Christianity: Good and Bad

It may seem curmudgeonly of me to be raising this issue at the beginning of the Advent season. But let me speak for the sake of full honesty, and from the unbiased perspective of a philosopher of religion. I felt it was time to give a balanced evaluation of my own faith, as well as the usual critique of those I find disagreeable. Perhaps, by doing so, I may help someone to understand what some of the issues are, and why they may want to choose one over another. At least, the example of constructing a list of pros and cons may encourage a reasonable discussion, and a similar treatment of other faiths. Honesty can't really hurt a heartfelt faith, but it might deepen our own core spirituality. And that can only be a good thing.

What's wrong with Christianity?
1. Pre-scientific world view
       - pits creation vs evolution
       - blames/credits God for natural events
       - misunderstands the heavens
       - disregards investigation & discovery
2. Denigrates living in this world
       - otherworldly spirituality
       - critiques economic success
       - neglects self-defense
       - promotes personal asceticism
3. Apocalyptic expectations
       - war in Heaven between Good & Evil
       - Earth as a battleground
       - exclusive claims to salvation
       - morality as contrast, white vs black
4. Lacks a compelling motivation
       - fear is only a partial motivation
       - unrealistic promises
       - unverifiable afterlife expectations
       - no clear path to a happy life
5. Short-circuits initiative
       - expects otherworldly paradise
       - fragmentary, ineffective sociology
       - blames demonic influences
       - suppresses challenges to authorities

What's right with Christianity?
1. Compassion for the oppressed
       - helps to lift the burden of misfortune
       - seeks ways to relieve afflictions
       - refuses to impose prejudice
       - adopts the outcast and neglected
2. Mercy for moral lapses
       - refuses to judge harshly
       - always gives another chance
       - offers an education in ethics
       - points out root causes
3. Survives imperial domination
       - defuses evil by responding with good
       - promotes service to others
       - encourages cooperation
       - builds trustworthy character
4. Sustains hope for a lifetime
       - expect rewards in an afterlife
       - is not afraid to suffer
       - affirms a relationship with divinity
       - encourages steadfast faith
5. Develops spiritual growth
       - creates a moral perspective
       - looks deeper than "the Law"
       - seeks the betterment of others
       - raises the expectations for humanity

Are there other, neglected questions?
1. Ultimate concerns
       - how do we build value in this life?
       - finding one's own niche in society
       - respect for human rights
       - encourage noble achievements
2. Visions of a sustainable future
       - can we work in harmony with nature?
       - clean up your own mess
       - value nature as created beauty
       - observe the world's optimum capacity
3. Intentional community & society
       - build a married religious community
       - a corporate, collective co-op village
       - shared responsibilities & rewards
       - joint efforts toward advancement
4. Progress in knowledge & technology
       - beyond spiritual oversimplification
       - science, engineering & mathematics
       - astronomy, medicine & ecology
       - mechanics, electronics & space
5. How do we encounter other faiths?
       - seeking points of agreement
       - comparison with similarity
       - defusing issues of conflict
       - recognizing spiritual aspirations
6. A variety of valid Ideals, not just one
       - Truth, Freedom, Love & Wisdom
       - competing situational claims
       - different balances between cultures
       - each demands full respect together

Of course, a similar list of pros and cons could be drawn up for any religion, simply because they are static constructions. Most might even have a few shared good points and problems. This happens as a rule, because Humanity's cultures are continually changing, and yet we still face many of the same challenges.

"The poor you will have with you always." And yet, Daedalus has finally learned to fly. And in the future, we may find solutions, and problems, that are as yet unanticipated.

An Archangel's Name

It isn't so easy to find the names of all the archangels. You have to go back into the folk traditions to find them, and not every source will agree with all of the others. Only the first three are actually named in the Bible, as far as I could tell, but there is still a general consensus that there are seven, and some agreement on a loose sense of each one's name. Getting the interpretations came close to guesswork, as I had to use my own understanding to make full sense of what I did find. But these are my best ideas and approximations, except where the traditional stories are clear enough.

     Michael - Who is like God?
     Gabriel  - The Strength of God
     Raphael - The Healing of God
     Uriel        - My Light is of God
     Selaphiel - He Prays to God
     Jeremiel - The Mercy of God
     Zerachiel - The Command of God

     also:
     Phanuel - He Brings God's Presence
This last one is not a commander, but has an important role as a messenger. He may be next in line if ever called upon, since he is the prototype of the prophet/apostle.

Tradition says that the rebel's name was
     Lucifer - A Fiery Zeal for God,
and places him to the left of the Throne, a position of trust and authority, where he stands to accuse us of being unworthy of Heaven. We might wonder why he is still allowed to be there, representing his rebellion and betrayal. But there are really supposed to be eight archangels, as the number seven stands for perfection, but eight is completion.

     Zeal (He was the first)
     Likeness
     Strength
     Healing
     Light
     Prayer
     Mercy
     Command (Obedience)
These names still represent the ways in which we should relate to God, to show our respect and reverence.

However, we don't call the rebel by his heavenly name these days. Rather, we refer to him as the Accuser, Shaitan, and expect him to be an enemy. Perhaps Lucifer has chosen to call himself Allah, and claims all those who could not discern good from evil. If one can be deceived by temptation, and be willing to practice violence and cruelty in  Allah's name, and dare to call that good, then perhaps being an outcast is justice. For in this way, it is revealed who is not worthy, and who knowingly follows the Liar, just because it suits him, and he doesn't have to be so "spiritual."

Then there are those who turn away from what they know is good, and despise their own consciences, refusing to turn back from selfishness and ask God for mercy. They too see the way of the world as cruel and open to those who would take any advantage, and they don't care about the unfortunate and oppressed. They will be surprised to find out that there is more than this one life, and that our choices do have consequences.

But what happens to people who would want to be good, but can't find the strength to follow what their conscience says is right? Perhaps for them the only hope is faith in the Lord, to confess contritely and beg for mercy. Jesus has promised to save all who believe and follow Him. Hopefully, our Lord will be merciful to all who would try to keep a good conscience, who admit their failures, and come in faith  to ask for mercy. This might turn out to be the great majority of humanity, especially if God has had a hand in the world's other religions.

And what shall be Lucifer's just due, if he proves his point? What if humans can't be made worthy of Heaven? Is this all merely a test, passing judgment on each age and generation, to see how far we have yet to progress? Will this world continue until Lucifer is satisfied, that finally we have learned, and now we are worthy to be welcomed into the Heavens? Perhaps, it is our capacity to let faith shape our own conscience and character, and to know when we fall short, that is being tested. So our hope in Jesus is all that saves us, and all that we need. When the rebel kneels, and vows obedience, will he not also be forgiven?

Is there some way to fix our minds, or to redirect our wills without taking away our freedom? Would doing that diminish us, or perfect us? Is some brain-machine interface that we can wear possible, to retrain the way we think, and give us access to the powers of faith when we are ready to be truly the children of God?

I might really be willing to wear a cap, or a headband, until I can learn how to live as I should. It would be better than the Devil's  alternative, that we should be cast out and destroyed. Especially if we will receive an extension of our lives, instead of harsh judgement. That would be its own kind of justice, but with mercy - a kind  of probation.

And maybe I could even forgive Lucifer for playing his part in the winnowing out of those of us who were not willing to admit their faults and receive God's grace. Maybe he was assigned the job, because he doubted that raising humans to become angels would ever work. After all, doubt is not the same as rebellion, is it? It's a tough job, and he does it well. I just wish that what he despises was not so deep in our nature, and so hard for us to overcome.

"Freely Given" - Food with a Conscience

God promises us an abundance of blessings, bestowed upon us by his loving grace, and one of the greatest blessings that we receive is the food we eat on a daily basis. Yes, we do work for it, but is there really a necessity that we should kill for it? Even when we raise animals for food, there is often an intermediate step to harvest before the creatures have to be killed. We raise chickens for eggs, and cows for milk, don't we? Many of the animals we raise offer us some benefits, freely without complaint, before being led to the slaughter.

Yet we should think and consider, if we keep them healthy enough, could we not let them live out the better portion of their lives, before we give them a clean death without suffering? They should not suffer as slaves, in a cage fearing their doom. But neither would anyone want to live with a crippling chronic disease until some catastrophic organ failure. We know when it is a mercy to put down a valuable race horse, or a beloved pet. An animal values its life for its own sake as much as we do. But it probably also knows that there is a reason for it to be raised in captivity. It deserves a proper quality of life, before we claim its final purpose. Economics should not be our primary interest, but gratitude and compassion.

There are also various "products" which are inevitable without regard for when the creature dies. A cow will give its hide, hooves and bones, whether we kill it or not. And a goose will give its feathers. There is no need to rush the issue. These are merely representative examples, from what could become a really long list.

But mostly, "freely given" food is a reference to eating lightly from the land, and low on the food chain. Vegetables and fruits, nuts and beans, herbs and honey, even flowers or fungi that we may grow or recognize along the wayside ... these are all examples of food "freely given" and available for our use and sustenance. And many plants can be harvested without killing them, by taking the fruit, leaves or seeds.

The Earth is a garden, and we were put here to tend and till it. We are its stewards and we must keep and replenish the land, so that we may take our support and sustenance from it. It is a shame that we had forgotten the wisdom of ecology for so many millennia, since we began building cities, but we have recalled it now. And so we remember that the care and mercy with which we guard the landscape and the creatures it harbors, even as we reap the resources we need, renews the bounty that we receive and in which we share.

So, what is "freely given" food? We can begin with the principles of vegetarian simplicity, and go from there. If it is an edible plant growing in a garden, it is fair to eat. What we cultivate is encouraged to proliferate, probably beyond its natural range. If you find it growing in the wild, maybe you don't want to gather too much, as it might stress the community trying to grow there. But if you truly have a "green thumb," you might feel free to collect a few living plants to transplant into a garden or some spot where you think they will flourish.

Be concerned for the survival and spread of any species that you want to use. If it will help you, then you can help it in turn, like planting an acorn or seedlings each time you cut an oak tree. There is a great variety of foods to be gathered from the vegetable kingdom, and a few more among the fungi, that are good to eat. And yes, strict vegetarians can get all the nutrients they need from those sources alone. A well balanced vegetarian diet can be sufficient and healthy for anyone to live with.

But the animals can and do contribute their share to support us as we watch over the lands in our care. We domesticated sheep for wool, and goats for milk, chickens for eggs, and geese for downy feathers. And skins can be removed for leather when the beasts die, if we need it. We need not be ashamed to use them for ourselves, as they have benefited from our husbandry and care, and become far more numerous and widespread than their wild ancestors could have been.

But we are not licensed to abuse them, or treat them like mindless products in an assembly line. They deserve a dignified life, each according to its kind. And if we have good and reasonable alternatives to use, instead of callously stripping their bodies for resources, let us be merciful to respect their dignity in death as well. Soybeans and seaweed are not the only complete proteins we can use to substitute for meat.

For example, we can use hemp, flax and cotton for fabrics, and to make belts and straps instead of leather, unless real leather is more useful for a particular application. It is unlikely that the quality of leather needed would be any better served by killing an immature animal, than by taking a skin after an older animal has died. It serves its purpose in its own time, and has its own right to live, even though we have raised it.

If we want to stand on religious grounds to justify what we should choose to eat, the prescriptions for kosher foods would be perfectly acceptable. And the laws of kashruth allow an even wider leeway of choice, including a few insects for times of famine, if necessary. Kosher foods also include certain fishes and seafood, which we can "farm," husbanding and harvesting from the sea, the same as we do from the land. But again, we must consider mercy and dignity. Remember that there are laws concerning the merciful and painless slaughter of animals for meat, and that consuming the blood is forbidden. Of course, there are health reasons for being circumspect about that as well.

If you are going to use kashruth as your standard, then use the whole thing, as far as you are able to understand. You may object, the prohibitions about mixing meat and milk are fine for orthodox Jews, but the Torah's wording of the law is peculiar and essentially incomprehensible. It probably refers to some act of idolatrous sacrifice and feast. In that context, it is clearly forbidden, but irrelevant today. But the caveat to "avoid taking both the hen and her eggs" is clear enough, as we should have a care for a species' survival.

So, we basically have two standards for choosing what to eat, according to our conscience and according to religious beliefs, and both recognize the need to be good stewards of the earth and merciful to the creatures living upon it. If you don't want to try too hard to think about it, and both standards are in place, it shouldn't be a strain to flip back and forth, and still be sure that mercy and dignity have been served. And yet, by neither standard can we justify raising swine or mollusks for food, especially considering their health risks.

Ecological concerns are incumbent upon all of us today, because we are quite close to the carrying capacity of our planet. And we do well to remember kind, humane practices in dealing with our livestock, because keeping a clear conscience is relevant to our own spiritual health and well-being, whichever faith we may subscribe to. Let us not abuse our place as the dominant species on Earth, and pay the shameful price of ultimately impoverishing the planet we depend on.

Teleological Theory of the Origin of Life

The Scientific Argument for the necessary existence of God: Life requires intentional intervention in order to begin.

1. simple life can't happen by accident.
      - it's too complex to fall together.
      - organic chemistry only goes so far.
2. amino acids never assemble proteins.
      - no experiments observe spontaneity.
      - scientists have to make them connect.
3. DNA is not just random information.
      - it is a code with an aim to follow.
      - it is capable to reproduce itself.
4. several things have to happen together.
      - cell walls, RNA/DNA, energy, food, etc.
      - separately they would crumble.
5. you also need ideal conditions.
      - these structures are fragile.
      - weather, Ph balance, waves, heat, etc.
6. the odds are too long for this to happen.
      - not in a finite time in a finite universe.
      - like winning the lottery a dozen times.
7. It requires an intentional intervention. 
      - designing it into potential.
      - activating that potential into action.

So once again, we have the teleological argument, but this time in depth. We can already see how everything works, just like a clock, following universal mathematical laws. The whole universe had to be created just so that life could emerge, with all of the necessary physical constants. And still, it must be tweaked to make life happen. So then, what are the chances for intelligence to evolve into a being capable of self-consciousness and faith ... and science?! You need an intelligent designer just to try to explain how we can exist to ask the question of how we got here.

It's not an entirely circular argument, but the end is set up in the original definition -- "it can't happen by accident." Long odds, and we can't do it. Plus, Chemistry doesn't assemble itself. High orders of information and simultaneous assembly. Etc., etc. It's a pretty good argument. 

But, it's not compelling if I stubbornly insist on disbelief. Still, God doesn't want to force us to believe. He gave us free will, probably for a reason. What do you think?

It's a sufficient answer to the problem of Fermi's Paradox at the very least:
1. Rare Earth
2. Rare Life
3. Rare Intelligence
4. Rare Technology
5. Rare Wisdom
How many times have we already won the lottery? And we are still not "out there" yet! Anyone else who may have won all five of these is incredibly lucky, or chosen, and they may not even be existing at the same time, or where we could ever see them. So, sorry to say, we are probably alone.