the folly of god's sacrifice

I saw an interesting video excerpt from the recent Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne.

On a forum, the celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins is ridiculing the fact that the omnipotent God of Christians could find no other way to save mankind from their sins than to sacrifice his son.

Edit: Thanks to Cal, I now have the link to the actual video (from 4:15 onwards), and his exact words below.

You believe in the New Testament that God, the all-powerful creator of the universe, couldn't think of a better way to forgive humanity's sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity. What kind of a horrible depraved notion is that?

The Christian on the panel, who was obviously not chosen for his debating skills, could only weakly affirm that yes, this is what Christians believe, while the audience roared with laughter.

It annoyed me a bit that the Christian panelist had no explanation, but I'd probably have forgotten about it if the same Christian doctrine hadn't come up in a book I was reading later that same day.

In the Life of Pi, Pi is 14 when he first encounters the story of Jesus, and his reaction is very similar to Richard Dawkins. The son of a zookeeper, this is how he describes it:

The first thing that drew me in was disbelief. What? Humanity sins but it’s God’s Son who pays the price? I tried to imagine my Father saying to me, “Piscine, a lion slipped into the llama pen today and killed two llamas. Yesterday another one killed a black buck. Last week two of them ate the camel. The week before it was painted storks and grey herons. And who’s to say for sure who snacked on our golden agouti? The situation has become intolerable. Something must be done. I have decided that the only way the lions can atone for their sins is if I feed you to them.”

“Yes, Father, that would be the right and logical thing to do. Give me a moment to wash up.”

“Hallelujah, my son.”

“Hallelujah, Father.”

Pi constrasts this pathetically weak god to the awesome Hindu gods he knows. Rama, Krishna, Bhraman; all would never allow themselves to be subjected to such indignity. How could this happen? Love. That was Father Martin’s answer. (The full excerpt of this encounter can be found here.)

A third perspective on God's sacrifice is a story I once heard, which I will try to reproduce here.

A judge with a great reputation for justice one day has to preside over his own son for an extremely severe offence.

The judge loves his son dearly, and would like nothing better than to give him a light sentence. But he is duty-bound to uphold the law and sentences his son to death.

He then pronounces that the law also allows someone to die in his son's place, and he chooses to do so for his son.

Just as we would not respect a leader who makes rules but does not keep them, so I think we would not respect a God who changes the rules at his own whim and fancy, just because he can. This is a story about consistency and faithfulness. It is also a story, as Pi learned, of love.

I also got another interesting perspective from Pi on atheists and agnostics. Pi is the Indian son of a zookeeper, who goes on to double major in zoology and religious studies in Toronto. He has been variously a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim ... I haven't finished the book yet. Many of his fellow scientists are atheists, and this is how he describes them:

Atheists are my brothers and sisters of a different faith, and every word they speak, speaks of faith. Like me, they go as far as the legs of reason will carry them – and then they leap.

It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

(Thanks to Cori for transcribing these quotes. She has a very interesting Christian blog, together with her atheist husband.)

He finds it amazing that some people can believe a supreme being exists, but not be bothered to figure out who it is or what it is like. I find myself nodding in agreement.

giving christians a bad name

This was another part of a very interesting and thought-provoking conversation I had with two friends, an e.

They were telling me that Christians in Singapore should do something about the Charismatic churches, because they are giving Christians a bad name through their provocative public attempts at evangelism and insulting other religions. And if nothing was done soon, the government would probably crack down on them with the religious harmony act.

Firstly, what is a charismatic? Charismatics associated with the use of spiritual gifts (such as speaking in tongues), akin to Christians of the New Testament. Some say it is a denomination, but I think it is more accurate to describe it as a movement as churches of other denominations might also be charismatic to various degrees. And the most prominent Charismatic churches are non-denominational (or independant).

Secondly, what should other Christians do about them? Although I may not agree entirely with the extravagance of their styles of worship, or teachings such as the prosperity gospel, I am not aware that any of their doctrine is wrong. Other churches that deviate from the Bible are labeled as cults and churches would actively warn their members against them, the differences with charismatics are more like the ceremonial or cultural differences you'd find between denominations. Furthermore, there is no higher authority to censure non-denominational churches for such actions.

But, my friends argue, the charismatic churches have come to dominate the public face of Christianity. (I infer that they are referring to unwelcome street evangelism, extravagant property investment and pastors restrained for speaking against other religions.) Hence they feel that this is damaging to Christians in general. This is not about theology, it is about society. So shouldn't the rest of the Christians do something before the government is forced to take some sort of action?

So let's look at the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. From what I can gather, the key clause of concern here is 8(1)(a):

8. —(1) The Minister may make a restraining order against any priest, monk, pastor, imam, elder, office-bearer or any other person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution or any member thereof for the purposes specified in subsection (2) where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts:

(a) causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups;

Most of the other clauses are more concerned with political or subversive activities "under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief". So the actual act of evangelism is perfectly legal, as long as you do not provoke "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility".

I can't claim any expertise in these matters, and I have just been trying to deepen my own understanding in these matters with a little help from Google. Any comments or corrections on the statements here are welcomed.

is religion selfish?

I had an interesting philosophical discussion over lots of wine the other day with an atheist and an agnostic friend, both impressively well versed with Christianity and other religions.

There are many reasons why people have religion, but I figure it usually ties in to the meaning of life and what happens after death. In my very logical way, I deduce that if you believe there is a god, then you would want to figure out which is the true god. Clearly most religions, especially monotheistic ones, are mutually exclusive, and various religions offer different teachings about how you should live your life, and what happens after life. Many religions preach good works, others teach confession or faith, for example; the afterlife implications include entering heaven or hell, attaining enlightenment or being reincarnated as a cockroach. So whether the prospect is of damnation or reincarnation, wouldn't most people want to figure out which is the right god and religion?

My agnostic friend rejected this view as being too selfish. If there really is a god, a supreme being, shouldn't religion be about worshiping and glorifying this god, and developing your personal commune with this god, rather than looking out for your own selfish interests, he asked.

I was rather stumped at the point. Had I been so selfish all along? Too much wine perhaps. So we moved on to another interesting topic of charismatic churches which I will write about another time. But later that night, I think I sorted it out in my head.

At least for Christianity, we are taught that God first loved us, and because we had destroyed our own lives with sin, he suffered and died for us so that we could once again be saved and spend eternity with him in heaven. So is it selfish to want to go to heaven? On one level, I guess it is. But at the same time, we are not just satisfying our own desires, but also God's desire for us. The Bible's parable of the Prodigal Son is God's own analogy for his relationship with us. The prodigal son sinned greatly against his father, and when he was penniless and destitute he was too ashamed to return to his father's house. Would it have been selfish of him to want to re-enter the family mansion - yes, certainly. Yet in the end it was because his father loved him so much, he would not bear to see his son suffer and brought him home. It is natural to want salvation and eternity in heaven, yet we should rightly be ashamed of our human condition, and recognise that we are not worthy; but ultimately if we have the personal commune with God, we would also do it because we want to make him happy. And we would also do our utmost to bring all the other prodigal children home as well.

comfort in affliction

Church Camp 2008 was quite a memorable one for me in a reflective way; I went to camp seeking some guidance, and I got my answers and many other lessons. So I thought I would pen some of my thoughts down for future reference, as well as to share with everyone, whether or not you attended the camp, and if anyone else has more insights to share I'd love to hear to it.
I think I echo the sentiments of many in feeling that this camp was a little bit of lecture overload. I'm not sure how many people could survive 3 talks, 2 workshops and a bible study within a single day. Nevertheless, there were certainly some gems, and perhaps I would have caught more if I had a longer attention span.
For me, the defining theme for the camp was "Comfort in Affliction". The foundation was laid clearly in the intro to 2 Corinthians, when Paul Barker made a clear distinction between comfort and healing. As Christians, we should expect to lead lives of suffering, and Christ will provide us the necessary comfort to make the afflictions bearable. We, in turn, should be open in sharing our afflictions with others, as well as sharing the comfort that God provides us so that others may be encouraged.
I feel I have always led a blessed life, with very little suffering. But the reality of this message, and the fragility of life, was brought home by the other campers. First there was Richard's brain haemorrhage, which took a camper right from our midst and to the doorstep of death. Then there was the sharing of campers, people as young as their 30s who experienced various forms of cancer, or struggles with disabled children and loss of loved ones. Although I could not relate to any of these experiences, their sharing provided a sense of comfort and acceptance of the fact that I cannot take my health and easy life for granted, but I can take comfort in the assurance of God's comfort and continue to be happy with what I have.
Another message that resonated deeply with me was that it is the message, not the messenger that is important in spreading God's work. We are all called to be unimpressive Jars of Clay (now I finally realise the significance of the band name), and we should not be shy about talking to others about our faith. Furthermore, it is not worldly accomplishments or qualifications that matter, but what is in our heart.
There were many other important lessons; comfort in ministry, the importance of Christian leadership, or the love of parents for their children. But these two above were the ones that hit me the most, and I don't intend to recap all 10 talks. (I did type out pretty extensive notes if anyone wants.) Put the two together, and I felt an urgent reminder that time on earth is short, and I should not dither in telling all my friend's about God's promised salvation.
This post is a little overdue, but better late than never!

impersonal god

Preparing for a youth bible study some weeks back, I was presented with the question "Discuss some of your struggles after you've had a personal encounter with God." I cringed and got someone else to lead the study. But I noticed that he totally skipped the question as well.

I have always hated the topic of personal encounters with God because as far as I am concerned, I do not have one. Neither have I ever had a personal walk with God, a term commonly bandied about that I could never understand. In the past when my approach to religion was very emotional, I was deeply troubled at the absence of any personal relationship with God. No matter how much I prayed, I could never seem to get any reply from God and this led me to despair and abandon the faith for some time. But since my renewed interest and more pragmatic approach, I suppose I have logicalised the personal aspects out of the religious experience.

Part of my lack of personal encounters probably stems from my cynicism whenever I encounter potential answers to my prayers. Many people tell me that God talks to them through the bible and through other godly people. This means that when they are seeking an answer to an issue, they are likely to take very seriously any sign that could possibly be interpreted as reply from God. This would usually come in the form of things people say, or bible verses read during personal devotions or in church. Usually it involves a certain element of chance, such as a verse that seems to be a direct answer to a problem, or the repeated encounter of a particular verse in totally unrelated contexts. While one can believe that God can talk to you, how do you know when he is talking to you? How do you filter it from the outside noise of life? After all, God is not the only one who can talk to us, and it is a dangerous assumption to accept everything and anything that seems divine.

My problem is that while I contemplate the possibility that such occurences may be inspired by God, I generally attribute them to coincidence. And I probably always will until I see the burning bush or the writing on the wall. Unfortunately, these things don't seem to happen anymore nowadays, and we are told not to expect them.

On the other hand, I do not ignore such encounters altogether. If a Christian offers good advice on an issue I am struggling with, I would weigh it on its own merits and consider whether it is in accordance with Christian principles. Similarly, there are many times reading the bible when reading a particular verse has caused me to see an issue in a new light, from a new angle, or been reminded that God's law in the bible has already prescribed certain guidelines for dealing with my particular situation. So whether or not I believe a particular utterance or verse if God's direct answer to a prayer, my desire to choose according to God's will should still set me on the right path.

Of course I do believe that it is possible to have a personal encounter with God. There are plenty of modern-day accounts of miracles to support this. And while I used to pray fervently for a personal encounter, I no longer do so because based on anecdotal evidence, personal encounters with God are usually accompanied by extreme physical or emotional tribulations which I am not particularly enthusiastic about. So I will just summarise by making the bold statement that I believe it is not necessary to have a personal relationship with God, whatever that is. Although I suppose I still hold out hope that I will discover it somewhere, somehow.

why not a christian

I have been reading Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian. I first came across Bertrand Russell in my Sociology and Political Science classes for his philosophical arguments on the use of nuclear deterrants. On top of that he was first and foremost a mathematicial, but has since become reknown for his positions on a wide range of political and social issues. So when I heard he had written an essay on this topic, I had to get my hands on it.

It is very refreshing to read critical ideas rather than always looking at apologetics, and I think ultimately this will help me develop a rather balanced view. Russell originally delivered this as a lecture in 1927, so some of his arguments, particularly in the fields of science have since become outmoded. But he makes other interesting points to ponder, which I will not go into here. The statement he made that struck me the most was a comment about Immanuel Kant, the famous economist.

He was like many people: In intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize - the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.

He also said, of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.

I think there is a lot of truth in these statements. And it was brought home even stronger when a colleague saw that I was reading the book and asked why. After my reply, his response was that sometimes it is better not to ask such questions or they might shake our faith. But what is Faith? I got two nice definitions from another book I began reading to answer other burning questions. According to Guidance and the Voice of God by Phillip Jensen and Tony Payne, many people believe faith is "believing something is true even though all the evidence is against you". However, they challenge that faith should not go against empirical rationality, which is very much similar to my own view which I blogged at length here and here.

I have always been reluctant to discuss Christianity in the past because I always felt this pressure to evangelise people, yet without any confidence in my own knowledge and understanding. Ever since I became a religious cynic, it has been a lot easier to ask the difficult questions and try to find the answers. As a Christian all my life, I often wonder what questions I would have asked if I was contemplating conversion. Since I never had that chance, now I like to ask people why they are not Christians, and try to see the world through their eyes. So far so good ... which brings me to a final thought.

People always seem to take the emotional tack when sharing Christ. You are a sinner, Jesus died for you, you can go to heaven. Everything seems to be predicated on the sob story of the cruxifiction, and the wonderful news of salvation. Perhaps the cynic in me is speaking again, but we seem to be assuming a lot of people to believe what we say. Maybe I am too pragmatic, but I thought a better order would be:

1) Do you believe there is a God and creator?
2) Do you believe there is any single correct religion?
3) Why should Christianity be the correct religion?
And only then would the audience interest be piqued to delve into the message of salvation.

Well, maybe that's just me.

on prayer

I have noticed that there are generally two types of prayer in this world.

Prayer A:
Dear Jesus, Uncle X is sick. Please make him better. Amen.

It is usually spoken by little kids and takes less than a minute.

Prayer B:
Dear Father Lord, our brother X is at this moment lying in the
hospital. As we gather together ... he has placed his faith in you ... send your
guardian angels down to watch over him ... cleanse the illness from his body ...
&#^$#^$@(&!(*#& ...

The older the one praying, the longer the prayer can get, sometimes in excess of an hour.

It has always puzzled me why we need to tell God how to answer our prayers. After all, since he knows everything, what's wrong with the simple child's prayer? These thoughts were recently rekindled when I came across Matthew 6:5-8 during DG:

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

The meaning seems pretty clear to me, that the child's prayer is the way to go.

If it is so obvious how we should pray, why do people still insist on lengthy invocations? Is there some pyschological effect that upholds and encourages others around? Is there a spiritual catharsis achieved by pouring out your desires and troubles in this manner? Are we praying in this way to God, or for ourselves?

It seems to me that I have been guilty of lengthy prayers too. It's time to revert to the succint and concise mode.

new atheists

While diligently surfing through Wired News on Avantgo in class today, I came across a pretty interesting article. It's not the most objective piece, but it is thought-provoking and worth a read.

My friends, I must ask you an important question today: Where do you stand on God?

It's a question you may prefer not to be asked. But I'm afraid I have no choice. We find ourselves, this very autumn, three-and-a-half centuries after the intellectual martyrdom of Galileo, caught up in a struggle of ultimate importance, when each one of us must make a commitment. It is time to declare our position.

This is the challenge posed by the New Atheists. We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth; we are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith.

The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking.

Sounds vageuly communist huh. If that got you interested, you can read the rest of the article here. And maybe sometime soon I will get down to penning all my thoughts of the last few weeks.

death and chinese

It started off innocuously enough. She has a Chinese oral coming up, and her Chinese sucks. I can totally empathise, so we spent some time poking fun at the idiosyncracies of the language.

Zuo and You (left and right). If you can remember how to write them, can you remember which is which?

Dong, Nan, Xi, Bei (North, South, East, West). If you gave me a compass rose I wouldn't be able to label the points in Chinese for you.

Chun, Xia, Qiu, Dong (Summer, Autumn, Winter, Spring). We all agree that Chun sounds like it should be summer, somehow. And isn't Xia obviously Autumn, when the leaves are falling?

We then branched out into more serious stuff, when I asked a question that has been on my mind of late: "If you were given the choice to renounce your faith or die, what would you choose?"

Awkward silence, so I continued, "It's not so totally impossible wat. Just last week the two Fox journalists in Lebanon were forced to convert to Islam or be killed. Next time you go to Bali, JI might catch you and give you the same options."

She piped up. "Just say you convert lah. Only need to sign the paper or something right? Then they will let you go." And of course, after that you could continue praying, going to church, etc. What's the big deal anyway?

So I said, "But isn't this the same choice the early Christians faced? Renounce your new religion, or be thrown to the lions. And many of them chose the lions. Or the Christians in China who also chose jail, torture and death rather than abandon their faith. Why didn't they choose this option if it is so easy?"

I guess it all boils down to what we truly, truly believe. If we know that we believe in the true God, and we are going to heaven, we should welcome any opportunity not just to proclaim our faith, but also to hasten our journey to a better place. If we truly believe, it would be a joke to renounce our faith to extend our time of suffering on earth. For surely that would be a betrayal of our principles. We would do as the early Christians did and sing hymns all the way to the end.

Easily said of course. But if it really comes down to that, I am still wondering what I would do.

the flood

There's a down side to being a Christian from birth. Sometimes as a kid, I think I accepted things a little too readily. Take this famous example from Genesis 7:

¹⁷ For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. ¹⁸ The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. ¹⁹ They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. ²⁰ The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. ²² Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. ²³ Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

²⁴ The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

It all seemed really reasonable as a kid. The people sinned; God punished them. And what more fitting way than to wash the earth clean. If I saw this for the first time today, the first thing I would ask is probably where did all the water come from? And where did it go after the flood subsided? So this was the question we explored over the weekend, and the answers are absolutely fascinating.

Firstly, the wording of the passage and the surrounding verses make it quite clear that this was a global flood that literally covered the whole earth. So by the theory of conservation of matter, the water could not just have appeared and disappeared.

Geologists who studied the event conclude that this was no simple shower. It was quite a cataclysmic that permanently altered the earth's ecology. A series of violent earthquakes tore the ground asunder and reshaped the face of our planet. At the same time, the atmosphere, which till then had comprised a dense layer of gaseous water, chose to purge itself of fluids in a continuous torrent. The event is recorded as such:

¹¹ In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. ¹² And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

The scientific record is even more interesting. Many of the fossils discovered today are dated back to that period. And it was interesting to be reminded that fossils are not formed simply by animals that lay down and died. Decomposition would have gotten to them, if they were not eaten first by other animals. Rather, fossils can only be formed when the plants or animals are subjected to abrupt and immense temperature and pressure, such as in a volcanic eruption or earthquake. Hence, the discovery of a rich fossil record from that time period is an indication of seismic activity.

The earth's surface has also changed significantly, evidenced by the discovery of aquatic and plant live on the top of mountains such as Everest. These mountains were once underwater, until they were pushed into the sky by shifting tectonic plates.

And lastly, one interesting indication of how the atmosphere has changed comes from the dinosaurs. For one thing, they are extinct. For another, the wings of the Archaeopteryx could not have kept it aloft in our current atmosphere. So the air must have been more dense, once upon a time.

Anyway, these were just a few of the interesting factoids I gleaned, recorded here for posterity. When I have time I will probably search the web for more juicy details.

Added later: The Juicy Details
There's actually a ton of stuff on the web. But I am linking just a couple that take a clear, coherent and concise position. All articles are one-sided; would love to find any material that resolves the issue head to head.
Arguments for the Global Flood and a Young Earth
1) In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (7th Edition) by Dr. Walt Brown
2) Creation Evolution Encyclopedia
3) The flood in historical accounts
Dissenting Views
1) Genesis vs. Geology, Stephen Jay Gould, The Atlantic Monthly; September 1982;
2) Answers in Creation
3) Radiometric Resource List and the Radiometric Dating Game debate
4) Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective

missions

Missions seems to be a really hot topic. First I heard Patrick Johnstone talk on Operation World at ARPC last week. And this week, my own church is also having a series for Missions Month. But it has really gotten me thinking because I'm pretty interested in missions work, but my current work schedule certainly won't permit anything.

Some of the key points I took away were that
1) 1/3 of the world is Christian, 1/3 of the world lives among Christians, and the last 1/3 are the so-called "unreached peoples" that have never heard of Christianity
2) 9% of the unreached people speak English, but 94% of missionaries speak English
3) 97% of the unreached people live in the 10-40 window, which encompasses most of East Asia.

And as I contemplated how I might possibly get involved in missions, I thought one very attractive option was to take up full time language study in one of these countries, and use the time to serve in the mission field there. And here are the reasons:
1) That is the best way to learn a new language so I don't add on to the existing 94%
2) Can learn and practise at the same time
3) Living expenses in places like Vietnam, Cambodia or China are dirt cheap
4) The food is dirt cheap and oh so good
5) If it works out well, can either go into full time missions there or try tentmaking
6) If it doesn't work so well, it's always useful to have learned the language of these up-and-coming Asian economies for other employment opportunities

Ok I guess this isn't really the attitude of a missionary zealot, but I thought it was a pretty practical approach. I have half a mind to take a gap year/sabbatical and try this out. Not just yet, but maybe soon.

angels and demons III

To round off my reflections on what we can learn from Angels and Demons, I thought it would be interesting to consider what is Blind Faith. Here is an example portrayed in the book:

Kohler stared a moment into his own stony eyes. Tonight I may die at the hands of religion, he thought. But it will not be the first time.

For a moment, he was eleven years old again, lying in his ben in his parents' Frankfurt mansion. The sheets beneath him were Europe's finest linen, but they were soaked in sweat. Young Max felt like he was on fire, the pain wracking his body unimaginable. Kneeling beside his bed, where they had been for two days, were his mother and father. They were praying.
In the shadows stood three of Frankfurt's best doctors.

"I urge you to reconsider!" one of the doctors said. "Look at the boy! His fever is increasing. He is in terrible pain. And danger!"
But Max knew his mother's reply even before she said it. "Gott wird ihn beschuetzen."
Yes, Max thought. God will protect me. The conviction in his mother's voice gave him strength. God will protect me.
An hour later, Max felt like his whole body was being crushed beneath a car. He could not even breathe to cry.

"Your son is in great suffering," another doctor said. "Let me at least ease his pain. I have in my bag a simple injection of-"
"Ruhe bitte!" Max's father silenced the doctor without ever opening his eyes. He simply kept praying.
"Father, please!" Max wanted to scream. "Let them stop the pain!" But his words were lost in a spasm of coughing. An hour later, the pain had worsened.
"Your son could become paralyzed," one of the doctors scolded. "Or even die! We have medicines that will help!"
Frau and Herr Kohler would not allow it. They did not believe in medicine. Who were they to interfere with God's master plan? ...

And so as Max hovers on the brink of death, one of the doctors cannot bear it anymore and covertly gives him an injection. Almost immediately, he begins to recover. But in some ways it is too late ... he is crippled. The parents proclaim a miracle of God, but they are distraught at his paralysis and bring him to a priest.

"It was only by the grace of God," the priest told them, "that this boy survived."
Max listened, saying nothing.
"But our son cannot walk!" Frau Kohler was weeping.
The priest nodded sadly. "Yes. It seems God has punished him for not having enough faith."

What delicious irony. This scenario portrays faith in God in a very poor light. Clearly it is something irrational, that only religious zealots would contemplate. And needless to say, the boy becomes completely disillusioned with religion, as would many of the readers. But is this really how faith is meant to be? I thought the following joke sheds some light on the topic with a rather different perspective.

Once upon a time, a man sat on his porch as a flood warning was beginning. His neigbor was pulling out of the driveway following the evacuation order from the community officials. The neigbor said, "Hey. Jump in. We can ride out together to avoid the flood." The man responded, "I have faith. God will save me from the impending flood."

A little while later, the water covered the street, and an SUV cut it's way through the flood. A stranger rolled down the window and said, "Hey fellow. Jump in, this flood is going to get worse." The man responded, "I have faith. God will save me from the impending flood."

As time passed, the water became high enough that the man had to move inside and look out his second floor window. A boat came by, and the man in the boat yelled out, "Jump in. This flood is going to get worse." The man responded, "I have faith. God will save me from the impending flood."

The man was forced to climb to the roof as the flood entered his second floor. A rescue helicopter whirled overhead and a voice came from a bull-horn yelling, "Grab this rope ladder. we'll save you." The man yelled back, "I have faith. God will save me from the impending flood."

The man drowned.

When he reached the pearly gates, the man said to Saint Peter, "I had faith. Why did God let me drown?" Saint Pete responded, "We sent you a car, an SUV, and boat and a helicopter. What else were we supposed to do?"

It's the middle of the week. Don't expect anything intelligent or insightful from me ... I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

But if you are interested, I've been involved in a little debate over at SingaporeAngle.
You can find a list of album recommendations (including mine) here. And the Weird Al cover of James Blunt here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here.
And did you know that the original name for butterfly was flutterby? Strangly apt. Read about that and other strange things you likely didn't know.
And finally, this is a hilrious analysis of Brazil vs France.

angels and demons II

In my previous post, I extracted some dialogue from Dan Brown's Angels and Demons which make some interesting observations about religion. I summarised it as follows:
1) There are many religions, and they are more or less the same. They are good because they teach good values and provide comfort and stength to many people.
2) Perhaps God does exist, but we will never understand, and our belief must be based on faith and miracles, not intellect.
This post will discuss my thoughts on the second point. (You can read the first one here.)

Faith seems to be an essential ingredient in most religions, since we cannot understand them. But what is faith? Is it all about miracles? And does it require a suspension of rationality? In a recent bible study with my youth group, the little brats refused to do the assigned reading during the week. So I decided to tekan them with this philosophical question.

"Faith means to believe loh," one girl volunteered.

"Ok," I said, holding my handphone aloft. "So if I let go of this handphone now, do you believe it will fall to the ground?" There were several nods of agreement. "Does that require any faith?"

Most of my kids are still in sec sch or poly. So I can see the looks of annoyed bewilderment crossing their faces. What is our idiot teacher trying to get at? So cheem one. Spoonfeed us lah!

I think it is important to differentiate between knowledge, faith and belief. Knowledge refers to the things we know from our own experience. Belief is in the answer I would give when asked a question - the phone will fall. And faith is the gap between the two. I know that the last time I dropped a handphone, it fell to the ground. (Because it was an Ericsson and not a Nokia, the screen broke.) I know that in general most things fall to the ground. I believe this handphone will fall too, because it is consistent with my knowledge of the world. There is no gap between knowledge and belief, hence there is no faith. I drew a graph.



The girl asked, so if I am meeting Charles and I know he is usually on time, so I believe he will be on time, is that knowledge or faith?

Well let's say you are at Orchard MRT and you are meeting him in five minutes. He has never been late before so you are confident that he will be on time. That takes some faith. If he suddenly messages you then and says he is one stop a way, you know that he will be on time. So faith is no longer required. The gap between knowledge and belief has been closed.

(On the other hand, if he messages to say that he is still at Clementi, and you still believe he will be on time, that is when the faith becomes irrational.)

It is the same thing about religion isn't it. Most religions comes as a package of teachings, which may include philosophy but also many facts about life. These can be tested. Take Christianity for example.

The bible teaches of dead people who come back to life, of seas that part so that people can walk through, and all kinds of miraculous healings. In our modern age, it is quite difficult to imagine such things happening, hence the natural tendency to be a bit cynical and incredulous. But the bible also documents thousands of years of human history, such as the rise and fall of empires, and also global events (such as the great flood that covered the earth for 40 days). It also contains many prophecies that are fulfilled. All of these things can be tested for internal coherence (i.e. if someone made up the whole book as a big con job, it is not likely that all the statements would be consistent) and also against the historical accounts recorded in other documents from the same time.

I remember the first time I took a history class in college. I was supposed to write a book review of A.J.P. Taylor's The Origins of The Second World War. In this book, Taylor proposed an alternative view of what led to the war. Hitler never intended to start a world war. In fact, his main motive was lebensraum; limited expansion into the neighbouring countries to obtain more living space for German people. To this end, he occupied Austria, while the allies looked on, all the while seeking to appease him because they were so reluctant to start another war. In the same spirit, he began occupation of Poland, when suddenly the Allies decided to act against him. Had he known they would oppose his actions, he would never have dared begin the conquest. But because of the ambiguity of English and French foreigh policy, Hitler suddenly found himself drawn into conflict, and had no choice but to begin his invasion of Western Europe.

Having done 4 years on the engineering track, my concept of "book review" at the time was the same kind of thing I had done all through primary and secondary school: summarise the book. So I did, and said what a brilliant and convincing analysis it was, and how I now saw the war in a whole new light. I was given a B and the professor spoke to me about it. Very nice summary, he said, but why didn't I critique the book. Why hadn't I analysed it for logical errors and fallacies? Well it just seemed really convincing, I said. Is this what you were taught in school, he asked? No it wasn't, I admitted. The conventional view of history paints Hitler as quite the villian.

Well, if AJP Taylor's version of history was true, why didn't it become the accepted view? He was certainly a prominent historian, and the book stirred up a huge amount of controversy. But at the end of the day it has been accepted as an interesting alternative viewpoint, but not an accurate portrayal of the events and motives that led to the war. Simply put, when it came under scrutiny of the world's leading academics, it failed the test. So there must be some reason it was not accepted, and you should have thought about that when you wrote the review. That was what my professor told me, and it has stuck ever since.

In the same way, the bible contains thousands of pages of history. This is an open invitation for anyone to scrutinise it for factual accuracy. If the bible was wrong, we would hear about it. Surely anyone who can disprove the bible would make the discovery known, and many have tried. The very dramatic controversies raised by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code are actually a rediscovery of earlier arguments. He himself has openly admitted that ideas were borrowed from other sources. And the reason we never heard about them before is that they never gained enough credence to bring them to public attention. The difference is that Brown has now published the anti-biblical view, without the corresponding counter-arguments, in a novel that makes it accessible to the general public. Like an engineer reading history, the general public does not have the inherent knowledge to spot the fallacies in the argument. Many books have since been written to correct this imbalance, but unfortunately they are probably not quite as interesting and gripping as DVC.

I cite this example because I don't want to go into the myriad of debates and proofs for the correctness of the bible. This is something that is important for everyone to investigate for themselves, but way beyond the scope of a short post. As a heuristic, I think we can rely on the internet and the mass media to trumpet the finding if a major religion should be disproved. In the absence of such an announcment, we can accept that there is a good chance it is true.

So back to faith. Not all religions are based on faith alone. Some, especially Christianity, offer many opportunities to be cross-examined for historical accuracy, and until now, it has stood the test of time. This means that belief in Christianity actually comprises a large knowledge component, and the knowledge is consistent with the belief. Faith is still required, but it is not quite the leap into the unknown that some people might think.

The views expressed here are the author's own, drawn from personal experience and private thoughts. They do not represent the teaching of any religious group.

angels and demons

I've always enjoyed reading Dan Brown. On two levels: the excellent thrilling storylines and the philosophical debates he provokes. Da Vinci Code has already been done to death, but Angels and Demons is touted by many to be even better.

In the book, Harvard symbologies Robert Langdon and Vittoria, scientist daughter of a Catholic priest, have several heavily theological discourses. From their credentials alone, the reader must certainly lend some weight to the views they expouse. In fact, they articulate opinions that are not uncommon; yet very eloquent and convincing:

Do I believe in God? He had hoped for a lighter topic of conver- sation to pass the trip. A spiritual conundrum, Langdon thought. That's what my friends call me. Although he studied religion for years, Langdon was not a religious man. He respected the power of faith, the benevolence of churches, the strength religion gave so many people ... and yet, for him, the intellectual suspension of disbelief that was imperative if one were truly going to "believe" had always proved too big an obstacle for his academic mind. "I want to believe," he heard himself say. Vittoria's reply carried no judgment or challenge. "So why don't you?" He chuckled. "Well, it's not that easy. Having faith requires leaps of faith, cerebral acceptance of miracles- immaculate conceptions and divine interventions. And then there are the codes of conduct. The Bible, the Koran, Buddhist scripture ... they all carry similar requirements- and similar penalties. (pg 108)

"Yes. As a scientist and the daughter of a Catholic priest, what do you think of religion?" Vittoria paused, brushing a lock of hair from her eyes. "Religion is like language or dress. We gravitate toward the practices with which we were raised. In the end, though, we are all proclaiming the same thing. That life has meaning. That we are grateful for the power that created us." Langdon was intrigued. "So you're saying that ... Faith is universal. Our specific methods for understanding it are arbitrary. Some of us pray to Jesus, some of us go to Mecca, some of us study subatomic particles. In the end we are all just searching for truth, that which is greater than ourselves." Langdon wished his students could express themselves so dearly. Hell, he wished he could express himself so dearly. 'And God?" he asked. "Do you believe in God?" Vittoria was silent for a long time. "Science tells me God must exist. My mind tells me I will never understand God. And my heart tells me I am not meant to." How's that for concise, he thought. "So you believe God is fact, but we will never understand Him." (pg 110)

If I may summarise their statements above, they are basically saying two things about religion:
1) There are many religions, and they are more or less the same. They are good because they teach good values and provide comfort and stength to many people.
2) Perhaps God does exist, but we will never understand, and our belief must be based on faith and miracles, not intellect.

The first is a comforting view of the world and religion. While not discounting the existence of God, it puts the responsibility of understanding divinity beyond the reach of mere mortals like us. Why not just accept the religion that best matches our world view and values, and live life as best we can? This was precisely the view articulated by my boss in a recent conversation.

I was surprised that a very logical person like my boss should take such a position, rather than trying to get to the bottom of things. Anyway, he likes to argue (or 'spar' as he calls it), and this is as interesting a topic as any. So I offered some thoughts: It's all very well to choose a religious that teaches good values, but what if one of the religions is actually true? What if there really is only one right religion? Many of these religions also teach the consequences of following or deviating from their teachings. You can attain nirvana or go to heaven. You could also go to hell, or be reincarnated as a chicken. (Or as my colleagues always say, we are sure to be reincarnated as trees because of all the environmental damage we cause.) Some of them give provision for a second chance; others do not.

So consider the possibility that there is a single right religion, and we only have one life, one chance, to decide where we will spend eternity. Shouldn't we, as a rational people, at least spend some effort in considering our options and weighing the consequences? Indifference and ignorance hold no water in a human a court of law; we should expect no less of divine judgement. (In this modern age, there is abundant information on all major world religions out there, when it is time to face the consequences it will be difficult to plead ignorance merely due to apathy.)

At this point we reached our destination and I started to get out of the car. "I hope you can understand," I told him, "that since I do believe that there is just one chance and one God, I have to try to get the people I care about to at least think about it."

To be continued ...

two tales

I heard two very thought-provoking personal anecdotes today. I will try to reproduce them here as faithfully as possible.

An old friend Za was on the MRT, carrying out her daily routine of listening to mp3s and writing in her journal. As the Malaysian PM's wife had just passed away, the thought that came to mind was how the Muslims, being so closed to Christianity, would every have the chance to hear the gospel?

Hey musings were interrupted when she happened to overhead the girl across the carriage on her mobile phone. She was asking what was the holy trinity? What followed was obscured by the rumblings as the train entered the tunnel, but the next question Za caught was what are the ten commandments? Apparently this girl had an exam on cross-cultural communication in two hours, and she had no idea what these things were.

Za's mind was racing, because this seemed like a perfect invitation to share God's word. After all, we are called to be witnesses for God in season and out of season. But how do you start a conversation with someone by explaining that you were eavesdropping? Furthermore, at the next stop she had to change to the westbound line, and she really couldn't be late for the next appointment. So she prayed and told God that if the girl were to switch to the same line too, she would approach her.

Of course she did, and so Za had to stalk her across the platform, trying to catch up with her and desperately floudering to find the right words. She even made sure she approached from the side where the ear was vacant of earphones. Finally, she tapped her on the shoulder, admitted that she had overheard her questions, and offered her assistance. The response was extremely positive, and the girl was very welcoming of anything that would rescue her from the dreaded exam. So Za explained how the trinity was God in three persons, and even flipped through her bible to locate the ten commandments for her (so she could read it for herself and remember for the exam). The girl was extremely impressed that she could locate the right passage in such a thick volume, but Za explained it is one of the most important passages to Christians.

I lost the next few sentences because I was flipping through my own bible, ashamed that I didn't know where the ten commandments was. But I focussed my attention just in time to catch the punchline. Apparently this girl was a Muslim, although Za would never have guessed from her external appearance. She was in shock; in shock at the immediate answer that God had given to her earlier question, and glorifying God in the divine way in which he can make anything possible.

I can never do justice to the animated account that Za gave to the whole congregation in church today. But I'm sure everyone in the room was praising God. The next account is much shorter, shared during the sermon.

The speaker, M, related how she once had a conversation with her part-time helper, a Chinese national as they happened to be cleaning the house together. The helper commented that she had observed a very close relationship between M and her mother-in-law, which was something very rare among the other homes in which she worked. She also commented that M's family in general seemed to be very close and happy, and that she had seen similar patterns in other homes that she assumed to be Christian, because they had the cross somewhere on their walls.

At this open invitation, M went on to tell her more about Christianity, and gave her some Mandarin tracts to read. But to the rest of us, she told how encouraged she was that even someone as seemingly peripheral as a part-time helper could recognise a difference between Christians and others. And are you living a life that glows with the likeness of Christ, for all to see and wonder?

faithless

On Sunday, I heard a very thought-provoking story.

Our pastor shared how he had tried to share Christ with a man dying of cancer. He shared his frustrations in trying to teach this ‘man of few words’ – every question was always answered with a single word, until Pastor found himself supplying both the questions and the answers to an unreceptive listener. He came to dread the weekly sessions. Finally the introductory course was complete and the two did not meet for some weeks.

At his next visit, Pastor was overcome with anguish and guilt at his neglect, when he saw how the once stolid man had wasted to a shrunken frame. As he knelt beside the bed to pray, he choked as he could not find the words to express his pain and grief.

Instead, it was the man who placed a shriveled hand on his arm, and prayed. He prayed to God for the pastor to have the strength to carry on with his ministry, confident in the knowledge that he, the dying man, was going to heaven.

I forget the original takeaway of this anecdote, because the question that filled my mind was how amazing it was that someone could come to have such faith just from a few short sessions with the pastor. If I, who has have a lifetime to read the bible and the vastness of the internet and libraries to conduct my research, still struggle with this, how envious I was that he could be so easily convicted.

It’s easy to say I believe in God, but I often wonder if I could face the circus lions, burning at the stake or crucifixion on a cross for these beliefs. If I truly believed, such temporal suffering is merely a shortcut to the paradise beyond. And yet, the thought is still daunting.

Wouldn’t it be lovely if God would speak to me from a burning bush? Or write on my wall (whiteboard also can). Or even visit me in my dreams.

But if I knew, then that wouldn’t be faith, would it.

flying spaghetti monsters

Some time back, I wrote that I was reading Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator . This is a survey book of many fields of scientific research that explore the claims of the Intelligent Design movement. The basic premise is that while not discounting natural selection and adaptive mutation, the scientific conditions necessary for randomly creating life as we know it are so infitesimally small that there must be a superior intelligent agent at work to set the first building blocks of life in place.

I'm not about to do a review of the book, but I will summarise to say that the book makes a compelling case for intelligent design. And while the jury is still out on whether it is a better theory than evolution, it certainly cannot be discounted as a possibility. So now I'd like to explore the other side of the debate. Coincidentally, there has been a great deal of hoo-haa in the US recently about whether or not it should be taught in schools as a competing theory to evolution (went to the Technorati top ten for a while), so I'm sure there must be lots of information on the net, if only I could take the time to find it.

I'd like to invite anyone who surfs by to leave a comment and link to any interesting articles on this. Here is a really good article to start off with from the IHT.

Of course, we cannot misconstrue Intelligent Design to directly imply the truth of any single religion. In fact, there are at least two explanations that have been gathering large followings that support intelligent design as well. The first is FSM and for the second, you'll have to go read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

skipping church

Warning: Long, boring and philosophical post. There's another recent one below for general consumption.

Today I was already on my way to church when I decided not to go; so I turned the car around and headed home. I find such spontaneous changes from the daily routine liberating, but it was not exactly an impromptu decision. I was already dragging my feet getting out of bed, and procrastinating at the newspaper; most of the people I'd care to meet at church are away for the National Day weekend and although it's lousy reason for going to church, I guess I really do go for the people.

Part of the reason I'm not very keen on church is that I have a learning disability. At least I think so anyway - because I find it impossible to focus for more than 15 mins on a speaker, be it church, school or even work. (In fact, I was doing pretty badly in school until I decided to read the textbooks myself sometime in Sec 4.) So today I decided to go home and do a little self study, since this was an ideal opportunity to test the vast expanse of knowledge available on the internet (see previous post). Anyway, I had already slept through this week's bible study on the same topic, so it was high time I figured out what I was missing.

So I conducted a survey of the internet material on the topic, to see just how well one might fare studying the bible in (physical) isolation.

This week's sermon was on Malachi 2:17-3:18. In a nutshell, the (self-righteous) Israelites have complained that God is being unjust, rewarding the evildoers around them with good. God is not pleased, and his reply can be found in three internally-coherent sections. In verses 2:17 - 3:5, he warns that the day of judgment is coming and the wicked will get their dues. He also warns the Israelites to re-examine themselves, because not all of them are as holy as they think. Verses 3:6 - 3:12 are an aside to focus on one example of their shortcomings: that of tithing. The people are reprimanded for skimping on their offerings. God challenges them to give all and see if they will not be richly rewarded. Verses 3:13 - 3:17 return to the topic of judgement and this time God renews his promise that those who are faithful will be spared from judgement.

Of course the question I'm asking as I read all this is how does it apply to me? After sieving through a ton of commentaries and sermons (the problem truly is information management, not acquisition), there is just too much debate over the little details like "Who are the three people in Malachi 3:1?" or "What is a refiner's fire?" But the questions that continuous come to mind are not answered, just as they are seldom answered during the Sunday sermon. This is why I think the bible study is the most important source of learning for me - and it's a real pity I'm always asleep instead of asking questions.

So finally, I came to my own conclusions of the everyday application for these verses. Parallels can easily be drawn between the condition of the Israelites and the modern day, where many evil people seem to be very successful and nice guys finish last. On the one hand we can take heart that the day of judgement will come, but on the other we have to heed the warning that it is not enough to be Christian only in name, but also indeed. Else we might be consumed instead of refined in the fire of God. And of course, don't forget to give back to God.

I do wonder how anyone could deliver an hour-long sermon on this.

Just for the record, I found the two sources of greatest interest to be Sermons on The Prophet Malachi Exposition by Max A Forsythe Christ Covenant Reformed (PCA) and the book Malachi - God's Unchanging Love by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

The Da Vinci Code

Yesterday I attended a talk on The Da Vinci Code given by the dean of the Yale Divinity School. It's been more than a year since I read the book, but it left so many questions in my mind I couldn't pass up on this chance.

Over beer and finger food, he explained some of the glaring half-truths that Dan Brown had woven into his gripping plot. These dealt with his interpretation of art, historical facts and various theological arguments he borrowed. As a lay person with only a vague recollection of the book, most of this went over my head. Then he took questions.

So towards the end, when I was quite drunk, I posed him the question foremost in my mind.

According to Dan Brown, the books of the bible were chosen at the Council of Nicea in deferrence to political necessity to deify Jesus, who was alleged a mere mortal. This ridiculous fact is easily dismissed by basic research, but it did lead me to realise that there really was a council held to determine the cannonisation of the bible - i.e. the selection of the books in the New Testament was determined by a group of bible scholars somewhere in the 4th Century A.D. They were the ones who determined which texts form the bible as we know it today, and which were condemned to fade into history.

Having always been brought out with the belief that the bible was the gospel truth, and was entirely factual and historically coherent, the fact that the scriptures were actually edited by biblical scholars is disturbing to say the least. I already have some reservations with the fact that they were written by divinely-inspired people, but now apparently they were filtered by people as well. I hope they were equally inspired. So Dean, please comment on the authenticity of the New Testament, and it's reliability as a basis for our faith.

His answer was quite brief, but equally disturbing. He did not answer me directly, but instead commented that the bible cannot always be taken at face value because it does contain factual inconsistencies. For example, one apostle records Jesus' ministry as lasting for three years, while another only credits him with one. So we have to bear in mind that these books were written 4-5 decades after the event, and the memories of the authors were probably distorted by the passing of time.

I didn't find this particulary satisfying, but as I was the last question and he didn't seem to want to dwell on the topic, I let it go. Anyway, I was really quite intoxicated and I didn't want to make a fool of myself. But this does leave several additional questions in my mind:

1) It really disturbs me that a basic fact such as the length of Jesus' ministry can be in contention. How is it possible to forget that?
2) Even written 4-5 decades after the event, weren't the authors merely supposed to be mediums through which God communicated? Surely God would not forget.
3) If we cannot place 100% faith in the accuracy of the bible, is it still something we should live and die by?

I suppose the next time a theologian drops by, I will have the questions waiting.

faith

Today I attended a "Grill-the-Christian" session in which a panel of some of our junior pastors attempted to answer common questions asked by people exploring various religions. Questions such as "How do we know the bible is historically accurate and not a fabrication", "Do all religions lead to the same God" and "If God loves us why does he send good people to hell", as well as questions from the floor.

It soon became painfully obvious that it is much easier to give a sermon than to answer questions posed on the spot. And this was in spite of the fact that many of the questions had been prepared in advance, although the actual questions to be answered were chosen by vote. Being unprepared to answer prepared questions is quite preposterous. Such a session could be very enlightening for people searching for a religion, but badly conducted as it was today, it probably did more harm than good. I was quite glad that my friends had not taken up the invitation.

One of the questions they struggled with was "Does faith mean believing in things that do not make sense?" I cringed when after a lengthy explanation, the follow-up question was "But if you are believing in facts that is just reason, it is not faith." I have my own definition of faith, which I was tempted to share. I formulated it during the last argument over faith/belief at bible study, but since it was not well received I decided not to try again. Although personally, I think they were just being silly.

Faith is the gap between knowledge and belief. Faith is when you are 80% sure of something, and choose to believe in it completely. Blind faith (aka stupidity) is when you believe in something that contradicts your understanding, or that you simply have no understanding.

Faith is when you need to cross thin ice and you throw a rock onto it. Seeing that it can support the rock, you then proceed to cross. Stupidity is when you need to cross thin ice and you throw a rock onto it. Seeing the ice break under its weight you decide to cross anyway.

Christianity is different from other religions because if you do your research meticulously, fact and reason all point towards the truth of the bible and the existence of God. Faith is that final step towards belief.

Makes sense? Critiques are welcome.