Sounds like hippie nonsense right? Maybe they were onto something…

Richard Dawkins just made me believe in God a little more.

And no, it wasn’t some ill-formed argument that showed the absurdity of atheism. I was poking around his blog, reading some of his articles (particularly his blasting of Ben Stein’s creationism-defense documentary, Expelled), and I also read the available excerpts from his popular works The God Delusion and Unweaving the Rainbow.

He helped me answer yet another question that has bugged me over the years: Is belief in the supernatural just an attempt to fill in the gaps where our understanding of physics fails us?

For example, let’s say you get your car stuck in a ditch, and instead of calling Triple A, you catch a ride home, go to sleep, and pray that God will have teleported the car into your garage by the time you wake up. Most of us would lower our heads in shame upon hearing that any human would take such an absurd approach to solving their problems.

But for some reason, when we are dealing with things that are out of our perception–say, that a soldier might come home or that a disease might be cured, the more likely we are to believe that prayer will work.
As for the car in the ditch, we would find such a request absurd because we know how unlikely this event is to happen spontaneously on its own. But if you lower the scale to something where we cannot witness the violation to physics that has taken place, or if there is already a chance that the desired result is already in progress, we don’t find prayer crazy at all.

Case in point: if you ask God to, say, instantaneously cure you of the flu, what you are asking is equally absurd. If we were bacteria, living in the microscopic world, and our territory was completely overrun by the influenza virus, we would know that there is a natural order to things. The culture of organisms, after its first inception, will simply follow its instinct to reproduce. There will be a growth phase, resisted by NK cells but only to an extent, until it reaches peak production, then a plateau where the amount of viruses dying and reproducing are equal, then, once the antibodies of the body’s immune cells react with the virus and piece together an appropriate response, and as the messenger cells transfer the information to the cytotoxic T-cells and all the other members of the family, the death phase begins and the virus slowly dies off, the virii stop reproducing and then billions of cells are assimilated into the body and either metabolized or discarded. Now you have a reserve stockpile of memory cells that will keep track of the virus, and be ready with the proper response should the virus be encountered again.

If we were cells in the body witnessing this process, would we not laugh at the suggestion that all of the viruses thriving in our territory could simply vanish, with no immune response?
It would be no crazier than to ask God to teleport a car out of a ditch.

These are questions that I found myself too afraid to answer for a very long time, and yet now they no longer bother me. And you know what? I gained something from that. I got to thinking about how our universe works, what it’s made of, and have concluded that I have no problem admitting that there is nothing supernatural about this universe we live in.

And yet, somehow I still generally hold to the same ideas regarding God and his interaction with Earth that I always have. How is this possible?

You see, the above scenarios assume that any claim to unseen reality is a belief in the supernatural. But in the last hundred years, physics has told us otherwise. Several principles of quantum mechanics make room for us to believe in a supreme being without even having to believe in mysticism and impossible events.

Scientists have long tried to formulate a unified theory to explain the very core of what makes our universe tick. Of course, we can never witness activity on such a small scale, but mathematically we can formulate different theories until we find one that correctly extrapolates out to all of the aspects of physics we HAVE witnessed.

In short, what are electrons, protons, neutrons, gravitons, and all these subatomic particles that comprise the molecules that make the compounds that make the structures that make the cells that make the tissues that make the organs that make the systems that make the bodies that make the thoughts that make the ideas and bring us to the very edge of what causes existence?
The answer, as far as we’ve been able to determine, comes down to one word: vibration.

The universe is made of string. Vibrating string. The intersection of vibrating strings makes the subatomic particles that make everything else. If it has a positive polarity, we call it a proton. Negative, electron, and so on.

Everything has a vibration, everything has a rate of oscillation, everything puts out radiation, everything resonates differently with different objects. Our ears are tuned to about 1040 hertz (vibrations per second), or, as musicians like to call it, Middle C. Every note on the piano is based on this centerline, doubling and resonating with every octave.

As far as our eyes go, vibrations that fall between 400 and 790 terrahertz (that’s trillions) resonate with the rods and cones at the back of the eyeball, and are subsequently translated as colors in our brains.
Light, we’ve found, is a substance. It has mass, and as anyone reading this can attest, it strikes our eyes with enough force to trigger the chemical reactions that bring about the process we call sight. Light is stopped dead in its tracks or reflected (depending on resonant frequencies) by opaque objects, but slips casually through glass and clear surfaces, while our own hands cannot perform the same feat.

Light, sound, physics, it all works because the vibrations of these colliding objects are in tune with one another. In fact, less than .000004% (by my own estimate, but if I’m off, it’s because I’m waaay over) of the objects we believe to be real are made of matter. The rest is empty space. It’s the charges and resonances between particles that cause objects keep their shape and act like objects.

Now, how irrational is it to wonder if there are objects, organisms, even entire realities that exist within our universe, but simply don’t resonate with the world we know?

Science has even begun purporting the notion that our thoughts have a force all their own, that simply by thinking we have the ability to affect the things around us. What was once an idea that was reserved for mystics and the religious, is now becoming plausible for even the most realist minds.

Descartes coined the famous saying, “I think, therefore I am.” He was not speaking about the manifestation of our thoughts. A more accurate translation would be to say, “I think, there for I exist.” I do not know much about the reality around me, but the fact that I am thinking tells me that I, at least, exist. I do not know if the body I inhabit is real, but I know that somewhere there is a mind thinking these thoughts.

Now, if science is showing that our minds are not limited to the confines of an organic brain, then who is to say that there are not minds which require no brain at all? And then it must be wondered, if there are other minds besides our own, what are the odds that we are the most powerful minds of all? Not very good, right? Wouldn’t it stand to reason that there exists a mind that is more powerful than all the others, perhaps one so powerful that one single thought could become a universe?

How irrational is it to believe that there are those whose eyes and ears are capable of occasionally resonating with the realities we do not see?

In his novel, The Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut spoke of a whimsical alien race known as the Tralfamadorians, who liked to observe humans. They found us fascinating, and yet pitied us, because we have the misfortune of only seeing in three dimensions. They, however, were able to look at time just as easily as we could observe the breadth of a mountain range. Those of us who believe in God also tend to believe that he exists outside of time, and sees things in a very similar manner to the Tralfamadorians. If it is possible for a mind on another plane of existence to look at time in this way, how irrational is it to believe that there are minds on our own plane that can occasionally resonate with events that have already happened in the fourth dimension, even though we have not yet perceived them?

The possibilities are endless. All it takes for realities to intersect and collide is any given quantum event–the birth of an electron, shifts in speed or direction, for all these particles to change polarities, and, potentially, bear consequences on another plane of existence.

Most religions seem to believe in planes of existence that exist between our own and that of the Creator,
we commonly hear them referred to as the “spirit realm,” because of the ghostly quality that such thoughts invoke in our primitive minds. And most also seem to believe that there are beings within these realities, that we would call “angels” or “demons,” depending on their loyalties and motivations for interacting with our reality.

The long and the short of it is, I don’t believe there is anything supernatural about believing in a Source, a Creator, whatever name you call God by. There is a mind whose thoughts are synonymous with reality. Every piece of matter, every dimension, every thought we have, every tear we cry, exists because it is the thought of the Universe.

Oh boy, if I hadn’t committed heresy before, I’m sure I have now.

First, a little deconstruction.

There’s a question that lingered in the back of my mind since I was 13. I wanted so badly to excel in my faith, but the questions began. I couldn’t ignore them. To proceed with critical questions unanswered would be to continue in ignorance. Truth is priority, not loyalty to a preconceived notion. Yes, the thought of admitting my life is built on a lie is a scary one, but no good thing comes without risk.

Unless I could let go of my obligation to believe, I would never truly know whether I believed out of faith or out of fear. Being told that getting it wrong will send you to Hell will do that to you. And yes, of course there’s the “once saved always saved” bit, but then I had this other voice saying “If you can stray that far, maybe you were never saved in the first place.”

Every night I sat in my bed, staring at the ceiling, thinking, praying. Questions, answers, taking all the pieces of the puzzle and arranging them to see how I could make them fit.

I rarely spoke of these things aloud. After all, I was taught that doubt is a sin. To call doubt a sin is downright pernicious. Doubt should be faced, it should be confronted, not buried. If God is there, if he has revealed himself, what fear should he have of being questioned? Faith, trust, respect–these things are not taken through coersion. As John put it, there is no fear in love. If we believe that God is love then we cannot believe that he would use fear to keep us believing.

I’ve delved into alot of questions in the past ten years, and I’m glad to say that so far I’ve found answers that work for most of them. Many of these answers have taken me to places that make some people question my very sanity, and my salvation, but now I know what I believe, and am no longer ashamed to talk about it, as I was when I believed out of obligation.

So, in this first entry of the new blog, I’m going to cover what has been a very vital issue for me in the last few months. Salvation. Perhaps I should have started with what salvation is, but that topic is a still a little fuzzy to me, so I’m beginning with how I believe a person is saved.

Before I can continue, we’ll need a brief rundown of a certain conclusion I’ve come to regarding the idea of Scripture’s inspiration. I believe Scripture is inspired. But I part ways with most modern Christians on what I consider to be Scripture. The Bible has a great deal to say about the value of Scripture, but none of the verses used seem to support the assumption (several listed here) that the Epistles are included under the Inspiration umbrella.

This becomes problematic, because it seems modern Christianity likes to quote Paul more than any other author. He had no shortage of great things to say, no doubt, but the more I go back to the words of Jesus himself (which, of course, I believe to be word-for-word inspired), the more it seems that alot of Paul’s theology and thoughts regarding salvation don’t always agree with what Jesus taught.

Before I get to what I feel Jesus was saying, I have one more question to pose.

First and foremost, I was always taught that salvation is by faith, not works. The quickest canned argument for this idea is one simple question, how good do you have to be? Is there a magic line where you’ve done enough, and God lets you into Heaven? (I don’t believe salvation is about Heaven, but I’ll get more into that in the next post). Faith seems like a pretty good alternative to attempting and failing at living a holy life.

But a similar question must be asked regarding faith. What faith saves, and what doesn’t? Can you believe that Jesus is a separate entity from God, but still given God’s authority and made unable to sin, so that he could be the perfect sacrifice we needed? What if you believe that Jesus was completely human, that Mary wasn’t a virgin, but God chose him to be exempt from man’s sin nature, so that he could show us the way of love and, again, be the perfect sacrifice for all humanity? What if you believe that the Catholic church distorted the Bible to overstate his divinity because they didn’t believe that Jesus’ work could speak for itself? And what if you believe that he is exactly what the current widely-held Christian view is, but also believe he came to America and had a ministry here?
No two Christians agree 100% on every issue. There are mixed messages everywhere we turn, and several logically sound conclusions that do not agree with one another, yet are based on Scripture, because none of us can completely understand the meaning behind every word and phrase. It’s a limitation we must strive to overcome, but we must also admit that we will never know it all.
So the question to be asked of the salvation-by-faith view is, how far can a person stray from the absolute line of truth (which eludes all of us) before they’re disqualified from Heaven? Can there be a point where God says “Sorry, the ideas you believe regarding me aren’t accurate enough”? I feel this is nothing less than cruel, not to mention the oft-fumbled question of what remote tribesmen and those unlucky enough to be born in Muslim, Hindu and pagan countries are to do (yes, I know what Paul said in Romans 1, I’ll get to that in the next entry).

But the more I study the teachings of Jesus, the more convinced I am that faith alone does not save a person. I believe there was a time when it did, but that time is over (again, the reasons why will be in the next entry). This is about the current state of things, the new manifesto laid down by Jesus.

So here it is, the two little words I’ve become very cynical of:

Saving knowledge.

Knowledge doesn’t save you, so why is this phrase thrown around so much? Fair enough, you might say it is knowledge that leads to salvation. And I still ask, how? What is the difference between simple knowledge, and this idea of “faith”? As a child I was given the facts about Jesus and God, and all the Bible stories, and eventually told that I had to believe them as well as mean it in order to go to Heaven when I die. Even though I never doubted the story for most of my life, I was always in question as to whether I “meant it” as much as I needed to in order to qualify.
Add to this guilt trips from evangelists, seemingly hellbent on pushing up conversion numbers, and poisonous slogans such as “If you’re 99% sure, you’re 100% lost!” My cynical side says they like to have bigger numbers to show off when it’s time to send out support letters, but I’d like to think most of them, at least, had good intentions.

Don’t worry though kids, because if you think my distrust of this “saved through faith” thing (Paul’s teaching, not Jesus’s) would be enough to disqualify me from Heaven, it’s okay, because I believed it once, and this idea goes hand-in-hand with the whole once-saved-always-saved idea right? So I’m in the clear.

Anyway, enough negativity. I’ve been going back to the words of Jesus recently, and the picture he paints of salvation is much different than what we’ve been teaching. It seems pretty clear-cut. I know I don’t have the final answer on everything, but I’m failing to see how the currently accepted ideas could be extracted from his words.

Here’s one of his later parables, toward the end of his ministry on this plane:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

-Matthew 25:31-44

Review question: In this parable, what made the difference between salvation and death?

Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:12-13

That was taken from what is known as the Olivet Discourse, when Jesus talks about the end of the age.

I could go on (and if I find it necessary I will do so in another entry), but these passages alone are enough to at least conclude that this idea is worth examining.

Here’s the impression I’m getting. Following Christ is vital because it leads to a life of loving God and others. But if it fails to lead you there, it has no saving power whatsoever. No matter how strongly you believe Jesus died for your sins, and that there is a complete Trinity, and that the Bible is inspired, and the virgin birth, and that the earth is 6,000 years old, it is worthless to God if you don’t love others.

Theoretically, even an atheist could follow Christ without realizing it. If such an individual wishes to live a life in service to others, he unwittingly serves God, and is better off than many Christians.

The good news is, unlike how Christianity sees it, you don’t need to agree with me in order to be saved. It is only imperative to love. You can go on believing that your faith in Jesus saves you, and if that leads you to a life of loving and helping those around you, then it’s all just as well.

The bad news (or good news depending on how you view it) is for all the Christians who don’t love others. We all know how tragically prolific they are, and sadly, I usually find much higher concentrations of unloving people when I’m surrounded by Christians than when I’m not.

I understand that I will be getting alot of negative feedback for this, but bear in mind that this blog is only a tiny piece of the picture I’m painting. So feel free to bring questions and criticism, just remember that I do have alot more explaining to do.