Liberal Religion and Humanism Are Kissin' Neighbors While Reductionistic Nonreligion and Fundamentalism Are a Bad Couple

Religion Versus Non-Religion, Christianity Versus Atheism and many similar such debates usually make for intriguing mental and verbal jousting and philosophical wrestling.

They are fascinating, especially because, often, both of the debaters are brilliant, highly educated, well-prepared with extensive reasonings and plausible evidence. Yet they hold totally opposite life-stances and worldviews.

One particularly fascinating though somewhat irritating debate on YouTube is:
THE GREAT DEBATE: MARSHALL VERSUS ZUCKERMAN--CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM




Probably the most baffling aspect of this debate is that both individuals aren't arguing contrary views!

Marshall states he is presenting 7 central truths of the Christian religion, BUT then instead of arguing for 7 key points of creedal Christianity, he presents fallacious and distorted historical claims that were only partially true of some tiny heretical Christian groups.

These he contrasts with the worst of non-Christian ideologies such as the Vikings' worldview of raiding, rape, and slaughter.

And, oddly, Zuckerman contrasts Secular Humanism NOT to liberal religions including Liberal Christianity but the worst of Fundamentalistic, Creedal Christianity!
For instance, he contrasts the modern successful society of Denmark, very secular, to the modern dysfunctional and violent society of Mississippi and other southern U.S. states, very fundamentalistic.

Actually, a more accurate historical and contemporary comparison would show how similar Secular Humanism is to Liberal Christianity.

And how similar Reductionistic Nonreligion is to Fundamentalism.

Examples abound of the latter especially. Here are two central ones:

#1 Reductionism and Fundamentalism both emphasize that humans have no inherent worth.

And Reductionism and Fundamentalism, this bad odd couple, often use demeaning terms when speaking of the Human Species.
Negative examples of this include for Reductionism: All humans are "just complex chemicals," "puppets," "jumped-up apes," "wet robots," etc.

For Fundamentalism: All humans at conception/birth are "totally depraved," "in essence, evil", are "clay pots;" and some humans God created as "toilets and spittoons," etc.

#2 Reductionistic nonreligion and Fundamentalism also are very deterministic emphasizing that all humans have no choice.

Everything is determined (in the case of Reductionism) by the "Laws of Physics," or the "Cosmos," or "Evolution," etc.
Everything is determined (in Fundamentalism) by Yahweh or Allah, etc.

To be continued--


Say No to a Bad Couple--Reductionism and Fundamentalism

Say Yes to Kissin' Neighbors--Liberalism and Humanism.



In the LIGHT,

Daniel Wilcox

Review of The Big Picture by Theoretical Physicist Sean Carroll

What a good read--this powerful book on the nature of reality from the perspective of a famous physicist. Professor Sean Carroll writes so well, lucidly, explaining very difficult concepts in astrophysics—so that we non-scientists can gain a basic understanding of cosmology. And his prose is so user-friendly that even a few parts' hardest points, still made a little sense!

Only the book's couple of chapters on computer simulation of physics and evolution were dry, boring. Also, the whole idea of scientists intentionally trying to show how evolution works—especially natural selection—by designing experiments seems odd! Their very intent, their complex efforts, all of that is DESIGNED by them, so how can that really show that evolution, though looking designed, is actually NOT designed?!

The Big Picture is one of the best books on the nature of physics, cosmology, and the nature of reality. I read it avidly. That is until Carroll's negative references to God kept coming up--that God isn't needed, that God can’t be real or true because God violates the nature of physics.

Of course, almost always the "God" Carroll refers to, that can't be true, is the God of fundamentalistic or creedal Christianity. He doesn't deal in depth with more scientific concepts of ultimate reality. On the contrary, he is a committed naturalist, materialist, atheist.

Even worse Carrroll rejects any meaning to this matter-energy reality, rejects human choice, and the reality of ethics. He thinks humans just make morality up:_(

I admit despite such total nihilism, Carroll's striking views need to be seriously considered, even if they are bleak. After all, he is a brilliant genius, a theoretical physicist at Cal Tech, has been award many science prizes and fellowships, and (unlike some controversial 'new atheists),' he is considerate, courteous, and engaging.

Of course, like most humans, even brilliant ones (whether atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus), Carroll contradicts himself. He claims all of time/space is already set and unchangeable, that humans are just “complicated collections of matter moving in patterns,” (page 295).

So, despite his efforts to appear positive and hopeful unlike some materialists who seem to glory in negativity, Carroll actually agrees with their claim that existence is bleak, that humans are only matter, that nothing has meaning:-(

But then near the end of the book Carroll tries to end on a positive upbeat note by bridging the chasm of negation with a little hope--he calls his view "poetic." He states that on the human “level” of reality, humans can make choices, only he is quick to emphasize that isn't libertarian choice. It's only in a compatibilistic sense.

Carroll asserts that the laws of physics prohibit human "choice" in the normal dictionary sense of the word--selecting among alternatives--because the “laws of physics” prohibit that.:-(

So then I feel like asking him—why write a book explaining physics since reality is set and can’t be changed in the future or the past?

I suppose he would answer, 'Yes, I am just a "complicated collection of matter moving in pattern" (page295) and part of that determinism is that it was determined that I write this book.' In other words, he would answer, not too dissimilar from how hard Reformed Christians such as Stonewall Jackson answered. As always, determinism is an endless loop, unfalsifiable.

Carroll’s asserts that most cosmologists are atheists and, basically, hold the same view as Einstein and other scientific determinists.

BUT then how do contrary astrophysicists who are theists counter such deterministic, atheistic claims?

Would they disagree about Carroll's "Big Picture" or only show that in their life-stance they are compartmentalizing?

CONSIDER the contrary outlook of famous cosmologist George Ellis who co-wrote wrote The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with Stephen Hawking. Also, contrary, to Carroll's view that ethics are made up, Ellis strongly supports the view of moral realism. He actively opposed the immoral, unjust system of Apartheid in South Africa.

Professor George Ellis: "Many scientists are strong reductionists who believe that physics alone determines outcomes in the real world, This is demonstrably untrue – for example the computer on which I am writing this could not possibly have come into being through the agency of physics alone."

"The issue is that these scientists are focusing on some strands in the web of causation that actually exist, and ignoring others that are demonstrably there – such as ideas in our minds, or algorithms embodied in computer programs."

"These demonstrably act in a top-down way to cause physical effects in the real world. All these processes and actual outcomes are contextually dependent, and this allows the effectiveness of processes such as adaptive selection that are the key to the emergence of genuine complexity."

"As I stated above, mathematical equations only represent part of reality, and should not be confused with reality. A specific related issue: there is a group of people out there writing papers based on the idea that physics is a computational process. But a physical law is not an algorithm. So who chooses the computational strategy and the algorithms that realise a specific physical law? (Finite elements perhaps?)"

"What language is it written in? (Does Nature use Java or C++? What machine code is used?) Where is the CPU? What is used for memory, and in what way are read and write commands executed? Additionally if it’s a computation, how does Nature avoid the halting problem? It’s all a very bad analogy that does not work."

Interviewer John Horgan: "Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: "If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will."
Do you believe in free will?"

Ellis: "Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up."

"This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options."

"I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say."
from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/
The Big Picture
Scientific American
John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology. His books include The End of Science and The End of War.


In conclusion, what if Carroll's "deepest" level of reality, atoms, neutrons, etc. is actually the most basic level of reality (as the cosmologist George Ellis counters), and actually the really complex, the most real level of reality is the one of ultimate reality (God), meaning, math, reason, ethics? Then down in the physical world, human consciousness wouldn't be an illusionary tag-a-long at all.

Evaluation: B+/H-

To Be Continued--


In the Light and Hope of Meaning and Choice,

Daniel Wilcox

The Sacred Act of Pole-Vaulting and Other Conceits

The Sacred Act of Pole-Vaulting and Other Leaping Conceits
‘Donne” While Surveying and Surviving the Tragic and Absurd Conundrum Called History and the Human Condition

When a young teen in P.E. one year, I jumped the pole vault a few times. The anticipation for and mild fear of the run and leap, tensed us up. The vault didn’t rank with the sheer frighted fearfulness of the high dive in swimming, but it sure beat the dickens out of pushups. As difficult as it was to run and leap up balancing on the wobbly rise of the limber pole, in its back arch and then its swinging forward, up, and over the cross bar, I did manage to clear the bar at low levels.

The eventual goal aimed toward was to set the cross bar higher and higher and yet still achieve the swinging leap up and over. But the higher the bar the more difficult the leap with the rise of the pole and the more dangerous the fall, even if one succeeded in clearing the cross.

Fortunately, pole vaulting lasted only a week or two for us P.E. students, was not required on a regular basis like for the athletic superstars of track and field. Still, isn’t this all intriguing that after many years of hectic adult life with career and family-raising, a few minutes of pole-vaulting still comes back to me so vividly?

Rather conceited wasn’t that opening paragraph? Not proud like a rooster, not like a guy who acts brazenly self-centered, always leaping into the center of any discussion. No, in this short article, we are talking about the extended over-reach of a long-winded, leaping metaphor, in the manner of the metaphysical poet John Donne (you know the 17th century English writer who spent a whole poem comparing his love for his wife to a geometric compass!).

Anyway, such a conceit, an extended metaphor of track and field makes a powerful analogy for the spiritual ‘pole-vaulting’ of faith in the sacred. Consider Christian history.

The bar of belief and action was set very low when Jesus first called his disciples. But then he spoke more and more in metaphoric theological conundrums and esoteric parables such as when he compared Christian faith to a vulture gathering over a dead body

Obviously the bar was being raised higher and higher--incredibly high, and the disciples balked, scratched. Scratching in pole-vaulting means one steps over the line or somehow misunderstands or violates the rules. And many disciples and other humans scratch at life down to this day. Metaphor.

One of the most difficult high raisings of the bar came when Jesus didn’t return in the ‘soon’ time of Paul and John (I Thessalonians and Revelation), but somehow Christians adjusted the bar down and up at the same time! Some biblical theologians reinterpreted the word ‘soon’ to mean ‘rapidly’ rather than in the common sense definition of ‘in the near future.’

They said the return of Christ could happen thousands of years in the future, but when it did it come, it would be ‘rapid’. This seems a very dishonest scratching of language. It is more than an accidental rule violation, but a situation of sure chicanery--straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.

Such fixing of the pole vault should be disallowed. Other Christians have said that ‘soon’ is different for God compared to us, (again a suspect vault, sounds like a scratch).

‘Liberal’ Christians admit Jesus and the NT authors were mistaken, but in so doing they are trying to pole vault up a steep incline while sliding down the slippery slope of increasing doubt and skepticism. If the NT isn’t historically accurate about such a key doctrine as the return of Christ, many ask, how could one rely on Scripture being accurate about anything else? After all, the bar of requirements for historical writing has been set very high in the modern age.

All things, people think, need to be factually accurate, inerrant to be of value. Religion, the spiritual, and the transcendent all need to be judged with the measuring tools of science.

A compass of accuracy needs to discern the geometric lines of theology and faith, to eliminate and banish any heresy that deviates from the true.

The nature of truth is a difficult subject bar none (to throw in a pun and lighten this heavy post;-) The difficulty of faith versus delusion (false faith) and reason versus despair (false reason) is a very high bar indeed--one which guides and misguides. Let us pray moment by moment and think moment by moment so as to rise upward into the transcendent, knowing within that we are loved by God as Jesus said.

Another difficult raising of the cross bar of Christian faith came 1,500 years after Jesus, in the time of Galileo and Copernicus. The Church claimed supreme understanding and control in all matters.

Yet a minority of scientists contradicted the teachings of the Church and, allegedly, the Bible. They claimed to have proved that the sun doesn’t round the earth each day; indeed, the earth is not the center, not the focal point of all creation as Genesis claims.

Soon science increased its claims--our sun is only a very minor star. Contrary to the Scriptures’ statement, “God made the stars also,” in actuality, those stars are much more vast than our puny solar system.

We are on an edge of a galaxy, which is one of millions of other galaxies! So much for the literal understanding of the Bible and common sense! Scratch!

Of course, many choose to twist the plain text in the Bible, cheating again in the sacred game of pole vaulting. They argue Genesis describes the creation of the sun on the fourth day from the perspective of God’s Spirit at the level of the surface of the planet looking up, so it does look like the sun comes after the earth rather than before. What has happened?

A dense, heavy cloud of vapor has hidden the sun during the first three days. The sun finally appears above the earth on the fourth day. But the verse in Genesis doesn’t speak about the sun appearing from behind fog on the fourth day, it says:
“And God said, 'Let there be light in the vault of the heavens to light up the earth.' And so it was. And God made the two great lights…” (Genesis 1:14-16)

Yipes, what convoluted rhetoric! Another scratch. Disqualified.

Other faithful humans leaped, instead, out of fundamentalism, and so out the metaphysical window plummeted the 3-storied universe. These Christians leaped over the new cross bar level to a spiritual universe where Heaven still exists with its pristine streets of gold ‘up there’ and Hell abysses ‘down below’ though this spiritual reality has nothing to do with the observable world measured and manipulated by science and technology.

So we got a dualistic existence, where science concerns itself with the observable, and religion concerns itself with the spiritual and moral. Many Christians of the present time manage to make this philosophical leap.

I made the leap as a young adult.

However, I feel uncertain, in brutal honesty, whether I only scratched.

But the bar for Christian faith when faced with the conclusions of science kept ascending. Much more difficult to leap over—maybe impossibly so—was the discovery by Darwin in the 1800’s that life proceeds not by a sudden miraculous creation 6,000 years ago, but by a combination of cosmic luck and survival of the fittest over millions and millions of years.

Later in succeeding years, other scientists tabulated their technical findings and showed the earth came about 4 billion years ago, not 6, 000, and the universe has existed at least 16 billion years!

This setting of the sacred bar careens outrageously high so that only the most blind, or most compartmentalized, or the most ultimately determined can leap the bottomless chasm up and over the cosmically high crossbar of faith.

For where is God if all comes about by accidental meandering and by dog-eat-dog, possibly dog-lick-dog evolution?

Is not God reversed in a kind of spiritual dyslexia, into doG?!

Evangelical Christians simply reset the bar slightly lower, explaining God started Life, so there!

Intelligent Design! We get the God-of-the-Gaps, a creator who hides in the shadow areas of existence where scientists haven’t yet figured out methods of inquiry and extensive evidence. So this compromise hardly solves the problem.

And don’t forget the dogged Fundamentalists and Calvinists. They, despite over whelming evidence, continue to claim scientists are just closet atheists, or brazen ones like Richard Dawkins, who are only rebelling against God by coming up with preposterous geological and biological lies.

But none of this is very encouraging for the honest and the circumspect individual. Why would the Creator start a creative process but then not guide it if God is all Loving, all Kind, all Good, all True?

Why would God major in pain, allowing or predetermining for billions of animals to suffer for countless eons and then go extinct, and for millions of humans to agonize, living excruciatingly painful lives down through a chaotic and vicious history? Why one endless moral/ethical scream?

And what happens to the bar (not speaking of the legal court or the local drinking den;-) if, as many scientists claim, eventually science will be able to explain from a natural point of view even abiogenesis, how first life started?

Then won’t God, the Creator, be simply a superfluous empty word, unneeded (as many scientists claim is already the case) and unwanted?

Then religion will be reduced to the garbage bin like other popular superstitions—astrology, phrenology, humoralism, etc. Astrology led eventually to astronomy, but once scientists understood the mechanism of the scientific method, astrology became so much delusionary baggage to be jettisoned.

The same goes for religion, so they say; once religion gave meaning to humankind, but now science gives meaning to our lives. The account in Genesis has been shown to be fallacious.

Of what use are fanciful myths like the Garden of Eden or 6 days of creation?

They smugly point out that Christians and other religious people have been crying “God,” like the boy of long ago who cried wolf, for so long without any evidence.

Now the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Why should anyone listen to our theological yelling?

A few humans take one last incredible leap. They point out that while the natural observable world is as Darwinians say—a naturally meandering survival game—such a scientific scenario doesn’t prove a Creator doesn’t exist, for the true God is hidden, is a philosophical reality “outside” of the province of the scientific method.

While this is perfectly arguable—this author is embarrassed to admit, in the past, he himself sometimes used the method--this philosophical God is, obviously, not the Creator in Genesis, not the God of Scripture (the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Scriptures) who micromanages every moment from eternity.

Thus, this last incredible leap is the most impossible of possibilities (to paraphrase a statement by the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr).

This last impossible leap of spiritual pole vaulting jumps so incredibly high ones seems only able to do it by the sheer choosing—an existential leap, philosophical choice, in the manner of Kierkegaard, where one doesn’t weigh the possibility, or the rational doubts, but leaps, because not to leap is to despair.

Martin Gardner, the famous skeptic in his powerful philosophical book, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener, says he made this spiritual leap, and continues to trust in God because, the leap of Fideism, is worthy, and provides hope.

I am skeptical of fundamentalism, materialism, and fideism.

They all seem to scratch.

Oddly, unlike Gardner, my faith in God isn’t mainly emotional, but intellectual. But like him and other thinkers I admire, I know my days are numbered now that I have passed the halfway bar in my brief life, compared to incomprehensible cosmic deep time.

To half quote the famous metaphysical poet of extended conceits, John Donne: “When one has ‘donne’ his best, one is not done but have more” (from his poem “A Hymn to God the Father”).

There are still more difficulties, higher bars to jump over. Try leaping over not only the moon, but the universe!

The best answer would seem to be Hegelian—that a synthesis is better than either the former thesis (Christian orthodoxy) or antithesis (the Enlightenment).

We humans both yearn and learn.

Francis Collins, a Christian and a scientist, the leader of the Human Genome Project has created one such synthesis and created the BioLogos Foundation: Science and Faith in Dialogue.

We spend whole life-times seeking, and yet still have difficult questions.

Be honest, avoid scratching.

Leap with faith and reason.

Keep them in creative tension.

And cross the bar of existence with zest,
not only with confusion and “my God, why” despair
but, finally, in purposeful “it is finished” hope.

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

The Blessing versus the Bane of the Bible

As a liberal Friend (as in progressive Hicksite, Beanite, Anthonyite, Woolite;-), I am very biblically focused, which sometimes confuses people who tend to think of the Bible as every thumper's rigid rule book which he uses to chastise others, bludgeoning them over the head, trying to drive out a legion of modern liberal ideals.

Isn't living Scripturally, fundamentalist?

And there is, too, right up front, the chameleon-likeness of how Scripture often changes into different meanings according to which religious group is quoting it.

This compendium, of sometimes contradictory, ancient spiritual and ethical texts acts as a Rorschach inkblot of squiggles, worded phrases where any and all humans find whatever they wish to see.

Slave owners see justification for human bondage, but abolitionists see the truth of liberty.

Augustine, Luther and Calvin see mostly a God of sovereign power and self-centered glory, creating a reality of damning theological determinism, but
Pelagius, Origen, and George Fox see God as empathetic father with limitless love for everyone, lighting all of reality with creativity and beauty.

One can even become fluent in Greek and Hebrew and read enough tomes for a PhD. and still fall victim to the humor (or is it the tumor?) of proof-texting:

A person wants to know God's will. He opens his Bible and reads:
>And he went and hanged himself.

The person worries; there must be more than such an awful command.
So he opens to another verse:
>Go and do thou likewise.

Surely that must not be God's will.
The person flips to another page:
>What thou doest, do quickly.

Also, for many Christians (not many Friends), the Bible is a flat inerrant book.

Immoral actions in I Samuel are given equal weight to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. Joshua and Judges carry equal weight with Jesus and Acts.

That is why Bernard of Clairvaux, Oliver Cromwell, Stonewall Jackson and R.L. Dabney, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman could justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of humans in the name of Jesus.

They, actually, were following Joshua, not anything that Jesus did or said. They held that O.T. actions and commands are still valid for Christ-followers. According to them, Jesus' words only apply to personal relationships, while the O.T. orders for slaughter, slavery, conquest, theft, deception apply to government and us as a nation.

Evangelicals think the Bible must be inerrant because Scripture is the very words of God, and God wouldn't create a book of errors.

In sharp contrast, thank goodness, early Friends realized that the words of the Bible witness to Christ, who is the Word of God, who represents true reality (like an ambassador represents a nation in the UN). Scripture must be interpreted by Christ's Spirit, not by a theological flat literalism.

We are to reject texts that contradict Jesus' life and words.

So how then is one to be instructed, guided, and inspired by Scripture as a liberal Friend?

Here are a few suggestions that I learned the hard way. I kept bumping into the low theological literal doorway until I finally realized there was a wide-open-to-the-heavens alternative. Some of this came by the help of wiser persons of hope.

#1 Written by humans (as well as inspired by God), the Bible is ancient literature which needs to be interpreted like other writings. For instance, in Genesis 1, a reader doesn't assume this poetic praise to God for creation is a modern scientific explanation of the cosmos. Rather it is a symbolic hymn to the Divine, a celebration to the wonder of existence, and a declaration of the importance of the Sabbath.

#2 Unlike much secular literature, within Scripture there is a witness to God--to Truth, Goodness, and Love.

This is true sometimes in spite of the literal meaning of various texts, not because of it.

And there are many key passages throughout the Bible which will transform our lives if we live in them. For example, try this. Read I Corinthians 13 every day for a year. Whenever the subject refers to love, insert your name.

[Dan] is patient;
[Dan] is always kind;
[Dan] is never envious or arrogant with pride...

Practice those words of ethical truth.

I'm still working on the very first one;-)

#3 The whole Bible is not one consistent theological treatise using 21st century standards of rationalism and logic.

On the contrary, the books of the Bible (the book is a library of ancient texts) often disagree and are filled with symbolism and much paradox.

Hebraic thinking was mostly image-based and concrete, while modern people often expect information to be logical and abstract.

The Bible doesn't try to philosophically prove theism. It assumes God IS
and focuses on images of what God is like--a father, a mother,
a romantic lover, a shepherd,
a just king, a strong tower,
a shield, a consuming fire...

(Thanks to Professor James Kallas for showing the paradoxical nature
of literature in the NT.)

#4 When interpreted by people of hope, an individual can find true guidance from God. This isn't easy. But when was Life ever easy?

Are any of the other ethical systems of ethics reliable?

Too often they amount to the "end justifies the means."

Life is a dangerous journey not a walk in the park, not the Garden.

But if we seek transcendent Truth with our whole self, we will discover new vistas of living.

#5 Much of the Bible is filled with stories of individuals encountering God.

These encounters (and even some ethical rules) are told from the humans' point of view and often display distorted, at times even evil twists.

For instance, the devout Jewish Pharisees and Scribes (textural scholars) said that divorce was okay because Moses had gotten the Jewish law from God, and then they quoted the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible)

In contrast, Jesus countered that divorce had never been God's idea, not the Truth, but Moses permitted divorce because of the "hardness" of humans' hearts.

Mark 10:2-12:
2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away."

5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.

9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Jesus held to very strict ethical ideals! For a primer on how to live as a Friend of Jesus, read the Sermon on the Mount.

On the other hand, Jesus is very compassionate when we fail. When he met a woman at the well--an immoral one who had had five husbands and was living with another man-- Jesus didn't launch into a condeming speech.

He asked her for water. Imagine that!

A Jewish rabbi asking an immoral woman in public for water.

Furthermore she was an enemy of the Jews, a despised minority and a heretic too, but Jesus loved her and shared with her Living Water.


#6 Scripture is not the end of revelation but the foundational beginning. Revelation continues.

For example, early in the biblical narrative (I Samuel), the text claims that God "tempted" David.

Later, however, in Chronicles, the biblical text changes the story and states that "the Adversary (the satan) "tempted" David.

And James in the New Testament totally contradicts all of the past literature, emphasizing that God never tempts anyone.

In the O.T. according to the text, God ordered Israelites to slaughter every single human in villages, including children and infants.

Indeed, Psalm 137 blesses people who bash babies onto rocks to kill them!

But in the New Testament, the son of man says to let the little ones come unto him and that if anyone hurts a child, it would be better if the person were hung with a millstone and dumped into the sea.

Every child is precious to God. All ancient texts need to be interpreted by Christ's ethical insights.

As one leader stated, God sent a prophet, not a proposition.

The key to understanding the Bible is to remember, the book (written over thousands of years) demonstrates increasing truth, increasing ethical insight.

What is condoned or ordered in the O.T. is often strongly condemned in the New.

David kills 200 men and mutilates them--cuts off their foreskins--as a present for his first wife! (1 Samuel 18:14-28)

But in the NT, Peter doesn't mutilate or kill others. On the contrary, Peter blesses and encourages the Roman jailer who had him tortured!

Who among us today, even the most literalist fundamentalist would encourage or order soldiers to behave like David?

In total contrast to David's actions, we are supposed to live in peace with everyone, even love our enemies.

James says violence and war come from selfishness, not from the Spirit of God (James 4:1-7). How many of us pray for the Islamic State leaders and the Taliban bombers every day?

Are Friends making an effort to give the Good News to them?

Would any person of hope in modern time
(excluding Christian soldiers of the Spanish Civil War under Franco and some Muslim jihadists) think it morally right and the will of God to kill others and mutilate them?

Yet in 1 Samuel verse 14 says "David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and Yahweh was with him."

What a LIE!

Evidently, one has to judge such a declaration as not true when evaluated by the Spirit of Jesus.

A good interpretive method is to remember that what is ethically condemned in the Old Testament is even more stringently true in the New and now in the present.

Jesus said the act of adultery had been condemned in the OT., but he emphasized even lusting in one's heart for a woman who has committed her life to another man is sinful.

The closer one comes to the Truth of God, the holier one must seek to live in the Light.

Since the closing of the NT canon, there have been many further developments in ethical truth.

Most humans (except for a few Reformed and Muslim thinkers) now hold that slavery is inherently evil despite the fact that neither the O.T. nor the N.T. claim slavery is wrong, let alone evil.

This new ethical truth finally shown forth with clarity among the Mennonites/Brethren of the 16th century, then eventually among the Friends of the 18th century after the witness of John Woolman, and among some Methodists of the 19th, etc.

Finally the total ban on slavery was accepted by most people (though a few Christians and some Muslims still defend the slave system).

Torture was practiced by Christians for centuries, justified by Augustine, the Reformers, etc. and is still held to be good by many American Christians today such as Evangelicals, but many humans now realize torture is contrary to the Light and Love of God.

Then there is the case of equality of the sexes and races...

To be continued

In the Light,

Daniel