Promoting Religion

I'm at work, and as I've mentioned before, I read cnn.com like it's going out of style. They tend to be interesting stories, some evoking strong emotions out of me, as well as making me sit back and think. Thinking is what happened to me today. I was doing my regular reading-- clicking on each of the stories under the "Most Popular" link on the side, when a story came up that ended up taking me by surprise: "Islam subway ads cause stir in New York." The article talks about ads that Islamic group, Islamic Circle of North America, sponsored and now face resistance from people wanting the Metropolitan Transit Authority to reject the ads.
They claim that one of the head organizers of the campaign is a suspected terrorist, but the only court appearance he made was to be a character witness and has never been charged with being a co-conspirator. Maybe he is an Islamic extremist, I don't know, but just because he's behind the campaign, does that really mean something promoting (non-extremist) Islam should be banned? I realized that people's outrage over the ads made me discouraged.
I'm assuming that the people in the Islamic Circle of North America are not extremists or terrorists, but want to genuinely promote their religion. Although I will not be converting Islam, I can appreciate what they're trying to do. The ads show a phrase that is often misused in reference to Islam and state in the ad "You deserve to know." The group members want people to think about the words, to explore Islam, and, I'm assuming, convert.
It's not too different than Christianity. The question that kept going through my head while I was reading the article was "If these were Christians wanting to put up an ad, would they get this much resistance?" Christians want to promote their religion, as well as have extremists. They don't go out to other countries and blow them up, but there are people who consider themselves Christians and go and blow up abortion clinics. There are good and bad examples of people of every religion. I don't think the Metropolitan Transit Authority should ban the ads because it's not promoting terrorism or hatred, it is giving people something to think about and explore. I think it is courageous for the group to be so ambitious in choosing the location of their ads (on New York subways). The reason people are resisting the ads is the very reason the ads need to be put up-- people have stereotypes and assumptions about Islam and Muslims, and that's what feeds their resistance to the ads-- because they think Muslims are all terrorists/ extremists. I honestly hope the MTA does not reject the ads, unless there is a darn good reason to, not just because someone's anti-Islam.

Does God Have a Wife?

I realized I haven't written anything very deep or thoughtful lately. I guess I feel uninspired or haven't found anything worth trying to digest and process on here.
Well, I have found something that has been puzzling me for a while. I'm reading a book called Jezebel by Lesley Hazleton. It's a non-fiction telling of the story of the interactions of Queen Jezebel, King Ahab, and Elijah from a historical perspective. When I first picked it up, I thought it was going to be a historical-fiction novel, but I have been pleasantly surprised by how interesting and informational it is. I'm not very knowledgeable of the Old Testament, and knew nothing of Jezebel, except that people use her name like a weapon; but I was never sure why. This book has already helped paint a picture of her influence on history, as well as who she and her husband were. I'll wait to recommend it (or not) when I finish it...
Anyway, the reason I'm writing this blog is because of something the author said and I cannot, for the life of me, figure out if it is true. Here is the passage from the book that has me puzzled:

"As Jezebel was yet to discover, Yahweh did indeed have a consort-- a lesser version of Astarte known as Asherah.
We know of her from ancient inscriptions calling down teh blessings of 'Yehweh and his Asherah' as well as from the Bible itself. In Jeremiah she is known as 'the queen of heaven,' and her image -- a stylized Tree of Life-- was placed beside the main alter in the temples of Yehweh." (pg. 43)

Is Asherah real? Is it a myth? Who is she? I found a few verses that talk about her:

Jeremiah 44:18

18But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine.”

Jeremiah 7:18

18The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.

Is she a superstition? Or is there such thing as a queen of heaven? Is there a female spirit up there with Jesus? Or is it humans trying to create a balance in their mind-- thinking that God needs a female counter-part since we, as humans, have males and females? I'm so confused by this! Because in Jeremiah 44:18 it sounds like she was taking offerings and helping to protect people... but then in (actually, it's first) it says they are provoking God by giving offerings to other gods. Does the Queen of Heaven qualify or is she with God so offerings to her count towards God as well? And if she really does exist, how come it's never been talked about? Why is shes never mentioned? What does/will that do to my faith? to others' faith? What kind of impact would it have if she does exist and churches start teaching about her and praising her like they do God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? Is that even possible to happen? I have so many questions flying through my head!
I know I need to do some more research, but I'm surprised I've never heard of this before! If anyone has any sort of insight, please help me out!

Women: Leadership in a relationship

What is a leader?
The next discussion turned to what a leader is. We discussed what the general definition of a leader was, and what a leader was in a relationship. A general leader was defined as two things: First, someone who is passionate and inspires others to follow them/their example. Second, someone who tells people what to do and how to do it. What is a leader in a relationship? No one could give a good answer. Why should a man, just because he is a man, be able to have the final say? Why do women not have as much right in a marriage to give their opinion and be involved equally in the decision-making? Just because they are a man, does that mean they are automatically smarter/wiser/more in-tuned with God? Do women lose all opinions and decision-making abilities when they say "I do"? One of the girls even said, flat out, that men should get the final say and ended the statement with, "even though I'm totally not like that." Then why do it? If you don't agree with it or believe it, why do it? Just because someone told you that was the way it should be done? She's already putting aside her own ideas for someone else's (and I can't resist saying that a guy convinced her that men as the head of the relationship is the "right" way-- I don't get it, I just don't!).
There were a few examples that we discussed regarding leadership and decision-making. The first was the game "Follow the Leader." One of the girls used this as an example that, although everyone was following the leader, they were in fact following the person in front of them (symbolic of the man). The man is taking direction from the leader who is giving direction to the woman. (*roll of eyes*) They denied the fact that a leader in a relationship is someone who tells everyone else what to do and how to do it.... except, if the leader is telling/leading everyone to go left, they're doing what the leader is telling them to do. I'm not seeing the difference in this analogy.
The other issue we discussed, with a lot more heat under it I might add, was who makes the decisions. Does someone have the final say? How are decisions made? The example that was used was a couple moving. Who makes the decision of where to move or even if they move at all? When discussing this topic with my very wise friend, she explained to me the way her (egalitarian) marriage works: They only make a decision if they both agree or get the same calling/vision. If they don't agree or have the same calling, they don't move a muscle. Only when God gives them the same calling do they do anything. They discuss every decision together and come to a conclusion together-- neither person gets more of a say than the other. This idea went kinda over the heads of my Bible studiers. One scenario that was brought up was: what if one person wants to move (actually it was the wife in this example) and the man doesn't? Since they can't agree to move so they don't go anywhere, doesn't that mean he "wins"? Not at all. It is out of respect and love that the decision to not move is made. By forcing the man (or woman) to do something they don't want to do is manipulative and wrong-- not a definition of equality. It may require compromise. Yes, people want their own way, but one person shouldn't get their way just because of their biology. And out of love and respect, the man or woman may agree to move. But it has nothing to do with authority or leadership when that decision/compromise is made.
As the discussion continued on, a question was asked of me that actually took me by surprise. When I mentioned that I didn't know the definition of a leader in a relationship, I wasn't kidding. However, I was asked, "What would it look like if Michael was the leader?" Were you not listening to anything I've been saying?!? I answered, even though I was more confused as to how they could ask me that, but whatever, "I don't want him to be the leader. And he doesn't want to be the leader. We both believe in equality in a relationship and marriage. We make decisions together and we support and encourage each other in everything. Even though he is not the 'leader,' he is still one of the most passionate people I know! He respects me and treats me as I should be treated. He loves God and follows God with all of his heart. He is passionate about church and is excited about what our church is doing. He is in no way weaker or less of a man because he is not and does not want to be the leader." God has blessed me with a man who holds the same beliefs about relationships and marriage as I do. I believe that that is not a coincidence!
However, this was the question that was asked in response to that: "If Michael is so passionate, isn't that being a leader?" "What do you mean? I don't understand the question." "Passion is inspiring. So a person who is passionate inspires people to follow." WHAT?! My response (with other thoughts thrown in): "Michael is passionate about a lot of things. But by no means does he lead me in those passions. Yes, he teaches me about certain things, but never leads me. One of his main passions is music. He is the worship leader at church, but it really does not play a role in our relationship. But what about my passions? Just because I'm a woman, does that mean they don't matter? Are my passions not inspiring?" Both Michael and I are passionate about God and our church. But I was passionate about God long before I even met Michael. Yes, we can encourage each other and inspire each other in our relationship with God, but in no way does he lead me. He does not tell me what to read, how to pray, what to believe, etc. It's my own personal relationship with my creator-- I don't need Michael there to help it grow. We can come together and have a relationship centered on God and come together to study together, but there's no leading or submitting going on. Also, I was there when the first thought of Revolution came to be. Michael was nowhere around. We were passionate about it before we even met! We can both be passionate about Revolution and where it is going and form relationships and friendships within Revolution, but my passion and drive for it has nothing to do with Michael and his drive and passion has nothing to do with me. We both enjoy it and play central roles in it, but I don't rely on him for my passion about church. We both are there because we are following God's calling on our lives and it happens to be the same passion... coincidence? I think not! We rely on God to give us our own calling and vision and if we are truly meant to be together, then God will (and has) give us the same calling and vision. But God will not only give the vision/calling to Michael and he passes it on to me and I follow blindly. God uses our passions to change and grow our own lives and our relationship. We come together and encourage, inspire, teach, lean on, support, challenge, and help each other. We do it because we love each other and because we love God. It has nothing to do with our identity as being a man or a woman, it has everything to do with our identity as a son and daughter of God.

End of part two!

Women: Leadership Positions in the Church

Whew! We finally had our discussion in my Bible study about women! It's been 3 weeks since we said we would have this discussion... that's a long time to make me wait to state my opinion... wait, I did state my opinion-- just to everyone else! (Sorry Jill!!)
So I thought I'd share what the night was like and the discussion we had (I am being very deliberate about it not being a debate.)
Oh, and I want to say a HUGE thank you to Makeesha, Molly, and my mom for helping me with this discussion! I couldn't have done as well without your help!
And as a warning, because this was a discussion and also because I wanted to be respectful and loving towards my fellow Bible studiers, I did not express my true opinions about what they thought/believed. So, as a result, I need somewhere to vent about what they said. So be prepared. I have to be honest and say that I tend to be a little harsh and very sarcastic, so be prepared. Okay, that was my disclaimer!
Also, there are lots of different parts and they all tend to be a little long, so I'm going to break them up into different parts so everyone can read them a little easier and can comment on each idea. I'd love to get everyone's insight and ideas about each subject. So comment away!

Women in leadership positions in the church
So Cheyenne led into it very smoothly and the discussion was off and running. I was the only advocate for egalitarian marriages versus leader/submissive marriages. Needless to say, I did a lot of talking. I'm not very good about stating my opinion when I disagree with everyone (or even one person for that matter), so I must say I did a pretty good job holding my ground. I made sure to note that I understand that people have their own understandings and convictions of relationships, but I just don't agree with it.
We started with the discussion of women in leadership in a church... some interesting ideas came out. One defense of women not being head pastors was that women actually have the honor of not being a head pastor because it protects them from the spiritual warfare and temptations that go along with that position.....????? I don't even know. Women can't handle life being difficult? I understand that higher positions tend to be attacked more (not even on a spiritual level) but why would it be an honor to not have to deal with that? Oh, thanks, I don't have to deal with anything. I'll just sit here and look pretty! (Can you sense my feelings about this?)
Women are given just as many and the same gifts as men. Why should they not be allowed to live out that gift? Women are given the job as Sunday-school teachers, whether they like it or not. Women are not allowed to have authority over men... but when does a boy become a man? 5 years old? 13? 18? 21? When is it okay for a woman to teach a boy (but not a man)? And what about mothers? Once their son reaches 18, does that mean she no longer has authority as a parent? Can she no longer teach him anything? On the day of his 18th birthday, does he automatically become smarter than his mother? Wait, isn't that called adolescence? ;-) I'm 21 and I'm still learning things from my parents. I don't think they'll ever stop teaching me things! So does age and definition of a man/woman really determine when and how a person can be taught? And why can't women be up front? The girls said that there's nothing wrong with them being part of the leadership team or even as an elder/deacon, but just not the head pastor. But don't the elders have more power than the head pastor? So why can't they be up front teaching everyone? I went to a church in high school where the youth pastor was a man (big surprise) but his wife was a much more gifted of a teacher than he will ever be! However, she was never allowed to teach in youth group. Was it because her husband had the authority over the youth group? I never got ANY spiritual feeding from him, but came away a changed person when his wife taught in the main service! Gasp! A woman was a better teacher than a man? How can that be? God gifted her as a teacher, but her skill and gift were not allowed to be used to touch young girls' and boys' lives.
If someone has a gift God has given them, they should live life and follow through with that gift. If someone is called to lead worship, they should lead worship. If they have the skill to plan an instrument, but don't have a calling to lead worship or be in the band, they shouldn't be in the band. God may want to use them elsewhere or use a different gift. We should not assume that whatever talent someone has they should use it in the church. We should let people follow what God has spoken to them and into their lives. And we should definitely NOT prevent someone from using a gift that God has called them to use, no matter what their gender is. If a man has been called to lead Sunday school and a woman has been called to be head pastor, let them do so, taking assurance in the fact that they are walking in God's will and God will bless them and the church as a result. God wants what is best for everyone, so we must let Him do so. We need to leave our pride and our prejudice (wait, isn't that a book?) at the door and allow God to move in our lives and our church. It'll be amazing to see what God can and will do when we finally allow Him full access to our church and our lives!

End of part one! There's more to come!

...and Justice for All

I was in my religions class yesterday and we were continuing our study of Islam (let me just say I sit in complete confusion for the entire hour!). We talked about the central and very strong belief in the importance of justice. We then compared it to the Christian concept of justice. In regards to the Christian concept of justice, my professor said, and I quote, "Jews and Muslims laugh." At first, I was slightly offended. However, as he kept talking, it started to make more sense. Justice means to give a consequence for an action. We talked about that in Islam, if a son does something wrong, a mother is bound by her beliefs in justice to turn him in because she must value justice (and Allah) over the love for her son. That seemed so tragic and heartbreaking.
With the Christian perspective of that scenario, the mother would embrace her son and give him grace... hmmm... doesn't sound like justice to me! It started to make more sense. Grace is central to Christianity and we function and love within that belief. God is graceful and merciful because He loves us. Yes, God is just, but His love and forgiveness overrides that.
Also, my professor started making fun of the idea that Christians are passionate about "social justice." Again, slightly offended. It was also through this I realized my professor may not hold the beliefs I thought he did (being from Ireland and all, I assumed he had either a Catholic or Protestant background... maybe not... or he could have been playing devil's advocate... but not likely). But it really got me thinking about what social justice really means. Is it truly justice? Is there a better word/phrase to describe what is implied by when people mention social justice? How would changing the wording effect what was done or expected? Would it have an effect? This is just something that I've been thinking about. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this or anything else related!

Can a Christian believe a non-Christian can be saved?

So I finally wrote my paper for my religions class that I talked about in a previous post. I decided to write about whether or not a Christian can believe a non-Christian can get to heaven-- that one seemed to be the most interesting, by far! So I'll copy and paste my paper here. Let me know what you think. It's an "academic essay" (whatever the hell that means) so it's really formal and not how I usually write on here! Enjoy!

Christianity and Salvation in Regards to Other Religions

There are many different views in regard to salvation. Salvation is an extremely complex issue and cannot be discussed in one theology. In my essay, I will discuss what salvation is and specifically what Christians believe it is. I will also discuss the different views of who Christians believe are saved. Finally, I will talk about Christians believing that people of other religions can be saved.

The idea of salvation is not solely a Christian concept. Most religions have some concept of salvation, and it does not always involve the idea of a heaven. Christians believe in the saving power of the cross. They believe Jesus was perfect, died on the cross for everyone’s sins, and was resurrected 3 days after he died. Christians tend to believe that the way to be saved is through “church rituals (particularly baptism and -- in the Catholic churches -- confession), good works; Belief in: Jesus' resurrection, Jesus’ status as the only begotten Son of God, Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior; Or by some combination of the above.”[1] The debate comes from the fact that there are numerous other religions that believe in a higher power, in the person of Jesus, and the existence of people in remote areas of the world who never have and never will hear the name of Jesus. The following paragraphs will explain different beliefs about who is saved and the support each belief has.

The first belief is universalism. They believe that everyone, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, is saved. Because, according to Romans 3:23, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Jesus redeemed everyone of their sins. As a result, all are saved and going to heaven. Origen argued that there is no such thing as dualism. He believed that “God will overcome evil and restore creation to its original form.”[2] He did not believe that God, who is perfect and holy, could coexist with Satan, who is evil. Robinson argued that God’s love is stronger than the evil and will eventually conquer evil, which makes “the existence of hell an impossibility.”[3] However, this theory does not take into account the need for faith in any higher power. With this theory, it does not matter what kind of person someone is—they could be a murderer or rapist who is unrepentant of what they did, and they could still get into heaven. Universalists could argue that all people are sinners, one sin is not greater than another, and because of God’s grace, and we are all saved: “For it is by grace that we have been saved… not by works, so that no one can boast” Ephesians 2:8-9.

Another belief of salvation is that only elect people can get into heaven. This theory rests heavily on the idea of pre-destination—that God chose only a few people to be saved. This theory comes from the idea that Jesus came and died for all people, but only a select few will be saved. They argue that because Jesus came and died only to save those who God had already chosen to be saved. However, those who follow this theory do not give any solid Biblical references for their beliefs and dismiss the “universality of God’s love and redemption.”[4]

The last, and most popular, belief is that only believers can get into heaven and be saved. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This is the most popular belief among churches today. Jesus is believed to be central to someone’s salvation. If someone does not believe in, and “confess” the name of Jesus, and that he came down to earth and died for our sins, they cannot get into heaven. This belief emphasizes the importance of faith in Jesus and God in order to be saved. Augustine was a strong force behind promoting this idea originally. During the Middle Ages and the Reformation it was further supported. The writers of the time started the idea, that continues to be popular today, that nonbelievers cannot be saved. Calvin stated: “All the more vile is the stupidity of those people who open heaven to all the impious unbelieving, without the grace of him who Scripture teaches to be the only door by which we enter heaven.”[5]

In contrast to the earlier theologians, there have been others who believe that a non-Christian can be saved. In John Wesley’s sermon, “On Faith,” he “argued the need for faith in God in order to be saved—but affirmed that this faith need not be explicitly Christian in character.”[6] In the twentieth-century, C.S. Lewis wrote on the subject of who is saved. In his book, Mere Christianity, he argued that “those who commit themselves to the pursuit of goodness and truth will be saved, even if they have no formal knowledge of Christ.”[7] In regards to other religions, those who are saved are more complicated. Lewis states: “There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence top concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.”[8] This idea supports the fact that God is present in everything.

People who have never heard of the name of Jesus or God can still acknowledge the presence of a higher being. In Romans 1:20, Paul states: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” God is omnipresent, so God is in remote areas of the world where people who have not heard of the name of Jesus would be able to experience Him. If Augustine were to argue this point he would most likely use John 14:6, referencing Jesus saying that he is the only way to be saved. One could state that a person does not necessarily have to acknowledge the person of Jesus to be saved. He came, died, was resurrected and left the Holy Spirit on the earth, so it is through the Holy Spirit that Jesus and God are revealed. Because Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one entity, acknowledging the presence of one acknowledges the presence of all three.

Western Christianity is very western-centric and we do not have a clear understanding of other religions, and even the beliefs and practices of Christians in other parts of the world. Other religions believe in a higher being and some even believe in the existence of Jesus. (Islam—Allah and Jesus as a prophet, Judaism—believe in God who is Jesus) God is truth, and if another religion or person lives in a truth, it is following God’s way. In Rob Bell’s book, Velvet Elvis, he talks about all truth being God’s truth, no matter where the truth is found. He references Paul’s writings in the book of Acts where Paul quotes one of the poets of the place he is staying. The poet spoke truth. If all truth is God’s truth then the poet unknowingly spoke God’s truth.[9] Bell states, “as a Christian, I am free to claim the good, the true, the holy, wherever and whenever I find it. I live with the understanding that truth is bigger than any religion and the world is God’s and everything in it.”[10] As a Christian, it is possible to believe that other religions can speak truth and God is present in that truth. Other religions acknowledge the person of Jesus, not always saying he is the Messiah, but a prophet or just a man. It could be argued that because they believe he existed, people who follow other religions are saved. Along with that, if another religion follows a deity, they could be following God, but giving Him a different name. Especially because Jews follow the God of Abraham, as do Christians, they all believe in the same God who is also Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

It is possible, although not always accepted, that Christians can believe that people of other religions can be saved. Christians tend to be very exclusive and intolerant of other religions, not accepting the idea of God’s truth being present in everything, including other religions’ beliefs and doctrines. Although Jesus said he is the way to be saved, it is not defined how exactly that is seen or decided. People can live a life for Christ and not consider themselves Christians.

In conclusion, Christians believe in the saving power of the cross of Christ. However, Christians can also believe that non-Christians, who do not believe in the cross, can be saved. In this essay, I explained the different views about who is saved and who is not. I also explained that it is possible for Christians to believe that nonbelievers and people of other religions can be saved.

---

[1]B.A. Robinson, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, Religioustolerance.org, http://www.religioustolerance.org/salvatio.htm, 2007

[2] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 357

[3] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 357

[4] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 359

[5] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 357-358

[6] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 358

[7] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 358

[8] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 358

[9] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis,, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 79

[10] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis,, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 80

More Questions Than Answers

So I have spring break this week (that is one thing I will miss when I'm not in school!) but I have to spend some time of it writing 2 papers... ugh! Well, at least starting them. Anyway, one of them is for my religions class-- which I'm still loving by the way-- and I thought I'd get other people's insight cuz they're not easy questions to answer. We have the option to write about one of 5 questions. Here are the two I am thinking about writing about:

1) Is Christianity a monotheistic religion?
-- This was a very interesting discussion because I have grown up in the church and it was never a question as to whether or not we believed in one God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are just part of God (use whatever analogy you wish to explain it--the egg one is my favorite). So at first my answer was, "Yes, duh!"However, in this class, we discussed the question of: how it is possible to think of Jesus as fully God as well as fully human? If he's human, he can't be God, but if he's God, he can't be human... well, according to logical thought. And if Jesus was praying to God and was the son of God, that would make him separate, right? Well, I'm not saying I believe that, but it definitely gives you something to think about and gives me a big headache! But it did get me thinking about this issue. How would you discuss that? How can Jesus be God AND human at the same time, all the while being God himself? Any thoughts? I'll definitely be wrestling with this and researching it (I'll have to see what our theology textbook has to say about this... I'll get back to everyone about what I find). But I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

2) Can a Christian believe that members of other religions are “saved”?
-- It's kinda funny cuz we got this assignment and I got onto my blog reader thingy and Paul had written a blog about this issue! Crazy! (I'll post a comment about it when I read it, and especially if I write my paper on this!) So I am going to read that (it's really long!) and see what he has to say as well I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks! When we discussed this in class, I was in a group with mostly Christian (well, self-proclaimed) girls and we really struggled with this issue. It would be great if everyone got into heaven. The discussion always came around to "what about the guy in the middle of nowhere? will he go to heaven if he's never heard about God/Jesus?" That question was a little easier to answer or at least give a decent answer for, but what I want to know is what about the people in the Middle East who strongly believe that their religion is the truth? Or even the Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, etc. in the US? Does it come down to theology? Cuz Muslims believe in Jesus, just that he was a prophet, not the son of God. And Jews believe in God-- and if Jesus is God, would that mean they indirectly believe in Jesus? What about Catholics and Mormons who have very similar beliefs but different values and some VERY different beliefs but the core beliefs are the same? Cuz they all believe in Jesus. Where is the line drawn? Is there any way to know? Isn't it very prideful for Christians to say they have the one and only way to heaven? Let me know what you think!

--Also, any good references would be greatly appreciated for either of these questions-- books, websites, Bible verses, etc! Feel free to comment about only one or both! I'd love to hear what people have to say and think!

What is the Trinity?

So I had my religions class today and we started our discussion on Christianity. More specifically, we started talking about the never-complicated subject of the Trinity--WHOA! When I was reading our book, "Christian Theology" I was confused at some points and I've grown up in the church and have somewhat of a grasp of what the trinity is and how it functions.
It did help me see, however, how other religions do not believe Jesus is not God. Until now, I never understood how people couldn't believe this-- "of course Jesus is God!" When looking at it that Jesus was a man so how can he be God really got me thinking. It's a pretty heavy subject and I am not about to try to explain it here.
The biggest and most interesting discussion we had in class today was the fact that the Bible only mentions the trinity (but not called the trinity in the Bible) as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in two verses in the whole Bible! The discussion arose, inevitably, that what if the idea of the trinity was just a man-made idea and we got it totally wrong? That we misunderstood what it meant by the Father/Son/Holy Spirit relationship? No one had a very good answer. They either answered "just because" or "I don't know."
So I started thinking to myself, what would that do to our theology? Our beliefs? I had a discussion with one of my pastors recently about this very subject (about theology changing, not the trinity). We both read the book Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell which I've talked about before, and in it he talks about how people put too much emphasis on the theology of Christianity and miss the big picture. He proposed the idea of (this is definitely a paraphrase) what would it do your faith if you knew that the word used for virgin regarding Mary not only meant someone who hadn't had sex, but also a woman who had had sex only once? And what if it could be proven (by some super-duper sci-fi gizmo) that she was the later definition of virgin? What would that do to your faith? Would it discredit the Bible? Is our faith solely based on theology instead of the message of the Bible? This is just what was going through my mind today during class and I thought I'd share it with everyone. What are everyone's thoughts? Ideas? Insights?

Can You Prove God?

So I'm taking a class this semester called, "Religions of the West." It's about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and Atheism actually). Before I even walked in the classroom on the first day, I knew it was going to be a fascinating class. Oh, and let this be a warning, because it is a philosophy class and it's about religions-- it really makes me think--which will cause a lot of blogs! I am excited to learn about the different religions and process what I learned. I'm especially excited to see how it will strengthen my own beliefs and theology. So here goes the first digestion of topics discussed last week:

In my class, the first religion we are studying is atheism. It really helps to understand what people believe when they don't believe in a higher being. At first, I thought it was weird to be studying atheism in a religions class, but come to find out, a religion is just a set of beliefs. We could have gotten into the discussion about if capitalism could be considered a religion, but thankfully my teacher spared me that boredom (at least for now... who knows what the rest of the semester holds)! Anyway, we are studying prominent and influential atheists-- Marx, Freud, and some guy I can't remember the name of (give me a break, it's only been 2 weeks of class!). Last week we discussed Marx's ideas about religion. It was fascinating! Marx believed that the poor believed in the Bible, and especially the idea of Heaven, to give them hope and religion helped the rich keep them in their low positions. The rich got richer while they exploited the poor who believed they'd get something better someday. Marx saw this as weak. He believed people needed a reason for their suffering and "the last will become first" idea gave them that reason.
My thoughts on this is how can hanging on to hope be considered weak? Since when is hope weak? It is the source of life! It is what keeps people going from day to day, even when those days are bleak and gray. Jesus hung out with the poor and hopeless-- they are who he loved (he loves everyone, of course), but he especially came for the lowly people-- those who needed hope, the doctor to the sick.
Also, if there is no afterlife, what is the purpose of living? For what purpose do we do good works and love other people if our lives and souls end when our heart stops beating? If we have no one to tell us what makes life worth living, what is the purpose of living? Why wouldn't people just do what they want? (which gets into the debate of whether people are inherently good or evil...)
Another thought: Why do people submit our own lives to an incomprehensible being, someone we can't actually measure or evaluate or really even understand? Religion becomes a very personal experience. God is real to those who believe in him and experience him. God is everywhere. But how do you prove His existence? Is there any way to take the personal experience with God into public, outside of the walls of your bedroom and the walls of your church? Is it just shown through our actions and our love? I know God is real and alive and omnipresent, but how can I convey that to everyone else? I know showing his unconditional love is key to it all... but is there anything else? How we can show God to other people is a very personal experience and decision and walk for everyone. God works in so many ways-- there is no set mold or equation that God uses for everyone. That's what makes God amazing!
There are so many thoughts and questions and ideas running through my head, I can't even begin to type fast enough! I know I've only begun to scratch the surface of this theological discussion, so I would love to hear everyone else's thoughts!
What are everyone's thoughts? If you were to talk to Marx about his views on religion (this is not about his political ideas and/or communism), what would you ask him? I'd love to hear anyone and everyone's thoughts!!