A little bit of self reflection

Navel gazing is not something I do a lot of, probably because I haven't seen my navel for nigh on fifteen years. Poor me!

My slightly addictive personality gets me into trouble. Recently, on a Forum I was baited back into posting by some remarkably thick comments. And once drawn in, it's difficult (for me anyway) to back down. If I do, they think they've won! And we can't be having that, can we?!

But is winning the argument all that important?

I've found that I've been more obsessive and more wound up. And for what!

So I've taken the bold step of stepping back. Taking a deep breath and trying not to let it bother me. Let them think they've won. Let them! Life's too short to be worrying about the unimportant. There's too much to be done and not enough time to do it in.

But......... just for the record.........he was well wrong.

Advent - Christmas has it coming!

We're close to hitting Advent, and what has actually become the de facto Christmas - the Season of Christmas now lasts a couple of days while Advent is now the new Christmas.

Before too long the usual run of Nativity plays will soon be warmed to perfection, as parents and grandparents alike will be oohing and aahing their way through innumerable Crimbo dramas.

But what are they actually watching? Is it history? Are they the eyewitness accounts that most people believe they are?

The answer is no.

What we normally watch on school stages up and down the land are a melded version of the Nativity myth. People assume that what they are seeing is what happened. I don't think it is, but does that make it any less 'true'?

First things first. We need to remember that the layout of the New Testament in the Bible is not its correct chronological order. Yes, it's true that Jesus preceded Paul and his letters, but that's not the order the NT was written in:
Paul's letters 50-62CE
Mark 65CE
Matthew/Luke 75CE
John 80-90CE

These are approximate dates but rather conservative ones too.

So what do we learn about the miraculous birth of Jesus from Paul (the earliest NT writer)? The answer is nothing! The only thing that Paul says about Jesus' birth was that he was "born of a woman" (Gal 4:4). Note he doesn't say 'born of a virgin', but 'born of a woman' - a bit like you and me, and every human that ever lived.

The earliest Gospel writer, Mark, doesn't have a birth narrative.

Matthew and Luke both have birth narratives but they're not the same. Matthew has Magi - Luke doesn't. Luke has angels and Shepherds - Matthew doesn't. Jesus' birth is announced to Joseph in a dream in Matthew - Jesus' birth is announced to Mary by an angel in Luke. Post birth, the family flees to Egypt to avoid the slaughter of the innocents by Herod in Matthew, only coming back when he dies - they head to Nazareth to live in Luke, only stopping in Jerusalem for a dedication at the Temple (no mention is made in Luke of the murder of the male infants).

John doesn't have a birth narrative either.

Now what does this mean? At face value you have a 'no-yes-yes-no' pattern. So what! Two people mention it, and two don't.

But you need to remember the order they were written. That's the important part. You need to look at the Gospel writers and when they proclaim Jesus as God's Son:
Mark (65CE) Jesus proclaimed Divine at his baptism
Matthew/Luke (75CE) Jesus proclaimed divine at his birth
John (80-90CE) Jesus proclaimed divine before his birth.

Paul has nothing about Jesus' life. As the interpretation of Jesus continues through time, his divinity is pushed further and further back until you get to John who states a pre-existent Christ.

And that's why the Nativity plays we all watch are not history - they are INTERPRETATION. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Mythology is NOT history. But because it's not history doesn't make it less true.

And so I enjoy the story of Jesus' birth, but I don't believe it. And so I enjoy it even more.

Cold, hard statistics tell it all

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said "He knew the price of everything, but the value of nothing".

Recently I did a Wedding for an 'out of town' couple. It required the usual amount of 'work' - a bit of face-to-face stuff and the typical sort of 'desk' work. It also required some lifting, polishing, hoovering, etc as we don't have a church cleaner. Then there was the Big Day itself with all its stresses and strains.

Before the actual Wedding I was asked the fee for the Church as well as my own fee. I replied that the suggested donation for the Church was £150, and I was waiving my fee, but if the family wished to give me something then I'd prefer it if they put something into our Building Fund. The Wedding Co-ordinator I was dealing with told me to expect quite a generous envelope.

Come the actual Wedding I was handed an envelope with a cheque enclosed for £150.

Now, what have I to complain about, you might ask? 'Surely you got what you were suggesting was an appropriate amount!'

Well yes, that's true. But let's put it into a little context. From what I heard the entire Wedding (and this was a BIG Wedding) cost somewhere in the region of £250, 000. Now that's a lot of money. The donation to the Church (which remember was to include my fee) amounted to £150. That works out at 0.06% of the total expenditure.

Did the Church Service constitute 0.06% of the total day? Did it account for 0.06% of the work to make the Wedding what it was?

What the donation reveals is the extent to which the 'Church' part of the couple's day played a meaningful role. Everything else was a 'no expense spared' affair. When it came to the Church, the bare minimum sufficed.

Now I realise that this sounds very much like sour grapes. But it's not! I just felt used and abused. I wasn't to gain financially from any sort of generous donation, but I did feel that the £150 reflected the seriousness with which the Church part of the Big Day was seen.

In my little Church it is precisely those who do not have so much who are the ones that provide so generously, both of their time and their money. I hope I have a newer and richer view of those who sit in the pews wekk in and week out.

Today I discovered that while money can get you plenty of things, it doesn't buy you respect.

Very much list-ing to one side

Global Rich List

This was both interesting and thought provoking. It has stopped me complaining about petty things - for a couple of hours anyway

Only a Theory

I've just fairly recently finished reading Kenneth Miller's wonderful book Only A Theory which I thoroughly enjoyed. It was his follow up to the equally, if not more successful book Finding Darwin's God, which I also lapped up.

Ken Miller is a orthodox Christian (oh to be one of those!) who is also an orthodox Darwinian. He sees no difficulties with synchronising his faith with his Science. As a Scientist he has been a Prof in Brown University for around 20 years. He's also involved with High School students, in that he co-authored at least one Biology Textbook that's found its way into most of the Schools in America.

His Science is impeccable and his belief in the Scientific method equally stringent. But he's also a Christian who takes his faith very seriously, and that's why he's been at the forefront of the most recent Creationist/Intelligent Design Court 'battles' - most notably Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005. But why does he pound so hard on the Creationists/IDers? Does he want to destroy Faith? As a Christian I'd imagine not. Why he is so opposed is because he sees their particular understanding of Faith as trying to destroy Science and Reason. That's why he's so active in any campaign to prevent Creationism/ID from ever being considered an alternative Scientific view - it's not Science, it's Theology (and only one interpretation of theology at that).

Science and Faith are not in conflict but neither do they make easy bedfellows, as Science deals with the Natural, while Faith deals with those things outside of the Natural world (ie. the Supernatural). To try and clumsily mesh the two together is a recipe for disaster. That is evident from the Creationists approach - trying to demonstrate that Science and a literal understanding of Genesis are compatible. This clearly doesn't work because if it were true (and 'truth' is something that has prime position in Science) then it would've already be shown to be true and then adopted into Science. The fact that this hasn't happened speaks volumes for the Creationist/ID desire.

It's interesting to read the words of Augustine, some 1,600 years ago - I've added comment in [].

Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens...the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth [in other words Science, though it would be another1,300 years until anyone put that specific label on it], and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [Science]; and we should take all measures to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn


Creationism/ID is dangerous because it threatens two things:

1. it threatens to halt Theological exploration because it views it as "done and dusted" a couple of millennia ago, and
2. it threatens to make us stupid(er). No longer will we have to investigate and improve, because if Fundamentalists had their way then the Supernatural would be considered part and parcel of the Scientific process (which of course deals only with the Natural). As Ken Miller said once in a TV interview - if the Creationists won Kitzmiller v. Dover then Biology would be the easiest and quickest subject in School, because you'd walk into class and the Teacher would announce "God did it! Class dismissed." The rest of the day/term/year would be your own

This is why I rail so loudly against this form of Religious understanding. I believe people deserve better.

2 days too late, but never mind

It made me laugh

Bah, mint humbugs!

I saw this on another blog and decided that since it's nearly Christmas I could steal with impunity - so I did.

This raises a number of questions that should test a religious parent. Namely, is it all right to tell the kids about Santa, and THEN tell them when they're older that it's all a story to make them feel good?

I don't want to appear like some sort of Grinch, but it does create problems. Doesn't it!?