False Teachers

As my wife and I continue the enriching journey of spiritual rediscovery, we are finding that our beliefs are frequently changing and growing. Oftentimes these changes are exciting and comforting as they enlighten our understanding of the human condition and the hope we can have in spite of our world’s bleak fate. Other times these changes are scary and uncomfortable as they shift us away from some beliefs that we once thought of as highly important. 

It is these ladder changes that lead to a recent conversation with my wife. She expressed a fear of hers. She feared that we might lead people away from the truth by unwittingly teaching falsehoods. I could relate having wrestled with this fear various times in the past. Though interestingly, I no longer felt that same fear, and I knew why. 

There are two things I know for certain about my understanding of God. First, seeing that what is limited cannot fully comprehend what is unlimited, my understanding is incomplete. Second, seeing that God is goodness and my sin keeps me from knowing good from bad in every situation, my understanding is flawed. Furthermore, unless anyone should be without limit or be morally perfect, I assume that these two things are true about everyone’s understanding of God. 

The thing about an incomplete understanding is that you cannot know in what capacity your understanding is incomplete; same goes for a flawed understanding. Therefore, you can never be certain of the extent of the limits and flaws corrupting any lesson taught by a human. Furthermore, you cannot account for the effect of a student’s own limits and flaws on interpreting the message. In other words, there is no teaching about God without corruption through limited and flawed understanding. 

What then separates a false teacher from a righteous one? On these premises you could make a valid argument that there is no difference and then fully embrace agnosticism. Personally, I find little to no hope in doing that. What hope is there in a belief in God who is closed to relationship with His creation, not permitting an extent of Himself to be known and not correcting the misunderstandings of those who will accept correction? 

As many atheists like to ask, “What is the difference between a disengaged God and no God at all?” In asking this it is assumed that there is no good answer. I don’t have one, so I’m not about to argue with the point. 

There is, on the other hand, a hope to be found in an engaged God, and it is in such a God that I value hope for. What then separates a false teacher from righteous ones? Here are the traits I believe qualify a false teacher:

• Someone who teaches what they believe to be false as though they believed it to be true.

• Deceivers

• Someone who is willfully ignorant, refusing to question the validity of their beliefs; they do not recognize the limits and faults of their understanding and do not seek correction.

• Idolaters of limited and faulty understanding.

How this relates to me personally. I have been trusted as a Sunday school teacher in the Wesleyan church yet I have come to hold beliefs contrary to the beliefs of the Wesleyan church. For those who may be concerned by this, be assured, I recognize that Sunday school in this case is meant to be a time to teach/learn about the Wesleyan beliefs, not a time to teach my personal beliefs. 

I have no issue teaching the Wesleyan beliefs so long as I have the freedom to make known when I disagree, of course without going into details about my personal beliefs in class. Should I teach on a Wesleyan belief that I don’t necessarily believe, I will teach saying, “Though I personally disagree with the Wesleyan church on this point, traditionally in the Wesleyan church it is believed that…” meanwhile reserving my own opinion for time not dedicated to the study of the Wesleyan beliefs.

If anyone would like to suggest a different approach to how I should handle my teaching situation I would be happy to discuss it. Thank you all for your contributions. 

Systemic Racism

The term “systemic racism” has caused a lot of controversy as of late, and honestly I was not sure what to do with it for a while. However, after much research and conversations with my incredible wife, this is the understanding I have come to hold. I want to share it as a point of discussion. Perhaps it is flawed or can be improved. So please feel free to contribute to the conversation. 

There are two kinds of systemic racism in my opinion. 

There are systems produced by racists to target people of color. For example, red lining, a system built to intentionally target black people to prevent them from being able to get home loans and government subsidies. I think that most people can agree that this is a racist system.

However there is another type of systemic racism. One that Is less understood and thus is causing the conflict. The best way my wife and I can describe it is using an analogy she came up with. Namely, just as a system which produces hamburgers is a hamburger system, so too is a system which produces racism a racist system. 

The United States has done a good job removing the fist kind of systemic racism; red lining among other things is now illegal. However the effects of those systems have made black people disproportionately susceptible to impoverished situations, which brings them up against other systems that are rigged against poor people; systems which hurt movement between income brackets. 

These systems may not have been built to target black people, however, combined with the aftermath of past systemic racism, they have helped to make the face of poverty a black face. 

Someone near and dear to me once said that they are more wary of black people, not because they are racist, but because it is just factual that black people are more proportionately impoverished and thus more likely to do something desperate. 

Though this person does not consider themselves to be racist, because they don’t believe black people are inferior racially, just more financially unfortunate, they still exhibit racist tendencies. Others will look at the disproportionate amount of people of color in poverty and draw implicit or explicit racist conclusions of superiority. 

These tendencies manifest in implicit bias’, people with ethnic sounding names not getting job call backs, people of color not being trusted, people of color being assumed to be unsafe, (feel free to add to the list in the comments) and so on. 

Therefore, because past systemic racism has made people of color disproportionately affected by other systems of inequity, making the face of poverty a black face, thereby producing racism in the population at large. These systems are systemically racist and we need to acknowledge our bias’, and work together to dismantle them, eliminating the racism that has infected our world.

So let's discuss solutions to these issues in the comments.

The Legitimate Points of Rhett McLaghlin

On Monday 2/3/2020, Rhett and Link released the most recent podcast episode in a series where they break down their spiritual journeys. I listened to it and would highly recommend anyone do the same. Though make sure you start with the first episode entitled “Our Lost Years” (you can find a link at the bottom of this post). Fair warning, this series of podcasts may shake your beliefs, but if you intend to make an informed decision about God then you owe it to yourself, and anyone you try to share the Gospel with, to listen to this. Yesterday, today is 2/4/2020, was Rhett’s story and Next Monday is Link’s story, which I look forward to. 

I’m going to be straight with you all, my story is a lot like Rhett’s. I’ve asked the same questions and suffered through the same crises. I relate to Rhett’s story a lot, and in yesterday’s episode, Rhett presented the most respectful, rational, honest, and valid list of reasons I have ever heard to not be a Christian. I agree with him on every point, and yet, there are a few key differences between his story and mine that are why I remain a Chistian. No, I am not better than him because of this. My reasons are no more or less valid than his. They are just different. Whether my reasons for remaining a Christian are better than his reasons for leaving is a matter up for each person to decide for themselves, but this blog post is not about that. This blog post is going to be less a criticism of Rhett’s story and more of a criticism of modern Christianity in light of the very legitimate criticisms Rhett has brought to the table. 

Let me start by posing this question to all of my Christian readers. Is it possible for a limited and flawed human being, to have a complete and flawless understanding of an unlimited and flawless God? I suspect that most would be inclined to answer “no”, if not, I’m not sure anything I have to say will mean anything to you. If you answered “no”, then that would mean that you recognize a difference between God as you understand Him and God as He actually is. This means that there will come a time when you stand before God and find that He is not exactly who you expected Him to be. 

You may be more correct than others were, but you will still be faced with the fact that you were wrong to some extent. I have no way of knowing how this will be resolved, but I imagine God will know whether you truly desire Him as your Lord or if you prefer the idol of your limited and faulty understanding.

Let me pose you another question. What then makes you any different then the non-Christians who will find themselves standing before a God they do not know? If your answer is that you accepted Jesus and your Lord and Savior and they didn’t, read my first question again but this time replace the word God with the name Jesus. He remains the only way to life, the only truth, but suddenly humanity is on a more level playing field; there is truly not one who is fully correct and fully faultless, whether you are a Chistian or not.

These questions reveal a lot. However, I want to focus on the point that there is no one with a complete and faultless understanding of God; you and I, and everyone else, is wrong about God to some extent, unless there is no God, in which case only the atheists are right. Pair this with my first blog post in the “Exploring 50 reasons to be an atheist” series, my “The Value of Meaning” post, and every point Rhett makes, and suddenly it becomes clear that certainty in anything is not a luxury allotted to human beings. 

Therefore, let us stop requiring Christians to assert that they are 100% certain in what they believe. Jesus, did not require 100% certainty of any of His disciples prior to entering a relationship with them. In fact, Jesus seemed less concerned with the certainty of his disciples and more concerned with their confidence. Furthermore, He was well aware that neither certainty nor confidence are a binary thing but each exists on a spectrum, hence His regular referral to “little faith” or mustard seed size faith; faith being synonymous with confidence, as it is the confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11:1).

It is not a sin nor is it wrong in any way to have little faith/confidence. So let us stop acting like it is. From personal experience, I’m not even sure “big” faith is something we are all meant to have. Lately I’ve gotten the feeling that the main reason God has not been obvious with me about His existence is because of the burden He has placed on my heart for all of the people who wrestle with the fact that they lack certainty. If I never had to wrestle with lacking solid evidence then I might not have been able to truly hear and understand where the atheists and agnostics are coming from. 

Much like Rhett, I have exchanged my attempts to be certain for my desire to have hope. However, unlike Rhett, in spite of all of the Holy Bible’s flaws, I still find that its narrative, brings a more appealing Hope than I have found anywhere else. Granted, my take on the Holy Bible is not widely agreed upon, as you will learn should you follow my blog. There are many understandings of Christianity that present a hope that I do not find appealing, some even, like some mentioned by Rhett, that I find appalling. So I cannot blame people for rejecting Christianity. Furthermore, I still have yet to address the 475 contradictions in the Bible.This blog is mutually my effort to seek a greater Hope than what I have, and an effort to offer the hope I have to anyone who needs it. So we will see how my stance changes as I take that journey. 

As you can imagine, researching 475 contradictions takes a lot of time and effort, and presently I can only give what little freetime I have toward conducting it. If you have found my blog to be valuable, please consider buying me more time to work on this by supporting me on Patreon (follow the link at the top of the page). If things start picking up I may even be able to start offering additional rewards to those who choose to support me. Regardless of if you can give or not, thank you for supporting me by reading, sharing, and providing pushback/feedback. 

The Earbiscuts Youtube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYCgz-MiNE4

EarBiscuts on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3j9nu2qpJrUxEXp5qMudM7 

Pointless Hot Topic Issues: Debates that will only ever be a waste of time

Once upon a debate, I came to the realization that debating certain popular topics was often a pointless endeavor. I have known this for some time but it was not until recently that I finally developed an effective way of explaining why debating these topics is just a waste of everyone’s time.

I had just gotten in touch with an atheist to address a question he had asked broadly to theists. We had a pleasant conversation which lead to him asking for my thoughts on another post of his. 

The post merely asked if humans are moral by nature or if our morality is to be attributed to religion. He made the claim that if it is natural, then that would mean religions are falsely atributting natural moral progress to their religious influence.

The trouble with asking, “which is correct” with regards to this question of ethical development, is that both positions are completely valid with respect to their fundamental worldview. 

If God does not exist then all moral development can be attributed to human development. 

Furthermore, if God does exist then, speaking specifically from the Christian worldview, perfect ethics has its roots in the ethics defined by God in the time before humanity's rebellion.

So what we have is a debate between two positions where the validity of each position is based upon what position you take on a related topic; namely whether or not you take the position of God existing. Even worse, the validity of which position you take regarding the related topic is rooted in the position you take in yet another related topic; namely is God’s existence possible. 

The resulting debate is an unproductive tennis match between two people who think they are winning over their opponent when in reality neither agrees upon how the game is supposed to be played in the first place. 

Therefore, if someone takes a different position than you on a topic, do not debate them on the matter unless you can first both agree on all of the same determining points. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time, or worse, deafening the ears of your opponent to any sensible thing you may have to say in the future.

This same principle applies to just about every hot topic issue.

If God does not exist, then evolution is a given with regards to explaining how life began. 

If God does exist, then evolution is not necessary to explain how life began, though it may or may not still be an active part of the how biological life works. 

If God does not exist then the ethics of abortion are a matter of personal opinion or some manner of evolutionary ethical progress.

If God does exist, and if He dictates that unborn life is of equal value to that of the mother’s life, then abortion may be considered on par with murder. 

If God does not exist, then the ethics of LGBTQ topics are a matter of personal opinion or some manner of evolutionary ethical progress. 

If God does exist, and if He dictates that the LGBTQ movement is harmful to humanity, then the LGBTQ moevment should probably be opposed. 

If God does not exist, then the Holy Bible is full of crazy impossible myths, and should never be taken seriously. 

If God does exist, then the Holy Bible is full of very possible events that could be a part of our history and essential to how we prepare for the future. 

If God does not exist, whether global warming is a hoax or not depends on how you interpret the evidence and scientific findings. 

If God does exist, whether global warming is a hoax or not still depends on how you interpret the evidence and scientific findings. Please reserve church pulpits for topics pertaining to God and salvation so as not to drive people away from God with unrelated opinions. Also, God’s promise not to flood the whole earth again does not protect us from human caused flooding, nor would global warming result in the “whole” earth being flooded.

If the evidence for global warming is true, then global warming is a serious issue that we should take action to prevent. 

If the evidence for global warming has been manipulated, then the consequences of abusing the environment may not be as dire as claims suggest. Regardless, taking care of our environment improves the quality of life for people present and people in the future. So we ought to take care of the environment as a way to love our neighbors. The fact that the world is going to end someday does not mean we shouldn’t bother doing good by others.  

Both sides of each above topic is completely valid with respect to the position taken on the determining topics (the determining topic in this case being the existence of God). Unless you first agree with someone on all root points preceding a topic, do not waste your time and hurt your rapport by debating it.