Jesus Course

I’m sure it will come as now surprise if I say that Jesus was probably not actually born on 25th December. There are various options for the actual date but one thing we are sure of is that it wasn’t 25th December. So why is this the day that we celebrate Jesus’ birth?

It could be that it is simply the date 9 months after the day Jesus was believed to have been conceived (March 25th). Or it was picked because it was 6 months from the date of Jesus’ death (which was believed to be significant for a prophet). It may just have been picked because it seemed to be a good day to celebrate. The earliest physical reference to the Christian celebration is dated to a 354AD (read about it in Wikipedia) where both Sol Invictus and Christian Christmas get their first mention. Of course both festivals would have been celebrated on that date before this but which one came first can never be proved.

Well in the U.K. this makes a lot of sense to us because our monarch (Queen Elizabeth II) has an official birthday and an actual birthday. The official birthday is the day when the country celebrates her birthday (we have a thing called Trooping the Colour) and then the Queen celebrates her real birthday with her family and friends.

When I was talking about this with my youngest son he pointed out that we all do the same. We have a real birthday and then an official birthday when we have a party. Sometimes the party is on the same day but more often it isn’t.

So 25th December is Jesus’ official birthday and the day we all join in celebrating it.

Now, some party poopers like to make something out of some of the ancient festivals that used to happen on the 25th December. Whilst it is true that 25th December was the Romans official date for the winter solstice (shortest day) it was only later (quite possibly after the time of Jesus) that it ever became the date for a festival (the celebration of the Sun god – Sol Invictus).  Later the followers of Mithras claimed the day for their own celebrations (Mithraism is notorious for jumping on popular ideas to gain a greater following – it died out of course) but the evidence really points to this happening after Christians were celebrating on that day. It’s true that nearly every western culture had a festival in mid-winter (Yule for instance) but this doesn’t mean that the Christian tradition of celebrating the official birthday of Jesus Christ has any less of a claim on the date.

The other old chestnut that is often roasted around this time of year surrounds the headlines of “Puritans ban Christmas” which isn’t – needless to say – the whole story. Then this tends to get twisted to the idea that Christians don’t really like Christmas anyway (Puritans = all Christians in the modern journalists mind). Christmas was seen as a Roman Catholic idea and so the Puritans (being fervent opponents of Roman Catholicism) wanted to call it Christ-tide (getting rid of the mass bit). They also banned various things that people used for the celebrations (including mince pies, etc). The celebration of Christmas was surrounded by 12 days of partying and drunkenness and they wanted to reform this. This was hugely unpopular – as you can imagine. So the Puritans didn’t ban Christmas at all they simply wanted to reform it – in some ways an admirable thing to try and do, and we do the same (encouraging people not to drink and drive for instance) but it seems to me the modern approach of encouraging people to act in a more responsible way rather than forcing them to do it is a better approach. Oh, and by the way I like mince pies.

So Christians haven’t stolen someone else’s idea for a celebration and we haven’t tried to ban Christmas in the past. This is just the day for our official celebrations of the birth of Christ.

A very merry Christmas to you all.

Thoughts

Just heard on the T.V. that in a survey of favourite carols for a couple of UK radio stations “O holy night” came out top. This was a bit of a surprise but my own guess is that people were voting on the tune rather than anything else.

I love a good Christmas carol myself and think they are an ideal way to celebrate the Christmas season. Carols are: uplifting, fun and they tell you something about the real Christmas story.

Personally, I’m not sure that “O holy night” qualifies as a carol (more of a Christmas song I would have thought).

Just in case you are interested, here is the top 5

1. O holy night

2. Silent Night

3. In the bleak mid-winter (to Darke’s tune).

4. Hark the herald!

5. In the bleak mid-winter (to Holst’s tune).

What is your favourite?

Thoughts Christmas

My youngest son just loves his torch. He has a quite a fancy torch that changes into something different with each click. The first click shows a red laser kind of light, the second click has an ultra-violet light, and the third is more like an ordinary church. About every 18 months or so I have to buy him a new one because he manages to break a wire or something. Of course the problem with a child and a torch with three different clicks – fourth turns it off – is that he is always leaving it switched on. So we have to ration the batteries.

Now the point of me telling you all this is that in the sermon on the mount, that we have been looking at lately, Jesus says that we should be light to the world.

If you let your batteries go flat then your light won’t shine.

I’m sure Jesus wasn’t thinking about batteries when he was talking about letting your light shine for others to see, but I think there is an important point to made here about following Jesus. Our light only shines because we follow Jesus. It has nothing to do with how clever we are or which church we go to or how important we may feel we are.  So a relationship with Jesus is what makes a light shine. Jesus is the battery that makes our torch work – if you’ll forgive the analogy. So to keep shining we need to work on building our relationship with Jesus.

A single light only shines bright when its really dark

If you turn on a light in a bright city then nobody will notice it. If you’ve been in a big city during the night you will have noticed that one thing you don’t lack is light – of course there are dark places but mostly there are lights. To get any idea of what Jesus was talking about when he described us as being lights we have to imagine ourselves away from cities or towns or villages and out into the dark countryside. If you have even been out in the hills when its dark and there is not even a moon to see by you will know what darkness is really like. Then if in that darkness you light one single, even weak, light you will see it. In fact you can see one small light for miles and miles if its really dark.

When its really dark even a small light burns brightly.

A city on a hill cannot be hidden

So Jesus says, and he is right. I like to walk in wilderness areas on in England there is one place that I really love, called Dartmoor. I’ve been on a few night walks on the moors and they can be pretty dark but when you get in view of a village or even a farm with its lights on it looks amazing. You can’t miss it because it is so bright.

Jesus compares Christians to such a light.

Light is supposed to help us see things by

Jesus wants Christians to be such a light to the world. Christians are supposed to make life easier to navigate. Of course this isn’t always the way things work and you might get the impression that some Christians are determined to make the world a very dark place. Light brings illumination. The light that Jesus brings is supposed to lead us out of ignorance and into truth and understanding, it’s supposed to lead us from the dark ages to light ages. Light is supposed to help us navigate through life.

Jesus offers such light and those who follow Jesus are supposed to bring that light with them.

So do you bring light to the world or darkness?

Thoughts light

Few people can escape from the problem of stress. We have always suffered with it but recently it seems to have been reaching pandemic proportions. Of course this may be just down to people being more willing to report it but I suspect we are at least discovering the real problem that it is.

To earn a crust I am a stress management consultant. I don’t force my faith on those battling with stress because I don’t think that is the thing to do. However I do mention faith in my talks as being an important part of stress therapy.

Research shows that people who go to church are far less likely to be stressed and far more likely to cope with stress than those who don’t.

I think there are lots of reasons for why this is so:

• Belief in a loving and supportive God
• Good relationships with others
• Positive attitude
• Times of meditation
• Singing

But for me the biggest reason for me is that Christians have Jesus. Being a follower of Jesus not only gives you a good view of life but it also gives you a good relationship with the creator. God can help even in the worst of circumstances – not always taking the problem away but sometimes just offering the strength to carry on.

Yes, Jesus does help reduce stress.

Thoughts stress

Although I haven’t watched the program (I’m in the UK and don’t follow the series anyway – perhaps my loss) I’ve had my Internet news feeds about Jesus dominated by the story of Larry David ‘urinating’ on Jesus painting in a ‘Curb your Enthusiasm’ episode.

From what I’ve read the event seems to have involved some splashed urine on a painting of Jesus that was then mistaken for tears. I think in some ways the idea was a clever one, although perhaps the idea could have been softened to avoid offense with someone washing their hands (perhaps there is something funny about urine that escapes me somewhat).

This is the kind of issue that constantly comes up in the UK with religion and religious characters (although Jesus and Christianity seems to be the main source for the fun) being the object of ridicule and innuendo on many TV comedy shows ).

So then we have the dilema. Do we laugh at it to show we are just the same as everyone else and can take a joke or do we make a stand to say actually this is really quite offensive?

Not just Christians, of course, see Jesus as a great religious figure and this is likely to be offensive to quite a large percentage of the worlds population.

There is always a fine line between using something for a joke and trying to squeeze some humour out of an offensive situation. There are certainly people who find any offensive remarks to be a great source of humour.

Personally I feel that with so many other things to laugh about (and I personally enjoy a good laugh) any humour that degrades other people is not right.

We already have some restrictions on free speech (and rightly so) where people are not free to say what they like about people of different races or genders. We don’t accept that it is ok to say anything you like about anybody (we don’t accept verbal bullying as being acceptable for instance). So at some point we want to draw the line. Personally I think we need to make sure we don’t draw the line so close that people are not free to express opinions – whatever they may be – as long as those opinions are not expressed in a way that is going to cause a riot. This is about the way opinions are expressed and not the opinion themselves.

So we come back to humour. Humour is not just about expressing opinion it is about the way it is done. People must be free to say Christians are wrong but not to piss on them (sorry for the language!).

I think this is a case of things going too far and perhaps we let too many comedians get away with too much – in the interests of free speech and being afraid we are going to be labeled as humourless killjoy spoilsports.

Perhaps comedians are sometimes themselves guilty of bullying others – how far is it from a good joke to bullying someone (those who have been bullied at school will tell you have most bullies use tactics to make others laugh at them).

Of course humour has been used in the past to make us laugh at: black people for being black, homosexuals for being homosexual, Jewish people for being Jewish, etc. And at the time we all collude with the claim that it’s just humour and people should loosen up and learn to laugh at themselves. I hope by now that we have come to see that humour can play a part in the way people view others. Of course it isn’t the cause of the problem but it certainly can contribute to making some pretty terrible things to happen. I hope by now that even those who hate Political Correctness would understand that some things are just too far.

I didn’t see the episode and we get worse in the UK but I want to make a plea for people not to degrade others (or their beliefs) whether in the name of a good joke – or otherwise.

Thoughts humour, jesus christ

It sometimes makes me sad when I read stuff that makes me think that someone is getting angry at Jesus. What makes me really sad is that too often the people getting angry at Jesus are Christians. To hear some Christians write about Jesus or the church you would think that they were the worst of enemies. I was reading something today on a blog by a Christian that at first I assumed was an anti Jesus blog but it turned out to be written by a Christian.

Why does this happen?

• I guess it could just be bad writing and the writer meant to say something else, but this seems unlikely to me.
• It could have been someone who was caught at the wrong moment and they were letting off steam – maybe but then why write it in a blog?
• Perhaps it was someone just struggling with their faith – this could be true because I know that every Christian faces this from time to time.
• Or perhaps they just thought they were being funny – quite possible, there is an awful lot of anti church stuff written by Christians who think its funny – not my taste though.

Now look. I’ve had my fair share (perhaps more than my fair share) of rough treatment by the church. I’ve felt that sometimes God was keeping his distance and letting things happen to me that in my view he shouldn’t (always seems to turn out best for me in the end though). I’ve also had times when I’ve cried out to God in desparation but don’t seem to have got an answer (although later I found out I had). I’ve been there, felt it, and done it.

I’m sure that deep down the person in question does love God and wants to be a good servant but there is something that has hurt them that makes them want to get angry at God. I understand this. But never forget that despite all the anger God still loves you.

Jesus is pretty used to people being angry at him. If there is someone who can take the angry accusations its Jesus. But do you angry Christians realise that others find fuel for their own anger in yours?

So please don’t burden those who are looking for God with your own anger. Let the anger go and let the rest of us be free to find Jesus.

Thoughts

I came across this page the other day that explains Anne Rice’s conversion to Christianity. It’s well worth reading.

http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/anne-rice-atheist-christ/

Thoughts

I was reading a blog the other day and one of those who left a comment on the blog was very insistent that ALL scientists are atheists. They never said where they got their information from but they insisted that those who accept the need for evidence must be atheists.

It may not surprise you to know that I don’t really agree with this.

First of all we need to understand what atheism actually is. Atheism is the assertion that there is no god (a-theism). Now it seems to me that this is as much a claim to knowledge as the belief that there is a god. So the atheist can’t say that there is no evidence for god so I conclude there is no god, they must have evidence to prove that there is no god. It is not logical to make a claim to knowledge from nothing. Now there is no absolute evidence that there is no god (even atheists accept this) so any claim of there not being a god is a faith, just as much as theism (or the belief in god).

So if we want to claim that a scientist must base everything on physical evidence then the best we could come up with is agnosticism (e.g. saying there is not enough physical evidence to prove the existence or non existence of a god). So the logical end of scientific belief, as atheists explain scientific belief, is not atheism but agnosticism. I don’t really agree with this either but the argument put forward by atheists (if you accept is as being true) can at best only bring you to being an agnostic not an atheist.

However, we then have to explore what constitutes knowledge of something. How can we know anything? Some people will respond that our senses tell us what exists and what doesn’t (e.g. only anything physical is real). Yet how do we then explain things like thought, love, beauty, etc. Some people say it is just chemicals reacting in the body but that is not enough because we experience more than a chemical reaction. We can also appeal to logic and say that the only things we can know about with our senses is the physical world but this does not prove that there is nothing that is non-physical, e.g. metaphysics and god.

It seems to me narrow and closed thinking to insist that the only things you can know exist are those things you can physically experience.

Then we can come back to the word “experience”. You will find that the majority of Christians will be able to talk about encounters with God – times that they have experienced the presence of God. Of course they don’t mean they have physically touched him but that they have felt his presence. I have experienced this for myself and find that I can no more deny the existence of God anymore than I could deny the existence of my brothers.

Some will talk about weak atheism (person who does not have a belief that one or more deities or gods exist) as opposed to strong atheism (person who believes that no god exists) but I think this is a red-herring. Some want to claim to be weak atheists (presumably because it sounds better in certain circles) when they are really agnostic.

Others will talk about ‘improbabilities’ trying to use philosophical/mathematical terms to try and persuade us they are taking a higher thinking approach to things when what they really mean is that they have chosen not to believe (which is a much a faith as choosing to believe – neither can claim intellectual authority). Of course I don’t accept the improbability argument anyway because I believe the evidence points to there most probably being a god and I’m in good intellectual company here (take a look at this article).

Anyway I’m getting off the point. The point is that just because you are a thinking person doesn’t mean you must automatically be an atheist – this is a simple lie that atheists have tried hard to push and the gullible have fallen for.

It is that statistically there are more atheists in the scientific community than in the general population. The most obvious explanation for this is culture not intelligence.

Take a look at the following sites where the statistics are discussed. They are mostly from the USA but they are still valid in this discussion because not all scientists are British, of course.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v57/ai_19582381/

Thoughts

It’s easy to get distracted these days. It’s hard to keep your attention on something you want to keep your attention on, it’s even harder when you don’t really care.

When it comes to keeping our attention on people we should try hard to recognise that whilst what they are saying may not be important to us – it is to them. Loving someone involves being prepared to listen to them when you don’t really want to.

Jesus always seems to have been very focussed on the people he met and on what was important to them. Sometimes it meant having to get people to think in different ways and at other times he noticed people even when all they did was touch him.

There is a very moving story in the gospels of a woman who needed some help from Jesus and Jesus noticed her touch his clothes even when he was in the middle of a crowd of people. That’s how sensitive Jesus was to people and how focussed he was on helping people.

There is another story of how Jesus was tempted by the devil. The temptations revolved around being distracted from what his purpose was. I always think its a little strange to think that when Jesus was in the wilderness he was tempted. We might think that the wilderness – away from all the distractions – would be a place where you wouldn’t get distracted and it would be easy to stay focussed. Jesus’ experience (and the experience of others who have also spent time in the wilderness) is that often the temptations to get distracted away from a course of action is worse when you are in the wilderness.

Sp let’s not get too attached to the idea that it is all the modern day living stuff that distracts us from what is important because even if we didn’t have any of it we are likely to get distracted. Remember that the distraction comes from inside your own head and not from the things that surround (or don’t surround) you. Stay focussed to achieve your goals.

Thoughts

I spend a fair bit of time listening to what atheists have to say. I think it’s important for Christians to understand what others say and to really listen to the opinions of others.

There is something I find very interesting about why people declare themselves atheists. Some seem to have reasoned things out for themselves and taken that step of saying that they don’t believe there is a god, but the vast majority don’t take that reasoned approach. Of course they do try to make reasoned arguments but ultimately their declaration that there is no god stems from two assumptions. I’m not saying any of this to attack anyone – by the way – I’m not interested in name calling but I am interested in finding the truth.

The first of these, it seems to me, is that a great number of atheists assume that atheism is somehow the natural result of being intelligent. “How can anyone who is clever believe in all that superstition?”, they might well want to claim. They assume that religious belief is something that poor uneducated peasants believe in. The kind of thing that a Granny might believe because she didn’t get a proper education and likes to think the world is all lovely and fluffy. Or the kind of thing a country yokel, who also believes that drinking cider and dancing around a tree drives away the evil spirits to ensure a good harvest, might believe. But that belief in god is not for the more sophisticated and educated city dweller.

The thing is that this is all assumption and just plain rubbish. There are plenty of very intelligent people who believe in god. I’ve got a bit of paper somewhere from an I.Q. test I once had to endure (took 6 hours I seem to remember) that declares that I’m a pretty intelligent person myself (modesty prevents me from saying how high) and yet I’m convinced that there is a God. I can also appeal to many very intelligent people who are convinced that god exists, whoever that god might be (I’m not arguing for a Christian view of god here but just a view that there is a god).

There does seem to be a certain anti-god snobbishness in certain academic circles but this is often based on prejudice more than any evidence or argument.

This comes out in the claim by some atheists that theists (those who do believe in god) have to prove their belief where a-theists don’t. However an atheist can’t assume the non-existence of god and then say that theists have to prove it – both sides need to have good reason to say what they do. A-theism is a truth ‘claim’ just as much as theism.

I’d better get back to subject because this could get to be a very involved discussion for a blog.

The other assumption that is often made is based on bad experience with an organised religion. Something like ‘I don’t believe in god because I hate organised religion – after all look at all the wars it has caused’, etc. Or it might stem from a bad religious school experience, or perhaps a bad vicar/priest/minister, or even an over zealous evangelist, or even worse a corrupt evangelist. It doesn’t take a clever person (or perhaps it does) to see that anger at organised religion doesn’t prove that there is no god. The best you should be able to come up from this is that you hate god because his followers make you angry.

The first thing to point out is that it isn’t the fault of organised religion that some people in a religion (and sometimes even the leaders) turn out to be nasty, despicable people. If we took this line then we would have to also hate organised sport, organised politics, organised education, organised news reporting (e.g. newspapers), organised businesses, organised holidays, organised families, organised anything. It isn’t because something is organised that makes it bad but sometimes people abuse that organisation for their own ends.

Everyone in an organised religion hates the fact that some people have abused their position in that organisation for their own ends. In that sense we don’t like organised religion any more than anyone else does- but you see sometimes being organised can help.

Schools, for example, come out of organised religion and if their was no organisation their would be no schools (same goes for Universities).  What about hospitals? What about helping the homeless? What about charitable works? All these and many more stem from organised religion.

Of course I can’t claim that no one would ever have come up with the idea without organised religion but there is plenty of history to show that organised religion played a key role in pioneering many good things which we often take for granted.

Bad things do not stem from organised religion but we who are a part of it (that is organised religion) need to work hard to make sure that corrupt people don’t get the chance to abuse the organisation for their own agendas.

Anyway if you are someone who claims not to believe in god: a) because you think intelligent people don’t – please think again because this is simply not true, or b) because an encounter with a crackpot organised religious group has made you angry – please think again because the majority of those in organised religions are really quite good people.

If you are going to claim to be atheist then you need better reasons that these.

Thoughts atheism, god, organised religion, organized religion, religion, theism