Why I'm Not a Christian

My mom was a Christian. She was a Bible-reading, churchgoing Christian. She taught Sunday School.  She instilled in me a love for the Scriptures, a love for G-d, a love for Jesus, and a love for church. By the way, she didn't send me to church; she took me to church. We went to services three times a week: Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night. We attended yearly revivals and other special meetings. She made sure I went to Vacation Bible School. She talked to me about making a profession of faith and getting baptized, both of which I did at about eight years of age. A couple of years later, she talked to me about being a preacher. I agreed to it, and began giving short sermonettes at about age ten. 

My mom died when I was thirteen, and I went to live with one of my cousins and her family. In my middle teenage years I began to question what I had been taught. I looked into different belief systems, Christian and non-Christian alike. As an adult I found myself going from one religious group to another, separated by periods of total spiritual inactivity. I believed the truth was to be found in Christianity, but I never felt I had found the right church with which to affiliate.

At age forty-five I decided to pursue a serious reading of the entire Bible. Over the years I had read the Bible several times from cover to cover, but this time would be different. I wanted to take my time and really think about what I was reading. With calculator in hand, I figured out that if I read seven verses per day, I could read the whole Bible in fifteen years. I found a study method that would take me back and forth between the Old and New Testaments. On January 1, 2004 I began my reading with Genesis 1:1-7. 

I don't remember exactly when I started to feel that something wasn't quite right, but I would say it happened a couple of years into my reading program. I really enjoyed reading the Old Testament, but the New Testament - especially the letters of the Apostle Paul - left me feeling like something was missing. I began to look forward to my studies in the Old Testament, but almost dreading my studies in the New. The New Testament  sounded new alright, but not necessarily better. It was as if the two Testaments represented parallel spiritual universes. I was finding it hard to believe that these two groups of books belonged under the same cover. 

Let me give you an example of what I mean, by referring to the doctrine of forgiveness. In the Old Testament, G-d forgives solely on the basis of repentance. No one has to suffer, and no one has to die. In the New Testament, forgiveness is possible only for those who believe that Jesus suffered and died for their sins. Repentance alone, no matter how sincere, counts for nothing.

In the Old Testament, the path to forgiveness never changes. The Lord never says that a time will come when He will send His son to die for the sins of the world. Forgiveness is always based on sincere repentance, and nothing else.

Another example is the nature of the covenant that G-d made with the Jewish people. In the Old Testament, G-d Himself describes it as eternal, everlasting. Those adjectives indicate that the covenant has no expiration date and therefore will never end. The New Testament, especially the writings of Paul, explicitly state that Jesus inaugurated a totally new covenant which is both superior to, and supersedes, the covenant between G-d and Israel. Which Testament should I believe?

As it turned out, my calculations were off, and I ended up finishing my study in about thirteen years instead of fifteen. My math skills were never very good, even with a calculator. But finish I did, and as a result, I could no longer ignore the contradictions between the Old and New Testaments. Jews have the luxury of accepting the Old and rejecting the New, but Christians can't accept the New and reject the Old, since Christianity teaches that the Old Testament is also the inspired and infallible Word of G-d. Trying to accept both Testaments became an exercise in cognitive dissonance. To accept the New, I had to pretend that the Old said something other than what it actually said. Intellectually - and spiritually - I just couldn't do that anymore.

I could provide many more examples, but my purpose here is to blog, and not to bog down the reader. Nothing functions as a sleep aid quite like a long theological treatise. Perhaps I can mention other examples in a future blog. 

As counterintuitive as it may seem, I lost my faith in Christianity, not as a result of reading a book written by skeptics, or bitter former-believers, or atheists, or advocates of other religions, but by reading the Bible itself - both Old and New Testaments, and comparing them with each other.

In writing these things, I mean no disrespect to Christians, nor do I wish to have a negative effect on anyone's faith. I'm merely sharing my journey. What the future holds for me, spiritually-speaking, I don't know. But I trust that G-d is leading me, and I pray that He will continue to do so.

Christianity & Islam - A Comparison (Part 2)

By definition, God is beyond human comprehension; otherwise, He would be less than God. Still, we can know some of His attributes, because both the Bible and Qur'an speak of them.

For the most part, Christianity and Islam agree about the attributes of God. Christians and Muslims both believe that God is - among other things - omnipotent, omnipresent, all-wise, kind, gracious, merciful, forgiving, just, entirely self-sufficient, eternal, all-good, holy, immanent yet transcendent, unchangeable, infinite, loving, and sovereign. In addition, both religions teach that God is One Being, but, as I mentioned in Part 1, Christians believe that the One God is composed of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), while Muslims teach that the One God is absolutely One, without partners or associates.

Another of God's attributes is His wrath. Christianity and Islam both affirm that God will judge all people on the Last Day. Those who are the objects of God's wrath will be cast into Hell.

Both religions say that God is the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists, having brought everything into existence ex nihilo (out of nothing). Each teaches that He governs all that happens, though the degree to which He uses predestination varies between the two faiths.

It's generally accurate to say that Christianity and Islam agree concerning the attributes of God. One major difference, however, concerns which of His attributes is predominant. This difference of understanding affects the way each religion views God's relationship to man. I want to discuss these two views in my next post.

And this I will do, if God permits.

Christianity & Islam - A Comparison (Part 1)

In comparing Christianity and Islam, the most logical place to begin is with the doctrine of God. Although both religions are monotheistic - that is, they believe in only One God - each expresses its belief quite differently from the other. What are these beliefs, and how do they differ?

Simply put, Christianity is trinitarian, while Islam is unitarian. Christians believe in One God revealed in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Muslims believe in One God Who is absolutely One, without equals, partners, or associates. In other words, Muslims worship the One Whom Christians call God the Father, while rejecting the belief that Jesus and the Holy Spirit share in His Divinity. 

Christians see the Muslim view as both inadequate and unacceptable, since belief in the divinity of Jesus is required for one to be saved from eternal damnation. Muslims see the Christian view as erroneous, unacceptable, and spiritually dangerous, since associating anyone with God (called shirk in Islam), is the most serious sin a person can commit. 

It's worth noting that the Islamic doctrine of God corresponds exactly with the Jewish doctrine of God as found in the Torah (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible). Muslims would say that Jesus himself, being a devout Jew, believed what the Torah taught regarding God. In support they quote the Gospel of John, chapter 17, verse 3, where Jesus, praying to God, says these words: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent". According to Muslims, this verse (from the Christian New Testament) clearly shows that Jesus saw himself as both separate from, and subordinate to, God.

It's clear that Christianity and Islam have very different views about the identity of God. Those differences are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable. 

At this point, I want to try to clear up a misperception that many American Christians have about the name by which Muslims refer to God. Allah is, according to some authorities, a contraction of the words al-ilah, which simply means "The God". In the Middle East, both Arabic-speaking Christians and Arabic-speaking Jews use the word "Allah" to refer to God. I've heard some American Christians, including ministers, claim that Allah is the ancient pagan moon god of the Arabs, or "the Muslim god", different from the God of the Christians and Jews, or worst of all, Satan the Devil. Not only are these opinions deeply offensive to Muslims, they are also offensive to Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians, and most importantly, offensive to God Himself.

Let's move from the identity of God to the attributes of God. What do Christians and Muslims believe, do they differ, and if so, how? I plan to address this subject in my next post.

And this I will do, if God permits.

Christianity & Islam - A Comparison (Introduction)

Monotheism is the belief in one God, as opposed to polytheism, which is the belief in many gods. The three major monotheistic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the latter two being the largest of the monotheistic faiths. While Judaism doesn't actively seek converts, both Christianity and Islam do.

How do Christianity and Islam compare? How do they differ? Other than the belief in one God, do they have anything in common? Though I'm not a scholar, I've studied both of these religions for a long time, so I hope to shed some light on them, while sharing some personal insights from my own search for spiritual truth.

For starters, Christianity is much more diverse than Islam. Christianity is divided into three main groups - Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. Within Protestantism there are thousands of denominations. There are other groups that don't fit into any of these three categories. Each group differs in significant ways from the others. Because of that, it's hard to speak of Christianity in a way with which all Christians will agree; therefore, my descriptions will be of a general nature.

Islam is divided into two main groups - Sunni and Shia. Within Sunnism there are differences of understanding. There's also a mystical sect referred to as Sufism. These groups represent what is commonly known as "Orthodox Islam".  In addition, there are some Muslims who don't identify with any of these groups. The differences within Islam, however, are much less significant than the differences within Christianity. 

In this series of blog posts, I plan to address the Christian and Muslim beliefs about God, Scripture, Jesus Christ, sin, and salvation, to name a few. In so doing, I hope that those who avail themselves of this information will develop a greater understanding of, and appreciation for, these two monotheistic faiths.

And this I will do, if God permits.

Reparations

"Reparations" is one of those words that get an immediate reaction from most people these days. Just about everybody has strong feelings regarding the subject. A person is either FOR reparations, or AGAINST them. There's very little neutrality.

What exactly is meant by "reparations"? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one definition of reparation is "the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury". Reparation is the act of repairing something that's broken. For instance, if you break a window, you make reparations by getting the window fixed.

Generally speaking, Whites and Blacks view the subject of reparations very differently, though there are notable exceptions on both sides. 

When White people hear the word "reparations", they envision Black Americans being given large sums of money, which seems inherently unfair, since they (present-day Blacks) were never enslaved. Why pay this generation of Black Americans for what happened in the distant past? 

Conversely, when Black people hear the word "reparations", they envision an attempt by the United States government to come to terms with its past regarding the institution of slavery. 

Who's right? Allow me to give you a hypothetical situation.

Let's say that a long time ago I stole $100 from an elderly man named Ted. He found out that I did it, so he confronted me. I freely admitted my guilt, but refused to give Ted any of his money back. I even refused to apologize. Shortly afterwards, Ted passed away. Later, his daughter Lisa, as his rightful heir, confronted me over the theft of her father's money. Once again, I admitted my guilt, but refused to apologize or repay the $100. Eventually, Lisa's son Jack looks me up. He tells me that he's aware of what I did to his grandfather Ted. In response I say to him, "Look, Jack. I know what I did was wrong, but that was a long time ago. Ted is gone, so I can't return the money to him, nor can I apologize to him. Keep in mind that I stole the money from your grandfather - not from you, and not from your mother - so you're not getting a penny from me. I'm not apologizing, either. Just let bygones be bygones. Forget the past, and move on." 

Now honestly, can there be any relationship between me and Ted's family as long as I refuse to repair the damage? Would it be wise for me to be so dismissive of Ted's daughter and grandson? Don't I OWE Lisa and Jack, not only the money, but an apology as well? Considering inflation, I'd actually owe them more than the $100 I stole from Ted. 

If the theft of a relatively small amount of money deserves to be remedied, doesn't the infinitely more serious theft of human beings, and their uncompensated enslavement, deserve remediation as well? Think about it.

That's what reparations are all about - an attempt to repair at least some of the damage caused by slavery. Of course, those primarily entitled to it are dead, but their descendants are here. The repair still needs to be made. It really is as simple as that.

What form should reparations take? That's an issue to be addressed by the descendants of those who were enslaved, in conjunction with the U.S. government. It could be money, or land, or a reduction in taxes, or educational assistance, or employment assistance, or any number of other things. The important thing is to do whatever is necessary to begin healing the wounds of the past.

The subject of reparations isn't something to be dismissed out of hand. It's something that needs to be addressed, . . . and the sooner the better.

What White People Can Learn From Black People

Human beings have much to learn from each other. Just think of how many things you've learned from teachers, relatives, friends, co-workers, and yes, even strangers. By observation and interaction we gain a wealth of knowledge and wisdom.

This is true, not only of individuals, but also of groups. For example, members of one political party can learn by observing other political parties; adherents of one religion can learn from interaction with other religions; and one sports team can learn from watching other teams. 

It's no less true when it comes to matters of race. For the past two thousand years it was an unchallenged assumption that so-called 'primitive' and 'backward' people (meaning indigenous people in general, and Black people in particular) could become cultured and sophisticated by adopting the ways of the White man. Isn't that what colonialism was all about? In 2018 more than a few people still feel that way, but other people are beginning to see that maybe the assumption was wrong. Maybe it should have been the other way around.

Are there things that White people can learn from Black people? Yes, indeed. I'm not talking about soul food, music, and athletic ability. I'm referring to things of much greater value - things that will make us a happier, healthier, and more well-adjusted people. Here are just three things that White people can learn from Black people:

1. Spirituality. Generally, Blacks are a much more spiritual people than Whites. Just think about it. You can easily find Blacks who are Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. - but you can't find a Black atheist with a search warrant. They exist, but they're few and far between. Even Black people who aren't particularly religious usually believe in some kind of Divine Being. In contrast, White atheists are more common than dirt. That's because Black people have an innate connection with the Almighty that White folks can only attain with great effort.
2. Importance of Family. Black people have a very strong sense of family, which is amazing given the fact that slavery attempted to tear the Black family apart, and today's public assistance programs tend to penalize intact families. In contrast, an increasing number of White people are alienated from their families, often by choice.
3. A Willingness to Forgive. Without a doubt, Black people have to be the most forgiving people on earth (no doubt a result of their deep spirituality). I ask my fellow Caucasians (including myself): If our ancestors had been treated the way Blacks were treated, would we be as willing to forgive? If we were treated the way many Black people are treated TODAY - yes, TODAY - would we be as patient as they are, and as willing to forgive, or would we be rioting in the streets and killing our enemies?

The list could go on and on, but these three things alone are sufficient to illustrate my point. White society today is in a state of disintegration. We're falling apart as a people. I believe this is due primarily to the fact that the Creator gave us a span of time to make our mark on this earth, and now that time is up. But it's also due to a false sense of superiority on our part. A little humility - the willingness to admit that Black people have a lot to teach us - could go a long way toward making us a better people. I hope and pray that we'll give it a try . . . before it's too late.

The Only Way To Beat The Terrorists

Whether people refer to it as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) or ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), feelings toward this group are the same - revulsion and fear, accompanied by a sense that the Islamic State is here to stay. No matter what happens, ISIS continues to move forward, leaving death and destruction in its wake. Many people take for granted that terrorism on American soil is the new normal - something we'll just have to learn to live with. It seems that only two things in life are beyond one's ability to exterminate: cockroaches and radical Islamic terrorism.

In all honesty, the prospects for a world without terrorism do seem very dim. Without uniforms and borders, the terrorists are a hard target to hit. The so-called "civilized" nations of the earth have thus far been unable to destroy ISIS; in fact, one could make a convincing argument that the errant foreign policy of the United States led to the rise of ISIS in the first place, and continues to foster its growth right up to the present time. In addition, the willingness - even eagerness - of members of ISIS to die for its cause, makes it a formidable opponent. 

Based on these facts, it seems unlikely that any conventional military force could ever conquer the Islamic State. Does this mean that we'll just have to learn to live with radical Islamic terrorism, or worse yet, prepare to die at its sword-wielding hand? Is all hope lost? Short of Divine intervention, I can only see one way out of this otherwise hopeless situation . . . and it comes from a source that may surprise you.

ISIS loves to kill, and matters such as religion, race, nationality, and social status make no difference. If you're breathing, you're a potential target. But ISIS seems to get a special thrill from killing other Muslims - particularly those who just want to live and let live. And I propose that it's these same Muslims (the so-called 'peaceful Muslims') who alone can defeat ISIS. And, as Christians like to say, I have scripture for that - directly from the Muslim holy book itself.

In Surah (chapter) 49 of the Holy Qur'an, verse 9, the following admonition is given:

And if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them. Then if one of them does wrong to the other, fight that which does wrong, till it return to Allah's command. Then if it returns, make peace between them with justice and equity. Surely Allah loves the equitable. 

Muslims believe that the words of the Qur'an are the words of Allah Himself; therefore, Allah says that if one group of believers (Muslims) does wrong to another group of believers (fellow-Muslims), those who are wronged must fight their aggressors until peace is achieved, or until the aggressors are defeated. Can any reasonable person deny that many Muslims have been wronged by radical Islamic terrorism? They've been taken captive, tortured, raped, and murdered by proponents of the Islamic State, and many of their mosques have been destroyed. In the above-quoted verse, such Muslims not only have the right, but also the responsibility, to fight their oppressors.

How likely is it that such peace-loving Muslims would be willing to go to war against ISIS? After all, peaceful people by definition have an aversion to violence. Once again, the Qur'an has something to say about it. Surah 2, verse 216, is blunt:

Fighting is enjoined on you, though it is disliked by you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you; and Allah knows while you know not.

According to this verse, one's aversion to violence needs to be subordinated to one's hatred of evil. To refuse to fight against evil is itself evil - perhaps an even greater evil.

In a Hadith (a collection of sayings of the Prophet), Muhammad once said, 'Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is oppressed.' One of his followers, a man named Anas, was puzzled by Muhammad's remark. 'O Allah's Messenger! It is right that I help him if he is oppressed, but how should I help him if he is an oppressor?' Muhammad replied, 'By preventing him from oppressing others; this is how you help him in this case.' Muhammad's words show that Muslims themselves are the best antidote to evil acts committed by their fellow-Muslims; in other words, he taught that Muslims have a responsibility to ensure that evil is never tolerated in their own community.

For the most part, Muslims have failed miserably in this respect. Whenever Islamic terrorists strike, the question is asked, 'Why don't the good Muslims speak out?' In fairness, some do, but their voices are few and their words are often too softly-spoken. Their reluctance to fight verbally makes it highly improbable that they would ever be willing to fight physically. Maybe this is where Divine intervention comes in. While the nations of the world must continue in their efforts to destroy the Islamic State, I propose that the world's best hope of defeating ISIS lies with peace-loving Muslims . . . Muslims who love peace so much that they're willing to fight fire with fire; Muslims who love peace so much that they're willing to rise up and kill the terrorists wherever they find them.