Discussing
When Christianity Seems Curiouser and Curiouser

Yes, I think a lot of unbelievers see us as 'Mad as a hatter'! I was converted to Christ in a Salvation Army meeting after attending on & off for 2yrs. I did think the Salvationists were to say the least a bit way out, uniforms & all ! You are right of course our Saving Faith is a gift from God & mine came as I heard the very straight foreward preaching of the Gospel. Now I am glad to be numbered among the 'Peculiar People'.

The World will indeed view Christians, Christianity, faith, and God however it's going to view them. Instead of worrying about the World (we often are more concerned how we look to other people), we should focus on being disciples of Christ...following Him, sharing/showing His love, and sometimes sticking our foot in our mouth. :)

Are you asking this question on behalf of non-believers, or is this really your question? Christianity is rooted in history, real places, real people, real geography, real time. Biblical theology seems to accurately account for the peculiarities of human nature, the roots of culture, law, and morality. Its philosophy of reality created an environment where empirical science could flourish. Scientific advances seem to increasingly confirm Biblical assertions such as creation arising out of a non-created singularity, the exquisite fine tuning of the universe to allow human existence, the existence of hidden dimensions, the impossibility of chance to account for the organization of the universe or the genetic code. Once one accepts the reasonability of an intelligent, personal creator, the idea of communication with Him makes sense and is confirmed by the subjective experience of sensing his voice or leading. That subjective experience can then be compared with the Bible and affirmed or rejected by this objective standard.

How is this like the totally irrational Mad Hatter’s world or Dawkin’s flying spaghetti monster? The Mad Hatter’s world is hallucinatory and has no explanation beyond mercury poisoning.

As a philosopher (or least a philosopher-in-training, i.e. a grad student), I know that religious truths *don't* fit with the real/unreal distinction. At least for many philosophers, real means corresponding to something that exists in re, in the world beyond my thought. Put it another way, it would exist even if I wasn't around to think about it. And existing usually means occupying a specific place in space-time. There's the problem: God doesn't exist because God is not physical, so God is not real in the strict, philosophical sense.

This may seem a bit removed from everyday life, but I think it is an important step toward getting people to admit Christians have not escaped down the rabbit hole, as it were. We can admit that religious belief is not real but neither is it unreal. We can explain that we believe in something that is not defined or definable by *any* of our concepts. God is the most basic of ideas and so is not analyzable, even in terms of existence. So belief in God is by definition not going to be "real" - but this isn't a mark against it. It's kind of like complaining that a song isn't blue. A song isn't the kind of thing that has any color at all, so the fact that it doesn't have a color can't be a criticism.

I do think there is an important sense in which religion *can* be real, though - not in what we believe in, but in how it changes us. We show we are real by being genuinely concerned for our fellow humans, of the rest of God's creation, and other things - belief in God transforms our priorities in a way that is good. For me, having faith means having the moral courage to not do things because I feel like I have no choice. Not to act out of fear, but to do what is right. Faith for me requires a rethinking of things like possession and security, and relying on God to make things work out when I do the right thing. (Even if it seems dangerous.) This is not automatic for all believers, it is much more difficult than just saying you believe in God - but it is to me the mark of authentic faith.

I don't see much of a comparison. That means I agree with your last paragraph. Of course I used to get C.S. Lewis and Lewis Caroll mixed up when I was a child -- and I still like to read both of them. There is a cultural faddishness to analyzing every movie in terms of Christianity, and Christianity in terms of the latest movie. (I didn't think much of using Avatar as either a metaphor or a whipping post). Alice in Wonderland is straight-up fantasy -- no ifs and or buts about it.

Christianity -- well, we can't prove it, but most of us don't claim to have been at Calvary, or spoken to God, or personally seen the cherubim flying around with six wings chanting "Holy, holy, holy" either. I think Christians open up avenues for cynicism when we get wrapped up in empirical details -- even the trinity. I think of debates over trinitarianism, unitarianism, as a matter of three blind men feeling an elephant. Ditto for the Athanasian-Sabellian-Arian debate. Even the grace vs. good works debate... in a specific situation, like selling indulgences, there may be a valid point, but, in the larger scheme of things, each has its place. Our scriptures have a lot of metaphors and parables, for the simple reason that the reality of a transcendent deity is way beyond what our minds could grasp. Its all we can handle. Its the only way to reach us. We shouldn't pretend it all makes us especially expert on The Truth. Alice's adventures were mathematically and logically interesting, and a fun read, but in the end, there really wasn't much of a point to them. And that was the point, I think.

@ rick:

I love the logic you put forth in your first paragraph. There's a simplicity behind the apologetics you are putting forth and it works. Non-believers are funny in how they try to apply logic to their arguments, which I'll admit can be fun to do as it gives the brain some exercise, but they do so to get to the end they want to believe is true.

Are you asking this question on behalf of non-believers, or is this really your question? Christianity is rooted in history, real places, real people, real geography, real time. Biblical theology seems to accurately account for the peculiarities of human nature, the roots of culture, law, and morality. Its philosophy of reality created an environment where empirical science could flourish. Scientific advances seem to increasingly confirm Biblical assertions such as creation arising out of a non-created singularity, the exquisite fine tuning of the universe to allow human existence, the existence of hidden dimensions, the impossibility of chance to account for the organization of the universe or the genetic code. Once one accepts the reasonability of an intelligent, personal creator, the idea of communication with Him makes sense and is confirmed by the subjective experience of sensing his voice or leading. That subjective experience can then be compared with the Bible and affirmed or rejected by this objective standard.


Still @ rick:

Your second paragraph seems to lack a creative exploratory type of logic that can allow us to pull stuff from the arts as they can often if not more often put certain aspects of life into an allegorical form in order for us to get a fresh perspective on an issue or topic we might not have consider previously...

How is this like the totally irrational Mad Hatter’s world or Dawkin’s flying spaghetti monster? The Mad Hatter’s world is hallucinatory and has no explanation beyond mercury poisoning.

@ Josh Larsen:

...that being said, I really like what you have done with this post. I believe the issues you have brought up are things we as Christians need to be aware of, but not to the extent that we mis-live life. I image it has got to be a good thing to be on top of the non-believers perspective as it is the interaction with this perspective that will allow us to have affective/effective communication in bringing to light a much more real rabbit-hole, like the one Neo was offered to travel through.

"How, then can those of faith persuade nonbelievers that we're engaged in more than an escapist fantasy"? Maybe we don't have to try at all to do this if we concentrate on doing what Jesus told us to do then our lives will mirror His and unbelievers will come to Salvation as they hear the Gospel preached. A lot of people saw Jesus as mad or bad when He walked the earth and I don't think he engaged in long philosophical argument with them, He just did what the Father told Him to do.

Aktive:

i am not sure I understand your question so forgive me if I seem to be yammering on about something unrelated to your inquiry. And I apologize to Josh if I am misreading him.

I’m not saying that fantasy is not valuable in illuminating our understanding of the world, engaging with theology or simply providing entertainment. Being made in the image of our infinitely creative Father, we like to create as well, and often, just for the joy of it. Paul Klee, Juan Miro, Kasimir Malovich, Pablo Picasso were all celebrating their Father’s likeness. I know, I am a painter.

What I am responding to is settling for the description of Christianity as an unreasonable, elaborate fiction that resembles a fairy tale, as something that is not subject to reason. This invites a certain sense of fatalism. I am not sure if Josh is taking an extreme Calvinist or determinist position or if he simply believes our reason is completely unreliable. By characterizing Christianity as a hoplessly fantastical fairytale that can only be grasped by a leap of unreasonable faith that only God can grant, we are excused from making a case for the faith. In fact, we agree with our critics that we are mad as a hatter. As he says, “It takes faith to be a Christian, and often such faith only comes directly from God. So join the tea party along with Alice and the Mad Hatter – and don’t worry so much about the skeptics clinging to the here and now.” This is tantamount to agreeing with Richard Dawkins comparison of Christianity to believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As Paul says, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

I believe that a Judeo/Christian background is actually the best basis for creating satisfying fantasy or wrestling with the issues of life. From the The Lord of the Rings, the Narnia Chronicles, Lost, the Matrix, Paradise Lost, to Dante’s Inferno, or Crime and Punishment, fantasies that have a ring of truth to them are much more satisfying.

How, then, can those of faith persuade nonbelievers that we’re engaged in more than an escapist fantasy?

I recommend we start by making it more than an escapist fantasy.

Show that truly accepting Christ has material consequences for those who accept Him. They stop accepting the American gospel that wealth, acquisition, and conspicuous consumption are the most important things in the world, and start self-sacrificially acting for the benefit of the least of these. They forego buying bigger and better things, and start investing in the Kingdom by redistributing wealth and demanding that governments enact policies that benefit the poor and oppressed. They don't shy away from the plain fact that a Christian who lives in luxury and waste while vast swaths of humanity lack the basic necessities of life is spitting in the face of Jesus Christ and telling Him that some of His children are quite simply worth more than others.

If choosing to follow Christ doesn't mean a material change in the way one views money, resources, the planet, and one's fellow human beings, and a vast shift in one's lifestyle toward one more in line with God's demands for justice on behalf of the poor and oppressed, then Christianity is nothing more than an escapist fantasy, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Rick:

I don't know the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I think your taking Josh's thought and comments from the wrong angle. You are very much right the other works of fiction you mentioned are much easier to work with in order to pull out examples of life's truths, but I don't think just because a song, book or movies isn't rooted in solid truth means that we can't use some of what the work offers to help us reflect on truth. And I think this is all the more Josh is trying to do here. He's not say that Alice In Wonderland is this amazingly deep reflection up Christianity, at least not from a Christian's perspective. Point in case of his posting in the first place is just this: what if the story or movie is putting forth the perspective: this is how I, a non-believer, perceive Christians and Christianity. And working form this non-believer perspective that is why Josh suggests we join the tea party. That is what they see us as doing. It's bit of a joke.

I tend to be a bit of an overly goofy individual and I like 2 Corinthians 5.13: "If we are sane, it is for God's sake; and if we are sane, it is for your sake" (CJB). Sometime it take an extreme. After all, life is extreme.

Hope this clarifies my thought!

I like.

If God is in essence spiritual it is difficult for him to act in the physical. He could, has and can act in the physical (Jesus Christ, God in flesh), but he has created us to be the physical image of Himself. So if He has physical vessels in which to interact with the rest of the physical realm, why interact in the spiritual. It's much easier for a physical being to perceive and accept the physical actions of a fellow physical human being than it would be to perceive and accept the actions of an invisible spiritual being. Hence His hands and feet.

This is not to be confused however with our spiritual interaction with God. We as His vessels have an interaction with God in spirit and truth. Also at some point that interaction with God through a fellow physical being, if it transforms us, if we accept the gift of faith, than we find ourselves beginning the interaction of the physical and spiritual. While being physical vessels, a vessel is intended to be filled with something. The vessel is in use when it is full. And as a physical vessel created by the spiritual God, I wonder what we're supposed to be filled with?

Thanks melayton!

Rick: Thanks for taking my original post in a number of interesting directions. As to my intentions, I initially meant to simply pose the question: Is this what we (Christians) look like to nonbelievers? I had never thought of it that way, at least until this "Alice in Wonderland." As for my eventual conclusion about what to do about it, I didn't mean that we should retreat into fantasy as much as I meant we should be comfortable with the fact that much of Christianity is inexplicable to those without faith. I'd also agree with what others have posted here in addition - that our Christ-like actions in this world are one way to make Christianity "real."

Perhaps someone here can explain the strange, barely hidden, connection between the names of Tim Burton and Timur the Great (1336-1405), the Muslim conqueror who destroyed Sardis in 1402 -- a marauding Mongol warlord also named in arts and literature as Tamerlane (Edgar Allan Poe), Tamerlano (Handel) and Tamburlaine (Christopher Marlowe of Doctor Faustus "pact with the Devil" fame).

Note the recent dark collaborations between Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov ("9") and, elsewhere, between Justin Timberlake and Timbaland (Carry Out, 4 Minutes, celebrated by Madonna).

My point is, when big-name creative types are generally kabbalists, occultists or full-blown satanists, what in the world are we doing pretending that the stuff they produce is all just fun family entertainment? And why are we searching there for hidden Christian messages? Are we just plain stupid?

Personally, I have already seen way too much material from Tim Burton, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. So, who needs Alice In Wonderland? Not your kids, that's for sure.

Wake up. Get outta there.

Most people don’t know that Tim Burton’s middle name is actually Tamerlane. Tim Tamerlane Burton. And why exactly did Justin Timberlake leave 'N Sync? Was it to spend more time in a New Delhi Ashram? Why is there no I in 'N Sync? Hindus believe in the loss of the individual I in their Kaballa inspired religion. Have you ever seen Justin Timberlakes birth certificate? How do we know he is not a card carrying, snake charming, diaper wearing Hindu? Did anyone else notice that the movie 9 is actually an upside down 6? See it three times and you know where I am going with this. How can we pretend that what Justin Timberlake does is actual singing. I know I can’t. Did anyone else notice that the date Sardis (sounds awfully close to sardine by the way!) was conquered, 1402, can be rearranged to 2014? So just what is Tim Burton, Justin Timberlake and their Hindu buddies up to in 2014? Makes you think.