nice guy jesus

was with a friend trying to find some to talk to about jesus at sydney uni, and ended up chatting to this girl who had founded her own religion (membership = 1). what frustrated me most in the conversation was her inability to see the complete arbitrariness of a system that takes a foundation of pop-buddhism, part new-age-spirituality, and the nice-guy jesus who said some things that the gospels are just trying to distort.

it's not at all an uncommon thing, but i really don't know how to get through to this kind of person. C.S. Lewis' famous quote came back into my head as i've been reflecting on the conversation:

... you must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

quote originally from Mere Christianity, this one in From Narnia to a Space Odyssey, a conversation between Arthur C. Clarke (who could be classed as believing in 'scientism') and C.S. Lewis (who rejected the claim that science answered all of life's problems). book edited by Ryder W. Miller, iBooks, N.Y., 2004.

the science of religiosity

a colleague alerted me to this article from ninemsn, entitled Trendy spiritualism 'breeds unhappiness'.
this backs up Arthur C Clarke's thoughts that i mentioned several months ago here, that it may be "better to be un-sane and happy, than sane and un-happy. But it is best of all to be sane and happy."

however it is interesting to see the afore-mentioned article taking this thinking on.
although the tack it takes is slightly different, saying not simply that it is better to be un-sane (ie religious), but that it is better to follow a "real" religion, ie not a made-up one.

how many times do you talk to someone who says, "i don't like to think of God like that - for me, he's more like this..."

but not just saying that this is irrational, the article wants to talk about religious belief from a health point-of-view.
indeed, the article says, reporting on a Queensland* study,

Young men who held non-traditional religious views were at twice the risk of being more anxious and depressed than those with traditional beliefs.

the author of the study goes on to say that,

"This study suggests that new forms of religiosity demand further research attention to understand the extent that religious change is linked to population mental health and social behaviour among younger generations."

now i don't want to string too long a bow here, but does Romans 1:18-32 have anything to add to this research? perhaps not, but it's definitely a thought-provoking article.

* the north-eastern-most state of Australia

scientists and evolution (and the gospel?)

With the New College Lecture Series coming up, I came across this quote from John Suppe when reflecting on his own conversion (he's a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, noted professor of geology at Princeton University, outstanding scholar in the area of plate tectonics), in the talk by Henry F. Schaefer III on Science and Christianity.

"Some non-scientist Christians, when they meet a scientist, feel called on to debate evolution.
That is definitely the wrong thing to do.
If you know scientists and the kinds of problems they have in their lives: pride, selfish ambition, jealousy; that's exactly the kind of thing Jesus talked about, and which he came to resolve (by His death on the cross).
Science is full of people with very strong egos who get into conflicts with each other........The gospel is the same for scientists as for anyone.
Evolution is basically a red herring. If scientists are looking for meaning in their lives, it won't be found in evolution."

this may seem a little redundant, but with my work with Science Students at the UNSW, evolution seems to be a topic they seem to think will somehow convert the heathen to Christianity (or to Creationism?).

the question of the phoenix

following my most successful post ever (one of these days i'll crack 10, is there anything more gratifying? that's a retorical question, btw), the question below was raised from my good friend alphabet soup:

"Some Christians are against embryonic stem cell research. For argument's sake, if such research were approved in Australia and did yield cures for some diseases, should those same Christians refuse the resultant treatments e.g. for Alzheimer's?
"Should Christians who have a problem with Maccas also not use Ronald McDonald's House on principle?"

i guess i would argue that the genesis of the technology may be less important than the technology itself.
that is to say, from my interest in science history* that the way particular inventions came about were often at best chance, often by-products (think alchemy) of ingenious, yet mad, or greedy, or misled "scientists", would lead me to say that there would be very little we could continue to use, were we to determine the morality of the wakening of each invention. not that we shouldn't be discerning. that is something i believe each person should be, rather:

Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[...]

we know that when men do things we may perceive as evil, intended for evil (such as Joseph and his bro's), God uses them for his good purposes. we can have confidence, so long as it does not offend our consciences - for that is sin, that God uses all things for the good of those who love him.

just as the phoenix was reborn from the fire, alzheimers sufferers may be reborn from embryonic stem cell research, and go on to love and serve the LORD. that we may disagree with their means and methodologies, may believe that the same, or even better result may be gained via use of adult stem cells, reflects on our views now towards research. not towards the good that may be gained thru it.

again, Acts 24:16 So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.
if your conscience is not clear, don't do it. if it is, especially towards God, then that's between you and God.

(and no, i'd probably see if there was someone who would be able to show hospitality to his brother in Christ and stay on their couch rather than at ronald's place. i think.)

* read the left hand of the electron by isaac asimov. just do. you won't regret it!