A day in the life of Gareth Peoples

Over a week ago, Michael Nugent (chairperson of Atheist Ireland) tweeted about his recent blog post on Jesus, and the alleged role that Jesus happens to take from the Jesus (presumably meek and mild) of the Gospels which differs from the Jesus of the book of Revelation (presumably cruel and callous). A prophetic book, and the closing book of the Biblical canon in all Christian traditions. He claimed that moderate Christians didn’t really have a real case for arguing that Jesus overturned the Law of Moses, since He Himself was quite capable of exercising judgement on His own. I’ve been meaning to follow up on this for quite a while.

As the blog went on, I began to notice that the assumption behind his reading of Revelation was that it should be taken literally. There can be no middle ground, either you read it this way, or you don’t read it at all, effectively being the reasoning that is being used. The book itself however, is written in a cryptic fashion in a way that the early Christian communities would have understood, but in a way that others outside these communities wouldn’t have been able to understand easily. This is what can make the book complex to a modern reader, and indeed Revelation is arguably the most complicated book in the entire Bible.

One example seemed to be familar, and indeed, I had a back and forth with him on Twitter about this (Hopefully this will open up a broader discussion). That is the reference concerning Jezebel (quoted below) in Jesus’ description of the 7 churches at the beginning of John’s vision:

He told the angel of one church that a woman called Jezebel had seduced his servants to fornicate, so he was going to kill her children with death.

This is referring to Revelations chapter 2, particularly the quoted section below:

‘I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.
Revelations 2:19-23 (ESV)

He had brought up the concept of the two Jesus’ at the debate that occurred at NUI Maynooth at the end of March concerning God’s role in moral action, and it is clear that this is something that he has been researching for the last while. He quotes this passage, as if it is referring to a literal woman Jezebel, whose children are about to be killed for their mothers actions.

I pointed out on Twitter that Jezebel was in reference to the Biblical figure described in 1 Kings of the Hebrew Scriptures, to which I received a response that indeed this was in reference to Jezebel, but that this was also a literal person, and that no Christian commentaries he had come across offered an alternative interpretation. My interpretation being that the reference is referring to those who had lived lives in a similar fashion to Jezebel the woman referred to in 1 Kings.

Indeed, verse 23 which refers to the children, Jesus refers to Himself as the one who “searches mind and heart”. If these children were merely the innocent who were punished due to the actions of their mother, why would it be important that Jesus searches mind and heart. If their consciences were clean, then surely Jesus would know whether or not these people were deserving of such judgement. It makes little or no sense that the emphasis on Jesus as the knower of conscience would even be emphasised if we are to accept the reading that Jezebel is referring to a literal person within the church of Thyatira. Not only this Jesus goes on before the verse ends “I will give to all according to their works”. If the “children” being referred to were innocent, and that Jesus was going to give to all “according to their works” surely there would be nothing to give?

In the Matthew Henry Bible Commentary from verses 19  – 23 of chapter 2 in Revelation says the following concerning the Jezebel reference. What was lacking was:

A faithful reproof for what was amiss. This is not so directly charged upon the church itself as upon some wicked seducers who were among them; the church’s fault was that she connived too much at them.
Henry, M. (1996). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Re 2:18–29). Peabody: Hendrickson.

These seducers were plural if anything. The commentary goes on to describe these “wicked seducers” who were in the church of Thyatria:

These wicked seducers were compared to Jezebel, and called by her name. Jezebel was a persecutor of the prophets of the Lord, and a great patroness of idolaters and false prophets. The sin of these seducers was that they attempted to draw the servants of God into fornication, and to offer sacrifices to idols; they called themselves prophets, and so would claim a superior authority and regard to the ministers of the church.
Henry, M. (1996). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Re 2:18–29). Peabody: Hendrickson.

There was a comparison involved, between these evil seducers and the Biblical Jezebel of 1 Kings in the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is also true, that other commentaries including the Adam Clarke commentary do refer to the Jezebel figure, as an allusion to a particular woman in the Thyatria Christian community, but if this is the case, this does make verse 23 where Jesus makes clear that he will punish those based on their own actions, and their own hearts more questionable. This part of 23 is not referred to at all in Adam Clarke’s commentary.

Touching on the broader view of the blog post. When Jesus was on earth, in the Gospel text Jesus Himself made clear that He Himself had received all authority from the Father (Matthew 28:18). The Jewish prophet Isaiah had written concerning the Messiah that:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 (ESV)

Jesus had always made clear that for this time that God has bestowed mercy upon those who were looking to be forgiven their sins. He had said to the woman in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more” (John 8:10). Concerning his purposes while He was serving on this earth, Jesus says:

If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.
John 12:47-48 (ESV)

Jesus didn’t come to condemn, but on His return He will. This is the reason why I can believe that the Jesus of the Gospels, is the same Jesus of the Revelation. Jesus came to offer us a chance of forgiveness so that we can be restored to God the Father, and at the end of all time, Jesus will return to bring all in the world back to the Father. This is what Revelations is describing. His judgement is expected.

Paul writes concerning it:

For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
2 Corinthians 5:10 (ESV)

If you are reading this from Facebook, my blog is at http://www.gpeoples.net, and I would welcome any criticism or comment on the Jezebel reference in Revelations chapter 2.

As a user who recently commented on my blog noted, it has been well over a month since I have posted on it. Naturally during that time numerous things have happened, that I thought could be weighed in on.

One of these incidents is the Gaza flotilla incidents which occurred recently, in which 9 Turkish nationals regrettably lost their lives. As the news began to circulate based on Twitter, and Facebook, I noted that most of the posts seemed to condemn Israel very strongly. Indeed, I would agree to a certain degree that Israel is responsible for the unfortunate loss of life on board, as they had not planned for such an incident adequately. However, what I found was increasingly neglected was that there were certain activities on the Mavi Marmara the largest vessel which could have hindered a peaceful resolution to the Israeli boarding.

The issue became one of two polarised positions. One in which Israel was entirely correct in what it did, and another in which the passengers of the Mavi Marmara were entirely justified in exercising resistance against the Israeli commandos that happened to come down. One of the main arguers on the side of the Israeli’s was FOX News, which asserted that Israel’s right to defend itself and search the ships was unquestionable, and that there was more the mere aid on-board. Indeed, many Youtubers took up the cause also, with Lee Doren whose channel is called How the World Works arguing for this position (Commentary on the Gaza flotilla starts 2 minutes into the video):

Similar claims that those onboard were terrorist sympathisers were soon circulated, and claims that Gaza doesn’t even require aid were similarly circulated. This claim fails to take into consideration that goods in Gaza cost beyond what many people can afford, and that a lot of people still rely on UN food aid. Similarly concrete is one of the goods banned by the IDF to enter Gaza an area that still needs to reconstruct following Operation Cast Lead in late 2008.

Similarly, the details were not as forthcoming on the pro-Palestinian side as they should have been. People presented this as an unprovoked attack by the Israeli government on the flotilla, when this couldn’t have been further from the reality of the situation. Prior to the interception of 6 of the ships on the flotilla, the IDF had warned them, and even offered them to dock in Ashdod, witness their goods come across the border crossing with Gaza, and return on their own vessels. There is video coverage of this warning:

So the events seem to be from what we know as follows:

In international waters (an issue of contention in terms of legality of the IDF action) about 30km from the Sea of Gaza exclusion zone the Israelis warned the ships that they are about to enter a blockaded area, and that there would be alternative docking arrangements in Ashdod (as in the video above).

Having said this those on the flotilla chose to ignore these orders, and IDF commandos were dropped onto all 6 of the ships while still being in international waters.

On arriving on 5 of the 6 ships they were met with peaceful resistance, and those who were on board at most received minor injuries. On the Mavi Marmara, the IDF troops were met with attack from passengers onboard who in some cases wielded iron bars, and knives. Binyamin Netanyahu also noted that guns were used on IDF troops, while claiming that “this wasn’t a love boat, it was a hate boat” (video below):

The IDF only dropped 8 commandos on the Mavi Marmara, where in similar operations (according to BBC Newsnight – 1st of June) in the US military up to 40 people would be dropped at once. The high resistance on board coupled with the small amount of commandos on board may have resulted in panic and in turn the deaths of those who were killed.

As far as I am concerned, there are two parties involved in this and had the ships heeded the IDF orders, no lives would have been lost. Indeed, if there wasn’t violent resistance on board there would have been no need for the IDF to react as they did, as we have seen if we compare this incident with that of the Rachel Corrie which arrived in Ashdod on Saturday after IDF interception. It was highly unreasonable that those on board would genuinely suspect while Israel has an at-war status with Hamas that they would not search the ships so as to adequately make sure that there weren’t materials to construct rockets.

On the other hand, I believe that the Israelis need to review what goods can and cannot enter Gaza through the border crossings. Indeed, it is not good enough to determine this on a case-by-case basis, but there should be clear standards as to what is permissible. Likewise, the interception was poorly thought out, particularly in respect to how many IDF troops were dropped down, and in respect to where this interception occurred (despite its legality or illegality as that isn’t all that clear). The seizure of video equipment from the other side is also problematic in determining an outcome. Israel does have the right to inspect all goods entering Gaza, but how it does so is perhaps the most difficult question of all.

This, followed by an Iranian offer to escort any aid flotilla coming into Gaza is something that should concern us. Israel has the right to ensure that its citizens will not be attacked by the Hamas government, but at the same time it needs to ensure that humanitarian aid passes in more freely.

As always in the Israel – Palestine conflict, the truth always falls in the middle. If anyone has any comment, I’d love to hear it, and for those reading from Facebook, this blog is at http://www.gpeoples.net (to see the videos you need to click this link).

This is the letter I wrote that got published in the Irish Independent about what atheism is, and its relation to Communist regimes:

In response both to Eric Conway (Letters, April 22) and Sean Conroy (Letters, April 21) may I suggest a middle ground?

People, in general, have a capability of doing terrible things on the basis of beliefs or lack thereof.

Our history has been, and continues to be, a testament to that.

I believe Mr Conroy is correct to suggest that atheism in and of itself is not an ideology, but rather a lack of belief.

I also believe that Mr Conway is correct to say that under communist regimes during the 20th century (Stalin, Hoxha, Pol Pot to name a few), Christianity, Judaism and Islam, among other forms of religious thought, were suppressed and many severely persecuted using atheism as its justification.

Its legacy continues in the treatment of religion in North Korea and China. As a Christian, however, I cringe while reading accounts of the Crusades, to think that people could represent our gospel in such a manner.

People, in general, have a great ability to twist beliefs, or even lack of belief to suit their own agenda.

This is true both in the case of religious warfare, and in the state atheism that occurred under communist regimes.

Note – If you have not watched the debate, there are spoilers in this blog post, if you do not wish to have this spoiled for you, please watch the debate first and then read my blog post on it.

I had just got around to watching the first televised debate between Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats), David Cameron (Conservatives) and Gordon Brown (Labour) this morning, and I found it interesting how each candidate came around to discuss different subjects. I will only briefly summarise them here. If you haven’t seen the debate already, if you are reading this from www.gpeoples.net you will notice that I have provided the Youtube video above.

Before starting off into what I thought of the different candidates as they dealt with different points, perhaps it would be best to deal with the question of whether or not such a debate should have been held as it was a UK first. I personally think it is a victory of democracy and of freedom to be able to have each side presented in a clear fashion where the electorate can see exactly what is happening, and see what exactly each candidate and party are putting forward for the election. It is also particularly positive that the debate was put up on youtube as well as on television, so that bloggers and youtubers could easily have their comment on each leader. It also means that each party can have a fair exposure coming up to an election allowing for voters to have a more informed choice. Overall, a great idea, and perhaps taking a good leaf from the US process of presidential elections.

Following the debate numerous polls have made clear that Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats) was the clear winner of the debate. I personally have to agree. The main reason for this, not only was that he had clear backed up examples of how things operate, and work in other countries, and how these could be viable solutions for Britain to work with in the future, but that most of the contention actually remained between Cameron and Brown allowing for Clegg to often get his opinion across relatively unchallenged. So easily in fact that Brown was trying to claim that Clegg an he had agreements on electoral reform to boost his own opinion. Let me deal with a few issues that came up:

Immigration - This was perhaps the strongest point for Gordon Brown over David Cameron. David Cameron claimed that immigration was a huge problem for the UK, and that it was essentially out of control. Brown refuted this claim, showing clearly from the figures that immigration has actually declined in Britain over the past three years, and that Labour’s proposals on security were actually working. He also said that Labour had brought in a points system to ensure that all immigrants from outside the European Union now had to fulfil a points system before they would be allowed to live and work in Britain, and this was the reason why the decline had taken place. Cameron insisted that there had to be a blanket limit on immigration from outside of Europe, and that new members of the European Union should agree to a throttled immigration arrangement to entering Britain. To this both Brown and Clegg disagreed. Nick Clegg argued that a blanket ban on immigration is unreasonable, and perhaps that Britain should learn from how Canada, and Australia have dealt with immigration, taking in workers as there is need as opposed to taking in people for the sake of taking them in. There should be assurances that people from outside of the EU have a job, and have a sponsor before they can enter the country to work. This is favourable as it allows a reasonable and fair immigration platform, but it doesn’t allow for excess migration.

Crime - A question in the audience raised the point that burglary was a huge problem in a number of towns in the UK, and asked how each respective party would deal with it. David Cameron said harsher sentencing was needed, and that this was a key failure of the Labour government. Nick Clegg then went to argue that we have to do more than just sentencing, and that it isn’t a solution. The young offenders of today, in his opinion become the hardened criminals tomorrow, and it is our responsibility as a society. Brown attacks the Conservatives on their funding of police officers, and that if Labour continue in government they will maintain the funding to police officers, and that this won’t be at risk. Nick Clegg attacks Labour on wasting money on ID cards to limit crime. He argues that if the Liberal Democrats are in power that this money will be used to bring 3,000 more police officers to the streets of Britain, this being a much more effective solution to the crime situation on Britain’s streets.

Defence – David Cameron criticised Gordon Brown on his failure to provide correct equipment and helicopters to the people on the ground in Afghanistan, and this actually had cost lives on the ground. He also mentioned that Labour had attempted to cut the cost of funding training the Territorial Army, this Cameron deemed to be unacceptable to not fund the most crucial defence forces during a conflict in Afghanistan. To this Gordon Brown responded that this was a reaction to increased tension on the ground and that all the NATO allied nations who were on the ground had to readjust their strategies on the ground. To this Cameron accuses Brown of being disingenuous with the facts. It was in the defence section where Nick Clegg perhaps came off the weakest, particularly to a British public which supports Britain being and remaining a key player in world diplomacy. Clegg argued that the £100bn nuclear weapons deterrent was too much for Britain to feasibly maintain in an economic crisis. Both Cameron and Brown argued that this was unrealistic due to real threats posed to Britain in the event that terrorists acquire nuclear weapons, and from rogue states such as Iran, and North Korea. To leave Britain unequipped would be a terrible mistake.

Education – Education was another point which Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg drove home, that the Government curriculum involved too much bureaucracy and that this needed to change. Drawing on the example of Sweden, he noted that the British curriculum didn’t allow for a lot of freedom for teachers to actually do their job more independently and to encourage their students to work to the best of their ability. He noted that the UK curriculum was 600 pages long, and that via e-mail teachers were given 4,000 pages of extra instruction. Such bureaucracy makes it difficult for teachers to actually do their jobs he argued. The Swedish curriculum is 16 pages long.  Class sizes under the Labour Government according to Clegg were simply far too big and that realistically these could be brought down to 20 for primary school, and 16 for secondary school. Much of the other discussion involved Gordon Brown criticising Cameron for the Conservative cuts in education that they were considering. Likewise, the Conservatives argued that Labour in Government have spent £300mn on educational quangos that would be better used elsewhere.

Electoral Reform – The question of electoral reform was brought up eventually. Cameron accused Labour of trying to pass electoral reform legislation too soon before a General Election to improve Labour’s chances, and that the number of MP’s should be cut by 10% to save taxpayers money. Gordon Brown argues that this isn’t necessary if the amount of peers in the House of Lords was halved, and if it was made a democratic chamber. Brown also argued that the UK should change to a Proportional Representation List system. In this section he tried to suggest that Nick Clegg agreed with him, to which he responded that he did, but that it was coming far too late. He questioned why Labour hadn’t considered to do this in the last 13 years that they were in power.

To me it seemed as if Brown and Cameron were more interested on arguing between each other that Nick Clegg got a real opportunity to show that the Liberal Democrats offered something different. Indeed, he also clearly proved that he had done his homework, and had a real plan to show that this was financially possible, and that it was really possible. This debate, perhaps made it easier for the Liberal Democrats, effectively a third wheel party in a First Past the Post electoral system to get their position across. In a polar political system, such as that which is generated by a First Past the Post system, it was simply deemed more crucial for much of the criticism to be shared between the Conservatives and Labour, which in a sense allowed for Clegg to gain an advantage, but in other respects was simply disappointing to watch. The win was well deserved by the Liberal Democrats, as their case was simply better presented, and stronger. The idea was communicated, that the Conservatives, and Labour will be arguing forever, but there is a real alternative that shouldn’t be ignored by the British public.

I’m looking forward to watching the Northern Ireland debate, and the successive UK leaders debates prior to the May 6th election.

This is the debate speech that I put forward at the debate on the motion “This house believes that one cannot be truly moral without God” on behalf of Maynooth Christian Union along with my co-partner.  The video was uploaded on the Atheist Ireland youtube channel, but unfortunately it doesn’t contain the full speech so I thought I might as well embed the video and provide the full speech:

Good evening all, I’m Gareth Peoples, and I’m the current Christian Union president on campus. I’d like to thank you all for being with us this evening, especially Dr. John Murray and Michael Nugent, and I would like to thank the Literary and Debating Society for being so open to the Christian Union proposal to debate this subject. Before I begin, I’d like to remind everyone this is the first event of our Christianity Week. Tomorrow (March 31st) at 7pm in the Student Common Room behind the Arts Block, Dr. Bryan Follis minister of All Saints Church Belfast will be speaking on “What is truth and where can I find it?” and on Thursday at 7pm, in Hall F in the Arts Block, James Crookes chaplain at Queens University Belfast will be speaking on “Life in the Emergency Room – Finding Hope in the Midst of Suffering”.

What is morality? - Morality is a framework based on empathy by which we understand, behave and operate in relation to ourselves and to one another so that we might better fulfil our purpose as human beings.

What is true morality? – True morality involves a framework as I’ve just described that reflects the reality and fullness of relationships in this world.

When the question of whether or not one can be truly moral without God is posed, many assume that one is saying that people who do not believe in God cannot be moral. However I recognize that it would be highly inaccurate to say this considering many non-believers put the lives of many Christians to shame.

What am I going to argue tonight then? – I will be arguing that God and God alone can provide the true empathy and true understanding that we use in every day moral dilemmas. The case I’ll be making is that God underpins all moral action and how we do morality, and that no act can be truly considered moral in His absence. Therefore no person can be considered truly moral in His absence.

This view of morality is referred to by Paul in Romans chapter 2 when he writes:

For when Gentiles who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the word of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on the day when according to my Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Romans 2:14-16 (ESV)

I.E – God created all irrespective of beliefs with a conscience, by which we can better understand His moral standard, and if used correctly can facilitate moral behaviour. But how is this view justifiable?

Why can’t morality be relative? - C.S Lewis in his Mere Christianity develops and understanding of morality that demonstrates that although people may claim that morality is constructed or relative, people from the smallest of all disputes to the biggest behave as if there is a Moral Law between them and others. Lewis notes that when we quarrel we rebuke one another for wronging us saying “You should know better”.

We say these things but why do we say them? -  Lewis goes on to argue that one says one should know better because there is a common Law or standard between them. Otherwise what sense would it make that one would expect better of them? If this standard could not exist, how could we hold another to account? If we are basing it on our own subjective standard, how can we expect others to share it, and how can we expect others to understand when they do wrong by us? If we genuinely believed that moral standards were equally acceptable why would we do this?

This becomes even more apparent in international issues. In conflicts were recognize that certain acts are unacceptable. We condemn mass murder in Darfur in the same way we condemned Soviet Russia, Rwanda, Cambodia and other nightmare scenes of the 20th century. Here in Ireland, we condemn the clerical child abuse that took place. We condemn these things because they aren’t to be tolerated. They violate our common standard as human beings, and the Moral Law we use to hold people to account. Deep down we know these things are universally wrong because of the moral law that runs through our conscience. We can either ignore the Moral Law and its Law Giver or we can affirm them.

However in all reality we certainly do not regard morality as relative, and as such this is inconsistent with true morality. If morals aren’t external to us they are our mere construction and they are at our whim. Either morality is invented, or it is a standard independent from your or I. The US Declaration of Independence has on its second line:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among  these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

US Declaration of Independence

In addition we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both of these demonstrate that the reason these rights are unalienable is firstly because they are not subject to human opinion; if they were they would hardly be unalienable or undeniable. The second reason that rights and morals aren’t ours to give or define in the first place. The US Declaration of Independence ultimately rests on the conclusion that we are under a loving God who cares for our welfare.

If morals are universal, and if a moral law exists, why do people still do bad things? – Let me first make clear that in my case and in Lewis’ case the Moral Law isn’t deterministic like the Laws of Physics. Indeed all humans by their very nature fail to act coherently by the Moral Law, yet expect it of others. This is the reason why we rebuke one another in the first place. This puts us into a strange paradox. We in a sense can’t live with it (the Moral Law) due to the weight of the Moral Law in guilt, and we can’t live without it due to its necessity in moral judgement. We seek to justify ourselves, yet we also fall guilty of the Moral Law.

This closely follows the Biblical narrative. We were all created in God’s image (our true empathy) and called to reflect His will in this world. We fell short of His standard by disobedience and sin which separates us from God. We cannot ever hope to be justified by our standard because we rejected His.

What is the solution? – The solution is that someone who is blameless takes this burden away, and allows us to grow gradually as moral beings re-finding our connection with God. That person is Jesus Christ, who took our sin away allowing us to be justified on His behalf by free grace rather than our own so that we might gain a relationship with the Father, and live more closely each day by His path, allowing us to reflect His will (our true purpose) and to expect this of others.

In conclusion, there is a universal Moral Law and by extension a Moral Law giver. This is clear in our personal disputes. Human rights operate so that they depend on a loving God who cares for our welfare. Finally our inability to follow the Moral Law yet expecting it of others closely matches the Biblical standard of salvation. If this is indeed the case and it seems to be any moral consideration which rejects God isn’t coherent with reality.

Thank you.

It is the first time that I have posted on this blog in a while. However, this is a subject which rightly or wrongly has become an area of key contention within Christianity. The idea of a young earth versus what I would feel is the more reasonable view, even from reading the Genesis 1 – 3 section, as being more reasonable. I understand, that as I write this post, there will be people out there who disagree, and if you do, please feel free to comment if you are reading from facebook, or from my blog at www.gpeoples.net. This is a topic that came up at our Christian Union meeting this week, and it seems to be a topic that has come up in discussion a lot this week. I thought I might as well lay out my position on the so-called “Science – Religion” debate.

My view is that it is highly untenable to regard that the universe is as is commonly described by Young Earth Creationists as being 6,000 – 10,000 years old, particularly when the evidence points to this period in time being what we know as the Agricultural Age as humans moved from hunting and gathering to cultivating crops and livestock. If we also calculate the age of the universe from the Big Bang to the present, based on how far the universe itself has spread, the most accurate estimate isn’t in thousands of years, but rather in billions (13.7 billion years). The earth itself is thought to be around 4.3 billion years old.  This is before we even get into discussing the nature of evolution, which even the most ardent young earth creationists argue exists in some form, distinguishing between micro and macro-evolution.

What little I know of science, and I’m not going to argue to be an expert because quite frankly I’m not ,makes me wonder and marvel at God’s creation, both from an assessment of what we can know scientifically about our universe, and what we can know about the why of the universe from the Scriptures. I have a huge amount of respect for those who are currently doing such work at the minute, as they are not only unfolding what is true about existence and what we are, which is valuable in itself. For Christians such as myself, these people are unfolding the wonders of God’s creation, step by step, and it is amazing:

Friends of mine who are skeptics have shown me this video as some display of how our universe is so big, and that it is absurd to think that humans have a privileged position in the universe (Did we?), and that there is no way there is a God who could care for each one of us. Like the Psalmist in when he writes:

what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?

Psalm 8:4 (ESV)

This video, to me, would be a testament to God’s omnipotence. God in the vastness of the universe that He has created, still can care for us. God in the universe that He has created, even through what we can find out through science, shows more and more about how amazing He is in His creative power on a daily basis. At least this is what this video communicates to me as a Christian.

Just in a few thoughts, a number of issues arise for me when we come to the idea that the universe, the world and everything else could possibly have been created 6,000 – 10,000 years ago, excluding the reason from human development from hunter-gatherers to cultivators of livestock and crops.

1) The Bible does not actually give a defined date for when the universe began, or when the world came into existence, or indeed when humanity started to exist

This is a crucial point. The only dates we have for the beginning of creation, are based on a literal reading of all the genealogies of the Biblical text in some hope that we could establish a beginning date for the universe. The earliest effort I can recall of when such a date was provided (please correct me if I am mistaken) was by the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher who lived from 1581 – 1656 who very precisely dated the time of the Creation to the night preceeding the 23rd of October 4004BC. The point is, all datings of the Creation have been derived from men. Naturally, they are all based not only on the genealogies, but also on the assumption that the Universe was created in 6 literal days.

2) The sun and the moon weren’t created until the fourth day of Creation in the Genesis 1 account -

The Genesis account of Creation for those of you who are familiar with it, is spaced out throughout 6 days from the structuring of the world, to the formation of plant and animal life. There is a question surrounding the word used for day in Hebrew, which is yom, and what context it is meant to mean in the passage, but I will leave that issue aside for now. If we are to take these days as 24 hour days, we would find this to be soon problematic, as many will note that there was no sun and no moon until the 4th day.

And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

Genesis 1:4 (ESV)

Many assume that this is a contradiction, and indeed if you regard the days in Genesis as being literal 24 hour days, no doubt you will find it to be a contradiction. Precisely because one determines hours, based on the sun, and the sun and the moon essentially define what the days are. Days are determined by the very existence of the sun.

One piece of reasoning that I have heard for why the sun and the moon would be created on the fourth day of Creation, was to go against pagan accounts that would have been prevalent amongst the neighbouring tribes to the Hebrews about the sun and the moons being gods. Rather the Genesis writer, according to this reasoning, is saying no, in fact there is only one God and Him alone, and He has created the sun and the moon and they are subservient to Him. They are not to be worshipped, but rather He who is unseen and beyond all things is to be worshipped and reverenced through what He has created. I personally find this a convincing explanation as to why the writer has done this.

So, given that there is no basis, for assuming that the days in the Genesis account are actually 24 hour days, there is the fascinating possibility that these days could actually account for the development of the universe as we know it through science, with complex lifeforms such as animals and humans forming through Darwinian evolution as intended by the Creator of the universe, our God.

Isn’t it wonderful that we can actually think that science could actually reverence God? Again, we have to remember that science as we know it and how it developed, was given the tools to develop in a Christian society. Christianity allowed for the university system to prosper in Europe. This isn’t to say that Christianity has always been a help in this process, it hasn’t, and this is unfortunate. Young Earth Creationism provides one of the biggest challenges to a reasonable understanding to God’s creation. How tragic is that?

3) Why does Cain fear being killed by humans in Genesis 4? -

In Genesis chapter 4, we find something curious that would lead us to find a literal reading of Genesis 1 – 3 to be difficult in explaining the wonders of God’s creation. Cain after killing his brother Abel, complains to God about the gravity of the punishment He has given him for the murder:

Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

Genesis 4:13-14 (ESV)

Hang on here you might be saying. If Adam and Eve were the only people that existed on the earth, how come Cain is fearing being killed by other people? It’s a very good question, and one that would lead me to the conclusion, that perhaps there were other people in existence at the time.

One question, I think we need to ask more as believers in particular when we read the Bible is, what is this actually telling me? Is this what I want it to say, or is this what it actually says.

4) Genesis evidently isn’t a science book to begin with – One common objection I personally have about Genesis and how people have come to read it is, that they read it as a science book. This is naturally what happens when you are reading something literally. I’ve challenged above that Genesis can be really read literally and I have given reasons from both science and from the way that the passage is written itself, albeit in a brief fashion. One of the questions we need to ask is why was Genesis written, and who was it written to?

Was it written to explain everything in the universe, and how it happened, or was it written to explain why it happened? If it was written to explain how exactly the universe came into being, there is a difficulty involved. If we take the Genesis 1 account itself, all it really says concerning about how things came into being is that God said that He intended something to happen and happened. If I am to take one isolated example:

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so

Genesis 1:24 (ESV)

It is notable, that God doesn’t give a scientific description as to how God did what He intended to do. Rather it merely says that God intended for something to be so, and through His power it was. This raises the intriguing possibility, that we as humans can look to the book of existence and science as well as the book of Scriptures, and learn with excitement as to how God did this. Genesis doesn’t go into the exact hows of the universe, but it certainly does go into the why.

I would pose that Christian living, has to consider both the hows and the whys. Most secular thought (atheist and agnostic) doesn’t care about why the world came into being, and I will say that Young Earth Creationism doesn’t want to explore the possibility that the hows of the universe go against their limited interpretation of Genesis 1, not because the Bible says so, but rather that they don’t want it to. The real challenge for Christians, as far as I am concerned, is to live out the why, and consider the hows, and express the Gospel in the light of how the world really is, and in the light of how the world should be.

We are wasting our time if we are to dwell on whether or not Genesis is a science book. We have a great message to share, and a great example to live by. That is the example of Jesus Christ, who holds all things together:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians 1:15-17 (ESV)

The reason I came to write this post is firstly, because I believe that Christians who laud and celebrate science must be willing to challenge views that may hinder the Christian message. Christians who laud science as the wonders of God’s creation should be willing to show people who take a more literal meaning of the passage, and other people who seriously wrestle with this as a part of their relationship with God that it is not only perfectly acceptable, but praiseworthy to honour God through scientific exploration. I also wrote this post for skeptics who commonly criticize Christians who find harmony between their belief in God, and science as being a reasonable explanation for how the world is. They needn’t be mutually exclusive, as they are both describing the same thing. How God came to create and structure the universe.

If you believe that God created the universe, as the facts are demonstrating it to be, it isn’t an act of blasphemy. It’s reality. The earth is billions of years old, the universe is billions of years old, and biological evolution accounts for our origins. There are plenty of resources out there to help you. We don’t need to deny science. Indeed, precisely the reason why Richard Dawkins defines faith as something believed in the absence of evidence, or even in the teeth of evidence, is perhaps because of this conflict generated from reading Genesis.

In particular, I’d recommend this site, and this one.

I am open to question on this, I may be entirely wrong on this entire topic. If you feel so, please comment either on this blog or via facebook, I’d love to get people chatting about this.

It really has been quite a while since I’ve posted on this blog. Please accept my apology and be assured that I will be updating it much more frequently in the next few weeks?

For those who mightn’t have known. I am the current Christian Union president at NUI Maynooth. We are currently organising our first Christianity Week on campus this year and it will be kicking off in less than two weeks. We are really excited about this, and we hope that other students will be willing to engage in the bigger questions of life that are often needlessly left to the side.

Poster for our upcoming Christianity Week

The theme of this week is “Back to Reality” and we will be dealing with three big questions on morality, truth and suffering.

On Tuesday, March 30th we will be having a debate in conjunction with Maynooth LnD (Literary and Debating Society) on the motion:

“This house believes that one cannot be truly moral without God”.

Our invited speakers are Dr. John Murray, lecturer of Moral Theology at the Mater Dei Institute and one of the directors of the IONA Institute for Religion and Society, and Michael Nugent chairperson of the advocacy group Atheist Ireland.

In addition, two speakers from the Christian Union will also be speaking on this topic, I being one of them, which is exciting as it is the first time I have had to discuss about my faith in God to a university audience.

This will be taking place at 7pm in John Hume Lecture Theatre 2 (JHL2) in the John Hume Building on the North Campus of the University.

On Wednesday, 31st of March we will be having Dr. Bryan Follis, minister at All Saints Church Belfast, and author of “Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer” speaking on “What is truth and where can I find it”.

This will be taking place at 7pm in the Student Common Room behind the Arts Block on the North Campus of the University.

Finally on Thursday, 1st of April we will be having James Crookes, elder at Crescent Church Belfast, and Brethren chaplain to Queens University Belfast speaking on “Life in the Emergency Room – Finding hope in the midst of suffering”.

This will be taking place at 7pm in Hall F in the Arts Block on the North Campus of the University.

As I have said already, we are anticipating this will be a good opportunity both for us and for other students to think about the deeper questions of life, and we certainly hope that other students will take up this opportunity.

Following on from my previous post on the blasphemy law in Ireland, and building upon the recent events in the UK of Anjem Choudary’s now banned group Islam4UK’s threatened march through Wooton Bassett. I start to wonder how important is free speech to us in actuality? Is it only when peoples free speech doesn’t our own individual boundaries, that it somehow becomes okay? It seems the more one looks around, one realises that free speech isn’t quite as free as anyone thought it was, certainly not in Europe anyway. I sometimes ask myself what really happened to that which Voltaire talked about all those centuries ago:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

I soon realise that not many of us actually believe in this sentiment any more. Freedom of speech, is not important only because it allows us to express ourselves as we will. There is also a special quality involved in it at it allows for the people to be able to challenge speech, and to hold our brethren responsible for what they say, it allows for us to challenge what people say openly rather than the police or the State restricting what people say. This makes people far more responsible, and far more accountable for what they say than if they were merely restricted  from saying it in the first place. People have to think if it is wise to say what they are going to say at all with an intelligent and discerning public ready to challenge them in a Socratic means. There is not much more important to me about the functioning of society than this common freedom without the freedom to share views as Christian figures such as Paul the Apostle did in Athens questioning the belief system of the Greeks in order to introduce them to the concept of the Judeo-Christian God in the passage below Acts 17:22-34 (ESV):

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.  The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.  And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,  for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.  The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

A typical example of Paul culturally interfacing with the views of the Greeks, and the viewpoint of the unknown God. Allowing Paul to open to suggest that God indeed can be known to a certain degree and the Israelites have engaged on this walk for centuries. The point is, Christianity as we know it would have never had the opportunity to be if it weren’t for a free speech society or at least a society that allowed for enough free speech to work in.

One of my favourite documents that ensures free speech is the US Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which ensures both the right to free speech, and freedom of assembly, something which has ensured the common rights of the people the US to speak as they will in public for centuries. The text of this amendment being as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One starts to notice on assessment how deficient the British law is if one is to argue for banning a group with views that many people find detestable (Islam4UK and Anjem Choudary), but the key question to be asked is this, is the burden on the person not to offend others, or is the burden on the hearers to control their offence in a mature fashion. I would consider it the latter. I don’t think there is any place in a society that honours free speech genuinely to regard there being a right not to be offended.

Even on assessing current Irish law, one soon starts to notice how deficient it is in enshrining the right to free speech over the rights of others not to be offended. The law I will be quoting from is the Public Order Act of 1994.  I will be looking through sections 5 to 8 of this legislation. It’s highly important to anyone who will be participating in any public demonstration or any other outdoor event to promote ones views in the Irish Republic.

Section 8 regards complying to the orders of a member of the Garda Síochána when they ask you to move along from a public place if they deem you to be in violation of sections 4,5,6,7, or 9. Section 4 deals with Intoxication in Public Places, but that isn’t the main focus of what we are discussing here. Section 5 deals with disorderly conduct, Section 6 with threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, and Section 7 with Distribution or Display in public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene.

Section 5 says it is an offence to engage in offensive conduct between 12 midnight and 7 in the morning or at any other time having being requested by a member of the Gardaí to desist. Failure to do so will result in prosecution and a fine up to £500 Irish pounds (€634). What is important about this is what is considered to be offensive. Section 5 part 3 defines offence as follows:

In this section “offensive conduct” means any unreasonable behaviour which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to any person who is, or might reasonably be expected to be, aware of such behaviour.

Offence isn’t defined by an objective third party, but it is made clear precisely by the very notion that someone has been offended by what you have said. This warrants a call to movement by the Gardaí and failure to do so is an offence punishable by law.

Section 6 goes on in a similar fashion. If anyone engages in threatening, abusive, or insulting words with intent to breach the peace or being reckless to the degree of a breach of peace, the penalty will be either imprisonment for a term of up to three months or a fine of up to £500 Irish pounds (€634) or both.

Section 7 dealing with the display, or distribution of material in public states that if anyone distributes or displays in writing any material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with the intent to breach the peace or being reckless as to whether or not a breach of the peace can be occasioned, they will be liable to imprisonment for a term up to three mounts, or a fine of up to £500 Irish points (€634) or both.

Where is our free speech do you ask? The answer is that we do not have any. Speech if it is to be permitted is subject to complaint, and if such complaint is received, and if you have received notice from a member of the Garda Síochána to do so, you must do so. Your freedom to share your view, and that of others to challenge it isn’t welcome, particularly if it can be perceived to be a “breach of the peace”. This leads me to regard the current Irish law as being ineffective. If one is to argue that something is offensive, this cannot be merely based on the word of one person, but it must be based on some other standard. If this isn’t the case, all it means is that whenever someone regards anything that anyone says in public to be offensive, that the law will automatically pander to the one who is holding such “offence”. Is this really right?

I personally don’t think so, particularly if we are going to agree with Voltaires quote about the value of free speech in our society, but perhaps that is the bias of the university student seeping in. Please let me know what you think on this one. If you are reading from Facebook, my blog is at www.gpeoples.net.

It’s the second day of the new year, and the second day of the Irish Blasphemy law coming into affect. The Guardian newspaper reported on the activist group Atheist Ireland publishing 25 blasphemous quotes on the blasphemy.ie website including 2 quotes from Jesus Himself which could be perceived to be blasphemous towards Jews, and stating that they will fight prosecution if brought to court by the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions).

This seems a good idea to explain why I as a Christian oppose the current blasphemy law. Personally I think all people should have equal right to express their viewpoint, and people should have equal right to freedom of conscience irrespective of what belief system one holds. Not only this though, there is a clear disadvantage in making blasphemy illegal. Not only does it put religious affairs back into the grip of the Government, if people suppress criticism of Christianity or any other religion in the media it will be more difficult to clarify any misconceptions that people have.

The other reason which Michael Nugent brought forward is also valid:

Nugent said: “This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic states led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

“We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.”

I likewise don’t believe that religious outrage should be incentivized. Why should the anger of one group go above and beyond anyone else’s anger. In a society which is also becoming a pluralism rather rapidly it seems not only absurd to do this, but untenable. People will always hold views that will be deemed to be blasphemous to a certain group of people. In my case even if I regard the dietary laws of certain religions it could be utterly blasphemous for me to eat beef, or to eat pork.  This aside, if I hold the viewpoint that Jesus is Lord, and that He is the Son of God, it’s immediately blasphemous to Jews and Muslims.

This aside, I wouldn’t share the position of Michael Nugent that this law is here necessarily as an expression of the Golden Rule considering that exercising this right to blasphemy could result in offence, and of course nobody would desire to be offended. However, if we are to follow the logical conclusion from the rights of freedom of speech, and the freedom of conscience. This results in the freedom of statements according to any given belief system people may hold including secular criticisms of religion even if they are invalid.

Although refraining from blasphemous statements could be considered a common act of courtesy, what is condemned legally isn’t always consistent with what is moral or what is indeed good etiquette. That is up for the individual to decide, and it is up for people in society to condemn and criticise as they deem fit. If people are interested in churches / religious institutions being something independent of the State, having the State police religious matters doesn’t seem the best way to deal with it.

To start off a new blog, and just about a new year and a new decade. A review of the role of religion in the last decade seems almost apt, and indeed it is something that has been done in The Guardian recently with various contributors giving their views on the subject this week.

It seems that the noughties have started and ended with Islamic extremism, with the 9/11 attacks in New York, the Pentagon and the failed attack that crashed down in Pennsylvania, and most recently with the failed Detroit terrorist attack by suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a recent graduate in engineering in UCL, and a bright student of a British school in Nigeria. Clearly someone who had an abundance of potential to provide the world with good rather than calculated evil. In between there have been terror attacks in Bali, London, and in Madrid, as well as numerous other foiled attempts that have taken place.

It would of course be disingenuous to suggest that it is mere Islamic extremism that has provided the backdrop for all of this discussion. We have also had the rise and the fall of the power yielded by the Evangelical lobby in US presidential elections between the years 2000, and 2008 which provided us with the presidency of George W. Bush for 8 years, and two wars in the Middle East, one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq as we all know.

Likewise this decade has prompted radical changes in the Holy Land and in the Israel – Palestine conflict with extreme forms of Judaism and Islam both thriving. Conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians reached all high in the Second Intifada during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, the Israel – Lebanon War of 2006, and Operation Cast Lead in 2008. It has also prompted the construction of the Separation Barrier in the West Bank, but also the pulling out of settlement in the Gaza Strip. It has prompted the rise of Hamas to the Gaza statelet, and it has prompted huge questions about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people. Conflict in this region hasn’t only been confined to Arab – Israeli conflict, but also within the State of Israel itself with Orthodox Jews struggling both against the liberalising of the Shabbat and compromises in the Secular – Religious status quo (which at the start of the Israeli state defined key areas including that of marriage and kosher food where religious compromises must be made), and the rise of Jewish Christianity within the State.

We’ve also had the question of homosexual clergy and the ordination of female bishops, with the ordination of Gene Robinson to the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, and the likely ordination of Mary Glasspool the first openly lesbian bishop in the Anglican Communion to the diocese of Los Angeles.  We’ve also had the Anglican realignment, and Evangelical Anglicans forming the group GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) and one of the messiest Lambeth conferences in a long time.

In addition to this, in Ireland we have seen the damage and hurt that a minority in the Roman Catholic church brought about through the horrific abuse described in the Ferns, Murphy and Ryan Reports into the subject of clerical child abuse and the questions about how the Roman Catholic church can move forward rage in the media. In a bigger scale in Rome, we have the ongoing struggle between liberal and conservative views in the church, and how the Roman Catholic Church has dealt with AIDS and HIV in the African continent.

This decade has also brought about many challenges in terms of religious belief in society from wearing religious symbols in schools in France, wearing crucifixes at work in Britain, expressing your beliefs in public, amongst other things. In the UK it marked the beginning of the Christian Institute, a legal organisation set up to inform people about what is happening in respect to civil liberties and the Christian faith and an organisation set up in order to help defend people in court when such situations should arise.

Indeed religion has made the news from the big international scene to the news that takes place locally. The question we have to ask ourselves despite all the bad news is there anything good that religion can bring to our societies? Having read the above it is patently obvious why people can come up with slogans such as “Science flies you to the moon, while religion flies you into buildings” and indeed to many of us it may seem appealing.

This perhaps brings us to the next stage of our story, with the re-emergence of militant atheism through the documentaries (The Root of all Evil on Channel 4) and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins in 2006, and God is Not Great by author Christopher Hitchens in 2007. These influences and others have provoked discussion about God, religion, Christianity and the role of any of these in the Western world in particular, and noticeably in Ireland as well from many of the people I speak to on a daily basis. External to these influences are the emergence of organised atheism both in Ireland with groups such as Atheist Ireland headed by Michael Nugent with several aims to provide a secular constitution for Ireland, and to remove the current blasphemy law from the statute books. Likewise the Humanist Association of Ireland have called for religious oaths to be removed. Atheist Ireland also allows for the meeting and the discussion of atheism and secular values amongst people in Ireland and beyond. Likewise the emergence of atheist societies in UCC (University College Cork), UCD (University College Dublin), and in NUI Galway.

Those who are reading who have some form of a faith might feel that I am being highly unreasonable objecting that the news mostly covers what is negative. This is true, but the presence of religion in the news provides us an opportunity to present our beliefs, and to present views in a way that we never had the opportunity of doing before. It also allows ourselves to show others, that despite the fact that the hard-line extremists get the news headlines that there is a role for religion, and indeed a huge benefit to be offered from religious activity and charity throughout the world.

New discussion on the role of religion and science particularly organisations such as Christians in Science, and The BioLogos Foundation provide an interesting perspective to help believers to defend their views more clearly amongst those who would be sceptical, and to present an alternative to the new atheism being advocated in Western society. Interesting, and exciting times are ahead with some parts of the world professing new belief, and other parts where it is radically declining there is always a place for our view to be heard.