Brian C. Russell

Okay.

I’ve been hearing a lot lately about Creation again, and apparently this is a big issue for non-believers about Christianity because APPARENTLY we all think the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

WHAT!?

How in the universe could the world only be 6,000 years old?  And what’s this I hear about dinosaur bones being in the ground as a cosmic joke to the human race from God?!  Is there a Christian archeologist out there, digging up fossils going… “Where’s Ashton?  I’m getting punk’d aren’t I?!”

No wonder people don’t believe this!  It’s ridiculous.

Where in the Bible does it say the Earth’s publication date?  Why is it sooo crazy to believe in the scientific evidence that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old?  It explains a whole lot about the Earth, how it was shaped, why we have earthquakes and volcanoes, etc.  Why is that crazy to believe in… but an unproveable and unreasonable 6,000 years (which… doesn’t even account for really anything…)?

This is frustrating to me.  I have a few people that have mentioned that this very issue is the reason they don’t believe in Jesus (which is a whole other story… but still)!  Why are we stubborn on this?  Does allowing 4.6 billion years come too close to the possibility of evolution being involved?  Why can’t dinosaurs have lived!?

What’s the deal?

Discussions ahoy!

Okay, let’s lay out some ground rules here.  I DO NOT CONDONE HATE SPEAK.  If you do it, you will be severely chastised, marked as spam, and deleted.  So, don’t be a jerk.  Let’s continue…

I’ve been intrigued by this issue of whether or not people are born gay.  I tend not to think there is a “gay gene” because of my religious upbringing, my belief in sociology, and a general lack of proof.  When I tried to Google an image about “gay gene”… I got asked about my content moderation preferences, so I backed away (fairly quickly).

If there was (or is) a gay gene, then it would seem it would have to be hereditary. Which would mean that it could come from either the sperm or the egg.  Father or mother.  Which seems to mean that someone in your family would also have to be gay at some point in your family tree.

If they were to definitively find a part of the DNA that told people what sexual orientation to lean towards, I think it would rock the world.  Probably not for the good (especially if they could find out before the baby is born) because of the incendiary nature which people react to the word “homosexuals”.  More importantly, I think it would change the way the world thinks about homosexuality, and (maybe more importantly) how religion views it (maybe).  Would it change the way people look at homosexuality if they were truly born “that way”?

I tend to believe that sexual orientation is based on social and societal issues as the child is brought up, the same way that people are attracted to certain looks and personalities.  I feel that those factors attribute more than anyone really wants to admit to all behaviors.

What about the new research that is allowing people to choose the gender of their unborn child, will this create a gay gene?

Are people born gay?  What are the implications for religion and society as a whole either way?

Discussions ahoy!

Ever wonder about omnipotence? How it works? Have you ever questioned God’s omnipotence?  Is being all-powerful completely beyond comprehension for you?  Should it be?

Well, the discussion started when my wife was taking a class in theology. In her homework, she had to answer the following question about God:

“God is affirmed as “almighty” in all the major creeds of the Church. Explain how God’s divine attributes—omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience—are necessarily “limited” by God’s nature and purposes.”

Omnipotence. Limited.

Those two words do not swim in a unified fashion in my pool. They are drastically opposite, but yet… this is a contention of many people.

Can God make 2+2=5? Can He make a circle a square? Can God, who is formless, sit?

“Unfortunately, the most absolute sense of omnipotent has been found to be incoherent. If God were truly omnipotent in an absolute and unlimited sense, then God could be capable of both existing and not existing at the same time, meaning that every form of theism and every form of atheism would be equally justified at all times simultaneously.” – atheism.about.com

The basic assertion in these “limits” is that “God’s omnipotence means that God can do anything that is logically possible to do” (atheism.about.com).  I still don’t think that limits fit within the scope of omnipotence.  I don’t think that we can even comprehend omnipotence, but the fact that we try to define it is immediately limiting.

If in truth, God is omnipotent, then He is omnipotent.  I believe that.  I believe that, if He truly wanted to, God could make 2+2=5.  I don’t think He will because I think our brain would ’splode, but I think he definitely has the power to change our reality as He deems necessary.

But… I’m one man, and clearly the discussion exists beyond me… So, what do you think?  Is God limited by his omnipotence?  Why or why not?

Discussions ahoy!

The title of “Christian” has been sufficiently tainted by plenty of people.  I thought about listing it, but I’d have to go way back in history, and I don’t feel like it.  The real problem is that you say you’re a Christian, meaning a follower of Christ, and people assume you’re a Republican, tea-party throwing, gun-toting, self-righteous jerk, when, in fact, you are not any of those things.

Not to say that you couldn’t be any of those things, and that’s what’s so hard about saying you’re a Christian.  It’s been marred by centuries… no, millennia of mistakes and misgivings, murder and racism, hatred and filth.

There have been bright and shining, faithful Christians throughout the ages, including today.  I’m not saying that there isn’t.  But, I just wish we could start a new name.  A new title for our faith.

Evangelical is also used, but I hear this one more in the political realm, so it tends to just upset me.  (If you haven’t noticed, I don’t really care for the politics world.  I know, I know, I totally should… whatever.)

So, what should it be?  What should followers of Christ call themselves to break out of the rut?

Recently I heard someone say something along the lines of “I can’t believe in a God who…” and then added something at the end that is subjective, at best.

A few months ago, in the discussion that started me on this idea of holding discussions, the idea of predestination vs. free will came up (or Calvinism and Wesleyan if that makes you happier) and the same sort of idea came up.

“I just can’t believe in a God who…”

Add whatever condition on the end of that you want.  It’s still the same idea.  Conditional devotion.  ”I can’t believe in a God who… doesn’t allow me the right to choose my destiny.  Who allows bad things to happen to good people.  Who doesn’t reward good deeds every time.  Who doesn’t reward long-time service over someone who gets saved on their deathbed.”

“I can’t believe in a God that I can’t understand with my own ideas of morality and logic.”

I don’t think I’m the first person to say that you can’t put God in a box, so I’ll avoid that.  What I do want to discuss though, is how Christians can let this phrase pass their lips.  This isn’t the only time I’ve heard it either.

Personally, I have stayed on the fence for the whole predestination debate.  I can’t decide which one it is, or if it’s either.  I have a feeling that since you can prove both, it probably is both, and we’ll just never really understand.  But, how can people say that “this is the way it is, deal with it” one way or the other?

Are you so convinced of your belief in something subjective that you stake your belief in God on it?  What makes you so sure?  What if you’re absolutely wrong?

How do you think conditional devotion bears witness to the all-satisfying savior that you believe in?

Christians can be really good at many things, but one thing that they excel at is “diverting attention”.  I put that in quotes because I feel that we generally draw attention to whatever it is we’re trying to protest.

We’re really good at blowing things out of context and making it a bigger deal than it actually is.  Take The Last Temptation of Christ, for instance.  I tried to watch it not too long ago.  If you thought Willem Dafoe was weird in Boondock Saints, you should see him as Jesus.  It’s a terrible movie.  It really is, and not because of a heretical take on the scriptures.  It’s just a poorly done movie, and I wouldn’t have even known it existed if it wasn’t for people “protesting” it back in the day.

Christians are one of the main reasons that I read all the Harry Potter series (I liked it because it was good), The DaVinci Code, and one of the reasons that I just recently watched Religulous.

There’s just something about people telling you that you shouldn’t watch something that makes you want to so bad.  Sure that’s probably something we should all work out on our own, but why do we think that protesting something is going to stop a movie from being made?  Freedom of speech.

As we near towards Christmas, the age old arguments are bound to rear their ugly heads again.  Happy Holidays everyone, and all that.  Ugh.

Have you ever boycotted a movie, book or other?  Why’d you do it?  Did you watch or read something because of someone else protesting it?  What’d you think?

I don’t think a single one of us hasn’t heard someone say, “America is a Christian nation!”  It’s usually in response to a court room taking the 10 Commandments down, or removing “under God” from the pledge of allegiance.

Consistently, throughout history “Christian nations” have murdered, massacred, enslaved, mislead–failed.

But yet, we keep holding to this ideal as if it’s what’s going to reach people for Christ, when it’s doing the very opposite.  Our “Christian” nation is all over the place, not necessarily responding to situations as Jesus would have.  Our “Christians” demonize those God has placed in leadership over us, judging, blaming… How do people reconcile these things?

In their book Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile Rob Bell and Don Golden state:  “A Christian should get very nervous when the flag and the Bible start holding hands.  This is not a romance we want to encourage.”

Why are we so married to this idea?  America is a melting pot for ideas, cultures, religions, and the Constitution has clearly separated church from state.  So what gives?

More importantly, why do we want this?

What do you think?