What about the people in a “wrong” church?

“…if one is, for example, a Mormon, and you believe what you're told 100%, and you're absolutely sure about it - you STILL end up in hell? …it just seems sort of unfair.”

So this is the question I received recently, and which I will try and attempt to answer. I don’t like to point fingers at specific denominations, but there are many strange denominations out there for which the question above seems relevant. In truth, I think it applies to most people in most churches – even the mainstream ones, because most churches are so far removed from true Biblical teaching that an honest Bible scholar stands confounded.

Other Sheep

I’ll start my answer by quoting Jesus: “And I have other sheep which are not of this fold: those also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16).

I think the text is clear; there are other sheep in other folds (denominations, sects, even maybe religions) whom Jesus considers His sheep.

Ignorance Overlooked

My second quotations comes from Paul: “God therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, now enjoins men that they shall all everywhere repent, because he has set a day in which he is going to judge the habitable earth in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed, giving the proof of it to all in having raised him from among the dead” (Acts 17:30, 31).

From this text it seems that in God’s mercy, God “overlooked the times of ignorance”. It appears consistent with God’s character, as I understand God. God do not judge us unfairly. We will be judged by the light we received. In other words, we are not judged by what we do not know, but by what we do know. I think it is for this reason that it is written somewhere that the (Bible) teachers and preachers will be held more accountable (because they knew more) than the laity.

The words above by Paul suggest also that once we learned a truth, we ought to live up to that Truth. Let’s say you are in a church lacking in some Biblical Truth, and you then learn a Truth; you have come out of ignorance and moved into knowledge of that Truth. Since you are not in ignorance anymore, God “…now enjoins men that they shall all everywhere repent…” The word “repent” is from the Greek word metanoeō, which means to “think differently afterwards”. Once you’ve moved from ignorance to knowledge of aTruth, God expects us to think differently (i.e. repent); in other words, we ought to live up to the Truth we have acquired.

Receive Plagues by Association

The third text I want to quote is from the visions shown to John the Apostle by Jesus.

“And I heard another voice out of the heaven saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye have not fellowship in her sins, and that ye do not receive of her plagues: for her sins have been heaped on one another up to the heaven, and God has remembered her unrighteousnesses” (Revelation 18:4, 18:5).

The angel appeals to us living in the End Times to “come out of her”. The immediate context tells us who “she” is: “Babylon the great” (Revelation 18:2). In Bible prophecy a women represents a religious group. For instance, a pure woman is symbolic of God’s true followers, and an unchaste, adulterous woman is symbolic of God’s followers that became unfaithful. Babylon, in this passage, is symbolic of the religious systems (specifically the great Christian institutions), and her actions are described as follows: “For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies” (Revelation 18:3). A fitting description of what Christianity and world religions have become, making ties with kings (rules of countries, i.e. politicians) and merchants (corporate powers and businesses).

Well, the first text I quoted from Revelation suggests that we come out of Babylon, because she is going to receive “plagues”, and if we keep association with her, we will receive these plagues too. Although there is a period while God “overlooked the times of ignorance”, it seems that a time will come when Babylon will receive “plagues” and if we still find ourselves in Babylon, we will also receive these “plagues” with her. A time will come when we cannot continue to play the ignorance trump card; therefore the plea from the angel to "Come out of her, my people, that ye have not fellowship in her sins."

Ignorance Is Not a Cop-out

Another text, by Paul again, also suggests that ignorance is not always a cop-out.

“This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye should no longer walk as the rest of the nations walk in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in understanding, estranged from the life of God by reason of the ignorance which is in them, by reason of the hardness of their hearts, who having cast off all feeling, have given themselves up to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greedy unsatisfied lust” (Ephesians 4:17-19).

Some people are ignorant because of the “hardness of their hearts.” In other words, they have hardened their hearts against Truth about God; they have deliberately resisted the Truth. Such “ignorance” will not be overlooked.

Short Answer

Will a sincere believer, whom lives up to the light he or she received, but whom happens to be in the wrong denomination, be lost? Probably not.

Religulous

Okay, so I saw Religulous (2008). After hearing so much bad rap about it, I was surprised by finding myself actually liking it. However, I didn’t find it funny. The only partially funny part of the documentary are the posters. Wasn't this film supposed to be humorous? It is after all hosted by comedian Bill Maher. For some reason I thought that comedy was the intention; but truly, I didn’t laugh once. Then again, I didn’t laugh watching Borat either – thought it was the stupidest film I’ve ever wasted time and money on. Why do I mention Religulous and Borat in the same sentence? Simple, they were both directed by Larry Charles.

Back to Religulous. I liked it because it highlights some very pertinent questions that I also ask. For instance, why do Christians believe in things that are not in the Bible? An example would be the celebration of Jesus’ birth on December 25th. Or keeping Sunday holy. These observances are nowhere to be found in Scripture, but still it is practiced as Biblical truth by the majority of Christendom. And that’s, in part, why I liked Religulous. It asks some valid questions.

A theme from Religulous is how Christianity does not reflect Jesus. I think this is in part what I tried to address in a post earlier this month: Religion vs Real Christianity. Maher asks some religious figures about the example of Jesus, versus their own; comparing religious figures with rock stars, which is so contrary to Jesus. Again, good and very valid questions. Standing in front of the Vatican Maher asks: “Does that look anything, like anything Jesus Christ had in mind?” A valid question. While I don’t believe God has anything against being wealthy (there were many examples of godly and wealthy men in the Bible), it is true that many religious figures seem to be in it for the money – this is foiled sharply against the example of Jesus. If anything, the purpose of the Church is NOT to make money for itself. Instead, it ought to be a conduit of encouragement, love and grace. And money received is to be channeled into helping others, not itself.

After an interview with some Christian truckers, Maher finishes his conversation with: “Thank you for being Christ-like and not just Christian.” How sad that there should be such a clear difference between Christians and the Christ they follow; and that the real thing is the exception, rather than the norm. It is for this reason that I often do not want to call myself a Christian. I honestly find little in common with Christianity, and the vindicative hateful “God” they represent.

For instance, in Religulous, Christians are shown with posters saying “God hates fags!” One lady announced “I don’t hate them [homosexuals]; God hates them!” (So one is to believe that, a mere mortal is more loving that the God of love?!) What these depictions show me is that these Christians do not know what the Bible teaches when read cohesively. God does not hate sinners, God hates sin; and God doesn’t hate sin arbitrarily, but because of how it hurt us or those around us. Actually, the Bible teaches the opposite of what these posters say: God loves sinners (Romans 5:8)! And speaking of homosexuals, in the Bible homosexuals are listed among a group of other sinners, like drunkards and envious people (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10). Why don’t we see Christians with posters shouting God hates drunkards and God hates envious people? Probably because half of them like to take to the bottle or are jealous of their neighbors. These kinds of double standards by “Christians” is a terrible blight on the religion. Jesus clearly taught not to point the finger, and on many occasions proved by word and example that He is not judgmental. Now, if a perfect person like Jesus did not judge the “sinners” of his day, who are we – full of faults and sins – to judge anybody?

I also have to agree with an Amen, when Maher says: “Two things that are completely incompatible is Christianity, as Jesus taught it, and nationalism.” This is probably one of the main purposes of this blog – my protest against Church and State. The Kingdom of God is not of this World, let us never forget it; and not try to make it otherwise.

Maher interviewed a Catholic priest at the Vatican observatory discussing religion versus science. The priest remarked: “The Scriptures are not teaching science.” How true. And that is part of the problem – people do not know how to read the Bible. I’ve written about that before too: Who Wrote the Bible? While I agree that the Bible is not a science book, I disagree with the assumption that Science and Religion are on all things mutually exclusive. There definitely are areas of overlap. And his blanket questions, like “Do you believe in Evolution?” is very much naïve on the topic. Firstly, there are many types of evolution. For instance, cosmological evolution, macro biological evolution, micro biological evolution and here we find three further types: divergent, convergent and parallel evolution. I, for instance do not believe in macro evolution, but I do believe in micro evolution. On many occasions in the documentary Maher would ask such blanket questions, and did not allow his interviewees to explain their views in full.

He also makes big deals out of strange things. For instance, the fact that the virgin birth is not recorded in all four of the Gospels is of pivotal value to Maher. Or the fact that very little is known of Jesus' childhood is heavily troublesome for Maher. Why should this be the case? Jesus’ childhood is actually of very little consequence for the Gospels. That Jesus’ birth is covered is what ought to be surprising. The Gospels (first four books of the New Testament) are not biographies, as Maher believes. A biography covers the majority of a person life. This is not what the Gospels do or intends to do. They only substantially cover the three years of Jesus’ ministry and only touch on the highlights. His criticism of the Gospel in this regard is unfounded. It’s like criticising a news article for not reading like a good screenplay.

Further, Maher addresses the great old Question of Evil: “Why doesn’t He [God] just obliterate the Devil and therefore get rid of evil in the world?” This is an old theological / philosophical question and which I addressed on this blog before as well. It is a question that Maher, who is a champion of freedom (and freedom of speech in particular), ought to be able to figure out the answer of for himself. I’ve addressed this dilemma in parts in various posts here before, but let’s try to summarize it:

God is Love and the highest value for God is Love and God wants us all to share in that Love. A requirement for Love is the Freedom of Choice. Forced love is an
oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s harassment. Forced love is not love, it’s rape. We, therefore, have freedom of choice to love or not to love. Many people choose selfishness, i.e. not to love, and the result is pain and suffering to others and ourselves. If I rape you, I have used my freedom of choice not to love you. Shockingly, God cannot do anything about it, without taking away my freedom of choice. It is all good and well to ask God to take away all the suffering in the world, but at what cost? To do so, God has to take away our freedom of choice, in which case God would not be Love, but a Tyrant.

Religulous’ reference to Christianity being a copycat religion I well addressed in my post on the Zeitgeist film, and it would seem that Religulous did exactly the same type of ridiculously lame scholarship that Zeitgeist did. Then again, that’s what one would expect from Hollywood, isn’t it?
Religulous also addresses Faith and Maher describes it as follows: “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.” This is sadly, actually what most religions including the majority of Christianity does. This, of course, is not what Biblical faith involves as I explained in a recent post on "Faith". Maher praises doubt throughout the movie, saying: “Doubt is humble.” It is true in part. Admitting how little we know is humble. Not pretending to have all the answers is humble. But boasting doubt? It might be honest; I just don’t know whether it is humble.

I have a list of probably another ten points I can write about, but I think the above mentioned is enough.

To conclude, in general I liked Religulous for the simple reason that it asks some pertinent (and honest) questions. While there are some moments one could argue somewhat blasphemous, it was very clear to me that Maher actually have very high esteem for Jesus and much of his questions revolved around why Christianity are not like the "Christ" they profess. Much of the film, however, was based on the doubt of Maher (and assumingly also that of Larry Charles), and at times (deliberate?) misrepresentation of those involved. I cannot say that there was anything in this documentary that presented new questions, or facts to shake my trust in God. (It might shake one's faith in Religion, but that's nothing new -- my faith is not in Religion.)

In my opinion, a much better documentary on the topic of religious fundamentalism is CNN’s three part documentary God’s Warriors.

Comparative Religions

From one site to another, I stumbled onto this great chart that compares the main features of over 40 religions. From my quick perusal it actually looks quite objective. So far, I'm quite impressed. It would have been nice, however, if I could get it ordered according to worldview; for instance, all the pantheistic religions together, all the monotheistic religions together, etc. Nonetheless, it is still a handy chart for people like me with interest in comparative religious studies. Now this is something that I would enjoy teaching one day.

If you're not sure where you fit in, start by asking yourself what's your worldview: theistic, deistic, pantheistic, atheistic. What ever you do, don't go for the cop-out.

I used to be a pantheist (New Age). Now I'm a theist.

Religion vs. (Real) Christianity

In my one native tongue, the word “religion”, when translated directly into English, means “God-service”, i.e. serving God. If we were to ask a number of people to define religion I am certain several will say something along the lines of “rituals or systems for pleasing God.” The idea of religion being the act of “serving God” seems to be core to what we understand a religion to be. There is one exception though, and that is true Christianity. In real Christianity the focus is not on us serving God, but rather on God serving us.

Does the idea of God serving us, of God being our servant, bother you? That is a normal reaction. In this world the custom is for the weak to serve the powerful. The powerful seldom serve the weak.

Keep in mind that according to Christianity, Jesus is the Incarnation of God; in other words, Jesus is God in human form. Therefore, when we study the character of Jesus, we in fact have a case study of God’s character. What do we see when we look at the ministry of Jesus? Jesus served the people. Sometimes we think that Jesus did what He did merely as an example to us. While it is true that we can learn from Jesus’ example, that is not the reason He served the sad, the hungry, the lame, the blind, the sick and sin stained souls. He served them, because that is His character – that is God’s character.

On one peculiar occasion, Jesus started to wash the feet of his disciples (John 13). Washing someone’s feet was considered the job of the lowest servant. One of Jesus’ disciples, Peter, vehemently protested. “Lord, are you going to wash my feet? You will never wash my feet!” Jesus interrupted his tangent, explaining that if He doesn’t wash Peter’s feet, the disciple cannot be part of Him. Why? Because, accepting Jesus (i.e. accepting God), is accepting this inverted role of power: God serving us, not us serving Him.

To be a Christian is first and foremost not about us serving God, it is about accepting God’s service to us. Firstly by acknowledging God’s redemptive deed at the Cross (however we understand it); and secondly, by accepting God’s continual service to us even now. That is an essential principle of true Christianity. Flowing from this is a remarkable transformation. When we comprehend how a Being of such unfathomable magnitude and power could become our “servant”, we respond with active gratitude. Because God serves us, because God demonstrated such undeserved love to us, we want to respond in loving service back to God.

This is the difference between true Christianity and other religions that worship deities. Worshipping God, serving God, is never in an attempt to appease or influence God. It is always in response to God’s goodness toward us: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 8:5).

As Joyce Meyers like to say: Jesus did not die on the cross so that we could have a religion. He died on the cross so that we could have a relationship with Him.

5 Reasons People Give Up on Christianity and 5 Replies

Earlier this month, a friend sent me a link to a news article reporting on a presentation by Prof. Scott McKnight, a New Testament theologian at North Park University, Chicago. McKnight revealed the trend of numerous people leaving the Christian faith. This is something I’ve noticed amongst friends and acquaintances when I visited South Africa earlier this year as well. McKnight proposes five reasons why former Christians gave up on Christianity.

(1)

The first, he says, is the rigid doctrine of Biblical infallibility / inerrancy. When Christians actually start to read the Bible for themselves, instead of sitting back and waiting for their pastors and priests to do their reading and thinking for them, they are disillusioned when they find contradictions in the Bible. This shakes their faith and they abandon Christianity. I wrote a post on this called “Who Wrote the Bible?” on my blog, showing that there are in fact errors (contradictions) in the Bible, but that this does not lessen the inspirational quality of the Bible. Inspiration is not spirit-possession. When God inspired the Bible writers, God did not possess them like a spirit possesses a medium and literally “write through them”; nor did God always dictate. Rather, God inspired them with thoughts and they transformed these thoughts into words, using their own cultural paradigms, their own words, their own understanding. As one writer puts it: “The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.” Also, the Bible is not a handbook with principles clearly spelled out in bulleted points. Instead, it is a compilation of case studies. It is our responsibility to identify the principles in these case studies. One preacher I recently listened to explained it in similar terms: “The Bible is not a codebook; it’s a casebook.”

For my post on “Who Wrote the Bible?” you can go here.

(2)

The second reason McKnight believes so many people are leaving Christianity is because of the clash between faith and science. This is a sad turn of events, and not as clear cut as people would like us to believe. The pioneers of modern science saw no such dichotomy between faith and science. Isaac Newton, for instance, felt no need to give up his faith while pursuing scientific truth. There need be no “clash” between faith and science. Science, I believe, is the discovery of the marvel of God’s creation. I like how the little book Steps to Christ put it: “Nature and revelation alike testify of God’s love”; “Nature speaks to our senses without ceasing”; “The poet and naturalist have many things to say about nature, but it is the Christian who enjoys the beauty of the earth with the highest appreciation, because he recognizes his Father’s handiwork and perceives His love in flower and shrub and tree. No one can fully appreciate the significance of hill and vale, river and sea, who does not look upon them as an expression of God’s love to man.” While science and faith have areas of overlap, there are also areas where each is wholly in a sphere of its own. For instance, there is a limit to what science can say about God, in the same way there is a limit to what the art critic can say about the artist. While it is true that the artwork reveals somewhat of the artist, it only reveals a fraction. Science’s study of creation only reveals a fraction of the Creator.

(3)

McKnight’s third point for why so many people are leaving Christianity is the example of Christians; and he specifically refers to the sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in the USA. I think there are two points that need to be made here. Firstly, the Christianity itself teaches (or should I rather say, the Bible teaches) that the Church will become utterly corrupt. The Bible’s critique of the latter day church is much worse than ours. She is called Babylon: “fallen”, “the habitation of devils” and “foul spirits”, the “Mother of harlots and abominations of the Earth” (Revelation 18:2, 17:5). The Church’s degradation should in fact strengthen our faith in the validity of the Christian religion; while at the same time it should make us highly critical of the institutions (the “Church”). We are warned, thus, to think for ourselves, to be weary of the Church – even to “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Revelation 18:4). One need not be in a mainstream church to be a Christian. However, the Bible is clear that we ought to be part of a community of faith; there is thus room for “church”, but let’s be careful not to deify the church. The “church” is not the Christian goal – Jesus Christ is the goal.

This brings me to the second point I’d like to make here: The Church has never been intended to be the “example” for what a Christian is supposed to be. After all, the Church is a hospital for sick people (sick with sin) – it is not a little heaven-on-earth. The only example, the only true pattern for Christianity is the Christ, Jesus. No fallible man is to be our model, no fallible Christian our guide. Christ alone is the example for the Christian life. The moment you take your eyes of Jesus and start criticising the church, make sure that you make a clear distinction. The “Church”, is not the essence of Christianity.

(4)

The fourth point why many people are leaving the Christian faith is the (unbiblical idea) of Hell where God keeps souls alive so that He can torture them for ceaseless millennia for the sins they committed during their relatively short lives. This is, I believe, a sick doctrine rooted in pagan traditions and an honest and true study of Scripture shows that it is not Biblical.

I’ve written about this and related topics on my blog as well:

“The Shaky Pillars of Hell”

“I Don’t Have a Soul, I Am a Soul”

“Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop”

“The Hell of Heaven”


“The Comfort of Sleeping the Sleep of Death”

(5)

McKnight’s final point for why so many people are leaving the Church is the terrifying “God of the Bible”. According to McKnight the age old Question of Evil, is a prime reason for abandonment of faith. The dilemma goes something like this: If God is all-powerful, He cannot be Good, for the world would not have been so full of Evil. And if He is Good, He cannot be all-powerful, for then He would have done something about the Evil.

This argument is flawed, because God’s Goodness (or rather God’s Love) is not properly understood. The Bible is clear that God’s greatest priority is Love. In fact, the Bible says “…God is Love…” (1 John 4:16). For Love to exist there must be Freedom of Choice. For this very reason the Evil in this world should not be surprising. As I wrote in a previous update letter: “A requirement for Love is the freedom of choice. Forced love is an oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s molestation. Forced love is not love, it’s rape.” This is the reason why Evil can exist and at the same time God can be both Good and All-powerful, because Love so important that God refuses to take away people’s freedom of choice. If God did, then Love could not exist. Unfortunately, there is a price to pay – people are using their free choice, not to love, but to hurt, to pursue their own selfish desires.

I’ve written about God and this topic to some degree on my blog as well:

“God”

“Life and Death in a Nutshell”

“Christ vs. Church”

“Why I’ll Never Be a Pantheist Again”

“A Freewill Dilemma”

Another point I ought to make here, specifically with people reading the Bible and particularly their abhorrence of the God of the Old Testament, is that Christians have a reference for understanding Scripture. Jesus Christ is our example of who God is, and what God is like. “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son…” (Heb. 1:1,2a). There is a hierarchy of the revelation of God’s character – while the prophets in the Old Testament revealed some of it, it was the Son who has “the express image” of God (Heb 1:3), who said “if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” (Joh. 14:9), that showed us what God is really like. We understand therefore the Old Testament revelation of God filtered through the example of Jesus’ character.

Some Thoughts on Zeitgeist the Movie

Have you wondered about the claims Zeitgeist: The Movie makes regarding Christianity? If so, this post is for you.

More and more people are swept up by the whole Zeitgeist-movement, spurred on by the controversial Zeitgeist documentary movies. “Zeitgeist” is a German term literally meaning “time-ghost”, i.e. the spirit of the time. The time we are living in at present is called Postmodernism. Postmodernism is known for its subversion of grand narratives; in other words, Postmodernism questions and rebels against claims of authority and grand truths. For instance conventional science, conventional governmental regimes and major religious systems are all grand narratives that are challenged and undermined. Therefore, the name “Zeitgeist”, and its implied reference to the postmodern-zeitgeist in particular, is a very apt name for these films as the main function of these films are to question just such grand narratives: religion and government. The first Zeitgeist-film is divided into three parts. The first part, named “The Greatest Story Ever Told”, questions the legitimacy of all major world religions and continues to argue that all major religions are basically based on pagan sun-worship – Christianity included. The second part, called “All the World’s a Stage”, shows how the 9/11 catastrophe was actually an inside job masterminded not by terrorists outside of America, but by key players within the American governmental and economical institutions. The last section is called “Don’t Mind the Men Behind the Curtain” and proposes that all the major wars since the 20th century were actually instigated by “international bankers” who benefited tremendously from these wars. It also shows how these power-mongering “international bankers” created the Great Depression and by implication this includes this latest Global Economic Collapse we are facing at present as well.

Let me start by saying that these documentaries are very well crafted, and uses extremely persuasive cinematographic and rhetoric techniques. I will also concur that much of these conspiracy theories are grounded in fact. I agree that a great deal of what we understand to be modern Christianity is heavily blighted with pagan influences; that the 9/11 incident—specifically at Ground Zero—is very questionable, since the engineers that build the Twin Towers actually designed them to withstand being hit by airplanes and the buildings collapsed in practically the exact fashion that a controlled demolition would occur; and lastly, that the banks are really intend more on making profit than caring for the wellbeing of their customers, as any one that works in the banking industry can attest. However, I would like to consider for a moment the first part, regarding Christianity, and point out some obvious flaws in their argument, mostly due to really bad scholarship. Nevertheless, my argument will not be to try and redeem orthodox Christianity, since I believe that the maker of Zeitgeist does have a point. Christianity as it is practiced today is indeed heavily influenced with pagan ideas, including sun-worship ideologies.

A Summary of Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told

In short, “Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told” argues that most religious are based on pagan and sun-worship cults derived from astronomical facts and astrological mythologies. These are all basically telling the same narrative—the same “Greatest Story”. The aim of Part I is to prove that Christianity is essentially a conglomeration of pagan myths weaved into a Jewish-turned-Roman narrative. The following quotation by Thomas Paine is presented in the Zeitgeist movie: “The Christian religion is a parody on the Worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and give him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” To prove their hypothesis they present an interpretive reading of the Christian story from an astrological perspective and also point out similarities between Jesus Christ and other sun-god myths, for instance Horus, Krishna, Dionysus and Mithra. Similarities identified are the Virgin Birth, 25 December as the birth date, three kings or magi bringing tribute to the god-infant, the child-teacher, twelve disciples, death by crucifixion, a three day burial—descend into hell—and eventual resurrection, and the performing of miracles. These elements are explained as myths that describe astrological events; for instance, the twelve disciples depict the twelve months or zodiac signs; the Virgin Birth and birth date is basically the Winter Solstice at December 25 when the sun rises in the area of Virgo (the Virgin); the three Magi are the “Three Kings”, the three starts in Orion’s Belt, and so on.

These similarities are, indeed, quite clear. Orthodox Christianity does teach that Jesus was born from a virgin on December 25th, that there were three Kings or Magi that brought Him tribute, that he had twelve disciples, that He died by Crucifixion, that He descended into hell, and that He was raised from the dead after three days.

Orthodox Christianity versus Untainted Christianity

Unfortunately the reasoning of Peter Joseph (Zeitgeist’s writer, director, editor and producer) is flawed because he fails to make the distinction between Orthodox Christianity and Untainted Christianity. Allow me to explain the distinction. With “Orthodox Christianity” I mean Christianity as it has been practiced at large since the early Roman Church, including its various modern manifestations in most present day denominations, counting the Orthodox or Catholic Churches, as well as the protestant evangelical and charismatic movements. Orthodox Christianity is blighted with pagan ideas, rightly noted by the Zeitgeist creator. On the other hand, Untainted Christianity is not derived from pagan traditions and any similarities are purely coincidental, based on mythical universals (archetypes). With “Untainted Christianity” I mean Christianity as was manifested by the “Early” or “Apostolic Church”, in other words the type of Christianity that started directly after Jesus’ earthly ministry and developed under the leadership of His original followers. I call this type of Christianity “untainted” because it was not yet influenced by any outside pagan influences, as was the case with Christianity under the Roman rule. Pure Christianity is characterized by “Sola Scriptura”; i.e. solely Scripture, or the Bible alone. Some pockets of this type of Christianity have survived, or have been revived, but they are not common. Unfortunately, by far the greater majority of Christianity today is not Untainted Christianity. Many Orthodox Christian churches believe themselves to be based on Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone, but we know for a fact that they are not and this is something that the Zeitgeist movie reveals clearly. In this, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the few denominations that are honest about her hybrid character. The Roman Catholic Church makes it clear that she does not base her dogmas on Sola Scriptura, but instead, Catholic beliefs are a combination of Scripture and Tradition.

Much of what is believed to be Christian is actually pagan and not based on Scripture at all. Here are some examples: The Bible never states that Jesus was born on December 25th. We do not know from Scripture when Jesus was born. What we do know is that it would not have been during December (high winter in the northern hemisphere), because the story tells of shepherds with their sheep sleeping outside in the hills. During the winter months the shepherds and their flocks took shelter and would not have been outside, open to the elements. The Zeitgeist-producer is completely correct in saying that December 25 is a pagan holy-day and that it is the birth date of many of the sun deities. When Orthodox Christianity celebrates Christmas as a holy-day, they are doing so based on the traditions of paganism.

Let’s look at some other examples. Tradition has it that three Magi brought tribute to the baby Jesus. The Bible is completely silent about the number of Magi; for all we know they could have been 56 in number! Orthodox Christianity teaches that after Jesus’ death, He descended into Hell. This idea is also foreign to the Bible; it’s a completely pagan idea – indeed, part of a sun-deity myth where the sun-god descends into the Underworld to fight off the god of death or the god of winter, depending on the variation, and then rises again to bring light (or summer) back to the world. Another example would be the weekly worship on Sunday, named after the sun because this is the day whereupon sun-worshippers venerated the Sun-god. Christians that really follow the Bible should worship on the Sabbath, i.e. Saturday, as have been done by the Jews to this day and was the custom and example of Jesus.

(When people ask me what my religion is, or if I am a Christian, I sometimes find it quite difficult to answer them; their idea of “Christianity” and my idea of “Christianity” are worlds apart. I have not celebrated Christmas as a holy-day for many years now. I also worship the Creator-God on the seventh day Sabbath, instead of the typical pagan Sunday. Therefore, my religious or spiritual practices are quite foreign from what people would usually consider to be typical Christian practise; and they would be correct, I am not an Orthodox Christian. Nevertheless, I do consider myself to be a Christian as I believe that Jesus Christ is God-Incarnate, i.e. God in human form, and I do try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in their pure Sola Scriptura rendition, rather than as taught through church traditions derived from pagan religions. I also use sound philosophical reasoning, based on Biblical premises – for instance that God is Love, or God is the source of Life. Strangely, my attempt to practise a purer version of Christianity is considered sectarian, cultic of fanatical by mainstream Christianity.)

Similarity Claims and Terrible Scholarship

Having made this distinction between Orthodox and Untainted Christianity let’s continue to see why I say that the Peter Joseph made use of terrible scholarship.

Most of the similarities listed between Jesus and these other sun-god deities are just plain false. My conclusion has to be that Peter Joseph did not read the myths he assert are the basis for the “Jesus Myth”, conversely he did not read the Bible that recounts the story of Jesus. As mentioned earlier, it is claimed that the story of Jesus and these other deities share some of the following: Born on December 25th, from a virgin, three kings or magi venerated him, he was a child-teacher, was baptised at age 30, had twelve disciples, performed miracles, died by crucifixion, descended into hell, was resurrected on the third day, and ascended into heaven.

Let’s start by the similarity-claim between Jesus and Horus.

It is claimed that Horus was born on December 25 (not that this matters since Jesus was not born on that date), that he was born from a virgin by “immaculate conception”, that there was a star in the East signalling his birth, that he was adorned by three kings, that he was a teacher at 12, baptised at 30 and had 12 disciples.

Horus’s mother is Isis and his father is Osiris; however, before Osiris could father the child he is killed. Isis finds his body and with a magic spell brings him back to life just long enough to impregnate her and then he dies again. Another version has it that Osiris is chopped into pieces by his brother Set. Isis retrieves the pieces and puts Osiris back together again, but his penis is missing (it was eaten by fish), so she makes an artificial phallus, puts it on the mummy and has sex with it and Horus is the result. Peter Joseph says in Zeitgeist that Horus’s “immaculate conception” is “exactly like the story of Jesus’ miracle conception”. Well, you be the judge, not to mention that the phrase “immaculate conception” is wrongly used, as it used in Roman Catholicism to refer to Mary’s conception, not Jesus’ conception. Also, it is not Horus that is resurrected, as claimed by Peter Joseph, but Osiris. However, Osiris is resurrected as ruler of the Underworld. In other worlds, he is alive in the Realm of Death; meaning that he was never physically resurrected. This is nothing like the Resurrection account of Jesus.

As for Krishna, Peter Joseph says that he is born of a virgin, there was a star in the east, he performed miracles and he was resurrected.

Krishna was the eighth child of his mother Devaki and his father Vasudeva. Clearly not a virgin birth. Some accounts have it that Vasudeva impregnated his wife psychically, in which case there was no sexual contact. Still, Devaki was not a virgin. Interestingly, Krishna was born in July, which is probably closer to Jesus’ real birth date than December 25th. That Krishna performed miracles ought not to be thought significant as that is what one would expect of a deity. He was a child-teacher, true. I don’t know about the Star in the East.

Another supposed parallel to Jesus listed is Dionysus (or Bacchus). Supposedly he is also born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles, is called “King of Kings” and “Alpha and Omega” and is resurrected.

Dionysus was not born of a virgin. His mother Semele was impregnated by Zeus, one of many mortals with whom Zeus had intercourse. Neither was Dionysus resurrected – although he was “twice born”. When Zeus’s wife, Hera, found out of her husband’s infidelity she devised a plan to get Semele killed. Zeus rescued the foetus of Dionysus by implanting it into his thigh. Dionysus is later “born again” from his father’s thigh, full grown. This can hardly be called a resurrection as Dionysus never actually died. I can find no authentic appellation accounts of Dionysys as either “King of Kings” or “Alpha and Omega”. He was known among other things as “Ruler”, “twice born”, “the thunderer” and “liberator”. The latter refers to his ability to free his devotees from by making them go into ecstasy or go mad, or through the over consumption of wine. This is quite contrary to Jesus who actually made madmen sane.

Another supposed parallel is Mithra, the Persian sun-god and deity of Zoroastrianism. According to Joseph Peter Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was resurrected, is worshipped on Sunday and is known as the “Truth” and the “Light”. Mithra might have been born on December 25th, but that has no bearing on the real Jesus. Mithra was not born of a virgin. Actually, he was born of no one. He came fully grown out of a solid rock. Unless Joseph Peter’s consider the rock to be the “virgin”, this is clearly not a virgin-birth. There is no account of him having twelve disciples, apart from a depiction of him standing in the centre with six people at either side of him. This depiction dates well after Christianity developed, which may well indicate that the artist plagiarised Christianity, rather than Christianity copying from Mithraism. Also, there is no pre-Christian account of Mithra’s resurrection. As mentioned before, Sunday-worship is not authentically Christian and while it does incriminate Sunday observance by the majority of Christians today, it does not weaken the authenticity of Christianity in its Sola Scriptura form.

Asserting that the Judeo-Christian religious ideas are just plagiarized renditions from earlier pagan ideas are either proof of ignorance or of wilful deceit. The Judeo-Christian ideas about God are in essence nothing like any of the other religions of antiquity. For one, all the other religions involved pantheisms or polytheisms. The monotheistic idea of a single God, outside of creation, that created everything ex nihilo (out of nothing), is completely foreign to anything typically conceivable to early man. The monotheistic paradigm, which started within the Hebrew nation (Israelites), is a complete mystery when compared to any of the other ancient cultures from Judeo-Christian thought was supposed to have sprung. As I said, claiming that the Judeo-Christian religion is a spoof of earlier pagan ideas reveals either ignorance or deceitfulness. Either those claiming it have not done proper research, or they are wilfully lying to their audience.

The "Jesus Myth"

Peter Joseph clearly does not understand mythology and has probably never properly read ancient myths and compared them to the “Jesus Myth”. Take a typical mythological version of a virgin-birth, death and resurrection as an example:

The “virgin-birth” story of Attis goes something like this: Zeus (or Jupiter) dropped semen on Mount Agdistis, which then began to grow male and female attributes, including a phallus. The other Olympian gods were disgusted with Agdistis and cuts off its phallus and throws it away. There where the phallus landed an almond-tree grew and bore fruit. One day, Nana, the daughter of Sangarios River, passes by, picks an almond and lays it in her lap. The almond assimilates into her; the impregnation results in the birth of Attis. Abandoned by his mother, Attis is raised by a he-goat. Later in life, Attis is to mary the daughter of King Pessions. Agdistis (who is in effect Attis’ mother) in the form of Cybelle (the Mountain-Mother Goddess, or Earth Goddess, known as Gaia in Greek) wedding-crashes the ceremony. She has fallen in love with her offspring and is jealous of his relation with his bride-to-be. This causes Attis to go insane and cut off his genitals, or go into ecstasy and cut of his genitals – depending on the version. For some reason King Pessinons also castrates himself. Attis dies from his wounds, but Agdistis ensures his rebirth (resurrection?) in the form of an evergreen Pine Tree.

Compare this story with the Virgin-Birth, Death and Resurrection of Jesus and decide for yourself how striking the similarities are. Clearly, when reading the Jesus-story it lacks practically all mythological elements. Compared with the other myths, be it Egyptian or Greek, the Jesus-story is just plain too boring, lacks adequate archetypal imagery and is void of typical mythical elements to even come close to anything one would expect of proper mythology. Saying that the Jesus-story is a copycat of older myths or even saying that the Jesus-story is a mythological narrative screams of ignorance regarding mythological narratives.

Conclusion

Basically none of the similarity-claims made by Joseph resembles anything like the Jesus story. There are no real virgin-births and no real resurrections. The claim that most of these other sun-deities were crucified is also bogus. Besides, crucifixion as a means of execution was a Roman invention.

Peter Joseph continues to try and debunk the authenticity of Christianity (as a fairytale invented for political reasons) and of Jesus, but does so with very selective quotations and over all bad scholarship. Frankly, I have to wonder whether Peter Joseph did any proper research at all. The numerous sources listed at the end of the movie are dubious at best. Among them are Acharya S and D. M. Murdock (they are the same person), a controversial author of many “Jesus Myth”-books. Also Gerald Massey, a 19th century spiritualist poet (similar to William Blake). Another 19th century reference is John E. Rembsburg, who disbelieved the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, something that is doubted by very few scholars today. Most scholars of history believe that Jesus was a real historic figure, hence all the books about the “Historic Jesus”. They may not believe in his divinity, but they do not question his historicity.

As I said before, Peter Joseph is either ignorant or guilty of really bad scholarship. Alternatively, he is wilfully deceiving his audience.

There is so much more I can write about Part I of this film, but it hardly feels worth the effort. A superficial scratching at the surface of this section of the documentary, as I have done, reveals such uncomplimentary mistakes, and plain lies, that it is hard to take it serious at all.

I do, however, believe that some good can come out of Joseph’s faulty film. It will give those nominal Christians that do not really want to be part of their faith an excuse to leave it. Conversely, it will force the other Christians to re-examine what they believe and hopefully get rid of the pagan influences that have blighted Christianity for so long. Hopefully Zeitgeist will cause a revival for Sola Scriptura Untainted Christianity.

Fundamentalist Fanatical Extremists -- not all bad...

The terror attacks in Mumbai, India, considered the worst terror attacks since 9/11, has come to an end with Indian commandos killing the last three gunmen on Saturday. The terrorists were after Americans (or anyone that looked American, i.e. any Westerners) and Jews. But the range of foreigners that died also included Germans, Canadians, Israelis, British, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Australians and Singaporeans – 195 deceased not counting the killed terrorists.

Few people doubt the religious motivation behind such attacks by Islamic militants. It is for this very reason that critical dialogue about religions should not be stifled.

A while back fellow blogger, Adam, sent me a link to an article by Fox News about a UN resolution “intended to curtail speech that offends religion – particularly Islam”. This is a serious concern. When people are acting out in such terrible ways, and that in the name of their religion, how can we “curtail speech”? I’m not saying hate speech – but a spade needs to be called a spade. If a religious group acts in an aggressive and brutal way one shouldn’t be afraid of offending the sensibilities of skewed religious views.

I have been told that Islam is not a militant religion – these are just a small extremist section of the religion. I know some Muslims, so I’m not taking the stereotypical route of accusing all of Islam of being militant. That would not only be unfair, but not the truth. However, we cannot sugarcoat dangerous sectarian groups.

Still, one should be careful. It can be easy to call all sectarians groups (any religious group that is different from the mainstream) extremist and fanatical and mean it derogatorily. I really don’t think there is anything wrong with extremists and fanatics; as long as their extremist or fanatical behaviour doesn’t harm others. Take the Amish as an example. They would probably be labelled extremists or fanatics, but they don’t bother anybody and there Anabaptist background means that they practise non-resistance. In other words, they won’t turn into terrorists. So even if they are fundamentalist fanatical extremists – that’s okay. Fanaticism is not a danger to society in and of itself. In fact, it might even be a good thing: I’m sure the Amish are better at protecting the environment; they don’t consume much energy or add substantially to pollution; they are self-sustaining and therefore do not rely on government assistance like Social Security; they encourage family life and simple living (opposed to the overindulgence that caused the worldwide financial crisis), etc.

What's the world coming too?

You know the world is wacky when:

• the Pope embraces Martin Luther;
• Catholics take over from the Protestants to identify the current (RC) Church as the “Whore of Babylon” (This "traditional" Catholic website just blew my socks off: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/);
• Churches woo for members by opening up wine bars;
• and the latest fad is religious candy!
  

Types of --theisms

Fundamental worldviews are the first building blocks of any religion or ideology. A single fundamental worldview can be subdivided into different further types. For instance there are many types of theism. One can be a monotheist (the belief in a single Godhead) or polytheist (the belief in multiple gods).

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions. Many of the ancient religions were polytheistic. A modern day polytheistic religion is Shinto (the traditional Japanese religion).

Distinction is sometimes made between hard polytheism and soft polytheism. In hard polytheism the gods are quite distinct entities and can (and often do) engage in confrontation with each other. In soft polytheism the deities are rather different aspects of a single god/goddess that manifests in different entities.

Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish polytheism from pantheism. Depending on the tradition, Hinduism can be interpreted as polytheistic or pantheistic. I’m tempted to say that Hinduism is rather polytheist, while Buddhism is rather pantheistic. But then again, it depends on the tradition. (Some historical views of Buddhism sees it as atheistic!)

Similarly, the modern New Age movement is practiced as polytheism by some practitioners and as pantheism by other practitioners. (I probably journeyed from being a monotheist [cultural religion], to a polytheist New Ager, to a pantheist, back to a monotheist. But at least now I know my monotheistic views are personal and not due to my culture.)

In polytheism the deity/deities are more personal and/or individualistic entities. The pantheistic God is more abstract and impersonal.

In the [science] but not of the [science]...

For about a year I was part of a creativity project called Tracking Creative Creatures. The purpose of the project was to collect data on the creative process. I was invited to contribute as an artist, which entailed the creation of artworks inspired by predetermined stimuli. My contribution also had to include a log of the creative process as I experienced it.

As a scholar, I was also invited to make an academic contribution. An academic journal decided it will focus one full publication to this project. And so I made up my mind to write an article for this publication, on my own creative process while involved in the project. Being an academic journal a mere subjective vomiting of ideas would not be accepted. I therefore need a scientific model to give structure and credence to the article.

My instinctive thought was to use Semiotics – the study of signs. But after some thought the study of Memetics stood out as an excellent model to explore the creative process. Memetics basically study the propagation of ideas, known as memes, from mind to mind (in the same way as genes propagate from organism to organism) and their evolution. This models fits ideally with the Tracking Creative Creatures project.

The projects started with the imaginary creatures of a young boy who described them to his artist father who in turn made sketches of the creatures. These sketches were given to artists from different disciplines and asked to use the sketches as inspiration to create own artworks. The original memes, developed in the mind of a five year old boy, propagated through his father’s sketches to different artists, where they mutated and evolved. The memes competed for survival. The “strongest” ones were chosen by the artist and ended up as artworks. The “weaker” means went extinct.

As you can see, Memetics provides an excellent metaphor for studying the distribution and evolution of ideas as it occurs in the creative process.

And here is my dilemma. Memetics, inspired by Darwinism, is fundamentally an atheistic science, developed by two outspoken atheists (Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet), and used to promulgate Darwinian ideas, specifically for anti-religious means.

And here I am, a theist, sceptical of the supposedly infallible Theory of Evolution, wanting to use an evolutionary theory to explain my own study. Aren’t I being a hypocrite? I undeniably disagree with what Memetics stands for, specifically as it is used within evolutionary biology. Yet I wish to exploit it as a metaphor to discuss my own work.

We know that the Apostle Paul used the literature and philosophy of the day to appeal to his audience. But to what effect? Afterwards he complained that he will henceforth preach Jesus and the Cross only. I’m not sure if using the Apostle Paul as a case study is applicable to my dilemma. Paul was concerned with preaching the gospel. I’m trying to write a non-religious article concerning creativity and the transfer and development of ideas.

Jesus prayed that Christians should be in the world but not of the world. How am I to be in the science, but not of the science?

Agreeing with an atheist

I’m reading the book “The God Delusion” (2006) by famous (and somewhat self-acclaimed “aggressive”) atheist Richard Dawkins, known for his activism against religions.

I’m halfway through the book and must say that I am enjoying it. He makes some good arguments – but is yet to convert me. However, I am finding, as I have found in the past that I am agreeing with an awful lot of his atheistic standpoints. I have always said that if I had to believe in the kind of God that most atheists understand God to be, then I too would be an atheist.

Take for instance the following list of religious (Christian) beliefs Dawkins list (and by default disagree with) and with how little I agree with (or rather with how much I agree with Dawkins). My comments are in square-brackets.

• You will survive your own death. [If, by this, Dawkins means the innate immortality of the soul, I also disagree with the statement.]

• If you die a martyr, you will go to an especially wonderful part of paradise where you will enjoy seventy-two virgins (spare a thought for the unfortunate virgins). [Okay, not a Christian doctrine, but of Abrahamic religious origin. I do not believe in this. Whether God has pleasantries installed for martyrs I don’t know, but I disagree with the idea that militant “holy war”-martyrs is looked upon favourably by God. I disagree with the statement.]

• Belief in God is a supreme virtue. If you find your belief wavering, work hard at restoring it, and beg God to help your unbelief. [Belief, Hope and Love are listed as priority virtues. So I do agree with this statement. However, Dawkins’ understanding of “belief” and mine differ as we will see with the next point. But for the sake of arbitrariness let’s say agree fully with this statement.]

• Faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue. The more your beliefs defy the evidence, the more virtuous you are. Virtuoso believers who can manage to believe something really weird, unsupported and insupportable, in the teeth of evidence and reason, are especially highly rewarded. [My understanding, from the Bible, of what faith differs greatly from Dawkins understanding of the term. Faith, as I understand it, is “trust” and not blind-faith. I don’t think that God is an adherent supported of blind-faith. So I disagree with the statement.]

• Everybody, even those who do not hold religious beliefs, must respect them with a higher level of automatic and unquestioned respect than that accorded to other kinds of belief. [I think we should allow people their differences in opinion. We do not have to agree, but we can respect such differences and even engage in dialogue. So I only halfway disagree with this statement.

• There are some weird things (such as the Trinity, transubstantiation, incarnation) that we are not meant to understand. Don’t even try to understand one of these, for the attempt might destroy it. Learn how to gain fulfilment in calling it s mystery. [To start with, I do not belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation. Neither do I think we are barred from contemplating the other two, or similar, “mysteries” mentioned. Our musings over such concepts cannot destroy them, just as little as our musings over the number “0” can destroy this mysterious icon of “nothingness”. I mean, what is “nothing”. It is not something I can mentally grasp, yet mathematics claims it to exist. So, although I believe in the inspired concept of the incarnation, for instance, I disagree with the statement.]

Let’s for a moment remove the statement referring to Islamic-doctrine (the one about the martyrs and the seventy-two virgins), which will leave us with five archetypal Christian doctrines. I disagree with 3½ of the 5 statements. In other words, I agree with 70% of an avid atheist.

Where does that leave me? Clearly a heretic in the eyes of conventional Christendom! The interesting thing is that my reasons for agreeing with the atheist 70% of the time are not because of materialistic, Darwinian reasons, but because of my (Biblical) understanding of God’s character. Isn’t that ironic?!

God-spots

It seems that the search for the “God-Spot” is in the media again. Some weeks ago I stumbled across an article on the “God-Spot” and a few days ago someone send me a link to another article on the same topic.

The idea of a “God-Spot”, or cluster in the brain that is responsible for religious experiences is not new. I have read something about it already a couple of years ago. At that time a single spot in the brain was identified as the culprit behind encounters with the divine. This recent study disproves the previous, instead claiming that there are not a single God-Spot, but rather a bunch of God-Spots spread over various parts of the brain and interacting with each other during a religious experience.

It would seem that science can now explain the religious experiences of the devoted. (Much like a connoisseur can guess the ingredients in a dish of exquisite food.) And scientists are also quick to add that religious experiences are therefore nothing more than “misfirings” in the brains neurological pathways – similar to epilepsy.

They are also working towards artificially duplicating religious experiences chemically. The supposition, by some, is that if we can create religious feelings artificially then the Real McCoy must be fake too. What a strange supposition? I offer four examples to highlight the illogic in this way of thinking. (1) It’s like saying our ability to make artificial light disproves the validity of sunlight. (2) We have known for a long time now that all our emotions are seated in the brain, and caused by neuro-chemisty, but does that make love unreal. Just because I can explain love in chemical terms, does not mean that real Love, in a platonian sense, does not exist. (3) Explaining life as a biochemical phenomenon does not diminishes the wonder of Life. (4) Our understanding of mathematical laws and our harnessing of numbers did not make the logical validity of “1 + 1 = 2” any less true.

From an atheist-scientific model religious experiences must be seen as “misfirings”. Clearly one cannot interpret them to be real spiritual encounters, because the basic premise is that that there is no divine. Hence divine experiences cannot be caused by anything supernatural.

This shows again the problem with science trying to explain anything metaphysical. If the basic premise starts with the assumption that God does not exist, all researched conclusions have to leave a metaphysical impetus out of the equation.

The real problem is that one science is trying to give answers in another science. It’s like a mathematician trying to explain the richness of Shakespearean poetry. The mathematician plainly does not have the correct set of tools to do so. Mathematical laws cannot explain the aesthetics of good metaphor. Neither can a literary scholar truly extrapolate metaphoric value from a scientific equation. The two sciences should be appreciated within their own fields. There’s room for overlapping, of course. But one should tread softly where there be dragons.

However, science is proving now that a religious experience is a complex event, involving many parts of the brain – not just a single spot. A religious experience, like many other complex experiences cannot be shot off (excuse the pun) as misfirings, just as little as sentience can be diminished to “misfirings” or singled-out spots.