I should have known. Paul and Barnabas are fleeing for their lives, and guess who is responsible? Who is always responsible, according to the New Testament? The Jews! That's who! Always the Jews. Seems like they had nothing better to do back then than to stir up trouble--and I mean big trouble--against the fledgling Christian movement. This wasn't a petty disagreement, according to Acts, this was all out war. Why?
I just wonder, if the New Testament writers had known how their words would have been used over the coming centuries, would they still have written the same things in the same way? Something tells me that yes, they would have, claiming that "truth" is more important than people's feelings.
I don't claim to know what happened back then or who was "right", but the more I get into this, I would like to know the Jews' side of the story. But we are never told that. We are never told that maybe they had good reason for feeling as they did. We just don't know. And 2,000 years of Christian persecution has made them very reluctant to tell their side of the story. I cannot believe that the acts the New Testament describes are the acts of a majority. Nor do I believe we are being told the whole story here. There must be much more going on than what we are told.
But it's not just Jews and Christians. Muhammad and his followers, the first Muslims, ran into the same bitter opposition from their fellow Arabs. The Quran talks a lot about battles between believers and unbelievers. Later on the Baha'i's of Persia (Iran) were persecuted by Muslims and still are today. The religious wars between Catholic and Protestant are a well-known part of European history. In the United States, the Mormons were driven from place to place until they found (so they thought) a safe haven in Utah.
Why? Why this intensity of hatred, intolerance for people who dare to dissent? I don't find this anywhere in science. Scientists may disagree; they may bicker; they may even resort to ostracism, but they do not form mobs. Is it because science is evidence-based and religion faith-based?
Charles Darwin, whose ideas possibly form the greatest challenge to traditional Christianity, was allowed to live his life out in peace. Joseph Smith, who came up with a rival version of Christianity, complete with a rival Bible, was murdered by a lynch mob. What was it about Smith's vision that prompted such violence? Yes, the man had some strange ideas, but Mormonism isn't really a threat. Science, however, does have the potential to undermine faith. What Darwin said about the origin of species and the descent of humans strikes at the heart of the Christian interpretation of the Bible and possibly the heart of the Jewish and Muslim interpretation of their Scriptures. And it doesn't stop with Darwin.
In his sermon today, the pastor talked about the differences between Calvinistic theology (predestination) and Arminian (free will) theology, both Protestant Reformation viewpoints. I was raised Catholic, and we didn't talk about Calvin or Arminius or any of the Reformers much. They were all lumped under one word, "heretics." Later, of course, they became "separated brethren." Separated, but erring, nonetheless. Now, here's the thing. In all this battle of words, and blood, how does one go about establishing the truth? What tests can you set up to determine who's right? Darwin is accepted by the majority of scientists because, among other things, he made specific predictions that the ancestors of early man would be found in Africa, and so they were, by Louis Leaky and others. To go into all the ways that science has confirmed Darwin would take far more room than this blog allows. Now, it could be that a discovery could be made tomorrow that would demonstrate that Darwin and his followers were on the wrong track. But that's the point. It would be evidence, not faith, that would overturn Darwinism. Alfred Wegener was laughed at a century ago for his theory that the continents were once joined. That is because nobody understood how the continents could move. In the 1960's he was vindicated when plate tectonics came on the scene. That is how it happens in science. Not so in religion. Everyone says that their interpretation is correct, but where is the evidence?
And this is why I find faith-based persecution so baffling.
I just wonder, if the New Testament writers had known how their words would have been used over the coming centuries, would they still have written the same things in the same way? Something tells me that yes, they would have, claiming that "truth" is more important than people's feelings.
I don't claim to know what happened back then or who was "right", but the more I get into this, I would like to know the Jews' side of the story. But we are never told that. We are never told that maybe they had good reason for feeling as they did. We just don't know. And 2,000 years of Christian persecution has made them very reluctant to tell their side of the story. I cannot believe that the acts the New Testament describes are the acts of a majority. Nor do I believe we are being told the whole story here. There must be much more going on than what we are told.
But it's not just Jews and Christians. Muhammad and his followers, the first Muslims, ran into the same bitter opposition from their fellow Arabs. The Quran talks a lot about battles between believers and unbelievers. Later on the Baha'i's of Persia (Iran) were persecuted by Muslims and still are today. The religious wars between Catholic and Protestant are a well-known part of European history. In the United States, the Mormons were driven from place to place until they found (so they thought) a safe haven in Utah.
Why? Why this intensity of hatred, intolerance for people who dare to dissent? I don't find this anywhere in science. Scientists may disagree; they may bicker; they may even resort to ostracism, but they do not form mobs. Is it because science is evidence-based and religion faith-based?
Charles Darwin, whose ideas possibly form the greatest challenge to traditional Christianity, was allowed to live his life out in peace. Joseph Smith, who came up with a rival version of Christianity, complete with a rival Bible, was murdered by a lynch mob. What was it about Smith's vision that prompted such violence? Yes, the man had some strange ideas, but Mormonism isn't really a threat. Science, however, does have the potential to undermine faith. What Darwin said about the origin of species and the descent of humans strikes at the heart of the Christian interpretation of the Bible and possibly the heart of the Jewish and Muslim interpretation of their Scriptures. And it doesn't stop with Darwin.
In his sermon today, the pastor talked about the differences between Calvinistic theology (predestination) and Arminian (free will) theology, both Protestant Reformation viewpoints. I was raised Catholic, and we didn't talk about Calvin or Arminius or any of the Reformers much. They were all lumped under one word, "heretics." Later, of course, they became "separated brethren." Separated, but erring, nonetheless. Now, here's the thing. In all this battle of words, and blood, how does one go about establishing the truth? What tests can you set up to determine who's right? Darwin is accepted by the majority of scientists because, among other things, he made specific predictions that the ancestors of early man would be found in Africa, and so they were, by Louis Leaky and others. To go into all the ways that science has confirmed Darwin would take far more room than this blog allows. Now, it could be that a discovery could be made tomorrow that would demonstrate that Darwin and his followers were on the wrong track. But that's the point. It would be evidence, not faith, that would overturn Darwinism. Alfred Wegener was laughed at a century ago for his theory that the continents were once joined. That is because nobody understood how the continents could move. In the 1960's he was vindicated when plate tectonics came on the scene. That is how it happens in science. Not so in religion. Everyone says that their interpretation is correct, but where is the evidence?
And this is why I find faith-based persecution so baffling.
