Christians are Confused about Afterlife

I attended a funeral at a catholic church earlier. I made many observations, but the one that resonated the most wasn’t particular to Catholicism.

The priest spoke about how the deceased will spend eternity in heaven, but twice he also mentioned the resurrection of the dead at the end of days. Protestants as well as Catholics generally go without critically examining the incompatibility of these two views. If the dead spend forever in heaven, how can they be resurrected on the last day?

This is part of  popular Christianity’s general neglect for trying to understand the end times (eschatology).

Christians embrace heaven with a lot more fervor than the resurrection on the last day, so my impression is that they would interpret away the resurrection of the dead here on earth in order to embrace spending eternity in heaven. The only problem is that scripture refers to resurrection of the saved on the last day often.

he who is eating my flesh, and is drinking my blood, hath life age-during, and I will raise him up in the last day;
John 6:54

John 6:39-40, John 6:44, John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15, Revelation 20:4-6, and others all refer to the resurrection of the dead (of both the saved and unsaved). The resurrected dead appear on earth in Revelation 20, and by the next chapter new Jerusalem, a place where there are no sorrow or pain or death, where God resides with men, appears. This is the kind of place Christians typically describe heaven, but a new earth has just been made, and this new Jerusalem comes down (onto earth) from God out of heaven.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth did pass away, and the sea is not any more;

and I, John, saw the holy city -- new Jerusalem -- coming down from God out of the heaven, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband;

and I heard a great voice out of the heaven, saying, `Lo, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and He will tabernacle with them, and they shall be His peoples, and God Himself shall be with them -- their God,

and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes, and the death shall not be any more, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor shall there be any more pain, because the first things did go away.'
Revelation 21:1-4

It is not so obvious that the writers of the New Testament expected to live out eternity in heaven, rather than an unearthly paradise.

Christians today would say that it is complicated and confusing, and they’d be right. It is difficult to understand what these people 2000 years ago believed, to enter into their worldview, to understand the language they used. But something being complicated and confusing should not result in falling into the default position that heaven, not earth, is the eternal paradise for the saved. Christians, whether protestant or catholic, ought to pursue a clearer understanding of what their leaders believed, or else confess ignorance and not have strong beliefs about where they’re going when they die.

 

Technorati Tags: Christians going to heaven or earth,New Jerusalem on earth for eternity,Resurrection of the dead or heaven,Everlasting paradise on earth or heaven,Eschatology of heaven or earth,death and resurrection in Christianity

Genesis Cultural Mandate Vs. Environmentalism

I cannot find any scripture which refers to environmentalist ethics nor any scripture which implies environmentalist ethics. Of course, it is possible that mankind simply didn’t have the capability of violating this ethic, and so it was never mentioned. But the only verse that I’ve seen people attempt to leverage into an environmentalist ethic is exactly the opposite, it is a command to violate the environmental ethic. It is what is known as the cultural mandate he gave Adam and Eve, and later gave Noah:

And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.'
Genesis 1:28

Every translation uses the word “subdue” to describe what God commanded Adam and Eve. The word does not give the same impression as words like “oversee” or “steward”. Subdue gives the impression of control; it sounds like he was telling Adam and Eve to populate the earth and develop it. It doesn’t sound like a mandate to preserve the environment, but exactly the opposite, to change it.

A lot of the difference in how we can interpret the passage comes from how we understand this word, “subdue”. It helps to look at other contexts in which the Hebrew word appears.

”also them did king David sanctify to Jehovah, with the silver and the gold which he sanctified of all the nations which he subdued”
2 Samuel 8:11

“and now, as the flesh of our brethren is our flesh, as their sons are our sons, and lo, we are subduing our sons and our daughters for servants, and there are of our daughters subdued, and our hand hath no might, and our fields and our vineyards are to others.”
Nehemiah 5:5

And the king hath turned back out of the garden of the house unto the house of the banquet of wine, and Haman is falling on the couch on which Esther is, and the king saith, 'Also to subdue the queen with me in the house?' the word hath gone out from the mouth of the king, and the face of Haman they have covered.
Esther 7:8

I can’t find any passage in a Hebrew Concordance where subdue means anything like “oversee”, but exactly the opposite. When men subdue each other, it means to bring them into bondage. When God subdues something, he brings it under his control, to be used for his purposes.

What could God be commanding us to oversee anyway? Nature does not do anything unnatural, so there would be nothing to take care of. The only thing he could be saying is to protect nature from other people who want to violate it (subdue it). This would make sense if God weren’t giving a general command for all of mankind. If he were talking to Jews and telling them to protect the land from the non-Jews who want to violate it, then that makes sense. But in both mandates; the one he gave to Adam and Eve and the one he gave to Noah, he’s talking to all of humanity.

Simply put, the environmentalist ethic wants to switch around the order of creation. It wants man to be made for the earth, not the earth made for man. One might say that the earth was made first, and therefore man was made for the earth. But one can just as easily say that God was just preparing the earth ahead of time for man.

A lot of dispute comes from the common mistake of confusing descriptions with principles. What one person calls “destroying” another person calls “developing”. The two words mean exactly the same thing objectively. They two words describe in ways that lets each person sound like they’re applying some sort of moral principle. Because people are unwilling to let go of their moral principles, the debate easily devolves into dogmatic table pounding. It is not unethical to transform the earth simply because you describe it as destroying, or vice versa. It’s just a way of manipulating language to sound that way.

A lot of the dispute also comes from idealistic versions of what nature is; a sort of Pocahontas / Avatar interpretation of nature. This kind of talk is very cheap. It is cheap to think about nature as a loving caring mother rather than the reality that she’s an abusive parent. “Nature is red in tooth and claw” is an apt description given by Alfred Tennyson. This talk gets a lot more expensive when people actually have to live that way. Few are willing to live the kind of toil-filled and luxury-less life that would be needed to live naturally. Moreover, it is impossible to “fill the whole earth” with the “knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the sea”. Ask any economist, over the centuries the population was strictly limited by a lack of economic growth. The first fruits of economic growth was consumed by sustaining a higher population. This economic growth came from radically transforming our environment. Without making radical changes to the environment, mankind is limited to few in number who live in harsh poverty.

Some people cannot accept this because it doesn’t make sense to them that God would put mankind in such an unsuitable environment. There are two acknowledgements that need to made to make sense of this. The first is that the good life was always meant to have work. Work is not wrong or evil or bad. In a perfect world, there is work. And second, natural evil was not original in creation. Natural evil was introduced by God as a response to moral evil (why? See my post on Job and natural evil). Once we understand that work is part of the good life, and natural evil was not original in creation, then it starts making sense that mankind should work to relieve itself of natural evil.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t kinds of ways that we shouldn’t transform the earth. There is no quantitative limitation where it becomes unethical to transform the earth. There is no point at which we say it’s okay to farm but its not okay to mine. Or it’s okay to mine, but its not okay to mine depletable resources. Or it’s okay to mine depletable resources, but not too much (more than one arbitrarily asserts). But there remains a qualitative moral limitation on how we transform nature. Maybe we shouldn’t transform the earth to build weapons and kill each other. Maybe we should care about how animals are treated and how long they live if they’re being raised for food. Maybe we shouldn’t transform the earth in such a way that it pollutes the air of others. There are all kinds of qualitative limitations. And if one wants to call those qualitative limitations “environmentalism” then that fits with the cultural mandate. But the word is typically used to put some sort of quantitative restriction on how many trees can be chopped down before good becomes evil.

This distinction between qualitative and quantitative limitations on transforming the environment is another source of confusion. It is easy for an environmentalist to think that if there is no quantitative limitation on the environment, then we can kill puppies and detonate nuclear bombs. No no no! There are absolutely bad ways to transform the earth. But there is no “too much” transformation.

Scripture describes the paradise from which mankind came as a garden. But it describes the paradise for which mankind is to work toward, as a kingdom. That ought to be the mindset that is taken out of scripture.

 

Technorati Tags: Christian environmentalism,Christian nature,biblical environmentalism,The cultural mandate,the creation mandate,Adam and Eve nature,the bible on the environment,adam and eve stewards of the earth,preserve nature,preserve the environment

Is Marriage about Compatibility or Ability?

Last July I celebrated my first wedding anniversary. I suppose I’m still newly married, so my short experience with marriage hardly qualifies me from deep anecdotal considerations. Still, I think about marriage a lot apart from my own experience. And I think there is at least one insight that is largely unrecognized.

Many, I believe, rely on a compatibility model of marriage; if two people are compatible they will be happily married and stay that way. This model sees marriages like an assortment of different shaped blocks and holes. If we match the right block to the right hole, then we win and the marriage works (that analogy ended up unintentionally dirty).

I think modern culture has embraced this model for the most part. It is widespread in popular movies, where a sister or friend consoles they’re loved one after a break up or divorce by saying, “you just have to find the right one”, or “there are other fish in the sea”. The dating scene is all about matching personality types accurately. Dating websites advertise that they cypher through data and match people that they’re most likely to be compatible with. In a more radical form, some have actually opted into the idea that there is actually 1 single person on the planet who is just right. This is a hyper-compatibility model.

I don’t think the compatibility model is false. It is true to some extent, some pairs of people work better than others. But it’s over appreciated in lieu of an ability model. Some people just don't make good spouses.

Marriage success is about ability more than it is about matching compatibility. Part of this ability overlaps with other relationship abilities that we have with friends or family. So if one has trouble keeping friends, or gets into family feuds regularly, that person has demonstrated a lack of abilities that contribute to making a marriage work.

Other parts of marriage abilities don’t overlap so well with other relationship abilities. Marriage is a unique relationship in a lot of ways. But it is still a relationship that depends on abilities that some people are better able than others. Perpetual reassurances of love and affection are not really required in most relationships. But marriages are more likely to need them in order to be fruitful.

Many of these abilities that are required in being a good spouse are internal virtues, others are external actions (skills). The internal virtue of patience prevents conflicts, while conflict resolution is an external undertaking. It’s a skill that good managers learn to develop, and it’s a skill that good spouses should learn to develop. Virtues like diligence keep the house in order. Humility keeps your spouse from becoming antagonized. Selflessness nurtures reciprocal care. The character of a person is going to make that person fail or succeed as a spouse. It also helps to develop skills like making others laugh. Or being a good cleaner. Or making oneself more attractive.

These are abilities that some are naturally talented at, but everyone can become better at. But why does it go so unrecognized? Two answers come to mind. One is that it’s hard. It places a burden on individuals that they would rather go without. Another answer is that it’s not very nice. It means that people who haven’t been successful aren’t just different, but actually not very good at this. Often there is higher demand for pleasant lies than harsh truths.

If the compatibility model were true, I would expect marriages to be more successful than ever. Individuals have a much broader sample of possible spouses to choose from, so I would expect that this would lead to better fits. Imagine you have one specifically shaped block (a circular shape) and your trying to find a hole it best fits in. In the past you had a limited selection of holes, some more circular than others, but you will find a less circular shape than if you have a very broad selection of holes. Because of communication, transportation, and filtering (dating sites / dating scene) developments, we should be more able to find the person who best fits us. But people are still having serious trouble making their romantic relationships work, and divorce rates are very high compared to historic standards.

So in order to have an awesome relationship and marriage, be an awesome person, and find an awesome person to be with.

 

Technorati Tags: Relationship compatibility,How important is finding the right match to a relationship,Relationship ability,How to make relationships work,How to be an awesome spouse,Relationship compatibility overrated

Blog Links (“Blinks” if you will) August 4th, 2013

• Two posts by Matthew Yglesias. First: the Case for doing Nothing about Syria. Second: Syria and the Price of Oil. Markets responded to rumors of war by sending oil prices up. This indicates that this war create oil scarcity, not oil abundance.
  
• Owen Anderson warns against separating Martin Luther King’s civil rights work from its foundations. “To strip MLK's work of these features and then try to apply it to the trendy issues of the day would be to both demean and trivialize what he did and believed.”
  
• Quora Answers:
  
  What is a good lay explanation of Comparative Advantage? Alex Tabbarok answers
  
• Barack Obama said,
  
  “Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Bashar Al-Assad. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.… The world, and the Syrian people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Assad poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”
  
  No wait, he said that about Saddam Hussein long ago 
  
• John Kerry said,
  
  ”Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein have used these weapons in time of war”
  
  David Friedman points out that if Kerry meant poison gas, Woodrow Wilson would also be on that list. But if he meant Sarin gas in particular, Hitler and that Nazis never used it.
  
  Associating Assad with Hitler is one of the most ridiculous comparisons ever. Syria is not Nazi Germany, and Assad is not Hitler. But, these kinds of juvenile rhetorical ploys is exactly how the United States government talks itself into war over and over again.
  
• Owen Anderson writes another post on his future as a Research Associate at Princeton, where he will be studying the original American Ideals as stated in the Declaration of Independence. One  segment of his post stuck out to me, not because it is an idea I haven’t heard, but because its so well articulated,
  
  ”If nothing is self-evident then we are either lost in an infinite regress of proofs or we get tangled in a loop of circular reasoning.”

And a picture of a Booshie

Technorati Tags: Should we go to war with Syria,John Kerry on Syria,Matthew Yglesias on Syria,Barack Obama on Assad and Hussein,How to explain comparative advantage,Owen Anderson at Princeton,Martin Luthor Kings philosophical foundation

What does the Book of Job say about the Purpose of Natural Evil?

There is a popular view in theism that extrinsic suffering from natural evil is punitive; it is God’s punishment for sin. This view has been around for a long time. Job’s comforters affirmed that view when they told Job that he must be the worst person in the world since he was suffering so much. Today, I sometimes hear of Christians who claim tornados and hurricanes, or disease, or famines are God’s punishment for unbelief. The third world is being punished rather severely for not being good church-going evangelicals. I guess they should have read the bible they don’t have access to.

After Job’s comforters are done, Elihu enters the scene. Elihu, “became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. He was also angry with the three friends, because they had found no way to refute Job, and yet had condemned him.” (Job 32:2-3). Elihu sat in the background for quite some time, figuring that that those who are older than him should speak. But eventually he decides to speak up, because it is not only the old who are wise, and that it is the spirit in a person, the breath of the almighty that gives understanding.

I gave you my full attention.
But not one of you has proved Job wrong;
none of you has answered his arguments.
Do not say, ‘We have found wisdom;
let God, not a man, refute him.’
But Job has not marshaled his words against me,
and I will not answer him with your arguments.
(Job 32:12-14)

Elihu did not find any of their arguments sound. The purpose of natural evil is not punitive. Rain falls on the just and on the unjust. There doesn’t seem to be a correlation between corruption and natural evil. Anvils are not falling an Hue Hefner’s head. Those televangelists on TV who promise that the more you give to their church, the more God is going to bless you with 10x your wealth are full of crap. Elihu offers a different explanation,

“Or someone may be chastened on a bed of pain
with constant distress in their bones,
so that their body finds food repulsive
and their soul loathes the choicest meal.
Their flesh wastes away to nothing,
and their bones, once hidden, now stick out.
They draw near to the pit,
and their life to the messengers of death.^[c]
Yet if there is an angel at their side,
a messenger, one out of a thousand,
sent to tell them how to be upright,
and he is gracious to that person and says to God,
‘Spare them from going down to the pit;
I have found a ransom for them—
let their flesh be renewed like a child’s;
let them be restored as in the days of their youth’—
then that person can pray to God and find favor with him,
they will see God’s face and shout for joy;
he will restore them to full well-being.
And they will go to others and say,
‘I have sinned, I have perverted what is right,
but I did not get what I deserved.
God has delivered me from going down to the pit,
and I shall live to enjoy the light of life.’

God does all these things to a person—
twice, even three times—
to turn them back from the pit,
that the light of life may shine on them.
(Job 33:19-30)

Natural evil is redemptive, not punitive according to Elihu. It is to turn them back from the pit. It’s a call to stop and think. It interrupts our thoughtless lives with a warning. Is there any other way? Elihu says no,

People cry out under a load of oppression;
they plead for relief from the arm of the powerful.
But no one says, ‘Where is God my Maker,
who gives songs in the night,
who teaches us more than he teaches the beasts of the earth
and makes us wiser than the birds in the sky?’
(Job 35:9-11)

How would people react to a world without natural evil? Would they stop to consider God? To contemplate his creation or their role in it? Without this call to stop and think, would man give pause from their regular activities? No one says, where is my maker, who gives songs in the night.

Also consider through introspection and observation how people respond to natural evil. Do people stop to think in response of the loss of a loved one? Do they give pause at the thought that children are starving in Africa? Or at the thought that a cheetah tears apart a gazelle without regard for the pain?

Don’t parents assume this is a just course of action every time they punish their child so that they might think about what they’ve done?

The severity of natural evil can be accounted for in so far as moral evil is serious. Stopping to think is the first step toward the purging of moral evil. I don’t think many (any?) would take this first step if we lived painless lives.

 

Technorati Tags: What does Job teach about evil,Why did Job suffer,Why does god let people suffer,Why is there pain,Can God prevent pain,Pain is a call to think,Reason for natural evil,The bible on natural evil