Losing My Religion

This Blog has Moved....

2007-11-01T13:19:00.000-06:00

Hi Everyone, I have officially moved this site to this site http://societyvs.wordpress.com/ - because Yael suggested it worked better (and she may be right). I will leave this message up for a week - but basically I am using the Wordpress site now. So come on over and see me!

Water into Wine into Mythology

2007-10-31T21:38:00.000-06:00

I am currently reading Tom Harpur's new book 'Water into Wine' and I am not sure what to think of it all. Pieces of it are really good (interpretation pieces) and part's of it I think are very questionable (Paul's mythology). So here is what I will put out there after 3 chapters of reading.

(1) Jesus is mythical - it's an interesting idea - but I am not sure this is the case. I can see the virgin birth and a few other things being questioned as myth - but the actual person? He is similar to mythic characters - agreed - and maybe that adds to the stories - also agreed - but he does come off as a real person - and at that in a Jewish culture and community (which the writings also reflect - even if all we have is greek to go by). Maybe these scholars are missing something here in the historical study?

(2) The whole Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Q thing is tired and old. Mark is always first - and that's the current concensus (agreed) - but this is a field still wide open. The argument Mark came first and Matthew copied makes sense. But the opposite does also - Matthew came first and Mark was a shortened version of it - with 2% changes - for a different crowd. And Q - hell if we know that exists - there is no proof whatsoever (nor a document found). I think this is all questionable and if someone stakes a claim on any of this for some new-founded idea - it is at the very least - worth questioning.

(3) The whole Paul see's Jesus as myth is right from left field and makes no sense. I am not saying Paul doesn't allegorize a lot and some of his stuff can be mystic - agreed. But I think Paul saw Jesus as a real person that lived on one simple basis - Jesus crucified gets mentioned a lot in his writings (and is in each gospel). Now if crucifixion was something from 100's of years ago when Paul wrote - I might agree - however it was a known form of death during Paul's life. If Paul is going to wax mythic on everything - he has a very stange way of doing it.

(4) The problem of Acts and Luke weighs in here. Luke seems to have no problem writing a gospel and an 'acts of the apostles' that clearly lays out Jesus was a person and that Paul knew the original disciples. This actually has to lend creedence to the idea since Luke is a 2nd generation believer who also seems to know Paul (mentioned in his letters and even uses the communion idea Paul does verbatim in his gospel). Luke copied the gospels - clearly - but who do we think he got them from...well if he's honest in any sense - then possibly the first community of Christians. I think Luke is very strong evidence that a Jesus existed. Also if Luke wrote last and Paul mentions him in letters - doesn't it go to figure the other gospels possibly existed (even Paul mentions problems with 'gospels' - plural - in his letters).

(5) I like the idea of looking at the teachings from a more mythological perspective - not everything has to be literal - agreed. I like this - there seems to be something to learn here - and Harpur makes a great point about the 'mysteries of God' and 'parables' revealing deeper ideas about who God is. I can dig that.

(6) This whole mythology thing is based on the historical Jesus and builds from there (which I must say is quite the sturdy platform). I wonder - how much proof is there for a Peter, James, or John in 1st century AD? Or Paul? I mean, why stop at Jesus here - we have many names to peruse. If they all come up blank - then are they all made up also? Where did they come from then?

(7) Finally, my last qualm starts with Luke again. Isn't it odd that Luke has name attached to a gospel at all - and Acts? I can see Matthew and John - but Luke - who was not even a disciple at all? I thought the idea was attaching names of prominence to these things - even Thomas carries some weight - who the hell is Luke I ask? Yet he has 2 written documents - more than all of the actual disciples in terms of volumne of writing. Isn't that at all strange? And then we see Mark and Luke as travelling companions via Paul's letters - were they writers for people? Is Mark Peter's son - possibly that close to him - thus a gospel? Just maybe Luke was the author - and if that is so - then he wrote alongside Paul (or close to him). And if he copied - well - need I say more where this is going.

I am having as tough a time turning possible history into mythology - kinda like I would turning water into wine.

Abraham, Sacrifice and Hearing God's Voice

2007-10-28T17:56:00.000-06:00

Abraham, Seperation and Hearing God’s Voice (Genesis 22: 1-18)
***Quoted from a Jewish friend’s blog - Yaelbatsarah

“The most interesting separation was the one I hadn’t noticed before, way the text shows Abraham’s separation from God. In Chapter 22 God tells Abraham to take Isaac up the mountain and sacrifice him. This is the Abraham that argued against God destroying strangers, but for his own kid he gets up and goes.

This is the last time God speaks to him. The next time it is an angel of God who speaks to Abraham, and just to make sure we noticed it wasn’t God talking to Abraham directly anymore, the text says in verse 13 that the angel called to Abraham a second time. Are you getting it? God isn’t talking to this guy anymore! Why? Maybe because God had expected Abraham to argue and Abraham didn’t?” (Yaelbatsarah)

What can be learned here about our friendship with God? Do we do things with our faith that are unreasonable and need to be looked at more closely? No one’s faith is perfect – and we all make mistakes – but let’s pause this week to see if we are using our faith as a reason to make those mistakes.

Climate Change and Greed

2007-10-26T10:58:00.000-06:00

“For two hundred years, we, in the west, have wagered the world that economic growth is the highest form of progress, burning more and more fossil fuels.” (David Suzuki)

I am not the biggest fan of Suzuki but I watched this documentary last night and got to wondering about the effects of climate change and where this all came from – and what is a Christian stand on this?

Well we are well aware this all grew out of Industrialization and the rise of oil as a basic economic underpinning. Although this 200 year history has spawned some of the greatest technological advances and conveniences – it has also caused major problems with our natural world. Suzuki points out problems in the “Canadian Arctic, Montana, Northern Kenya, China and India” - and how the erosion of soil, ecological disasters, and the melting of ice caps all effect various communities in major ways (ex: death, starvation, loss of soil to grow things, and moving of communities to adjust).

I watched in horror more or less at communities losing everything in sub-sahara Africa or Chinese villages having to move every few years due to soil erosion. It seemed like all the answers to the problems are being thought up but no one is taking them serious. Why?

Greed. A system that is 200 years old and building more infrastructure aorund the earth is not about to go ‘quietly into that good night’. There is still a lot of money to be made and many markets are yet to be tapped completely (ex: China). I see a struggle between global markets and the strain on the global environment arising and someone has to concede.

But as a Christian person this bothers me. The West is enjoying the benefits of industrialization – other countries are suffering for the amount of stuff we do to the environment to keep our convenient lifestyles. It makes me feel a little guilty for being born into this and then enjoying it. We have inherited a system that both benefits us yet destroys our lifesource – the earth. It almost seems the almighty Dollar is worth more than the Almighy’s objectives for us – to care for this earth. I know that we are called not to 'greed' but to 'care for the poor' - yet in the West I see the opposite happening. Will this switch before it’s too late?

“And don't blame me I was given this world I didn't make it” (2 Pac – Keep Your Head Up)

Love and Fear -The Great Escape

2007-10-26T09:43:00.001-06:00

“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.” (I John 4:18)

Ever dissect this scripture before? Ever take a good long hard look at what John is saying here? Well I did about 2 weeks back and I came to some conclusions.

(1) Fear and love should not co-exist in a relationship. Someone should not say they have to ‘fear someone’ to ‘love them’ or ‘love them due to fear’. John makes it abundantly clear ‘that one who fears is not perfected by love’ – they are not getting all they can from that relationship.

(2) Love and fear are opposites. Love does not lead you to fear nor does fear lead you to love. Perfect loves casts out fear or you could also say fear casts out love. These two ideas are not bed-mates nor do they like hanging out – one usually drives the other away.

(3) The idea we can be saved by ‘fear tactics’ will not result in the idea we ‘will know God’ – since God is love. If someone comes to God to escape hell (punishment) there is no guarantee that same person will correctly portray God (who is love – not fear) – since the fear is a misrepresentation of God’s character. Fear leads to superstition; love leads to freedom.

We talk about the ‘fear of God’ but I think this is a normal beginning – there is a huge element of unknown concerning God. But to remain in fear is like to remain a child who is scared of the dark – not knowing the dark won’t hurt you (you just can’t see). Love is the steps towards God and finding out what the depth of God is (what life is all about and what it all means). Fear does not have depth – it has punishment – and that’s all there is to know.

Can the idea of love replace the idea of fear in the Christian world as the core idea in salvation? Why do we as humans want to hold so tightly onto fear?

Speaking of Prophethood - What's Next...Polygamy?

2007-10-22T21:19:00.000-06:00

I was just watching a documentary on the Mormon history and they had a whole chapter on polygamy and what all happened there. That got me thinking about that topic - is it possible this idea will ever make it's way back into mainstream society?

To be honest, Joseph Smith percieved himself as a prophet who saw himself heralding in both the end times and a challenge for the church to change in America. He was the one that made this idea enter the dialogue of American history - and what did he base this on? You got it - his interpretation of some Tanakh writings and some supposed revelation from God. Was he wrong? Mainstream Mormonism thinks so - but the documentary said something that caught my ears (I will paraphrase) - 'even if Mormons don't believe this practice there has to be some burning thought in the back of their minds about it's legitimacy since it did come from Joseph Smith's own mouth?'.

Polygamy, the idea a man can have more than one wife (why I say man is because this is how it was always used and justified). This idea is not all that foreign actually, it happens all around us all the time. Men cheat on their wives with other women (sometimes multiple partners), the ideas of 'swinging' are in our midst, Hugh Hefner has 4 wives (one legally), we see people marry multiple partners during a lifetime (what Larry King have now - 5?), teenagers have mutiple sex partners before they leave high school, etc. Is this really that foreign an idea?

However, is it possible this will come back into mainstream society? It has been around apparently since the world began - and history is filled with stories of this practice (even to this day) - and it seems the sexual revolution of the late 60's may have an unseen impact yet - maybe this sexual revolution can usher in the idea of polygamy also?

What's so bad if someone does this and all parties agree to the unions? I mean, it's behind closed doors and whatever we can't see can't be that bad? Plus this idea is as old as humanity itself - doesn't that lend credibility to it? Also, it seems the bible - even if vague on it - does show many a person having concubines? So, hmmmm...will this make a comeback? If not, why?

***PS: I have one wife and I love her with all my heart. Would I support this idea - no.

Changes - The Gospel of a Thug?

2007-10-20T16:37:00.000-06:00

Changes (2Pac Shakur)

I see no changes wake up in the morning and I ask myself/is life worth living should I blast myself?/I'm tired of bein' poor & even worse I'm black/my stomach hurts so I'm lookin' for a purse to snatch/Cops give a damn about a negro/pull the trigger kill a n*gga he's a hero/Give the crack to the kids who the hell cares/one less hungry mouth on the welfare

First ship 'em dope & let 'em deal to brothers/give 'em guns step back watch 'em kill each other/It's time to fight back that's what Huey said/2 shots in the dark now Huey's dead/I got love for my brother but we can never go nowhere unless we share with each other/We gotta start makin' changes learn to see me as a brother instead of 2 distant strangers/and that's how it's supposed to be/how can the devil take a brother if he's close to me?/I'd love to go back to when we played as kids/but things changed, and that's the way it is

That's just the way it is/Things'll never be the same/That's just the way it is

I see no changes all I see is racist faces/misplaced hate makes disgrace to races/We under I wonder what it takes to make this one better place, let's erase the wasted/Take the evil out the people they'll be acting right'/cause both black and white is smokin' crack tonight/and only time we chill is when we kill each other/it takes skill to be real, time to heal each other/And although it seems heaven sent/We ain't ready, to see a black President/It ain't a secret don't conceal the fact the penitentiary's packed, and it's filled with blacks

But some things will never change/try to show another way but you stayin' in the dope game/Now tell me what's a mother to do/bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you/You gotta operate the easy way/"I made a G today"/But you made it in a sleazy way/sellin' crack to the kids/"I gotta get paid"/Well hey, well that's the way it is

"We gotta make a change...It's time for us as a people to start makin' some changes. Let's change the way we eat, let's change the way we live and let's change the way we treat each other. You see the old way wasn't working so it's on us to do what we gotta do, to survive"

And still I see no changes can't a brother get a little peace/It's war on the streets & the war in the Middle East/Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs/so the police can bother me/And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do/But now I'm back with the blacks givin' it back to you/Don't let 'em jack you up, back you up, crack you up and pimp slap you up/You gotta learn to hold ya own/they get jealous when they see u with your mobile phone.

But tell the cops they can't touch this/I don't trust this when they try to rush I bust this/That's the sound of my tool you say it ain't cool/my mama didn't raise no fool/And as long as I stay black I gotta stay strapped/and I never get to lay back'/Cause I always got to worry 'bout the pay backs/some buck that I roughed up way back/comin' back after all these years/rat-tat-tat-tat-tat/that's the way it is

**I personally love this song and to me it represents the gospel very clearly (and what a prophet actually does - speaks to a generation all the while identifying with the people he is speaking to). Call this my respect for one man's desire to change the way things are.

We Need Some Focus...

2007-10-19T21:11:00.000-06:00

"Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me." (Matthew 11:2-6)

Just what was the focus of Jesus' mission while on this earth? Well Jesus does give an explanation in Matthew 11 and it is answering a question John the Baptist had (who must of been doubting Jesus on some level). I am shocked by what Jesus says to him - 'tell John what you HEAR and SEE'. Two levels there - what's being said and what he is doing...what is he doing?

(1) Blind recieve sight - action

(2) Lame Walk - action

(3) Lepers Cleansed - action

(4) Deaf Hear - action

(5) Dead are Raised - action

(6) Poor have the gospel preached to them: words

1/6th of the things listed there require mere words - and those words are directed to the 'poor' of all things (ex: like modern day ghetto's) - a segment of society that still remains forgotten. 5/6th's are about 'doing something' - getting involved - and seeing a process through.

Now we likely won't be healing any of those ailments but the pattern is set there by our rabbi - 'doing' something is 5 times as important as 'talking' about something. And nowhere in that do we see anyone being judged for their 'ailments' or 'position in society' (if you think about it - they all are 'poor' in some way). It seems to me Jesus saw the importance of helping where and when it was needed.

So how does this all relate? What can we do? Basically the church needs to evolve into this vision again - one of programs and help for those in need of it. I am not totally sure but here are some suggestions:

(1) Help those without a vision find one
(2) Help those that struggle all alone find acceptance and someone to work alongside them
(3) Help the outcast in society find a place to belong
(4) Help those who don't understand something in life to find knowledge about it
(5) Help those with no hope in life to find that hope in life - allow them a reason to live
(6) Work in the poorer areas of society for social change (preach to the poor)

Basically get involved and it's really that easy. If it wasn't to good for the 'teacher' then it shouldn't be too good for the student.

Forgiveness - Publicity Gone Bad

2007-10-18T10:19:00.002-06:00

I thought about the problems Trent and I have had over the past day or so - and I realized that I was partly to blame for escalating the whole thing - and I want to be honest about it.

I am not sure I gave Trent any way out to 'save face' and I seemed to rub his critcisms in his face - and for that Trent - I am sorry - I didn't need to do that and I went too far in some of the things I said (usually with my sarcasm).

Secondly, I made a personal issue between Trent and I public - and for that I am also sorry Trent. We had an issue with one another and I decided to bring it to the public (and asked you to bring it public) - and for that I accept my responsibility - I was wrong and I have taken the post down.

Lastly, I don't want to incite people to 'choose a side' here and I think that is what I caused some of you to do - and for that I am sorry also Trent. To be perfectly honest, everyone was judging Trent on the basis of one convo - that isn't fair - and that was my fault (since it was on my blog and shouldn't have been).

In the end, I am laying down the 'arms' - and moving on - no actual reason for ill will.

Growing in Faith - Figurative and Literal

2007-10-16T11:55:00.000-06:00

"Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature" (I Corinthians 14:20)

"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things" (I Corinthians 13:11)

I have been thinking about the idea of growth in our faith - and I notice Paul uses the idea of growth from a child to an adult. That once we come to this faith we start as 'babies' and eventually mature into 'adults' in our understanding of what we are studying - I am guessing with all the same processes of real life - from child (being told what is true) to teenager (knowing all the answers) to young adult (questioning what you thought you knew) to adult (maturity that is a partnership with God?).

I am using Paul's idea metaphorically of course - but it does help with developing a picture of what our faith should look like. I love how Paul does question the idea of thinking maturely (likely in regards to ethics) but I think it has another aspect to it - going from one understanding to one of more depth. Just how mature are we?

My thought on this is simple: growth in this faith needs to result into a place where we take full responsibility for our understanding of this faith (and what it means to us) - and instead of 'letting go and letting God' - we take our end of that partnership - we grow into a place where 'God lets go of our hand - to see us walk'.

I am thinking about this in a logical growth pattern - as how a parent treats a child (even while they grow). It would be absurd for your own parents to keep parenting you as a young child while you are an adult - at some point you accept the role of 'decision maker'. This puts the responsibility for 'what you do with what you know' where it belongs - with you.

So do you think our faith is like this? Are we growing to a point where God allows us that much responsibility - as in a friendship with God? Can He trust us that much?

Keeping the Faith by Losing it?

2007-10-13T18:54:00.000-06:00

From How (Not) to Speak of God concerning the Costa-Gavras film Amen (pp. 63-64):

The film explores the failure of the Catholic and Protestant Churches when confronted with the terror of the death camps during the Second World War. We are presented with two religious figures, a Protestant youth pastor and a Catholic priest...The response of the priest is of particular interest. At one point he wonders aloud to the Cardinal whether it would be possible for every Christian in Germany to convert to Judaism in order to stop the horror, for the Nazis couldn't possibly condemn such a huge number of powerful and socially integrated people at that stage of the war. The idea is, of course, utterly rejected. Then, in complete frustration, and with a crushing sense of obligation towards the persecuted, the priest takes his own advice. In tears he turns from that which he loves more than life itself--his own faith tradition--and becomes a Jew. By taking on the Jewish identity he suffers with the persecuted, voluntarily taking his place on the trains that run to Auschwitz.

For this priest, the singularity of the horror required an unprecedented action, one which cut at the heart of his tradition. It was his very tradition (or rather his interpretation of that tradition) that demanded that he should give up that tradition...The most powerful way for this priest to affirm his Christianity is to lay it down...And so this priest gives up his Christianity precisely in order to retain his Christianity.

I would like to thank Hineini for bringing this to my attention! What do you think - is there a nugget of truth here that we can learn from?

On the Fritz...

2007-10-13T07:15:00.000-06:00

He wished to right the wrongs, He sang religious songs
He kept the private He, Under a lock and key

Heat keeps rising in an age of passion, Shakes a conscience to the core
Stopgap, hand-slap, take a tongue-lashing, My pour soul can't take any more

On the fritz, on the fritz, There he sits, on the fritz

He kept his ego there, It was a sad affair, On the fritz
The inner circle knows, And so the story goes. On the fritz

Airborne rumours chip away the image, But you knew the stakes were high
First they get you thinking you're a prophet, Now they've got you living a lie

So the crowds grew, and the praise did too, And a mailing list sent you money
So they love Jerry Lewis in France, Does that make him funny?
It's too late for apologies when trust has been betrayed, Now victims of your double life are naming names

He kept his ego there, It was a sad affair, On the fritz
The public's had enough, They've come to call your bluff, On the fritz

Small talk breeds where kingdom's come crashing, Rumour conquers where it will
No one hears you, go ahead and cash in, If you don't die to yourself, well...pride kills

Written by Steve Taylor © 1985 Birdwing Music/C.A. Music (ASCAP)
Taylor says, "If my songwriting output were mostly autobiographical, I would be a very messed-up cowboy indeed, but I suppose a convincing case could be made for many of these songs, intentionally or not, written partly as a way to mark off boundaries that, by the grace of God, I hope never to cross. Having married above my means and been blessed with an altogether lovely and Godly wife for nine years, I confess to having little tolerance or empathy for those involved in marital infidelity. But I'm afraid I know a lot about the ego that can fuel such sins, and I've yet to satisfactorily figure out how to 'die to self' as Jesus taught us, while living and working center stage in a circus of self-promotion. If it's starting to seem like 'On The Fritz' describes the rule rather than the exception for Christians in the public eye, then I would like to thank exceptional men and women from Dr. Billy Graham and his wife Ruth to my own father and mother for their examples in living a lifetime faithful to one God and one spouse."

Losing My Religio...Friends?

2007-10-11T14:03:00.000-06:00

This is a crazy week for me in the blog world - wow - now 2 people want out of my life for good - on the basis of my stances on issues.

(1) Timothy (the prophet): "Jason, the Lord commands me to now turn away from you in person and in speech...yet not in spirit, for I am also commanded to pray for you. So I leave you, Jason, with this, because you have chosen your own way and refuse to listen to the Word of the Lord." This was over the fact I like to celebrate Halloween.

(2) Burning Bush: "I cannot allow myself to be associated with calling perverse sin acceptable in God's sight. This then is what you must do. You must remove the link to my blog from your blog. It is fine if you criticize me openly for making you do this (I will take all the blame for it), but you must remove the link to my blog." This was over the fact I accept gay people as 'they are'.

I have no hard feelings about it - but there is an aspect of religious bullying happening here. Both of these people do not want to be associated with my viewpoints - or the discussion of them in anymore depth - I can handle that. That being said, they are both leaving in such a manner that makes them think they are 'right' and I am 'wrong' - and I need to 'repent' of something.

Ever feel like you were being judged for something you 'didn't do'? Goes to show 'what you believe is truth' still might be more important 'than what you do with truth'.

Church Discipline - What's So Fruity About This?

2007-10-11T10:02:00.000-06:00

"There is a story in today's local paper of a youth minister that has 14 charges of sexual molestation against 3 teenage girls. The incidents allegedly occurred at a church he previously attended, he changed churches and the new church, knowing of the allegations, allowed him to serve in youth ministry for another 2 or 3 years" (Ken)

"Would forgivenness involve reinstating the criminal back into ministry? I certainly believe so...The primary concern of the church should be forgiving him." (Burning Bush)

"If we want to be true to the gospels - that youth leader that did those things needs to face the law for the things he did (since he did what was not allowed by it - and he owes to it). We can forgive the person - but that doesn't mean said youth pastor gets a free ticket from 'repentance' or 'responsibility'" (SocietyVs)

"Chruch discipline in accord with the NT would demand that he be put out of the church until he repents. I think a major part of repentance is accepting the just consequences of our actions" (Pam)

Ken reittirates an actual story from Canada - Then some of us responded to what he wrote - but what do you think should be done according to the faith you follow? Is there a problem with what happened there - and whose forgiveness is more impoertant in the case of a sexual offense - God's or the victims? Inquiring minds want to know.

Christianeze - Translator Please...

2007-10-05T09:26:00.000-06:00

Okay people - time to address something - which I see floating in the comments and need some explaining - these Christian-isms - which border being 'cliches'.

“true spiritual rebirth” (Pam) – Okay, I think this does happen but what is it? What are the qualifications for labeling someone’s conversion a ‘true rebirth’?

"just as you are" (Heather) – Actually Heather, I am not sure this line is in the gospels or letters at all – it’s a ‘made up thing by some evangelizers’. Do you think God has to accept us as ‘we are’? If so, why?

“image of Christ” (Pam) – What does this mean? A reflection of Jesus (like looking in the water) – or we shape out lives into his image? If so, how does he look? Do his looks change from culture to culture, person to person?

“Jesus as Lord of your life” (Ken) – Alright – this is pure cliché. Explain what ‘Lord’ means and what it all encompasses. How does this look exactly? How will someone know Jesus is actually Lord of their life - since we cannot see Jesus?

“perfect” (Ken) – This idea has been tossed around – so what is perfection? We can talk about perfect – but lets try define it.

**Christianeze - do we all look into what we are saying and do we personally define it? I was in the quest for the Law - but now I see we need some defining to do - so we can get to the heart of the quest - translate for me?

Law or No Law - That is the Question!

2007-10-03T17:30:00.000-06:00

"What I find contradictory in some Christian circles is the use of Torah as a reason for continuing their condemnation of homosexuality. Always I am told that Jesus did away with the law, it is effect no more, yet when it comes to homosexuality all of the sudden I hear that Torah calls it an abomination!" (Yaelbatsarah)

"Good point. I think we do see a lot of this double talk in the faith about the law being finished yet they refer to it like it's still enacted - making it tough for one to even know what that person believes. " (SocietyVs)

"Regarding the law not being in effect. Jesus came to fulfill the law - Matt 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".The law points us to Jesus, the only person who upheld the law. We then believe in Him and we are saved (John 3)." (Jim Jordan)

"My belief is that the law was not abolished by Christs' sacrifice. Christ 'fulfilled' the law...By repenting and accepting Christ as Lord our sins are covered by His sacrifice. That does not make the law obsolete. Those who have yet to accept Christ as Lord are still under the law" (Brother Ken)

These are competing views from 4 different people - 3 within the Christian realm and 1 from the Judaic faith. So let me lay them out for you - so there is no confusion what is being said.

(1) Yael finds it interesting - and so do I - this contradictory stand within the Christian faith about the law being 'fulfilled' and yet the use of the Law is still enacted as a strong basis for judgement (that's a contradiction). Either 'it is finished' or 'it is not' - it cannot be both.

(2) Jim and Ken are coming from the camp that Jesus did 'fulfill' the law - and through his sacrifice we are 'saved' (and the law can be used to point us there). Not only that Ken tacks on the idea the law is still required by people not under this 'salvation' offered by Christ - so it is both 'ways'. Law is and isn't required.

I also have to raise the question 'are we still required to follow the law?'. Take a close look at Matthew 5:17 - Jesus does say 'fulfill' - but how do we interpret that? I can see 2 ways: (a) fulfill the prophets sayings as is used a lot in the gospels; (b) maybe simply to 'do' the law also - or to complete the sayings of the law (as the gospels also point out hypocrisy on the part of the religious groups of the day). Can this be a two-fold idea?

Heart of the Matter: Supporting Gay Rights

2007-10-02T18:15:00.000-06:00

The heart of the matter - I am going to try and discuss an issue amongst Christendom that is quite the 'hot button' and not a deeply divided issue - the gay rights issue. This was brought to my attention on facebook from a friend of mine that is gay - and she asked me to support the cause of 'gay rights'. I don't have to do anything to be involved mind you - but just the very idea had me thinking for days about 'what I thought' on the issue.

I have a variety of thoughts but what matters is what I did - I decided to support the cause - mainly on the basis that all people in our countries deserve all the rights promised in our constitutions (no one is excluded).

I guess I approach the issue more on the idea that we are called to 'treat others how we want to be treated' - and I think just because someone is gay - doesn't make that person less human than me or not wanting the same things I want (namely acceptance and love). For me, that is where the issue begins and ends - with how I treat someone else and what that means to my integrity.

So I am interested - what do you think on this issue? Should Christian people be supporting the cause for gay rights? Is it contradictory?

Where 2 or 3 Gather and Agree...

2007-09-27T17:51:00.000-06:00

"This can only happen when the underlying Biblical truths are agreed upon" (Recovering)

I don't think this is true whatsoever...the real problem is not what you believe but how you believe. Let's say we all agree the bible is God's word - okay - what does that do for us exactly? Does believing that one thing actually develop in us a value system of some sort? I would say no - believing that is equal to nothing happening in our lives. To be perfectly clear, believing that changes nothing about us (even agreeing on it does nothing).

Beliefs need to have substance - something Jesus points to in the Parable about the foundations (one proves to have substance and one does not). Or the tree's analogy - one has fruit - the other does not. In these parables we see that belief means to produce something (without the production of anything we have nothing - 'nothing' is worth losing so it is wrecked or cut down). So we need to agree on 'how to believe' - this is the actual key to the process.

Jesus told us to love our neighbor and our doctrinal statement believes Jesus is in the Trinity - now which of these 2 beliefs require your involvement? This is where we see the idea about 'what we believe' and 'how we believe' diverging. I am under the assumption it is more important 'what you do with truth' than 'what you believe is truth'.

**I wrote this a few days back and figured this is the best example I have written yet about what I think a Christian is and the difference between some of the beliefs we adhere to. Figured, mine as well see if we can agree on what it means 'to believe in Jesus'.

What is the Depth of Our Faith Teachings?

2007-09-25T15:15:00.000-06:00

Scenario #1

A person chooses to follow the faith as it is taught right now in the churches. They say a prayer to believe in Jesus, then they confess their sins/repent, and they are now allowed into community (and are officially saved). This the beginning and end of the whole journey. It literally starts in the same place it ends - and leaves many a person guessing if and when they might lose their 'salvation' through-out their faith experience. But that is it - you just 'believe and you are saved'.

Scenario #2

A person chooses to go into more depth on the actual teachings of Jesus. No simple prayer, looking into the depth's of what 'repentance' actually means, and what is the person's role in 'salvation' or 'community'? The journey has a beginning but no true ending - it's quite open and living it makes the whole thing acquire some depth. Life is the constant in this scenario - and how the teachings of the faith help to fill in a value system the person lacked insight into.

Now which of these 2 people would be widely accepted in most churches of the day?

Therein lies the core of the problem...you see the the idea the steps to this faith are easy as 1 (pray to be saved), 2 (repent), 3 (you are saved) is way too simplistic. Actually, in all honesty I cannot find a single place in the gospels where these 3 things are co-joined so easily in one teaching. What this actually does to someone's faith is cheapen it. There is no depth - no need for all the teachings Jesus does lay down - no need for anything - you are saved (end of story).

I have come to see this is a tragic farce. People need to start looking into the ideas and getting some real answers. What does it mean to 'believe'? What is the role of prayer? What is 'repentance' and what role does is serve? Are we to be involved in the idea of 'salvation'? These things need some depth applied to them or at best they become routine/memory...at worst they make hypocrites.

I cannot even define the amount of times I have met people that believe the system laid down by the faith (steps 1-3) that behave counter to most of Jesus' teachings. They say they know what repentance is/means (and how to do it) - but have no clue what being ethically 'responsible' includes. Churches teach us to merely believe in Jesus - yet they never explain what the term encompasses. Belief is a much stronger term than is being portrayed in the majority of church teachings and we need to start defining it better. Salvation, as a term, is only seen in Jesus' act upon the cross - not in his life (according to church teachings)...we serve no purpose whatsoever in that term. I think the term can be opened to greater meaning personally, in that Jesus lived a life of salvation (there is no way to deny that) - and if we are called to be under him (he's our rabbi) - just possibly we are called to that same road (same cross and all).

Recently (in a personal situation), I have come to see the reality of this paradigm and it works out exactly as I thought. Good Christian folks can do and say just about anything and still think they are following Jesus - while someone that is living the teachings is ostracized by them, disliked, and even 'prayed for'. In reality, the person being 'prayed for' could give life lessons to the whole batch of phonies on what true 'repentance' means and forgiveness. But that's reality folks. Hypocrisy runs wild when the system lacks any depth in it's teachings - if only they could actually 'believe' the very words they can quote so well. They have no clue what they are saying - cause what they are doing is way too simple and never gets any substance (it's rote and routine over and over) - and the hypocrite's best friend is always 'accusation'.

I am calling this one out - hypocrisy (which means 'acting') has to stop in our churches. It is actually helping to destroy communities and defend the religous status-quo (which is ludicrous) at the same time - and it's getting appalling. You have people that have as their only 2 commands to 'love' discriminating and hurting people in God's name. You have people that think repentance means to say a prayer and it's done but they never change their value system (nor take responsibility) for their actions. You have a whole system that tells you 'believe' something and don't question it (or your doubting like Thomas) and when someone does this they are shunned (there is no teaching about this). You have people that believe they are 'saved' but act as if they hold the keys to 'hell'.

I could go on and on - but you get the picture. So what do you truly believe? Or do you even believe what you are saying? Is salvation a moment in time or is something you can participate in? Do the things you believe the most have any real meaning? Who are you?

Cultural Ignorance in the Church Structure

2007-09-17T13:58:00.000-06:00

A lot of events have happened this week back home - which oddly enough - has gotten me thinking about the role of culture in the church.

The church, as we see and hear it Sunday to Sunday, through and through is Euro-Western in structure and processes. It has become it's own little enclave of the Modern Western mind-set adding to it's own 'church culture' what it see's fit from society around it - and this usually comes from the Eurocentric world-view. In essence, these churches conform to society - not vice-versa - and they are quite picky about which 'society/culture' they pick from.

I am guessing (from Acts and Paul's Epistles) this whole thing started off Jewish - in writings, teachings, structure, leadership, and processes. There was a gradual trade off when Paul started to take this faith to other cultures and communities - and things started to change from a Jewish focus to one of all cultures are included (or equal) - new leadership abounds, new writings, new structures, new processes, and new teachings. Actually the early church is a great study in this 'battle' for the integrity of the faith and the rigid lines laid down.

What seems to have happened is the solidifying of certain cultures into the actual structure of the church - we see this first in Constantine's Roman inclusion of Christianity but is later made 'petra' by Orthodoxy/Catholic schism in the 1000's, the reformation branches from Europe, and denominational off-shoots from that tradition in the 1800's and 1900's. Fact is, if we look at this with integrity - the church resembles nothing of Acts 2 and has lost real connection back to it's Jewish roots (even Jesus Christ is not Hebrew/Aramaic but Greek).

But that bothers me a little - what bothers me now is my culture (First Nations in Canada) - is deemed by overwhelming ignorance in current church culture as 'pagan'. There is nothing Aboriginal (or Indian/Metis) about the churches we have in Canada and America - yet those are the founding peoples of this land. As much as we like to believe there is no 'church culture' - that is purely not true - it is a mix of European cultures (founding these denominations) and Western societial values. It is this same 'church culture' that seeks to change the Indigenous one's around it - actually - to destroy them through a process of assimilation (losing one culture for another one) - and this is more than documented globally.

The church these days only takes from Western - European societal values whenever they seek change - it's never another culture - like the Asian, Indigenous, or African communities - even when some of those ideas are mind-boggingly brilliant. Or why don't they let these communities re-define what symbology should be used in the actual presentation/services of their faith - since in times past this was 'outlawed' (but we know better now - cultural diversity and respect and all).

My example will be First Nations - since that is what I am (or Indian as we were first called). We have 'feasts' - which work as a commemoration of the dead person or rememberance (could easily double for communion). For prayers being offered up like 'incense' - my people 'smudge' with sweetgrass and other herbs - and we pretend to wash in the smoke - which then goes up to heaven - and we are cleansed (could double as a teaching on repentance). We have sharing/talking circles where each and every person is given a chance to speak - and this could help build community and listening/sharing (could be used as a bible study technique). We also have traditional dances and drum songs - which are all about a certain theme - and this could be used as an aspect of the worship service (cause we all love to dance).

But I think you see what I am saying now. My culture cannot be alone with great symbology/ideas to add to the convo - we live in a culturally diverse world with lots of good God-given cultures - and none of them are bad - what's bad is the narrow view the church has held towards them. Question these things in your church - I mean - even a lot of European cultures have some great stuff - who doesn't like a good Irish tune?

Structure - Wash MY Feet

2007-09-07T18:43:00.000-06:00

I was just reading NakedPastor's blog (someone I admire) and he is relaying his thoughts on being a Pastor - a tough role to say the least. Can't be vulnerable apparently - which led me to write a blog - if for no other reason but to relate problems in the church as I see them these days.

The structure is the sole problem and that's it. Church structure exists as it's own public relations rep and that's the skinny of it. If you dare go against it - you will find yourself a social outcast at best - at worst 'de-listed' (see Kevin Annett's story for more on this).

I have looked into the problems with this structure for years now - and this whole thing smells like a god-damn business (non-profit) to me. The structure is genuinely more concerned about its 'image' than it is concerned with your well being. Ever take a step back to regurgitate what they are feeding you for teachings? Ever read the doctrinal statements they make these poor officers of the church believe in order to be your leaders? That's right - if you 'believe correctly' you are part of the faith and if not 'you are a non-believer going to hell'. So fall in line - the line where people follow more hoax than reality.

Ever notice they 'pass the hat' during music? Check the psychology on that - you'd be very interested. Pastors play dad to a congregation that is afraid to deal with 'real life'. Worship is some warped form of musicianry that lends itself better to the 'pied piper' than what worship really is. All the while they keep in strict doctrinal codes of ethics so as to not lose 'one of you' - meanwhile they are losing their mind trying to swallow the same pill they feed you. And none of this leads to better value systems then when you walked in the door - most of it comes from personal study if your being honest.

No pastor makes you a better person. No form of music makes you a worse person. No amount of money given builds some stairway to heaven. No amount of nice words makes the pain go away. No amount of faked stardom will lift you up. No cold structure that takes a saint's prestige will give you a name either. It just ain't thurr.

Good things happen because you chose that. Lives get repaired because you choose that. Repentance only gets 'spice' because you are person enough to approach your wrongs and deal with them - no matter how dirty it gets. Truth only has a meaning because you live it out - not because you can repeat it. These things happen because YOU got involved and meant what you were doing - and that's the recipe.

Where's God in all this? Not in some 'image' being portrayed as God's bride - that image fails you more than you want to believe. But if you want the Asherah pole - have at er - but my Jesus walked a hard road to a cross - and meant every last tear he cried. No faking it here - no self-righteousness here - no 'names to be made' here - no twisting of the teachings for gain. There is nothing here - just a road someone travelled a long time ago who wanted to see true human success - and died for it. And maybe that is success - losing it all to gain perspective (goodbye structure and your beautiful caresses).

Have I said something I wasn't supposed to? If you feel this way - then think about who's feet your washing here for a minute? I don't mind being a servant - to YOU - but not to something that cannot even speak. Bring me your feet.

"I think God has left the Museum for good' (Scared - The Tragically Hip)

8 Things You May Have Not Known About Me

2007-09-03T13:38:00.000-06:00

I have to respond to an e-mail Steve Scott sent to me - about blogging on 8 things people might not know about me - so here it is.

1. I consider myself a First Nations Christian - since I am a First Nations person in Canada who is a Christian. I am Cree and Saulteaux if anyone ever wonders.

2. I am deeply involved in a sruggle with 4 churches right now over the affairs of Residential Schools in Canada (and their history with my people) - Anglican, Catholic, United, and Presbyterian. Mostly arguing points of what 'justice' truly means and 'coming clean' on affairs of the past.

3. I have 2 degree's in my life - a bachelor of theology and bachelor of business-adminstration.

4. I came from a very poor upbringing - lived on a 'reserve' in Canada - then as a kid moved to the inner-city - in a city that was just voted for having 'the worst Canadian neighborhood' (that's where I grew up).

5. I am married to a woman that is Greek-Ukranian - and that has worked out very well (no kids yet).

6. I play a lot of fantasy sports on-line - I truly love fantasy football (which starts this Thursday) - I just love being a coach of sorts and the thrill of victory!

7. My favorite food these days is Rice Vermicelli (and whatever kind of meat with it) - it just tastes so awesome - I think it is Vietmanese.

8. I have made friends of many religious and non-religious backgrounds - and truly enjoy the discussion on-line that I have had with them all - they have all helped me to 'think outside of myself' and become a more well-rounded person.

Money & Our Faith - Let's Get This Straight...

2007-08-21T13:09:00.000-06:00

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." (Matt 6:24)

I am going to put this passage into full perspective and find out what Jesus meant by saying this - since this is hugely overlooked and mis-interpreted in Christendom. It's a value we need to start setting in it's correct place. This whole chapter from vs. 1 - 34 is tied together by this central theme - money.

Firstly, you have the 3 passages about hypocritical faith and 'reward'. In 'giving to the poor' (vs.2), when you 'pray' (vs.5), and when you 'fast' (vs.16) - do not do these things to be noticed by 'people' - as Jesus states 'they have their reward in full'. What reward? Public attention? Looking holy? Gloating? I actually think that is a piece of it - but it is no small stretch to also see that these same people that 'looked righteous' also did it for public show so people would give to their 'faith structure' (knowing they were 'holy men of God'). It seems their reward is the actual money they recieve from the un-knowing people that think these people are 'doing good' - when all in all - they are not quite what they claim.

Vs.1 sets the actual precedent for the chapter "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven."
Basically, is it that - God does not care about the amount of wealth we can build? Have at er' - so to speak. No. The people were using their religious system to guarantee they would have money - and likely accumulate quite a bit of it - so as to secure themselves a position in society. They get noticed for doing good - people admire that - they give to that system cause it looks 'godly' (trend keeps going until someone points it out). Jesus is pointing it out! And we wonder why he is hated in his day? Never get between someone and their 'cash cow'.

This is further pointed out in vs.19-24 (so as to hammer the point home). Vs. 19-21 talks about storing treasure in heaven, not on earth (accumulation of wealth) - why? Cause your 'heart' will be tainted by the very thing you admire - at some point God chases 'wealth' or becomes void due to it. Vs. 22-23 talks about the eye and how it see's light (perspective). If the light becomes 'darkness' or 'shaded' then rhetorically - 'how great is this darkness!'. Basically, money can shade people's very views about religion and society - and make them change what is actually being said for personal gain. Vs. 24 wraps it up - you can't serve both money and God (since perspective is skewed in the process). Jesus seems to be stating very clearly - money can jade even the finest religous person - so much so - they betray the very thing they hold dear - God.

Verses 25-34 are passages about 'don't worry' concerning food, clothing, drink, life span, and time - these things God does 'care about' concerning you. This is in complete contrast to the idea of wealth building for personal use/gain. I know it's not the norm in a capital-ist society to think like this but if you read closely it all makes a lot of sense.

See what if the system worked as it should? What if the teachings did not have to badger people about their personal 'love of wealth?'. It's not that far off that these same people (religious folk) would develop a system/society where that wealth is shared with one another (including the poorest of them) - in area's like clothing, shelter, food/drink, and security. We would actually see a faith system something like this in Acts? If you check that Acts passage out you find they are people of faith - devoted to the 'teachings, prayer, and passover/communion'. They 'had all things in common' (shared) - including shelter, possessions (clothing very possibly), food/drink, and friendship. We just might find our anxieties wash away too 'Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe' (the people in this passage hardly look 'worried'). Could this be what Jesus was pointing to in this passage in Matt 6?

So some logic...1 + 1 = 2 - normal math we all know is true. Now if I keep finding passages like this in the gospels and letters - then at some point if the addition keeps adding up (and not subtracting) - then we must have a consistent theme: Matt 19:21, Luke 12:33, Luke 16:1-13, Acts 4:34, Rev 3:16-18, Matt 5:3, I Cor 4:8-14, Mark 4:19, I Tim 6:17-18, Luke 6:24, I Tim 6:9-10, James 5:1-6, James 2:1-9, Luke 12:18-20, Matt 21:12, Luke 16:14, I Tim 3:3, 2 Tim 3:2, Heb 13:5. 3 gospels, a history, 4 letters of Paul (if Hebrews is), and James and John. All of these passages tie into this theme in one way or another concerning wealth and religious hypocrisy (and it's dangers).

My Verdict for the teachings: Capital-ism and faith cannot be partners together to make one believe they are adopting the values of the teachings of Christ - this is contradiction.

Is Jesus' Teachings All That Bad?

2007-08-15T13:42:00.000-06:00

"What we cannot do (in my opinion) is disregard the “Jesus bits” we don’t like, simply under the method that we don’t like them. They ARE there." (Dagoods)

I think Dagoods raises a good point - we cannot forget one piece of Jesus teachings when we look at the whole thing - agreed. I have looked through the gospels with my own eyes and I cannot find a single teaching - via Jesus - that seems all that bad. There is the Luke 'hate' passage, I have seen Jesus calling out the 'Pharisee's', and even the lady called a 'dog'. I have actually went into various explanations about each verse on my own blog - hate, pharisee's, and the dog passage (actually I never blogged on this - commented on another site about it).

I actually stand by something I said in other comments - find me one single place where Jesus actually teaches something horribly wrong (that will ruin society)? I have yet to see one single passage as of yet - I can look harder - but what's the use - I have read those gospels at least 50 times each - and nothing about vices as virtues is ever supported. Now this may happen in current society (churches and religious groups) but the texts themselves do not support it.

Things I learned from Jesus' teachings are: love my neighbor (even if he is someone who dislikes me), compassion, treat others how I want to be treated, problems start as thoughts, equality of men and women/everyone, the rich need to care for the poor, we are to be subject to the justice system, seek justice, don't be a hypocrite, forgiveness & mercy, judging my own behavior (or don't judge at all), being a peacemaker vs. a troublemaker, integrity, knowing about religious hypocrisy, freedom, sincerity, fake oaths & lying should not be done, doing something instead of merely believing something, wisdom tempered by peacefulness, charity, an outlook of hope, etc...this list can go on and on.

Just showing that the things Jesus actually taught are meant to result in good ends - peace, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness, honesty, and a belief system that has at it's core value love. That can't be all that bad?

"I agree that there is nothing wrong with borrowing from Jesus’ teaching. I say we can do better than Jesus teaching!" (Dagoods)

I think it is a hopeful outlook to hold onto - when looking at 'we' as 'those involved in the conversation' - but for one side of this convo (myself) - the place I honed my values was from the teachings of Jesus (from my teens even until now). I would like to think I can 'do better' (as you suggest) - but I would be quite mind-boggled to figure out how that might even look - or how I could actually teach a whole new innovative system that reflects values even shades higher than that of Jesus'? I have a tough time figuring out something higher than 'love'?

Maybe it's just me - but the bible's values are quite alright and can help to shift someone's life from a certain destructive pattern to one of peace - it can happen you know.

Big Brother & Faith

2007-08-13T11:54:00.000-06:00

Recently I have been watching Big Brother 8 and there are a few people on there that are trying to defend their faith...to someone else on that show (an athiest). There is one obvious problem with the whole thing - it is all theologically biased.

First off, they are playing a game - in which the basis is for each person to compete to win (and only 1 person can win). Am I to believe that God wants the Christian people to win over and above anyone else on there? I am not sure scripture even backs that claim up. Apparently, all things being equal (rain/sunshine) - shows God treats all people equal irregardless of their belief systems.

Secondly, why should God even be concerned with a tv show/game? It's like that old conundrum when two teams pray before the games - should God help one team over the other? Also, with these games meaning very little to the totality of life - just makes no sense that God would be concerned?

Thirdly, I cannot find in Jesus' teachings good reasons for anyone to even so as think he would be concerned with a game-show. We are talking about a national show (watched by millions) for the enjoyment of the watchers - isn't that type of exposure 'reward enough'?

I watch the show and I saw the Christian people do things that run contrary to their very belief systems - as in calling people vicious names (bitch is an example) and outright flaunting of their belief system before others. I sometimes have to stop and wonder if they feel alright by merely 'believing something' and not by 'living something'? All I am saying is theologically speaking - the beliefs they proport as Christian just might not be all that is to be said on the subject.

Presbyterians - Lied On Their 'Outdated' Website

2007-08-09T14:27:00.001-06:00

I was going through the Presbyterian of Canada's website and noticed they look horrible in their FAQ page about Aboriginal people - and to be perfectly honest - they lie and seem smug in a few places about their claims. Anyways, I wrote their website and their national Native leaders a few questions - maybe they can answer me - likely not but heck - someone has to do it?

**Note this was sent to the National Presbyterian Church...just trying to see if any church involved in the genocide of Aboriginal people will 'try it's own members for their crimes'.

Hi, I was just reading your FAQ on your National website about Residential Schools and I have some serious questions about the whole thing.

"As at November 2000: Approximately 16, representing about 80 plaintiffs" (came forward and filed suits against the church)

This is an old statistic - has this grown in the past 7 years? I notice you only ran 2 schools in Canada (which would account for the low amount of cases) - but I have to think these numbers have grown. (I have now found out the Presbyterians ran 9 schools across Canada - so this is an 'out and out' lie about their past. Top that off this church worked with the United church and could be even more involved than the 9 schools mentioned).

"None have gone to trial, nor any to pretrial or discovery. Initial statements of defense have been filed in 3 suits...All allege cultural abuse, all are civil suits and a few allege physical and/or sexual abuse. No criminal charges or convictions have been present with respect to these suits, or related to our schools."

Interesting, is this for marketing purposes or is this church trying not to come clean about the things they did to Indian children? How can you guys be paying money out for things that 'no one did'? So if it is found out that members of the Presbyterian church did rape (pedophilia) and beat (physical abuse of a child that is not theirs) - will those people be tried by the laws of Canada and labelled appropriately? What if it is alleged that kids never made it home - are you guys willing to look into that? I am only talking about the church being as Christian as it is supposed to be - no more and no less - even if it can even be said you still represent Christ in Canada? (All in all - they do admit to certain crimes happening but as to there being any people tried - it is this aspect they seem glib about).

PS: My dad attended Birtle - and he came out a very messed up person...was actually the same attributes he recieved while in your school (physically and emotionally abusive). Thank God for your church!

"it is unlikely that the financial viability of the denomination is in jeopardy...The Presbyterian Church in Canada, under the agreement, will see its financial obligation for compensation drop from $2.1M to 1.32M"

Interesting that the gov't settlement would work out in your favor (and why not - they allowed you to exist in the first place). Secondly, finances do not equal actual justice - trying people for their crimes does - or does all your fancy healing ministries with Aboriginals mention this? I couldn't find it anywhere! (Is it just me or do they seem proud that financially they will pay less for crimes they committed?).

"will be cautious about entering unless we are certain that they will be of benefit to the Church, insofar as possible, our relationship with aboriginal people" (with concerns to alternative answers to the school problems afterwards)

Why not to the benefit of justice...God forbid a little of that should actually come out of a 'Christian church' and someone be found guilty for their 'hate'. As for relationships with Aboriginal people - are you sure even have one? How much of that is predicated on them not knowing your history in full detail? If that is possible - can I view the full history of your church with regards to Aboriginals in your schools? If not, what you hiding and who you hiding? (If that statement I bolded don't take the cake and reveal their intentions - I don't know what will).

"Saskatoon Native Circle Ministry"

I will make sure to contact them to with these questions. Maybe he can visit a little website called http://hiddenfromhistory.org/ (along with those jails he goes to) also and get some real perspective on what justice is too. Actually upon further review - I am not sure this dude even is still in Saskatoon...is he?

Are these questions answerable? Either way 'We support healing processes that arise from Aboriginal peoples themselves' (from the national website itself). I propose we seek out any and all clergy that committed sexual, physical, or any other offenses against Aboriginal people and have them tried in a court of law (full disclosure of what happened) - easy enough?

United Church - Beliefs (A Harsh Critique)

2007-08-08T12:12:00.000-06:00

1. The Bible: As a source of wisdom, personal prayer, and devotion, we believe the Bible can bring us closer to God...one of our best ways of experiencing God's continuing work of creation and liberation in the world, while offering us forgiveness, healing, and new life in Jesus. We often refer to a passage as "the Word of God." By this we mean the writer was inspired by God.

**I really can't say too much about this - actually I agree.

2. Sacraments: A sacrament is a symbolic action, or ritual, by which people of faith encounter the presence and goodness of God. In a sacrament, ordinary things like water, bread, and wine are used to point us to God and God’s love, reminding us of the sacred in life.

**I slightly disagree - only to say that 'the presence' and a 'reminder' are 2 different things.

3. Baptism: Baptism is a symbolic action that signifies the new life God gives us as we join the church community. Baptism uses water as a symbolic cleansing that signifies the acceptance of new life within the church family. The sacrament of baptism is the single rite of initiation into the Christian community, the church.

**I also agree with the theology here - the symbolism of it. It is used an acceptance ritual - of which most churches are up front about. They do also admit to the baptism of kids and that no baptism in no way assures someone condemnation. The kids thing I am not sure about (but I have very little qualms with it either) and I like their stand on the issue.

4. Communion: A symbolic meal. Communion is celebrated at a table that suggests the dining table in our homes. At the communion table, we acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the host and all are guests.

**I like the inclusion of the meal and that they can recognize it's symbolism in the event. They acknowledge Jesus in this process and it leaves me little room for any serious issues.

5. Inclusiveness: Jesus welcomed everyone, whether they were poor, rich, or just getting by; ill or healthy; self-made or educated; popular or a loner; secure or full of doubts. The United Church of Canada prides itself on welcoming everyone the way Jesus did, regardless of age, race, class, gender, orientation, or physical ability.

**Ha ha...oh man...for a second I thought they were serious when they said this. What I find totally odd about this church making this statement is they still have not taken full responsibility for their crimes against Aboriginal people in Canada and just recently booted out a United minister (Kevin Annett) for his stand on looking into the issue (actually persecuted him over it). They treat gay people as equals but have very little room for the Aboriginal contingent within Canada. I mention this in a previous blog.

6. Children: The church works hard to appreciate people of all ages, from grandparents to newborns.

**Cool - sounds awesome to me!

7. Marriage: We see people as unique, loved creations of God. We also see relationships as living things that require preparation and nurture. The United Church marries: previously divorced people & couples of different religions. We believe God intends loving relationships to be faithful, responsible, just, healing, and sustaining of the couple and those around them. These relationships may be between a woman and a man, or between people of the same gender.

**I could really care less what a church does on this issue - since I am under the current belief that no institution has the official right to either sanctify or grant the rights of something that has always existed - irregardless of said institution. So who cares.

8. Multi-Faith Relations: The United Church of Canada views the religious practice of all people of goodwill with respect and gratitude. We believe the Spirit of God is at work in many different faith communities. For Christians, Jesus is the way we know God. Our understanding is nonetheless limited by human imagination. God is greater still and works in our world by a mysterious Spirit that knows no distinction at the doorway of a Christian chapel; Buddhist, Hindu, or Sikh temple; Aboriginal sweat lodge, Muslim mosque, or Jewish synagogue.

**I like the inclusion aspect of this belief but it fails to represent true honesty - what if those other faith systems have serious holes in them? Do we address that? Do they address that? I am all for all of us working together - but I am also game for the fact each religion has it's own problems to work out also.

9. Social Justice: Caring for one another was central to Jesus' teachings: Feed the hungry, satisfy the thirsty, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, care for the sick, visit those in prison. To this end, we cooperate with other churches, faith traditions, and people of goodwill to eliminate poverty and protect those who are most vulnerable. Throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, the United Church works with 143 churches and organizations we call partners by supporting work they see as vital to their well-being.

**I like their theology on this issue and agree 100% - but this church is hypocritical. Look at all the wonderful work they do in 143 other countries meanwhile back in Canada - they have never had a single member of their residential school system pay for the crimes they committed in God's name upon Aboriginal people. These people are even so audacious to say they support Aboriginal people'. When in fact they are trying to cover-up the past abuses they visited upon Aboriginal people - including rape, murder, torture, cultural extermination, etc (no one has been tried and convicted).

Kevin Annett brough this up to them - he was fired, excommunicated, had his divorce paid for, and was stalled at every measure by this church when he simply looked for 'justice' concerning the United Church's past (all this in the mid 1990's - based on crimes ranging from the 1910's - 60's). Is this a church that sounds like it follows Christ or it's own institution now? Either way - I will boycott them until they come clean on the whole issue and quit trying to 'save face' for the sake of membership.

What did Paul say once 'I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.' (I cor 5:5-7). Even this church cannot out-run the very bible and passover they so dearly commend in their faith statement. So I commend their church for destruction/cleaning until they can become 'even again' - and this for the fairness Jesus taught within his teachings - the same teachings (and people) he died for! Now...get me some justice!

Alliance Doctrinal Statement - A Critique

2007-08-06T14:59:00.000-06:00

1. There is one God,(1) who is infinitely perfect,(2) existing eternally in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.(3) ([1] Deuteronomy 6:4, [2] Matthew 5:48, [3] Matthew 28:19)

**One God (agreed); Perfect being (I think this is a mis-quote about what Matt 5:48 says); existing in 3 persons (which by logic means 1 = 3 - and 2 of the 3 are Spirit beings). I am not totally sure about the Trinity idea (as of yet) - I have some questions about it - either way I agree - our focus needs to be at least 2-fold (Jesus' teachings which point us towards God).

2. Jesus Christ is the true God & the true man. (4) He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. (5) He died upon the cross, the Just for the unjust, (6) as a substitutionary sacrifice, (7) and all who believe in Him are justified on the ground of His shed blood. (8) He arose from the dead according to the Scriptures. (9) He is now at the right hand of Majesty on high as our great High Priest. (10) He will come again to establish His kingdom, righteousness and peace. (11) ([4] Philippians 2:6–11, [5] Luke 1:34–38, [6] I Peter 3:18, [7] Hebrews 2:9, [8] Romans 5:9, [9] Acts 2:23–24, [10] Hebrews 8:1, [11] Matthew 26:64)

**This is a decent over-view of Jesus' life - actually leaves out his whole ministry while on earth but I am sure that's a simple mistake on their part - actually they go right from birth to death in this statement (just how important is the 'now' exactly? 0% devoted to it in Jesus' life). True God and true man...hmmm...this makes little sense also and most Christians themselves cannot logically figure this out about Jesus (actually they use his god-ness as an excuse to not follow the teachings at times). If he was sharing God and human characteristics at the same time - he was not fully human then (by our standard anyways) - which isn't all that bad and bothers me very little. But what if he was fully man empowered by God's Spirit - thus making him fully man? Either way, this is inconsequential - what is important is the teachings.

3. The Holy Spirit is a divine person, (12) sent to dwell, guide, teach, empower the believer, (13) and convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. (14) ([12] John 14:15–18, [13] John 16:13, Acts 1:8, [14] John 16:7–11)

**This is a new twist for me even - spirit = person? So if the spirit dwells in someone that can mean they are 2 people? Why can't they just be honest about this instead of trying to nail down a set belief - no one knows how the spirit truly works (John 3:8) or what it truly is? I am sure we have limited knowledge in this field of study and about God's spirit.

4. The Old & New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice. (15) ([15] 2 Peter 1:20–21, 2 Timothy 3:15–16)

**I actually like the Alliance's verbal wording here about inerrancy and inspiration - they seem to be saying they do not support the idea of 'no errors'. I think I am fairly close to this stand in general and I see very little problem with this statement.

5. Man was originally created in the image and likeness of God:(16) he fell through disobedience, incurring thereby both physical and spiritual death. All men are born with a sinful nature,(17) are separated from the life of God, and can be saved only through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ.(18) The portion of the unrepentant and unbelieving is existence forever in conscious torment;(19) and that of the believer, in everlasting joy and bliss.(20) ([16] Genesis 1:27, [17] Romans 3:23, [18] 1 Corinthians15:20–23, [19] Revelation 21:8, [20] Revelation 21:1–4)

**Oh brother, where to start here. I think Romans 3:23 is mis-interpreted here to be honest. What does spiritual death mean anyways? The idea of hell is for the unbelieving (which chalks it up to 'what you believe' about Jesus and 'not about living' out his teachings). Man and woman are created by God in Genesis BTW (not just man). I love how the faithful 'believers' are totally rewarded while the 'unbelievers' are totally tormented - now that's justice (lol)! This is long over-due for a re-write.

6. Salvation has been provided through Jesus Christ for all men; and those who repent and believe in Him are born again of the Holy Spirit, receive the gift of eternal life, and become the children of God.(21) ([21] Titus 3:4–7)

**It's Jesus the Christ (Messiah) - this was not his last name. Why not use 'follow him' as the pattern instead of the idea of 'believing' (the idea of believing can be mis-interpretated so easily)? if salvation is 'for all men' (what about women?) - then isn't it their right by birth to be a part of this kingdom and they have to choose to leave it? I am not in disagreeance with the statement so much as I am not sure about the theology.

7. It is the will of God that each believer should be filled with the Holy Spirit and be sanctified wholly,(22) being separated from sin and the world and fully dedicated to the will of God, thereby receiving power for holy living and effective service.(23) This is both a crisis and a progressive experience wrought in the life of the believer subsequent to conversion.24 ([22] 1 Thessalonians 5:23, [23] Acts 1:8, [24] Romans 6:1–14)

**So here's the pattern: conversion, sanctification, and seperation - this can be so easily used in such a way as not to seek God's will (namely how much seperation we talking here and how much in each area of our lives?). This is seen as a 'crisis'? How so? Cause they don't want to say salvation even after recieved is not altogether what it means (saved always)? The progressive idea I am all down with - I think as we go we grow in life - continually refining our faith - but if that's a crisis - then isn't growth a bad thing (wouldn't accepting this statement be good enough and ask no questions about it)?

8. Provision is made in the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ for the healing of the mortal body.(25) Prayer for the sick and anointing with oil are taught in the Scriptures and are privileges for the Church in this present age.(26) ([25] Matthew 8:16–17, [26] James 5:13–16)

**Healing - now there's a slippery issue. What if this is all done and someone does not get healed? Their bad or bad theology? Shouldn't we be pointing people to the hospitals if they are sick 1st (we have this privelege also), then maybe prayer afterwards? I am all for healing but as for this being in the doctrinal statement - this can equal big mistake.

9. The Church consists of all those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, are redeemed through His blood, and are born again of the Holy Spirit. Christ is the Head of the Body, the Church, (27) which has been commissioned by Him to go into all the world as a witness, preaching the gospel to all nations.(28) The local church is a body of believers in Christ who are joined together for the worship of God, for edification through the Word of God, for prayer, fellowship, the proclamation of the gospel, and observance of the ordinances of Baptism & the Lord's Supper.(29) ([27] Ephesians 1:22–23, [28] Matthew 28:19–20, [29] Acts 2:41–47)

**First off, the church in no way resembles that community from Acts and I can name a variety of things but firstly - they were communalists (vs.44 - 45) - not capitalist (tracking numbers and marketing - lol). Secondly, Jesus in Matthew (and even the Acts passage) mentions 'observe all that I commanded you' - and this is spreading the 'gospel'. Oh we are witnesses alright - but why is preaching the main way of witnessing? Isn't living the morals the best witness (which is clearly mentioned by Jesus and the Apostles)? Which church is Christ's church? What if all the things in point #29 are being done but the people in no way represent the teachings they claim to follow...then what? Is that still a church?

10. There shall be a bodily resurrection of the just and of the unjust; for the former, a resurrection unto life;(30) for the latter, a resurrection unto judgment.(31) ([30] 1 Corinthians 15:20–23, [31] John 5:28–29)

**I agree (more or less).

11. The second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is imminent(32) and will be personal, visible, and premillennial.(33) This is the believer's blessed hope and is a vital truth which is an incentive to holy living and faithful service.(34) ([32] Hebrews 10:37, [33] Luke 21:27, [34] Titus 2:11–14)

**Does imminent mean in the apostles lifetime or just ours? If so I can hardly define imminent as 1900 years of waiting. Why is this an incentive to 'live a better life'? Isn't the idea we are helping our fellow humanity to achieve a better life incentive enough?

This is the church I am a part of and I totally disagree with the scripture pasting they do to form a centralized belief system (isn't that wrong to do?). I think their system is fairly decent but then imagine asking 1/2 the question I did and see what kind of re-writing they might need to do. This is part 1 of an on-going series.

Submissively the times a changed...

2007-08-03T12:28:00.000-06:00

Heather got me thinking about a few scriptures about the role of the wife in the Christian realm - and here is what conclusion I have so far come to (again I am open on this one).

"Wives, be subject to your own husbands" (Eph 5:22)
"But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything" (Eph 5:24)

This is where the story begins in this discussion - women being subject to men in marriage. I have no problem with the idea - subject - but I would say the obvious here - men also need to be subject to their wives (in everything). Marriage is about compromise anyways - but we have grown to see it works both ways now. I think back in Paul's days this was not the case - women may not have been as educated as the male populace or part of the working class so much - this has changed dramatically in the 21st century (women and men are partners in all things in the household from bills to child-rearing).

"Husbands, love your wives" (Eph 5:25)
"So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it" (Eph 5:28-29)

Husbands are commanded here to 'love' and 'look out for the best interests' (nourish and cherish) of their wife - as they would for themself. But the idea is to love your wife and not objectify her - or treat her as a 2nd class citizen because she is 'part of you' (even if women were considered lower then men in that society - this was the new norm). It is possible that in this era women were recieving a less than better class than they deserved and I think the writer is pointing to the idea of equality for the woman - or at the least - a huge step up.

"each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband" (Eph 5:33)

I think this sums it up beautifully - love and respect are to be present in the marriage. One can take the stand of inequality on these passages but the summary is quite clear - men are to treat women as themsleves and women should respect their husbands - I think this can put each other on equal footing if the man does what he is supposed to and actually 'loves' his wife. What is love? - see I Cor 13:4-8 but apparently it is kind, patient, not jealous, not arrogant, is prudent, forgiving, not provoked, seeks the interests of the other, rejoices in truth, perseveres, is faithful, hopes all things, endures, and never fails. That sets a good course for both people involved irregardless.

"You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7)

I think Peter backs up the point also - even he speaks of the 'subject' idea - but his central point is that of understanding and honor the wife as a 'fellow heir' of life. The idea is equality - since they are 'joint heirs' in this faith and work to the betterment of society around them. Peter even mentions overlooking the 'weakness' of women here - if this means the societal status of the woman or strength I am not sure - but what is clear it is not the focus of the marriage and needs to be set aside for unity.

"However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God." (I Cor 11:11-12)

Again we see Paul talking about men and women in the context that both are equal (in some regards) in this faith. A lot of the stuff in this same chapter seems to point to cultural norms of the day concerning women and what is correct - but Paul's point in the matter seems to suggest men and women are equal - even from a Genesis point of view - they needed each other - and neither is independant from the other.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28)

I think this is the idea behind the majority of the teaching - problem is it is so coded in cultural teachings for certain regions and for establishing a 'norm for the people' it gets lost. But Paul makes it abundantly clear here that male or female is not to be regarded as determining one's status in the faith - they're all equal (one) in the same faith system. This is the ideal I shoot for in my own theology - I am quite aware that Paul was dealing with a whole new system of teachings and needed to lay down some ground rules for the people to treat one another decently - people (gentiles) that were new to this faith system and likely had ideas about women that were not so progressive as Paul's. If Paul doesn't go far enough in the marriage teachings - he does here. And BTW - he also mentions slavery as something not to be considered a status marker of the faith either!

So am I off? Am I on? Just what do you think is being said in the passages?

Boycotting Religion(s) & Dealing w/Genocide

2007-07-24T23:18:00.000-06:00

I just finished watching Kevin Anett's documentary called 'Unrepentant' and I must say - bingo! You want some enlightenment on the Aboriginal condition and history of my people group(s) within Canada - watch this video.

Kevin Anett claims the Canadian Government and 3 church groups (Anglican, United, and Catholic) progressively set up to assimilate Indigenous peoples of Canada. This assimilation occured mainly via the residential school system but also included stripping Indigenous lands, killing Indigenous children, subverting justice for Indigenous people, and a continual process of hushing the whole dirty history of church work within Indigenous communities and letting it continue to this day - a genocide. Each of those churches I, along with many Indian nations in Canada, call for a total boycott of - since they will not deal with their 'crimes against humanity'. See Kevin's site for more info on this 'hidden from history'.

I have not a single qualm about what Kevin has said in this video and my mother was also in Residential School as a child - in which she was severely abused and taught not to 'love'. Actually watching the documentary - the lady that dies at the end could very well be the testimony of my own mother (and likely is - she refuses to talk about it due to it's pain). The video is explicit about how this same genocide has also helped to keep the Indigenous population in Canada oppressed and broken - a cycle started since the Indian Act in 1876 - legislation which still exists until this day.

It is absolutely abhorent that a supposed civilized gov't and religious structure could do this to a whole nation of people - and not care. Fact is most problems within Indigenous communities stems back directly to residential schools and the torture this had upon Indigenous families - which was then continued by several abuses by the Canadian Government (including the AIM program - adopting Indian children away from their homes and a slack justice system which see's Indian's get life for vicious crimes and when Indians are victims - people get slapped on the wrist). This inhumanity has to stop.

This is where I come from and where I live - and what I have also had to live through as a Indigenous child of the Cree and Saulteaux (Anishnawbe) nations in Canada - this is part of my history whether I like it or not. I suggest, if you want to find out something about Aboriginal peoples in Canada (or even the USA) - to watch the video...learn something they never teach you in any school.

Hope - The Novel Idea

2007-07-24T19:02:00.000-06:00

I was watching some Christian programming the other day when I heard something very interesting about this faith that made me realize something - hope should not die - for no reason whatsoever.

The idea of 'hope' was discussed concerning suicide and how the absence of hope is the pre-cursor to taking one's life. I chewed on that thought for a day or so and I think the program is 'on the money' with that idea. I felt a little ashamed also - I notice becoming so realistic and logical that I began functioning outside the idea of possibilities and hopes. My bad to be honest. Somebody slap me!

What is this Christian faith without the idea of 'hope'? I realize without this notion faith is a failure and useless to all (like salt without taste). In the end of the day, faith should lead to hope - for the now & for the later. I was dealing so in the now that I missed that hope is always possible (now and in the future) - it is the figurative smile of the gospel writings.

Faith without hope is like life without happiness - and this is essentially true. Try live one day in total uncertainty in any area of your life (work, family, faith, sport, etc) and you soon realize none of that is fun - and eventually you just get depressed into apathy. If life is without hope - life soon becomes worth ending - worth not deciding about anymore. Hope is absolutely essential to the gospel - and I think it is the 'selling point' - I think it directs humanity to it's core spirituality and life-blood - 'things do change'.

Life will be better...times will get easier...struggles will disappear...jobs will come your way...friendships can be made whole again...love can be restored and healed...faith can move mountains...promises do come true...etc...this is hope - we all do this - to stop doing this is to not 'believe' anymore - and not believing means you stopped breathing. Humans detoriate without possibility and choice concerning future - so let's help people see something they sometimes cannot - there is hope. This is good news.

Sicko - Policies and Procedure

2007-07-18T16:15:00.000-06:00

I watched Moore's new movie 'Sicko' last night and I think it is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen - namely on the universalism of health-care. Here is my take on the movie.

Firstly, universal health care does work and works in a variety of ways in several countries including France, Canada, Britian, and Cuba...and the majority of these countries are not socialist or communist - actually 3 of the 4 have conservative govt's. I think Moore brings up the idea that we see other countries new consumer goods and we buy them (since they are good ideas) - why can't we do this with health care? And 2 of these systems flourish in leaps and bounds - Britain only asks you pay $10.00 for all your perscriptions and France even has doctors who make house-calls (for free). I seen those examples and I was shocked - great ideas.

Secondly, universal health care is an idea that works for the poor and rich alike - it's very Robin Hood-ish indeed - takes from the more wealthy (in taxes) and helps to keep the system going so all can access it - even those without jobs. For me, this is the absolute selling point of the system - no one gets left out of essential care - irregardless of their class status. To me, this is an absolute Christian value and I can't see why any Christian would ever speak against 'helping the less fortunate'.

Thirdly, one example of someone losing their loved one for the sake of not getting essential health care in a progressively rich country is one too many. Moore however does not stop at one story - he has a plethora of examples to choose from (about 30 people) - even Americans in other countries weigh in...even 6000+ e-mails of medical horror stories. Now some Americans may not like Cuba but Che's daughter said some of the most encouraging things I have ever heard - I paraphrase - 'Cubans can not understand how the richest country can even have problems - shouldn't everyone be well taken care of'?' Some examples are: a man having to chose between fingers he cut off in an accident (couldn't afford both), a ladies daughter not getting antibiotics for her daughter (later died), and some victims of the 9/11 disaster not getting adequate medical care for conditions suffered from their volunteer work. Very sad indeed.

Fourthly, a system of health care and insurers that is run 'for profit' is a system in need of serious change. Health care is as essential to the human as the need for food and water is - it is essential to human happiness & life (which I think are mentioned in the constitution). People are getting rich by denying some people the cures to their very ills and this is not only barbaric, it's straight from the pit of evil (apparently some people can be worth less than a dollar sign). No one single person should be denied the right to 'live' - this is an absolute essential to humanity - that to deny it is tantamount to crimes against humanity.

Fifthly, people do not need to fear their government. Ironically, it seems the opposite is what true democracy is - government revering it's own people and listening. France was an overwhelming example of the people speaking out and being heard - and the government listened - including things like standing up for a 35 hour work week, holidays, and their health care system - and they were heard. They do not fear their government but respect that role it should play - and the government listens. I actually find it much scarier when business is in charge since ethically business is not a 'person' nor does it care about people - it's mission is to make a profit. If business can get away with selling your families drugs that will kill them - they will do just that - or have we forgot about the tobacco industry. Just thought I'd remind ourselves of that.

So for me the movie was a contemplative experience - I thought about what humans will take as they are told what to do - that even sometimes ethics can be cleansed from the human conscience if we are told this 'is our job' or 'this is just how it is'. Collectively we are being taken apart and being individualized - we are losing a grip on our collective strengths as a people. We are a democracy and in a free country - just how much more of this are we going to take? Shouldn't accountability start with us and not with lobbyists? I am ranting a bit but honestly - if you knew a better way why wouldn't you ask for it?

"Philosphy Does Not Make Me a Better Person"

2007-07-09T13:34:00.000-06:00

The last few weeks I have been having some very deep discussions with a lot of people about aspects of this faith - mainly free will/choice. Funny thing is I learned a lot about myself in the discussion - and who I truly am.

I have noticed (and this needs to be a bumper sticker) 'philosophy does not make me a better person'. Wrangling with some very deep issues and looking at something from every logical angle is good to do - but it in no wise makes me a better person. Actually, thinking deep can draw out new emotions and ideas from within we never deal with very often - sometimes making us a worse person for the moment. I find thinking a great exercise but sometimes we need to get back to real life - and love and care for people in the world we live in (so yes - I suck).

My theology is not 'set in stone' and is open to change - I am not 100% sure of all the things I say - so discussion is good for me - it opens my mind to new thoughts and interpretations I may have never considered before. Truth is not something stagnant - it is open and we are learning as we go - so 'no' I am not a theological expert of any sorts (things are still being shaped). I am alright with that - cause Ninjanun said something that spoke volumnes to me "Doubt is not the opposite of faith, certainty is."

The way we treat others on the internet is a sign of the way we treat others in real life - since this is an aspect of reality. I find nothing wrong with disagreeing about points in a discussion and then working through those ideals (and maybe never coming to a concensus) - but to start talking someone down is rude (ie: calling names or just disregading them altogether). I know I don't like it when I am treated this way (disregarded) and I see no reason to do this to others. Maybe there is still a lot to learn about how we treat others on the internet - which I think Dagoods has pointed me towards in a few of his recent posts.

But all in all - I like discussing tough issues about life and how this all works out - since we have to live with our choices and ideologies. I guess I will always be game for a good discussion - about the finer things in life - and I think I could continually use the refining.

SocietyVs on Choice & Faith - an Excerpt

2007-07-06T18:06:00.000-06:00

Slapdash and I have been having some good convo's lately - have made me think about what I believe - this is an excerpt of how I see this faith. I must say - she really is a great person and is asking some awesome questions - thanks!!!

"Parents restrict the negative/bad choices of their children when they will clearly hurt themselves or others." (Slapdash)

Correction - you try to restrict their choices - even as a parent it is impossible to control their minds and choices they will make on a daily basis (ex: run away from you in a supermarket, smoke pot as a 15 year old, go into something even when forbidden, etc). You literally could write a memoir and ask your kids to obey it and demand it of them (of all the things you have taught in your life to them) and they might or might not obey...kinda like this whole choices thing we discuss about God (who also left us some remnant of writings to peruse - I would use Jesus' myself). Interesting parellel for me - at least - this is the way I see the whole thing.

"This is the crux of the matter for me - we act as though for choice to matter, God has to step completely out of the picture" (Slapdash)

I don't think God is out of the picture - this is a viewpoint we adopt when things don't work out - but it's not my perspective. The crisis' we all spoke of in all of these forums have either ended or will end at some point - yet we have a timeline all our own for them (since we play God in that aspect also). Or am I wrong? Will the problems in the Sudan be everlasting? Even dictators get killed, die, or kill themselves. Evil and good work out their own timelines in grudge matches with one another on this planet it would seem - and this is quite common (I am using black n white terms here for no good reason). But maybe things are that simple? Choices come from voices.

"And I still don't get how you can argue free will til you're blue in the face and still PRAY TO GOD to intercede in this world in big or small ways." (Slapdash)

Why not? I am free to make chocies irregardless of what any philosophy says either way - in the present tense.

My example is simple - I want to own a home and their quite a few barriers in the way to that goal. Now I can look at this two ways (both of them choices) - go for it (don't pay homage to doubts) or give up (pay homage to my weaknesses at this point). Now my view of prayer is that God is acting - but he also requires our action in that endeavor - partners of sorts - for what we need (shelter is a neccesity). If I ask, seek, and knock on doors - guess what happens? I get answers to the questions I am asking and helps in removing the barriers to the problem (I ask around about how to solve credit issues, seek out mortgages and financial help, and knock on doors of which people are willing to work with me on this). Then I develop a plan for my goal - let's say 9 months (following through on my asking in prayer). This is a real situation. I am currently doing this process - I'll update on the details and struggles I go through (if need be) - but I believe in the end I will own a house even without the actual means to do so at this point (except I have a job). But that's how this all works for me and I see that as the clear biblical strategy laid down in Jesus teachings. If you ask and recieve nothing - you never asked for something you saw as possible (which is a belief we all hold dear to).

"Of course, you get big kudos, SocVS if you never actually pray for God to intervene in this world...because that would at least be consistent. :)" (Slapdash)

I don't need to pray as much as I need to believe the words that come out of my mouth. This seems to be the problem with the whole dilemma - this 'what is possible' ideal?

100 Posts - Still Losing My Religion...

2007-07-03T18:01:00.000-06:00

This is officially my 100th post on this site - although I have authored a few at NorthVU's site (about 10 or so)...but this is my 100th here...almost 2 years of blogging...what have I learned - a lot!

I have read 1/2 the Quran up to this point (and blogged with people working w/Muslims)
Discussed many an issue with Atheists - concerning biblical texts, history, and life in general
Discussed Mormon issues and pondered them
Learned Evangelicalism might not be altogether correct - in fact - it isn't
Talked about First Nations culture and my faith - the inter-twining
Met a variety of Christian people with a variety of theologies - most quite nice
Blogged with people concerned with the Christian airwaves in Canada
Blogged with locals from Saskatchewan about life and faith (and Canada)
Learned and questioned a lot of what I once believed about this faith
Had an idea abound then levelled it for a future date (ie: Action Group)
Made a lot of friends and have discussed all kinds of issues with them
I am still Losing My Religion...

I have learned a lot from all the people I have blogged with and I still have a ways to go - which I am thankful for - lots of people have opened my eyes for me. I would like to thank Bruced for all the people I met via his site and the intro to universalism, To Chris (ledge) for his quirky stories and great spirit, Jim/Cinder/JollyBeggar/Hineini/Ken/Tim/URSA/MyGarden - for all the Saskatchewan flavor and what they have shown is around me - and it is good, HIS for all the great posts he put down and the discussions he got rolling, Dagoods for our disagreeances but also for his knowledge, Jefe/Dorsey/SCP - for all the great church questions they got me involved in, Jim Jordan - for being a long time support and getting me to look into some political stuff, John Schuck for his liberal views - really got me thinking and seeing things in new ways, Gracehead for some of the best discussions I have ever had on the internet, Burning Bush for the blogs and our head-banging on ideas, and Heather for her blog and the way she thinks - got me looking into the more Hebraic ideas within this faith. I am grateful.

In the end of the day I am still losing my religion - questioning it and seeing it re-shape before my eyes. Who knows what will change in the next 100 posts - but I do know I like to learn - and the crew I read right now is making that happen - thanks!

AFN - National Day of Action

2007-06-29T14:30:00.000-06:00

Today (June 29) was the National Day of Action as called by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) in Canada. I was in Regina, SK for the event and I decided (previously) to attend the event they hosted here - a march.

Part 1: March of Solidarity

We did a march from the First Nations University to the Legislation building in Regina - which is a fairly nice walk. Leading the group was a band called 'Red Dog' - a drum group that plays the drum and sings Aboriginal cultural music. They were followed by the dignitaries, the elders, the veterans, and then the crowd. I really enjoyed it - had a great time with everyone else in the march.

Part 2: Legislative Building Speeches and Lunch

After the march we heard from a lot of speakers including the FSIN (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations) chief, the vice-chiefs, the premier of Saskatchewan, the opposition leader, and a few local Liberal party leaders (no Conservatives attended). Then we had lunch. The whole thing was televised and will hit the airwaves throughout Canada today - and I think I made the local news.

What was it all about? A few issues were discussed but they all focused around the appalling conditions First Nations people are dealing with (thus the need for solidarity) which includes gang problems, suicide issues on reserves, poverty, treaty rights educations, education funding, housing, and employment/economic opportunities. Here are few examples:

(a) Kelowna Accord: Was a bill that was almost passed under the Liberal party that would of seen 6.1 billion dollars go to the solution of poverty within Aboriginal communities - this bill has since been scrapped by the Conservative government and has never passed.

(b) Education Funding Cap: Currently the Canadian Government has a cap on funsing to Aboriginal education funding of 2% (since 1996 and was even lower prior to this) and has not changed even with the rising Aboriginal population. The problem is the Aboriginal population is the youngest in the country and could desperately use that funding to allow for more economic participation - top that off - this is a highly regaded area by Aboriginal communities as a 'treaty right' (a contract from the late 1800's - around 12 of them were signed in Canada).

That is what I did this morning - I showed my solidarity to the movement (a peaceful march in Saskatchewan) since I believe in the actions being called upon - namely with regards to ending poverty in my community...I really have little choice in that matter...it affects me deeply. So I did what I could - support the people around me and the issues at hand that need to be dealt with - in a participative way amongst all communities in Canada (this being an awareness issue). That was my morning today!

Peak Oil - A Change is Gonna Come

2007-06-25T09:37:00.000-06:00

The world supply of oil is slowly diminishing - and by 'slowly' I mean within our lifetime...and this could/will get ugly ('end of suburbia' - movie I just saw). We need to wake up and start challenging our gov't to take this plight seriously.

The America's absolutely rely on oil as a way of life and economy. The peak time of the use of oil is actually happening right now - and may even be slowly in decline (ie: this rising gas prices/energy prices). This doesn't seem like much of an issue (except for our cars) but once one considers that oil is used in every aspect of the society we live in - and there is no replacement at this point - we might see an economic crash similar to that of the 1920's.

The problem with the issue is it so overlooked and not taken very seriously - yet financially - this is the worst nightmare any of us can dream of in a capitalistic society. This economic collapse will destroy life as we know at (well the convenience of it). We could be looking at lack of electricity and energy (to heat homes), cars will no longer be the main mode of transportation, housing markets will deplete and lose their value, big business will lose it's ability to transport things so it will eventually 'crash' and 'destabilize', and the value of our money might not be worth a dime.

It's a little gloomy and a little doomy - but hey - we built this city - we have to live with it. The film gives some clues to making life easier in this peak oil crisis. Neighborhoods need to ban together and start working towards viable clothing and food options within their sphere of living (ex: gardens and the return of the local small business owner). Business needs to be localized to make travel to work affordable and possible (no more 1 hour drives). There are small answers to big problems.

But this is a lesson we learned so damn late at the local 'hoe-down's' of big business' profit driving machine - they played and played and we danced and danced - this is a 'pied piper' type thing - in this 'rat race' someone has to pay (drown). Take a good hard look at the reality of life as you know it - see the kingdoms big business has built for us to live in - the convenience - the cities - the infrastructure - the toys - the technology - the happiness. You know I almost think they know we are 'as stupid as we look'.

Who do you think walks away with hope in an economic boom and an economic crash? We needed to start making these businesses accountable for their greed and stripping of the world resources for our happiness - but the media machine and politicians make this impossible (they limit our knowledge). I believe the saying is 'we reap what we sow' - well we live in a country that has effectively undermined the stability of this planet and something strange is going to happen - we are going to realize forms of poverty for the lack of compassion we had on other impoverished nations and for our greed.

But if you think I am yanking your crank - go check it out and see how dependant America is on oil and our viable options for energy (in the future). I had never really thought about this but I knew the 'good times' couldn't last forever (economically). This issue is worth a look into and worth your examination - so you can both condemn the practices of big business (call for accountability) and see what you can do before the oil drains to a screeching halt.

It's only fitting I grew up poor.

Let Me Tell You 'A Secret'

2007-06-24T16:14:00.001-06:00

My wife and I finished watching the DVD about 'The Secret'. I thought some of the idea's about positivity work real well in life. Here is my take.

The idea behind the secret is the 'law of attraction' - meaning you attract what you want from life (via thoughts and feelings). I think the basic premise makes a lot of sense - if you think a certain way then those same things you constantly focus upon will likely become you. If you are a very negative person then you will likely draw in negative energy - and vice versa for being positive (based on the premise we are beings of 'energy'). A lot of this stuff also shows up in Quantum Physics, Philosophy, and Religion.

The things I take away from 'the secret' are:

(1) Nothing is impossible - what you think is possible just might be.

(2) Doubt is the biggest enemy between us and the life we seek to live.

(3) Reach for the stars and don't let your dreams by squashed

(4) You control your destiny - and you control your perspective on life - what you want from life is what you will get

(5) We need to learn to see ourselves as very 'worthwhile' people and not undermine that

To be perfectly honest, some of this stuff is just second hand news to me - as I have read the teachings of Jesus for sometime and many of these ideas about 'asking and believing' are within those teachings also.

All the secret is saying is 'life has a spiritual component' to it - I agree. In my culture we are 4 components (physical, spiritual, mental, and emotional) and the sum of all these things provides balance and health to life. What you actually want from life is possible - but this takes a lot of mini-steps before we realize some of those goals we grasp at...but life is a series of ideas we make real.

If your goal is to own a home - and your completely broke...come up with a plan (idea). Go to school to earn a top-rate education or work your way up in a company. Keep your eyes and ears open to the market and build your credit. At some point owning that home just keeps moving closer and closer (step by step). But it all started with a 'dream' an 'idea' and nothing more. This is how life really does work. You had an idea - then believed it - so as to committ actions to the endeavor - then in the end - you realize you got what you 'asked for' (or what you truly believed was possible). That's simple - that's too easy - but that's all we are - an idea (a thought).

Where does God fit into this for me? He is - it all flows under His guidance - and He respects our choices - He wants the best for us - but most of the time we are not sure if we want the best for ourselves. In the end, you are a series of choices/directions - and you can change every single thing about yourself - but it's a step here and step there (there is no giant step for humankind) and things progress accordingly.

There is no secret or 'mystery' to a better life - it's all rather quite simple - we need to take control of our lives and determine what we want from our 'living'. You can ask God for a way out of poverty or depression - but if you just leave it at that - then your missing the essential piece of that puzzle - 'ask and YOU will recieve...'.

Exodus: A Jewish Viewpoint

2007-06-21T09:43:00.001-06:00

This article was published in the Spring 1995 issue of Jewish Action (e-mail from rabbi's at JewishAnswers.org)

The Exodus and Ancient Egyptian Records

"And Moses said unto the people: Do not fear! Stand and see the deliverance of Hashem which he shall do for you this day. For as you have seen Egypt this day, never will you see it again." (Exodus 14:13)

When was the Exodus? The Exodus from Egypt was not only the seminal event in the history of the Jewish People, but was an unprecedented and unequaled catastrophe for Egypt. In the course of Pharaoh's stubborn refusal to let us leave and the resultant plagues sent by Hashem, Egypt was devastated. Hail, disease and infestations obliterated Egypt's produce and livestock, while the plague of the first born stripped the land of its elite, leaving inexperienced second sons to cope with the economic disaster. The drowning of the Egyptian armed forces in the Red Sea left Egypt open and vulnerable to foreign invasions.

From the days of Flavius Josephus (c.70 CE) until the present, historians have tried to find some trace of this event in the ancient records of Egypt. They have had little luck.According to biblical chronology, the Exodus took place in the 890th year before the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians in 421 BCE (g.a.d. 587 BCE) [1]. This was 1310 BCE (g.a.d. 1476 BCE). In this year, the greatest warlord Egypt ever knew, Thutmose III, deposed his aunt Hatshepsut and embarked on a series of conquests, extending the Egyptian sphere of influence and tribute over Israel and Syria and crossing the Euphrates into Mesopotamia itself. While it is interesting that this date actually saw the death of an Egyptian ruler - and there have been those who tried to identify Queen Hatshepsut as the Pharaoh of the Exodus - the power and prosperity of Egypt at this time is hard to square with the biblical account of the Exodus.

Some historians have been attracted by the name of the store-city Raamses built by the Israelites before the Exodus. They have drawn connections to the best known Pharaoh of that name, Ramses II, or Ramses the Great, and set the Exodus around his time, roughly 1134 BCE (g.a.d. 1300 BCE [2]). In order to do this, they had to reduce the time between the Exodus and the destruction of the Temple by 180 years, which they did by reinterpreting the 480 years between the Exodus and the building of the Temple (I Kings 6:1) as 12 generations of 40 years. By "correcting" the Bible and setting a generation equal to 25 years, these imaginary 12 generations become 300 years.

Aside from the fact that such "adjustments" of the biblical text imply that the Bible cannot be trusted, in which case there is no reason to accept that there ever was an Exodus, Ramses II was a conqueror second only to Thutmose III. And as in the case of Thutmose III, the Egyptian records make it clear that nothing even remotely resembling the Exodus happened anywhere near his time of history.

We appear to be at a standstill. The only options are to relegate the Exodus to the status of myth, or to conclude that there is something seriously wrong with the generally accepted dates for Egyptian history.

In 1952, Immanuel Velikovsky published Ages in Chaos, the first of a series of books in which he proposed a radical redating of Egyptian history in order to bring the histories of Egypt and Israel into synchronization. Velikovsky's work sparked a wave of new research into ancient history. And while the bulk of Velikovsky's conclusions have not been borne out by this research, his main the-sis has. This is that the apparent conflict between ancient records and the Bible is due to a misdating of those ancient records, and that when these records are dated correctly, all such "conflicts" disappear.

Both Thutmose III and Ramses II date to a period called the Late Bronze Age, which ended with the onset of the Iron Age. Since the Iron Age has been thought to be the time when Israel first arrived in Canaan, the Late Bronze Age has been called "The Canaanite Period," and historians have limited their search for the Exodus to this time. When we break free of this artificial restraint, the picture changes drastically.

According to the midrash [3], the Pharaoh of the Exodus was named Adikam. He had a short reign of 4 years before drowning in the Red Sea. The Pharaoh who preceded him, whose death prompted Moses's return to Egypt (Exodus 2:23, 4:19), was named Malul. Malul, we are told, reigned from the age of 6 to the age of 100. Such a long reign - 94 years! - sounds fantastic, and many people would hesitate to take this midrash literally. As it happens, though, Egyptian records mention a Pharaoh who reigned for 94 years. And not only 94 years, but from the age of 6 to the age of 100! This Pharaoh was known in inscriptions as Pepi (or Phiops) II [4]. The information regarding his reign is known both from the Egyptian historian-priest Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE, and from an ancient Egyptian papyrus called the Turin Royal Canon, which was only discovered in the last century.

Egyptologists, unaware of the midrash, have wrestled with the historicity of Pepi II's long reign. One historian wrote: [5]Pepi II...appears to have had the longest reign in Egyptian history and perhaps in all history. The Turin Royal Canon credits him with upwards of 90 years. One version of the Epitome of Manetho indicates that he "began to rule at the age of 6 and continued to a 100." Although modern scholars have questioned this, it remains to be disproved.

While the existence of a 2 kings who reigned a) 94 years, b) in Egypt, and c) from the age of 6, is hard enough to swallow as a coincidence, that is not all. Like Malul, Pepi II was the second to last king of his dynasty. Like Malul, his successor had a short reign of 3-4 four years, after which Egypt fell apart. Pepi II's dynasty was called the 6th Dynasty, and was the last dynasty of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. Following his successor's death, Egypt collapsed, both economically and under foreign invasion. Egypt, which had been so powerful and wealthy only decades before, suddenly could not defend itself against tribes of invading bedouin. No one knows what happened. Some historians have suggested that the long reign of Pepi II resulted in stagnation, and that when he died, it was like pulling the support out from under a rickety building. But there is no evidence to support such a theory.

A papyrus dating from the end of the Old Kingdom was found in the early 19th century in Egypt [6]. It seems to be an eyewitness account of the events preceding the dissolution of the Old Kingdom. Its author, an Egyptian named Ipuwer, writes:
*Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
*The river is blood.
*That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!
*Trees are destroyed.
*No fruit or herbs are found...
*Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
*Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
* The land is not light [dark].

Velikovsky recognized this as an eyewitness account of the 10 plagues. Since modern men are not supposed to believe in such things, it has been interpreted figuratively by most historians. The destruction of crops and livestock means an economic depression. The river being blood indicates a breakdown of law an order and a proliferation of violent crime. The lack of light stands for the lack of enlightened leadership. Of course, that's not what it says, but it is more palatable than the alternative, which is that the phenomena described by Ipuwer were literally true.

When the Bible tells us that Egypt would never be the same after the Exodus, it was no exaggeration. With invasions from all directions, virtually all subsequent kings of Egypt were of Ethiopian, Libyan or Asiatic descent. When Chazal tell us that King Solomon was able to marry Pharaoh's daughter despite the ban on marrying Egyptian converts until they have been Jewish for 3 generations because she was not of the original Egyptian nation, there is no reason to be surprised.

In the Wake of the Exodus: It was not only Egypt which felt the birth pangs of the Jewish People. The end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt preceded only slightly the end of the Early Bronze age in the Land of Israel. The end of this period, dated by archeologists to c.2200 BCE (in order to conform to the Egyptian chronology), has long puzzled archeologists. The people living in the Land of Israel during Early Bronze were the first urban dwellers there. They were, by all available evidence, primitive, illiterate and brutal. They built large but crude fortress cities and were constantly at war. At the end of the Early Bronze Age, they were obliterated.

Who destroyed Early Bronze Age Canaan? Some early archeologists, before the vast amount of information we have today had been more than hinted at, suggested that they were Amorites. The time, they thought, was more or less right for Abraham. So why not postulate a great disaster in Mesopotamia, which resulted in people migrated from there to Canaan? Abraham would have been thus one in a great crowd of immigrants (scholars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries often felt compelled to debunk the idea of divine commands).

Today, the picture is different. The invaders of the Early Bronze/Middle Bronze Interchange seem to have appeared out of nowhere in the Sinai and the Negev. Initially, they moved up into the transjordan, and then crossed over north of the Dead Sea, conquering Canaan and wiping out the inhabitants. Of course, since we are dealing with cultural remnants and not written records, we don't know that the previous inhabitants were all killed. Some of them may have remained, but if so, they adopted enough of the newcomers' culture to "disappear" from the archeological record.

2 archeologists have already gone on record identifying the invaders as the Israelites. In an article published in Biblical Archeology Review [7], Israeli archeologist Rudolph Cohen demonstrated that the two invasions match in every detail. Faced with the problem that the 2 are separated in time by some 8 centuries, Cohen backed down a bit: "I do not necessarily mean to equate the MBI people with the Israelites, although an ethnic identification should not be automatically ruled out. But I am suggesting that at the very least the traditions incorporated into the Exodus account may have a very ancient inspiration reaching back to the MBI period."

The Italian archeologist Immanuel Anati has come to similar conclusions [8]. He added other pieces of evidence, such as the fact that Ai, Arad and other cities destroyed by Israel in the invasion of Canaan were destroyed at the end of the Early Bronze Age, but remained uninhabited until the Iron Age. Since the Iron Age is when Israel supposedly invaded Canaan, we have been in the embarrassing position of having the Bible describe the destructions of these cities at the very time that they were being resettled for the first time in almost a millennium. When the conquest is redated to the end of the Early Bronze, history (the Bible) and physical evidence (archeology) are in harmony. Anati goes further than Cohen in that he claims the invaders really were the Israelites. How does he get around the 800 year gap? By inventing a "missing book of the Bible" between Joshua and Judges that originally covered this period.

Both Cohen and Anati are in the unenviable position of having discovered truths which conflict with the accepted wisdom. Their "tricks" to avoid the problem are lame, but the only alternative would be to suggest a radical redating of the archeology of the Land of Israel. And there is good reason to do this. It is not only the period of the Exodus and Conquest which suddenly match the evidence of ancient records and archeology when the dates of the archeological periods are brought down:

1. The Middle Bronze Age invaders, after some centuries of rural settlement, expanded almost overnight into an empire, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. This empire has been termed the "Hyksos Empire," after a group of nomads that invaded Egypt, despite the fact that there is no historical evidence for such an identification. History knows of one such empire. Archeology knows of one such empire. The same adjustment which restores the Exodus and Conquest to history does the same to the United Kingdom of David and Solomon.

2. The Empire fell, bringing the Middle Bronze Age to an end. Archeologists and Egyptologists are currently involved in a great debate over whether it was civil war or Egyptian invasions which destroyed the "Hyksos" empire. The biblical accounts of the revolt of the ten northern tribes and the invasion of Shishak king of Egypt make the debate irrelevant.

3. The period following the end of the Empire was one of much unrest, but saw tremendous literary achievements. Since this period, the Late Bronze Age, was the last period before the Iron Age, and since the Iron Age was believed to have been the Israelite Period, the Late Bronze Age was called the Canaanite Period. Strangely, these Canaanites spoke and wrote in beautiful Biblical Hebrew. Semitic Canaanites? Did the Bible get it wrong again? But then, coming after the time of David and Solomon, they weren't really Canaanites. The speakers and writers of Biblical Hebrew were, as might have been guessed - Biblical Hebrews.

4. Finally we get to the Iron Age. This is when Israel supposedly arrived in Canaan. But it has been obvious to archeologists for over a century that the archeology of the Iron Age bears little resemblance to the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan. There were invasions, but they were from the north, from Syria and Mesopotamia, and they came in several waves, unlike the lightning conquest under Joshua. The people who settled the land after the invasions also came from the north, though there is much evidence to suggest that they weren't the invaders, and merely settled an empty land after it had been destroyed by others. The south remained in the hands of the Bronze Age inhabitants, albeit on a lower material level.

The conclusions drawn from this evidence have been devastating. The people in the south, who constituted the kingdom of Judah, from whence came the Jews, has been determined to be of Canaanite descent! If not biologically, then culturally. And the people in the north, the other 10 tribes of Israel, have been determined to have been no relation to the tribes of the south. The idea of 12 tribes descended from the sons of Jacob has been removed from the history books and recatalogued under "Mythology, Jewish."

What is most strange is that multiple waves of invasion followed by northern tribes settling in the north of Israel is not an event which has gone unmentioned in the Bible. The invaders were the Assyrians. The settlers were the northern tribes who eventually became the Samaritans. And if the people in the south were descended from the Late Bronze Age inhabitants of the land, why, that merely means that the kingdom of Judah was a continuation of the kingdom of Judah. The only historical claims which are contradicted by the archeological record are those of the Samaritans, who claim to have been the descendants of the 10 tribes of Israel.

A simple redating of the archeological periods in the Land of Israel brings the entire scope of biblical history into synchronization with the ancient historical record. Only time will tell whether more archeologists will follow Cohen and Anati in their slowly dawning recognition of the historicity of the Bible.

Notes
[1] Contrary to the Jewish historical tradition, the generally accepted date (g.a.d.) is 166 years earlier, or 587 BCE (see "Fixing the History Books - Dr. Chaim Heifetz's Revision of Persian History," in the Spring 1991 issue of Jewish Action). This difference applies to all Mesopotamian and Egyptian history prior to the Persian period. The dates for Egyptian history given in the history books are therefore off by this amount. For our purposes, we will use the corrected date followed by the g.a.d. in parentheses. return to text
[2] Some people have been excited about the generally accepted date for Ramses II coming so close to the traditional date for the Exodus. This is a mistake, as Egyptian and Mesopotamian histories are linked. If Ramses II lived c. 1300 BCE, then the destruction of the Temple was in 587 BCE, and the Exodus was in 1476 BCE. return to text
[3] Sefer HaYashar and The Prayer of Asenath (an ancient pseudepigraphical work) contain this information, though Sefer HaYashar only gives the 94 year reign length without Malul's age. return to text
[4] Egyptian kings had a vast titulary. They generally had at least five official throne names, not to mention their personal name or names, and whatever nicknames their subjects gave them. return to text
[5] William Kelly Simpson in The Ancient Near East: A History, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1971. return to text
[6] A.H. Gardiner, Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden (1909). Historians are almost unanimous in dating this papyrus to the very beginning of the Middle Kingdom. The events it describes, consequently, deal with the end of the Old Kingdom. return to text
[7] Rudolph Cohen, "The Mysterious MB I People - Does the Exodus Tradition in the Bible Preserve the Memory of Their Entry into Canaan?" in Biblical Archeology Review IX:4 (1983), pp.16ff. return to text[8] Immanuel Anati, The Mountain of God, Rizzoli International Publications, New York 1986. return to text

Feast of Remembrance

2007-06-18T18:34:00.001-06:00

This lunch hour I attended my first feast - for a former school teacher who passed away 1 year ago (yesterday). I thought the event was very interesting and fun.

The feast started with approximately 1 hour of prayer and ceremonies - via the elder. All the men sat down by the food (in the middle of the room) and we did 2 things:

(a) Smudged: It was the passing around of the sweetgrass and we motion the smoke over ourselves to 'cleanse ourselves'.

(b) Peace Pipe: They passed the peace pipe to all the men and we took some puffs of it - then smudged with the smoke - and passed it to the next person. This happened 4 times as it circled the room.

We then had the feast - made a plate for the person that passed away 1 year ago - and we served by a few people until all the food was gone (needless to say we all took some home of which we are required not to waste).

What I truly enjoyed about the whole thing was the 'remembrance' aspect of the ceremony - sort of like communion in a way. I found that aspect of it very cool and included all members of the community in the feast. I think this is just another great example of how First Nations ceremonies can be incorporated into the symbolism of the Christian faith - 'do this in remembrance of me'. You really felt a great passion of that feeling in the ceremony. I wonder why we don't do this in 'remembrance' of those who walked and talked with us? Maybe some of the communion we share needs to recognize this aspect of community.

Food for thought.

Laughter - What is the Biblical Ideal?

2007-06-13T15:20:00.000-06:00

I would like to thank Burning Bush for bringing this to my attention - this idea of the biblical approach to laughter. It really gave me something to think about.

Luke 6:21-25 mentions laughter as the antithesis of mourning/weeping 2X in a matter of a few verses - making one ponder what ideal is being taught there. Is laughter a bad thing? I don't think so.

I think the verses reitterate an obvious idea about dealing with our pain/hurts in our own lives - so that we can laugh again (have joy in our lives). The teaching is this:

(a) If you do not deal with your pain (and the seriousness thereof) and hide behind laughter - later on you when it all wears down - you will weep/mourn for the state of affairs you might be found in.

(b) If you deal with your pain/hurts (face them head on) at some point you will heal - and later on you will be able to enjoy life and have joy/laughter/gladness.

Laughter is not a bad thing. Actually, I find it one of the greatest human traits we share one with another (can put a smile on our face). I am reminded of a few biblical examples:

(1) In Gen 21:5-7 Sara names her son Isaac (which means laughter). She attributes her laughter to God and thinks people will laugh with her - for this birth at such an age. Sara see's her laughter as a great thing (names her son it).

(2) Psalm 126:1-3 talks about laughter in a similar fashion as I see in the Luke verses. We see the captives are freed and this erupts in ideas of joy, laughter, and gladness. I see this as the same idea about dealing with our pain, getting healed (freed), then we are free to have the joy we desire.

(3) Ecclesiastes 3:4 mentions the idea - where Luke would of framed the teaching from about Jesus - since it so similar. Solomon says there is 'a time to weep and time to laugh' (there is a time for everything). Laughter is not seen as bad here - but in the right context - can be seen as something healthy - a part of normal life. Again weeping is the antithesis of laughter.

I think laughter is a great gift we have been given - and we share it with one another. Yes we must mourn and weep (deal with pain) but we also can heal and have joy - laughter is an expression of that. I think if we laughed a little more and were a little less serious - think of the ramifications on one's life. We might just find we are 'happy' after all?

Theological Retardation - Blood/Body

2007-06-10T11:20:00.000-06:00

I got up this morning and as is the usual habit I thought upon a biblical teaching I have heard plenty of times - transubstantiation. I began to wonder - where did this idea really come from?

Transubstantiation really is about the idea of the body of Jesus and the blood of Jesus in the communion service becoming the actual blood and body of Jesus. I think the Catholics still believe this is how it works but it's funny that for many a year in Christendom this was the actual belief about the communion service. Isn't that odd?

I think we have to come to a finer and deeper understanding of the communion service (symbolism and use of the service) and that in looking back we can see the theological weirdness of this old view. It would point to the idea that maybe we are looking a lot deeper into the scriptures and actually viewing them more appropriately - as in interpretation in these days. Maybe as a Christian society we have 'grown up' and are starting to use our ideas about literature when reading the bible - to both scope out literalness and creative symbolism in passages.

This is one of many examples that have been taught as literal at one point but appear to be not quite when done in reality. I cannot imagine actually eating flesh and drinking blood - regardless if it's our Messiah we are doing it to (ie: literal view). It actually makes no sense since the disciples are pretty sure Gentiles should abstain from 'drinking blood or eating it' within Acts. So how can a church become so quick to look at this idea from the disciples yet not use this in regards to communion - simple answer - misunderstanding.

It's really too bad too - since this is only one of the many ideas the church has thrown around as fact and found to be not quite that. One could make a proverbial listing of many of these mis-interpretations that still exist - ex: word of faith ideals, tongues, and judgement to name a few. Let's not move backwards in our understanding of these scriptures - but forward - we know the literature motifs much better now and the use of context - let's apply it. Let's not pretend that something has to be literal to have meaning.

Goodbye to Romance

2007-06-09T15:12:00.000-06:00

I have been running a thing called the Action Group for about a year and a half...I have decided to call it quits. It's strange but I really think this is the right thing to do.

The idea was to help the church develop into a community that actually lives up to biblical precepts/teachings about helping the 'poor'. I have become very aware that this is not the focus of the church and likely never will be. The idea was way ahead of it's time and the church is not prepared to become a community of people that work on behalf of society to help reduce the suffering of people within their communities. The church is just to concerned with salvation and that aspect of the gospel - weird that salvation wouldn't be an all inclusive term for betterment as Jesus used it (here and now) - but that's just my opinion (apparently).

I was not a good leader and I failed in a lot of aspects - and I admit that. My group never really got an acceptable level within the church - it became so marginalized it became something I did not envision...thusly I am dropping the vision altogether. Maybe some other day things will be different - and that's the path I will now trod - awareness.

I need to move forward in life - and this group was not something I was prepared to handle anyways. I can live with failure - I find no problem with that - I will merely learn from it. So where to for me now? I haven't a clue - but that's the genius of life - it's goodbye to romance today - finding another love tomorrow.

Figuring Out The Term 'To Judge'

2007-06-07T17:56:00.000-06:00

I have recently given this some thought - this term that is thrown around in Christian circles - 'judgement' and I think it is being used all wrong. I think a careful look at that term might reveal a little more than meets the eye.

The term 'to judge' actually means to make a ruling (ex: to sentence or to free) - in relations to the law (torah) or a law. In this country (or any country) we have a court system that makes rulings about aspects of the law - and keeps 'law and order' around us (ex: if you steal you might have to pay reperations). This is how I have also come to see the term 'to judge' within the bible, but on a more personable level.

Jesus teaches 'do not judge...' - and I think that means just that - don't cast your sentences about the 'teachings' you follow upon others - to somewhat 'punish' them. But if you have to judge then measure yourself in accordance to the 'teachings' - and make that judgment a personal one (within yourself). In essence, judge the ethics/values you will adopt against a backdrop (teachings + experience).

I see many Christian folks using the term judgment wrongly (I think) when referring to judging situations - like we have the right to judge one of God's creatures - over-ruling the Creator (who is the only real judge of any situation). No, I think we can make those judgements on values within ourselves and to go beyond that is quite atrocious (or can be). Like I have the right to call you 'this or that' because I have different values than you - I should just keep my yap shut and follow the ethics I believe and hope that others will emulate it (that's how I measure it).

Our measurement is in regards to what we follow (teachings) and not in regards to what we say to others about what we follow (since in judging them we make no real in-ways). But Jesus was not too much a stickler on this - if you have to judge (sentence or free someone) - pick the path which is 'righteous' (mercy/forgiveness). Let's start freeing people from the labels we put upon them - we had no right to do so. Let's treat them how we want ot be treated - with equality and respect. Or as I have thought 'I shouldn't have to ask for your respect, if you respect yourself'.

I am not your judge, your jury, or your prosecuter...I am your friend. If you ask me about something I will tell you what I believe but that is the nature of discussion. What is not the nature of discussion is pointing fingers and making blatant calls on someone's life - that's making a label for someone to live down (which can really drag some people into various crisis'). Let's free them.

Coup D'etat (or something like it)

2007-06-03T17:16:00.000-06:00

I was at church today and I got some rather odd news from my older brother (who pastors the First Nations church I attend). This person who has been attending the church for a while (he's from Korea) wrote a letter to the person above my brother at the Alliance to usurp authority.

I read the letter and basically it was all about this Korean dude becoming the 'head pastor' and my brother becoming the 2nd pastor (although my brother has pastored the church for like 7 years or so). I read it and thought this is a regular 'coup d'etat'.

I was kinda miffed about the whole thing and wondered why the Korean dude (who hadn't even attended the church for 6 months) wanted to usurp power? I thought the letter spoke volumnes about how he saw my brother's skills in the ministry - which is run by a First Nations person and geared to First Nations people. Needless to say, the letter was just another attempt to back-door someone who was doing a fine job - but not as fine as this dude would of liked (by not fine I mean - not Christian enough).

The Korean dude was not at church today - apparently he won't be coming back (as he stated). Reminds me of a line from the Big Lebowski 'somtimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you'. Well, you can guess who the bar ate up.

**I wasn't offended by the Korean dude but if I had to say some words to him - they wouldn't of been to kind and I woulda called him on this tactic he used.

Faith as a System - Paradigm Shifts

2007-05-30T10:09:00.000-06:00

"Is it a viable position for a person to choose not to believe based on no other reason than they just do not feel that God exists?" (Steve at SCP)

This is where this question gets real interesting. How much can we trust feelings? How much can we trust experience? How much can you trust you thoughts? What serves as the back-drop for filtering these things and making a paradigm for them? I do know for certain that all aspects of the human experience make us.

I personally use my belief system (Jesus' Teachings) as a back-drop to develop a system whereby feelings and experiences are thought upon and then developed into the paradigm (value system). I feel, I think, I live, I interact, I draw a conclusion (value - changeable), I develop - then do it all over again. I don't know - does anyone else's faith system work this way - so easily?

PS: I don't actually think faith is based in feelings (which differ from experiences - they are not one in the same - actually sometimes run contrary to one another and help define each other).

Jewish Scriptures (Joshua and Judges)

2007-05-21T12:47:00.001-06:00

Recently, I have picked up to resume where I stopped reading - right after the first 5 books of the Tanakh. I felt I need to re-read the Tanakh to see if my view of the scriptures has changed whatsoever - or maybe I can bring more clarity now by reading as someone less doctrinated - with simple eyes.

I just finished reading Joshua and 9 chapters of Judges - and my view on those books is quite simple - they are 'war books' (in a nutshell). They seem to be Jewish history about war for the land of Canaan framed within the promises to Moses (and the law) - but mainly describe the people, territories, and situations they are found 'fighting' in.

It's a fun read and all (I'll try to finish Judges today or tomorrow) but I have found very little 'teachings' within the 2 books thus far. For Joshua it seems like a recant of the victories on way to taking all of Canaan (which does not happen by the end of the book). Then Judges starts with that premise (chapter 1 is a re-hash of Joshua) and the Israelites having 'mini battles' for the rest of the land. The story usually goes (in Judges) the Israelites worshipped idols, they got ruled by another one of the people groups around them, then a 'judge' stood up for the people and freed them (from this bondage), and the land had peace again.

I just don't find the need to base teachings out of these books to be perfectly honest - there seems to be very little of that being done. It seems more Jewish writing about history and the wars they fought within that land. If you think about it - Jesus does not mention any of these stories in his teachings (or characters). Were these books that mentioned in the synagogue or were they plainly known to be a Jewish historical (of sorts) recant of those battles alone? I have to lean to the latter from some simple reading of it.

Equality of the Nations - starts with our churches

2007-05-16T20:06:00.000-06:00

My brother(s) have begun a little campaign (which I am backing) concerning a certain idea about the missionary mindset in Aboriginal communities (started by a certain pastor and his mindset). Which couldn't of happened at a weirder time for me - I just had it out with 2 managers of mine at work about 'what seems to be vast cultural differences' and the way we view ourselves. That being said, I stood my ground for self-respect and now see my brothers doing the same (on a somewhat larger scale).

My older brother has been somewhat harrassed by a local church pastor about his son (who attends a church school there). The incidences seem to involve a syatematic picking on of his children for not following the cultural norms of the school (ex: hair length). One of his sons was booted for accusations of pornography and for 'long hair' (which were unfounded and without proof). Now the second son is feeling the heat for that (it seems) - he was picked out of a whole service and made to feel ashamed for his 'haircut' and said to not 'be listening' (again accusations without ground and made the kid feel such shame). The real problem in this is these kids are Aboriginal and 'long hair' is a sign of pride in our culture (something we see a right to do).

This was later followed by that pastor calling my older brother's wife and calling them bad parents - for the 2 kids more or less. Needless to say, you know what attitude happened next (anger). The pastor apparently never stopped there and went on to blame my younger brother for being a parapalegic on his choices and the 'he brought this on himself'. Top that off, I also had a sister who just went through a divorce at that church and was judged very extremely by that congregation there - and her kids attended that church school only to hear 'un-truths' about their mother. Add this all up and you have the systematic damaging of one family - that one being mine.

My younger brother is now writing letters to a group that supports that church and is questioning the very tactics of the faith they use towards Aboriginal people (and with these incidences at his side - he has some good reason to be skeptical). He uses much more militant language than I do but makes his point very clear - calling that church to account what they are doing. He has a meeting with these church funders later this week (unbelievably they granted him some time to hear his case).

I don't usually make a stand for anything but this time I am asked to search my conscience on the issue and I have heard the stories first-hand - and they are not heart-warming in the least. What seems to be at the core of the issue is European views and Aboriginal one's regarding the teachings of the faith (at least this is the case being made by my younger & older brother). I agree they are onto something. I can't quite recall when this particular church has ever built the esteem of the Aboriginal peoples they 'preach' to in regards to history, culture, community, and family. It's a real sad state of affiars that one un-accountable pastor cannot find the reality to humble himself and make things right (and maybe even being some cultural training about the people he thinks he is a missionary to).

The real odd thing is - this is the same pastor I wrote that letter of thanks to (concerning my time spent under his tutolage as a youth) - yet he can't find the heart to do the same for my family? I find that extremely sad. But I will continue to hear this story out and defend my family with all their faults and their faith (of which we all share in common) - only on the issues of accountability and cultural identity of this inner-city church. I can't help but think why this pastor to the inner-city has pushed away so many Aboriginal peoples he has worked with (and this possibly un-intentionally)?

In the end, I want a total halt to the superiority of some 'European' view on the faith and find equality for the Aboriginal view of it. This mentality may have worked in times past but those days are now past - and now we need to grow up. Maybe this endeavor will spark just that - a re-birth of the Aboriginal giving to the faith and how there is nothing wrong with viewing it through our experiences (which oddly enough was horrendously oppressed by Churches and the gov't in Canada through years of documented school-churches/institutions). One can hope that it will get more respect and value the views of the Aboriginal in the faith.

Matthew 5:17-20 - Examining Jesus' Authority on the Law

2007-05-09T18:03:00.000-06:00

I have been at Gracehead for a bit (again commenting on the law) and have found myself asking what does Matthew 5:17-20 mean? It seems to be very controversial on the aspects of what the law means. I have examined it a few times and again I do it here - for discussion.

(v.17-18) "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Jesus mentions the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Tanakh - the Law) and the prophets (a series of books from prophets to Israel) - the two great movements in Jewish faith (bookends within the Tanakh). Jesus simply says he came 'to fulfill/accomplish' these things (likely in a messianic sense). Well what would that look-like (or what can he mean)? Would you say Jesus has accomplished/fulfilled the law/prophets? This is what is being pointed to here. Matthew seems to be making this exact point - he will 'fulfill/accomplish' by the end of this book. Matthew also splatters numerous messianic quotations from prophets and the law in his writings (maybe as proof-texts of this point). Then the resurrection at the end- really what more do we need as 'proof' it is 'fulfilled'?

Matt 7:12 also seems to make sense here - "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets". Same point being made here by Jesus in Matt 22:36-40 (love God & your neighbor - on these 2 commandments depend all the law and prophets). Matt 24:35 says "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." Jesus seems to be the person who outlines the meaning of the law (also in Matt 5:21-48) for us and equates his words with 'not passing away'. How interesting the 'Love God and love your neighbor as yourself' values have never fallen out as the cornerstones of the Christian faith? Those words have 'never passed away'. As for other aspects of the law - well some faded out - not much to say there (ex: temple sacrifices).

(v.19-20) "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

One key point is being made here and it relates to these words 'these commandments'. What commandments? Nothing has even been really said up to this point except for the beatitudes (which I could see being the reference for this passage as 'these commandments'). If you actually look at the beatitudes they are framed like the Moses scene @ Sinai. Jesus is on a mountain, there is multitude of people, and then gives 10 'blessed are you's' - quite the parallel. Just maybe, these are the ideals that frame the book of Matthew as an index of the core teachings Matthew will touch upon as we continue to read on (and if you check it out - those beatitudes are continually touched upon).

But the goal that Jesus points to is 'unless your righteousness surpass that of the scribes/Pharisees'. Anyone ever study the Pharisee's? They were literalists and they followed the law to it's core. Surpass that? How? Well what makes it easier is Jesus lays down some of their mistakes throughout Matthew (check almost any chapter). But right after this passage (vs.20) Jesus does go into a whole teaching pattern of 'how this (vs. 21-48) righteousness' looks. Then at the end of the chapter 7 (v.24-29) Jesus again relates these teachings to wisdom and folly, or his teachings are a good foundation vs. some of the other teachings he over-rides. Jesus claims 'authority' even within the sermon on the mount - as someone who knows God more than the scribes.

I think Jesus teachings are the 'fulfillment/accomplishment' of the law - even the very person of Jesus was (ie: messiah). I don't think Matthew is hearkening to the idea 'keep the whole law' but 'keep the teachings of Jesus' (as they are the greater weight in authority). The law has to be looked at through this newer rabbi's sayings - our teacher - and to look back in that lense if we look back into the law. Basically, it's 2 commandments - Love God and love your neighbor (as yourself) - and that is the end/beginning of the law for us.

What do you think - am I hitting the mark here or am I off? Jesus levies 2 commandments as the 'whole law and prophets' - twice within Matthew - is this true? Is teaching against those ideals what Jesus is referring to (ie: least in the kingdom)? Or is the law still in tact and this is only a piece of what is being said about the 'whole law'? Worth considering that's for sure - especially if you are of a Gentile culture who came to this faith.

Judgement Time - Taking a Stand

2007-05-07T11:28:00.000-06:00

I woke up the other morning and just considered the passage in Matthew 7:1-5 for a detailed amount of time. It led to this blog (obviously) and to other idea's. Here is some of the idea's I thought about.

'Do not judge...' (7:1)

This passage follows a few 'do's' and 'don'ts' by Jesus and the idea of 'do unto others' - and this idea ties them all in beautifully. I think Jesus knew humanity very good and it shows in this passage. We should not 'judge' other people since we do not know all the circumstances surrounding their personal situation. We may be able to relate - but that doesn't mean we totally understand. But Jesus knew we would judge (since we are human after all) so it goes on.

'so that you will not be judged' (7:1)

This is the reason to not 'judge' - since we do not like being 'type-cast'. This ties in the idea of 'doing unto others as we would like done unto us' - which includes how we view another person. I am a Christian and I get judged to be certian things all the time - but it's always quite unfair to make those presumptions. So I try not to judge anyone so I don't get treated the same way - by the calls I make on your life - get made on mine - which is unfortunate and un-neccesary. Things can be avoided if we think through what we say about another person.

Verses 3-5 go on about the idea in more depth - and about looking at our own deficiencies and not the next persons (so as to find our justification or self-righteousness). I think as humans we have a whole host of ideas to deal with in our own lives and this is where 'judgment' needs to start and to stay. But if I am going to judge on something - I tend to take the person out of the situation - and measure on the basis of what the value is alone. I need to be careful to allow people the right to change - so I avoid the idea of judging the individual - since this can become quite condemnatory quite fast - and extremely hypocritical. I think it's hypocritical to judge when we are asked not to - simply said.

We have all been judged by people around us and it has effected the view we had of ourselves. I have had parents, teachers, friends, pastors, etc which helped to de-rail the values I held about myself (or they destroyed my esteem). I have found this to be very disturbing in my life and I had to go through years just to 'drop that baggage'. I think Jesus' teachings about judging is not an excuse for being judgmental (as I have heard over pulpits in the past) but a reason not to do it at all. Judgments can hurt people in case you haven't figured that out yet (and in some cases can help a person condemn themself). Let's be vigilant to love one another and less vigilant to rush to judgment.

**On a side note, I am doing something about this idea. I had a falling out with a pastor of mine (years ago) and we haven't seen 'eye to eye' since then - and he was a mentor of sorts to me. I realized I got to judgmental about the whole thing and I am going to write him a letter letting him know all the good things he did for me and my faith system. Call it my way of 'making things right' and letting another know that they are important - even if I took that for granted.

Real Love (J. Lennon) - Never Dies..

2007-05-05T00:31:00.000-06:00

Just a song that inspires me...makes me think of the idea 'love my neighbor'

All the little girls and boys, Playing with their little toys
All they really needed from you is maybe some love.

All the little boys and girls, Living in this crazy world
All they really needed from you is maybe some love.

Why must we be alone? Why must we be alone?
It's real love...Yes, it's real.

I don't expect you to understand, The kingdom of heaven is in your hand.
I don't expect you to awake from your dreams, Too late for pride now it seems.

All the little plans and schemes, Nothing but a bunch of dreams
All you really needed to do is maybe some love.

Questions = Confusion (Ma, Where's the Grace?)

2007-05-03T09:33:00.000-06:00

I just learned that Gracehead.com (a blog site) has erased all of my comments (and Ambree's) from their discussions/dialogues - and anything we had to say to the prophet Timothy. I was quite shocked to see this was the case and found Gracehead.com had really 'let their brothers/sisters down' - let me explain my position.

This is censorship (an ideal I rather despise) at the core. I had all of my comments 'wiped off' the chalk board of discussion - and what were they - questions and nothing more. I never once called a single person by any rudimentary names nor did I ever question a single person's faith in the endeavor (since I have the utmost respect for that). I questioned Timothy on some rather simple things and in the end had my faith criticized, was told my questions caused confusion, and eventually was wiped from planet Gracehead as some kind of dissenter? (along with Ambree).

What I learned to think was questions = confusion. I asked a lot of questions and raised some concerns I had with a few things Timothy said - and that was it. I didn't agree with him and for some reason this was 'confusing'? It wasn't encouraging (I understand that) but does everything I disgree with have to be done with a big smile on my face? (Something a Mormon made known as she was ex-communicated - 'there was vicousness to their niceness'). No. Sometimes I don't agree but I don't start hurling stones or worse - silence the other person permenantly. Things graduated from 'questions = confusion' to 'questions = banned/you mean nothing to us'. Why thanks brothers and sisters in Christ, suppose you served that noble intent with a smile also?

What is the real problem for me is this is only the 2nd time I have had this done to me by anything 'web-related' ever. Fundamental atheists (who despise this faith and curse God) kicked me once for having an opinion...I find it amazing Gracehead is the 2nd to do so (what a luxury to be in that company). Gracehead made me feel dis-regarded - as if - anything I said did not matter. In my community this is tantamount to calling someone a 'nobody' (or meaningless) - and that's what I became - all my thoughts vanished - I was no more - I became nobody. And this from people that call themselves Christians? Who needs enemies when I have perfectly good people in the faith to 'demean' my value and make me know my place - worthless?

In the end, the problem is what Ambree pointed out 'Everything is 'Yea' and 'Amen' over there now--with no debate.'. Is that representative of our faith at work in our community? If so, that's horrendously sad and does no favors to the Christ I read in the gospels (who was asked and posed questions to others - open dialogue). But if we want a world (or even an afterlife) where we all agree on everything - then we are sadly mistaken about the faith (and human race) we are a part of. If we do not have the power to overlook differences we are to be (of all people) avoided at all costs? Is God so small he has to fit into our view of him alone?

The Word of God & Prophecy - Part 3

2007-05-01T13:56:00.000-06:00

Part 3: Return of the Jedi (other less prophetic dude)

I am back to answer the questions Timothy proposed to me earlier in the week.

"Do you proclaim Jesus is Lord and came in the flesh?" (Tim)
Yes. Why would I deny that Jesus came since I think the writer's express that quite well. As for 'Lord' (which is a British Term for 'Master') - I would say 'yes' - in that - I follow and respect the teachings of Jesus.

"Could you also tell me how much you love Him?" (Tim)
Quite a bit, so much so, I hold those teachings of Jesus as council for the life I lead. But I have found the love of God is found in the friendships I have developed and within the teachings being lived.

"And why your myspace page in no way reflects any sign of your faith in Christ?" (Tim)
Wait, my background for that page is a dude with angel wings on his back in some kind of contemplative state (how is that not a template of some Christian symbolism?). Sorry it didn't meet the Christian standard set forth - I will try to obey better next time.

"I do not hear you shouting from the roof tops the Good News of forgiveness in Christ." (Tim)
Have you ever read my blogs on Losing my Religion or MySpace? They are piled with loads full of Christian teachings (and elaborations) and the experiences I have had with following them. I also live my life according to those values - how is that not a witness - and at that - out in the wide open? No rooftop mind you but not in the darkness either.

"As you have study my posts and comments, I have read all your comments and I do not see the Spirit in your words, nor the joy of life lived for Christ." (Tim)
Why? Because I have questions and concerns? The Spirit does not allow questions or something? And how do you figure the Spirit is not within me - exactly? As for the joy thing, well you don't know me all that well anyways so making that judgement means very little. I am quite a happy person and thankful for all I have - and give of it quite liberally - but then again these are typed words - and not video.

"Jason I urge you to get right with God in Christ. Time is very short." (Tim)
Get right? Interesting. How do you figure I am 'off' with Christ? What makes you think that exactly? I mean I could listen to this bit of advice but then I am not sure exactly what this even means.

"Are you yet resisting Him and stifling His Spirit and His free gift?" (Tim)
No I am questioning you and your idea what you write is equal to scripture - so in some sense I am resisting that. But I do not reject the teachings and life of Jesus as false...yet am I still resisting God?

(Tim) "What the Lord has given me to write, stays written, and what the Lord has spoken, STANDS."

Therefore any discomfort you have is not with me and should not be addressed to me. Only sincere questions of faith will I answer from now on.

The Lord has spoken, yes SPOKEN, to me several times saying, "It is not with you, Timothy, that these contend and will not obey. It is my Word which they cannot bear to hear and will not obey; neither can they discern the Truth as I have given it to them, for the doctrines and traditions of men they hold in high regard and will not put Me first neither will they obey My commandments. Rather they make every effort to search out ways to subvert My word spoken through My prophets and do take even every way given them, of the world and man, so they may go round about. And so, it is continually fulfilled as in all times past: These children of disobedience will not hear, nor can they, for they do continually go about saying, 'speak to us lies and pleasant things and cast these cords from us. Speak no more in the name of the Lord, we will no listen.' And again saying they know My Words and My commandments, BUT THEY WILL NOT DO THEM! So take not any complaint to yourself and speak only to those with sincere questions of faith and remove yourself from the slander of these smoking fire brands, their argument is with the Lord...you are but the messenger. It is now up to them to receive it."says the Lord.

This took a colorful twist - what do you think? God is angry or God is love? God is for our questions and what about a God that seems to draw dividing lines upon human beings? How would you feel if God said this to you for asking questions and questioning Tim about his prophetic office?

The Word of God & Prophecy - Part 2

2007-04-28T13:54:00.000-06:00

The On-going discussion of Timothy and me (not bad for a part 2).

(SVS) Well, now I am a bit curious.

"It is like dictation, He dictates I write, unless I indicate otherwise in the Letter or post" (Tim)

How does this work exactly? Is it audible or some other way (like an urging)?

"These are His words and with them they do carry His authority and contain His own life giving Spirit" (Tim)

Should I add your works as an addendum to what I already have in my bible? Call it a 21st Century Revelation from Timothy? I have no problems with the idea - but is it something I should do?

But that still never answered my question about 'what about the rest of our blogs...are they inspired also?'. I think in some way they would have to be. Don't call me hard-headed or nothing for raising questions - I am just trying to get to the root of this all.

(TIM) Yes, the Letters could be added and will be. They would fit perfectly as they have the same Author, but you can leave my name off. To God be all the glory and to the Lamb! Like I said they are the Lord's Words and I hear them...they are audible to me...they are not in my head and not in the room either, but very close...very hard to explain. And the power of His presence...well that is something I cannot put into words, only to say; indescribable love, wisdom, power and many times righteous anger always coupled with mercy.

As far as all our personal posts: if they speak the truth and bring glory to God and to Jesus' name, then yes, I would call them inspired, for no one can proclaim Jesus is Lord except they have the Spirit of God...all those of the Truth hear Jesus' voice in many different ways.

Jason, may I also ask you some questions, which have been concerning me lately? Do you proclaim Jesus is Lord and came in the flesh? Could you also tell me how much you love Him? And why your myspace page in no way reflects any sign of your faith in Christ? I do not hear you shouting from the roof tops the Good News of forgiveness in Christ.

Jason, I am in no way angered by your questions, they are common daily questions I receive, but as I am God's servant, in Christ, I also become your servant, even of all those who seek Him with all sincerity. And this is why I am concerned. As you have studied my posts and comments, I have read all your comments and I do not see the Spirit in your words, nor the joy of life lived for Christ.

Jason I urge you to get right with God in Christ. Time is very short. Are you yet resisting Him and stifling His Spirit and His free gift? Please do not be offended. I ask you these things in love for a brother who seeks to know the same One True God as I seek and His only Begotten, Yeshua the Gift.

What do you think? As we end part 2, what am I to make of Timothy's questions and statements about including his works from http://www.trumpetcallofgod.com/ into my New Testament? Is this guy asking me judgmental questions or no? Should I be offended? Oh yes, there will be a part 3.

The Word of God & Prophecy - 'Weigh In' Time - Part 1

2007-04-27T19:26:00.000-06:00

This is most interesting, Timothy from http://www.trumpetcallofgod.com/ and I have been having this most interesting discussion on his prophetic gift and the word of God. Read carefully and let me know your thoughts (this is part 1 of 3).

(SVS) But this (for me) is always a little suspect "The Lord spoke the words in my post, they are not mine. So then, they are to be obeyed and followed, as should His words in the NT be obeyed and followed" (Tim).

There is an equation of what Tim says/writes that puts his stuff on the same level with the Tanakh/gospels/letters. However, within the writings we see this is not quite true. The quotes of Tim are always harkening back to the Tanakh/gospels/letters as authoritative and he isn't elaborating on anything new (but more like a bible study on a topic).

But (for me) I have to raise concern on the issue, should I consider my blog inspired by God? It's most definitely inspired by the interaction with the word of God (as is the writings I see above) and with the living of my faith (experiences). But I do not claim any extra authority on the issue except that I follow Jesus' teachings and elaborate on them. I know Tim you won't agree with me on this but I am just raising the obvious questions which need to be in place.

(Tim) Jason, it is this simple and I will never say otherwise: This blog is not inspired it is the Word of the Lord, literally. I hear the voice of the Lord and write down what He says. Period...thats it...no discussion, no debate. It is like dictation, He dictates I write, unless I indicate otherwise in the Letter or post.

So then, should you test what I have written down according to the scriptures? Yes, I have helped with this, Biblically, in my "Discernment of True and False Prophets" blog. Is the Word I am sharing with you the Word of the Lord from His mouth? Yes. Is it equal to the Bible most definitely!..same Author. Rather the issue is not with me, (I know Who speaks to me and that what He says is True) the issue lies with those to whom I share God's words, in the receiving...to believe or believe not. I have delivered the message as the Lord had commanded me.

How do you digest this discussion - let me know? Feel like adding another book to your bible?

Christianity & Atheism Dialogues - Best Attack Wins!

2007-04-26T18:02:00.000-06:00

I have been finding Christian & Atheist dialogue is quite provocative as a subject - this debate about God. However, I found some of it rather distasteful and absurd - and on this I want to comment on a few things I have read recently.

(1) From someone at the whywon'tgodhealamputee's.com website:

"The 11 second pause that Dawkins takes is actually him deciding whether or not he will throw the vile cretins out of his home because when they asked him that question he knew that they were c*cksucker theists. If it were me I would have reached for my shotgun and blown those f*ckers away. But to each his own. Get in touch with reality."

All this is over a video showing Dawkins pause when asked the question "Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?". I have to say I find this response to a debate over such a stupid subject shocking (in the least).

(2) From a Rational Response Squad member's (Mr Gawn) rap song:

"F*ckin' Christians, if I can't convert 'em I'll burn 'em. Learn 'em a lesson with my Smith and Wesson straight in they sternum."

For a site that talks down to religion for violence - this is quaintly the same thing they blast against.

(3) An Atheist Allison said this:

"Well should we not demonize rapists? con-artists? polygamists? People who steal the last 10 dollars from a desperate old person for a fake healing? That's Christians."

Does that even seem like a fair characterization about Christians? Is this going to lead to a peaceful discussion amongst people of various ideologies?

(4) From a Christian named Frank at 'Atheism Sucks':

"As I said, if you align yourself with them (RRS), you're a sick-minded facist."

"I'm not surprised people made fun of the color of your hair when you were a child. It still looks like you need some growing to do"

This is some of the ilk coming out of Frank's mouth during his debates with Atheists. In this blog he is seen 'cutting down' 8 various atheists. He also has been accused in this blog by another atheist for saying some racist & vicious things (also of hoaxing them). Is this representative of what we learn from the teachings of Jesus about dialogue with our neighbor?

This seems to be a growing problem in the society we live within. On one side we have radical thinkers like Harris and Dawkins making religion look like the cause of all problems. On the other side we have some Christians yelling just as loudly back in their faces - spewing garbage in the name of 'defending the faith'. Both sides are using rhetoric that betrays honest dialogue and seem to embellish the realities of either situation - or is this an accurate portrayal of either side?

One guy at Atheism Sucks named Beast Rabban has been very articulate and has won me over as 'fan' of his writings. He stays balanced and quite accurate about his portrayal of history - and I have never seen him resort to 'calling names'. I can also say the same about the atheist thinker Dagoods - who has also won me over - for his candid questions and balanced portrayal of his ideologies. Both of these people represent the hope of conversation that does not lead into mud-slinging or vicious diatribes about either's beliefs/views. They know how to stay civil even in the midst of tough questioning and have the ability to be candid and kind.

I am going out on a limb here and I think we need to open our eyes to some of the things being said around us. As responsible people of the faith let's pick up the books of Dawkins and Harris and read them - and you'll be quite interested to know what they believe about you...they raise good food for thought but some of their ideas are quite narrow-minded. In the same breath we need to start taking a look at what is coming out of our fellow believers mouths and raise the obvious questions about how what's being said is smearing our faith teachings. Call it a dual responsibility to call some people to the carpet that promote what I think leads to 'hate'.

I'll leave it with this little tidbit from Greg Koukl which I think speaks volumnes in the debate:

"He asks this in this illustration. If you were walking down a dark street at night in the center of Los Angeles and you saw 10 young men walking towards you, would you feel more comfortable if you knew that they had just come from a Bible class?" This mentions 2 things which I think are key for each side to remember...can you see what they are?

The Tipi Ceremony & Breathing New Life into Old Teachings

2007-04-18T17:04:00.000-06:00

Today was the first time I got to take part in building a tipi (or actually 'raising' a tipi). The tipi consists of 15 wooden poles, some rope, a canvass outside (used to be buffalo hides), wooden stakes, and teamwork. I got to tie the 3 main poles together that were the bare-bones of the beginning of the tipi. Then like 7 of us worked together to build the whole thing (which is quite the process but apparently can take as little as 10 minutes to do). This was part of my new socialization effort (getting out there with others) and it felt great.

The elder who helped us build the tipi taught us about the tipi and First Nations society. All the poles are equally important in the strength of the structure. Tipi's face certain ways due to the way the wind blows. He explained how they would fortify these things so both wind and extreme cold wouldn't phase the 'home-owner'. He explained some traditions like: the tipi belonged to the woman (as her place to raise kids in case the husband left), at marriages a tipi was given to the new pair, the tipi was also used as a cart to move from place to place, and if someone was ostracized from the community was a lone man wandering (since his presence hurt his whole community). I was in awe in some way after putting up the tipi and then sitting in it an learning about it. I had one of those epiphanies sitting on the ground in the tipi.

I started to think about the rabbinical lifetstyle and their ownership of their teachings, and I thought about Jesus in the gospels as a rabbi (teacher). It then clicked in to me about what the teachings are meant to be that are written down, they are meant to be elaborated on by us. The teachings are not 'stone' but 'clay' and are within the hands of the skillful worker. They are not 'static' truths but something we are to 'own' as ours also and elaborate further upon. They are in some sense alive and still moving.

I see this stronly in Jesus' teachings and how he challenged previous assumptions about the law. He made changes where things were being mis-represented and offered new experiences in their place (he updated them with his life in some senses). I saw this from the elder as he spoke about old traditions and why they existed - for the safety and cohesiveness of the society - but things changed from 1860 to 2007. I no longer live in a tipi and community is not what it once was - not as dependant person to person one with another. Things changed and teachings also do in some ways.

The elder spoke on about traditions and the power of observation (which has not changed) on university grounds (an intellectual community). I started to listen to the elder intently and saw his ownership of his knowledge and how things changed from his elders to him (but he changed few things and elaborated). Now this is what he was showing us - here is what I have learned in life - do the same and pass those on also. I saw the what a pastor should be, a rabbi should be, any teacher needs to be - someone who lives and elaborates on what he knows and then teaches what he learned from that living (and only on that can he teach).

Now I read a lot of Jesus' teachings and remember practically the whole gospels, but rote memorization is nothing. I see that learning with these teachings means 'owning' them - elaborating on them - becoming them and them becoming mine. I can say 'love your neighbor' but what does that mean to 'me'? What is love? Who is my neighbor? How do they connect? These are things I have to look into and start to 'own'. Then when I have learned (or continually learn about them) then I speak.

But I do not merely say 'love your neighbor' as copying the text but elaborating on the text - love the people both close to you and not so near - love them with the things you 'own' and 'are'. I might as well also say 'love everyone as much as you can and when you can'. I see why there was paraphrasing in a lot of Jesus' teachings and within Paul, it's about ownership and pure understanding. Why recite the 10 commandments (everyone knows them in that community) when you can say 'you break one you break them all'. It's a deeper understanding they came to about the essence of the law and what 'breaking' them meant to them. This is a paraphrased sentence that shows an understanding of what they learned.

But the bible does not stop with the writer's. It keeps moving and living within is and our elaborations of it. I see lots of books on my bookshelf about new writer's elaborating on what the gospel teachings mean to them. I see this in blogs also. We become the words as the words become us. Maybe this was part fo what John meant by 'the word made flesh' (in reference to Jesus - but also holds a deeper meaning for us to). We are now the flesh that holds those words - what are we learning and elaborating upon? What have we decided to own and make part of our teachings?

An Evil Intent/Spirit and Learning

2007-04-17T17:06:00.000-06:00

By now the news of Virginia Tech has reached you at your blog or local newscasts, irregardless of where you are now. The tragedy has claimed many lives and left many injured, needless to say, this was a needless crime and left many broken. It left me thinking about the person who did it and what his mentality must of been; an 'evil spirit'.

By the word spirit I mean 'intent'; the intent of the perpetrator was 'evil' so thusly he had an 'evil spirit'. The person had become evil in his thoughts and then committed an atrocious act in which many innocent people (and their families) suffered a horrible consequence. He had besieged his life 'aura' with the intents of evil for which he could act upon - I am guessing many years in the making. What was the good creation of God now reflected an evil aura of a person. Or as the old saying goes 'evil is as evil does'.

How does this relate to Virgina Tech? Had the perpetrator thought about his life and intents - had he really challenged his life for a better direction (repent/change) - this was all avoidable. The real problem started when the perpetrator let things into his mind concerning 'evil', about vicious hatred for his neighbor, and lastly decided on plans of action for the 'evil' intent. If someone says he was 'possessed by an evil spirit' they are accurate - he became 'owned by his his own evil intent/spirit/persona' that it produced a horrible consequence. The actions spoke about someone so 'evil' that most of us have a tough time comprehending his thoughts.

I have seen the media play the blame game (ex: ban handguns) about 'why this happened'. The problem is they want to find blame from exterior circumstances when we know who did it, with what, and are slowly coming to realization of 'what he was thinking'. The problem is never removed from the perpetrator (in all situations I have seen) and will not be found in better legislation (of which many of us hope). The problem starts in the human heart (ie: mind, emotions, values, and perspective on life) and works from the 'evil intents' of a human being - by human means. Then we realize the chaos and perplexity of the human with undealt/unresolved issues.

What is note-worthy is 'what do we learn from such a moment'? The idea of 'repent' makes a lot of sense for all of us. Unless we also change our thinking about our neighbor than these horrible things will continue to linger in society (for someone will also hold these grudges of evilness and then one day 'act upon them'). The change needs to start with us, then work forward in our interactions with others - we need to reflect a 'good spirit/intent/persona' - one that allows us to work one with another for the betterment of our lives. The idea starts with us and we present it in our actions to those around us. In the end, we present a life (a life's spirit) that represents a 'good way of living' and in essence, changes those who know us.

We need to learn from the tears we see shed, the pain that happens to those who do not deserve the consequences, and the fear inflicted upon the victims. We need to honor the victims by living a life that helps to prevent this from happening - vis a vis - a healthy lifestyle that seeks the best for all people we interact with (who knows maybe you stop the next perpetrator by friendship). I am seek to honor those slain, and playing blame with the scenario does little for anyone, but honor comes when we stand opposed to letting the same evil from the perpetrator into our spirits/intents....which can simply be seen as 'not caring for human life/his neighbor'. All I am asking is 'let's care a little more for those around us in desperation' - lest we see others fall to this damage over and over again. Peace.

Moderate Intellectualism

2007-04-16T14:34:00.000-06:00

I like blogging and learning from all kinds of people out there - and there are many conversations I am yet to have that I don't have yet (ex: inter-faith discussions). But I think I will become a moderate intellectual.

'Do all things in moderation' - I don't know who said that but they are accurate with those words. I have noticed that becoming too intellectual isn't helping me a single iota and in some cases I am losing touch with the people around me (we seem to be communicating on various wavelengths). So I have decided this isn't quite the point of the gospels (or the bible in general) so I will be moderate in this idea.

I am a very researched dude on a lot of subjects and have found that those subjects (and research) do very little for the value system I want to build within my life (ex: developing levels of compassion for the people around me). I figure I am wasting my time on a lot of this study since it's 'ends' have very little to show for it (ie: no value added). So I am a moderate logical person, a moderate rational thinker, a moderate reasonable person, a moderate intellectual.

Cause sometimes real life just defies logic, defies rationale, defies reason, or defies the intellectual aspects of life (or are just greater in weight than they are).

I think the values we pass onto one another just means so much more than anything 'smart' we might say. The teachings of Jesus lay down some pretty radical ideas about 'helping others out' - none of them being out-smarting the next dude - and a good load of them go against modern ideas of wealth building (or question the what is true wealth? - a poignant question for all of us in Capitalist gov't's).

Idea's like 'lose your life so you might keep it' require critical thought but also a detailed action plan. The idea 'take up your cross and follow me' is merely a call to action. These ideas redefine known logic. Logic has little to no value ouside of the action it can give? You want to think deeply about something - how about helping the poor within your community? It's logical, thoughful, and an action packed with meaning (deeper than words can truly convey). It's one of many avenues one might peruse for helping the 'least of these'.

It's like saying 'blessed are the poor' and then doing nothing for them. What's so 'blessed' about debating the saying and doing nothing about it? And that seems to be the strength of the gospel (good news) - that logic and reason can help but at some point they can never make you understand it - that which needs life needs the living.

That's how I became a moderate intellect.

Finding Meaning in the Gospels

2007-04-10T13:18:00.000-06:00

What is the meaning of the gospels? I mean, why was it important to save these pieces of literature exactly? Is it to find the problems within the stories - to find the 'matching pieces' or the 'not so matching pieces'? Should I hang their validity on another's doubts about the claims?

I am not here to defend the gospels - they don't really need it. But I am writing to support what they do stand for - that is the values they teach and the meaning within them for 'life'. The gospels don't seem to be history books (or there would be more history in them). The gospels don't seem to be philosophy books (or there would be longer debates on ethics). The gospels don't seem to be pure mythology (or there would be fantastic creatures to think about besides humans). They seem to be just plain old theological texts (humans and understanding God).

Maybe it's nieve of me to think this but I think those gospels are about developing a better stance with humans via God - and this is placed squarely in the teachings (finding values, truths, and spirituality) we can read and live. The gospel is an idea about living the things we are taught and not much more beyond that. We learn in those teachings values about what God places value upon (or doesn't) - and that we should seek out those same things. It's a long process of life experience that happens while in the midst of the teachings (continual and has no end). We learn, we challenge, we live, we change. If there is a need for a heaven it is because this process never ends. The challenge is always to try to find God in the daily living experience.

People can deny their faith based on intellect alone but that does little to change the meaning of the writings, nor should it. The writings most plainly exist for humanity to experience the values of God and in these we find a whole hoarde of ideals: comfort, compassion, hope, faith, love, ways to deal with pain/hurt, contentness, acceptance, fulfillment, etc...none of the which are isolated alone to mere intellect. In these teachings I see the embrace of humanity one with another for the betterment of society around them (and within them). I see a value system that meets and greets you as an equal partner in the journey - that journey for the way, the truth, and fuller meaning to life. Examines all parts of the human journey and does so in connection human to human in light of God's words.

And this I saw in the gospels, a way of living that doesn't make light of human life, nor forgets it's roots are in something bigger than I can hold. When I think I have all the answers to life I soon realize it's not all about me - and I don't. How can I be so sure of myself while another's life breaks into pieces? In the middle of that connection, human to human, I see the embrace of the gospel message - 'love that person, do good to the people that haven't seen it yet'. If I look deep inside myself I see that same person - broken and afflicted, lonely and hurt, sometimes alone. There is something very compassionate about teachings that tell us 'to love our 'supposed' enemies' and 'do unto the least of these' - I think in that we look ourselves square in the eyes - and the pains we want healed can be.

But if you never see these things within the gospel and have some self-centered view of this book (or it has to meet so and so standard) - then you missed the miraculous part. You went looking for water to turn to wine when all you needed to see was a stranger's heart-beat at the first sign of hope. You wanted to see angelic visions when all you needed was to open your eyes to your child's smile. You wanted to see a stone move but a stone isn't what's causing the addict all their pain. And you think the miracle of the gospel is dead. There is better news waiting in your next handshake than in your next blog.

Truth and the Search for it

2007-04-06T16:43:00.000-06:00

I have come to the realization that 'truth' is not something that is 'concrete or static' in some senses. I realize now that the 'truth' of something we come to realize as we live it - or experience it. Also that our interpretations of scripture are very dependant on what we know and learn - and sometimes this is a process also (which takes a lot of time). I have realized it is worth the time to do in study and research.

I admit to having a perspective on a variety of beliefs - but they are only perspectives - and can be enlightened via experiences in life (ex: discussion or practicing a belief). I have views on the church system, values within the bible, the bible as God's words, creation, etc. But these things are open to change since I may not have them at their 'purest' meaning and this is the short-fall of being a limited human. So I think things change as more is revealed in life - ideas morph - values get updated - and perspectives get new shades. It's a process of human learning and I personally am happy thus far with the changes.

But for me the point of the exercise in human learning is the value system. If values are not impacted by my studies then the point of my study is intellectual garbage - an array of ideas that produce nothing of any real consequence in my day to day living. It's not about not being intellectual - it's about intellectualism helping to build values into my life that will be of help in daily life. This I learned from the Jewish perspective and has impacted my value system in leaps and bounds.

You see we can be open enough to discuss any issue and be able to learn from it - something we can carry with us (into our lives). The same ideal I see embedded within the gospels. The ideas are very strongly within those works about 'building a value system' or 'building upon these teachings like a house'. And the parable Jesus uses about the houses is quite the point of Matthew's gospel. Building upon Jesus' teachings (as the foundation) is the purpose of the writings. Now when they mean building - they mean using these teachings as a guide to your value system - which will be in a state of flux but it never strays far from the original idea.

An example would be Matthew 5:37 and the whole 'yes' and 'no' idea. We come from our own original idea on the value - maybe we don't mind not being 'people of our words'. We read the passage and challenge an ideal we held. We then come to a conclusion of 'yes I will adopt it' or 'no I will reject this'. If it is 'yes' then we change our value system to become in line with what Jesus taught. In this we accept to do things like being honest and forthright about what we are going to do when asked, we become people that can be respected for 'what we say - since we will follow through'. We have just started to change our value system and by living it in life we further embed the reality of the teaching. But the reality of it is - we read then live it - then we make the real concensus of 'does this make life better'? So the reading and doing need to both exist in order for there to be some verification of the value (and the text).

I guess what I am saying is the bible is important for the teachings of Christ and way of life he presented to us - and that's seems to be the reason the writings are important. I also think the salvation of Christ is very important but I think the accpetance of that idea is represented in how much we value the teachings of that very same person (Jesus). I guess they go hand in hand.

What do you think about this - is the search for 'truth' something that changes over time? Is our salvation linked to our value of the teachings of Jesus? Just ideas I am throwing out there for further discussion.

First Nations Christianity Value System

2007-04-01T11:38:00.000-06:00

I am a First Nations person from Canada and I come from a strong history of First Nations and Metis peoples (history and cultures). I am going to give you a little glimpse into a model for faith that is being used within FN Christian circles - oh it's not very kosher - but then again - neither am I.

First Nations people use the circle a lot - and in particular something called the 4 Directions (I happen to be Cree and Ojibwa) as a teaching mechanism. This is part of my FN history and I think the model of the 4 directions can be used in synch with the Christian value system - or as a way of teaching about our faith in First Nations circles.

The 4 directions are encompassed in a circle - which symbolizes that life is continuous and that all things mesh together in life (from birth to death - and then our next generation carries that on again - and the circle continues). There are 4 stages to life - birth, youth, adulthood, and elderly and in each stage of life you are in constant learning mode with the 4 aspects of human self.

The 4 aspects of the human self are: physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual - and in this you are always struggling to remain balanced in each area (and each area effects the other). This is the model that relates to our value system (what we value as important).

(1) Physical: We are physical beings and this is part of the balance act. We need to eat, sleep, be healthy, work out, etc. If we lack in the physical area it can effect our life in a diverse ways. Being overweight causes some to lower their self-esteem (ex: emotional and mental effects). If someone has a healthy sleep pattern it can also boost their productivity and emotional state (ex: more happy). We also interact one with another all the time - and this is relationships - and part of that is physicality.

(2) Emotional: We are made of emotions and being out of balance here effects us deeply. If we develop ideas of low self-esteem this can result in a variety of ways to find balance (ex: addictions, anger, pity). If we are emotionally healthy we deal with our pains and hurts in a constructive way - where we learn from them and heal. This is also only one part of the 4 aspects of self and relying simply on emotions can de-value the aspect of the mind (or overlook it for 'feeling good').

(3) Mental: As humans our mind is something we always use and we need to find balance here since this is the aspect of the self that acts as a filter (or choice). If we are allowing our mind to consider ideas of racism, hatred, de-valuing others, etc...then the mind is being used to develop ideas that 'hurt us' and 'slant our perspective' (which isn't very balanced). We need to use our minds in constructive ways and to help us develop logic that keeps harmony with the other 3 aspects of our self.

(4) Spiritual: We are created by the 'Great Spirit' (God - Creator) - which means we have to develop our spiritual selves also. This includes all the aspects within faith and communicating with God (via books, ceremonies, teachings, prayer, etc). To deny this aspect leads to an imbalance in our 'selves' - we become too intellectual, too emotional, or too physical - and we lose some of the strength our faith can bring to us (ie: there is a definitie humility in knowing we 'are not the final answer'). Our spiritual aspect is in balance we develop ideas of humility, good relationships, and faith that builds us and others 'up'.

The meaning of it all is that we are inter-connected within us and if one part suffers - then it all suffers - and balance is something we forever live to develop and perfect (throughout our whole lives). With my faith I have to use all aspects of my 'self' and become a healthy person - whether it be physical (action), emotional (feelings), mental (intellect), or spiritual (faith and hope) aspects.

This is my history, I am not a Jewish person, and God was revealed to my people(s) as well - as a Creator with values very similar to Christian values. In some senses, this is my Tanakh (OT) and I have to respect my culture and lineage (as a service of love to what God gave us). For me, it all lines up quite well and the teachings of Jesus help to develop a greater and deeper understanding/affection of God (also can help one to create a balance they desire). I don't see a mis-harmonization of the Christ-ian faith (Alliance churches have this focus) with the First Nations teachings - actually - one can elaborate on the other (and bring greater perspective for a worldview).

What do you think about a system like this - is it serving the purpose of the teachings of Christ? Does it help to build a model (value system/paradigm) for some people to make sense of faith? Or is this 'too much' mixing and in some sense a 'betrayal of the faith'? Just how does this all make you feel?

Question on the Purpose of Scripture

2007-03-27T17:22:00.000-06:00

Recently, over at HeisSailing's blog Jennypo, Heather, and I got into some deep discussion about the purpose of the scriptures, even the Christ. Here is a blog worthy of some deep discussion.

"I think Christ came that we might have a better understanding of what it really means ‘to love our neighbor’ - and this entails a lot of things - none of the least about ‘loving ourselves’ (or how can one ‘love their neighbor’ if they never know ‘love’ themselves? Also the whole law and prophets hinge on something similar ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ - which requires some serious self-introspection). " (SocietyVs)

"The Bible’s thesis on Jesus’ purpose in coming into the world is clear: “The Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” (Luke 19:10); “I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.” (John 12:47); “…he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16); “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners…” (1 Timothy 1:15)". He didn’t come to teach us, or to show us. He came to be one of us, so that he could take our death, the death sentence that passed to us when Adam and Eve chose sin instead of God. (Jennypo)

"Many of his disciples called him Rabbi, and he used parables to get his message across, which is a teaching tool. Because you can save a person from sin by teaching them, or showing them the way. Yes, the crucifixion was necessary, because no one really ‘got it’ until they saw Jesus resurrected. But if it only took the crucifixion, then I don’t think Jesus would’ve spent three years teaching. " (Heather)

"Or that we might ‘have life, and at that abundately’. But life involves everyone around us also (the whole ‘no person is an island’ idea) and for life to be something on par with what God see’s us as - well this takes a lot of sacrifice on our parts - and turning from an ‘old idea’ to a ‘new idea’ - renewal of the mind - and seeing that we effect every single person around us (either for the betterment or worseness of the single event) - so we have some honest and sincere living to do (in love of our lives and in the love of others). " (Societyvs)

So what do you think - what is the purpose of the scriptures and the Christ? I mean we do have quite a bit of information on Jesus' teachings (from disciples) and if the cross is the only meaning - are we missing more of the story? You tell me, what purpose do you see in those scriptures?

Me and Myself - Honesty & Brutality & Changes

2007-03-24T14:26:00.000-06:00

I live quite the mixed up life (or so it would seem) and let me do some literal garbage dumping of character. This is a good personal exercise and I do it for the reader's benefit - 'I just wanna know if I am pulling people closer' (Steve Taylor) - so one, two, three, get ready to 'stone' me...this is really who I am.

Why write any of this? Well, I want to be honest I have very little to hide. I actually prefer hanging out with 'the world' and having some drinks in their presence - and possibly be an encouraging word to a dis-couraging world (for some). I do not liberally break all the rules that I believe because I go out and meet with people who 'do not have faith' - actually had a great convo with an atheist last night, a chief's son, and discussed my grandfather (with my cousin).

I am friends with known drug fiends and 'gang-bangers', I am a family member to known criminals and drug addicts, I am a friend to people who mock my faith in God (yet I still care about them), I am a friend to people of the gay persuasion (even been to the gay bar handfuls of times), and I genuinely care about the plight of each person (rich, poor, race, sexual preference, ethics, etc - these things are just the 'way it is').

I do not check my ethics at the door either - if I drink I drink to my own damnation - so be assured of that. I don't get into physical altercations (but have broken up many), I have never cheated on my wife (yet opportunity isn't that hard to find), I do not back illogical ethics and support causes that are outright damnable by law (ex: drug selling or prostitution), I stick up for my friends and encourage them when they are down (some even to the point of depression), I reserve judgment and respect people for their stories and lives, I do not participate in gossip (yet I do hear a lot of it), I don't push any belief I have on anyone but I share when asked.

Sad fact, every murder in this city this year I either knew the murdered, knew one of the murderers, or had a family member involved in some way (ex: kid just murdered and my brother did the wake). I am not going into the most safe of situations (namely where gangs and drug dealers are). I don't care though - who else is going there and being any kind of encouragement whatsoever to those people? Maybe I am stupid (of this there is no doubt) but I care about 'my people and their plight'. Is there a better way to do this - probably - but these same people in fearful scenarios just might need someone to speak with or get things off their chest - and I hear some doozies (still never dis-respect confidentialites). And you know what - I feel good doing it - I feel good with our mutual respect one for another - I feel good about them and I let them know they are 'worth something' at least in my eyes - and I feel good for the honesty that a drunk can share (or spill from their inner core).

I'd rather be judged by you - than have lost their respect. I am a hypocrite to our most common beliefs - I am not saying I am generally a 'good person' - I am actually not all the good of person in a lot of more righteous people's eyes - and they just may be right (I don't doubt that). I swear, I joke very excessively about dirty issues, I have driven drunk before, I smoke, I drink (and don't mind being drunk)...you be the judge. Actually, if truth be told, I can be your neighbor or your cell-mate depending on how one wants to view me (I have a lot in common with the lowest common denominators in society - moreso than with the highest common held values in society -ex: I understand why kids join gangs or why someone might be violent - I don't quite understand the perspective of rich people and well to do families).

In case you don't know me that well - I also was a thief as a kid and in trouble with the law and came from a tough community and abusive life - none of which I think God forgets or forgot. I probably self-identify more with the song below than any Christian number I can name - But hey, 'thats just the way it is'.

"I got love for my brother but we can never go nowhere unless we share with each other, We gotta start makin' changes learn to see me as a brother instead of 2 distant strangers, and that's how it's supposed to be how can the Devil take a brother if he's close to me? I'd love to go back to when we played as kids but things changed, and that's the way it is"

"Take the evil out the people they'll be acting right' cause both black and white is smokin' crack tonight and only time we chill is when we kill each other it takes skill to be real, time to heal each other"

"But some things will never change try to show another way but you stayin' in the dope game, Now tell me what's a mother to do bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you, You gotta operate the easy way"I made a G today" But you made it in a sleazy way, sellin' crack to the kids. "I gotta get paid,"Well hey, well that's the way it is"

"And still I see no changes can't a brother get a little peace, It's war on the streets & the war in the Middle East. Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me. And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do...But tell the cops they can't touch this, I don't trust this when they try to rush I bust this. That's the sound of my tool you say it ain't cool but my mama didn't raise no fool"

(Excerpts from Changes by 2Pac - I song I admire to the Nth degree)

Oh man, I said too much - or have I said enough?

Me & My Mormons - honesty and brutality

2007-03-22T17:23:00.000-06:00

I just had the Mormons (4 of them) over for a 3rd visit and man did I lay siege at some of the foundational strongholds - in the way of kind and polite questioning and discussion. I obliged and watched their 'faith in Christ' video which only contained biblical ideals and no 'book of Mormon ideals' (I was like any church could of made that video).

Then we started discussing issues. I started in with the 13 articles of faith and how they barely believe differently than any normal church-goer (oh they didn't like that idea). We then got into praying about the faith as the basis for having faith - which makes no sense whatsoever (call it 'blind faith'). I said if I pray and get 'no answer' then what - or worse yet 'no'? They said some crap to the point of the satan fooling me and I should be more 'sincere' (I was like okay this is going nowhere). We then got into my 20 questions about the Mormon faith and they were toughies.

Some examples are:

(a) Is the Mormon church in danger of 'apostasy' (which they claim happened to the original church)? Well I pointed out 3 splinter groups within Utah alone. They agreed it can happen but isn't currently happening - still it did happen.

(b) Semantics: I touched base on this but if you ever read the book of Mormon you will see a strange thing for people that believe the KJV as the only version they'll read. Some passages contain what it seems are 'errors' - 'ye' and 'you' in the same passage (or old english and modern english in the same sentence).

(c) Atonement: If Christ died 'once for all' then is salvation a 'free gift' or not? They admitted straight to my face 'it is not a free gift'. Okay - so we can earn a place on one of their 3 heavens - cool.

(d) Kingdoms of Glory: Apparently they use 1 Cor 15:41 as a basis for the Celestial, Terrestial, and Telestial kingdoms (from the KJv of course) but in context that makes no sense in the least. Also it is mentioned one time in scriptures then - how is that even reliable? Oh I just had to say something when a verse is betrayed and context isn't considered. But good news for all of us, we will make into one the heavens kingdoms - which raised an even worse question. How can heaven stand if it is divided within itself? Apparently there is no division - just 3 kingdoms in one (lol).

(e) Trinity: They actually taught me God is 3 seperate people and God has skin and bones (just like us). I guess they all rule a seperate kingdom (lol).

(f) Ethics: If God commanded you to do something unethical - would you obey? Apparently Nephi (see example 3) is told to kill a drunk person (Laban) and chop off his head - and he does. Is this something God might ask of any Mormon? Oh they wanted to chop my head off for that question.

(g) Doctrines and Covenants 132: I questioned if everything in D&C 132 is true - they said yes. Well two things in there are: men becoming gods (v.15-20) and polygamy (v.58-66). I said is polygamy still okay then? They said 'no'. Then it led to this next point in (h).

(h) Prophets: Can a prophet change the words of the last prophet? They said 'yes'. Well then god is just double-minded ain't he? It's a total logical trap for them - either they say 'no' and they agree with polygamy then - or they say 'yes' and Smith was lied to by God (I guess) - or maybe a 3rd alternative - the prophets are humans that make mistakes (also against the articles of faith).

(i) Joseph Smith: How many wives did he have? I had 4 Mormons here that could not agree as to the exact number - one said 1, another said 2, and the eldest said he had 1 wife but many other women (on the side I guess)....he was in quite the bind as his wife sat beside him as he asnwered (lol).

(j) Question I will ask next time: If the KJV is the only version to use - why then was it created by an apparent apostate church in the 17th century? Wouldn't that be corrupt also?

I give it up to http://www.lds4u.com/ for all of the info I have recieved. This dude is getting an e-mail of congrats from me for the great questions (an ex-Mormon and missionary). Maybe I'll even start a dialogue with him.

As for me, yes they are coming back on Monday for another round - even when I told them the questions only get harder (lol). I'll attend their services and what not (when I get a chance) - since irregardless of these weird beliefs - I still respect their ethics and lives.

Passover - should we celebrate this yearly?

2007-03-21T10:58:00.000-06:00

Passover - should we re-instate this Jewish ceremony from the Exodus as a ceremony of Christianity? Timothy over at Gracehead thinks so - me I am not so sure - but I do believe I will throw this idea to the congregation. Here is some scriptural excerpts about the idea.

"The Bible specifies the yearly observance of the Passover, and history records its annual celebration as the practice of the early Church. Passover, as a memorial of Jesus’ death, is to be observed annually...just as all of the other annual festivals are to be kept once a year. Neither Jesus Christ nor the apostles indicated that we should change...any of God’s festivals. Following their example, we should observe the Passover at the beginning of the evening of the 14th day of the first month (Abib or Nisan) of the Hebrew calendar." (Timothy)

"During His last Passover with His disciples, Jesus explained that this celebration has significant implications for the future as well. In Matthew 26:29” (Timothy)

"Bible writers later explained that the annual Passover observance symbolized Christ. Paul referred to Christ as “our Passover” (1 Cor 5:7), and John recorded that John the Baptist recognized Christ as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Jesus came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill (Matt. 5:17)! Only the laws found in ordinances were nailed to the cross of Christ (Eph. 2:15)." (Timothy)

"Paul told the Gentiles to keep Passover and how to keep it in 1 Cor. chapter 11, due to their lack of comprehension. The first-century congregation of Corinth did not understand the significance of the Passover. They observed it "in an unworthy manner," not "discerning the Lord's body" (verses 27 and 29); they did not comprehend its real meaning...Paul warned the Corinthians they could be "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," and if they failed to properly judge themselves they would be "eat[ing] and drink[ing] judgment" to themselves (verses 27, 29). Paul took the Passover ceremony seriously. His warning makes it clear that Christians should not only observe what Christ commanded, but should understand the meaning of eating the bread and drinking the wine at the Passover service." (Timothy)

"It is vital that we understand the intent behind Jesus Christ's commands concerning the Passover. Christ said that unless we (symbolically) eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us (John 6:53). It is that important. Once each year, on the anniversary of the night on which one of Jesus' own disciples betrayed Him, Christians should recall and contemplate the meaning of Christ's death through the observance of the Passover service (1 Cor 11:26). Paul told the Corinthian members that "Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us" (1 Cor 5:7). The Passover service commemorates the death of Jesus Christ. By participating in the service, we personally proclaim the death of our Savior (1 Cor 11:26). We acknowledge that His dying paid the death penalty for us (Eph 5:2)." (Timothy)

My response: No debate...just obey and do? Whoa horsey...even the council of the early church discussed this idea in detail (Acts 15)...concerning the Law of Moses and Gentile faith.

What happened to be the problem in Acts 15? (1) circumcision and faith (v.1) (2) Observe the law of Moses (v.5) - which I have to believe the 7 celebrations come from.

Answer? (acts 15: 28-29) (1) "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: (1) that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and (2) from blood and (3) from things strangled and (4) from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

And these are all Peter, James, and John laid on Paul, Barnabas, and Silas to teach the Gentiles about the 'law of Moses'. Top that off, Paul questions the first mandate in his letters on the basis of the freedom of the believer.

So what do you think...re-instate the Passover? Or is this again some choppy biblical exegesis?

Define the 'Christian' movement?

2007-03-19T12:54:00.000-06:00

Just what is the defining values of the 'Christian' faith? Ever ask yourself a question like that? If you had to get to the heart of your faith - what would be the paradigm or the outline? How would you relate this to others?

I think the Christian faith hinges on a phrase something like this 'the word become flesh'. It has many aspects to consider but one aspect for me stands out - the words of God manifesting themselves (or itself) in human form. I like the idea that John is telling us something about the gospel here that is very relevant to us.

I would say what good is 'faith without works' (from James 2:14) - or that belief is simply defined as 'believing something so as to the act upon it'. That definition has no holes in it. If you truly believe something you will also live by it. James' argument here is accurate - faith with no works/action = you do not believe it; also 'faith with works/action' = you believe it. Jesus lays down examples of this all the time in the 4 gospels and almost every parable hinges on this idea - most poignantly the one about the fruit of the trees. What seems to be coming across in the gospels in a multitude of ways is 'you need to become the word in the flesh also'.

Now what we have in front of us a bible, with a lot of words in it - but simply put they are just words and nothing more (framed in verses, chapters, books, and letters). Those words are lifeless things, writing on a page in verbs, nouns, adjectives, and sentences - but in and of themselves they do not contain 'life'. What needs to happen with this literature we have in front of us - we need to read them (hear them) and make them 'flesh, alive, real, or living'. So just how do words move from a page into our perspectives?

This is where the essence of belief comes into the frame. We choose to believe or not - and that choice is deeply embedded as a central framing for our lives - decision is something that helps to define our logic and outlook on life. Once you make a decision on the words you read you have either chosen to 'reject' or 'select' what you just read into your world-view. It is right there where the 'seed' is planted and the words of God may become flesh (or part of the human mind, heart, soul, and strength). Once you accept it - you began to practice it - then the idea becomes a solidified belief or value (by becoming part of the human experience). What started as a parable or a commandment - now is alive and living again.

This is my definition of the Christian faith, 'the word becomes flesh'. So when I read 'do unto others as I would want done unto me' - then I have a choice to make. Same thing goes for the idea of a 'good samaritan', 'mercy over judgment', or 'loving my neighbor'. I can let those words find a footing the human heart and mind or just forget them and keep my old values I had in their place. It is also in this essence we are 'being born again' - the loss of one value for another. Also we are 'following Christ' and 'doing these teachings' by placing it in a real world environment - namely the fabric of our 'being'. The 'word become flesh' is speaking of Christ in John but I also see it as a good framing for our 'good news' - who also asks us to 'be like Christ'.

"Now I Even Forget to Forget" (SNFU)

2007-03-15T17:35:00.000-06:00

I was thinking about a convo between HeisSailing and the Moral Science Club about doubt and faith and I said to myself - 'now that makes a great blog topic'. Top that off, Timothy from Gracehead and I also had a similar one about doubting faith in God.

We have been raised in these Christian enclaves to never doubt God - to 'keep the faith man' - even under the most perilous of situations (ie: a good old fashioned stoning). But what if doubt is being taught in the bible also - right beside our utter devotion to God - wouldn't that be quite the thing huh? Well it is and we need to use it more than ever these days.

Sometimes doubt can be a good thing. For example, in the case of 'testing the spirits' and finding out if someone is from God...which seems to be a biblical ethic (usually in the case of prophethood). There is also the 'wolves amongst sheeps' idea also to contend with. What it does mean is 'asking questions and even doubting' if something does not add up. Case in point is the guy in Texas claiming to be the 2nd coming of Jesus - does that 'add up'? So we can see a good reason for questioning and for doubt in certain cases. Some would even go so far to say in the process of 'seeking' some of these 'questions of doubt' can also occur (me being one of them).

I mean let's be honest we have been told handfuls of things that just don't add up on the surface: tongues is the seal of the spirit, there is only one true church (and likely your in it), don't eat with people of the 'world', the end can be predicted, etc, etc, etc. Now if those things created doubt about what we were being taught by church authorities, then we have only scratched the surface. Those things lead us to think 'maybe my pastor or teacher is hiding something or not coming clean on something'...chances are many of us have been here and then began the questions about more core doctrine held by the 'higher-ups'.

Then we get into the toughies: is the bible without a single error? Is 'thinking something bad a sin'? How judgmental is God? Does God only love those that love Him (or the elect)? Is revelations a book about prophecies of the 'end of days'? The list can go on and on. I find nothing wrong with asking these questions and wanting answers that actually 'make sense'. I have heard many answers to those questions that take every wild turn imaginable. Top that off, you have the questions about more modern ideals which get us asking 'does the bible even address this'? So you can see the process of asking question and having doubts can result in some people developing a greater love for this faith - or just plain leaving altogether (if the answers are just 'unsatisfactory').

I personally don't 'tow any denominational line' nor do I think one brand of faith has the ideals all wrapped up perfectly. Nor do I believe many of the church fathers from many an era have this thing solved - although when we read back they raise some excellent points yet at the same time committ some atrocious activities (ex: Calvin watched some heretics 'burn at the stake'). So I think we need to each take the time to read these scriptures without the lenses of another - and read scripture in context - and with the idea of what it means to us this day. Now some old countrymen backed slavery (this is a known fact) - but some didn't (who were they? - likely the ones asking the question 'where is slavery ever supported by the texts?'). So questions and doubts need to exist - when they don't - run for the hills.

I think questions and doubts within our faith are a sign of health - they are a sign we are asking questions and may not agree with the current 'mainstream' ideals - we want change! How do you think we got a reformation? Some people, namely Luther, decided 'enough is enough' - give me the paper and a pen and I'll nail something to their door they'll never forget. But now 'we even forget to forget'. You are only in the Christian denomination you are in because someone changed the norm of what 'church' really is.

So when I see someone asking questions I am glad - because we as Christians need to not stop challenging ourselves to bigger and better ideas. What worked for the 'Jesus Movement' or 'Azusa Street' may not be what God is doing now...just maybe things are a changing again (ex: emergent movement). I would say 'why not'? I look at a lot of things within current church context that I find just atrocious and not 'in line' with what I read in the gospels. I admire the questions and doubts we believers have - they only exist for our benefits. Can you name a time when you were challenged by a new 'idea' about theology that basically changed the idea taught within your church? Read Jesus again in Matthew 5-7 - there's a person that saw a change needed to be made to a system of 'law' (without grace). The questions and doubts exist for a reason - but can you figure it out?

Wake Up Call

2007-03-13T20:52:00.000-06:00

I am currently reading a book by a Muslim lady called 'the trouble with Islam' and I have read 2 chapters thus far and I am loving it. What's extremely refreshing about the book is the honesty.

I find a lot of her critiques 'spot on' and a result of some great 'question asking' as a result of being a 'religious person' (in this case a Muslim). She raises two questions for herself to 'come to terms with and find an answer'. And these were some tough critiques she raised about her own faith - I couldn't help but feel a certain admiration for her stand.

She was not afraid to ask questions concerning the Muslim holy book and certain 'contradictions' within the faith - which I find inspiring. She also raised questions about the current state of 'fatwa's' and the way her faith has become 'unintellectual'. I have only read 2 chapters so far but I really like this woman's honesty.

It got me thinking - asking questions about the results of what we believe isn't neccesarily a 'bad thing'...actually it seems to be quite the opposite. Take any belief - like the idea of salvation. Shouldn't we be asking ourselves every possible question about what we believe and why? Just what is the extent of this salvation - and is it a here and now idea? I don't think this will destroy our faith but only make it better - and I am very glad that we can discuss this stuff about our faith quite freely...some don't seem to be so lucky. I think if we follow rabbinical thought - then we just might be discussing issues of belief from a variety of levels and the depths of what we believe - which makes for a well-rounded belief.

I guess I find less and less a reason for things that don't impact the 'here and now present world'. For example, Christ died for our sins (past event), prophetic revelations from John (future or past), and we look towards heaven (future event) - ideas which strongly shape our theology (and they should) - but ever ask 'how does this relate to my world now - and what is my role in this?'

So faith is always evolving - changing - shifting focus and view - and I think this has always happened and has to happen for our faith to stay relevant. I am not saying 'take Christ out of the equation or anything radical like that' but I think we need to re-evaluate some of the things we inherited from Calvin, Luther, Simpson, and Knox (although they were great for their day - maybe they missed the theological mark at times). I read the bible un-aided by their theological motifs and I see things in a very different light - maybe the churches founded on their dogma (from many moons ago) need their faith to be criticized - for growth reasons. Not saying all beliefs need to be challenged - but we need to ask our questions to those beliefs - if not for our own personal well-being - then for responsiblity purpose. What beliefs from the past have you asking the big questions you don't dare ask other Christians?

The Atheists Booted Me - for Guess What - Context!!!

2007-03-07T14:38:00.000-07:00

I just got booted from speaking with the atheists for merely having a mind enough to say 'context' about a certain passage that was used against the bible (from within the bible oddly enough). Apparently, when referring to context I 'must be wrong'? Here is the passage and you decide.

25 Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them,
26"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
27"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
28"For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
29"Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him,
30saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.'
31"Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand?
32"Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.
33"So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.
34"Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned?
35"It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Apparently Jesus want us to hate everyone and ourselves - which is quite the contradiction from love God and your neighbor - hmmmm. Problem is this is a single verse being pulled from many that does have a 'context' and well...an answer in verse 33 to the problem. You see the terms like 'otherwise' and 'or' seem to bridge the passage - which is plain to the naked eye and I ain't even an English teacher. Finishing in verse 33 with 'so...'. Point being 'you cannot follow Jesus if you hang onto your possessions'. Which seems troublesome but the point is backed up in verse 27 - 'you might have to lose your life for me' (this is just brutal honesty on Jesus' behalf and warning the large multitude). Scared yet?

Well, fact being Simon Peter never left his mother alone - actually Jesus healed her. Now that's a sure sign someone hates their mother - they let her get healed of her sickness by the same man that told him to hate her (not very logical). Oddly enough Peter and Andrew (brothers) and John and James (brothers) all followed Jesus - yet they were all there when Jesus announced this little ditty in Luke 8. Are these the signs of someone that wants you to 'hate mother and brother for him'?

What does make sense is the 'context' explanation. Jesus warns these people that if they want to follow him this might include 'death' - based on the calculation parables in Luke 8:28-32 - which talk about 'planning' and 'using your head' - so you can back out. So what's wrong with some brutal honesty - Peter and whoever else could of just walked away at that point - and spared themselves the pain of dying for his name. They knew what they were getting into (it would seem) and still pursued it - not wanting to be 'quitters' for the love of their master. But like the salt analogy (vs. 34) - they would of known they became 'unflavored and worth very little' as someone of credibility (denying their faith in face of violence).

So what does it all mean? In a weird sense 'hating' yourself (in comparison to your love for Christ) is the honest interpretation. You might have to 'lose it all' (ie: death by upsidedown crucifixion in Peter's case and stoned to death in James case). One could also say 'they loved not their life even unto the death' as another way of putting it.

Context - My wife & I - and Luke

2007-03-07T11:07:00.000-07:00

I have discussed context so many times the word is losing it's flavor (kinda like that salt analogy). But last night was another eye-opening moment for me - this time from the book of Luke - in discussion with my wife. We were reading chapter 8 - the parable of the sower and the seed.

My wife was asking me some questions about it and we discussed what this all meant. Then we read a little further to Luke 8:18 - "So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him." My wife explained it to me and she pointed out the 'listen' part.

I was in a state of revelation on the passage. I have heard that scripture used in many ways most of which include 'money'. But the context of the scripture frames the exact point of it. 'Take care of how you listen' - when he just mentioned the sower and the seed - which has in it 4 examples of people that 'heard' something - 3 with a similar outcome - and 1 was different. So what does it all mean? It means context baby, context!

Jesus seems to be referring back to that parable and to the idea of truly 'hearing' something. 3 people in the parable of the sower 'heard' something and then left it...so they did 'hear' something - but what they 'heard' is reduced to nothing - since they have nothing to show for it (they simply forgot it?). However one person 'heard' something and came away with a different conclusion - he took what he 'heard' and started to build upon it - so much so that in the end he made 100% gain from it. He not only heard one thing - he continued to hear - until he was bareing something from the experience (he had something to show for it). That scripture is all about listening and then building teaching upon teaching - what I would call a paradigm.

So that scripture (Luke 8:18 and the 'light' analogy before it in Luke 8:16-17) refers to something else in the chapter - to help enlighten the idea - that something is 'he who has ears to hear, let him hear'. Funny, I never knew that context could make me so happy.

Undercover of the Night

2007-03-04T14:36:00.000-07:00

This past weekend I spent a lot of time hanging around with Atheists in chat rooms (mainly Sapient and Infidel Guy's rooms). They had some discussions with 2 Christians on there: Ergo Caner from Liberty University and some deacon that was a Presbyterian. After listening to these Christians I was quite amazed at how easily they became 'irrational' or 'contradictory' and their arguments about Adam n Eve and two different kinds of 'loves' from God made little to no sense. I thought - those guys in no way represent the whole of Christianity - do they?

That same night I got into a small debate with a few atheists about my belief system. One scripture came up as a point of contention: Matthew 5:18-20.

They say that Jesus was trying to fulfill the 'law' and that the 'law' has not passed on - so as Christians we are obliged to follow those laws. I merely think something much easier about that passage and it's in verse 20. The Pharisee's were likely the best examples in their time of 'righteousness by law' and yet Jesus tells his hearers 'unless you exceed their righteousness'. It changes the whole scripture - and is backed up by the teachings that come afterwards in the sermon in Matthew 5-7...Jesus seems to be pointing to himself as accomplishing the law - and his teachings should be taught as authoritative (which in some places seem to get to the heart of the law and even challenges them - ex: love your enemies).

But the atheists were making the same exact mistakes that I think a lot of Christians do when they pick one scripture here and another over there to back up their point - which almost always takes everything out of context. You see Matthew 5:18-20 is within a chapter of a sermon (Matt 5-7) - which also resides in a whole book (Matthew) - so this has to be considered to get to the heart of what those scriptures mean (in context). The atheists arguments were just choppy at best and did nothing to 'de-convert' me.

My biggest problem with their ideals is a lot of them consider anyone of faith to be tantamount to an idiot (non-thinker, stupid, deluded, mental, etc). However, I have noticed people that throw names like that around say something unmentioned about their own character - just think back to childhood when you did this to others. Is it a subtle way of saying - are these traits also in me or even worse ones? You can only call the kettle black for so long before you notice only your reflection in it.

I know lots of people with faith in God that are very rational people - and to top that off great examples of what human character can be. I never treated a single person in those chat-rooms with dis-respect or dis-honor - yet if I say I am X-tian - I get labelled with baseless names (since no one really knows me that well on those chat rooms - yet they blindly label anyways). It made me realize never to do that to another - which is a great reminder - since it debases anothers self-esteem and can make them feel 'very worthless'. Which is in itself 'illogical'.

But I also realize my take on the faith is quite a good one - when subject to testing - it stands up fairly strong. I was more than happy to have them critique my beliefs and pick them apart - and I am still happy when others do. I am by no means 'absolute' on my ideas - but on my ideals - that's another story - and those ideals come from Jesus' teachings oddly enough. So in the critique of the texts there is a lot to be solved - but how can another critique personal faith and someone's paradigm? I know what has happened in my life (and in my family's life) and I am more than proud to say - 'you know what I am a Christian...love it or hate it...and I personally love it's viewpoint'. I may not agree with all Christian viewpoints but if we chalk up our faith - really it's only two commands - and in the end they both contain the word 'love' in them.

For a Beginning Reader - How do you read it?

2007-03-01T18:56:00.000-07:00

Starting today my wife has begun to read the bible with more depth. Today she read the first chapter of Luke and gave me her feedback on what she read - which I find totally awesome of her. She has never read the bible for herself - so for her this is a major step in formulating opinions about the stuff she reads. So what does it all mean?

How should she read the bible? What do you suggest she do in reading the bible? Which book is a good place to start - and then where to next? Just some questions - but basically - how should she read the bible?

I suggested she start at Luke and read a bit at a time. Why Luke? Well it's a gospel coated in really colorful language and has many a parable to learn from. Also my perspective is the gospels are of great importance and reading them (or even one of them) is a good introduction to this faith. I also feel Luke was a great writer and tried to encapsulate the whole story of Jesus' life - originally to Theophilus - but I told my wife 'imagine he wrote this to you to read'. I think that makes some sense.

The Bible as a United Whole

2007-02-23T10:56:00.000-07:00

What is the most important part of the bible to you as a Christian? It's an important question if you think about since it puts your focus on the faith in some paradigm (develops your belief set). Is it the OT? Is it the gospels? Is it the letters of Paul? Is it the letters of Peter, James, or John? Is it the letter of Revelations? What is of most importance to developing your belief system?

Now I know that these are all merely words in books or letters - stories in some regards - and require actual living to make some sense out of them (since they are also framed as teachings). What from our personal environment are we bringing into the texts as we frame these teachings in our life? No person is an island - we have experiences and ideas that shape these teachings to fit us in some regards. And it is hard to let go of what we think is there and what we are reading into the texts - since it shakes us to the core to think - 'we might be wrong' on what we have always thought.

For me the importance of the whole bible lies within the gospels - to me it is of utter importance since the disciples say 'this is Jesus' teachings and words'. The faith is all about Jesus so it makes logical sense to take these teachings as the highest importance. The letters for me are likely second since they expand on those ideas of the disciples and how they look in communities (whether Gentile or Jewish). Paul, James, John, and Peter all write letters and they are directed at communities of peoples (most of the time) - and they lay down some direction for the communities that might not have had a single thing as way of 'the gospels or the OT'. It's these two things I put the majority of my attention into - and I have some sound reasoning.

In the early days the bible (as we have it - 66 books) did not exist as a united whole entity - rather it was found in bits and pieces in certain places. If I wanted to know about the OT then I had to go to the synagogue to 'hear it' read aloud and discussed. No ordinary person had access to the whole OT as a single book they could read at home and then break down into doctrine. You actually see the disciples still going to the synagogue after Jesus had left - to still hear the words and discuss them (like this was the norm).

The gospels and letters were single written pieces of literature that were sent to single regions. They would be copied but not put together as a united whole book for quite some time - and no one had all 39 books and letters we have now. People actually read a single letter or gospel and built belief systems off of that. There were what we could consider 'pastors or rabbi's' as overseers of the communities who were at the same whim of the disciples instruction - or another letter would help them out to build a bigger belief set. It's no wonder that Paul records mass amount of confusion (as does each letter written) amongst the church folk and certain dissenisons and weird beliefs that crept in. Each letter (even Revelation) records problems occuring in the church and what is to be taught as part of the faith. But they started as single units sometimes with single pieces of literature.

But we have the whole book now and we don't have to attend a single service of any sort to read it all - we just need to buy the book or call up Gideons and we have 66 books/letters nicely fitted together. Thanks printing press. However, it also gives us a greater look at the early Christian communities and some context. What if all you had was the book of Matthew or the letter to the Ephesians - could you follow Jesus fully? It's just a question but it puts you back in the early community and makes you focus on the importance of these books. Each is a seperate witness in some way - written to some community. So which book/letter is your focus?

I like Matthew personally. If all I had was Matthew I would be more than satisifed with what I am told about Jesus and the disciples. My paradigm comes from that book. I read the rest of them also but Matthew speaks to me - those teachings as a united whole book make sense to me. It's then I read the letters in light of this look at Jesus - and I read them in context also - as letters to communities breaking down what we need to know about our faith in God. I almost read none of the OT and revelations - although they both offer us something - I just don't put my focus there.

Fact is, as a united whole - these 66 books being combined and taught to be absolutely cohesive is quite irresponsible or takes context out of the picture. If I teach from Matthew then I will use Matthew a whole resource - why does a letter from Paul have to line-up (I mean it usually does but to take scripture here and scripture there might not be the best way to develop doctrine). What do you think? Do we have 66 books that absolutely line-up? How do you read the bible - what book/letter mean more to you?

They Have a Vision - Yay!

2007-02-21T10:33:00.000-07:00

Tuesday night I went to something in Regina held by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada through an organization called 'Community Link' - the event was called 'Vision Regina'. Apparently, unbeknownest to me, there is a group of 43 Evangelical churches and a few non-profit businesses that are trying to work together for the betterment of Regina's inner-city. Needless to say, I was quite happy about it.

At the start of the event we set up booths - and my brother and I represented First Nations Alliance Church - and the Action Group (my brain-child). That lasted for about 30 minutes and I handed out a few things about FNAC and the Action Group. Then there was a hour long service-type meeting (without the worship) which highlighted some of the endeavors and people in these areas. I knew some of the people in the ministries and actually the last person was a former Pastor of mine - how cool is that. David Macfarlane also spoke - apparently he has some tv show on the Miracle channel that I never watch. The day also ended with visting the booths again - I liked the event.

I was taken in by the rhetoric to be perfectly honest - when you have people qouting James 1:27 to you about 'true religion is helping the orphans and widows' then you have my attention. Also the talk seem to be about unity of the churches in Regina and helping the inner-city area with all of our resources - which I adamantly support 100%. I heard about a possbile mentorship program for the men of North Central - apparently there is 40 men that are willing to do this (awesome). My former pastor mentioned ideas about adopting blocks in the inner city to try and help make a difference - I was like 'hell yeah!'. In essence, they hold dear to two standards I also do: unity and helping the poor. If church was like this week after week - my heart might leap out my chest - I almost felt like saying 'right on and true' out loud about 15 times in that hour. I was quite encouraged by the groups that attended and the idea of making a difference.

They have a vision for Regina and I am all for it. At times I felt myself 'pull-back' from some of the talk but in the end I felt 'this is God's heart'. I think they still lack the funds for a lot of the ideas they are doing and they need to work on that - there is no way these groups should be under-funded. Also they lack the incorporating of the vision as a united whole - and I think I can speak into some of that. They need to start developing program after program for the inner-city and it is now becoming a possibility - with this unity of the churches. It's a beginning and I want to see where this can lead to.

**Ken, JB, Cinder, and other Regina peeps - something good is going down.

And in this corner...wait...they both say they represent the same man?

2007-02-17T13:55:00.000-07:00

I think my big problem is the consevative Christian agenda and their narrow-mindedness. To me the the fundamentalist interpretation of our faith is in opposition to what is actually taught by Jesus. I watch guys like James Robison, Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Dobson, and a hoarde of others - and as sincere as they come off - they are also very narrow-minded. If I went purely by their rhetoric for what they would do if they ran the country - I'd go into hiding. They openly dislike gay people, they aren't very open to religious freedom of others, they support the war efforts (no matter what the USA does), they deny the existence of global warming, 'end time' theology seems to be a core of their belief set, intolerance to people not 'saved', they are still against the rights of women (in the church), stand opposed to safe sex practices (except for abstinence), Israel can do 'no wrong', and this list just keeps going. Sounds a little Taliban-esque to me?

Frankly their teachings/rhetoric are half the reason for bad fundamentalist actions like: shooting abortion doctors & blowing up clinics, atheists getting death threats, and Muslims being apprehensive of American policy. The core of their beliefs come off very klan-ish or clandestine. When someone says adamantly 'it's their way or hell' - you can bet not all the memebers are going to have the sensibilities to be able to run that through their mind correctly. Some of those people have a strong 'us and them' mentality and they react upon it and create some crazy groups like 'jonestown' or 'creator rights party' (anti-abortion extremists). Hell, even Mel White of Soulforce is adamantly not welcome in Falwell's congregation - for being gay and outing the agenda that Falwell has 'against' gay peoples.

Nothing about that group of people is very appealing or is accurate about the person of Jesus in the bible - or maybe they are and I am deluded. Either way, as a responsible and logical Christian person I have to speak out against their agenda's...but then again, maybe I got this faith all wrong and I am reading into the bible what I want to see and the fundie is correct? If so, I'd rather be wrong.

Do we need to speak out against the 'fundie' agenda? Are the fundies representative of what's in the bible? Is a moderate like myself 'way off base' in what he reads about Jesus? Is being conservative the Christian way or is being more liberal the Christian way? Well above is all my opinion and it came from here (read below).

Some of my opinion comes from reading and conversing with Atheists and their critiques of the faith (and reading the news or watching fundie programs for proof) - and they say we 'Christians' don't speak out against our own faith (against the fundies) - you know what they are right and the critique is valid. Sam Harris and Dawkins have called us out on that kind of stuff - and I agree with them - 'oh no he agree's with an atheist's critique' - in them is an outside source who sees what we do and they are scared of what they see. So why don't we speak out?

Confucious said - dont be confused - about my name

2007-02-14T13:32:00.000-07:00

I have read a lot of blogs over the past year or so and I find myself continiually defending certain Christian positions just because I am a so called 'Christ-ian'. I get all kinds of labels slapped on me as if I believe all the rhetoric coming out of the church. What rhetoric?

(1) If it's heads 'you are one of us'
There is 'us' (churchy-folk) and there is them (non-churchy folk). One side is saved while the other is need of salvation. One side has all the answers (the truth) while the other side does not and they are in error. We are told to be seperate from them - lest we be tainted as they are. But the bible seems to point to hypocritical ideals on this subject. Paul mentions 'do not eat' with these un-believers while Jesus did? Jesus teaches us to be 'perfect' and in that context 'perfect' means treating one another equally (no seperation - even God makes the rain fall on both sides of the fence). Jesus teaches the 'sick need a doctor, not the healthy'. How is there a seperation unless we are the one's creating it by our interpretation?

(2) In Your Face Compadre
The church is filled with rhetoric of judging others - for basically no sound biblical reason known to us. We are even told not to judge and if we do - do it with mercy as our aforemost thought. I have heard many a Christian denounce someone to hell for being a non-believer - a judgment they have no right to make (and at it's core - the harshest judgement known to man). But why do we want to judge the un-believer? To make him feel his 'sin' and us our 'righteousness'? To convict him of something he is doing - is this our job? Did we miss part two of the command 'do not judge - unless you be judged too'? Is God making the point - as you judge - expect to be judged the same way? By who exactly...God or man?

(3) Poltico agendo is alrighto
The mainstream church trusts their gov't's more than they trust their own teachings - in some regards. There are wars and rumours of wars - doesn't mean the church has to pick a side, does it? Where exactly in the bible is taking democracy to the world our mission again? We teach so harshly against abortion it was no surprise that some 'fundies' got rifles and shot doctors - is it? Apparently they were following the teachings of Christ...were they? We also have on our agenda the banning of gay marriage which is a hot one right now. All these things we go to the state and vote in leaders that will speak for us. So church and politics go hand in hand it sould seem - it's almost seamless in some places. But again, where does Jesus ask us to gain political affiliation of a country? Seems a little Constantin-ish to me. But we are perfectly alright with this. Where did Jesus teach this again? Oh yeah - that's right - when he took control of Israel as the messiah of the people and killed those Roman infidels. He then set up his kingdom of democracy which hasn't since faded away. Me likey?

(4) Oh, God died and made you king
Smugness - the final frontier. People use the name of Jesus as their credible witness for a variety of things - in the end it's to prove 'they are right cause God said so'. People then don't speak back in case they are speaking against God....which is all too scary a prospect. Until you realize one simple thing - he is reading from the same book as you. Just maybe he made a mistake and made it seem like it's not a mistake by using the name of God quite gliby. So if he is reading from a 'book' then he has to making 'interpretations' from that book - since these are not his thoughts or his writings. Do you speak on behalf of God? If so, how do you know your right? Just what if God tells you you're right and another person he is right - and you're both wrong - blame God.

(5) Tune in and Drop out
Over spiritualization - where everything has to be a part of some vast spiritual message that we have only (isn't this a gnostic idea?). Where telling you the obvious has no place. Where being a simple human being is just not good enough. Where everything Jesus ever said has some spiritual twist to it so as to blur what he meant. Where if you're the good samaritan then you aren't a Samaritan, but a good holy person - like a priest or something. Where Jesus tells us to love our neighbor but this is impossible without a personal relationship with God (and all the doctrine that goes along with it). Was Jesus really that elusive? Was Jesus teaching some things that were common sense? Does Jesus want me for a sunbeam and not a human being? Are we too spiritual we are losing touch with common people?

These seem to be staples in the mainstream church - and I don't have clue where they came from or how they got to be in the structure. But can we puhleeze get them out of the church, they are making a mockery of our faith. We could use some - how do you say - humility? Reality? Simplicity? Sincerity? Honesty?

Why Do You Attend Church?

2007-02-12T16:20:00.000-07:00

Okay, I have been a little on the radical side a little lately but it has raised some good questions and discussion - which I know we all enjoy. But for me, it raised the biggest question - why do we attend church? What are out reasons?

I attend a little church (about 9 members on a good week) called the First Nations Alliance. My brother (and his wife) are the pastor there and it's very 'laid back' (likely because we all came from a strict religious mind-frame prior to some of our de-conversion - pentecostals anyways). There is a about 4 song worship set (all my family on the instruments), then there is open sharing (and by open - I mean really open - this week drugs and child neglect were on the lips of 2 ladies), and followed by the word (which is usually framed as a counseling message). Service concludes with another song.

Now I like this church - although I have only attended twice this year (means I missed at least 4 services - all in a row). First off, I have family there and I am more than glad they support a vision for the Action Group. Secondly, the people there don't have to impress no one and we can 'come as we are' and still find some acceptance (people can say whatever they want and the pastor isn't too proud to admit his every fault). Lastly, we all have a love for our culture - First Nations (Cree and Saulteaux) and that is perfectly cool. We also have a music night where we play songs from CCR, the Rolling Stones, Elvis, etc...we just have fun with our musical talents. I know stone them all - oddly enough many of us were getting stoned before we were doing something like this (little play on words - sorry).

To be perfectly honest I don't attend church for the worship (not much of that smacks of sincerity to me). I don't go to get prayed for - for the same in-sincere reasons or even (in some senses) superstitious reasons. I have to be honest, I really love the word of God and when I hear someone speak on it I always learn something new...not sure why but I always do. The community is also quite cool also - we are a very open bunch of people - I can dig that. We also all know we have a lot of work in our communities to do and no one is bullsh*ting the next one on that point. Were fractured, fragile, hurt, and poor human beings trying to recover what we lost - I like that type of brutal honesty.

To be even more honest, I could live without church - it doesn't do a whole heck of a lot. We meet at a building, sing some songs, maybe give some money, listen to someone talking, and then we leave (all of this done to the magic of Power Point). But in the end, we aren't accomplishing a whole heck of a lot - we don't solve many problems in our communities for as much as we talk about them (unless you count prayer) and the Action Group does what it can for the less fortunate on an extremely small scale (one person at a time) - but Action Group can exist apart from church I noticed (I just want the church as an organization with resources to get involved on a more major scale).

So why do you attend church? What makes you go week after week - or not? Is there a disconnect going on or is the disconnect each person's personal problems? No quick and easy answer here - but a good question nonetheless.

They Just Don't Get It?

2007-02-09T18:28:00.000-07:00

I have written quite a few posts on the issue of being poor and it seems a lot of people don't get it - this idea seems to be quite foreign to many a believer in Jesus. I didn't think this was such a hard thing to understand but it seems a lot of people can't believe that Jesus came to help the poor. Here is what I recently wrote to sum up my position:

"We all personally read Jesus as someone that died for us (singular and plural) to pay for our sins (a propitiation). Were we worthy of that? Did we do something to deserve this great gift (salvation)? You mean we just got the greatest gift of all time for free - and did nothing to deserve it? Now go and look on the poor the same way." (SVS)

That is quite simply my position on the gospel, on the grace of God, and the core components of this faith. Am I that off?

I see a lot of people that believe the first part of that quote and are quite happy to 'say so'. Congratulations, me too. But I'll be damned first if this gospel is all about me and my personal happiness in a selfish world. I mean if that is the case - then what 'good' is the gospel? I can personally say he 'saved me' from a life of degradation...so. Is that the end of the story? Did you die at that point (I heard some say yes as they read this)? As long as I am happy and comfortable in my little home - then all is well in the world? Smacks of tainted love if you ask me.

I mean the atheists are putting up a good bunch of criticism about this faith - and you know what - for about 75% of it - they are right. Yet we keep on badgering them with all of our BS about 'me me me' and 'him him him' - yet we have little to show the truly broken in society that just sit and never hear this BS (thankfully). I think there is a 3rd class in this discussion we all have about our faith - and I say it is in doing something 'right by them'. Are the poor my God? You might think so how much I babble about my own grumblings.

In a few days from now I will have the chance to talk with 39 churches in my city (Evangelical) and they are going to discuss 'how to help the poor in our city'? I am going to present them with these crazy ideas I have about the gospel and my 'Action Group' ministry. Now you would think the idea of helping the poor with developing programs and raising money for this will be of utter importance at this service - but I have to doubt it...we might be too damn selfish to care. I hope they kill me at this point, I think I might have too much bitterness to handle after that show of callousness.

I will renounce my faith after that day if I see very little support for the idea of 'caring' - about the poor mind you - who actually could use our paradigm. I find no use for a faith that treats themselves better than the poor - sorry - it seems like a total betrayal of the words of Jesus.

Hey Judas, you only made 30 silver coins for selling my Lord out? Idiot. They sell bibles for more than that.

You wanna know about poverty - do ya?

2007-02-07T08:56:00.000-07:00

You won't believe what poor people are doing until you actually get to meet them - aren't they pathetic - God forbid I ever get my hands 'dirty' and 'put in some work' to deal with....yuck....them. My parents raised me right and I work hard to get ahead in life - those poor people are lazy, drunks, addicts, losers, bums, criminals, and dirty. They need to resurrect more jails for these people. Keep these 'poor' people away from me:

(1) Just robbed a store to put some food on the table for me and my 5 kids
(2) Killed my girl-friend because I hate myself for the addiction that's killing me
(3) Rotting in a jail cell because Momma never know how to love me and Dad was too authoritarian
(4) Just got a welfare cheque for $200.00 - first time I ever seen this much money
(5) Holding you up in your house so I can sell your sh*t and pretend I am rich too
(6) Blood all over my hands from watching my friend get stabbed to death at a house-party
(7) Hiding under the bed since my mom is getting beat to a bloody pulp by my dad - and they are intoxicated again
(8) Have trouble with social interaction since my mom and dad rarely said a legible word to me - and when they spoke I was being 'cut down' or ridiculed
(9) Selling drugs to my neighborhood - I don't care who dies - I need the money - and I have never had money or responsibility before
(10) Want to kill the police for arresting and beating my brother to the ground - they also threw my momma to the ground and called her all kinds of abusive names
(11) Dropped out of school because nothing they teach me makes any damn sense in the 'here and now'
(12) Strung out in the basement - no one is around - I know I am dying - but no cared about me anyways
(13) Stealing cars and doing B-N-E's because I want to make some money and my parents don't give 2 sh*ts where I am tonight
(14) Had to steal your sh*t because my parents drank all my allowance up - and I don't care about you when no one cares about me - don't be stupid
(15) Had to kill that kid for trying to 'test me' - I'm violent because I know I can keep myself safe - I ain't failing where my parents did
(16) Strung up in the basement - I had to live with sexual abuse all my life - rather be hanging than hanging around here anymore
(17) Family has no respect for me in my accomplishments - they think I am trying to be 'better than them' - I feel worthless and I wish they were dead
(18) I'm begging in front of 7-11 since I gave up hope- no one cares about me - just give me some cash to drink as you look down on me - your the reason I am doing this you inconsiderate assh*le
(19) Been in jail for 6 months now and each night is lonelier than the last - it's kill or be killed in here - 'Don't let them see you cry', I know - but it's hard to live like no one loves you.
(20) Got 3 kids to raise and I'm on my own - no clue where the father is - some days we go without food - my kids get suspended at school for not listening - I have no life but when I can get my hand on a drink or two I am downing it - can't say whats worse - the stress of these kids lives in my hands - or the fact I am a failure.
(21) Got razorblade marks from shoulder to wrist - been so dulled by my existence - it's when I cut I actually feel something - that's so much better than nothing
(22) Life has no meaning - look around - all I see is people living poor - what's the point of that? - no hope for as far as the eye can see
(23) Been on the street corners for 3 months - I need the money for my kids - I do drugs to forget what it is I am doing - I hate myself and I hate these assh*les that pick me up - but for once I feel like someone does 'like me'
(24) Never owned a home, a decent car, or had the money to even think of that stuff - even if I had the chance I wouldn't know where to start - I know jack sh*t about the bank system
(25) I can barely afford to keep my power and energy bills going - welfare isn't cutting it anymore - most people won't give me a job - addictions are dragging me down - rch people look down upon me - they are going to get theirs.

This is merely a sample of the inner-city struggles and the issues they have to deal with. I meet these people all the time and have throughout my life - and when I mean poor and broken - well - this is what I mean. It's a struggle the church had forgotten about. I am resurrecting it.

Dollars & Figures - could we really solve some problems?

2007-02-05T20:33:00.000-07:00

Here is my take on church budgets and when I researched I was quite amazed at the kind of cash we are dealing in as a church society.

Giving in 7 National Churches (Canada)

Alliance Church - $22,537,661 (possibly including more countries)
Lutheran Church - $10,924,620
Mennonite Church - $3,420,000
Evangelical Church - $3,836,882
Christian Reformed Church - $9,835,920
Free Methodist Church - $768,900
Pentecostal Assemblies Church - $8,830,044

Total: $60,154,027 (based on giving about $5.00/month for each member)

Some Examples

(1) Alliance Church: Has 429,000 members that raised $22,537.661 - each person was giving approximately $53.00 a year (or almost $5.00/month).

(2) Evangelical Lutheran: They have 182,077 members and if each gave $5.00 a month they would raise $10,924,620 in a year.

(3) Mennonite Church: Has 57,000 members and of each gave $5.00 a month they could raise $3.420,000 a year.

(4) Evangelical Fellowship: They have 15,000 members (and families) and they managed to give $3,836,882 in 2005.

I took all my statistics from each Canadian churches official website - for member counts and some even had annual budgets posted. I found out that churches are raising a heck of a lot of cash - the majority of it is being used by the churches for various projects - for the Alliance those projects mainly include the 'mission field' (money leaves country) and for others very similar projects - some of them even addressed poverty.

My question is this: can this kind of cash help to re-define the Christian stance on poverty? Can we develop new programs to address needs within our inner-cities? Do we have to power base and resources (people/money) to handle those programs? Let's say we gave more than $5.00/month in these churches - what would be the end result? I wish I was dreaming these numbers but 'hey' while we got Capitalism as a system - let's use it for some good - the kind where we address the the ideas in Matthew 25:35-40.

'I have a dream...'

I Wish We All Were Ready - for this type of message!

2007-02-05T08:16:00.000-07:00

"I would agree - there is no justification for me hoarding what I own - to another's demise. The way I see it is quite simple - if they ask, and I do nothing - then I am not listening to the voice of God or even following a single teaching from Jesus (break one - break em all). I have forgotten to love the other as much as I love myself - apparently I have healthy love for myself - but loving myself just seems selfish after awhile." (SVS)

"I have a warm house when there are plenty of others that don't and that I'm allowed to have a library of books amongst other things while there is even a single death from malnutrition or starvation (not having enough), there is no justification possible for this. Reasoning like, "I am a good steward" or "I can bless others with what I have" or even "I and my family are entiled to a little something" ring extremely hollow to me when I can save lives by giving even a fraction of that to others. People are dying because they need and do not recieve the things I have. I am responsible for these deaths, I have murdered the other, broken the command "Thou shalt not murder" and killed my neighbour." (Heinini)

"Levinas points out that this isn't simply stabbing them with a knife, there are many ways in which we murder, and all of these are "self-ish" pre-occupied with self, justifying self, perpetuating self, always at the expense of the other." (Heinini)

"In essence I agree with you about the 'have's' and the 'have nots' and learning to go back to when we played as kids - and sharing. The idea is not an extremely hard one to understand from the gospels and Christian writings - it's there in red and white a lot of times. So in essence, I agree with the concept." (SVS)

"I think we need to develop programs and ideas that will get people to think along these lines - programs that find a way to use what 'we have' to help the people that 'don't have'...I can see the power of the point of view - working with one another is of the highest importance. Many people are so heaven-bound they forgot about their responsiblities here." (SVS)

'To Hell With It All' - Commentaty on Hell?

2007-02-03T12:04:00.000-07:00

"And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him! Luke 12:4-5" (Bible)

"This teaching is hard to accept but after some serious thought and prayer it makes sense to me. And I am not just focusing on the requirements and warnings of the faith, I have found a better realization of the blessings also." (Ken)

"A man holds a gun to his wife's head and says, "Say you love me or I will shoot you." What could it possibly mean for her to say she loves him? Is that love? A god holds the fires of hell beneath humanity and says, "Love and believe in me or you will spend eternity in the fire." What could it possibly mean for humanity to love that god? Is that love? I neither love that god nor believe in him. He never existed except in our own masochistic thinking." (John)

Oh the fires of hell are raging for this topic...does hell exist and if so, why? What is your take on the 'hell' that is mentioned quite a bit in the gospels - how do you deal with interpreting things like 'gehenna' and 'brimstone'? Inquiring minds want to know - and some even want avoid it.

When Communism meets Capitalism

2007-02-01T12:41:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading an article in the BusinessWeek (www.businessweek.com) magazine about Chinese factories and American companies - the meeting of Capitalism and Communism. The magazine focused on factory work conditions and American investment - 3 points came up as 'obstacles to reform' within those factories (concerning work conditions).

(1) Price Pressures: American's expect to pay less for the goods they recieve and since 1996 prices on many articles (ex: clothes, toys, and games) has been dropping - Americans have become accustomed to paying the low prices.

(2) Few Alternatives for Manufacturers: Other low wage nations enforce their codes of conduct more stringently but China is very efficient in workforce, infrastructure, supply base, and massive ability to manufacture so much in so little time. Problem is China doesn't enforce codes of conduct as efficiently.

(3) Worker Demands: The Chinese workforce is quite alright with getting as much hours as possible and not making overtime pay (3-4 hours OT a day on a 5 day workweek) - however this is not what American companies endorse yet they never use their leverage to change the situation.

The problem with the whole scenario is that these Chinese factories are breaking all the American rules for 'code of conduct' in an effort to keep American business on their soil. The problem really lies with the 'pricing' - most Chinese factories admit that on order to meet American demand for what a product should be produced for (ex: $0.64/hour) they have to not pay overtime - and there isn't much they can do to change that (since Americans demand a low price on a lamp or sweater).

The Chinese 'doctor' the accounting books during audits to make it look like all is fair - they only get found out during routine visits by American companies visiting those factories first-hand. There is even Chinese companies willing to help 'doctor' those books for the factory - as a help to keep them in business. All the while, even when the American companies know some of the discrepencies (ex: no OT or underage kids working) rarely do anything since that's a Chinese thing to deal with - again, bottom line is the focus for both sides. The end of the article even states this is still an 'economic reality' - so this is still happening (right now as I type on a Dell computer).

So next time you shop at Wal-Mart, Target, Nike, Adidas, Eddie Bauer, Nordstrom, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Motorola (owns a literal factory), General Electric (owns a factory also), McDonalds, Walt Disney, Home Depot, Sears, retailers under 'Young Sun Lighting Co., and J.C. Penney - remember they all do business with China so you can 'pay less' for their products.

Of an even greater note, we can't solve the inequitable problem in China but we can learn this simple lesson - with all the money we save for buying at these outlets on all the products we buy each month - possibly we can use that money we save to help someone struggling here with poverty - although the Chinese still will be worked to death - let's not let their sweat go wasted on a Capitalist machine that also forgets it's poor here.

Christianity - What's Money Got To Do With It?

2007-01-29T17:08:00.000-07:00

"The Kingdom of God doesn't mean the "haves" should be forced into handing over what they have (although in death everyone will hand over everything) and give it to the "have-not"s. It means they should not put their trust in their riches." (BB)

"Historically speaking, the best any government has ever been able to do at creating prosperity is to allow the individuals who work and entrepreneur to be rewarded by the free market and those who don't to suffer...Historically speaking the poor are best served by the free market. Anyone who tells you different simply envies the rich..."(BB)

"Statistically speaking a person who does only 3 things is virtually guaranteed of staying out of poverty: 1) Get a job, any job 2) Don't fornicate/commit adultery 3) Graduate from highschool" (BB)

"We will always have the poor to give to (through what Paul calls, "The most excellent way", that is, charity), but not everyone has Jesus. No government program or redistribution of wealth can bring people to know Jesus. In poverty there is suffering, but without Jesus, life is simply not worth living. And that is why giving money for people to know Jesus is better spent than money on government hand-outs." (BB)

The question of money is dealt with quite extensively in the gospels, and in some of the letters. My questions about money are quite simple:

Can we be rich? Should we be rich? Is this a blessing from God?
Do we have to give? If so, how much and to what?
What do we use 'money given to God' for?
Is addressing issues of poverty a biblical imperative?
Does the church have a double standard concerning money?
Do politics of the nation represent Christ's original vision regarding money?
Is responsibility of your wealth even an issue in the bible?

Just questioning the ideas about money - I have heard a lot of conflicting idealogies about the correct Christian stance in my lifetime - if I had to live by one biblical model - what should that be? Someone please show me -I am totally confused.

Is This What Jesus Taught? Show me where.

2007-01-26T13:51:00.000-07:00

I just watched a documentary on the Evangelical church in the USA. Can't say I was exactly estatic for the faith after seeing the show - and some of the absolute mis-nomers I seen being taught and thought - as the true teachings of Jesus.

(1) Jesus' name: There was a variety of different methods being used to push the gospel and get conversions - and all of them stake their claim in Jesus and his teachings. They must have shown about 10 various ministries and all of them more unique than the last (a comedian, rodeo, wrestling, creationists, protests, poltical agenda's, putting up $25,000 crosses, huge rallies, a car show, skateboarders, etc). It got me thinking - how much of this is actually in the gospel message? If you look closely - not a single one of these ideas came from the original message.

(2) Politics: Why are Christians so 'hell-bent' on joining this faith with politics and spouting useless rhetoric like 'let's take this country back for God'? People like Falwell, Dobson, and others think this is one of the core mandates of the faith - heck, the Evangelical union helps to register all their congregants (and supplies them with the platform of the candidates according to what they label 'Christian Values'). There is a very strong tie between Evangelicals and politics - and I am left speechless on the issue.

All I ask is one simple thing - show me where the gospels or the letters back this idea - and I will follow suit. It seems to me this an addition by the Evangelical church into the faith - as a direction - more than it is from the gospels/letters. The teachings seem to point more to working with people in a supportive level - locally and personally - than about swaying political agenda's. Why mix your faith with Capitalism? - When the faith is more communal in nature. If politics was the answer I think the gospels would of mentioned that - however - they do not. I have to side with the teachings - and the teachings seem to proport the idea of acceptance, invitation, working as a support system, and working on behalf of one another - in such a way as to help those depleted and drained in society from the prisoner to the poverty stricken.

(3) Money: I couldn't believe the amount of money being spent by the Evangelical's on petty and useless things - like rallies, crosses, protests, cars, buildings, etc. I mean some of those political agenda's and rallies were costing a pretty penny (one event even had fireworks). They booked the finest stadiums, had the finest press releases, and got some of the best entertainment - all of this adding up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars - dare I say, millions?

Simple question - where is this type of monetary extravagance in the teachings of Jesus? Show me and I will also donate to these 'worthwhile causes'? I can't find this type of teaching anywhere in the gospels - but it's very prevalant in the Capitalist manifesto's. So who's fooling who here? All the teachings of Jesus seem to reflect that money is not what we want to gain in this life (nevermind churches storing it up for these big events) - but life is more important than money. Why isn't this money being spent on worthwhile programs for people depressed, drug addicted, poverty stricken, disabled, elderly, etc...I mean, that's life right there. Isn't the biblical teaching about investment in other people and not about ourselves (or our agenda's)?

(4) Salvation: The whole ordeal of this money spending and variety of gospel messages was about one simple thing - conversion or change. I am all for the salvation of the individual but I think the church is missing the mark here - these 'one night stand' conversion events. Isn't our version of salvation a little deeper than that or more sacred than a 'simple prayer'? Where is this version of salvation in the gospels? I mean people got 'saved' but the communities were a lot smaller - and if I am correct - in Acts they shared all they had with one another - they took care of each other (again - a support group). To me, conversion is a process and it takes time to create a whole new paradigm for life - do these big events provide that kind fo attention to detail?

(5) Acceptance: Mel White, a former ghost-writer for Jerry Falwell, was on the video also. He talked about his 'coming out of the closet' and how he still attends Jerry Falwell's church - even though he is banned. He wants to know what they are saying and what their next political campaign against him is. I watched that in absolute horror and dismay - this attitude of self-righteousness and bitter hatred - where is this in the gospels? I saw Mel crying in the crowd, a man that loves his faith, and I couldn't help but well up also - they treat this guy like he's already dead. I just imagine that Mel see's the same thing I do - crying for the people that are so hard-hearted they can't even stop to pretend to care about people un-like themselves.

I commented after I seen the show 'I wonder if Jesus was to walk into one of their services if they'd even recognize him?'. Then I realized 'whatever you do unto the least of these (my brothers), you have done it unto me'.

I'd gladly shake Mel's hand and invite him in to any place I went. I'd gladly take my money and donate it to people in society that are struggling. I'd gladly lay my life down to see another human have as much chance to succeed as I did. But I won't lay my life down for a system that rejects 'the least of these' and does so with justification that can only be explained as additions to the teachings of Christ. I ain't no skeptic - I'm just saying 'show me where'?

What is sin and How do we know?

2007-01-26T13:34:00.000-07:00

"If God no longer holds our sins against us, then what is sin?" (Bruced)

"The question is "then why sin?" Why embrace a thing that is not godly once you have received the grace of God?" (JJ)

"Who here has no sin?...According to God, sin no longer exists. Certainly, there are things we will do that harm ourselves and/or others, but the penalty for that is of this world, not of God. He only sees Jesus when he looks at His creation. Jesus covered it all, and made it all new, fresh, and clean in God's eyes...Causing harm to ourselves or others might be stupid and painful, but it has no effect on God's view of us. Through Jesus, we are righteous to God, fully redeemed and fully forgiven forever...Sadly, not even the christians believe that." (Bruced)

That age old question of 'sin'. I have my opinions on it but what do you think? How do you define 'sin'? Does the standard change with time? Is 'sin' something that has been 'finished'? Tell me, what are yout thoughts about that word 'sin'?

What's Love Got To Do With It?

2007-01-23T17:16:00.000-07:00

""I think we need to view scriptures in the light of God's true character which is love!" (The Ledge)

"Spiritual love is serious. To say that God's love means He is OK with whatever choices we make is to overstep the quality of love entirely." (BB)

"Love is not indifferent to living righteously. Love is the fulfilment of all righteousness. And "tolerance" (that is, the practice of stomaching the indecent practices of others) is not a virtue, but a necessary evil. Mercy, on the other hand, (the practice of forgiving someone for what is acknowledged to be evil) is a virtue. " (BB)

"I read about Jesus and I see him embracing people within those sins - drunks, prostitutes, and thieves (that should be a song Chris). Top that off and Jesus broke cultural barriers in relations with Samaritans and Romans - and also broke Jewish laws (including the sabbath and touching lepers). It seems to me Jesus looked through religion and saw the hope of these people - and simply loved them. He loved them without a real good social reason to do so - even for his times. But if we are gonna question the nature of love then we have to question Jesus' love in that also - he seemed to not make rules within which his love existed or would exist" (Svs)

What is the definition of biblical love? Are there a set of rules that set out a guideline for the basis of our love to others? Can our love be limited? Just what is this love that Jesus spoke about?

Homosexuality - What should be our response?

2007-01-22T09:00:00.000-07:00

I was having a normal day then a few comments came my way that deserve their own post - and honest discussion. Check these out and let me know - what's the best route here as it concerns our faith?

"Christians don't have any right to protest against homosexuality or any secular topic" Scratch that and replace with;"Christians don't have any right to protest against homosexuals or other political agendas". Note; I can believe something that you don't without judging you." (BK)

"Would you agree that the Bible says homosexuality is a great evil?" (BB)

"I would disagree with this assumption as 'a great evil' (what does 'great' mean exactly?)" (Svs)

This was a highlight of some of the threads from a previous post - so what do you think - what is our best route (or even correct route) as Christians? Oh yeah - the homosexuality issue - bound to push a few buttons - but we need some honest and frank discussion on this issue.

Living - Dying - Both - Why Not?

2007-01-19T08:43:00.000-07:00

I was thinking about a biblical concept for quite some time, mainly because a self-professed atheist said it makes no sense (or lacked rational). I thought 'wait...I am a very rational person and do things to make lives better and I hold that belief' - so I decided to take a closer look at it. Just maybe I was wrong - I mean - who knows until they examine the ideal.

'Your living to die and dying to live'...this is a biblical ideal (what!). It's the whole 'losing your life to live' ideal taught by Jesus. This was taught to me as such a stupid belief that lacks any real sense - and I was like 'cha'. It makes all the sense in the world and dare I say it - we all live like this - it's just what do we focus (put perspective) upon.

I figure we are all living (for something) towards a goal based on our perspective of life. We know this is true because as we read this we can breath, take a drink, have a smoke, well - anything you want. But we are also all dying - day by day we lose one more day - it becomes the past and there is no 'turning back' from the inevitable (the day of our demise). The cup is half full and half empty - and this again - is perspective - and I am more a 'live-r' than a 'dyer' - but aren't we all?

But my point is this: we are living and dying for the same perspective we hold on our life. If someone says 'I live for this moment' - they also mean 'I'd die for this moment' - and some do. So...the way one lives is also the way one dies.

So it makes all the sense in the world for Jesus to ask us to give our lives for the cause - since we are going to do it anyways - for this cause, for that cause, or for no cause - our living and dying is part of that process (by our mere acceptance of the cause). So I live for Christ and I believe all these values from the teachings - or I 'live in them' - and I also 'die in them' - for my life is not removed from the process by the cause - actually the cause becomes a part of me.

So whether I live or die - I was doing what I believed and what my perspective was. Not to say all good people won't be shot or murdered - they might - but they lived for their cause - and they also died in that same cause. Not saying the good people won't die by old-age - they might - but either way they lived their cause and died for it too. Living life means you hold a perspective and whether you realize it or not - you're also dying for it (day by day passes and you hold the same view until finally the next day just stops coming).

Final point, consider the case of a murder - person murders a person - he in turn gets killed as an act of revenge - the person dies for what they believe (that the one person should die - so they sow something that comes back to them). It's the same for the good, the bad, and the ugly - we all have brains and perspectives and we all live in those ideals - and then we eventually pass away - but those ideals define our lives (and sometimes our deaths). So you are living to die for something - we all are - and that's the circle of life.

I Learned Something Today...

2007-01-16T08:27:00.000-07:00

I have done some thinking these last few days about the faith that I love - and I have done a lot of reading and blogging in that time. I have come to the most absurd conclusions ever (on this blog anyways) - and I am not sure why this is.

I have become way too liberal in my thinking - in some senses of that word - and I have to turn around and be more grounded (or level-headed). I found I was fighting against the 'churched-folk' or the 'evangelical right wingers' (on the basis of a few good things) but I noticed I was shutting those people out - and treating them in a way that wasn't fair - I was being hypocritical (in some sense) and I should of been more open. I found out they 'aren't the enemy' although some may be 'close-minded', they are people that need to be enlightened as much as any of us have been.

I noticed that a lot of times we want to 'bash their evangelical heads against the rocks' (and there is a time and place for this imagery) but we need to start seeing them as we were - as mis-guided and foolish in our actions - having the knowledge of a 'said God' but not knowing the power of the 'said God'. And not all people of the faith are this way, some are, but not all are in this 'limited thinking' mold. I guess I learned (like Stan & Kyle) that I need to be more open to all people - things are not quite as they seem - I lived in that lie for some time - but now I know it's a self-invented perception.

This faith is under a lot of scrutiny from a lot of weird places - I learned this from interaction with muslims, atheists, evangelicals, free-thinkers, scientists, liberal Christians, etc. I don't mind challenging the ideals of the faith that 'don't work' - or even the structure of the church - I enjoy knowing that we need change - this has become quite obvious. But if you have a hard time saying 'we' when talking about the church - you just crossed a line that you never knew you did (and that's your right as a human being). If it is true you entered the 'other side' of this dialogue - then any criticism laid is a really a criticism wasted (since 'you' are not in the 'we' anymore - you actually 'gave up' on the 'we').

I have found all this liberal jargon is quite fun and a great way to vent some of the current frustrations we have about the faith - I actually have little problem with that (hell I do it too). But if you can only play the 'blame game' and not find alternative answers to these problems that you and others are experiencing - what good can that be? Are there answers? Yes or no?

I come from a neighborhood in some serious trouble (see last post) and I have realized this faith offers more hope than any single program, tv show, song, or complaint - some of these people in the 'hood' just want some stability and a paradigm to live by - and frankly - I have to say, this faith is the best solution to the problem (or at least an all around way to start dealing with it). In this faith we have hope, structure, ideas of dedication, compassion, love, stability, care for the poor, etc. In this faith is a great paradigm for the new believer - and for those who have been broken in half - by the world around them.

I have had a lot of people tell me how useless the bible, the church, the faith, Jesus, prayer, and worship all are - but have you ever been without hope? Do you remember the feeling of 'being lost'? Well remember that and then throw in heavy problems in crime, addictions, education, family stability, and lack of faith in authority - and you might catch a glimpse of why this faith has a great ability to reach 'the actual poor'. Maybe we all just got too 'rich' for our ownselves.

But there is problems in the structure of church - I know that and I want them changed (or at the least challenged). There are problems in interpretation of scripture - I know that also and I want that changed (or at least challenged). The focus of the church misses the 'real poor in society' - I know this and I want this changed - immediately. There are problems of narrow-minded-ness and of unity - I know this and I want this changed. I am not sure where I fit in, left or right or centre-minded, but I do know that I want to see change in the church and more unity amongst the majority of us - and I think we need to not forget the faith - or those still in the faith that just might need us to walk beside them.

North Central: Canada's Worst Neighborhood

2007-01-10T08:28:00.000-07:00

North Central (Regina) - my home neighborhood - all my formative years were there (ages 12-26): I got an education there, learned about life, became a criminal, was poverty-stricken, got my first car, was introduced to my faith, made my closest friends, and was around many of the Aboriginal people groups from across Saskatchewan (whom my closest friends consist of). This neighborhood has been deemed by Macleans magazine as 'the worst neighborhood in Canada' - that's the whole country - based on statistics. What does it mean - it means I gotta break this down.

I was watching news and they interviewed a lady named Julie Shore (who still lives in the neighborhood) - and I think she exemplifies a lot of what this neighborhood is. Her life story consisted of these elements - being stabbed, having her mother killed, addicition to drugs, and then turning to faith - in which she admits she finally got her 'first job' (she was approximately 27). I watched the story and I was like 'and...', I mean this is so commonplace that I hear her story and I barely 'bat an eye' - been there or seen there. Here goes the story.

The statistic is really not news to me - I think I knew this was the case. Growing up and attending Sacred Heart School we would compete with the neighboring schools for the highest crime/violence rates amongst schools - Sacred Heart won the dubious award 2 years in a row in the late 80's. I actually am not sure that title ever leaves the school systems in that area.

I lived in the neighborhood for almost 15 years and I can say that crime rates grew the whole time I lived there. Last year was the culmination of year's of struggle - Regina was both the murder capital (per capita) and crime capital (per capita) in all of Canada - we have dropped to 2nd half-way through this year. Most murders in Regina occur in North Central - or can be traced back to that neighborhood. Then you have a strong drug scene, the growth of gangs (who run the drugs), prostitution (even children), mass poverty (welfare), education rates which equal under a 50% graduation rate, lack of funding for programs, alcoholism, and a crime rating that shoots through the roof for theft and break n enters - so much so if you live there you expect to have your car broken into - we even keep our doors open so they don't break a window. Is it the worst? I only lived there and nowhere else - to me it is pretty bad and Julie Shore called it 'the worst neighborhood she has ever seen' (a sentiment shared widely in North Central).

There used to be no 'guns' in the inner-city or North Central - the last few years changed that - I have a friend serving a 3 year sentence for a shooting at the Empire Hotel. Gangs and drugs made it neccesary for the equipment - but it's only been introduced in the last 5 years. Knives and stabbings are horrendous - apparently in Vancouver they called us 'stab city' - a moniker with some truth - I have a few friends that have been stabbed in the past 10 years (nice scars). But this is the horror of living there - and most of this sh*t comes out at night - and I actually advise people not to walk through there at night - for safety purposes (if you don't know anyone) - might get jumped and robbed (happens more than it gets reported in our city). North Central is weird that way - a lot of sh*t never gets reported - we just 'deal with it' (one way or another).

For me this is my home neighborhood - when I get the chance to be there I am. I have such a love for that place and I want to see it become a better place for the poor, broken, destitute, and sometimes - despised. That neighborhood has some of the most open and nicest people I have ever met in my life - and they are realer than real down there - they don't mince words or beat around the bush - another aspect of it I love - 'it's this way or that way (don't sh*t me)'. I found many of the people down there to be quite welcoming and racism is quite small - it's racism in authority that have kept many of the Aboriginals in this neighborhood out of opportunities. I love the fact I can relate with the people in the 'hood' - I am one of their own who is making a difference - and trying to help others get employment. I just love that place - I actually wanna move back but that's for me and my wife to argue over.

I'm just saying - the report is saying something to the city of Regina - stop ignoring the problem - just because it doesn't effect you and you don't see it - doesn't mean it ain't happening - this Mcleans article was a wake-up call - let's start making things right.

Intellectual Faith - Good or Bad?

2007-01-07T16:02:00.000-07:00

I have been doing a lot of reading from various people and their thoughts about the Christian faith and I have noticed something - the intellectualization of the faith - the faith in mere debate and radical study. I am wondering if this is a good thing or something bad?

I think studying and looking at the scriptures is an important thing - even the historical context of the faith is of importance to me - since I have only the early authors to rely on for accuracy in the biblical writings (ex: Matthew, Peter, Paul, James, and John). I have found through much study that many questions surround the validity of this faith - questions regarding the resurrection, the person of Jesus (did he even exist?), the sayings of Jesus (are these his sayings?), historicty of events in the texts (did they even happen?), is Jesus the Messiah, differences between Paul and the gospels, the Gnostic texts, errors in the bible (ex: contradictions), and tonnes of stuff about variations in the faith from early Christianity (ex: building of the canon). Basically, there is a question for everything you read about in the actual texts.

To be perfectly honest, how the hell do you know who is being intellectually honest and who isn't? Who is telling the closest story about what's true in the texts and who isn't? I find that both sides on the debate (believers and non-believers) have an agenda and it is hard to determine which side is being realistic. I have read stuff by atheists, muslims, fundamentalists, historians, jewish writings, professors, and blog writers...each one has their own sense of credibility if u ask me. So I look at the whole picture and think - well, who is telling the best story here?

I also take at a look at people that don't over intellectuialize this faith and I see the dearness of the faith to them - it's not that they aren't asking questions but they truly believe in God, no qualms about that. On an even closer look one will see that faith is dropping out in countries with time on their hands to merely study the texts as compared to those with less time on their hands due to hardship (in which religion continues to either grow or remain at an even level). It really makes you wonder about some of the sincerity of the faith that these texts were meant to produce and what it is producing in some circles. I think eventually faith communities in Europe and the America's will continue to drop until it becomes non-existent if things don't change.

What needs to change is always the big question. Maybe the reality of what those texts are supposed to mean in an intellectual community - since it is not yet irrational to believe the teachings of Jesus - which is only counter-acted by 'doing', not 'talking'. I think the faith of Christianity can have a greater impact if it becomes a religion of doing - mainly in sustainable programs for the communties churches reside in. People can speak for years and write all the books they want, but doing is something tangible and means something to both the doer and the reciever (which is not something we can put a price tag on). To me the doing means you actually believe the rhetoric you are saying - it's the step right after thinking it through. So in some sense, it's the doing that matters - not so much the lip-service.

But this is where I am at in life - I hear a lot of good things and bad things being said about the faith of Christianity - each side is as convincing as the next (no one seems to be winning the battle here). What I am yearning to see is the Christian faith revolutionize itself into a strong 'doing' community that will stand the test of time and not be washed asunder by rhetoric - which oddly enough - the services are built around. Talk is the beginning - but we have years of talk in church circles - we need some action - some 'doing' - some substance - a reason to believe that doesn't merely involve more 'talk'. Intellect is a good thing - I am thankful for all the thinkers - but action is greater - I am even more thankful for those that lay their life on those words and do something about it - for without them this faith is at a loss of words.

Rational Response? Don't Complain!

2007-01-04T16:10:00.000-07:00

I was checking out sites on the internet, basically doing nothing I happened upon an Atheist site called 'Rational Response' - seems to be related to a documentary I watched called 'The God Who Wasn't There'. I actually thought the documentary was done quite shoddy but I did enjoy the content and the story line.

The story of the documentary seems to follow some dude who goes back to his Christian school and kind of calls them on certain things - the scene with the principal was quite funny (he was squirming). At the end of the film he supposedly blapshemes the Holy Spirit - whatever that means I am not quite sure at this point - or what the disciples meant I am not sure - but this dude thinks he did exactly that in the show - whatev's. The documentary goes into Jesus being a figment of the disciples imagination and that he fit 17 of 20 mythological traits - thus proving Jesus was a fake - I am like 'whatev's'. Basically, it's a disgruntled ex-Christian school kid with an axe to grind and this was his outlet - this documentary - then I found the website.

I have conversed with many an Atheist in my life but this site is the icing on the cake. Now I don't care if Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Brian Flemming want to knock the Christian faith - hooray, but for what exactly? This site is like so damn dumb, except the chat, that it defies even their supposed logic.

1. The whole 'who can blaspheme the best' thing is just ridiculous (can even send in a video). They wanna test your moxy and your faith in nothing, what's the difference between that and believing there is a God? Both require some sort of belief/faith - even if it they call it unfounded.

2. The dude has an axe to grind and he blames God for those problems, or at least as a source of those problems - hey I hear ya bro - but c'mon, like church and God and all things related made a single person's life turn out the way it did - whatever happened to choice and rationale? Each person is accountable for their actions, whether they follow a certain teaching or not, whether in this world or another.

3. Is the church solely to blame for the world's problems? Is the bane of our existence this Christ figure and the faith established upon him? Seems to me a close look, and a little bit of un-biased rationale, will expose the very fact gov't is involved in every step of the way in the evils of society (and at times they use religion as their side-kick). I look closely at history and I see politics and the working of that power as the one with the decisions to make to alter world events - not the church - the church has what for a power figure - the Vatican state - and they do what - tell people don't do this or that? Last time I checked no Christian state had any earthly power including arms, law making abilities, and police systems. Why? There is no Christian states around - except the Vatican - whatever that is called - and it is vastly limited (in a war for example or world politics).

4. They are raising money, for what I am not sure, but I am guessing to keep their mission of denouncing Christianity alive. Now some people gave money to keep the site going and I am not knocking the power of people to give but is this really a worthwhile cause? Is it helping a single person in any single verifiable way? I mean, they have to own a computer to at least participate - thus meaning they have to have some cash or be 'well to do'. I'm not sure but couldn't they raise funds to something for somebody? Help the poor - start a soup kitchen? Visit the sick in the hospital and care for their costs? Visit the prisioner and possibly help them reach their family in these hard times? Use that money for something but to simply promote a bunch of philosophical bullshit and pretend that means something is just, well...as dishonest as churches that spend that money on bigger buildings - they are the hypocrite they despise. This is a sore spot with me - when I know poverty and the help some of these communities need.

Don't get me wrong I am calling the site as I see it, a god-damn farce and only exists for us to play mind-games with one another - but if that's the solution an Atheist is giving me - I'll stay in the faith. It just pisses me off when someone has the audacity to rail on something yet they have no alternate solution - just some mind games to play. I am sick of it when Christians do it and I am sick of it when Atheists do it - present the problem but offer no viable solution to the problem - they just want to have some sort of self-righteousness about themselves. Get off that high-horse and think, I mean, on both sides they call themself 'rationale'.

So don't blame the church - unless you're going to get involved and try to make a difference. Don't blame the un-believer - unless you're going to get involved in that person's life - in some real, honest, touchable way. Don't tell me about the problem unless you first sat down for at least a few hours and tried to find an answer to it - cause it makes no sense to merely bitch. I am calling a problem a problem and a problem won't solve itslef - unless we have absolutely no rationale and think it might. No get involved in a real way or back the f*ck up for those that are. Last thing I need to hear is more criticism about faith, God, evil, the church, unbelievers, the poor, depressed, gov't, etc...cause I live by this - as much as you can complain you can do just as much to solve the problem.

I ain't done nothing I ain't used to doing

2006-12-28T12:57:00.000-07:00

I was the drunken prophet that I wrote about
I was the sincere sinner that they moaned about
I was talking about peace when outside there was war
I was taken outside and thrown to the world

I haven't read the bible in about 4 weeks
I was drunk for 3 nights on coke n whiskey
I watched your marriage fall apart and bleed
I gave you the room that I needed for me

I did all the things I wasn't supposed to do
I got married to someone who you never knew
If you're looking for pills I got this one for you
I ain't done nothin I ain't used to doing

I watched cancer take someone out of my life
He lay on my couch day after day just so he could die
I was asking for a miracle but I got denied
I ain't afraid of looking mortality in the eyes

I was holier than thou and you holier than me
I was a mother's son who was everything to everybody
But I ain't a good person and I ain't no saint
I'm just a sinner that caught a lucky break

I heard people say they're broke while they're rich
I seen the most righteous reject the hands of the lifeless
I ain't got much but what I have I give to you
I been lied to so many times I've created an alter ego

I had people tell me who they thought I am
I was covered in labels just because they can
I am a drunken prophet I am an unholy man
I wanted the truth from those I can't understand

I can't tell you that I am something that I am not
I can't make credibility magically appear on the spot
I can't make the interpretations anymore clearer
I can't hold you hands while the time draws nearer

I was given something a glimpse of what is to be
I often wondered if the future was even there for me
I read the lines of books from former times
I never lived nothing that I couldn't make mine

I am me, I had drinks with the most broken
I am me, I had ideas which were not stolen
I am me, I gave compassion to the undeserving
I am me, I ain't done nothing I ain't used to doing

(societyVs - Does nothing, he ain't supposed to)

Mythology or Historicity Implied?

2006-12-22T09:47:00.000-07:00

I just finished writing some comments on another blog about the issue of the historicity of the person Jesus Christ - was he real? Or was he person made up and written by the gospel writers and letter writers? I have heard these claims a lot and it made me wonder, would this destroy my faith? I resound with an absolute 'yes'.

The claims of this faith are that Jesus was the Christ, lived amongst us as a human being, suffered the death of the cross, then resurrected and was seen by people. Can any one of prove that with 100% certainty...well...no...we weren't there (or witnessed any of these events). So yeah, there is reason to believe he could be imaginery - none of us saw this happen (why couldn't they have media or video recorders in that day?). But what we do have are some things called gospels, letters, and the early church writings - again we cannot even verify who wrote them as we were not there while they were penned. So, strike two against the faith.

But the gospels and letters were written and they are the only sources to explain that period of time, nothing else exists...this is either strike 3 or we just might get on base here. You see some see this as a strike-out - no outside proof from historians so this has to be false. Problem there is not many historians are concerned about recording these issues - unless they get bloody well violent (this movement did not). But the fact there is something recorded means that someone had a reason to write it - and since this is the only account of the life of Jesus or the disciples (for that matter) - then by nature they are all we can go by. Either they hold some legitimacy or they are an internal community making stuff up - to build a religion of their own apparently.

If they made it up, what was the motive for such writings? One would have to say, a new religion - a fulfillment of the messianic prophecies - since that's what comes out their writings. But why a new religion and why depart from traditions your family has held so dear, for so long? For a made up 'Jesus' person, a figment of the imagination, a supposed messiah, etc. I think most people don't realize how tough it would of been for these disciples to leave their long established faith (Israel) - it was their hope, their promise, their connection to God - it was basically their whole life (Torah and law).

But 12 people want a new religion and they come up with an elaborate story (betray one of their own - Judas) where Jesus lives, teaches, does miracles, dies, and resurrects to the benefit of the Gentiles & Jews - not a single member being a Gentile but they had concern for them too (including Romans and Samaritans). Such weird writings where they make themselves into, well idiots - Peter comes off as brash and a denier of this faith, John and James are young and zealous - wanna kill people at one point, Matthew is a 'tax collecter' (not very admirable), Judas kills himself, etc. They paint themselves down and make Jesus look, well 'great'. I get it, I really do. They made up a fake person so they could make up a fake religion - what I don't get is the motive? Why? Was Judaism really that horrible to them? Did they think this idea would free the Jewish people from Roman oppression? Was their fame in it for some of them? I mean what makes a normal bunch of people leave their God, nation, and lifestyle?

You see if it is fake then all promises are null n void and these gospels and letters have no authority whatsoever - and whoever follows them is doing it for recreation alone. Some of the promises being eternal life and a close understanding of who God is or 'was'. Basically, there would be as much truth in there as in Greek mythologies about Zeus - they would be on an even keel and either can be worshipped as God (as far as I am concerned).

The other big problem is Paul and his letters. These pieces of literature point to the same ideas - Jesus lived, died, and resurrected - same claims as the gospels. Paul seems to tell quite the tale about himself and his turn to Christ - being a former high person in Jewish ranks. He then turns only to have himself nearly killed a few times, hated by his own people (both Romans and Jewish), takes quite the beating in a lot of places he ventures too - and in the end for what - to push a myth on other nations of peoples? He also verifies the fact Peter, James, and John all backed his ministry and were his pals - even though he was a later addition. I mean maybe Paul was all lies too - who knows - we never watched him pen the letters. But what is his motive? It can't be fame or prestige - he has that. Money - he has that. Religion - he has that. He's sado-masichistic and just needs to take the beats to 'get off'? What exactly? He sure seems to love pain is all I know.

I look at that pile of trash and I think - no historicity in the gospels and letters in and of themselves - 'give me a break' Nell Carter. The fact they exist means a whole hell of a lot and to think otherwise means you either have never considered the times of the disciples nor have you considered motive of the suspects. No one seems to gain a damn thing of these early disciples of Christ - fact is - all of them die with nothing or under persecution (for their own beliefs). They are rejected of their own faith (Judaism), persecuted by their own faith (Judaism), risk family, friends, and livelihood (means of survival), and are then killed for that - and for what, a name? There's no logic in that or who is that stupid? Unless, they had some truth to what they were writing.

What do you think? Is this all a big hoax or does the bible in and of itself contain some historicity?

I Really Wanna Know...Who are You?

2006-12-01T12:56:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking upon my past for sometime now, and no one knows me out here, so I figured I would give you a glimpse into the maniacial world of 'who I am'. Summed up in histories and life events - with the colorful use of Sesame Street wording (best show ever).

A - Assimilation. My people (First Nations of Canada - Cree/Saulteux) were forced to become like the French and English communities that took over Canada. First Nations people had there religion, politics, language, culture, and livelihood taken from them and switched for another one. They were taught to be English or French - not First Nations. I am a by-product of over 150 years of this interaction.

B - Bird, my last name. Originally in Saulteux 'Mista-keep-ness' meaning Landing Bird (the original name of the person from whose lineage I come from). Canadian gov't felt it neccesary to brand my family with a last name so they shortened it to Bird.

C - Colonialism. The English gov't's doctrine of 'Manifest Destiny' afforded them the right to overtake Canada and place upon the inhabitants a system they used in Britian. It was the conquering of the land in the name of God and Queen. This then led to the dehumanization of the inherent races upon this land - this still plays out in parts of the world (ex: Iraq). It's the 'we know best' attitude (over and above these inhabitants).

D - Desnomie. My mother's family's last name. It's a Metis name from the late 1800's and is mix of Cree and French. They were adopted into my reserve via marriage.

E - Education. Peepeekisis, Balcarres, Thomson, Wetmore, Sacred Heart, O'Neill, Johnson, and Scott Collegiate - and the school of hard knox. And tonnes of friends from all the other schools. Stay true to your roots.

F - Family. I have a big family of 6 brothers (one deceased) and 1 sister. I have a mother still living, a father who died when I was 10, and grandparents from both sides who died before I ever knew them. I am now married to a Greek-Ukranian girl for 2 years now.

G - God. For as long as I can remember there was a God. I used to pray to him as a scared child during thunderstorms or abusive nights that happened with my parents. I never thought there wasn't a God and I saw the need for a God throughout my life. The questions of existence mean as much to me as hope itself.

H - Hierarchy. I have a real love/hate relationship with structured systems. From the days I was small until my teen years I could not trust social services, police, teachers, politics, etc. The system was a cruel bitch to my people (and to me) and I recieved more the lashing of it's anger than the comfort they say it provides. Thus I am by nature a questioner but I know these systems are meant for so much more.

I - Indian. That's what Columbus called the first people he met in South America and that name is forever grained in Canadian politics as the term to classify First Nations. I actually use the word all the time with my friends and is within every piece of legislation regarding First Nations people of Canada (ex: The Indian Act). A term used also to classify a variety of Nations under one branding (ex: we are Cree, Saulteux, Mohawk, Haida, etc - lots of nations and people groups).

J - Jason. This is my first name and it is most interesting. I was not named after a single ancestor from my lineage, although every other single sibling in my family is. Coincidence, no. You see I was actually dis-liked from birth (my father was sure I wasn't his) so my mother was left to the naming - she chose a name popular for the day. I was named after 'nobody' (which is somewhat a disgrace where I come from). Odd thing is I was born like nobody I know - I was born in a car on the way to the hospital. I have sinced changed my name to 'born to fight' - having been in such a way as to fight for his life.

K - Knowledge. I have a great thirst to know as much as I can about any single thing that sparks my interest. I pulled straight 'A's throughout school and have two degree's (Bachelor of Theology & a Bachelor of Business Administration). But I know I am way short of what I want to know about life.

L - Love. I grew up without love (generally speaking) and was not much of a loving person. I had problems with my dad (physical abuse) and with my mom (who abandoned me at the age of 11), so recourse did I have? But I remember attending church this one time and I felt the extreme freedom of the love of God - of which this day I count a miracle. I can't say what happened that day but my outlook went from sad to happy, hurt to forgiveness, judgment to mercy...and I refuse to look back from that perspective.

M - Mercy. I am nothing without mercy. I know the life I live can only string itself together under the mercy of those who should look upon me. When I was broken, they cared to fix it. When I was poor, they cared for me. When I was hurt, they hurt with me. When I was wrong, they forgave. When I owed them, they counted it as nothing. I am nothing without mercy.

N - Negative. My outlook on life sways from positive to a negative very quickly, and this from the life I was born into. I am negative, I see my people suffering (as I did) under atrocious conditions of poverty, welfare, discrimination, crime, abuse, and violence. In me is an anger that refuses to be burnt out.

O - Open. I am open to all points of view, not knowing by innate knowledge which is the best to choose. I give people the benefit of the doubt when I am wronged, I have an open ear if your views can only sharpen mine, and I am non-chalant about who I am.

P - Peepeekisis. This is where I come from and this is the name of the reserve my family lived on for almost 100 years. This reserve was a 'test run' for the gov't to see if First Nations people could become farmers - my family comes from Keys (matriarch) and Cote's (patriarch) and they were shipped here to become farmers (none of us farmers to this day).

Q - Queen City, Regina. This is the city where I made my home at about the age of 12 (19 years ago). I grew up in North Central - our inner-city. I attended the school region with the highest rates of violent crimes and murder (about 90% of murders in our city happen in this area). I never had a single friend that owned a home (all rented), a new car, or wasn't in trouble with the law. I, myself, have committed every petty crime one could imagine just to scrape by or have pocket change. I rolled with a gang before this city even had them, only because we wanted to protect ourselves (and make some money). I am aware of what poverty does to people and how having 'no place' can become a factor in what you become.

R - Residential Schools. My mother and father were products of the Canadian/Church system of Residential schools in Canada (literally a genocide without the death part). These schools were set up so First Nations kids could be a part of Canada - problem was they were also designed to strip every single kid of their culture (ex: language, hair length, symbols, etc - all outlawed). The kids were taken from their homes and shipped to these school systems (without the consent of their parents - mandatory) and the kids may not see their parents at all for the whole school year. The physical and emotional abuse in these schools made them prison-like and the kids were trained to resent being 'Indian' - identity issues cropped up afterwards. My mother and father were incapable of the kind of love they desired to offer us kids - I realize that now, they never saw their parents parent them.

S - Salvation. I came to Christ when I was 18 with no education (dropped out), no money, no hope, and no goal for life (my goal was just to live). I had a family mired in poverty (along with friends), alcohol, drugs, and the welfare condition and I had friends who were partying, into criminal activity, violence, drugs, sex, etc. When I came to God, I came willingly.

T - The Action Group. I started this little endeavor earlier this year (jan 06) as a way for churches to address the needs of people within poverty conditions. We haven't grown from more than 5 members and the idea is still continuing to press on me. I see an endeavor that can both unify the churches and help eliminate some of the conditions of poverty - I have big goals and if I give up, who's actually going to care?

U - Unity. I have been striving for church unity for about 1 year now, little to no results are showing. It's just not that big of an issue it seems. But if 'divided we fall', then there is only one answer.

V - Violence. I have lived a life surrounded by violence, for as long as I care to remember. I was physically abused, in turn I fought others. The lives around me in my community are shrouded with this time and time again, it's hard to turn a 'blind eye' when you have experienced it first-hand. The jails are packed with violent offenders and some of them are my friends (It has been reported that 75% of Aboriginals make up the population of jails in Saskatchewan). This is one of the reasons I challenge my fears of people, I just won't play the victim role any longer.

W - Wards of the State. First Nations people were deemed 'wards of the state' under Canadian gov't and even have legislation to prove it (Indian Act). This same act has usurped Indian rights for generation after generation causing it to never gain a foothold of independance. This legislation provided for an Indian Agent to direct the affairs of First Nations people (still exists to this day). They funnell the money, take a cut then deliver it to First Nations for housing and what not. It has been the sole reason for all the problems in First Nations people. They set up the schools, didn't allow us to vote until 1961, gave us a pass and permit system (so we couldn't even leave the reserve until the 50's), started us on a welfare system, etc. If you ever took a look at South Africa, they used this legislation (Indian Act) to build their Apartheid Act.

X - X-cellence. I have this weird thing about winning awards thru-out my life. In Kindergarten I won a trophy (attendance), In grade 8 I won the academic award, In grade 12 I won numerous scholarships, and in university I also won numerous scholarships. I have two degrees in which I never failed a class. Still ain't too proud to beg.

Y - Youth. I really missed out on a child-hood in my life but I did have the funnest youth experiences ever. All of my friends used to play sports every week - pretended we were pro's (hockey, basketball, football, baseball, etc) with all the equipment we stole. We used to bumpershine in winter, get chased by the cops for what we called 'bombing', kicked down garage doors for pop bottles, stole bikes/clothes/raided gardens together, played all kinds of pranks on one another, collected cards and comics, made our own baseball bats one time, played blind tag in the church, stole from stores (one time got caught), and for that I love every single one of them and they are as close to me as family. This list could really go on and on.

Z - Zen. All things come around that go around. I should have to pay for what I have done. It's the basic principle I now life my life by.

Give Unity a Chance

2006-11-28T11:37:00.000-07:00

Everyone talking about
luther-isms
calvin-isms
catholi-cisms
prebytery-isms
evangelical-isms
alliance-isms
methodist-isms
mormon-isms

All we are saying is...give unity a chance

Everyone talking about
charismatic-isms
Baptist-isms
Wesley-isms
Emergent-isms
Unitarian-isms
Reformed-isms
Episcopal-isms
Pentecostal-isms

And all we are saying is...give unity a chance

Everyone talking about
Othodox-isms
Mennonite-isms
Gnostic-isms
Adventist-isms
Vineyard-isms
non-denomination-isms
Waldensian-isms
Quaker-isms

And all we are saying is...give unity a chance

Everying talking about
Yahweh-isms
Jehovah-isms
Christian-isms
Father-isms
Freedom-isms
Fellowship-isms
Brother-isms
Disciple-isms

And all we are saying...is give unity a chance

Everyone talking about
Scripture-isms
Faith-isms
Servant-isms
Icon-isms
Prayer-isms
Worship-isms
Tithe-isms
Proselyte-isms

And all we are saying is...give unity a chance

Everyone talking about
Everywhere-isms
Nowhere-isms
Somewhere-isms
Anywhere-isms
Returning-isms
Human-isms
Science-isms
Learning-isms

All I am saying is...is give unity a chance.

Credibility: How do I know who is credible?

2006-11-13T10:09:00.000-07:00

I have been wrestling with this issue for the past few days and figured I would throw it on a blog. Credibility within the Christian faith is becoming increasingly something I look at more intently, as if I would find answer to who is and why? What I have found is that credibility is something the church thinks they can decide as to 'who speaks the truth within their faith'.

Being an outcast (of sorts) from within the Christian juggernaut (which consists of many a strand of denominations) I have come to see my own credibility (as a person that speaks for the faith)...it is close to non-existent. It's not because I don't have the background or study to so speak for the Christian faith, I only lack one thing...harmonizing with the denominational beliefs. I am so spooled as an outcast with no real way to speak into the very thing I claim, faith in Christ...at least until I hold some position within the juggernaut or rightly uphold their missions, visions, and laws (see any denominational church website for more on that). But I accept that and continue to strive for more clarity on the subject of credibility.

I see the church as something that designates itself and has lost some it's 'voice' and in need of real accountability. They claim to be following the faith in it's fullness and it lacks nothing...right from the way the church is set-up, worship, offerings, interpretation, and prayer. If you are within the structure in some position then you have the 'say' of what can be done, if you are a lowly peon like myself (a congregationalist not striving for more then that) then your 'say' is limited to the group of congregants you 'hang with'. Top that off denominations cannot speak with other denominations and you get a ball of confusion with no end in sight (for clarity). Begging the obvious, if this denomination thinks it's right and the other thinks it's right (yet practicing varying beliefs)...which is credible?

They will tell you they gather all their beliefs from the bible and 'thus and thus' says the passage of scripture they base their beliefs on (or doctrinal statement)...but if you read any statement they take scripture from 'here and there' in a paste job for justification. To be honest, is that true to the intentions of the biblical writers? If we follow their pattern (paste job I call it) then I can justify anything I so choose and I have seen it done...slavery, tongues, war, and circumcision to name a few. I ask then, if they being credible do use the bible as a 'paste job' for justification, how is it if I read the whole book or letter (and find the context and intent) without using a quoted scripture have none? Simply put, I am not on the 'A' list of people within the faith nor do I use the bible as a scripture quoting machine.

In my questioning is the 'rub'...call it credibility but it also leads to accountability. I suppose they my faith does not have it all together as they so seem. We have denominational splits and a church choice for every day of the week (which Paul was adamantly against saying there is one body not 100's of them). These denominations rarely, if ever, work of the same page and discuss their beliefs as to what needs to be taught within their strands of faith (as in councils of Nicea and the early church fathers did to hash out their ideas), thusly they are not working together as much as they make it seem (not even in the same cities). No one calls into account people within their Christian faith that are giving it a 'bad name' or mis-using the scripture for what seems 'evil' ends (ex: gay-bashing). There are list upon list of such things and if I were to go into them all I would be writing to no end (wouldn't have room for it all). But what I am saying is on the question of accountability is the church has no avenue within it for such questioning.

But my solution is simple and is one I live by, we have the right to question our respective churces on their practices if they do not follow the intentions of the biblical writers. I have come up against 2 in recent days and I will recite them here. (1) A certain church in my city is telling a person to stop taking prescription meds and psychiatric counselling since they are deemed 'evil' and not of the faith (this person has schizophrenia) and reveal a lack of trust in God. (2) A person within my city who claims 'Christianity' as his faith is going around passing out leaflets, posting things in the paper, wearing t-shirts, and picketing anything 'gay' as 'doomed to hell'. He has been fined by the city $17,000 for his abuses but refuses to quit. He is not only an outright 'gay-basher' but claims this is from his biblical beliefs and has been 'called' to do this.

2 scenarios of many but they will suffice. Who holds these people and their teachings accountable to what is really taught in the Christian faith? Are they credible and who deems what they say as such? Problem is they are within the structure and have their haven in some denomination that see's no problem with their actions. I see a problem in their actions and a strong rebuke is coming (if I ever get a chance to find out where they worship). You see even in my lack of credibility I still have enough sense to know these people are wrong in their interpretation. If a 'gay person' does not have the right to be treated as I am treated, then show me justification for such an action? As far as the church not allowing the schizophreniac the help he so deserved and offering teaching that triggers problems within him, I also have to step in and question their tactics. I know we live by faith but this is ridiculous. If he has does have 'that kind of faith' then we should do all the more to support someone who I consider of the 'poor' in society.

I am asking for accountability (and it stems from the church perspective - or credibility). If it is too much to ask then I will ask again and again until something is done. How can I, a person of the same faith, sit back and watch this game of incredulity go on? I can't. It's driving me and many others straight out of congregations in droves. Time we stood up and in these 'non-profit' organizations and offered some checks n balances. So if you give money, ask to see the books and how your money is spent...if you don't like it request a change. If the teaching in your church is not quite right...step up and question the leadership about it...they are no more than designated leaders anyways...and request a change. Start programs that allow for your faith to be enacted in some way...if the leadership so disapprove...request a change in leadership (if the idea you hold is true to the faith). It's a call for accountabilty and working together in this faith to stop the destruction from within.