I am facing down the barrell of a conundrum. I have at my fingertips the power of ideas and I am being beset by the strength of structure. I have come to grips with a new war waging, the battle between personal spirituality and personal responsibility. If something does not give I will.
I am finding an ironic situation (mindset actually) within the mainstream teachings of Christianity and it is this focus...what's so great about personal spirituality? The church teaches that God has made a situation where we are responsible for one thing, our personal walk with Him. That's groovy and all but call me an atheist if this the whole kit n kaboodle. I am being told that my faith is only to serve myself, to make myself a better person, to change my situation in life, to help alleviate my tensions, etc. All I have to do is serve God and basically He will serve me. From this comes the garbage the of church rhetoric about being blessed (singularily mind you) with goods, homes, cars, a great lifestyle, succeeding at everything I do. So? What does that do for anyone but myself?
Oh I get it go and share this good news with others about how good they can have it if they follow Jesus, mind you 'in words alone'. They can have all the good things I have of they correctly obey God. I really don't have to do jack squat as long as I TELL YOU about this faith and if you reject it, go to hell. Again the honus is upon myself and how great my words flow out and if I am convincing enough you will believe God (and me)...ironic thing is whether you do or not I am still feeling like 'all is well, look at my walk with God...it's so damn good I have to wear shades when I get to those pearly gates'. Is this faith in Christ? Is this faith in myself? What is really going on here with our attitude of 'self-serving with a purpose'?
If that is my faith, can some good fundamental Christian just shoot me now. I am going to break your every law. I am going to challenge your every basic teaching. I am going to tear down the church structure and replace it with integrity. I am going to be hated by these 'self-righteous' saints and for good cause, I don't dance when they say dance, I don't pray when they say pray, I don't put on the show when they say they are doing one. Like I said, shoot me now you fundie Pharisee's before I do enough damage that it isn't irreversible.
I ask for a faith that has some personal responsibility and that's it. But nooooooooo, this is too damn difficult. All I am saying is I read the word (the bible) they teach from and I saw a faith where helping others takes mass priority over making myself 'feel good'. I see helping the people that need it as a top priority but the church has some loophole where they can say 'but our good works will appear as if we are earning our way to heaven'...don't worry about that since you don't do nothing for nobody so I don't think people will ever think that. I see Jesus (who the Christians call God) who lives a life of helping people in so many ways I could write 4 more gospels about it, but here a few examples: heals the leper, destroys racism, accepts everyone, has no class system, heals the blind, causes the lame to walk, cures a demoniac, etc. Now if we want to be like Christ, then shouldn't we actually believe what we are saying?
I am asking one thing: personal responsibility (which is too much to ask the self-righteous) in what you believe and in who you follow. We teach that God is love and the we should love our neighbor (even have a parable describing our neighbor) but we live like that's a lie. We do nothing to either prove or show God is love to the people that need it, and who needs it, people who are troubled (depressed, sick, in prison, the poor, abused, etc). Why the hell would anyone care about a God of love or a faith built upon love if it doesn't do jack squat? How does it help me to know this if I can't recieve it from you? Oh but God will call them to the faith, they are still waiting and guess what...no call. I guess the phone is off the hook.
If you believe a single word you are saying about Jesus then live by it, plain and simple. If you see the people in need and do nothing but 'pray' for them, don't call yourself a Christian, call yourself a pray-er. If you have the opportunity to help people in need but ignore it, don't call yourself a Christian, call your self ignorant. If someone asks you for tanglible help and you send them away empty-handed, don't call yourself a Christian, call yourself selfish. If someone comes to you and needs something and you tell them go to church first, don't call yourself a Christian but call yourself Biased. Get the picture. If we live like Christ we do like Christ, if not then we are not like Christ. Sorry, I can't make it seem manipulative.
So the moral of the story is simple, live what you believe and teach and don't think because you share some words with other people that's living your faith - it's not. If you want to earn the moniker of a Christian then live like Christ. If you want selfish faith, cool but don't cut one and tell me you just planted flowers. The faith I read is not one of selfishness, it's far from that but I am hard pressed to convince any Christian to get out their comfort zone, how sad. It's fairly easy to get diluted when all you do is drink what you regurgitate.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Personal Responsibility: 2 Acts
I was discussing with a friend today about some of the problems within mainstream church, or at least some of the problems we ran into. I also had a friend approach me today and tell me he converted to Islam while in jail, interesting. These 2 events threw me into a conundrum and I felt I needed to address an issue I see within the church that gets little press: personal responsibility.
I see personal responsibility as a huge issue that is under-addressed in the church. What exactly gets skipped over, well here is the process. The process of repentance means that as a person that serves God we will ask forgiveness of God (and we get it). What seems to be overlooked a lot of times is that person's responsibility to the person they wronged. Why is the process of forgiveness 'cut-short? We don't address the issues of human to human, main focus is human and God.
1st Shortcoming: Person to Person
The church has a way of focusing on what they deem as 'spirituality' and that usually means anything about you and your relationship with God (ex: repentance, prayer, worship, etc). They miss a focus on person to person, namely in responsiblity. I think it's grand that God forgives me but does my brother or sister forgive me? Are we helping people that have been wronged or wronged others to fix those problems? Is the church really that interested in personal responsibility? Here is my example.
Someone I know had an affair with another person in the church. The problem was presented to the pastor and church board and they decided to ex-communicate the girl. The guy just had to confess his wrong doings and that he admitted to. The girl did not do that, for what reason I am not sure so she was gonzo. I really felt the church glazed over what responsibility was in that situation for both parties. They never as so much as told the two of them to work this problem out amongst themselves or offered mediation. What happened is that girl never came back and that guy stayed...only to have the same situation occur again years later...again the situation unfolded the same way (this time with spouses and children involved). It really sucks that in both situations no help was really offered to give a chance for healing. The guy knew he was wrong but nothing was in place for both sides to deal with the scenario's unfolding.
My problem with the scenario is no one really cared enough to give both sides the due attention they deserved to 'deal' with the problems they found themselves in. This could be due to the fact no one cared about person to person responsibility, as long as they found themselves alright with God then all was good. But all is not good. No one has ever accepted that ex-communicated girl back into the grace of God (she must think God is against her). The couple that left after the 2nd affair never had their problems, anger, jealousies, hurts, and whatever else dealt with. To be honest, these people involved can't be in the same room together lest something dumb should happen. All I am asking is where was the church leadership and support from the church? It was not existent since they weren't concerned with solving problems, just each person repenting to God and getting that right...they left out their responsibility to others. I know solving the problem will be rough but it's a worthy endeavor nonetheless. Can't have people hating each other forever.
I guess I want to see forgiveness/redemption/unity be a bigger event, something we do one with another also. We should also be placing some focus on what we do 'one to another', so as to teach youth and adults how to deal with problems they will face. I know we will do wrongs to each other but the key is 'taking responsibility' for our mistakes - to each other and not just to God. This would also teach people there are consequences to actions that we have to both bare and try to make right (that's repentance). Not saying we will succeed in making things right but it's worth a try; but that also needs to support of the community around them (the church - in a healing mode and not a gossip/judging mode). We need to place focus on personal responsibility more often in the churches any of us attend, if not for us at least to teach younger people this religion is not as irresponsible as some make it to seem.
2nd Short-coming: Responsibility in what we teach others
The church is filled with hypocrites and this is getting more obvious each year. All hypocrisy is is teaching people a value while you don't live by it (quite common). If you tell people to not smoke or drink and you do both then don't teach it (simple). There is also a problem with some of the other ethics the church teaches, I call them 'lofty ideals'. If people are being taught God cares about everyone then shouldn't we live that as if that is true? The church teaches things that are troublesome, at least to me. An example.
My friend is a muslim now and I grew up with the dude, I knew some aspects of his tough life...I had been there too. His mother and family attended church with me for years and they were rather devout (I guess). The family shared with my friend about church, in words more or less. He would be in out of prison but it seemed there was no due attention paid to his situation, or bettering that situation...he got words and words should suffice. Now he is a muslim, why? They gave him the due attention and structure he required...they gave him something bigger then words...action. Can't say I blame him for the decision, at least he's bettering his life. The problem really lies in what he was taught (and saw) from his family to what he saw (and was taught) in prison...basically someone went out of their way for my friend. I am happy for him and if you knew him you would be too. But where was the church in his time of need? He told me straight out they visited the prisons he was in but they came up indecisive and gave nothing (unless he needed a bible or prayer).
In the end we shrugged off our responsibility for what we teach. We teach a God that loves everyone and forgives everyone. We have a parable that mentions visiting the prisons (obviously to help in any way we can). We know the 'Good Samaritan' parable. We teach love God and love our neighbor as the 2 great commandments. Great ideals but some are so vague that we do nothing instead of something for others (ex: love your neighbor? How? Visit a prison? To give out a tract or a bible?). Where the hell is 'us' in those teachings? Spout them all you want but if you can't live by what you believe or tell others, believe this...don't say jack-sh*t, if only to save your breath.
That's the big problem I see right now, where are 'we' in those scriptures? What is our role? How should we behave one to another? How can we take responsiblity for what we do and what we teach? I like the fact God loves me and forgives me, I find that such a 'lofty' idea. But if that can't translate into the 'real world' with the people in our communities, then why teach it? What's the use of knowing a God loves/forgives me if I can't be loved/forgiven by others? It's utterly useless. All I am asking is we need to check ourselves, are we being responsible in dealing with problems and in what we tell others? If so, we need to re-examine our focus and start looking at spiritualty as more horizontal and less vertical. Guess I just want some (a) structure and (b) honesty, and (c) reality.
I see personal responsibility as a huge issue that is under-addressed in the church. What exactly gets skipped over, well here is the process. The process of repentance means that as a person that serves God we will ask forgiveness of God (and we get it). What seems to be overlooked a lot of times is that person's responsibility to the person they wronged. Why is the process of forgiveness 'cut-short? We don't address the issues of human to human, main focus is human and God.
1st Shortcoming: Person to Person
The church has a way of focusing on what they deem as 'spirituality' and that usually means anything about you and your relationship with God (ex: repentance, prayer, worship, etc). They miss a focus on person to person, namely in responsiblity. I think it's grand that God forgives me but does my brother or sister forgive me? Are we helping people that have been wronged or wronged others to fix those problems? Is the church really that interested in personal responsibility? Here is my example.
Someone I know had an affair with another person in the church. The problem was presented to the pastor and church board and they decided to ex-communicate the girl. The guy just had to confess his wrong doings and that he admitted to. The girl did not do that, for what reason I am not sure so she was gonzo. I really felt the church glazed over what responsibility was in that situation for both parties. They never as so much as told the two of them to work this problem out amongst themselves or offered mediation. What happened is that girl never came back and that guy stayed...only to have the same situation occur again years later...again the situation unfolded the same way (this time with spouses and children involved). It really sucks that in both situations no help was really offered to give a chance for healing. The guy knew he was wrong but nothing was in place for both sides to deal with the scenario's unfolding.
My problem with the scenario is no one really cared enough to give both sides the due attention they deserved to 'deal' with the problems they found themselves in. This could be due to the fact no one cared about person to person responsibility, as long as they found themselves alright with God then all was good. But all is not good. No one has ever accepted that ex-communicated girl back into the grace of God (she must think God is against her). The couple that left after the 2nd affair never had their problems, anger, jealousies, hurts, and whatever else dealt with. To be honest, these people involved can't be in the same room together lest something dumb should happen. All I am asking is where was the church leadership and support from the church? It was not existent since they weren't concerned with solving problems, just each person repenting to God and getting that right...they left out their responsibility to others. I know solving the problem will be rough but it's a worthy endeavor nonetheless. Can't have people hating each other forever.
I guess I want to see forgiveness/redemption/unity be a bigger event, something we do one with another also. We should also be placing some focus on what we do 'one to another', so as to teach youth and adults how to deal with problems they will face. I know we will do wrongs to each other but the key is 'taking responsibility' for our mistakes - to each other and not just to God. This would also teach people there are consequences to actions that we have to both bare and try to make right (that's repentance). Not saying we will succeed in making things right but it's worth a try; but that also needs to support of the community around them (the church - in a healing mode and not a gossip/judging mode). We need to place focus on personal responsibility more often in the churches any of us attend, if not for us at least to teach younger people this religion is not as irresponsible as some make it to seem.
2nd Short-coming: Responsibility in what we teach others
The church is filled with hypocrites and this is getting more obvious each year. All hypocrisy is is teaching people a value while you don't live by it (quite common). If you tell people to not smoke or drink and you do both then don't teach it (simple). There is also a problem with some of the other ethics the church teaches, I call them 'lofty ideals'. If people are being taught God cares about everyone then shouldn't we live that as if that is true? The church teaches things that are troublesome, at least to me. An example.
My friend is a muslim now and I grew up with the dude, I knew some aspects of his tough life...I had been there too. His mother and family attended church with me for years and they were rather devout (I guess). The family shared with my friend about church, in words more or less. He would be in out of prison but it seemed there was no due attention paid to his situation, or bettering that situation...he got words and words should suffice. Now he is a muslim, why? They gave him the due attention and structure he required...they gave him something bigger then words...action. Can't say I blame him for the decision, at least he's bettering his life. The problem really lies in what he was taught (and saw) from his family to what he saw (and was taught) in prison...basically someone went out of their way for my friend. I am happy for him and if you knew him you would be too. But where was the church in his time of need? He told me straight out they visited the prisons he was in but they came up indecisive and gave nothing (unless he needed a bible or prayer).
In the end we shrugged off our responsibility for what we teach. We teach a God that loves everyone and forgives everyone. We have a parable that mentions visiting the prisons (obviously to help in any way we can). We know the 'Good Samaritan' parable. We teach love God and love our neighbor as the 2 great commandments. Great ideals but some are so vague that we do nothing instead of something for others (ex: love your neighbor? How? Visit a prison? To give out a tract or a bible?). Where the hell is 'us' in those teachings? Spout them all you want but if you can't live by what you believe or tell others, believe this...don't say jack-sh*t, if only to save your breath.
That's the big problem I see right now, where are 'we' in those scriptures? What is our role? How should we behave one to another? How can we take responsiblity for what we do and what we teach? I like the fact God loves me and forgives me, I find that such a 'lofty' idea. But if that can't translate into the 'real world' with the people in our communities, then why teach it? What's the use of knowing a God loves/forgives me if I can't be loved/forgiven by others? It's utterly useless. All I am asking is we need to check ourselves, are we being responsible in dealing with problems and in what we tell others? If so, we need to re-examine our focus and start looking at spiritualty as more horizontal and less vertical. Guess I just want some (a) structure and (b) honesty, and (c) reality.
Monday, September 04, 2006
What Exactly Do I Believe?
What do I believe? I have been giving this some thought over the past several months and after hearing points of views from various strands of the faith...I have decided to come clean on it. Sad to say, I am not supporting either conservative or extreme left-wing lines. I am somewhere in the middle.
I believe Jesus' basis for His teachings were laid out in the beatitudes. All of His teachings flow from that stradasphere. It's seems to lay down an index on the rest of the things taught by Him. I don't find places where Jesus goes against those 9 points in the gospels. I find tonnes of places where that index seems to be re-itterated again and again. Top that off, the teachings in the sermon on the mount seem to lay down every ethics afterwards and is ended with the parable about the foundation of these teachings (the rock and the sand). So in Matthew 5 through 7 you get an index, followed by some core teachings, and an ending. The rest of the teachings of Christ flow from these ideals (framed by the beatitudes) and end with saying 'these teachings are a paradigm'.
I give full support to the gospel writer's and the early community for saving these writings. I believe they do not contradict one another but preserve the teachings of Christ quite uniformly. I am not saying they are 'without errors' (these are humans we speak of) but that the message does not change book to book. The letters I place on a secondary level since they are just that, letters. They are written to certain communities and people about issues of the day. They are good for teachings but if they run contrary to the teachings of Christ then I have to choose Jesus' words as a priority. I am not sure if they run contrary but if they do then we have to claim Jesus first and the letters for what they are. Simple, I know.
The OT is the history of Israel and the story of how God worked through them in times past. We can go from Adam, to Abe-Isaas-Jacob, Joseph, Moses and the Exodus, the Kings, the Judges, King David, the Prophets, etc. It's all quite well an explanation of the times and how God saved a community but that all changed with Jesus. Now all people of all communities are accepted into the same line as the OT through Jesus. Jesus was the fulfillement of messianic prophecy (Matt 5:17-20) and to boot the 'Son of God'. This is backed up by the claims within the gospels . If he was not the Messiah (or the 'son of God') I may see a need to become a Jewish proselyte, as it is, that's not what the disciples claim about Jesus. Even Jesus claims people from all over will sit at the table of 'Abe-Isaac-Jacob' and see's a need for all people's to join this lineage, which is absolutely accepting through Himself. So the OT is grand with great teachings but as the disciples used it so do I, to prove Jesus was who He said He was, and on that I the gospels even rest.
I do not agree scritpural integrity can be kept by slicing up scripture to make an ideology, this is ludacris. If you take a scritpure from anywhere then it comes from within a context and that has to be respected. So if I take one scripture from Matthew, another from Revelations, and yet another from Hebrews this does not make a cohesive argument or maintain scriptural integrity. It is disrespectful to the original writers and can result in pure BS. If you wanna quote a passage from one book then do so but don't string together a bunch of scriptures from all over the bible and say the bible was 'meant to say this'. It doesn't work and more often than not 'misquotes' these writers. So if you interpret a passage in Hebrews it should line up with the idea in the rest of Hebrews (nothing more).
I base all my beliefs on Jesus' teachings, to say the least. If Jesus teaches to love one another and love God and those are the only 2 commandments at all you can be assured I agree. If Jesus teaches about the prodigal son and accepting that person who 'left' back into the family, you can bet I agree. If Jesus reams on the Pharisee's for their strict interpretation of the OT and how they enacted law on the people around them, then challenges their basis...yes I will agree. I will not only agree I will develop such a fervant love for the ideals as to follow them and not betray their sincerity. I don't see a single thing in Jesus' teachings that are to the detriment of humanity but only for the support of humanity. Anyone teaching that Jesus supports any ideal that destroys human betterment has (a) read the gospels in a warped doctrinal light, or (b) never took the time to actually read those gospels for themselves.
Lastly, the idea of salvation is based in the ideals you live by. Jesus died & resurrected for all and everyone is free to follow or live contrary to His teachings. The disciples make it clear that you can choose to 'believe' or 'not believe' these teachings. By believe I actually mean live them out, not just lip-service to the faith. It is not 'salvation by action' but 'salvation will not go without the action'. That is to say, as Christ acted in such manner to take Him to the cross for humanity then so should we act for those around us (in this we show we actually grasp the grace and love of God for everyone and WWJD). I term this 'total salvation' for lack of a better term. It means everything Jesus taught led Him to that cross, and that was based in love. So, God is love but so should we be.
I know most people will dis-agree with some of the premise I lay down but it is quite sound. Have I figured it out, no. Do I care? No. Who will ever have all the answers to life questions and dilemma's but I know what I can do. The Beatitudes. They say 9 simple things: care for the poor, mourn (have compassion), have a meek attitude (opposite of pride), thirst for truth/answers in tough situations, show mercy, strive for pure-ness in things I do (not for the building of ego), become a peace-maker, and act in righteousness (doing the right thing) in face of non-acceptance. Those ideals took Jesus to the cross and demonstrated a full love for people, who although were altogether deemed undeserving of it, still got it. Now what do you have to give?
I believe Jesus' basis for His teachings were laid out in the beatitudes. All of His teachings flow from that stradasphere. It's seems to lay down an index on the rest of the things taught by Him. I don't find places where Jesus goes against those 9 points in the gospels. I find tonnes of places where that index seems to be re-itterated again and again. Top that off, the teachings in the sermon on the mount seem to lay down every ethics afterwards and is ended with the parable about the foundation of these teachings (the rock and the sand). So in Matthew 5 through 7 you get an index, followed by some core teachings, and an ending. The rest of the teachings of Christ flow from these ideals (framed by the beatitudes) and end with saying 'these teachings are a paradigm'.
I give full support to the gospel writer's and the early community for saving these writings. I believe they do not contradict one another but preserve the teachings of Christ quite uniformly. I am not saying they are 'without errors' (these are humans we speak of) but that the message does not change book to book. The letters I place on a secondary level since they are just that, letters. They are written to certain communities and people about issues of the day. They are good for teachings but if they run contrary to the teachings of Christ then I have to choose Jesus' words as a priority. I am not sure if they run contrary but if they do then we have to claim Jesus first and the letters for what they are. Simple, I know.
The OT is the history of Israel and the story of how God worked through them in times past. We can go from Adam, to Abe-Isaas-Jacob, Joseph, Moses and the Exodus, the Kings, the Judges, King David, the Prophets, etc. It's all quite well an explanation of the times and how God saved a community but that all changed with Jesus. Now all people of all communities are accepted into the same line as the OT through Jesus. Jesus was the fulfillement of messianic prophecy (Matt 5:17-20) and to boot the 'Son of God'. This is backed up by the claims within the gospels . If he was not the Messiah (or the 'son of God') I may see a need to become a Jewish proselyte, as it is, that's not what the disciples claim about Jesus. Even Jesus claims people from all over will sit at the table of 'Abe-Isaac-Jacob' and see's a need for all people's to join this lineage, which is absolutely accepting through Himself. So the OT is grand with great teachings but as the disciples used it so do I, to prove Jesus was who He said He was, and on that I the gospels even rest.
I do not agree scritpural integrity can be kept by slicing up scripture to make an ideology, this is ludacris. If you take a scritpure from anywhere then it comes from within a context and that has to be respected. So if I take one scripture from Matthew, another from Revelations, and yet another from Hebrews this does not make a cohesive argument or maintain scriptural integrity. It is disrespectful to the original writers and can result in pure BS. If you wanna quote a passage from one book then do so but don't string together a bunch of scriptures from all over the bible and say the bible was 'meant to say this'. It doesn't work and more often than not 'misquotes' these writers. So if you interpret a passage in Hebrews it should line up with the idea in the rest of Hebrews (nothing more).
I base all my beliefs on Jesus' teachings, to say the least. If Jesus teaches to love one another and love God and those are the only 2 commandments at all you can be assured I agree. If Jesus teaches about the prodigal son and accepting that person who 'left' back into the family, you can bet I agree. If Jesus reams on the Pharisee's for their strict interpretation of the OT and how they enacted law on the people around them, then challenges their basis...yes I will agree. I will not only agree I will develop such a fervant love for the ideals as to follow them and not betray their sincerity. I don't see a single thing in Jesus' teachings that are to the detriment of humanity but only for the support of humanity. Anyone teaching that Jesus supports any ideal that destroys human betterment has (a) read the gospels in a warped doctrinal light, or (b) never took the time to actually read those gospels for themselves.
Lastly, the idea of salvation is based in the ideals you live by. Jesus died & resurrected for all and everyone is free to follow or live contrary to His teachings. The disciples make it clear that you can choose to 'believe' or 'not believe' these teachings. By believe I actually mean live them out, not just lip-service to the faith. It is not 'salvation by action' but 'salvation will not go without the action'. That is to say, as Christ acted in such manner to take Him to the cross for humanity then so should we act for those around us (in this we show we actually grasp the grace and love of God for everyone and WWJD). I term this 'total salvation' for lack of a better term. It means everything Jesus taught led Him to that cross, and that was based in love. So, God is love but so should we be.
I know most people will dis-agree with some of the premise I lay down but it is quite sound. Have I figured it out, no. Do I care? No. Who will ever have all the answers to life questions and dilemma's but I know what I can do. The Beatitudes. They say 9 simple things: care for the poor, mourn (have compassion), have a meek attitude (opposite of pride), thirst for truth/answers in tough situations, show mercy, strive for pure-ness in things I do (not for the building of ego), become a peace-maker, and act in righteousness (doing the right thing) in face of non-acceptance. Those ideals took Jesus to the cross and demonstrated a full love for people, who although were altogether deemed undeserving of it, still got it. Now what do you have to give?
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Shout out to the Bloggers!
I have discussed a lot of issues with a lot of bloggers and one thing is certain, a good discussion. I have heard every view in the last few months and many have passed on pieces of knowledge they picked up. I add my 2 cents in and try to figure out where the issue is heading towards. Must say, blogging is in it's own right a great way to get some feedback on your issues. So I decided to make a blog on the issues of the day.
ET: Not 'ET go home' but 'ET go to hell'
This is a never ending debate on the ideals of torment and plainly asks God 'would you?'. I have read many blogs on this issue and the majority vote is 'no God would not'. The scripture argument is that hell either 'doesn't exist' or it is a 'cleansing', but not eternal. I mean the argurment for no ET is quite sound and the argument the other way seems a little...harsh. Some of that is based on 'feelings' and some on interpreting the word 'eternal' in the NT. Nonetheless, the majority of churches across the world interpret ET as exactly that, forever. Is torment forever or is it a type of 'purgatory'? Or is it just on earth that 'hell' applies to? Can there be an effective rep for God on the issue? Shouts out to YBMT (bruced), Steve, Kenneth, Geo, Tom Reindl, Don R, Cliff, Nancy (and the others I missed) & Curious Girl for bringing this to my attention.
War - What is it Good for? Absolutely something!
The issue of war will always be a two-edged sword. On the one hand we hate war, on the other hand we need it for neccesary protection of the world. Christians have taken both sides on the issue and some say 'war is neccesary' while others say 'war is not godly'. Now war will always exist and of that we are sure (a good look at history points that out). But just because it exists does God deem it 'the right thing to do'? Is God on a 'side' in a war? Should we always defend Israel no matter what? What was the biblical stance on such an issue? Shouts out to Demerging, Jimmy Bob, Head First, Unclarity, and others for shedding some light on this issue.
Fundies and liberals, are they eating off the same plate?
Fundamentalism has become a thorn in the side to the liberal religious believer, I mean all that extreme zeal just rubs them the wrong way. Fundies have their share of crimes (abortion clinic shootings, gay-bashing, war in the name of God, etc) and the liberals aren't smiling. The problem is they read the same book. So fundies grab this interpretation while the liberals are grabbing another, who is right? Are the liberals 'selectively' choosing what they believe? Are the fundies 'adding in' something they want to believe? Who is interpreting the scriptures right? Is religion the problem here or is it the books we base our faith on? Shout out to Edge of Faith for asking the questions many of us never confront.
Religion and Politics: Our Intelligence shows they like to sleep together.
The clash between religion and politics is as old as religion itself. Israel was founded on a 'theocracy' and Islam claims the same ideal. Christianity is not exempt and hasn't been since Constantine put a cross on his shield and went to war in 300 AD. It's an age-old argument that states God is part of the political structure whether we like it or not. Politics is a man-made system that bases a majority of it's ethical virtues on scripture. Does politics have a place for faith within it's realm? If so, is politics and nationalism based on that faith directly? Which defines which, politics define religion or vice-versa? Are they really one in the same? What does your scriptures say about politics? Shout out to ninja-nun for raising the issue.
Religion vs. Faith - Is the baby really bathing in that bath water or just drowning?
This is the ultimate battle of religious structures vs. religious ideals, they aren't matching up. Some are calling for an 'end of religion' while others seem to think the church must endure and stay the same. Religion seems to put some emphasis on religious duties while faith is asking 'who made that duties list and why?'. Religion seems to be saying 'if you are not with us, why not, get with us and be saved'. Faith says 'no church has the true salvific plan'. Does faith run contrary to religion, are these two different things we speak of? Is religion becoming too 'trapping and exclusive' to the detriment of others? Is faith becoming too loose and free that it denys biblical ideals? Who will win, faith or religion? Also, will the son of man find 'faith' on the earth when he returns? (a 2 point question). Big-up's to End of Religion, Ironic Observances, Stupid Church People, and the hoardes of others that share on this issue daily.
Salvation - a pro-choice debate on the sanctity of life everlasting.
Will all go to heaven or will only 'some' go to heaven? If only some go to heaven then we have free will and a choice to make to accept Christ. If all go to heaven then Jesus' death on the cross was for everyone and God made that choice for us. Both sides use the same scriptures and developed varying ideas on eternal life. There is proof for both arguments concerning free-will, the cross, our sinful nature, and God's intervention. Does the scriptures prove we have no free-will? Does Jesus' death signify a 'once for everyone' salvific act? Is sin wiped clean because of the act or do you have to choose to accept that salvific act to become clean? And the age old question, was Adam really that fond of apples? Big shouts out to YBMT (Bruced), Kenneth, Steve, Geo, Nancy da Joo, and the hoardes of others that brought this to my attention.
So those are the issues of day in the blog-a-sphere. I would also like to commend Chris Ledgerwood for his insight (a great friend), Jolly-Beggar (the reason I love blogging), and everyone that makes blogging fun by adding in their 2 cents...gives me food for thought so I never go hungry. Also the religious-right for their tender support of me on every issue I support of theirs and their utter condemnation of me when I don't support them. Let's learn to like one another, please.
ET: Not 'ET go home' but 'ET go to hell'
This is a never ending debate on the ideals of torment and plainly asks God 'would you?'. I have read many blogs on this issue and the majority vote is 'no God would not'. The scripture argument is that hell either 'doesn't exist' or it is a 'cleansing', but not eternal. I mean the argurment for no ET is quite sound and the argument the other way seems a little...harsh. Some of that is based on 'feelings' and some on interpreting the word 'eternal' in the NT. Nonetheless, the majority of churches across the world interpret ET as exactly that, forever. Is torment forever or is it a type of 'purgatory'? Or is it just on earth that 'hell' applies to? Can there be an effective rep for God on the issue? Shouts out to YBMT (bruced), Steve, Kenneth, Geo, Tom Reindl, Don R, Cliff, Nancy (and the others I missed) & Curious Girl for bringing this to my attention.
War - What is it Good for? Absolutely something!
The issue of war will always be a two-edged sword. On the one hand we hate war, on the other hand we need it for neccesary protection of the world. Christians have taken both sides on the issue and some say 'war is neccesary' while others say 'war is not godly'. Now war will always exist and of that we are sure (a good look at history points that out). But just because it exists does God deem it 'the right thing to do'? Is God on a 'side' in a war? Should we always defend Israel no matter what? What was the biblical stance on such an issue? Shouts out to Demerging, Jimmy Bob, Head First, Unclarity, and others for shedding some light on this issue.
Fundies and liberals, are they eating off the same plate?
Fundamentalism has become a thorn in the side to the liberal religious believer, I mean all that extreme zeal just rubs them the wrong way. Fundies have their share of crimes (abortion clinic shootings, gay-bashing, war in the name of God, etc) and the liberals aren't smiling. The problem is they read the same book. So fundies grab this interpretation while the liberals are grabbing another, who is right? Are the liberals 'selectively' choosing what they believe? Are the fundies 'adding in' something they want to believe? Who is interpreting the scriptures right? Is religion the problem here or is it the books we base our faith on? Shout out to Edge of Faith for asking the questions many of us never confront.
Religion and Politics: Our Intelligence shows they like to sleep together.
The clash between religion and politics is as old as religion itself. Israel was founded on a 'theocracy' and Islam claims the same ideal. Christianity is not exempt and hasn't been since Constantine put a cross on his shield and went to war in 300 AD. It's an age-old argument that states God is part of the political structure whether we like it or not. Politics is a man-made system that bases a majority of it's ethical virtues on scripture. Does politics have a place for faith within it's realm? If so, is politics and nationalism based on that faith directly? Which defines which, politics define religion or vice-versa? Are they really one in the same? What does your scriptures say about politics? Shout out to ninja-nun for raising the issue.
Religion vs. Faith - Is the baby really bathing in that bath water or just drowning?
This is the ultimate battle of religious structures vs. religious ideals, they aren't matching up. Some are calling for an 'end of religion' while others seem to think the church must endure and stay the same. Religion seems to put some emphasis on religious duties while faith is asking 'who made that duties list and why?'. Religion seems to be saying 'if you are not with us, why not, get with us and be saved'. Faith says 'no church has the true salvific plan'. Does faith run contrary to religion, are these two different things we speak of? Is religion becoming too 'trapping and exclusive' to the detriment of others? Is faith becoming too loose and free that it denys biblical ideals? Who will win, faith or religion? Also, will the son of man find 'faith' on the earth when he returns? (a 2 point question). Big-up's to End of Religion, Ironic Observances, Stupid Church People, and the hoardes of others that share on this issue daily.
Salvation - a pro-choice debate on the sanctity of life everlasting.
Will all go to heaven or will only 'some' go to heaven? If only some go to heaven then we have free will and a choice to make to accept Christ. If all go to heaven then Jesus' death on the cross was for everyone and God made that choice for us. Both sides use the same scriptures and developed varying ideas on eternal life. There is proof for both arguments concerning free-will, the cross, our sinful nature, and God's intervention. Does the scriptures prove we have no free-will? Does Jesus' death signify a 'once for everyone' salvific act? Is sin wiped clean because of the act or do you have to choose to accept that salvific act to become clean? And the age old question, was Adam really that fond of apples? Big shouts out to YBMT (Bruced), Kenneth, Steve, Geo, Nancy da Joo, and the hoardes of others that brought this to my attention.
So those are the issues of day in the blog-a-sphere. I would also like to commend Chris Ledgerwood for his insight (a great friend), Jolly-Beggar (the reason I love blogging), and everyone that makes blogging fun by adding in their 2 cents...gives me food for thought so I never go hungry. Also the religious-right for their tender support of me on every issue I support of theirs and their utter condemnation of me when I don't support them. Let's learn to like one another, please.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
The 'Be a Certain Way' Attitude's
I was recently thinking about the first teachings to come out of Jesus' mouth, according to the book of Matthew, in chapter 5. It got me thinking, is this the 'gospel' Jesus taught and all things would flow around these teachings? They call them the beautitudes, must mean something about 'being blessed'. The teachings are as follows and I think they represent a fair portrayal of what Jesus altogether taught through his life.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
What is the 'poor in spirit'? Luke pins/defines it by saying 'the poor' (leaving out spirit). It seems that Christians would identify themselves as people that care about the poor (ex: depressed, poverty-stricken, diseased, hospitalized, oppressed, etc). Following Christ seems to mean 'helping/serving' the poorer parts of our society, identifying with them and actually caring about the needs they have. Jesus' whole ministry included the poor in his society (lepers, blind, poverty-stricken, diseased, demon-possessed, prostitutes, drunks, etc...).
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted."
Mourning, the act of sorrow and contrition. I guess the opposite of this would be holding in and harboring pain, resulting in much stress and anger. It seems the release of your problems and your sorrows is key with moving forward in life, to finding answers, to finding comfort. Bad things will happen in life around you and it will change you, will you deal with loss or build animosity? It seems Jesus points to this and says 'this is normal' and comfort will come from all angles if we accept, not reject our sorrow.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."
What does meek mean? Meekness is interpreted as 'gentle', 'kind', 'quiet', and 'reserved'. Being meek means to exemplify the message of Christ, kindness and compassion. These are the people that 'do not lord it over others', they act as 'servants', and 'love & accept others'. Meekness is seen as the opposite of proud. This statement is true about inheriting the earth. The more accepting and compassionate you are the more friends you gain, who in turn trust you (sometimes with everything). Little do you know that by your kindness you have safe-guarded your life.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied."
Satisfaction can only come by seeking and 'hungering' for the truth or the 'right' answer. Ignorance is bliss, but the truth is satisfying. Asking questions and seeking the answers to problems is key to growing and becoming a responsible person. If you quit seeking and asking you run the risk of becoming apathetic and complacent...you make yourself irrelevant. Getting the 'right' answer is not an easy process but it will help complete your life (ethic, ideas, paradigms, answers, actions, etc).
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy."
This is the idea that if you treat people with mercy (forgiveness) they will in turn do that for you when you wrong them. It also speaks to respecting others and your outlook on judgment (do you judge too critically?). The call is to be someone who can forgive others because sometimes 'they know not what they are doing'. It is also the higher principle in judgment, having mercy as your basis for judging others and not condemnation.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
Pure in heart? This seems to relate back to the last point 'treating others as you want to be treated'. It's about developing ethics based on these 'blessed' statements and developing an attitude of salvation (you can actively help others) and not judgment (being critical of others to their detriment). It is a pure thing to have a vision of seeing humans as God's creation and then treating them thusly. Not only are you seeing the human side of a person but you recognize their link back to God (as His creation)...so you do see God in helping them and sharing with them. This statement directly relates to Jesus' parable on the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
This speaks to the heart of the gospel (Jesus' teachings), it is called the 'gospel of peace'...meaning these words of Jesus should always reflect peace and nothing else. It plays a reference to knowing God in that being called a 'child of God' is being called part of God's family (there is no higher praise for a human than this). So the child of God is a child of peace and decides in all situations that division, destruction, violence, hate, seperation, and war are all ideals of a human mind-frame (limited thinking). There is nothing greater than knowing you partner with God in any situation that brings peace.
"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
It is a little known fact that some people will not like you for the sake of 'doing the right thing', as proven in history, which comes from seeking the right answers to tough questions (ex: segregation, in-equality, racism, class systems). Doing the right thing doesn't always mean people are going to hold your hands up as a champion, no...they might hate you if it is too hard against the status quo (ex: see the civil rights of African Americans in the 1900's). Helping others on a personal level might mean you are subject to harsh criticism's, judgment by friends, avoidance, and outright dislike towards you (it does happen). This can happen once you decide to help the oppressed, down-trodden, poor, depressed, criminal, etc..and fly in the face of the norm.
"Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
This is the same speech as the previous one and means the same thing except for one little addition 'because of me'. This means you are standing up for the 'right things' (same as above) but you also are recognized as a follower of Jesus (more for it's time period 1st Century AD). But the fact Jesus taps his name on the end of it does mean He is aware of the animosity people will have for these teachings (and following Jesus' teachings can make you a target). What is also different is the fact these people might be 'killed' for what they believe (that's what happened to many of the prophets who claimed to have messages from God). Rejoice in the fact you are hated? Points to a central teaching of Jesus, everlasting life or a heaven (resurrection & life after death). So focus your effort's on earthly situations, but your reward is from beyond this earth.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
What is the 'poor in spirit'? Luke pins/defines it by saying 'the poor' (leaving out spirit). It seems that Christians would identify themselves as people that care about the poor (ex: depressed, poverty-stricken, diseased, hospitalized, oppressed, etc). Following Christ seems to mean 'helping/serving' the poorer parts of our society, identifying with them and actually caring about the needs they have. Jesus' whole ministry included the poor in his society (lepers, blind, poverty-stricken, diseased, demon-possessed, prostitutes, drunks, etc...).
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted."
Mourning, the act of sorrow and contrition. I guess the opposite of this would be holding in and harboring pain, resulting in much stress and anger. It seems the release of your problems and your sorrows is key with moving forward in life, to finding answers, to finding comfort. Bad things will happen in life around you and it will change you, will you deal with loss or build animosity? It seems Jesus points to this and says 'this is normal' and comfort will come from all angles if we accept, not reject our sorrow.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."
What does meek mean? Meekness is interpreted as 'gentle', 'kind', 'quiet', and 'reserved'. Being meek means to exemplify the message of Christ, kindness and compassion. These are the people that 'do not lord it over others', they act as 'servants', and 'love & accept others'. Meekness is seen as the opposite of proud. This statement is true about inheriting the earth. The more accepting and compassionate you are the more friends you gain, who in turn trust you (sometimes with everything). Little do you know that by your kindness you have safe-guarded your life.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied."
Satisfaction can only come by seeking and 'hungering' for the truth or the 'right' answer. Ignorance is bliss, but the truth is satisfying. Asking questions and seeking the answers to problems is key to growing and becoming a responsible person. If you quit seeking and asking you run the risk of becoming apathetic and complacent...you make yourself irrelevant. Getting the 'right' answer is not an easy process but it will help complete your life (ethic, ideas, paradigms, answers, actions, etc).
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy."
This is the idea that if you treat people with mercy (forgiveness) they will in turn do that for you when you wrong them. It also speaks to respecting others and your outlook on judgment (do you judge too critically?). The call is to be someone who can forgive others because sometimes 'they know not what they are doing'. It is also the higher principle in judgment, having mercy as your basis for judging others and not condemnation.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
Pure in heart? This seems to relate back to the last point 'treating others as you want to be treated'. It's about developing ethics based on these 'blessed' statements and developing an attitude of salvation (you can actively help others) and not judgment (being critical of others to their detriment). It is a pure thing to have a vision of seeing humans as God's creation and then treating them thusly. Not only are you seeing the human side of a person but you recognize their link back to God (as His creation)...so you do see God in helping them and sharing with them. This statement directly relates to Jesus' parable on the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
This speaks to the heart of the gospel (Jesus' teachings), it is called the 'gospel of peace'...meaning these words of Jesus should always reflect peace and nothing else. It plays a reference to knowing God in that being called a 'child of God' is being called part of God's family (there is no higher praise for a human than this). So the child of God is a child of peace and decides in all situations that division, destruction, violence, hate, seperation, and war are all ideals of a human mind-frame (limited thinking). There is nothing greater than knowing you partner with God in any situation that brings peace.
"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
It is a little known fact that some people will not like you for the sake of 'doing the right thing', as proven in history, which comes from seeking the right answers to tough questions (ex: segregation, in-equality, racism, class systems). Doing the right thing doesn't always mean people are going to hold your hands up as a champion, no...they might hate you if it is too hard against the status quo (ex: see the civil rights of African Americans in the 1900's). Helping others on a personal level might mean you are subject to harsh criticism's, judgment by friends, avoidance, and outright dislike towards you (it does happen). This can happen once you decide to help the oppressed, down-trodden, poor, depressed, criminal, etc..and fly in the face of the norm.
"Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
This is the same speech as the previous one and means the same thing except for one little addition 'because of me'. This means you are standing up for the 'right things' (same as above) but you also are recognized as a follower of Jesus (more for it's time period 1st Century AD). But the fact Jesus taps his name on the end of it does mean He is aware of the animosity people will have for these teachings (and following Jesus' teachings can make you a target). What is also different is the fact these people might be 'killed' for what they believe (that's what happened to many of the prophets who claimed to have messages from God). Rejoice in the fact you are hated? Points to a central teaching of Jesus, everlasting life or a heaven (resurrection & life after death). So focus your effort's on earthly situations, but your reward is from beyond this earth.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
The Fool Says 'There is no God'
I just finishing watching a video for the Edge of Faith boys about this scripture 'The fool has said in his heart there is no God, they are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good' (Psalm 14:1) The person who made the video tried to make a point that these people aren't fools and they do good so this scritpture is wrong. Point noted. But it got me questioning the intentions of humanity behind the sciences (since I was told religion should hold up to science if I want to see if it is valid). This is where the premise gets murky.
There are various fields within science: Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Environmental Studies, Medicine, Physics, Computer Science, Social Sciences (ex: history, Psychology, Sociology), Political Science, and even the math's have been considered part of the equation. Now I have learned a lot from the sciences and I do place value upon their findings, however I also admit there is drawbacks. Science is not altogther an ethical stronghold to say the least. The question I put to science is 'does the good outweigh the bad'?
In the field of Biology we have come to determine that humans have evolved. We have classified animals, mammals, plants, reptiles, birds, etc. The greatest quote from evolutionary minds is 'only the strong survive'. What exactly is strong supposed to mean, I have heard that quote twisted in many ways so as to determine certain strong characteristics will remain while others dissipate due to weakness. Oddly, enough our belief in God must not be a 'weak' charateristic since it has remained with us from the beginning of civilizations. Even if we have less proof for God than we think the fact is the belief has remained. Evolution proposes no real ethic either which is problematic. Following 'only the strong will survive' and the belief we are nothing better than a 'mammal' to the Nth degree leads to a shallow ethic...an ethic where scientists cross the line with no regards for humanity.
Chemistry, what can I say about you? I like the fact we know the chemical make-up of things on this planet but this has nonetheless opened a 'pandora's box'. In one hand we like to know the chemical processes behind our universe while on the other hand we have discovered new ways of war and pollution. The use of chemicals in warfare proposes such a crazy threat, unheard of in history, that all kinds of new diseases will appear from warfare. As much as I like the use of bathroom fresheners the use of chemicals in spray bottles was our first wake-up to the fact the ozone is depleting. Not to mention the use of pesticides and other forms of poisons used on weeds and agriculture that we breath in not knowing what the outcome of that will all be. We do know of certain cases in the past where chemicals have caused deformity in child-birth yet we persist that our mass use of chemicals in this age will do nothing. Cancer has spiked in the last 2 decades - along with hordes of other diseases, we can blame Mcdonald's all we want but take a good look at the amount of chemicals you use on a daily basis, I'm just saying it's worth looking into. Also I could care less about uranium and it's make-up but some physicist did.
Physics is the 'creme de la creme' of the science world. Not only do we get wonderful ideas about the universe from it, there is quantum physics, the idea of time travel, gravity, etc. Now some of these are the greatest discoveries of all time but one discovery really takes the cake, it's the one that has caused mass hysteria in humanity since it's inception...the evolution of energy. I am talking about atomic, hydrogen, and the nuclear family. If it wasn't for this discovery we wouldn't have nuclear reactors and energy sources that power plants could use that for one, completely kill the environment. Since it was so safe for the enivronment we decided we should make a human version of it, we called it a nuclear bomb. This little baby and the amount of them on earth have anough power to wipe humanity (and life in general) clean off the face of the planet not once, not twice, but 7 times over. This is the most horrific weapon known to humanity ever and is the one weapon that is both being used to control it & ensure it's destruction. It even had the inventor prophesying ''Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.". If the inventor never questioned the intention then why should you. Thank you Robert Oppenheimer and all the other greats who added to his work...now we are assured the earth will never be a safe place. Add physics + chemistry + biology + no foundational ethic = Oppenheimer's prophecy.
Medicine is one of the great sciences. It has produced both cures and prescriptions for human ailments throughout history. Medicine seems to be one of the scientific fields excelling at 'doing good for humanity'. Science used in the right frame of mind can create productive outcomes. But the field is only playing catch-up to the ills the other sciences created and it's losing by a long stretch. There is no cure for cancer, Aids, multiple sclerosis, parkinsons, dementia, schizophrenia, Post-traumatic diseases, Lupus, and a host of other diseases we have discovered. We can get pills to prolong our life but we cannot cure these ills. This field also helped to develop meth, speed, riddlin, steroids, LSD, lethal injections and other drugs that can mess up the human system. Not to mention there is host of pills on the market (just watch for the commercials) with side effects causing heart rate exceleration, side effects to pregnant mothers, nausea, severe headaches, blurred vision, and of course diarrhea. I'll also tap on anti-depressants and drugs to get me hard for 4 hours...which seem to be an emphasis these days. So I like medicine but to say it's a saviour of some sort is benign, like this tumor they can never cure.
Lastly, the social sciences & Political science, brothers from the same mother...human ideology. Now social sciences & political science have helped us to evaluate the human mind & function, our role in society, our history on planet earth, and human thought. I think these fields have tonnes of knowledge to offer and anyone wise would check it out immediately. However, the call to ethics for science comes mostly from these fields and that's also noteworthy. Psychology is alright for stating the human condition & development but beyond that it offers answers only found in medicine, okay great. I still know some pills will help balance the schizo, depressed, bi-polar, and post-traumatic but never fully cure them (and we'll settle for that). Sociology will state how we behave in societies and the problems we develop but it will turn to ideology to solve them (ex: crime, punishment, sexism, bigotry, etc). Where does ideology come from, usually a governmental system.
Political science will pose alternatives on how to live in a civil manner amongst one another, monetary beliefs, war, punishment, etc. Political science is the field that invented ethnocentricism (colonialism), poverty/class systems, slavery, warfare & the reasons behind it, land and country, nationalism, law making & court systems, land division based on a ruling system, Facism, etc. Ethically the system is flawed and will never devise something fitting for the human race, since politics is becoming more the rule of the leader and less 'for the people by the people'. I don't expect political science to hold answers to the biggest questions anyways and all they are concerned about is human existence within the structure (which may mean stripping you of freedoms like speech, religion, and ownership). However, it is this science that controls the rest of the sciences since they control the means of production - money. They both regulate business and decide on investment. So if they demand of a science they will get results, which smacks of a bias on a poiltical viewpoint. How do you think the 'bomb' came into existence? Who decides whether 'stem-cell research' is appropriate? Who will decide if euthanasia is acceptable? When the political scientists get the 'wheels' spinning they will get what they are looking for and that my friends is called an 'agenda'.
So in the end we 'the fool says in his heart there is no God, there ways are corrupt and vile, and there in none that does good'. It may appear as if there is some that do good but in the end it is humans that control the sciences and where it will peruse next. In that searching we will find the answers to many of the social ills facing society but it will also produce the next batch of dilemma's. You see we developed a bomb in a war to stop Hitler & Japan but now that bomb lays dormant waiting on it's use (which is why they build them). Even in that act of good I see the evil waiting in the wings. In my opinion science without ethical virtue is like a human with the bomb. Maybe in the end of this journey we will find out what was really meant by the ethic 'only the strong survive'.
There are various fields within science: Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Environmental Studies, Medicine, Physics, Computer Science, Social Sciences (ex: history, Psychology, Sociology), Political Science, and even the math's have been considered part of the equation. Now I have learned a lot from the sciences and I do place value upon their findings, however I also admit there is drawbacks. Science is not altogther an ethical stronghold to say the least. The question I put to science is 'does the good outweigh the bad'?
In the field of Biology we have come to determine that humans have evolved. We have classified animals, mammals, plants, reptiles, birds, etc. The greatest quote from evolutionary minds is 'only the strong survive'. What exactly is strong supposed to mean, I have heard that quote twisted in many ways so as to determine certain strong characteristics will remain while others dissipate due to weakness. Oddly, enough our belief in God must not be a 'weak' charateristic since it has remained with us from the beginning of civilizations. Even if we have less proof for God than we think the fact is the belief has remained. Evolution proposes no real ethic either which is problematic. Following 'only the strong will survive' and the belief we are nothing better than a 'mammal' to the Nth degree leads to a shallow ethic...an ethic where scientists cross the line with no regards for humanity.
Chemistry, what can I say about you? I like the fact we know the chemical make-up of things on this planet but this has nonetheless opened a 'pandora's box'. In one hand we like to know the chemical processes behind our universe while on the other hand we have discovered new ways of war and pollution. The use of chemicals in warfare proposes such a crazy threat, unheard of in history, that all kinds of new diseases will appear from warfare. As much as I like the use of bathroom fresheners the use of chemicals in spray bottles was our first wake-up to the fact the ozone is depleting. Not to mention the use of pesticides and other forms of poisons used on weeds and agriculture that we breath in not knowing what the outcome of that will all be. We do know of certain cases in the past where chemicals have caused deformity in child-birth yet we persist that our mass use of chemicals in this age will do nothing. Cancer has spiked in the last 2 decades - along with hordes of other diseases, we can blame Mcdonald's all we want but take a good look at the amount of chemicals you use on a daily basis, I'm just saying it's worth looking into. Also I could care less about uranium and it's make-up but some physicist did.
Physics is the 'creme de la creme' of the science world. Not only do we get wonderful ideas about the universe from it, there is quantum physics, the idea of time travel, gravity, etc. Now some of these are the greatest discoveries of all time but one discovery really takes the cake, it's the one that has caused mass hysteria in humanity since it's inception...the evolution of energy. I am talking about atomic, hydrogen, and the nuclear family. If it wasn't for this discovery we wouldn't have nuclear reactors and energy sources that power plants could use that for one, completely kill the environment. Since it was so safe for the enivronment we decided we should make a human version of it, we called it a nuclear bomb. This little baby and the amount of them on earth have anough power to wipe humanity (and life in general) clean off the face of the planet not once, not twice, but 7 times over. This is the most horrific weapon known to humanity ever and is the one weapon that is both being used to control it & ensure it's destruction. It even had the inventor prophesying ''Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.". If the inventor never questioned the intention then why should you. Thank you Robert Oppenheimer and all the other greats who added to his work...now we are assured the earth will never be a safe place. Add physics + chemistry + biology + no foundational ethic = Oppenheimer's prophecy.
Medicine is one of the great sciences. It has produced both cures and prescriptions for human ailments throughout history. Medicine seems to be one of the scientific fields excelling at 'doing good for humanity'. Science used in the right frame of mind can create productive outcomes. But the field is only playing catch-up to the ills the other sciences created and it's losing by a long stretch. There is no cure for cancer, Aids, multiple sclerosis, parkinsons, dementia, schizophrenia, Post-traumatic diseases, Lupus, and a host of other diseases we have discovered. We can get pills to prolong our life but we cannot cure these ills. This field also helped to develop meth, speed, riddlin, steroids, LSD, lethal injections and other drugs that can mess up the human system. Not to mention there is host of pills on the market (just watch for the commercials) with side effects causing heart rate exceleration, side effects to pregnant mothers, nausea, severe headaches, blurred vision, and of course diarrhea. I'll also tap on anti-depressants and drugs to get me hard for 4 hours...which seem to be an emphasis these days. So I like medicine but to say it's a saviour of some sort is benign, like this tumor they can never cure.
Lastly, the social sciences & Political science, brothers from the same mother...human ideology. Now social sciences & political science have helped us to evaluate the human mind & function, our role in society, our history on planet earth, and human thought. I think these fields have tonnes of knowledge to offer and anyone wise would check it out immediately. However, the call to ethics for science comes mostly from these fields and that's also noteworthy. Psychology is alright for stating the human condition & development but beyond that it offers answers only found in medicine, okay great. I still know some pills will help balance the schizo, depressed, bi-polar, and post-traumatic but never fully cure them (and we'll settle for that). Sociology will state how we behave in societies and the problems we develop but it will turn to ideology to solve them (ex: crime, punishment, sexism, bigotry, etc). Where does ideology come from, usually a governmental system.
Political science will pose alternatives on how to live in a civil manner amongst one another, monetary beliefs, war, punishment, etc. Political science is the field that invented ethnocentricism (colonialism), poverty/class systems, slavery, warfare & the reasons behind it, land and country, nationalism, law making & court systems, land division based on a ruling system, Facism, etc. Ethically the system is flawed and will never devise something fitting for the human race, since politics is becoming more the rule of the leader and less 'for the people by the people'. I don't expect political science to hold answers to the biggest questions anyways and all they are concerned about is human existence within the structure (which may mean stripping you of freedoms like speech, religion, and ownership). However, it is this science that controls the rest of the sciences since they control the means of production - money. They both regulate business and decide on investment. So if they demand of a science they will get results, which smacks of a bias on a poiltical viewpoint. How do you think the 'bomb' came into existence? Who decides whether 'stem-cell research' is appropriate? Who will decide if euthanasia is acceptable? When the political scientists get the 'wheels' spinning they will get what they are looking for and that my friends is called an 'agenda'.
So in the end we 'the fool says in his heart there is no God, there ways are corrupt and vile, and there in none that does good'. It may appear as if there is some that do good but in the end it is humans that control the sciences and where it will peruse next. In that searching we will find the answers to many of the social ills facing society but it will also produce the next batch of dilemma's. You see we developed a bomb in a war to stop Hitler & Japan but now that bomb lays dormant waiting on it's use (which is why they build them). Even in that act of good I see the evil waiting in the wings. In my opinion science without ethical virtue is like a human with the bomb. Maybe in the end of this journey we will find out what was really meant by the ethic 'only the strong survive'.
Monday, July 24, 2006
It's A Narrow Road Alright
I have had it with people that are narrow-minded. They have a black n white world-view and believe people outside their frame of mind are going to hell. I just think that is too narrow of a road for anyone to follow and reminds me of the Pharisee's traditions. Here's what I mean.
Scripture has to be 100% accurate and be error-free. What irks me is not that they believe that but they live contrary to their own belief system...but expect you to buy into it 100% no questions asked. They are hypocrites half the time in trying to define error-free faith. It's 'judge not' but the way they use judgement as a deterrent makes you wonder. Jesus hangs with sinners but the church calls it the 'world' and to be avoided at any means. It's a God of love but the church finds Him to be a God of seperation & exclusivity (just for the saved). Salvation is the message of the gospel (solely almost) and 'good works' is seen as damaging to your faith because it will fool you. Even if the book was 'error-free' then we still have this problem on our hands...the church's interpretation is making it null n void.
I see the church in a different light over the past 6 to 7 years, seeing the strength of their hypocrisy in 'teaching one ethic' but living 'another ethic'. If you question the structure you basically question God. If you leave the structure, you basically leave God too. Now I might be gullible enough to believe that if the church 'practiced what is in that book'. However, they do not and some of the same things Jesus says to the Pharisee's has come full circle to be said to the church. Just what did Jesus say to the Pharisee's? I go to Matthew 23.
1. "Therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." Hmmmm...did I just read that right.
2. "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger". Could he mean laws & regulations we have to follow to stay a Christian, the same ones we condemn ourselves by?
3. "But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men;...They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men." You don't say. I have seen that somewhere recently.
4. "You shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. " I always wondered why it was so hard to be saved and accepted by a loving God.
5. "You devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers". The houses thing I don't see very often but those prayers, are those the same ones where people pray for you and literally tell how much this person knows about scripture.
6. "You travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. " That's actually a little ironic when the trend in some churches is to scare people with 'hell' to get them into church in the 1st place.
7. "You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it." Seems to be some mix-up, did the Pharisee's think the altar and the temple were to be honored? Reminds me of some churches that think the structure is as important as God.
8. "You tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others." So we should gather resources and be involved in our community?
9. "You clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence". So don't say anything bad in church or feel down and dress nicely with smiles on always. Robbery & self-indulgence, I can think of 2 cases in the 80's about this.
10. "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." Kind of like being better than some people, let's say people of the 'world'.
11. "For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous." Let's see I have been hearing this spiel for some time now, 'we need to return to what our fore-fathers, those Puritans, taught and how they shaped this country'. Oh those Puritans, same one's that taught First Nations people were 'savage heathens' and oppressed African Americans. Good times really.
11. "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city." I may be going out on a limb here but is the church getting some people sent to it to help change it's direction and they drive them out of there...calling them, let's see...heretics, ungodly, anathema, back-slidders, apostate sinners with a 'seared' conscience. Weird.
So do I think the church fits into some of these categories, yes I do (the vow one, not so much). But I see a reason for change in mainstream church and if you don't agree, well check out your local neighborhood church and get real involved...might find out that I am onto something, well not me, Jesus taught me this.
Scripture has to be 100% accurate and be error-free. What irks me is not that they believe that but they live contrary to their own belief system...but expect you to buy into it 100% no questions asked. They are hypocrites half the time in trying to define error-free faith. It's 'judge not' but the way they use judgement as a deterrent makes you wonder. Jesus hangs with sinners but the church calls it the 'world' and to be avoided at any means. It's a God of love but the church finds Him to be a God of seperation & exclusivity (just for the saved). Salvation is the message of the gospel (solely almost) and 'good works' is seen as damaging to your faith because it will fool you. Even if the book was 'error-free' then we still have this problem on our hands...the church's interpretation is making it null n void.
I see the church in a different light over the past 6 to 7 years, seeing the strength of their hypocrisy in 'teaching one ethic' but living 'another ethic'. If you question the structure you basically question God. If you leave the structure, you basically leave God too. Now I might be gullible enough to believe that if the church 'practiced what is in that book'. However, they do not and some of the same things Jesus says to the Pharisee's has come full circle to be said to the church. Just what did Jesus say to the Pharisee's? I go to Matthew 23.
1. "Therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." Hmmmm...did I just read that right.
2. "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger". Could he mean laws & regulations we have to follow to stay a Christian, the same ones we condemn ourselves by?
3. "But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men;...They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men." You don't say. I have seen that somewhere recently.
4. "You shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. " I always wondered why it was so hard to be saved and accepted by a loving God.
5. "You devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers". The houses thing I don't see very often but those prayers, are those the same ones where people pray for you and literally tell how much this person knows about scripture.
6. "You travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. " That's actually a little ironic when the trend in some churches is to scare people with 'hell' to get them into church in the 1st place.
7. "You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it." Seems to be some mix-up, did the Pharisee's think the altar and the temple were to be honored? Reminds me of some churches that think the structure is as important as God.
8. "You tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others." So we should gather resources and be involved in our community?
9. "You clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence". So don't say anything bad in church or feel down and dress nicely with smiles on always. Robbery & self-indulgence, I can think of 2 cases in the 80's about this.
10. "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." Kind of like being better than some people, let's say people of the 'world'.
11. "For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous." Let's see I have been hearing this spiel for some time now, 'we need to return to what our fore-fathers, those Puritans, taught and how they shaped this country'. Oh those Puritans, same one's that taught First Nations people were 'savage heathens' and oppressed African Americans. Good times really.
11. "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city." I may be going out on a limb here but is the church getting some people sent to it to help change it's direction and they drive them out of there...calling them, let's see...heretics, ungodly, anathema, back-slidders, apostate sinners with a 'seared' conscience. Weird.
So do I think the church fits into some of these categories, yes I do (the vow one, not so much). But I see a reason for change in mainstream church and if you don't agree, well check out your local neighborhood church and get real involved...might find out that I am onto something, well not me, Jesus taught me this.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
You Are What You Are? You Are Spiritual?
I live a very weird life. I am very introspective about life and try to internalize the knowledge and bits of information that always bombard me. I can't say I successfully do that all the time but I am trying to grasp all views of all people. This is a blog about why we do things and see the things the way we do, I call it PRTA.
Perspective - The first thing we bring to any situation is our perspective, our paradigm, our world-view. Somehow we made sense of this world around us and developed a way of dealing with it, we developed a perspective. In every situation we face we will add our perspective to it.
Can a perspective be right? I think there are some truths but perspective's are our slant on things (personal). Life is firstly perspective. I drink pop but some people (Mormons) find caffeine reprehensible and it should not be consumed (who's right?). Pop isn't the healthiest choice and maybe that defines their belief or maybe it's forbidden by God, I am not totally sure why that's a belief of theirs. If they can convince me to stop drinking pop well I just might, perspectives do change after all. A perspective is what drives your core beliefs. Core beliefs may be seen as 'true' until another perspective shows otherwise. Basically, as humans we are in a state of 'flux' in a world that is infinite. We have 'our point of view' and none others. We are changed by the things around us whether that be a car accident, something we read, someone's affair, someone is healed...everything plays a part in how we will define the world. As I said that changes.
Reaction - We live from a 'perspective' but we are changed by our reactions to new information we process; we react to things around us. Someone may believe that God is a healer, I mean that is what Jesus did a lot of. Then you pray for someone to get healed and they don't, they actually perish. You feel like your faith let you down, at least that's what you're told. But you question that and notice 'yeah you may have doubted a bit' but healing doesn't hinge upon you anyways, it's God's act. You start the chain reaction of questioning your core belief. Eventually you come to a new more moderate belief that doesn't condemn you for having 'too little faith'. You start to say 'that was God's will' and there was very little you could of done outside His will. By reacting you change the very nature of the way you believe, your view of God, and your view of yourself. Reaction is this, your view of a bullet changes when your the one shot, not shooting. But reaction is the 2nd step in a change of direction. Timing is everything.
Timing - Things happen in a certain time-frame, seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, etc. Some things happen in a few seconds, like a car accident, but linger for a few months. Some things happen in seconds like being shot or punched (little time to react). Some things take months, like preganancy, while birth may take hours. And some things take a longer time, like a war that may take years to resolve.
When things happen they happen in a time-frame, you have time to collect yourself (perspective), react to the situation, and then develop an outcome (action)...and that time-frame means a lot. When considering beliefs, you have a lifetime to decide what you truly believe since that may be allotted to you. When being robbed you have precious seconds to develop a paradigm for the situation and usually you're at a loss for words. But in both situations your ideas about life will change. The person challenging his beliefs 'chips away at the stone' for months perhaps; the person robbed develops feelings of fear (in an instant) that grow into ideas of 'protection' at all costs so as to never feel like a victim again. Perspective and reactions are subject to the present time you find yourself in. Now it's time to act.
Action - The inevitable result of living. I have a paradigm, I react to situations, and then I act upon what changes I have made (or not made). Actions do not proceed before belief, even the robber knows that he wants 'money' so thusly he acts; the person being robbed tries to think of what to do then he acts (even if out of fear). We are defined by our actions. Someone who is called a 'pedophile' didn't earn that because they won spelling bees. Someone called a 'doctor' didn't earn the name mowing lawns. They earned it by their actions which accordingly enough fit the name they are called.
We commit actions because that's what we are, humans 'being'. Our perspectives only change when actions accompany them, to solidify the belief. You won't do something you don't believe in. Mormons won't drink caffeine because they don't believe in it. I do however. Here is how it all fits together. My perspective about guns is that there is nothing wrong with them and all people should own one, if only for protection. I see the Columbine incident and all of a sudden I react in horror to 2 teens gunning down other teens with sub-machine weapons, for the sole case of murdering these innocent children. My reaction causes a change in my original perspective because now I think guns of that magnitude are of no use in society and should definitely not be in city homes. I then take action upon my belief. I discard my weapons (a handgun) and tell others that this is the right thing to do. Ta da.
So who cares? Well for one I do. Knowing this process makes you privy to many things. Firstly, you change the lives of indivduals around you daily with your actions, which in turn causes someone to react and change their perspective. You are what you eat, think, drink, dream, fantasize, read, watch, etc...dependant on how you internalize that stuff. Others are then at your whim because your perspective may be a driving force in someone else's life. It sounds like a big responsibility, well it isn't...that's exactly who you are. You will help others define themselves as they come into contact with you.
Secondly, who the hell are you? If you don't know then you best find out right away. You need to struglle internally with that question until you produce answers befitting your character. You need to know what you believe and why you believe it. You need to look at your reactions and question that. Basically, you need a world-view, a pardigm to live life...those without it get lost in a world of unending knowledge and dismay. If you don't know yourself and your capabilities then one day you will surprise yourself and that reaction may trouble you (and effect others).
Thirdly, no one person that I have seen has all the answers. It's alright to claim you do but you'd be lieing out your teeth. Many experiences will come your way and change the very foundation you thought was a 'rock', for no man is a rock. But even rocks are shaped by the flowing stream over time. You have a paradigm right now that is subject to change. So does every other person around you. You are not always right or always wrong but you are 'always' something. We hate to believe we don't have all the answers but to claim otherwise is just nieve.
Lastly, there is a time for everything and when these times come we have to prepare ourselves. That is why we build paradigms so we can react adequately to life and life unexpected. Without a paradigm or set of core beliefs to fall back on we are like a wild animal on concrete streets, we don't have a clue how to react to these surroundings. We have to be prepared to face the inevitable and the unknown because that's exactly what tomorrow is. But the better building and refining of our perspective the better we will roll with the situation.
What's the point? You are a spiritual being and everything you do means something. We should take heart that we mean so much to so many, although they will rarely tell you. It's a human point of view but that's all I really have to work from.
Perspective - The first thing we bring to any situation is our perspective, our paradigm, our world-view. Somehow we made sense of this world around us and developed a way of dealing with it, we developed a perspective. In every situation we face we will add our perspective to it.
Can a perspective be right? I think there are some truths but perspective's are our slant on things (personal). Life is firstly perspective. I drink pop but some people (Mormons) find caffeine reprehensible and it should not be consumed (who's right?). Pop isn't the healthiest choice and maybe that defines their belief or maybe it's forbidden by God, I am not totally sure why that's a belief of theirs. If they can convince me to stop drinking pop well I just might, perspectives do change after all. A perspective is what drives your core beliefs. Core beliefs may be seen as 'true' until another perspective shows otherwise. Basically, as humans we are in a state of 'flux' in a world that is infinite. We have 'our point of view' and none others. We are changed by the things around us whether that be a car accident, something we read, someone's affair, someone is healed...everything plays a part in how we will define the world. As I said that changes.
Reaction - We live from a 'perspective' but we are changed by our reactions to new information we process; we react to things around us. Someone may believe that God is a healer, I mean that is what Jesus did a lot of. Then you pray for someone to get healed and they don't, they actually perish. You feel like your faith let you down, at least that's what you're told. But you question that and notice 'yeah you may have doubted a bit' but healing doesn't hinge upon you anyways, it's God's act. You start the chain reaction of questioning your core belief. Eventually you come to a new more moderate belief that doesn't condemn you for having 'too little faith'. You start to say 'that was God's will' and there was very little you could of done outside His will. By reacting you change the very nature of the way you believe, your view of God, and your view of yourself. Reaction is this, your view of a bullet changes when your the one shot, not shooting. But reaction is the 2nd step in a change of direction. Timing is everything.
Timing - Things happen in a certain time-frame, seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, etc. Some things happen in a few seconds, like a car accident, but linger for a few months. Some things happen in seconds like being shot or punched (little time to react). Some things take months, like preganancy, while birth may take hours. And some things take a longer time, like a war that may take years to resolve.
When things happen they happen in a time-frame, you have time to collect yourself (perspective), react to the situation, and then develop an outcome (action)...and that time-frame means a lot. When considering beliefs, you have a lifetime to decide what you truly believe since that may be allotted to you. When being robbed you have precious seconds to develop a paradigm for the situation and usually you're at a loss for words. But in both situations your ideas about life will change. The person challenging his beliefs 'chips away at the stone' for months perhaps; the person robbed develops feelings of fear (in an instant) that grow into ideas of 'protection' at all costs so as to never feel like a victim again. Perspective and reactions are subject to the present time you find yourself in. Now it's time to act.
Action - The inevitable result of living. I have a paradigm, I react to situations, and then I act upon what changes I have made (or not made). Actions do not proceed before belief, even the robber knows that he wants 'money' so thusly he acts; the person being robbed tries to think of what to do then he acts (even if out of fear). We are defined by our actions. Someone who is called a 'pedophile' didn't earn that because they won spelling bees. Someone called a 'doctor' didn't earn the name mowing lawns. They earned it by their actions which accordingly enough fit the name they are called.
We commit actions because that's what we are, humans 'being'. Our perspectives only change when actions accompany them, to solidify the belief. You won't do something you don't believe in. Mormons won't drink caffeine because they don't believe in it. I do however. Here is how it all fits together. My perspective about guns is that there is nothing wrong with them and all people should own one, if only for protection. I see the Columbine incident and all of a sudden I react in horror to 2 teens gunning down other teens with sub-machine weapons, for the sole case of murdering these innocent children. My reaction causes a change in my original perspective because now I think guns of that magnitude are of no use in society and should definitely not be in city homes. I then take action upon my belief. I discard my weapons (a handgun) and tell others that this is the right thing to do. Ta da.
So who cares? Well for one I do. Knowing this process makes you privy to many things. Firstly, you change the lives of indivduals around you daily with your actions, which in turn causes someone to react and change their perspective. You are what you eat, think, drink, dream, fantasize, read, watch, etc...dependant on how you internalize that stuff. Others are then at your whim because your perspective may be a driving force in someone else's life. It sounds like a big responsibility, well it isn't...that's exactly who you are. You will help others define themselves as they come into contact with you.
Secondly, who the hell are you? If you don't know then you best find out right away. You need to struglle internally with that question until you produce answers befitting your character. You need to know what you believe and why you believe it. You need to look at your reactions and question that. Basically, you need a world-view, a pardigm to live life...those without it get lost in a world of unending knowledge and dismay. If you don't know yourself and your capabilities then one day you will surprise yourself and that reaction may trouble you (and effect others).
Thirdly, no one person that I have seen has all the answers. It's alright to claim you do but you'd be lieing out your teeth. Many experiences will come your way and change the very foundation you thought was a 'rock', for no man is a rock. But even rocks are shaped by the flowing stream over time. You have a paradigm right now that is subject to change. So does every other person around you. You are not always right or always wrong but you are 'always' something. We hate to believe we don't have all the answers but to claim otherwise is just nieve.
Lastly, there is a time for everything and when these times come we have to prepare ourselves. That is why we build paradigms so we can react adequately to life and life unexpected. Without a paradigm or set of core beliefs to fall back on we are like a wild animal on concrete streets, we don't have a clue how to react to these surroundings. We have to be prepared to face the inevitable and the unknown because that's exactly what tomorrow is. But the better building and refining of our perspective the better we will roll with the situation.
What's the point? You are a spiritual being and everything you do means something. We should take heart that we mean so much to so many, although they will rarely tell you. It's a human point of view but that's all I really have to work from.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
The Crux: The Point Where Reality Overtakes Fiction
I was just reading my brother's blog today and he came across a marvelous quote from Martin Luther King Jr. I have decided to dedicate a blog to it.
"I must honestly reiterate that I have been dissapointed with the Church, I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the Church . I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church....I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"I like this passage because it demonstrates the philosophy that "every brother ain't a brother." King and his followers were going through the toughest challenge of their lives while the people they thought were friends turned their back and said nothing; more importantly they did nothing. I think it's a good lesson." - John Bird
Strong quotes about the state of the church, like 40 years ago! Funny these are the same churches today (Southern Baptists & the Religious Right) that both defend war with Iraq and support anything for the 'Nationalistic' pride of God, which I never knew he had. I will paint this with an all too familiar brush from the past so we can see what beloved Christian religion is steeped in, and it ain't no rock I can tell you that...more like waves of ambiguity.
King Jr. was a minister of the gospel of Christ, no more than that...he lived it out. When civil rights was in it's beginnings King Jr. took his beliefs and joined the rally, even led it. He knew that 'all men were created equal' and that segregation was an oppressive force leading to the ruin of African-American neighborhoods. So he sat at the counter's and ate with African-American students, lead peaceful marches through the south, decided to ride the bus with Rosa, got hounded, persecuted, arrested, and thrown in jail by police, and even gave his life to the movement...all he wanted wanted was freedom. What did the church do? Well some came out but by his own admission '"I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents" (King Jr.)
So the southern church never backed the equality of the African-American, I wonder why? Doesn't Christ teach us that we are all equal? Does Jesus love some races more than others? Is the church 'middle-class' white folk who don't give 2 dimes to the impoverished? It's funny but I see the hypocrisy of the church in this enlightened age where we are 100% sure that God never thought one race was better than the other. Southern church never expected one thing, God would call upon them to 'take up the cross' and walk to their shame, persecution, and possibly death for fellow brothers in Christ. Why did they not expect it? They had money and respect amongst their peers, to do so would mean forfeiting that stuff to be shamed amongst their communities. They may have debated over 'God or money', we don't know, but we stand here today knowing they backed the wrong side.
I guess the real 'rub' in the story is why didn't more southern white church folk stand up and 'condemn' their fellow brothers & sisters for being 'un-godly'? And fear being thrown out of the community of God also, can I hear a 'hell no'. These people self-justified that they were doing God's will and that doing 'social justice' was just not gospel, it was anti-gospel or so they must of taught (or just turned a blind eye). Where was the voices of reason in an unreasonable generation? The voices of reason were tried alone & died alone...King Jr., Evers, and many others. Don't you think we as a church need to 'speak up' against social ill's like this that plague humanity? Don't we think Christ just might of took up the cross and followed along? WWJD?
I find it absolutely appaling when churches let things slide out of control around them when they have the right (I might say duty) to lend a helping hand. They talk a damn good game about salvation but when the act is called for in modernity 'few there be that follow'.
I just finished learning about a Mormon commune called Bountiful, it's in BC somewhere. This community not only promotes in-breeding, polygamy, deism, but also child abuse (marrying off 15 year olds to 50 year olds). Now I got to wondering if the the local church in the town (within walking distance) has something to say for that situation? Now I can let go the polygamy, in-breeding, and deism but 'child abuse'...well I think they drew a line that we have to 'cross'. Or 'live and let live' and God will sort justice out in the end? I got 1 word for that, bullsh*t.
The church has a duty to go down to Bountiful, at least the church in that nearby town, and at least present choices and options to these oppressed teens. So what if these 'Mormon' priests condemn them and call them every name in the book, these same 'priests' are marrying 15 year olds in the name of the same God we worship. I say at the least, present them the 'good news' of Christ and start setting up shelters for these young women. If that town cannot do that then I can't imagine them on the day of Tyre and Sidon's judgment. Ouch, too critical.
I am just saying speak out at injustices that are obvious injustices, be the responsible body of Christ. Injustices are happening around us all the time and the church focuses it's attentions on the damn dumbest things like gay marriage, prayer in school, 10 commandments in courts, and in-fighting with other denominations over 'gospel' validity and interpretation. Problem is there are real social injustices that need to be stood against and problems that need to be addressed with answers.
Oh, we can wait for gov't to step in and maybe 'Koresh' the situation, or maybe they'll just keep up with the 'Jones's'...still maybe if some other 'God-believing' people stepped in they might see a better outcome seeing we come from a similar perspective. You see what they knew about Waco and in Jonestown was something simple we haven't quite learned yet...people of faith might have been able to persuade people away from these 'radical' theologies coming from similar footing. I still don't see why that is something the church cannot do? We have a voice.
All I am saying is we need to stand-up for 'civil rights' amongst humanity, isn't that what Jesus taught and lived out before us (ex: Samaritan and leprosy issue of his day)? All I know is if I see someone using God for their 'weird' benefit that we have to step in and be the voice of true reason. Let's not pretend we came into a faith that let's us off the hook to the people around us, cause that's not what I read. There are issues out there that are not worth 'looking the other way on' and we as a church have to unite, stand together, and both protest these problems but pool our resources into answers. Jesus really is the answer, now go find the question.
"I must honestly reiterate that I have been dissapointed with the Church, I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the Church . I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church....I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"I like this passage because it demonstrates the philosophy that "every brother ain't a brother." King and his followers were going through the toughest challenge of their lives while the people they thought were friends turned their back and said nothing; more importantly they did nothing. I think it's a good lesson." - John Bird
Strong quotes about the state of the church, like 40 years ago! Funny these are the same churches today (Southern Baptists & the Religious Right) that both defend war with Iraq and support anything for the 'Nationalistic' pride of God, which I never knew he had. I will paint this with an all too familiar brush from the past so we can see what beloved Christian religion is steeped in, and it ain't no rock I can tell you that...more like waves of ambiguity.
King Jr. was a minister of the gospel of Christ, no more than that...he lived it out. When civil rights was in it's beginnings King Jr. took his beliefs and joined the rally, even led it. He knew that 'all men were created equal' and that segregation was an oppressive force leading to the ruin of African-American neighborhoods. So he sat at the counter's and ate with African-American students, lead peaceful marches through the south, decided to ride the bus with Rosa, got hounded, persecuted, arrested, and thrown in jail by police, and even gave his life to the movement...all he wanted wanted was freedom. What did the church do? Well some came out but by his own admission '"I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents" (King Jr.)
So the southern church never backed the equality of the African-American, I wonder why? Doesn't Christ teach us that we are all equal? Does Jesus love some races more than others? Is the church 'middle-class' white folk who don't give 2 dimes to the impoverished? It's funny but I see the hypocrisy of the church in this enlightened age where we are 100% sure that God never thought one race was better than the other. Southern church never expected one thing, God would call upon them to 'take up the cross' and walk to their shame, persecution, and possibly death for fellow brothers in Christ. Why did they not expect it? They had money and respect amongst their peers, to do so would mean forfeiting that stuff to be shamed amongst their communities. They may have debated over 'God or money', we don't know, but we stand here today knowing they backed the wrong side.
I guess the real 'rub' in the story is why didn't more southern white church folk stand up and 'condemn' their fellow brothers & sisters for being 'un-godly'? And fear being thrown out of the community of God also, can I hear a 'hell no'. These people self-justified that they were doing God's will and that doing 'social justice' was just not gospel, it was anti-gospel or so they must of taught (or just turned a blind eye). Where was the voices of reason in an unreasonable generation? The voices of reason were tried alone & died alone...King Jr., Evers, and many others. Don't you think we as a church need to 'speak up' against social ill's like this that plague humanity? Don't we think Christ just might of took up the cross and followed along? WWJD?
I find it absolutely appaling when churches let things slide out of control around them when they have the right (I might say duty) to lend a helping hand. They talk a damn good game about salvation but when the act is called for in modernity 'few there be that follow'.
I just finished learning about a Mormon commune called Bountiful, it's in BC somewhere. This community not only promotes in-breeding, polygamy, deism, but also child abuse (marrying off 15 year olds to 50 year olds). Now I got to wondering if the the local church in the town (within walking distance) has something to say for that situation? Now I can let go the polygamy, in-breeding, and deism but 'child abuse'...well I think they drew a line that we have to 'cross'. Or 'live and let live' and God will sort justice out in the end? I got 1 word for that, bullsh*t.
The church has a duty to go down to Bountiful, at least the church in that nearby town, and at least present choices and options to these oppressed teens. So what if these 'Mormon' priests condemn them and call them every name in the book, these same 'priests' are marrying 15 year olds in the name of the same God we worship. I say at the least, present them the 'good news' of Christ and start setting up shelters for these young women. If that town cannot do that then I can't imagine them on the day of Tyre and Sidon's judgment. Ouch, too critical.
I am just saying speak out at injustices that are obvious injustices, be the responsible body of Christ. Injustices are happening around us all the time and the church focuses it's attentions on the damn dumbest things like gay marriage, prayer in school, 10 commandments in courts, and in-fighting with other denominations over 'gospel' validity and interpretation. Problem is there are real social injustices that need to be stood against and problems that need to be addressed with answers.
Oh, we can wait for gov't to step in and maybe 'Koresh' the situation, or maybe they'll just keep up with the 'Jones's'...still maybe if some other 'God-believing' people stepped in they might see a better outcome seeing we come from a similar perspective. You see what they knew about Waco and in Jonestown was something simple we haven't quite learned yet...people of faith might have been able to persuade people away from these 'radical' theologies coming from similar footing. I still don't see why that is something the church cannot do? We have a voice.
All I am saying is we need to stand-up for 'civil rights' amongst humanity, isn't that what Jesus taught and lived out before us (ex: Samaritan and leprosy issue of his day)? All I know is if I see someone using God for their 'weird' benefit that we have to step in and be the voice of true reason. Let's not pretend we came into a faith that let's us off the hook to the people around us, cause that's not what I read. There are issues out there that are not worth 'looking the other way on' and we as a church have to unite, stand together, and both protest these problems but pool our resources into answers. Jesus really is the answer, now go find the question.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Who is God?: 2 Views of Opposition
“There is much to support the idea that Jesus died for all without need of any help on the part of mankind to complete the work” (FiddlerPaul, a blogger)
Great quote about salvation and what Christ did on behalf of humanity. Funny that quote might sum up the idea behind mainstream church’s idea’s about salvation.I think the church doesn’t believe ‘mankind participated in the cross’ by simply believing or doing…that’s ludicrous. I think mainstream church thinks the cross is the act of salvation but can we refuse that gift? According to Danny Kaye (a blogger) ‘yes’, according to many of the bloggers on YBMT ‘no’. Basically it’s all in perception.
One group says ‘God did it all and man has no choice but to accept it’. Another group says ‘God did it all but man does have a choice to accept it’. That’s the 2 views in a nutshell. Which one is speaking for God? That’s the tough part to figure out. But you don't write blogs to hold back so I'll add my 2 cents in.
What strikes me as odd is that one side is proporting 'free will' and the other says there is no 'free will' within the salvation process (it can't be both). Free will means we have the choice to choose Christ's redemption for our lives by simply believing in Him. No free will means Christ's redemption was automatically calculated onto us, whether we believe in Jesus or not. On one hand I find some judgement, if you don't believe you perish but that is strictly your choice. On the other hand I find it doesn't matter what you believe because God made that choice for you. That's where I have to draw the obvious line, 'chose for me'?
How can a man say to me, God chose for me? What reality is that based on? That's like saying my parents chose to become carpenter's so I have to and my kids have to, etc. Well that's just simply flawed reasoning from any human's point of view, cause I can so choose what my parent's want not (I'll be an electrician). Or it has been deemed by the gov't's of the world the whole world is capitalist now, does that exactly make you one? No. I still have Che Guevera leanings. Free will (decision making) exists in every situation and unbelievably that makes this colorful world what it is (to deny that is to deny absolute reality). But somehow I have to believe God denies us free will.
Here's a short OT lesson from the very start of the bible, Genesis page 1. In the beginning God chose to make the world. He chose 6 days to complete that work. He chose to rest on the 7th day. He then chose to make humanity in 'his image' (which is why I can see we are a prized possession). He chose to make a man, then the man asks for a woman (choice), so God makes him one. Then man chooses to disobey God & believe a serpent in eating an apple from a 'forbidden' tree. Man gets the boot from the garden and this is how sin came into the world. Well, what's the exact moral of that story? We don't have choice in our outcome? God made a decision on our behalf to boot us out? God 'made us in His image all except for the 'choice' part?
I can speak like a man, walk like a man, act like a man, think like a man, but I cannot make a choice like a man. If man was totally redeemed at the cross riddle me this: Why doesn man choose to still commit henious crimes against his fellow brother? Why does Jesus mention 'repentance' and so does Paul/John/Peter (I call it personal responsibility)? How can a man be saved if there is nothing to be saved from? Jesus recognizes choice throughout the gospel and this one should ring loud and clear 'do unto others as you would have done unto you, for this is the Law & the Prophets'. Again, looks like we have a choice to make according to the OT.
I actually can't find a place in the gospels where choice is not part of the equation, whether that be parables or in the stories of Jesus. If Jesus has to make that choice to die on the cross, what makes our 'crosses' any different? The early disciples understood that. If they were preaching such a 'universalist' gospel then why do 2 people drop dead in front of Peter for 'lying' to God? Why in Matthew 25:31-46 is there a dividing up of people (based on choice) when the 'son of man' comes in His kingdom? The only possible reason can be is this: there is a choice to be made.
In the same breath, we are not the determinents of people's salvation (so we have no right to condemn people), that is between them and God; not their faith judged by a church's authority (ex: let's see he's said the prayer, attends church regularily, now all we need is baptism for the tri-vector - to prove himself to the church he is saved). That's what Jesus taught against so a lot of the feelings I read coming from people that leave organized church is justified (see Matthew 6: 1-7 for real faith in God - a little too unsubstantiated for organized religion).
That's why I can draw strength from people that leave the church that preach 'universalism', they've been in this struggle, can't change it, so for freedom's sake they leave...they make themselves more my brothers by admiting the church is failing humanity. I can also say people that say 'salvation is a choice' are my brothers for they also believe in the same Jesus I do, but wait til you get burned and seek God's love and acceptance in full capacity. The rubber hits the road right here, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and I think the 'universalists' have seen the short-comings of mass church practice, I applaud them for God has opened their eyes to see what religion can become. I also applaude the reality of choice taught within churches about salvation, I mean who doesn't want to choose Jesus once the 'real Jesus' is proclaimed. So how's about a big hand for all the believers in Christ...too peacemakerish?
Great quote about salvation and what Christ did on behalf of humanity. Funny that quote might sum up the idea behind mainstream church’s idea’s about salvation.I think the church doesn’t believe ‘mankind participated in the cross’ by simply believing or doing…that’s ludicrous. I think mainstream church thinks the cross is the act of salvation but can we refuse that gift? According to Danny Kaye (a blogger) ‘yes’, according to many of the bloggers on YBMT ‘no’. Basically it’s all in perception.
One group says ‘God did it all and man has no choice but to accept it’. Another group says ‘God did it all but man does have a choice to accept it’. That’s the 2 views in a nutshell. Which one is speaking for God? That’s the tough part to figure out. But you don't write blogs to hold back so I'll add my 2 cents in.
What strikes me as odd is that one side is proporting 'free will' and the other says there is no 'free will' within the salvation process (it can't be both). Free will means we have the choice to choose Christ's redemption for our lives by simply believing in Him. No free will means Christ's redemption was automatically calculated onto us, whether we believe in Jesus or not. On one hand I find some judgement, if you don't believe you perish but that is strictly your choice. On the other hand I find it doesn't matter what you believe because God made that choice for you. That's where I have to draw the obvious line, 'chose for me'?
How can a man say to me, God chose for me? What reality is that based on? That's like saying my parents chose to become carpenter's so I have to and my kids have to, etc. Well that's just simply flawed reasoning from any human's point of view, cause I can so choose what my parent's want not (I'll be an electrician). Or it has been deemed by the gov't's of the world the whole world is capitalist now, does that exactly make you one? No. I still have Che Guevera leanings. Free will (decision making) exists in every situation and unbelievably that makes this colorful world what it is (to deny that is to deny absolute reality). But somehow I have to believe God denies us free will.
Here's a short OT lesson from the very start of the bible, Genesis page 1. In the beginning God chose to make the world. He chose 6 days to complete that work. He chose to rest on the 7th day. He then chose to make humanity in 'his image' (which is why I can see we are a prized possession). He chose to make a man, then the man asks for a woman (choice), so God makes him one. Then man chooses to disobey God & believe a serpent in eating an apple from a 'forbidden' tree. Man gets the boot from the garden and this is how sin came into the world. Well, what's the exact moral of that story? We don't have choice in our outcome? God made a decision on our behalf to boot us out? God 'made us in His image all except for the 'choice' part?
I can speak like a man, walk like a man, act like a man, think like a man, but I cannot make a choice like a man. If man was totally redeemed at the cross riddle me this: Why doesn man choose to still commit henious crimes against his fellow brother? Why does Jesus mention 'repentance' and so does Paul/John/Peter (I call it personal responsibility)? How can a man be saved if there is nothing to be saved from? Jesus recognizes choice throughout the gospel and this one should ring loud and clear 'do unto others as you would have done unto you, for this is the Law & the Prophets'. Again, looks like we have a choice to make according to the OT.
I actually can't find a place in the gospels where choice is not part of the equation, whether that be parables or in the stories of Jesus. If Jesus has to make that choice to die on the cross, what makes our 'crosses' any different? The early disciples understood that. If they were preaching such a 'universalist' gospel then why do 2 people drop dead in front of Peter for 'lying' to God? Why in Matthew 25:31-46 is there a dividing up of people (based on choice) when the 'son of man' comes in His kingdom? The only possible reason can be is this: there is a choice to be made.
In the same breath, we are not the determinents of people's salvation (so we have no right to condemn people), that is between them and God; not their faith judged by a church's authority (ex: let's see he's said the prayer, attends church regularily, now all we need is baptism for the tri-vector - to prove himself to the church he is saved). That's what Jesus taught against so a lot of the feelings I read coming from people that leave organized church is justified (see Matthew 6: 1-7 for real faith in God - a little too unsubstantiated for organized religion).
That's why I can draw strength from people that leave the church that preach 'universalism', they've been in this struggle, can't change it, so for freedom's sake they leave...they make themselves more my brothers by admiting the church is failing humanity. I can also say people that say 'salvation is a choice' are my brothers for they also believe in the same Jesus I do, but wait til you get burned and seek God's love and acceptance in full capacity. The rubber hits the road right here, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and I think the 'universalists' have seen the short-comings of mass church practice, I applaud them for God has opened their eyes to see what religion can become. I also applaude the reality of choice taught within churches about salvation, I mean who doesn't want to choose Jesus once the 'real Jesus' is proclaimed. So how's about a big hand for all the believers in Christ...too peacemakerish?
Friday, June 30, 2006
A 'Slice' of Reality in Laodicea
I have been reading a blog called 'Slice of Laodicea', a religious right blog, and I have been commenting with them for sometime. Recently, they have 'pulled the plug' on me posting comments. Why did they 'pull the plug'? They began arguing with this new link I have called 'smartchristian' and I wrote a comment directed at Christians not denouncing other Christians, it was censored and never put on. This is how I slice this one up.
I think Christians from all types of faiths are 'In Christ' and follow the foundational teaches of Jesus. I figure if that is correct, then aren't we all in the same church? This is Christ's body we are talking about here, not mine or yours, Christ's. I noticed certain sects, judgmental people, want to tear that apart and cause division amongst the brothers/sisters. What do they debate about? The word of God. I guess they are correct in one thing, they rightly divide the 'word'.
Here is my problem with 'Slice' and it's head writer (I won't name names). Firstly, they call out people by name (ex: Rick Warren/Billy Graham) just to judge them and cut them down. Secondly, you are not entitled to an 'opinion' but stick to the what the word of God says (apparently someone has cornered the market & figured the whole thing out, thank God). Thirdly, they speak in such an elitist mind-set that one might believe that the only Christians are these people (so Protestants are going to hell, too bad fellas). Fourthly, everything has to be actually in the word of God for a church to adopt it (goodbye microwave). Finally, their leader decides what this people will accept and what they won't (hello Jim Jones).
Now if you read that and compare it with the gospel it doesn't add up. Actually, one might consider this leader, dare I say it, a 'Pharisee'. Not only that but he betrays the very body of Christ to which he is called. He is filtering out positive messages of forgiveness and acceptance to promote a doctrine of division and slander to those that blog on his site. If you don't agree with him then you don't get posted. To me it is as plain to see as the sun is shining, the man is proud. So proud he will not admit to wrongs, only to being right, and will not consider other believers of various denominations as his brother/sister...top that off, he censors out messages of the acceptance type and allows only divisionary topics...this he teaches to others.
So what messages are coming out of that site? Rick Warren and anyone that follows the 'purpose-driven' life are anti-christs (against Jesus). Trying to be 'modern' with your faith is wrong, we should look up to the Puritans (see last blog for American history). Christian rock music, humor, and plays are right out of the question. Basically, if you can make it seem like you are one of the only 'chosen' ones of God then all is well with the world.
Listen up. You can try as hard as you will but you will never destroy the body of Christ, he chose these people not you. You may not like them and they might not like you but you are brothers and sisters. No amount of scripture you memorize, no amount of judgmental zeal, and no amount of divisionary tactic you produce will change that...why? They are chosen of God also. They believe in Jesus, read His words, and live by them...isn't that the earmark for a Christian? So quit tearing the body of Christ limb from limb, get over your anger, forgive people, and realize this is a God of love & acceptance we worship, not a God of division. Odd fact, even Satan doesn't try this hard to divide his kingdom, lest it should fall.
I think Christians from all types of faiths are 'In Christ' and follow the foundational teaches of Jesus. I figure if that is correct, then aren't we all in the same church? This is Christ's body we are talking about here, not mine or yours, Christ's. I noticed certain sects, judgmental people, want to tear that apart and cause division amongst the brothers/sisters. What do they debate about? The word of God. I guess they are correct in one thing, they rightly divide the 'word'.
Here is my problem with 'Slice' and it's head writer (I won't name names). Firstly, they call out people by name (ex: Rick Warren/Billy Graham) just to judge them and cut them down. Secondly, you are not entitled to an 'opinion' but stick to the what the word of God says (apparently someone has cornered the market & figured the whole thing out, thank God). Thirdly, they speak in such an elitist mind-set that one might believe that the only Christians are these people (so Protestants are going to hell, too bad fellas). Fourthly, everything has to be actually in the word of God for a church to adopt it (goodbye microwave). Finally, their leader decides what this people will accept and what they won't (hello Jim Jones).
Now if you read that and compare it with the gospel it doesn't add up. Actually, one might consider this leader, dare I say it, a 'Pharisee'. Not only that but he betrays the very body of Christ to which he is called. He is filtering out positive messages of forgiveness and acceptance to promote a doctrine of division and slander to those that blog on his site. If you don't agree with him then you don't get posted. To me it is as plain to see as the sun is shining, the man is proud. So proud he will not admit to wrongs, only to being right, and will not consider other believers of various denominations as his brother/sister...top that off, he censors out messages of the acceptance type and allows only divisionary topics...this he teaches to others.
So what messages are coming out of that site? Rick Warren and anyone that follows the 'purpose-driven' life are anti-christs (against Jesus). Trying to be 'modern' with your faith is wrong, we should look up to the Puritans (see last blog for American history). Christian rock music, humor, and plays are right out of the question. Basically, if you can make it seem like you are one of the only 'chosen' ones of God then all is well with the world.
Listen up. You can try as hard as you will but you will never destroy the body of Christ, he chose these people not you. You may not like them and they might not like you but you are brothers and sisters. No amount of scripture you memorize, no amount of judgmental zeal, and no amount of divisionary tactic you produce will change that...why? They are chosen of God also. They believe in Jesus, read His words, and live by them...isn't that the earmark for a Christian? So quit tearing the body of Christ limb from limb, get over your anger, forgive people, and realize this is a God of love & acceptance we worship, not a God of division. Odd fact, even Satan doesn't try this hard to divide his kingdom, lest it should fall.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
The Good Samaritan: A Church His-story
I finished reading an interesting blog about a '95 theses' levelled towards USA churches and the call to back away from Nationalism/Patriotism. I am not American so I could not sign the petition but if they ever get one for Canada, I am signing. It got me thinking about Christians that say the church needs to return to it's 'roots' in both Canada and America...supposedly these countries are founded on Christian ethics. A closer look shows that is non-sensical jargon.
How are we founded on Christian ethics? They like to remind us of our Constitution and the colorful religious language used. How our founding fathers had real faith, and that somehow this faith has dissipated through the age. I look back at the church and laugh it to scorn, I see very little the church has done for equity, justice, and forgiveness...all this while hanging onto the hand of 'big brother' or as I call it 'governmental kingdoms'.
The church has a very shady 'social justice' track record, actually on a real close look one will see they never speak out against government. Here are a few examples.
When America was 'conquered' (colonialism) the invading people's slaughtered American Indian tribes, removed them from their lands, gave them piece-meal lands they never lived on, and even intentionally spread diseases to their people's to wipe them out. Why? Settlers needed a place to live and apparently God had given the land to Europeans & French...funny fact, Aboriginal people's never believed anyone could 'own' the land so they weren't opposed to sharing it. The problem was they were dis-owned and considered 'heathen's, savages, barabarians, etc.'. Where was the church when all this was going on defending the rights of these human beings? They helped the gov't every single step of the way. They built churches and residential schools dis-avowing Aboriginal culture and language. In Canada, the gov't and church robbed a few centuries of parenting from Aboriginal people, thus de-moralizing a nation. What was the church concerned about? Salvation and repentance. Government was building a country and a railroad.
Now America conquered and started building an economy, where do you think they found a cheap workforce? They imposed slavery upon African-Americans (stealing them from Africa) to work in their fields and other businesses. They treated these people less than human (which they considered them to be) and bought, sold, tortured, raped, and killed them as needed. They treated the African-American so bad they considered them livestock, started breeding them even. They destroyed family after family of African-American descendant for financial gain. All the while the church said very little on the practice of slavery, seeing Paul had condoned it they felt justified. Church-goers seeing it not a sin (these were not humans) and slavery was okay, felt little to no remorse. What did the church do? Continued preaching hell-fire and brimstone to whomever would listen. Government was concerned with money and using the land.
Early part of the 1900's and into this new century two world wars broke out. The 2nd World War being even worse than the first with human attrocities that shocked the world: starting with a theory of human superiority, then the persecution of Jewish businesses, then outright damnation of Jewish people, followed by rounding them up and putting them in concentration camps to be killed. None of this was real secret knowledge to mass Germany and Hitler's war of destruction was no secret either. This led to the death of 6 million Jewish people and around 20 million people worldwide. Where was the church? Apparently the Catholic church and whoever else there was, within Germany, bonded with the gov't so as not 'to rock the boat' (I don't forget Bonhoeffer and his efforts). I mean, no one actually wants to be killed for their beliefs. The church became silent in the most deadly hour, forget rapture, they just shut their mouths. Where else was the church? Dividing itself up into many denominations...so we fought against ourselves while this all went down.
What other issues? The building up of mass nuclear arsenals (namely the USA), destruction of the environment/global warming, civil rights in the 60's, Vietnam and the shooting deaths at Kent State, persecution of South American countries/policies (including Cuba), persecution of Middle East countries for any reason, The Rwandan genocide, Big business & globalization and destruction of poorer countries economies, etc. I can't re-call ever hearing a church speak out against 'something real'. Actually the Rwandan genocide provides my exact point.
Everyone knows of the movie 'Hotel Rwanda', which is the true story of a hotel owner that took in many Tootsees who were being slaughtered by the Hootuus. That person risked his life and his livelihood in order to save as many people as he could. Ironically, little have ever heard of 2 nuns from the Catholic Benedictine order from Rwanda. They apparently had chances to save many people in their convent, which could hold 100's of people. They not only refused to 'house' these people but called the National Guard to personally kill all the people that came to them. Some got burnt to death, some had their bodies chopped up, and others were shot. Now, who was the good samaritan? Who of them loved their neighbor?
There is barely anything I want to remember about the church in the past 100 years, nevermind the last 400. The church misses the mark everytime because they miss the real message of the gospel, we have to stand up for our neighbors if we love them. What seems to be the current history of the church (and in the past) is that we argue for salvation, repentance, and baptism before we will argue to stop the building of nuclear bombs (which in the end will wipe us off the face of the earth) or these wars built on nothing less than colonialism (ex: Vietnam and Iraq). For some reason the church can't see the trees from the forest in the bible. It sure doesn't help to have nationalistic fervor and blindly believe your country is backed by God and His kingdom. If that is so, why does your countries commit such atrocities...these atrocities coming from what people would call the most 'civil' countries in the world? We need to re-examine our faith in government, we just might find your shaking hands with the beast after all (with the power to give and take men's souls as he pleases).
How are we founded on Christian ethics? They like to remind us of our Constitution and the colorful religious language used. How our founding fathers had real faith, and that somehow this faith has dissipated through the age. I look back at the church and laugh it to scorn, I see very little the church has done for equity, justice, and forgiveness...all this while hanging onto the hand of 'big brother' or as I call it 'governmental kingdoms'.
The church has a very shady 'social justice' track record, actually on a real close look one will see they never speak out against government. Here are a few examples.
When America was 'conquered' (colonialism) the invading people's slaughtered American Indian tribes, removed them from their lands, gave them piece-meal lands they never lived on, and even intentionally spread diseases to their people's to wipe them out. Why? Settlers needed a place to live and apparently God had given the land to Europeans & French...funny fact, Aboriginal people's never believed anyone could 'own' the land so they weren't opposed to sharing it. The problem was they were dis-owned and considered 'heathen's, savages, barabarians, etc.'. Where was the church when all this was going on defending the rights of these human beings? They helped the gov't every single step of the way. They built churches and residential schools dis-avowing Aboriginal culture and language. In Canada, the gov't and church robbed a few centuries of parenting from Aboriginal people, thus de-moralizing a nation. What was the church concerned about? Salvation and repentance. Government was building a country and a railroad.
Now America conquered and started building an economy, where do you think they found a cheap workforce? They imposed slavery upon African-Americans (stealing them from Africa) to work in their fields and other businesses. They treated these people less than human (which they considered them to be) and bought, sold, tortured, raped, and killed them as needed. They treated the African-American so bad they considered them livestock, started breeding them even. They destroyed family after family of African-American descendant for financial gain. All the while the church said very little on the practice of slavery, seeing Paul had condoned it they felt justified. Church-goers seeing it not a sin (these were not humans) and slavery was okay, felt little to no remorse. What did the church do? Continued preaching hell-fire and brimstone to whomever would listen. Government was concerned with money and using the land.
Early part of the 1900's and into this new century two world wars broke out. The 2nd World War being even worse than the first with human attrocities that shocked the world: starting with a theory of human superiority, then the persecution of Jewish businesses, then outright damnation of Jewish people, followed by rounding them up and putting them in concentration camps to be killed. None of this was real secret knowledge to mass Germany and Hitler's war of destruction was no secret either. This led to the death of 6 million Jewish people and around 20 million people worldwide. Where was the church? Apparently the Catholic church and whoever else there was, within Germany, bonded with the gov't so as not 'to rock the boat' (I don't forget Bonhoeffer and his efforts). I mean, no one actually wants to be killed for their beliefs. The church became silent in the most deadly hour, forget rapture, they just shut their mouths. Where else was the church? Dividing itself up into many denominations...so we fought against ourselves while this all went down.
What other issues? The building up of mass nuclear arsenals (namely the USA), destruction of the environment/global warming, civil rights in the 60's, Vietnam and the shooting deaths at Kent State, persecution of South American countries/policies (including Cuba), persecution of Middle East countries for any reason, The Rwandan genocide, Big business & globalization and destruction of poorer countries economies, etc. I can't re-call ever hearing a church speak out against 'something real'. Actually the Rwandan genocide provides my exact point.
Everyone knows of the movie 'Hotel Rwanda', which is the true story of a hotel owner that took in many Tootsees who were being slaughtered by the Hootuus. That person risked his life and his livelihood in order to save as many people as he could. Ironically, little have ever heard of 2 nuns from the Catholic Benedictine order from Rwanda. They apparently had chances to save many people in their convent, which could hold 100's of people. They not only refused to 'house' these people but called the National Guard to personally kill all the people that came to them. Some got burnt to death, some had their bodies chopped up, and others were shot. Now, who was the good samaritan? Who of them loved their neighbor?
There is barely anything I want to remember about the church in the past 100 years, nevermind the last 400. The church misses the mark everytime because they miss the real message of the gospel, we have to stand up for our neighbors if we love them. What seems to be the current history of the church (and in the past) is that we argue for salvation, repentance, and baptism before we will argue to stop the building of nuclear bombs (which in the end will wipe us off the face of the earth) or these wars built on nothing less than colonialism (ex: Vietnam and Iraq). For some reason the church can't see the trees from the forest in the bible. It sure doesn't help to have nationalistic fervor and blindly believe your country is backed by God and His kingdom. If that is so, why does your countries commit such atrocities...these atrocities coming from what people would call the most 'civil' countries in the world? We need to re-examine our faith in government, we just might find your shaking hands with the beast after all (with the power to give and take men's souls as he pleases).
Friday, June 23, 2006
Live & Let Die:'Take Up Your Cross'
I have been reading a lot of blogs lately, from right-wing to left-wing, and basically I noticed a shift in the way we view the church. There is some people out there that are starting to see a new vision for the church, in that vision they challenge the current structure but they feel alone so they 'do' nothing (similar to Elijah, who hid, who still had 70 that never bowed a knee to Baal). It raised for me an interesting point, if there is like '70' of us out there with this vision, why do we leave church and take our talents and 'hide them away'?
Why? We didn't think God would ask this of us, still we seeked for the answers we got, we just never expected it to work out this way for us. This '70' likely left the church and developed their ideas in secret, away from prying eyes and the over-bearing structure of the church (similar to the prophets in the OT). There is however one remaining difference between those prophets and this '70', those prophets risked it all to change the religious structure of it's day. We do not risk a thing, except the fact we fail with what God has shown us.
Do I see this in the gospel at all? It is the gospel. Jesus, ironically enough, risked it all for the God he loved and in turn loved Him also. Funny thing about Jesus was he saw this coming still His faith challenged the religious order of the day and He was killed for it. What do you think He was teaching the whole time? Jesus went into the heart of the religious order, challenged it's ideals, ethics, and sincerity, and was then crucified for showing a God of love (whereas the religious judgment (blasphemy) had Him killed). This is the same person we call saviour.
What was Jesus saying to us? God's love/salvation is for everybody and no structure can be strong enough to bottle that up, if they do, then they must be challenged. Jesus didn't dismiss this would happen. In calling his disciples he said 'follow me'...or 'do as I do and follow right behind me'. He mentions in the beatitudes (Matt 5:10-12) persecution for your faith...from who? Atheists? Apparently, the religious order of the day since every disciple was 'persecuted' for their belief in the Christ, even killed. Jesus also further mentions 'take up your cross and follow me', now if that ain't obvious I can't make it any clearer. The cross came to signify 'death' not wearing it as comemerative decoration. Just so you do get it, you just might be killed for your faith in Christ...which in turn means defending justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matt 23:23).
So the prophets of old and Jesus all followed this weird formula, challenging the religious order of the day when they saw 'hypocrisy'. But we don't see the need, we get this vision, leave church, develop our ideas of a God who loves us, and then we live happily ever after...wrong. The body of Christ needs you. Why would God show you something and ask nothing of you? Find me one person God gave answers to that did nothing with it? For this is the gospel. The reality of it all is the church doesn't like you and you don't like it. Why? Apparently, the church thinks it has the whole revelation of God when in fact that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I'll bet Israel in Elijah's days thought the same way. I'll bet Jeremiah was hated for being against Israel when in fact he was for them. I'll bet they killed Isaiah because his vision of God didn't line up with traditional views. I'll almost bet that Jesus was killed because they thought he was a 'blasphemer' and taught against the structure...what was his charge, oh yeah, that he will destroy the temple 'of God' and rebuild it in 3 days. Sounds eerily familar to some of the '70' in this modern context.
So you wanna follow Christ? But I don't want to go to church dear sir. But I don't want to be disliked for my views on God. I don't want to challenge their views, as archaic I find them to be. Then suit yourself, follow yourself. You have been given a gift from God and you refuse to follow through on your search. But can you say with me 'I do have fear'. Not a fear of God, no way, you know He is loving and accepting and all those wonderful things you have experienced. You have a fear of man. He is not so loving, accepting, and all those wonderful things you have learned of God. So what makes them right and you wrong, silence.
If you love your neighbor, then live amongst them and show them the love of God. Do you not know we are the leaders of tomorrow, something that we fail to forget. Something else we fail to forget is that if we leave the church in that state what of the next generation that is diluted by their mechanism, or your family, or your friends? Did you get this feeling sometimes that you used to bring people to church only to say 'you brought them like sheep to wolves'. Imagine how many more do the same. It is time. Time to see the structure changed from the inside-out.
I heard someone said they were 'crazy' for believing what they do. I think your crazy to have a great view of God and no one knows. I think it is crazy not to share that grace with many that need it. I think it is crazy to think God never picked you out. I heard 5 words from God once that changed my life, 'your words shall effect many'.
Why? We didn't think God would ask this of us, still we seeked for the answers we got, we just never expected it to work out this way for us. This '70' likely left the church and developed their ideas in secret, away from prying eyes and the over-bearing structure of the church (similar to the prophets in the OT). There is however one remaining difference between those prophets and this '70', those prophets risked it all to change the religious structure of it's day. We do not risk a thing, except the fact we fail with what God has shown us.
Do I see this in the gospel at all? It is the gospel. Jesus, ironically enough, risked it all for the God he loved and in turn loved Him also. Funny thing about Jesus was he saw this coming still His faith challenged the religious order of the day and He was killed for it. What do you think He was teaching the whole time? Jesus went into the heart of the religious order, challenged it's ideals, ethics, and sincerity, and was then crucified for showing a God of love (whereas the religious judgment (blasphemy) had Him killed). This is the same person we call saviour.
What was Jesus saying to us? God's love/salvation is for everybody and no structure can be strong enough to bottle that up, if they do, then they must be challenged. Jesus didn't dismiss this would happen. In calling his disciples he said 'follow me'...or 'do as I do and follow right behind me'. He mentions in the beatitudes (Matt 5:10-12) persecution for your faith...from who? Atheists? Apparently, the religious order of the day since every disciple was 'persecuted' for their belief in the Christ, even killed. Jesus also further mentions 'take up your cross and follow me', now if that ain't obvious I can't make it any clearer. The cross came to signify 'death' not wearing it as comemerative decoration. Just so you do get it, you just might be killed for your faith in Christ...which in turn means defending justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matt 23:23).
So the prophets of old and Jesus all followed this weird formula, challenging the religious order of the day when they saw 'hypocrisy'. But we don't see the need, we get this vision, leave church, develop our ideas of a God who loves us, and then we live happily ever after...wrong. The body of Christ needs you. Why would God show you something and ask nothing of you? Find me one person God gave answers to that did nothing with it? For this is the gospel. The reality of it all is the church doesn't like you and you don't like it. Why? Apparently, the church thinks it has the whole revelation of God when in fact that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I'll bet Israel in Elijah's days thought the same way. I'll bet Jeremiah was hated for being against Israel when in fact he was for them. I'll bet they killed Isaiah because his vision of God didn't line up with traditional views. I'll almost bet that Jesus was killed because they thought he was a 'blasphemer' and taught against the structure...what was his charge, oh yeah, that he will destroy the temple 'of God' and rebuild it in 3 days. Sounds eerily familar to some of the '70' in this modern context.
So you wanna follow Christ? But I don't want to go to church dear sir. But I don't want to be disliked for my views on God. I don't want to challenge their views, as archaic I find them to be. Then suit yourself, follow yourself. You have been given a gift from God and you refuse to follow through on your search. But can you say with me 'I do have fear'. Not a fear of God, no way, you know He is loving and accepting and all those wonderful things you have experienced. You have a fear of man. He is not so loving, accepting, and all those wonderful things you have learned of God. So what makes them right and you wrong, silence.
If you love your neighbor, then live amongst them and show them the love of God. Do you not know we are the leaders of tomorrow, something that we fail to forget. Something else we fail to forget is that if we leave the church in that state what of the next generation that is diluted by their mechanism, or your family, or your friends? Did you get this feeling sometimes that you used to bring people to church only to say 'you brought them like sheep to wolves'. Imagine how many more do the same. It is time. Time to see the structure changed from the inside-out.
I heard someone said they were 'crazy' for believing what they do. I think your crazy to have a great view of God and no one knows. I think it is crazy not to share that grace with many that need it. I think it is crazy to think God never picked you out. I heard 5 words from God once that changed my life, 'your words shall effect many'.
Monday, June 19, 2006
The Devil's Advocate: Theology on the screen
I had a chance to watch the Devil's Advocate (the movie) last night, having never seen it before I was expecting a horror flick, I was pleasantly surprised by the film. The show gets into some deep theology over the question of satan: his intentions, the way he works, and humanism. After watching that show it really got me thinking about what was being said in that show.
For those who never saw the show basically it's about a law firm run by satan. It attacks issues of all sorts and how 'sin' can destroy the human life, which in this show, seems to be Satan's plan. It was weird to watch a show that displays a theology proposed by Christiandom, on the views of what Satan is all about. What's even weirder is that I learned something from it. What did I learn?
Humanism is a theory that devises against humanity, not for it. In the show the devil says 'he is the last real humanist'. Giving humans what they always wanted, without judgement, unlike a God who he calls a 'watcher'. It gets a lot deeper but I got the point. As humans try to search for answers they mostly look to what is around them. So they delve deep into lust, vanity, war, and greed, which results in ultra-humanism (we are gods). All of this taking place on a world stage where humans effect politics, business, communication, the environment, and law. What's so dangerous about us humans? We are destroying ourselves and the world because of the loss of ethics and concern for all people.
The saying 'do unto others as you would have done unto you' was something that was really re-inforced in this film. It seems each step we take away for this moral the closer we get to true evil. Every step we take closer to valuing this ethic, the closer connection is developed amongst humanity and a sense of love. This ethic drew a defining line between God and satan's definition of humanity. God created and values humanity and does not want to see it's mass destruction. Satan has hated the human from existence, it's demise would prove God doesn't love them. The thing is we aren't 'pawns in the game'.
The strongest point of the film was that humans ultimately decide their fates, free will is a gift that allows us to make the world better or worse. So there are two sides in humanity, one representing good and one representing evil, but you are prone to nothing except your choices. This is where theology gets deep. God created us as good beings, in His image. We are creatures of free will, so even if God loves us, it may mean little if the creation puts itself above the Creator (also humanism), coincidentally the same thing satan was cast out of heaven for. Point being, we have to make the choices that will define our life, our world, our ethics, our relationships, our faith, and ultimately the lives of those around us.
And this is where I chime in. Spirituality is devised of relationships. Our relationship with God and our relationships with others. Spirituality is passed from person to person in each and every interaction, whether for the good or the for the evil. We have the power to both create and destroy the lives around us. Some might say 'we have nothing if God didn't allow it', well the fact is He did allow it...it's called choice and that's the spiritual battlefield. I see that in choice we have the ability to reason, within ourselves, for ethics that promote the 'greater good' or the 'greater evil'. What I see on earth, as it is, is the promotion of choices. The key to it all is responsibility. We have to take responsibility for our actions (call it repentance). True responsibility speaks of 'doing for others as we would want done for us'. Apparently, on this saying hangs all the law and the prophets (the whole OT). It is in that saying we see spirituality to it's highest degree.
So all that from a movie. I have to say I enjoyed the film since it got to me to think what is truly destroying this world. Satan's vices have no power unless we so make it that way. God's will has no power lest we so make it that way. Maybe I am promoting a type of humanism in saying that but that's why 'choice' is the battlefield. What cannot be mistaken is one of these 'wills' is being played out by us everyday, that is why have to start determining our ethics.
For those who never saw the show basically it's about a law firm run by satan. It attacks issues of all sorts and how 'sin' can destroy the human life, which in this show, seems to be Satan's plan. It was weird to watch a show that displays a theology proposed by Christiandom, on the views of what Satan is all about. What's even weirder is that I learned something from it. What did I learn?
Humanism is a theory that devises against humanity, not for it. In the show the devil says 'he is the last real humanist'. Giving humans what they always wanted, without judgement, unlike a God who he calls a 'watcher'. It gets a lot deeper but I got the point. As humans try to search for answers they mostly look to what is around them. So they delve deep into lust, vanity, war, and greed, which results in ultra-humanism (we are gods). All of this taking place on a world stage where humans effect politics, business, communication, the environment, and law. What's so dangerous about us humans? We are destroying ourselves and the world because of the loss of ethics and concern for all people.
The saying 'do unto others as you would have done unto you' was something that was really re-inforced in this film. It seems each step we take away for this moral the closer we get to true evil. Every step we take closer to valuing this ethic, the closer connection is developed amongst humanity and a sense of love. This ethic drew a defining line between God and satan's definition of humanity. God created and values humanity and does not want to see it's mass destruction. Satan has hated the human from existence, it's demise would prove God doesn't love them. The thing is we aren't 'pawns in the game'.
The strongest point of the film was that humans ultimately decide their fates, free will is a gift that allows us to make the world better or worse. So there are two sides in humanity, one representing good and one representing evil, but you are prone to nothing except your choices. This is where theology gets deep. God created us as good beings, in His image. We are creatures of free will, so even if God loves us, it may mean little if the creation puts itself above the Creator (also humanism), coincidentally the same thing satan was cast out of heaven for. Point being, we have to make the choices that will define our life, our world, our ethics, our relationships, our faith, and ultimately the lives of those around us.
And this is where I chime in. Spirituality is devised of relationships. Our relationship with God and our relationships with others. Spirituality is passed from person to person in each and every interaction, whether for the good or the for the evil. We have the power to both create and destroy the lives around us. Some might say 'we have nothing if God didn't allow it', well the fact is He did allow it...it's called choice and that's the spiritual battlefield. I see that in choice we have the ability to reason, within ourselves, for ethics that promote the 'greater good' or the 'greater evil'. What I see on earth, as it is, is the promotion of choices. The key to it all is responsibility. We have to take responsibility for our actions (call it repentance). True responsibility speaks of 'doing for others as we would want done for us'. Apparently, on this saying hangs all the law and the prophets (the whole OT). It is in that saying we see spirituality to it's highest degree.
So all that from a movie. I have to say I enjoyed the film since it got to me to think what is truly destroying this world. Satan's vices have no power unless we so make it that way. God's will has no power lest we so make it that way. Maybe I am promoting a type of humanism in saying that but that's why 'choice' is the battlefield. What cannot be mistaken is one of these 'wills' is being played out by us everyday, that is why have to start determining our ethics.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
What am I? A Church quiz.
You scored as Emergent/Postmodern.
You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.
Emergent/Postmodern
93%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
79%
Classical Liberal
57%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
54%
Neo orthodox
43%
Modern Liberal
39%
Roman Catholic
36%
Fundamentalist
29%
Reformed Evangelical
25%
I did this survey, http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870, and I learned something. Number one I am more Catholic than Fundamentalist, what a weird twist of fate. Secondly, I think it pinned me on some issues. I actually do see modern church as becoming slowly irrelevant. Also, evangelism (I do believe) needs to reflect relationship building, thus 'brothers and sisters in Christ'. Take the quiz, it's fun and you might find something out about yourself you never knew before.
You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.
Emergent/Postmodern
93%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
79%
Classical Liberal
57%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
54%
Neo orthodox
43%
Modern Liberal
39%
Roman Catholic
36%
Fundamentalist
29%
Reformed Evangelical
25%
I did this survey, http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870, and I learned something. Number one I am more Catholic than Fundamentalist, what a weird twist of fate. Secondly, I think it pinned me on some issues. I actually do see modern church as becoming slowly irrelevant. Also, evangelism (I do believe) needs to reflect relationship building, thus 'brothers and sisters in Christ'. Take the quiz, it's fun and you might find something out about yourself you never knew before.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
'Moving the hand of God': what does it mean?
A friend and I have been dialoging for a while on a subject I raised about religion, structure, faith, and a return to the original faith. In the midst of those dialogues I heard a line I haven't heard for some time, 'moving the hand of God'. I have some simple questions about this line of thinking, mainly for my enlightenment.
What does 'moving the hand of God' mean exactly? That I have the ability to make God conform to 'my will'? I am not sure if it means that but it would follow similar jargon I have heard in churches for years. The other jargon refers to us speaking on behalf of God, that as instruments of faith in Christ, we actually speak for God. These ideas trouble me. They give me a sense of alarm to be honest.
I love this title by Chuck Colson, 'Who speaks for God'? I read it years ago and one thing always stuck with me, that we do not. We may have the words of Christ in our hands but that does in no way pre-suppose we actually can say 'God said...', a very flippant term that is tossed around like we just got off the phone with God. What is wrong with that you might ask? Easy. Is it true?
Now I am aware I can say I am gaining a better understanding of God, but do I know God? Not really. I have never seen Him and His will for my life I cannot be absolute on. What I am aware of is that Jesus came as a sacrifice for 'that will', living with us, conversing with us, and understanding our very being. His words were recorded by early disciples and they portray a person that can relate to the human condition, 'the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak' (doubt) or 'forgive them for they know not what they do' (ignorance). Jesus relates to humanity in the utmost with His teachings. That still doesn't give us the right to act like we authored the book.
We have a book, the bible, and namely the Gospels which refer to the very words of Jesus. That's it. As far as further authority that other people try to conjure up, well it falls short of my litmus test. We are all interpreting and living the same words in a world far removed from the times of the OT & NT; we have some writings to base a faith on and I recognize that. Do I believe Jesus is really alive? Yes. Do I believe God can intervene? Yes. Faith is still faith to me. What I am doing however is removing the formula for personal spirituality, and if there is a formula it is this: we are human beings in a world of troubles, we have to be 100% responsible for what we do to others and live on this planet while we are here; all that in accordance with our personal understanding of God (now thats spirituality).
Why is 'speaking for God' a dangerous thing? It's supposing we know what God is saying altogether, giving us a false authority (almost as if we were gods). This has proven to be disasterous in all situations I can recall. One can refer to Jim Jones (god complex), Koresh (messiah complex), Jerusalem syndrome (prophet complex) as worst scenarios. Then you get a structure where people see certain figures as 'people who speak for God' and to oppose them is almost an apostasy: Pastors, Evangelists, Apostles (do they exist?), Teachers, Prophets, etc. Lastly this leaves the common church-goer at the whims of their leaders. They are duped into thinking certain things about God which may be altogether false: he doesn't like you anymore, you're not sure if you're going to heaven or hell (true insecurity), God is a judge first, then loves you second, You can become an apostate & not know, Don't dis-obey the church authority or any authority for that matter, Not coming to church means you backslid, your prayers don't get answered because you're a sinner, etc. People are fed these messages because someone supposes 'they speak for God'.
All this leads back to 'moving the hand of God'. Well how do we 'move that hand', OUR prayer. By something I CAN DO. So if I pray hard enough, or for long enough, then the 'hand of God' will move. Truth is, I have nothing to do with that 'hand' moving. Just like how if you ask me everyday for a loaf of bread and I CHOOSE to say 'no', you won't get that loaf of bread. For all your 'asking', it's still up to the person who 'will's' to give or not give that bread (I speak as a human). Even in saying that I suppose God is like a human, which is most likely false, but that's my brain for you. The point is I can't move a hand that isn't mine. I may ask, seek, knock but it's still up to God (I can believe that). In the end it is God's 'will' that counts, we see as a human with our own prerogative and biases. That's what I do know.
So, the question is this - can you 'move the hand of God' or 'speak on God's behalf'? I am not saying I have the answers, I know I don't have it all figured out, but I like to hear people's voices on the issue.
What does 'moving the hand of God' mean exactly? That I have the ability to make God conform to 'my will'? I am not sure if it means that but it would follow similar jargon I have heard in churches for years. The other jargon refers to us speaking on behalf of God, that as instruments of faith in Christ, we actually speak for God. These ideas trouble me. They give me a sense of alarm to be honest.
I love this title by Chuck Colson, 'Who speaks for God'? I read it years ago and one thing always stuck with me, that we do not. We may have the words of Christ in our hands but that does in no way pre-suppose we actually can say 'God said...', a very flippant term that is tossed around like we just got off the phone with God. What is wrong with that you might ask? Easy. Is it true?
Now I am aware I can say I am gaining a better understanding of God, but do I know God? Not really. I have never seen Him and His will for my life I cannot be absolute on. What I am aware of is that Jesus came as a sacrifice for 'that will', living with us, conversing with us, and understanding our very being. His words were recorded by early disciples and they portray a person that can relate to the human condition, 'the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak' (doubt) or 'forgive them for they know not what they do' (ignorance). Jesus relates to humanity in the utmost with His teachings. That still doesn't give us the right to act like we authored the book.
We have a book, the bible, and namely the Gospels which refer to the very words of Jesus. That's it. As far as further authority that other people try to conjure up, well it falls short of my litmus test. We are all interpreting and living the same words in a world far removed from the times of the OT & NT; we have some writings to base a faith on and I recognize that. Do I believe Jesus is really alive? Yes. Do I believe God can intervene? Yes. Faith is still faith to me. What I am doing however is removing the formula for personal spirituality, and if there is a formula it is this: we are human beings in a world of troubles, we have to be 100% responsible for what we do to others and live on this planet while we are here; all that in accordance with our personal understanding of God (now thats spirituality).
Why is 'speaking for God' a dangerous thing? It's supposing we know what God is saying altogether, giving us a false authority (almost as if we were gods). This has proven to be disasterous in all situations I can recall. One can refer to Jim Jones (god complex), Koresh (messiah complex), Jerusalem syndrome (prophet complex) as worst scenarios. Then you get a structure where people see certain figures as 'people who speak for God' and to oppose them is almost an apostasy: Pastors, Evangelists, Apostles (do they exist?), Teachers, Prophets, etc. Lastly this leaves the common church-goer at the whims of their leaders. They are duped into thinking certain things about God which may be altogether false: he doesn't like you anymore, you're not sure if you're going to heaven or hell (true insecurity), God is a judge first, then loves you second, You can become an apostate & not know, Don't dis-obey the church authority or any authority for that matter, Not coming to church means you backslid, your prayers don't get answered because you're a sinner, etc. People are fed these messages because someone supposes 'they speak for God'.
All this leads back to 'moving the hand of God'. Well how do we 'move that hand', OUR prayer. By something I CAN DO. So if I pray hard enough, or for long enough, then the 'hand of God' will move. Truth is, I have nothing to do with that 'hand' moving. Just like how if you ask me everyday for a loaf of bread and I CHOOSE to say 'no', you won't get that loaf of bread. For all your 'asking', it's still up to the person who 'will's' to give or not give that bread (I speak as a human). Even in saying that I suppose God is like a human, which is most likely false, but that's my brain for you. The point is I can't move a hand that isn't mine. I may ask, seek, knock but it's still up to God (I can believe that). In the end it is God's 'will' that counts, we see as a human with our own prerogative and biases. That's what I do know.
So, the question is this - can you 'move the hand of God' or 'speak on God's behalf'? I am not saying I have the answers, I know I don't have it all figured out, but I like to hear people's voices on the issue.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
The Matrix: Living to Lie and Lying to Live
I recently had my brother over to watch the hockey game and we got to talking religion, a very common thing around my house (ask my wife). I was telling him about what I was doing with a group I started and he let me know how his life was going. We got to talking church politics and religious structure and he made me realize something, the matrix of reality. I will explain how this all unravels.
The church has become a matrix, we have become 2 or 3 dimensions removed from the original incidents of Christ's life. The church is interpreting Christ in light of those 2 or 3 dimensions after His life, ignoring the original because we cannot see it anymore. A good analogy is that of a tree removed 2 dimensions. You start off with a real tree, actually growing from the ground. Let's say they all disappear (the trees) and they are replaced with plastic ones. People become used to that after a while (since generations will continue on). Plastic one's become a hassle and they are replaced with computer imagery (looking more realistic). People are none the wiser since it is still a tree, it resembles the original form, but all in all it is a fake. This is the matrix and I truly believe we have entered this train of thought with Christian ideologies and interpretation of scripture.
The reason I say we have a Matrix because, unlike a tree, beliefs and ideas are easier to sculpture to our purposes (they cannot be seen). Ideas within the church have changed from bygon to bygon and one look at church history tells you of how incredulous some ideas and ideologies have been, an example crusades. The church, as a structure, promotes a structure and not really faith in God at times; they push ideas and thoughts passed down from a denomination and everything has to fall in line with that dogma. What we have is a matrix, we have a structure (an idol), teaching based on a denominations dogma, based on one man's findings (ex: Luther), based on errors in church history, based on the monks and holy people before them, based on Roman Christianity, Based on disciples of the orginal disciples, based on the original followers of Christ, based on Christ's life, based on the OT. Have we become removed from the true intentions of Christ's life? Good question.
What we need are some examples from modernity.
(1) The Sinner's Prayer: I have no clue where this came from but I do know the church has adopted this as a 'sign' that someone has been 'saved'. They build fantastic theologies upon it that result in questions like 'once saved always saved' and 'grace vs. works: works is not that important to salvation'. I applaude the charade, I really do. Is there a basis for any of this in Christ's teachings? I have found no where in the teachings of Christ where one prayer defines your salvation. Is this to be called faith in Christ? Even when Christ's teachings don't even back it.
(2) Church Services: The services we have these days find no scriptural basis. We have a worship part (always at the beginning), then an offering and even some meeting people, then some testimonies or 'prayer' for problems out there, the preaching of the word, then an altar call (end prayers and music), then good-bye. Maybe it's just me but isn't this a European idea of church, loosely based in Catholicism? Firstly, Public offering (giving), prayer, and fasting are all shown as 'non-signs' of sincere faith. The altar call, as sincere as we make it seem, is you praying for my salvation/healing...oddly enough, faith can only be done by the individual...so that prayer right there should be prayed by the person in secret where only God can here. What do we really got? A damn fine show of godliness that forgoes scripture for the structure.
(3) Spirituality: Spirituality is slowly coming to be defined as actually singing songs to God, I think they call it 'worship'. True people that are spiritual will love worship services and whole-heartidly participatory. I have seen this trend grow, a close look reveals less a faith in God and more to prove your love for God (to the higher-ups). Spirituality is not singing songs, that may be part of it, but it's not even the cornerstone. Spirituality boils down to something so simple we do it all the time and is the true determinent in eternity. 'Do unto others as you would have done unto you'. 'Love God with all of you and love your neighbor as yourself'. ''In as much you did it for one of the least of these my brothers, you did it unto me'. Jesus makes a great case for spirituality being an everyday way we effect the lives around us, for the good or bad.
(4) Exclusivity, 'this is our club you heathen': Something slipped into the church a long time ago and has refused to release it's paws of oppression, exclusivity. The church actually believes they are 'going to heaven' and the people outside the church are 'going to hell', why? They accepted Christ into their hearts and the others didn't (usually exemplified by a simple prayer). The church then finds fit to exclude the people that are not with them, to not even really try help them. They self-justify from scripture but they are so off-kilter it's borderline in-humane. The words of Jesus talk about defining who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, but I am damn sure that is not for us to assume. Jesus is harshest on a few people, the main group called Pharisee's, and why? They make it harder for someone to get to heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle. Whereas Jesus is called a drunk and is found hanging out with prostitutes, drunks, and other shameful humans...he calls them friends. When did church miss reading this?
It's funny because I mention a lot of interesting idea's and some church folk will agree or disagree, all I am doing is pointing them back to Gospels. For those who do agree, do you do it only in 'word' thus fooling yourself, although appearing to be holy all the while. Let's just say I pulled the curtain on the 'Wizard' himself, a tin man, a lion, and a man made of straw saw the same thing. So what do you think...the Matrix really there?
The church has become a matrix, we have become 2 or 3 dimensions removed from the original incidents of Christ's life. The church is interpreting Christ in light of those 2 or 3 dimensions after His life, ignoring the original because we cannot see it anymore. A good analogy is that of a tree removed 2 dimensions. You start off with a real tree, actually growing from the ground. Let's say they all disappear (the trees) and they are replaced with plastic ones. People become used to that after a while (since generations will continue on). Plastic one's become a hassle and they are replaced with computer imagery (looking more realistic). People are none the wiser since it is still a tree, it resembles the original form, but all in all it is a fake. This is the matrix and I truly believe we have entered this train of thought with Christian ideologies and interpretation of scripture.
The reason I say we have a Matrix because, unlike a tree, beliefs and ideas are easier to sculpture to our purposes (they cannot be seen). Ideas within the church have changed from bygon to bygon and one look at church history tells you of how incredulous some ideas and ideologies have been, an example crusades. The church, as a structure, promotes a structure and not really faith in God at times; they push ideas and thoughts passed down from a denomination and everything has to fall in line with that dogma. What we have is a matrix, we have a structure (an idol), teaching based on a denominations dogma, based on one man's findings (ex: Luther), based on errors in church history, based on the monks and holy people before them, based on Roman Christianity, Based on disciples of the orginal disciples, based on the original followers of Christ, based on Christ's life, based on the OT. Have we become removed from the true intentions of Christ's life? Good question.
What we need are some examples from modernity.
(1) The Sinner's Prayer: I have no clue where this came from but I do know the church has adopted this as a 'sign' that someone has been 'saved'. They build fantastic theologies upon it that result in questions like 'once saved always saved' and 'grace vs. works: works is not that important to salvation'. I applaude the charade, I really do. Is there a basis for any of this in Christ's teachings? I have found no where in the teachings of Christ where one prayer defines your salvation. Is this to be called faith in Christ? Even when Christ's teachings don't even back it.
(2) Church Services: The services we have these days find no scriptural basis. We have a worship part (always at the beginning), then an offering and even some meeting people, then some testimonies or 'prayer' for problems out there, the preaching of the word, then an altar call (end prayers and music), then good-bye. Maybe it's just me but isn't this a European idea of church, loosely based in Catholicism? Firstly, Public offering (giving), prayer, and fasting are all shown as 'non-signs' of sincere faith. The altar call, as sincere as we make it seem, is you praying for my salvation/healing...oddly enough, faith can only be done by the individual...so that prayer right there should be prayed by the person in secret where only God can here. What do we really got? A damn fine show of godliness that forgoes scripture for the structure.
(3) Spirituality: Spirituality is slowly coming to be defined as actually singing songs to God, I think they call it 'worship'. True people that are spiritual will love worship services and whole-heartidly participatory. I have seen this trend grow, a close look reveals less a faith in God and more to prove your love for God (to the higher-ups). Spirituality is not singing songs, that may be part of it, but it's not even the cornerstone. Spirituality boils down to something so simple we do it all the time and is the true determinent in eternity. 'Do unto others as you would have done unto you'. 'Love God with all of you and love your neighbor as yourself'. ''In as much you did it for one of the least of these my brothers, you did it unto me'. Jesus makes a great case for spirituality being an everyday way we effect the lives around us, for the good or bad.
(4) Exclusivity, 'this is our club you heathen': Something slipped into the church a long time ago and has refused to release it's paws of oppression, exclusivity. The church actually believes they are 'going to heaven' and the people outside the church are 'going to hell', why? They accepted Christ into their hearts and the others didn't (usually exemplified by a simple prayer). The church then finds fit to exclude the people that are not with them, to not even really try help them. They self-justify from scripture but they are so off-kilter it's borderline in-humane. The words of Jesus talk about defining who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, but I am damn sure that is not for us to assume. Jesus is harshest on a few people, the main group called Pharisee's, and why? They make it harder for someone to get to heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle. Whereas Jesus is called a drunk and is found hanging out with prostitutes, drunks, and other shameful humans...he calls them friends. When did church miss reading this?
It's funny because I mention a lot of interesting idea's and some church folk will agree or disagree, all I am doing is pointing them back to Gospels. For those who do agree, do you do it only in 'word' thus fooling yourself, although appearing to be holy all the while. Let's just say I pulled the curtain on the 'Wizard' himself, a tin man, a lion, and a man made of straw saw the same thing. So what do you think...the Matrix really there?
Monday, June 05, 2006
Giving it up: The true hollywood story behind a project
I recently caught a whiff of what some people are calling a charitable event, building a school and a church in the hood. Not such a bad idea but when you see the costs of the project (over 1 million dollars) it makes you wonder if this is good for the hood?
The idea is they tear down a old church, and a few houses, in the hood then build a new building housing a school & a church. They even have a group that is raising cash of this endeavor, dubbed as 'friends of said church'. They picked the right name, they are friends of the church, but of the neighborhood...that's another question altogether. Funny, they have a fundraiser 'Lobster Night' at $50.00 a ticket, who do you think is going to that? Nice well-meaning, rich folk.
I think the idea is a type of 'sound good' church politics in the name of helping a community but in the end it doesn't add up. They are raising money to tear houses down (I think 2) and a church to build a new school/church. My problem is that most people in that neighborhood can't even afford to own a house yet a church has money to destroy 2? Yet they are supposed to be identifying with the needs of the community. Is that what the community asked for...a new school & church?
It's a group with no connection to the community and they see charity as building churches and a school, a very missionary endeavor. They have money to give yet they give it to finance buildings, same sh*t I railed on another church for building a $250,000 parking lot. These are the ideas that make us (Christians) look nice but mean very little in the actual helping of people. They are giving in a mis-guided way, name how one person specifically is helped in this project (that doesn't exist now)?
I see a mis-management of funds in the allocation of this cash. That million dollars could go towards programs to help people that want to buy houses, fix their homes, fix the church, get an education (external sources), tutoring programs for their children, etc. Tonnes of ideas but then you have to look at the mentality behind it.
These people already have a school & church in the same building, but the building is a little broken down. It makes sense to fix it up or replace the church (to me anyways). My problem comes in when I think the church is exclusionary. They will help the have's (people of professed faith in their ranks) and won't help the have-not's (people of not professed faith). Thus you see a church helping itself with the money raised. The people around them get very little except to see a nice building on their street, which they have no investment in.
Can the money be spent better? Yes. Is it another case of church (a building) over church (the people)? Yes. Is it another case for people to bat their eyelashes and say nothing? Yes, God forbid you should raise real questions about what good this is doing anyways (since it looks good). I have been calling for giving like this from churches (which I applaud) to help wipe out poverty, but I'll never see that day if people think this is the answer. What do you think? Is there a better solution or am I too far gone?
The idea is they tear down a old church, and a few houses, in the hood then build a new building housing a school & a church. They even have a group that is raising cash of this endeavor, dubbed as 'friends of said church'. They picked the right name, they are friends of the church, but of the neighborhood...that's another question altogether. Funny, they have a fundraiser 'Lobster Night' at $50.00 a ticket, who do you think is going to that? Nice well-meaning, rich folk.
I think the idea is a type of 'sound good' church politics in the name of helping a community but in the end it doesn't add up. They are raising money to tear houses down (I think 2) and a church to build a new school/church. My problem is that most people in that neighborhood can't even afford to own a house yet a church has money to destroy 2? Yet they are supposed to be identifying with the needs of the community. Is that what the community asked for...a new school & church?
It's a group with no connection to the community and they see charity as building churches and a school, a very missionary endeavor. They have money to give yet they give it to finance buildings, same sh*t I railed on another church for building a $250,000 parking lot. These are the ideas that make us (Christians) look nice but mean very little in the actual helping of people. They are giving in a mis-guided way, name how one person specifically is helped in this project (that doesn't exist now)?
I see a mis-management of funds in the allocation of this cash. That million dollars could go towards programs to help people that want to buy houses, fix their homes, fix the church, get an education (external sources), tutoring programs for their children, etc. Tonnes of ideas but then you have to look at the mentality behind it.
These people already have a school & church in the same building, but the building is a little broken down. It makes sense to fix it up or replace the church (to me anyways). My problem comes in when I think the church is exclusionary. They will help the have's (people of professed faith in their ranks) and won't help the have-not's (people of not professed faith). Thus you see a church helping itself with the money raised. The people around them get very little except to see a nice building on their street, which they have no investment in.
Can the money be spent better? Yes. Is it another case of church (a building) over church (the people)? Yes. Is it another case for people to bat their eyelashes and say nothing? Yes, God forbid you should raise real questions about what good this is doing anyways (since it looks good). I have been calling for giving like this from churches (which I applaud) to help wipe out poverty, but I'll never see that day if people think this is the answer. What do you think? Is there a better solution or am I too far gone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)