Genesis 9:18-28: A Theistic Response

The broad range of the human condition contained in the Bible is one of the things that makes it personally significant to individuals and allows for a dialogical approach* to reading the Bible. Basically, everything's in there. So Noah was a drunk...

"Now, this is obviously one of the most bizarre stories in the Bible. It makes Noah appear to be insane, and, while it doesn't explicitly endorse Noah's actions, it does make God look bad (not for the first time!) because he singled out Noah as the last righteous man and here he is behaving like a total lunatic."

Sometimes I just don't know what to say here. I could try to come up with a little theodicy** for every passage in the Bible, but in my mind, it seems like I'm repeating myself all of the time. But that's not necessarily bad, I mean, I suppose that indicates some unity of thought...

"Noah gets drunk and passes out naked in his tent, Ham accidentally sees him in this state and tells his brothers, and in response, Noah makes Ham's son Canaan - who apparently had nothing to do with the whole thing - the slave of his brothers. In later years, Christians decided that Ham was the father of the Africans and used this story to justify slavery. Fortunately, I don't have to try to explain this weirdness because Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope has done it for me, in two parts, here, and here."

Cervantes has a highly refined bullshit detector and, atheist though he is, he recognizes bad theology when he sees it. So I want to talk about that, but I want to take it out of the Biblical context for a moment. It is not unusual for a good symbol to be used for bad purpose. Our American flag, for instance, is heavily loaded with symbolic meaning for most Americans. Most of it good; equality, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom, land of the free, home of the brave. It is also heavily used to sell everything from politicians to cars.

Discernment, then, becomes important. Being able to separate the symbolism and it's associated meanings from the thing using that symbol to sell you a bag of goods.

If someone wants to do something really bad, especially on a really large scale, they will usurp and propagandize every good symbol and association they can to meet their ends.

So, to justify slavery, why not use the Bible? To justify the crusades, why not use the Bible? To justify killing Western infidels, why not use the Quran?

When people begin turning up in mass graves, you can be sure every tool was used to get them there, including God.

This doesn't mean God or the Bible or the Quran are bad things. It means bad people have usurped something good to justify their ends. We would be much poorer if we threw out what was good about culture, society, humanism--simply because they had the potential to be used for bad ends.

For centuries people have tried to use different passages of the Bible as prooftext to justify bad behavior. The best way to reach discernment when it comes to the Bible is to look at the Whole. Of course, three layers of tradition must be acknowledged: oral, written, and edited.

"There are two basic points: This story comes from an earlier oral tradition, and when it got written down, something was left out, perhaps something too embarrassing for the written record such as a sex act; and the later interpretation justifying black slavery was just pure bullshit, like most interpretations of the Bible, which are made to justify foregone conclusions. As I have said many times, there are innumerable ambiguities, self-contradictions, and vague metaphors in the Bible and it's easy to decide that it means whatever you want it to mean. This may be the ultimate proof."

Basically there are points here where we agree and where we disagree. I will hold with this paragraph up to and including the word "bullshit."

I still consider the Bible to be a record of Divine Revelation, no less than other sacred writings, no less than the oral or pagan traditions which preceded it. They are all an attempt to understand the Divine as revealed to human understanding. The fact that humans have been trying to do this for all of recorded history, and arguably pre recorded history, does not mean there is no Divine. On the contrary, it points up an interesting aspect of our evolution that we have yet to explain scientifically--why do we seek the Divine? Why do we believe God exists? Somehow we grasp that there is a perfection, ephemeral though it is, in the human being. These layers of faith tradition are all an attempt to define human culture and best practices in relation to the world. And really, the overwhelming message that comes through when you look at the gestalt of all faiths is this: don't be shitty to one another. This is the ultimate tool of discernment. If your interpretation contradicts this, you must be twisting it or reading it wrong. And if you don't get that, you haven't read enough.

*Link added as post script.
**Okay, for what it's worth, here's my thirty second theodicy of this passage utilizing the dialogical approach. "So, you're an asshole? You're a drunk? You think God couldn't use you? Well, just remember, Noah was a drunk."

It's Kind of Like This...

At one time the search for knowledge was all one. Science, history, religion, philosophy; at first there was no distinction between these.

I retell the obvious. The Bible was one of the earliest attempts to consolidate knowledge of the world.

Now, we can agree on the historical and archaeological importance of the Bible.

We can agree that in terms of explaining the scientific workings of the universe it is an early and inaccurate attempt.

We can agree that philosophically the earliest parts of the Bible reflect a harsh patriarchal attitude toward man and nature. Not the entire Christian Bible, of course, but we haven't worked our way through the whole thing yet.

What we fail to agree on from the outset is the existence of God. So discussing the development of our perception of God becomes tricky. The evolution of thought from God the Puppet master, to the God of Judgement, to the God of Love seems irrelevant if you don't believe there is a God.

Cervantes, I understand the point you are trying to make with regard to what we have read thus far. You are not ineffective in your debate.

Has the universe changed? Or has our knowledge of it improved?

Has God changed? Or has our perception of God improved?

To quote another blogger with regard to our perception of God...

"So don’t tell me that loving is easy. Love will turn you inside out and upside down. It will delight you, move you, inspire you, transport you---and it will ultimately destroy you.

Love will kill you, if you do it right.

Jesus showed us how to do it. He didn’t call down the armies of Heaven as he hung dying on the cross. Didn’t call for any more smiting or bashing. Didn’t call for the judgment we so richly deserved.

He called for Love."

The Book of the Generations of Adam

Going back to this post, and Cervantes continuing perplexity over why people of the Book are people of the Book, I have to say I understand your frustration. I'm frustrated by my inability to thus far express sufficiently an answer to that. I hope through our continuing dialogue the fullness of my answer will become more apparent. I do think it's important to approach this question with a certain veneration for the religious tradition and writings being discussed, whether it be the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, or any other faith tradition.

You might say there's no accounting for taste. Most people who hold the Bible to be Sacred Scripture find a great deal of wisdom and beauty there. Flotsam and jetsam? There's certainly a great variety, but rather than being an incomprehensible scrapbook, I think it's a rich treasure of the past. From a faith perspective, it is a record of divine revelation--of mankind's attempt to percieve and understand the Spirit of God. And until you have fully studied the context and meaning of these stories, how can you say they lack wisdom? Obviously, if you reject the idea of God you might find this whole undertaking misguided.

It would be interesting to have the perspectives of individuals from other faith traditions.

Speaking as a Christian, the Old Testament is important precisely because Jesus was a Jew. Matthew in particular would be difficult to understand without the foundation of the Old Testament. The Bible stands as a whole because from a Christian perspective it is a whole.

In the famous medieval cathedral at Chartres in France there is a stained glass window which would have served as a catechitechal aid in the pre-Gutenberg age when most people couldn't read and didn't have access to the Bible. In the center is Mary holding the child Jesus. Flanking her are eight other figures, four of whom sit on the shoulders of the other four.

The four figures on the bottom are four prophets from the Old Testament: Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Perched on their shoulders, and thus able to gaze farther into the distance, sit the four evangelists: Luke, Matthew, John and Mark, respectively. The idea imparted here is that the Old Testament prophets are the foundation for the New Testament evangelists. You cannot understand the New Testament without the Old, and in the Christian perspective the Old Testament finds its true and deepest fulfillment in the New.

Now you admit, Cervantes, that interest in geneology is both widespread and ancient. Despite your own lack of interest, most people have a certain fascination with their own historical past. Mostly we are interested in the past to understand our present and our future. There is a point to all of these begats. I see a deeper profundity in the listing of these individuals.

Look at the Bible as a whole for a moment. All of these stories are rich and beautiful, and integrated and resonant in the life of Christ. All of the unlikely and miraculous birth stories from Abraham and Sarah to John the Baptist leads to a protracted point which is the investigation of life's meaning. Why are we here? Why are any of us here? What is the meaning of a human life? Is every person priceless to the universe? Are the stories submerged in a person's hereditary past a persuasive reason for caring about that person? There are a whole string of people who participate in the making of one person, who all had a vital role to play. We are all links in the chain of life. When you think about all of the little plays of fate that must occur just to create a person--it's incredible.

Mr. Howland must have encountered a number of small miracles in his lifetime. (I imagine him escaping from a series of cuckolded husbands.)

Lamech

I have to concede that Cervantes has a point about Lamech’s story being a bit bizarre to us. The Oxford Annotated RSV indicates that verse 23-24 is, “an ancient song, probably once sung in praise of Lamech, is here quoted to illustrate the development of wickedness from murder to measureless blood revenge.” In other words, he’s not a hero. So if you were engaging in exegesis you might use this passage to ponder how concommitant with the release of sin on the world the inevitable development and preponderance of human inflicted evil, violence, and tragedy caused ancient people to wonder WTF just as we do today.

I really just don’t have anything else to say about that passage. It’s a fragment of an almost forgotten character—who turns out to be the father of Noah.

And Cervantes also makes a subtle but valid point about Alan Keyes statement and our obvious evolving standards of decency. We no longer accept polygamy, or slavery as valid or moral lifestyles. You can use proof texting to argue against homosexuality, but you can also use it to argue in favor of some very nasty social institutions of the past. But if you're keeping your mind open to the considerations of contextual criticism, as I do, you would merely note that the Bible was reflecting the cultural norms of it's time.

It's true some Christians fear calling into question the inerrancy of the Bible. They are so spiritually immature that it would seriously erode their faith if anyone chipped away at the idea that God was not THE AUTHOR of Sacred Scripture and it was not taken to be totally, including historically, accurate.

In the other camp are Christians who see in the historical-critical method hope for making progress on our historical understanding of the Bible. They do not see this as a threat to faith but as a natural outcome of intellectual curiosity and a search for the truth.

I think you can't change the minds of the former. All you can do is try to take power away from them.

Scriptural Content

Iain asked recently how I "decide which bits of Scripture are appropriate to your own life and beliefs?" After a number of frustrated attempts to respond in comments I've decided to respond in a post.

I guess I want to say first off that I don't actually discard any parts of scripture. Certainly as a Christian, for me the New Testament trumps the Old. Also, I'm not quite sure what to do with the criticism of finding new meaning in these passages. Obviously I'm interested in the original intent, but it is a tradition of all literature that the reader completes the work. The reader always brings new meaning.

As a catechist I teach the Catechism of the church and the scripture as it's written. But especially with my older students, I always point out the context and changes in theology through the years.

As an individual I admit that I give less attention to the pseudonymous writings of the New Testament. They tend to have been written much later, closer to the 4th century, and they are an attempt to respond to things that were happening in the church at that time. Mostly they are an assertion of patriarchy and order. Take Paul, for instance. If you look at just the books scholars agree he actually wrote you lose all of that slaves obey your masters, wives obey your husbands shit. Paul becomes much more palatable. Iain, does that answer your question?

I want to take a moment to go back over the present content of scripture. I guess we ought to address the original language they were written in. The first language of scripture is Hebrew, which originated in Cannan and was passed on by Abraham. It was the language of the Holy Land until about the 3rd century BCE. Aramaic was the language Jesus spoke and would have been common from the 3rd century on. Finally, the New Testament was written in Greek, except for Matthew which was originally written in Aramaic (now lost). The Septuagint (begun in 250 BCE and completed in 100 BCE), which were the Hebrew Scriptures passed down to us, were written in Greek for Jews in Egypt who would have spoken only Greek. This is the translation the apostles would have used.

There are 72 or 73 books in the Bible (Lamentations is often put in Jeremiah). The word testament means "covenant" and the books represent our covenants with God. In the Catholic canon there are 46 books in the Old Testament. The accepted rules of the Jewish canon, which were set in the first century after Christ, were that the book in question had to be in harmony with the Pentateuch (Torah or law; the first five books of the Old Testament); it had to be written before the time of Ezra; it had to be written in Hebrew; and it had to be written in Palestine. The Jewish canon does not include: Judith (Aramaic), Wisdom & 2 Maccabee (Greek), Tobit & parts of Daniel & Ester (Aramaic outside Palestine), Baruch (outside Palestine), or Sirach & 1 Maccabee (after time of Ezra).

It is the Jewish canon that was accepted by Protestants at the time of the Reformation. But with regard to the New Testament, all Christians agree upon the 27 books in the canon. Most were written in the later half of the first century with the first Gospel, Mark, having been written close to the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Catholic canon was officially determined at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD (we included Apocrypha as historical books).

Now, what types of literary forms do we see in the Bible? Lots. Here's a list: History – in story form (Pentateuch, the Exodus, David, Solomon); Fables – short tale to teach a moral (Judges 9: 7-15, Numbers 22: 26-36); Legend – non-historical story handed down by tradition (Daniel); Allegory – abstract or spiritual meaning under the story, symbolic narrative (Sampson, Solomon); Parables – simple story that illustrates a moral or religious lesson (Luke); Apocalyptic writings – revelation or prophecy to end times (Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelations); Myth – traditional or legendary story usually concerning deities without fact or natural application; Drama (Job); Epistles (letters of Paul and others); Wisdom – oracles (Wisdom, Numbers 23, Genesis 18); Poetry (Psalms, Genesis); Hymns (Psalms, Philippians 2); Prayers (Psalms, Our Father); and Folklore (Noah, Abraham, Moses).

There are also many types of books. I guess the first category is the Pentateuch; Genesis (origin), Exodus (Israeli nation), Leviticus (laws), Numbers (organized nation), and Deuteronomy (spirit of love and obedience to laws). Salvation history is another type of book--Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings. There is chronicler's history in 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Religious historical novels like Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees. Wisdom books such as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, song of Solomon, Wisdom, and Sirach. And prophetic books, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. There are the Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and the early Christian church (Acts of the Apostles should maybe be included with the Gospels--I consider it the Gospel of the Holy Spirit). The Epistles, or letters of Paul, and the pastoral letters--Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, Peter, James, 1, 2 & 3 John, and Jude.

Now what we're getting into here with our dialogue is textural criticism. This can also take a variety of forms. There is the literalist--typified by fundamentalism. These folks take scripture word-for-word and also insist it to be a history and science book. Whatever. The rationalist looks for things that can be proved. Exegetes look for the religious or faith meaning of the text. The contextual approach, which I've discussed before, analyzes the times, culture, language and other circumstances the book was written in. This approach was recommended by Pope Pius XII in his 1943 Encyclical and also by Vatican II Council. As a Christian, I believe all scripture should be interpreted in light of Jesus. If you just look at the Old Testament you have primarily Deuteronomical theology, which is your eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth stuff. Deuteronomical justice assumes bad things happen as punishment from God. It stands in contrast to New Testament justice--followers of Christ believe that God does not cause evil, God allows evil to exist. Also, today it is more common to find masculine pronouns removed as we become more sensitive to reading the Scriptures through many perspectives.

Okay. So there you go. A quickie lesson on scripture content and textural criticism.

More Theology: Genesis 4:1-7

Apparently there have always been tensions between farmers and semi-nomads. Did barbed wire ruin the West? This passage symbolizes that tension in the two types of offerings.

So did God ask for this offering as Cervantes implies? Well it doesn't say. And we don't know the reason Abel's offering is accepted, but Cain's is not. Normally verse 6 and 7 are read to imply that Cain himself will be accepted, even though his offering is not, if his offering springs from the right motive.

If we're going to be tongue in cheek about this, you could say Cain was just trying to kiss ass and God saw through it. God even tried to give him a warning, picturing sin as a predatory animal crouched at the door. That snake's going to bite again.

And once again the advice of God is, "you must master it."

Back to Genesis 3:16-24

So I intended to read up on some feminist theology before tackling this, but that just reeks of effort and I'm fluffy. I'm just going to go with my opinion.

We've already established that I am not someone who reads the Bible literally. I accept it as traditional sacred scripture which shows a spiritual path and within it's pages shows an evolution of ancient thought on God. In that context, I'm okay with cherubim and flaming swords. Whatever paradise we may have come from where everyone acted as they should, we can't go back to. That's a human fantasy, right? Things must have been perfect at one time, then bad people came along and fucked it all up. What ever happened to the good ol' days? A good man is hard to find.

Most of the ancient writers were men, and certainly the final editors were. Humans who, while noble in their intent to understand the Divine nature and the purpose and origin of humans, naturally got a few things wrong, naturally tried to line things up with what their ideas of right and wrong were at the time. Verse 16, the curse on Eve for the Fall is an ancient codification of women's role, and the "virtue" of obedience and submissiveness. It places women directly under men in the scheme of creation. The story is an illustration of the disruption of the natural order: Eve shouldn't be taking orders from the snake, she should be taking orders from Adam; Adam shouldn't be taking orders from Eve, he should be doing what God said.

And this whole passage is largely the crux of what Christian Fascism stands on. So it's right to discuss it. But as I said before, if you're addressing Christians, it's best to let Jesus do the talking. Jesus showed us evolving standards of decency. Genesis may have been about learning and following the rules, but Jesus broke the rules. Jesus showed us the rules could be wrong. Jesus showed us that they could be trumped by compassion and mercy. Don't work on the Sabbath? Jesus cured people on the Sabbath. It is in the New Testament that God acts as one who sides with the outcast: the hemorrhaging woman; the tax collector; the adultress; the child born in a stable. It is through Jesus that we all got the radical message of equality. As Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) Jesus disrupted the old order of submit and obey. His order was based on compassion and mercy.

A few additional notes: A close reading shows it is not Adam who is cursed in verse 17, but rather the ground. And I've always found the vegetarian command interesting. Verse 21 is intended to show God caring for his people and providing for their needs.

Not That Cervantes "Loathes" Religion, Mind You

Really thoughtful article in The Guardian today about "New Atheists." Perhaps it has some bearing on our discussion here.

Hat tip: MadPriest

More Comments

Well things are starting to crystallize a bit. And I'm not too surprised, but I wanted to throw out a few quick comments of my own.

First of all, with regard to the Bible, I do believe it was Divinely inspired; sorry for that misunderstanding. Perhaps this is why I'm so fascinated by those moments of Divine inspiration within the stories. I'm a theist. I believe there is a bit of the Divine in each of us.

But back to Cervantes comments about those who take the Bible literally. I'm genuinely surprised that half of Americans believe the creationist view. But there it is. I think that number has a lot to do with the rise of Christian Fascism in our country. I can only say I don't think you can engage the thinking of hard core believers in the way you are attempting because of their political agenda and the magical thinking they use to advance it. Attacking their beliefs or pointing out logical inconsistencies seems to do nothing. "Well," they laugh, "God can do anything." What you can do is point out their political agenda (which you are quite good at) and (hopefully) watch their 30 year political grip on our nation begin to wane.

I'm particularly dismayed to discover 41% of Catholics agree with the creationist view. John Paul II acceded in 1996 that evolution was more than just a theory. Of course I say all the time that Catholics are poorly educated about their own faith. Especially people of my generation. I wonder, like this guy, if perhaps they respond to the poll as they do because of the way it's worded?

Because if you're just looking at which denominations ascribe to creationism literally, I would expect the numbers in that poll to be much smaller. More in line with these statistics about the Largest Religious Groups in the United States. In other words, I would expect Baptists and any other of the smaller fundamentalists to be in this camp, but no majority. This world view has been usurped in an attempt to give moral justification to a fascist government model. If you want to fight religion with religion a better way would be to steer away from deuteronomical justice, and toward Jesus--whom the Christian Fascists claim to follow. It's much easier to find clear contradictions when you use the words and actions of Jesus. He was, after all, a progressive liberal. I think that is a better way to engage the thinking of American Christians.

And with regard to Cervantes comment, "This is an artifact in the history of culture, but in that respect it is not particularly distinguished from Aesop's fables or the Vedas or the epic of Gilgamesh." We can just disagree on that. I think what distinguishes the Bible is it's attempt to understand God and the degree to which those good intentioned efforts succeeded. Certainly the ancient ideas were not complete, but they laid the foundation for the evolution of Christianity and modern theology.

Many modern theologians believe we are co-creators and that the Divine spirit exists within humans and is infused throughout creation. But that's a more evolved position. In any case it is a position which is not in opposition to empirical data. Theology should never be opposed to empirical data. Science should inform us about the mechanics of life; faith should inform us about the purpose of life. To quote Joan Chittister again, "Science drags faith beyond magic. Faith challenges science to principles beyond utilitarianism. One does not explain the other. We look in vain for faith to tell us how the world began or why it functions as it does with floods in wetlands and desertification in dry places and massacres in Algeria and pain in my own small life. But we do look for faith to tell us what it means to have to deal with such things."

(Post script: With regard to the Adam and Eve story and the suddenness of their loss of innocence; meh. I don't know. I think flashes of insight are not an uncommon way of coming to moral understanding.)

Another Theodicy: Genesis 3:6-15

Obviously Cervantes is a much more prolific writer than I am.

Time to catch up a little. In addressing your points I have to mention once again the idea of context. No one writes for an audience thousands of years into the future; we're only now piecing together what that culture was like. However, since Jesus used parables, allegories, and similes, we can consider that maybe the people who preceded him would have understood the subtlety of using an animal in a story. When Jesus said, "Feed my sheep," we all pretty much understand that he meant, "give spiritual nourishment to the people who follow me." So maybe the original readers of this story didn't take it literally.

It seems that in ancient times matters of morality and ethics were often addressed in this way. A little research into Aesop's Fables shows the original date they were written down to be 800 to 1000 years before Aesop lived, which would make them contemporary with the first books of the Bible. I'm going to maintain people knew that animals didn't talk and they largely understood that an animal in a story could be a stand in or agent for a person. Modern individuals who want to take the creation stories of the Bible literally are misguided and largely appear less sophisticated and less spiritually mature than their counterparts 3500 years ago.

What this story is pointing out to us is that there was a time in pre-history when people began to form the concept of good and evil and the idea of choosing between the two. The focus seems very much on obedience as "good" and the concept of clothing in the garden has more to do with modesty than protection.

Cervantes asks why God would not want Adam and Eve to know good from evil in the first place. When you look at this knowledge of good and evil from the perspective of free will there is a glimmer of an answer.

If a child gets too close to a dog's dish, the dog may bite the child. This is bad. Yet we don't hold the dog morally responsible, the dog is just doing what dog's do. Following doggy nature. The dog wants to protect it's food; it doesn't know biting is "bad." I kind of look at it that way. Before people had a concept of right and wrong they were more like the dog. Always acting out of personal interest and human nature. So God is shown here like the parent who wants to protect their child from knowledge. Like the dog owner who understands the pet needs restraint, not punishment. Once people began to "know" good from evil, we became morally responsible for the choices we made. In an era that knew heirarchy, reward, and punishment, we pictured God as the judge who will reward and punish. More like a king than a spirit. But that is where we were developmentally.

Another observation is the fact that God is described anthropomorphically present. God strolls in the garden, and is limited in time and space. God is just another character in the story. Perhaps because they knew of no other way to describe the person hood of God. This is a puzzle to me as well, but I take it to have more to do with the writer than the true nature of God. These earliest stories are a struggle to explain God. Our concept of God has changed over time; from strolling around with Adam and Abraham to a burning bush for Moses to a dove and a flame in the New Testament. Our attitudes, our ideas change, evolve and mature. History has shown us that obedience isn't always good. And modesty can be taken a burqa too far. We need to look at old stories with the light of modern understanding.

As for NeoLotus' point about sexuality being the greatest factor of this new knowledge; that's something that needs maturing as well. I suppose this ancient society would have put a lot of emphasis on controlling women and their sexuality as they were seen largely as chattel at this time. Again, our ideas of good and bad should evolve as our understanding about people and the world evolves.

A Brief Introduction

"I don't remember exactly when I first began to notice the shift of circumstances, the change in attitudes, but I do know that every day the truth of the difference between past and present religious evolutions got more and more clear for me. What has for long years been considered 'dissent' in the churches by those who want more answers than questions, more clerical authority than spiritual investment may not be real dissent at all. People are not challenging Christianity and leaving the Church. They are not arguing against the need for a spiritual life. They are not denying God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit. They are not ridiculing religion and going away. On the contrary. People currently considered 'excommunicated' or 'suspect' or 'heretical' or 'smorgasbord' believers are, in many ways, among the most intense Christians of our time. They do more than sing in the choir or raise money for the parish center or fix flowers for the church. They care about it and call it to be its truest self. They question it, not to undermine it, but to strengthen it. They call for new ways of being church together. They do not dismiss the need for the spiritual life. They crave it. What's more, they look for it in their churches. But they crave more than salvation. They look for authenticity and the integrity of the faith." ~In Search of Belief, by Joan Chittister, OSB

I like this quote, so I thought I would begin there. I think fostering dialogue between theists and humanists is a worthy goal. But I couldn't help noticing not many theists were joining the discussion. I think it's safe to say that I have many of the same questions as Cervantes. As a normal questioning human being, how could I not? So I'm here to add to the dialogue.

I'm not especially qualified in the area of theology and don't speak in any official way. But I'm willing to follow an argument to its logical conclusions. I'm not interested in proselytising or evangelizing. If I manage to convince anyone of anything it would be this; that belief in God or a Supreme Being or Spirit of the Universe is rationally acceptable and that you can't disprove theism.

Who am I? My name is Missy. I'm 43 years old. I have five kids aged 16, 15, 13, 11, and 5. I work part time as an assistant director of religious education and section head for grades 1 thru 6 at my local parish. Basically? I'm a Sunday school teacher. For some reason I like the shock value of telling people that at cocktail parties. In a former life I was a banker.

I'm wary of challenging people with an immature spirituality and faith. Such people tend to be immature in many other ways as well (I think these are exactly the people Cervantes would like to challenge, but I digress). If you're starting from a position of zero faith, that I don't mind challenging. Take from it whatever you want. Maybe at minimum a better understanding of theism.

Okay, enough about me...