Or Graphs...or Division In The Church

[MathGeek]

Hello, folks. It's time for another episode of "The MathGeek Rants..."

 

On today's episode, the MathGeek tries to destroy both mathematics and philosophy by creating another metaphor that actually bridges both disciplines of thought. In fact, I'd say I'm making a connection.

 

In the world of elementary algebra, students are introduced to something called compound inequalities. That is where a student solves two inequalities as opposed to one, and the solutions for both inequalities are graphed on one number line. The inequalities can be compared by one of two words, AND and OR. The AND inequality is commonly called a conjuction and the OR inequality is commonly called a disjunction. When one graphs a conjuction, the solutions connect or intersect forming a small range of solutions between two points on the number line, kind of like when two magnets have the opposite poles facing each other. When one graphs a disjunction, the solution are pointed away from each other forming two disparate sets of solutions, kind of like when two magnets have the same poles facing each other.

 

Despite the mathematical gobbledygook spouted above, it is the second kind of compound inequality that intrigues the metaphorical part of the MathGeek's mind. When the solutions are written out after an OR inequality is solved, it is sometimes referred to as union of two sets. If one analyzes the entire context of the problem and the terminology that is used, it immediately appears counterintuitive. It goes against the grain for the neophyte intellect, but when one starts comprehending the fact that much of our understanding is based on paradoxes and axiomatic contradictions, one begins to understand that is just another example how confusing our understanding of everything can be. In addition to that, the undestanding that humans have created is also complicated by the fact that the fancy for finding interconnections between things is also built into us as an instinct. In some ways, I may be committing intellectual paredolia.

 

What is the point of all this, you may wonder. In Christianity, it has been quoted that there are upwards of 30,000+ different denominations that worship the same Lord, Jesus Christ. The problem comes in how the folks in each denomination interpret the Bible, what translation each denomination uses, what tradition of interpretation each denomination uses, what message of faith each denomination is trying to espouse for a given audience, etc. If we return to the example of the OR inequality, we can assume that each point on the number line is a particular Christian sect and that the way the arrow is pointing is the way that particular sect believes. There is something makes each sect divergent from one another and each sect acts like two magnets that have their south poles pointed at one another. The open space left in the middle is likely the "true and perfect" interpretation of the Bible that each sect strives to have. Let us not forget that this situation in mathematical terms is called a union and this would come about when any outside observer would look for the similarities within each sect and would label that under one catch-all phrase, in this particular case Christianity.

 

Now, if you are completely lost by my metaphorical analysis, I can't necessarily say I blame you for acting as such. To make this case a little easier to digest, let us consider the simple fact that a break in any line could be called a division. It is plainly obvious that most towns will likely have more than one Christian church, so it goes that the division has occurred and even keeps occurring with the seeding of new small churches in recent times. From any rational perspective, it is clearly obvious that all Christian sects share some basic tenets that do not change, which is why many Christians keep spouting the line about there being "unity in diversity" within the confines of the outside observer's catch-all construct. Immediately, the outsider might think that becoming a Christian would be loser's prospect because he is unsure upon which horse he or she should wager. Now, if the outsider was really inquisitive, he or she would crack open the Bible and notice the lines that Jesus said in Luke 12:51-53...

 

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

So, the outsider may think this: Jesus Christ came to bring division therefore there is a precedent for the division in the church, therefore there is no possible way to have a totally unifying message. This hypothetical line of reasoning may explain why the gaps occurs in our graphical union. The outsider is somewhat confused now. How should our outsider know which path to follow? Let's say our outsider flipped some pages further in the New Testament and landed at Galatians chapter 1. Galatians 1:6-9 reads...

 

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

 

This leaves our outsider further confused. What exactly constitutes a false gospel? If both denominations preach Christ rose from the dead as their foundation, how are they both wrong? If denomination says that they have a teaching authority called the Magisteareum that interprets scripture and another says they have their tradition of "Scripture Alone", how should outsider discern which one is correct? This confusion is unbearable to our outsider, so he or she reads furthers onward. Galatians 1:13-17 states further...

 

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

 

This passage leaves our outsider rather flummoxed, left with a mental error comparable to one that says "does not compute". So, our outsider is now told that the newest apostle received a revelation that was special and seperate from the ones given to the original 11 apostles. Let us assume that our observer has a classical Western post-secondary education. He or she asks herself, "why would Jesus Christ do that to his most trusted of disciplines?" She puts the logic together as follows: Jesus Christ picks Paul to spread the message of his Resurrection to the non-Jewish world and yet would not give the same revelation to Peter and the rest of the apostles right away so a council wouldn't have had to been called at Jerusalem? Since Jesus already allowed the Gentiles to have salvation because the foreign woman made the comment about the dogs eating the scraps, what was the point of appointing Saul of Tarsus in the first place? Also, since Paul persecuted the Christians prior to his deconversion, why would any rational person believe this man at all?

 

So, where does this leave our outsider? Likely in a pool of confusion that would make him or her reject it outright.

 

As for the MathGeek, where do I stand? I still stand as an unbeliever because I find the entirety of the book of Acts to be convoluted. Paul seems to be a unneeded character in a rather flimsy narrative. From my perspective it appears to me that the selection of Paul as the harbinger of Christian love and salvation is one of the more cruel things that the Lord of Christianity could do to any human being and to humankind at large. Since Jesus revealed it to the Apostles directly that the Gentiles could be saved, why not send them out at all without having to select such a murderous bastard like Saul of Tarsus. Furthermore, since God is capable of doing of great things such as moving mountains, why couldn't he have one of the apostles speak Greek and Latin without already having to had learned Greek and Latin independently? I also dislike the lines about how Jesus would divide houses and families against each other. That simple proclamation is borne out in the book of Acts and in the writings of the New Testament. If a crazy, insane man like Paul could have the majority of the writings in the New Testament as an outsider, that sure doesn't show that Jesus had a lot of trust of his apostles to carry out his orders. It seems to me that Jesus chose Paul because I find Jesus to be a lot like his father (actually his Father in whole or in essence...whatever, they're the same thing I guess) who is a lot like a craven monarch that likes creating drama and intrigue among the members of his court.

 

Overall, I find the message of Christianity to be decisively divisive and there is no way that anybody can reach that "correct and perfect interpretation" of God's word. No wonder there is that division in the OR graph.

[par4dcourse]

I'm going to let my ignorance shine here, but don't all branches of xianity by definition share a commonality in jebus and the wholly babble, with variations in interpretations of both? FLDS and Presbyterians are worlds apart, but still share the basics.

[MathGeek]

I'm going to let my ignorance shine here, but don't all branches of xianity by definition share a commonality in jebus and the wholly babble, with variations in interpretations of both? FLDS and Presbyterians are worlds apart, but still share the basics.

 

Yes, that is true. In fact, that is where the phrase "unity in diversity" derives from. Yet, it is on certain topics that they disagree is the diversity. Since they fall under the catch-all phrase of Christianity, that is where the unity comes in. It is a disjunction...

 

FLDS or Presbyterian or Roman Catholic or Methodist or Southern Baptist or Independent Baptist or Foursquare or Prosperity Gospel or...

 

Since they all believe in Jesus, they are all Christian, but since they all have diverse views of Jesus, they are also Christian...

 

DNC! DNC! DNC!

[jackbauer]

The problem with Christianity is that there is no clear line to begin with and nothing to meassure the line. Of course, Christians love to say "Well you're not supposed to trust in humans, you should trust in GAWD!!" which is like saying "You shouldn't look for signs to New York City, you should go to New York yourself".

 

Great analogy anyway.

[Amethyst]

The very fact that there are so many diverging viewpoints and interpretations of Christianity is one of the many things that caused me to start thinking for myself.

 

Surely if something was a truly divine message, there would not be so many different interpretations that would cause the vast majority of people to burn in hell for not believing in The One And Only Right Way . Because really, how is the average person supposed to know which one is right when there are so many? The average person is likely to go to the church that is closest to them, and/or where they know people from, and/or the church where they were raised from birth in. So if you're raised from birth in one particular church, you have really no way of knowing if that particular church is the One True Church or not.

 

According to fundamentalist religions, if you happen to be raised in the wrong church, you go to hell. How fair is that?