduces Jesus as a traveler from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan [river] (Mk. 1:9). This baptism itself is not given any specific significance other than stating the limitations of John’s role as a teacher and Baptist. The importance of the baptism narrative is found in the majestic account in Mark 1:10-11. As Jesus came out of the water after the baptism, the heavens opened and the Spirit descended on him “like a dove” (Mk. 1:10). Mark is signaling the direct connection that Jesus has as a unique messenger from heaven. Mark 1:11 is used to support the earlier verse by explicitly bonding Jesus with the heavenly God and introducing Jesus as the Son of God. Since the baptism is the only event thus far that Jesus is recorded to have done has been used to explain implications for his followers. The voice from heaven states that he is well pleased with his son immediately after this act and thus it can be assumed that the act of baptism is pleasing to God in general. This interpretation is highly doubtful to myself since the theological reasoning for baptism is not emphasized in Mark as the baptism appears to be used solely as a way of signifying the elevation of Jesus and his connection to the heavenly God. This connection is emphasized in the following passages as the Spirit that had previously descended upon him immediately “drove” him to the wilderness to be tempted by Satan (Mk. 1:12-13), almost as if this divine Spirit is in control of the actions of Jesus.

The Gospel attributed to Matthew, like Mark, antecedes an introduction of John the Baptist as prominent figure among the religious, and possibly political (if that can be distinguished) atmosphere of the time. Matthew’s introduction of John’s teachings, however, gives more explanation of the meaning of baptism (Mt. 3:8). For whatever reason, Matthew seems obliged to need to explain the importance of John’s message of repentance rather than solely concentrate on the elevation of Jesus over John. John goes on to overtly state that his form of baptism is, in fact, for repentance (Mt. 3:11). This is exclusive to Matthew and may insinuate that there might be an important difference between the teachings of John and the teachings of Jesus, albeit compatible. Matthew proceeds to use his Markian source to elevate the coming “baptizer” with the example of sandals, although switches the action of stooping down and untying with carrying (Mt. 1:11). This difference seems to be only a literally difference preferred by Matthew as the principle of lowliness is in tact. Matthew also adds a rhetorically significant aspect to the difference of the coming baptizer’s version as not only with the Holy Spirit, but also with fire. Matthew qualifies this addition with a relatively large addition to his Markian source that pronounces the authority for judgment that this new baptizer will possess. This baptizer, Matthew states, will have the authority to divide the “wheat” from the “chaff” and put each in its space, whether that is in the protectiveness of the “granary” or the burning with unquenchable fire. It is unclear to myself whether the original reference to fire is to be applied as either a purifier or a judgment. If the original reference is meant to be separate from the later reference it would be used in conjunction with the Holy Spirit as a purifier of souls or something to that effect. If, however, it is meant as a juxtaposition to the Holy Spirit, it would suggest that the fire is solely a reference to judgment.

Matthew follows his Markian source as he introduces the adult Jesus as coming from Galilee after John’s messianic prophesying. It should be noted that this is not the first time that Jesus is spoken of in Matthew as that gospel includes a genealogy and birth narrative about Jesus. Matthew leaves out the specificity of Jesus’ origin of Nazareth because it was earlier explained he would be raised there because of an Old Testament prophecy (which in itself has serious interpretative errors and is a whole other subject) (Mt. 2:23). Matthew goes on to add an interesting edit to the Markian source that is exclusive to Matthew’s Gospel. This edit has John attempting to prevent Jesus’ baptism by recognizing the inverted situation (Mt. 3:14). Since Matthew had previously clarified the theological role of baptism as a symbol of repentance he needed to address the seemingly paradoxical problem of the exalted and obvious needlessness for Jesus’ repentance (especially by a man not fit to carry his sandals). According to Matthew, John only consents when Jesus states that this is necessary in order to “fulfill all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15). The interpretations of this text are no doubt plentiful. I would merely contend that this statement is doing several things. The statement alludes to the paradoxical nature of Jesus as a powerful figure as well as humble one. It also gives added authority to Jesus in a way that may be counter-intuitive which states that there no matter how absurd something may seen, he still must be obeyed. Furthermore, the understanding that it is to “fulfill righteousness” alludes to an Old Testament understanding of the fulfillment of prophecies.

Matthew continues with the baptism of Jesus with small additions to the Markian source. Some of these changes are merely rhetorical as well as such changes to what appears to be grammatical (Mt. 3:16). Matthew 3:17, however, offers quick solution to problem that Matthew thinks might come out of the wording used by Mark. Matthew appears to view what seems to be a private matter between God and Jesus (“Thou art my beloved Son…” Mk. 1:11b) as detrimental to the divine or imminent connection Jesus is supposed to have with God. Matthew fixes this by making it a definite pronouncement to John and his follower’s by stating “This is my beloved Son…”. This turns the focus away from a somewhat awkward identity affirmation to a public decree.

The Gospel attributed to Luke offers an intriguingly unique perspective of John and the baptism of Jesus which begs to question whether the authors of Matthew or Luke had any knowledge of the other’s book (and consequently which one came first). Luke’s introduction of John is not only much more complete than Matthew’s account but also shows that John’s teachings were a precursor to Jesus thus giving more weight or explanation to the connection between the Old Testament and Jesus (Lk 3:1-6, 10-14). Luke’s introduction of John may also insinuate a much different audience than Mark or Matthew who are not entirely acquainted with the Hebrew Scripture (Gentiles?).

Luke’s account of John’s preaching begins with an exclusive stress on the anticipatory atmosphere that Luke wants to stage for the messiah. He does this by pointing out that people were questioning (if only in their hearts) whether John the Baptist was the expected Christ (Lk. 3:15). This points out that not only was John the Baptist an important figure, but was also a respected figure at the time. The importance, however, is the emphasis that the people of the time were, according to Luke, were awaiting anxiously for the coming messiah. John seems to miraculously answer them with the familiar humble statement that he is only baptizes by water (Lk. 3:16a). Luke is asserting John more as a prophet than the other synoptic gospels as it is apparent that not only does John foretell a coming “baptizer” of fire, but he can also read the hearts of men, which is similar to language used in the prophets of the Old Testament. Luke continues on to correct some redundancy in Mark’s speech in Lk. 3:16b by deleting “stoop down” since one naturally has to stoop in order to untie sandals.

There are two instances in this first section of John’s preaching where the hypothetical “Q” source comes into play. The first seems to be the addition of “fire” to the rhetoric seen in both Matthew and Luke that complements the coming baptizing of the Holy Spirit. “Q” most likely overlaps Mark in this area by pointing out that the coming baptizer will do so by use of the Holy Spirit since it does not make much sense without it. The second instance directly follows that with the apocalyptic reference of judgment of the separation of wheat and chaff, as found in Matthew (Lk. 3:17). Luke, however, makes in a minor edit to the “Q” source by clarifying that the winnowing fork is the tool used for the clearing of the threshing floor. This may suggest that Luke was aware of the Matthew text and was using improving it in his version. More probable, however, is that Luke simply saw a way to clarify the “Q” source. This, however, could more strongly state that Matthew did not know of Luke’s writing. Luke concludes this section by stating that John continued to exhort and preach “the good news” (Lk. 3:18). This seems to give more a temporal element to the narrative of John and Jesus, which fleshes out John’s character. John is not used here simply to proclaim and baptize Jesus, but to preach for some time before the ministry of Jesus was to start.

The temporal element of Luke is supported by an insertion of John’s imprisonment between the narrative of John’s preaching and Jesus’ baptism. Matthew and Mark both include this narrative in other parts (Mt. 14:3-4 & Mk. 6:17-18) but Luke purposely changes the order of the imprisonment from the Markian source. The reasoning, however, cannot be understood without the understanding of the changes made in the baptism account of Luke.

Luke does not explicitly state that Jesus was baptized by John, but instead begins with an exclamation of the exaggerated universal baptism of “all people” (Lk. 3:21a). It does not proclaim that John was necessarily the baptizer, which might imply that John was not the only baptizer in the area. Although this may be true, Luke is more likely emphasizing the completed nature of John’s ministry as Jesus is meant to start his ministry. Luke’s account merely states that Jesus had been baptized, although it does not state whom this was by. Luke, aware of Mark’s Gospel and the possible complicated implications made by the humbleness of Jesus, pays no attention to the details of the baptism, such as the identity of the baptizer, but also the action of rising out of the water itself. Furthermore, Luke inserts a comment that Jesus was praying almost as a way of downplaying the importance of the passive action of being baptized with the proactive action of praying (Lk. 3:21b).

We can now suggest an understanding of the imprisonment of John in light of the lack of detail of the baptism narrative. Luke, who obviously does not want to diminish the importance of John, needs to rectify the apparent reduction of the role of John. By inserting the imprisonment of John between the teaching of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, Luke is suggesting to the reader that John most likely did actually baptize Jesus but the baptism itself should actually be more of an understanding of a passing of ministry. Luke ends John’s ministry in the midst of his popularity only to begin Jesus’ ministry.

In conclusion, it is readily apparent to a synoptic reader that Mark gives the prime narrative of the proclamation of Jesus by John the Baptist in such a way to seems to emphasize a reference to messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. Matthew and Luke continue on to deal with some theologically troubling verses that might have insinuated a dependence of Jesus on John. Matthew, however, attempts an explanation of the situation whereas Luke merely skips around the issue. Matthew and Luke both make use of the additional “Q” source that adds an apocalyptic concept to John’s speech that highlights a reason for repentance. In the end, each synoptic Gospel makes it very clear that Jesus is not only the anticipated messiah, but also the Son of God.

The undermining of the institution of marriage is nothing new, as the article admits, but this the first time that married couples are actually a minority in the United States. Of course there is no mention that “born-again” Christians, especially conservatives and baptists, have the highest divorce rates among any religious group in the country (including athiests and agnostics). No, it must be that darn ez-divorce legislation. It is just so easy to get divorces, that must be the reason people are doing it. I mean if it was harder to get legally divorced people would just stay in their shallow marriages filled with hate and contempt for each other. It is funny that I was taught that God granted divorce to the Jewish people (in the time of Moses) because they just could not keep their marriages together – meaning, it was not ideal, but it was going to be allowed. Funny thing is, I do not see Jews and Christians up in arms against Moses because he allowed the Hebrews to get divorced. Maybe that is not a fair comparison.

My point is, however, maybe it has nothing to do with legislation, but with the fact that people, and apparently ‘born-again’ Christians are getting married for the wrong reasons. I bet that it would not be too hard to figure out that the people getting married at young ages are generally ‘born-again’ Christians – and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why. If your parents, as well as your own religious-instilled guilt, condemn premarital sex then your average sexually repressed 20-year-old is going to want to have sex legitimately as quickly as possible. I went to a conservative bible college – it is true. I was a sexually repressed evangelical Christian – I know. These are the people getting divored. This is why people who do not fit the mold of the “pro-family” movement are not getting married at the ages of 18-25. It has nothing to do with undermining the institution of marriage, it has to do with maturing so that you can deal with someone elses problem as well as your own, to be financially stable enough to meet the new challenges of modern living (because six-year-olds need an iPod for school – haven’t you seen all the commercials?), and for a hundred other reasons.

There is one cheeky solution to the “pro-family” beef: stop denying certain groups (umm…err… no… not gay marriage?!?! ewww!!! – it will destroy the institution of marriage!) of people to marry – then you might meet your necessary imaginary quota of American marriages.

Before leaving to Alberta I had patched up some turbulent relationships so I did not feel like I was simply running away from my problems. This was extremely freeing, and allowed me to gain some stability in my life. I was able to find a room close to the university the day I drove into the city of Edmonton. I had a little difficulty adjusting to my new setting, but I was visited by often enough by someone from home (who would later become my girlfriend and then my wife). Scholastically I was just getting by: a couple of B’s, a couple of C’s. Most of my time spent reading was not for school. Only a year into my Philosophy major I had a tendency to pass over my Philosophy textbooks to read books on religious syncretism, Buddhology, and early Christian writings.

My extracurricular readings started to affect my beliefs. I certainly was not a Buddhist, but I certainly was not a Christian either. My extracurriclar studies had tended towards an investigation of the masonic traditions (mainly because of my political interest), which in turn led to an study of hermeticism, occultism, and paganism. The amount of philosophers, scientists, and politicians that were involved in occultic activity floored me. Behind these people’s philosophies was definitely a sense of spirituality that I had not seen before, and one they certainly did not teach at the university. I could not escape it: religion effected everyone whether they knew it or not. I dropped my Political Science minor and decided to double major in Philosophy and Religious Studies. This, of course, would just give me more of an excuse to continue my extracurricular studies. I had all but deserted Christianity (which I will get into more detail later). I was not looking for another religion; I was searching to understand the connection between religion as an institution and the spiritual need that humans seem to have. Along the way, I studied different religions and topics in religion, but it was not until another run in with a movement that would have me concentrating on Christianity yet again: Gnosticism.

I am not going to give a lecture on Gnosticism (at least not at this time), so if you do not know what it is I suggest looking it up. My understanding of Gnosticism as an overall movement throughout religions is key to my current beliefs. My first run-in with Gnosticism was a brief brushing-aside at bible college which was only mentioned as a movement that some of the epistles may have been addressing (which, it was stated, was problematic for an earlier dating of the Scriptures). My first significant challenge concerning Gnosticism also came at bible college and at a new church I was attending that stressed the opposition to modern day Gnostic tendencies within the church (the church, led by two professors I previously mentioned, could be considered an ’emergent church’ – a church confronting postmodernism). The Gnosticism presented, however, was most definitely a straw man. Any sort of dualism within Christianity was presented as a gnostic invention and that the Scripture should be interpreted as an affront to the dualism so often preached by mainstream Christianity (ie. flesh vs. spirit, mundane vs. profane, moral vs. immoral). The problem is that Christianity needs dualism and that not all dualisms are strictly Gnostic. I personally do not believe this extreme example is representative of what the instructors actually believe, but this is what was being presented to the students. A second problem was that when there seemed to be a discrepancy where Scripture looked like it perpetuated dualist tendencies (as the Bible does), the instructors would always say, “no matter what the Scripture says, it cannot deviate from the fact that Jesus Christ lived on Earth and died for our sins” (or something to that affect – it was not any more than a sentence long). The problem with this is that it not only oversimplifies the issue, but that it is assuming that every that wrote the books that we now include in the New Testament actually agreed on the same soteriology and Christology (both issues were not fully developed until the 2nd and 3rd centuries and not agreed upon by the mainstream church until the 4th century). To this day, there is no way that this church would ever allow for the possibility that the New Testament actually has gnostic influences and suggestions.

It was not until I was at the University of Alberta that my extracurricular studies coincided with my academic studies and I was forced to study the nature of dualism is religions, from its ‘birth’ in Zoroastrianism to its development in Greek philosophy, its influence on Judaism and Christianity, and finally the attempted denial of dualism in many eastern religions. Where dualism is relatively easy to define and recognize, Gnosticism is anything but. Again, if you know little about Gnosticism, I suggest a little research. Christian Gnosticism is often distinguised as a movement that denies the benevolence of the Creator God (ie. the Jewish Yahweh) for a much more complicated cosmology, of which Jesus is a divine messenger rather than a saviour. Although moral and cosmological dualism is a key component to Gnosticism, this does not mean the Gnosticism is a key component of dualism. Stating that Christians should reject dualisms such as flesh vs. spirit altogether due to this misunderstanding is comparable to throughing out morality because Jews or Muslims also have a moral code. Needless to say, my interest in Gnosticism had piqued.

As I continued research for course papers and for my own interest, gnosticism appeared again and again. Like I said before, it was this recurrence that brought back my interest in Christian studies. I loved studying other religions, but there was no religion I was as familiar with than Christianity. I started reading scholastic (etic) studies on the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Previous to this newly found interest in etic studies of Christianity I had already come to a personal philosophic breakthrough in the idea of faith solely based on the works of Soren Kierkegaard, notably in his work “Fear and Trembling”. Faith was meant to be a mystery, a paradox concerning morality and spirituality. I did not fully develop this new understanding of faith until much later, but at this point it is important only to note that faith to me, by definition was a “commitment” of some sort, a commitment that crosses logical ethical boundaries based on reason and the moral majority (Kierkegaard, of course, famously uses Abraham’s sacrifice of his son as an example).

The idea of faith is central to every “born-again” Christian, whether they know what faith is or not: what is important is that they develop some sort of understanding of the concept that is capable of supporting his or her ‘type’ of Christianity. While many ‘born-again’ Christians develop their concept of faith through the rhetoric of a preacher or the text of Scripture, mine came from the opposite: a stern adherence to agnosticism (the lack of knowledge – not to be confused with gnosticism) and the firm acceptance of the scientific method (without blindly worshipping that either). I was truly agnostic in the philosophic sense of the word rather than spiritually (although perhaps that as well). I was not anti-Christian or anti-religion, I just simply admitted the lack of knowledge I have in the world as well as outside the world.

continued in part iv…

Burton Mack proclaims that it is ironic that the Christian church adopted the Gospel of Matthew as the “gospel of the church”. He does this out of the belief that Matthew’s main purpose is to reconcile the theology of Christ as a new sort of “Jewishness”. It was discussed in class that Matthew’s proclamation that Jesus has come to “fulfill the law” rather than abolish (Mt. 5:17-19) it could be interpreted as a statement of not only supporting Jewish piety, but also pushing it farther. The argument of piety is supported by the continued exhortations that proclaim extensions of the Jewish law (Mt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44). Matthew is thus not ascribing a sort of salvation based on grace, but one based on an extension of Jewish piety through intensifying legal obedience. What is being implicitly suggested here is that Matthew’s attempt to explain the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish nation is because of the lack of obedience to the law.
I contend that the problem with this interpretation is that it is a reaction to the traditional “principle-oriented” interpretation offered by orthodox Christianity. The flaw in this interpretation is that it treats the Gospel as mainstream Christianity does so: with utmost literalism. The only irony that one might find in the church adopting this Gospel is that while they interpret the majority of the scriptures literally, they pick and chose what is meant to be literal and what is not. The thesis of the legalism in the antitheses of Matthew is restricted only to that particular section of Matthew and the implications are disregarded and contradictory with much of the rest of the book. The remainder of Matthew is complete with Jesus’ examples of lack of traditional Jewish piety: against fasting (Mt. 9:14ff), the Sabbath (Mt. 12:1ff), cleanliness (Mt. 15:1ff), Pharisaic teachings (Mt. 16:12) and others. If one is to interpret such oppositions literally as done with the antitheses, then there is a contradiction in interpretations.

Not only is there a problem with interpretations, but also with the implications. As described above, the implications set out by the legalistic attempt to interpret the antitheses leads to a salvation based on the extension of Jewish piety rather than on grace. And yet Jesus meets a rich man on the road who seems to be extremely pious, he is turned back because of his unwillingness to sell his possessions and follow Jesus (Mt. 19:16ff). A legalistic interpretation could state that this unwillingness is a shortness of piety, yet the passage continues. When the disciples ask who can be saved Jesus replies that it is impossible for man to be saved, but with God all things are possible (Mt. 19:25-26). Furthermore Jesus explains in an oft-quoted verse that many who are first will be last, and the last will be first (Mt. 19:30). The implications of these passages seem to suggest a contradiction to the mundane piety of legal obedience. Obedience, as it is, gets you nowhere without the help of God. The Matthew 19:30 verse is especially troublesome since there is no way of interpreting piety in a sense of a hierarchy of pious obedience in the Kingdom of God.

This leads us back to the interpretation of the antitheses of Matthew. If I am challenging the legalistic interpretation of Matthew, that must imply a sort of interpretation of “principles of the law”. There is a problem with even this narrow interpretation because of repetition of the antitheses. If the exhortations were simply about the principle the explanations seem a little extreme, not to mention elaborately drawn out. To solve this problem I offer an interpretation focused on a climatic point in the antitheses: Matthew 5:48. Matthew 5:48 states, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” This passage certainly disregards any literalism, be it of principle or legalism. No one can expect to be perfect, especially in comparison with God. It is the verses leading up to this, however, that give away a more than plausible interpretation. Matthew points out that God’s blessings, the sun and the rain, are indiscriminate to the righteousness of man. The direct context of the passage is alluding to being indiscriminate of friend and enemy and yet the extremism present in earlier passages appears to have been dulled. Matthew 5:48 is playing on Matthew 5:20 which exclaims that no one except those who are more righteous than the Pharisees will enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Already haven shown that even Jesus and his disciples did not appear to be the most pious Jews, it is hard to accept that Matthew meant both the surpassing of righteousness and equality to God’s perfection to be taken literally. Rather, I would stress a sarcasm that seems to be present not only throughout Matthew’s gospel, but the majority of the gospels, even some non-canonized ones. Sarcasm, as we know from other ancient dialogues (such as Plato’s portrayal of Socrates) appears to be a useful rhetorical device, and one that is often not paid much attention to in later readers. It is much harder to read sarcasm than it is to listen to it. Matthew portrays Jesus developing not only a hard-line approach to “Jewishness”, but an impossible one. It is not until the disciples finally ask about this impossibility that Jesus finally admits that it is through God alone that all things are achieved (Mt. 19:26). Directly after this admission Jesus gives a parable as an example of how no matter how hard one works, each gains the same amount of reward (Mt. 20:1-16). If we are meant to take Matthew literally in a legalistic sense, this passage would contradict himself. We would, had he meant the antitheses legally, expect to see a larger reward for those who worked longer and harder, the righteous ones. This is finally echoed in the woes to the Pharisees (Mt. 23:13-32) which admonishes the so-called outward “righteousness” of the Pharisees. He explicitly states the priority of justice, mercy, and faithfulness over tithing (Mt. 23:23) and continues on to rebuke the idea of outward piety.

In conclusion, it is actually quite apparent that any interpretation can be passionately argued with a strong case using many verses as examples. Neither interpretation can be easily dismissed. Much of the problem of interpretation is the vagueness of tone, at least in the English translations. Not only is there is a problem of translation, but also a temporal and cultural divide. Although not a professional scholar, my readings of many early Christian texts lead me to this belief of strong rhetorical devices that are often lead to misinterpretations of the text in question. Most of the canonized text especially is not so explicit about its emotional tone as a text such as the Gospel of Judas.

Perhaps one of the most mystifying concepts in Buddhism is the idea of śūnyatā (emptiness). Most western readers, even philosophers such as Nietzsche , often associate emptiness with a sort of nihilism: if everything is empty as the Buddha states , then surely there is neither meaning nor purpose to humanity. This nihilistic interpretation of emptiness comes from the western understanding of the lack of an independent reality: no comprehensible, essential truth. Nonetheless, the Kāśyapaparivarta firmly asserts that the good and genuine bodhisattva must be convinced of emptiness yet at the same time commit to vipāka (the fruition of karma). From a nihilistic perspective, this is a teleological contradiction: if there is no meaning or purpose as a result of emptiness, then why does the bodhisattva continue to act in accordance to some moral absolute? If persons are empty, as Kāśyapa learns, then how can persons grasp the results of karma, much less attain karmic merit? Nihilism cannot reconcile the ontological nature of emptiness with the teleological nature of vipāka. The bodhisattva resolves this, however, by understanding the true nature of emptiness: that emptiness itself is empty, thus emptiness itself is not an absolute entity or essence.

The self is empty, so the bodhisattva must acknowledge and understand non-self. The good and genuine bodhisattva recognizes that a misconstrued notion of the ātman (self) is the root of saṃsāra. The attachment of the self by individuals causes them to continue the cycle of suffering. The bodhisattva must not only see this, but according to the Kāśyapaparivarta, he or she must have karuna (compassion) towards impermanent beings that continue to erroneously believe they have a permanent self. One interesting aspect of compassion, however, is that its definition infers the idea of shared suffering. To be compassionate, a person must have a sense of the other’s suffering. The bodhisattva must therefore on one hand accept the idea of the non-self yet at the same time understand the plight of the self – suffering.

The dichotomy of self and non-self ultimate leads to a paradox in which a good and genuine bodhisattva must achieve a balance between saṃsāra and nirvāna. These two concepts are much more obviously contrasted, although the reasoning for the need to balance the two leaves a bit to be explained. As previously mentioned, saṃsāra is the endless cycle of suffering caused by attachments. Nirvāna, meanwhile, is a mode of being free from the suffering that so defines saṃsāra. A bodhisattva is required to be a liminal entity in between the two modes as a direct result of his or her spiritual status combined with his or her ethical necessities: a being destined for blissful nirvāna while compassionately attending to the needs of those continuing their cycle of saṃsāra. It is this paradox of saṃsāra and nirvāna that most exemplifies the emphasis that Mahāyāna Buddhism on the bodhisattva. The bodhisattva passes up nirvāna so that he or she does not slip become an arhat and does this through acting on his or her exemplary compassion for others. Thus, a bodhisattva does not revel in nirvāna nor participate in saṃsāra as he or she does not cease all earthly activity nor continue his or her attachments that earthly activity is associated with.

The final expectation of the good and genuine bodhisattva is not so much a contradictory paradox as found in the other requirements, but simply a moral paradox from an imperfect point of view. This moral paradox is the ability to be generous without expectation of return. It is arguably impossible to think of a selfless act – for generousity or good deeds in general may be a reward in themselves. Despite this logical obstacle, even the actuality of giving without expecting anything in return is extremely hard for most people to even comprehend. A bodhisattva’s motive for giving stems from his or her previously mentioned compassion for others, helping them grow and understand the dharma so that they too can end the cycle of suffering. Even the aforementioned act of delaying nirvāna for the sake of others is just one way that the bodhisattva gives without return. This is an example of perfected compassion, since even the ultimate goal, nirvāna, is set aside as an example of perfected selflessness.

The bodhisattva is someone who can balance not only between the extremities of permanence and non-permanence, self and non-self, existence and non-existence, but also someone who can turn possibly contradictory ‘truths’ into complementary ones. A bodhisattva is certain of the truth of emptiness, yet acts in accordance to karmic truth. A bodhisattva accepts the reality of non-self, but is compassionate towards beings still wrongly understanding the notion of self. A bodhisattva has one step in nirvāna while having one step in saṃsāra. Finally, a bodhisattva bestows the generous gift of his or her teachings and support with not only gaining nothing in return, but also in giving up the cessation of suffering in nirvāna.

In retrospect it is amusing that Columbia Bible College did help me figure things out, it just did not happen the way I thought it would. I did not come out with a BA in Biblical Studies. I did not come out wishing to be a pastor or a Bible College teacher. I did not even come out wishing for more (in relation to spiritual guidance or something). I came out wanting to help destroy Christendom. Although I was not completely opposed to Christianity itself, I was vehemently disgusted with Christians. So how did that happen? How did a Bible-thumping right-wing evangelical become so horrendously opposed to everything he believed in? There is no one answer and there probably is not too many coherent answers. It was, however, a painful process.

Most of the story of my time in bible college is fairly boring apart from your typical “Saved” or “Jesus Camp” type scenarios – people waving their hands, feeling good about their “walk with Jesus” and then going on with their shallow lives. Or at least that was my perception of the time. 9/11 happened this year. It was at this point that I started to question my loyalty to the extreme right-wing policies of conservative parties in both Canada and the United States. I watched as President Bush stuttered and faltered and fooled the majority of the world with cheap rhetoric and little substance. I watched as the Republican party passed legislation which hampered civil liberties for the sake of security and didn’t seem to care about the traditional political process (which I actually respected). The situation only confirmed my stance that I needed to disregard politics while I continued my biblical studies. However, I started questioning the average students reason for being at the college. It seemed like people were there to feel good rather than actually learn about the Bible. By the end of first year, though, I had figured that it wasn’t my problem and it was not going to deter me from my “education”.

My second year at bible college offered new challenges to my faith. The only challenges that were significant were self-inflicted. Morality became a larger issue to me. I had always been taught that a Christian should not even have to tell people they are a Christian – it should be evident from the way in which they lived. This became very skewed at bible college. The gossip, slander, sexual perversions, language, violence, and all around immorality at the college astounded me: how could these people call themselves Christian? There was definitely a darker side to the college that year, one that either was not there, or that I did not notice until the second year. It was this year, however, that I took two courses that would change my life: “Sermon on the Mount” and “Philosophy and Logic”.

I will not get into the courses in too much detail, but I must discuss what it was that changed my paradigm. Sermon on the Mount explicitly was not a challenging course. The instructor was nothing special and neither was the interpretation he or the textbook took on the subject. The course, however, did force me to analyze the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7) over and over and over again. I came to the conclusion that my political beliefs were 100% in opposition to the philosophy of Christ. You cannot justify small-c conservative politics with the gospel as taught through any of the gospels. You can, of course, through twisted interpretation of judgment and doom, but this was not what Jesus explicitly taught. So through the course of one semester I had changed my entire political stance.

Philosophy and Logic was a course taught by “Peg” Peters (who now teaches at Trinity Western University) and it would be more fair to say that it was this course in conjunction with “Contemporary Church” taught by Peg and Dave Philips that had an equal impact on my life. At the start of the course I instantly clashed with Peg. He offered interpretations that were not, to my understanding, orthodox. His views were certainly not traditional and closely emulated the style of preaching taught in “emergent” churches such as Mars Hill in Seattle. Throughout the semester, however, I learned to respect his views, although I rarely agreed with him.

You’ll notice that I have not given any details or explicitly mentioned any specific views that these courses forced me to deal with. This is probably because I do not really remember. My life had turned chaotic and I was reading about ten times the amount of literature that I ever had before (which is saying a lot because I have always loved to read). I had always loved the study of philosophy but Peg Peters’ course had pushed me to study it further. I bought up every classical philosophy work I could find at the local used bookstores. I decided to become proficient in the “basics”: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Locke, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Marx, etc. I finally decided to pursue academic study in Philosophy. When or Where I did not know, I just needed to get out of bible college.

In the meantime I had swung from being extremely judgmental on aspect of morality to completely denying the underlying Christian foundations. I do not know when it happened, but I probably can remember about a hundred reasons why it happened. I will not get into too many details, for some of the things I could mention would be warrant enough for a court case against the bible college. This would also put the blame on others, which is unfair. The lack of any sense of authenticity in the surrounding Christian community certainly helped me started doubting my faith, but it certainly was not the sole or even primary cause. And it certainly was not Dan Brown. It was a combination of disillusionment and a newfound respect for higher criticism – investigation of the origins of the text.

By the end of 2003 I was done. I basically quit half-way through the semester (still managed to pull off decent grades for that semester) and left for a local university college to take a couple courses I could transfer later on when I had decided what to do. Again. Academically and spiritually, this was a fairly uneventful time. The summer following the semester was also uneventful other than the continuation of some serious problems I had gotten myself into with the ladies. It seemed as though I was heading for either McMaster University in Ontario or taking another semester off to relax and confront my parents (I had not lived with them since graduating high school four years earlier). However, I had not heard back from McMaster so I packed up my bags and started to head home. Just before leaving though, I checked my mail. I was accepted to the University of Alberta in Edmonton. It was Friday. Classes started Tuesday. I left my stuff in my 1990 Oldsmobile, visited my parents, and then drove to Alberta without even knowing where I was going to live.

continued in part iii…

Anyway, I have a little time to myself this week and I will back on the “why i am a christian” narrative.

I grew up as a devout evangelical Christian who was not afraid of confrontation. In junior high I was obsessed with the study of Creationism (we did not call it Intelligent Design in those days) as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. I studied cults and world religions so that I could be prepared to discuss any subject matter with someone of another belief system. Yes, I had little friends for I had little time for them – not that this would have mattered for I was self-admittedly socially inept. My family were my friends in addition to the few neighbours or hockey team members I would occasionally spend time with. I told myself that my beliefs were my own, yet I hung on to every word my parents, specifically my mother, preached. Although I asked many questions, those questions never were critical of evangelical Christian beliefs. It made sense to me that an all-powerful God could create the Earth in six days, and that those Christians who questioned that are simply weak in their faith. It did not make sense to me to question whether an all-powerful God could use Evolution as a tool, as the Bible would have surely mentioned that we evolved from apes. Scientists, on the other hand, were secular humanists who, although might have some good intentions, were ultimately conspiring to undermine the Christian faith. Of course, scientists were not the only ones: non-Christians in general had a beef with Christianity.

High school forced things to be examined a little more closely. I still would never think about questioning the evangelical position, but issues of morality became more imminent. Although I felt insecure and like the world was against me, I knew that I was truly better than everyone else. I was a Christian. I did not sleep around before marriage. I did not smoke. I did not drink. I did not swear (In History 12 I switched the word “ass” to “jerk” when I read a Churchill speech out loud in class). I knew that these things did not make me a Christian, but they made me a good Christian; if being a Christian was better than a non-Christian, certainly a good Christian was exponentially greater. Call it naive theology, but to me it was simply common sense. By grade 12 I was extremely interested in politics. I found myself overwhelmingly outnumbered, however, as a strong supporter for the conservative Reform/Canadian Alliance party of Canada, not to mention my support of American-style capitalism as represented by the Republican party. I actually had one person who sided with me, but her views teetered on the edge of where conservatism meets fascism. The person who opposed my views the most was be my agnostic high school girlfriend, an unholy alliance for sure, but we agreed not only to disagree, but that passion of politics was a good thing no matter your views.

This relationship, in addition to some other friends who were proclaimed atheists (wannabe- scientists for sure), would push me to develop more coherent and acceptable arguments for my beliefs. I came out of high school with strengthened beliefs and a better foundation. Political issues had become wholely reconciled into my faith. Abortion was a result of selfishness and the lack of taking responsibility for one’s actions. The only difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers was at what stage life begins. Homosexuality was never as much of an issue for me. It did not belong in politics. I viewed it as a sin against God, but not much different than my view of divorce: it was not in God’s ideal plan, but certainly is not an issue for the state to be involved. The big arguments, however, was in economics. I believed that if you work hard, you can succeed. My grandfather was a self-made millionaire who was originally from a farm in Saskatchewan. My father was an independent contractor, who was hit hard by tax increases that effected small businesses, surely a result of socialist tendencies in the British Columbia government run by the New Democratic Party (who were wasting tax payers dollars on obsolete ferries and other scandals). I even questioned the validity of socialist arguments from students who has $300,000+ houses with nice cars and food in the pantry. Life is not fair, that is a fact of life, it should not be up to the government to cater to people who were not willing to work, and those who live in nice houses gained from the achievements of capitalism have no crediblity.

Seeing that my high school counterparts were completely one-sided in the political spectrum, I switched my university application to Kwantlen from Commerce to Political Science. I was not surprised when I was outnumbered again in university college, even in a bastion of Christian conservatism that was Langley (where Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ of Canada is headquartered). I ran out of money after one semester. So I went looking for work. There was slim pickings, but I found a job at a retail outlet in the mall where I was quickly bumped up to Assistant Manager – capitalism was working – work hard and you get ahead. Yet as time progressed I found that the company I worked for would do anything to rip off consumers and employees alike. I became a little unsure of my economic political beliefs: not enough to throw them away, but enough to question my future in politics. On a whim, I decided to attended Bible College. As fall semester got closer, the more I felt like this was the right path, I could be a pastor or a Bible college professor, and/or maybe get into politics later on when I had everything figured out.

continued in part ii…