I ain't done nothing I ain't used to doing

I was the drunken prophet that I wrote about
I was the sincere sinner that they moaned about
I was talking about peace when outside there was war
I was taken outside and thrown to the world

I haven't read the bible in about 4 weeks
I was drunk for 3 nights on coke n whiskey
I watched your marriage fall apart and bleed
I gave you the room that I needed for me

I did all the things I wasn't supposed to do
I got married to someone who you never knew
If you're looking for pills I got this one for you
I ain't done nothin I ain't used to doing

I watched cancer take someone out of my life
He lay on my couch day after day just so he could die
I was asking for a miracle but I got denied
I ain't afraid of looking mortality in the eyes

I was holier than thou and you holier than me
I was a mother's son who was everything to everybody
But I ain't a good person and I ain't no saint
I'm just a sinner that caught a lucky break

I heard people say they're broke while they're rich
I seen the most righteous reject the hands of the lifeless
I ain't got much but what I have I give to you
I been lied to so many times I've created an alter ego

I had people tell me who they thought I am
I was covered in labels just because they can
I am a drunken prophet I am an unholy man
I wanted the truth from those I can't understand

I can't tell you that I am something that I am not
I can't make credibility magically appear on the spot
I can't make the interpretations anymore clearer
I can't hold you hands while the time draws nearer

I was given something a glimpse of what is to be
I often wondered if the future was even there for me
I read the lines of books from former times
I never lived nothing that I couldn't make mine

I am me, I had drinks with the most broken
I am me, I had ideas which were not stolen
I am me, I gave compassion to the undeserving
I am me, I ain't done nothing I ain't used to doing

(societyVs - Does nothing, he ain't supposed to)

Mythology or Historicity Implied?

I just finished writing some comments on another blog about the issue of the historicity of the person Jesus Christ - was he real? Or was he person made up and written by the gospel writers and letter writers? I have heard these claims a lot and it made me wonder, would this destroy my faith? I resound with an absolute 'yes'.

The claims of this faith are that Jesus was the Christ, lived amongst us as a human being, suffered the death of the cross, then resurrected and was seen by people. Can any one of prove that with 100% certainty...well...no...we weren't there (or witnessed any of these events). So yeah, there is reason to believe he could be imaginery - none of us saw this happen (why couldn't they have media or video recorders in that day?). But what we do have are some things called gospels, letters, and the early church writings - again we cannot even verify who wrote them as we were not there while they were penned. So, strike two against the faith.

But the gospels and letters were written and they are the only sources to explain that period of time, nothing else exists...this is either strike 3 or we just might get on base here. You see some see this as a strike-out - no outside proof from historians so this has to be false. Problem there is not many historians are concerned about recording these issues - unless they get bloody well violent (this movement did not). But the fact there is something recorded means that someone had a reason to write it - and since this is the only account of the life of Jesus or the disciples (for that matter) - then by nature they are all we can go by. Either they hold some legitimacy or they are an internal community making stuff up - to build a religion of their own apparently.

If they made it up, what was the motive for such writings? One would have to say, a new religion - a fulfillment of the messianic prophecies - since that's what comes out their writings. But why a new religion and why depart from traditions your family has held so dear, for so long? For a made up 'Jesus' person, a figment of the imagination, a supposed messiah, etc. I think most people don't realize how tough it would of been for these disciples to leave their long established faith (Israel) - it was their hope, their promise, their connection to God - it was basically their whole life (Torah and law).

But 12 people want a new religion and they come up with an elaborate story (betray one of their own - Judas) where Jesus lives, teaches, does miracles, dies, and resurrects to the benefit of the Gentiles & Jews - not a single member being a Gentile but they had concern for them too (including Romans and Samaritans). Such weird writings where they make themselves into, well idiots - Peter comes off as brash and a denier of this faith, John and James are young and zealous - wanna kill people at one point, Matthew is a 'tax collecter' (not very admirable), Judas kills himself, etc. They paint themselves down and make Jesus look, well 'great'. I get it, I really do. They made up a fake person so they could make up a fake religion - what I don't get is the motive? Why? Was Judaism really that horrible to them? Did they think this idea would free the Jewish people from Roman oppression? Was their fame in it for some of them? I mean what makes a normal bunch of people leave their God, nation, and lifestyle?

You see if it is fake then all promises are null n void and these gospels and letters have no authority whatsoever - and whoever follows them is doing it for recreation alone. Some of the promises being eternal life and a close understanding of who God is or 'was'. Basically, there would be as much truth in there as in Greek mythologies about Zeus - they would be on an even keel and either can be worshipped as God (as far as I am concerned).

The other big problem is Paul and his letters. These pieces of literature point to the same ideas - Jesus lived, died, and resurrected - same claims as the gospels. Paul seems to tell quite the tale about himself and his turn to Christ - being a former high person in Jewish ranks. He then turns only to have himself nearly killed a few times, hated by his own people (both Romans and Jewish), takes quite the beating in a lot of places he ventures too - and in the end for what - to push a myth on other nations of peoples? He also verifies the fact Peter, James, and John all backed his ministry and were his pals - even though he was a later addition. I mean maybe Paul was all lies too - who knows - we never watched him pen the letters. But what is his motive? It can't be fame or prestige - he has that. Money - he has that. Religion - he has that. He's sado-masichistic and just needs to take the beats to 'get off'? What exactly? He sure seems to love pain is all I know.

I look at that pile of trash and I think - no historicity in the gospels and letters in and of themselves - 'give me a break' Nell Carter. The fact they exist means a whole hell of a lot and to think otherwise means you either have never considered the times of the disciples nor have you considered motive of the suspects. No one seems to gain a damn thing of these early disciples of Christ - fact is - all of them die with nothing or under persecution (for their own beliefs). They are rejected of their own faith (Judaism), persecuted by their own faith (Judaism), risk family, friends, and livelihood (means of survival), and are then killed for that - and for what, a name? There's no logic in that or who is that stupid? Unless, they had some truth to what they were writing.

What do you think? Is this all a big hoax or does the bible in and of itself contain some historicity?

I Really Wanna Know...Who are You?

I have been thinking upon my past for sometime now, and no one knows me out here, so I figured I would give you a glimpse into the maniacial world of 'who I am'. Summed up in histories and life events - with the colorful use of Sesame Street wording (best show ever).

A - Assimilation. My people (First Nations of Canada - Cree/Saulteux) were forced to become like the French and English communities that took over Canada. First Nations people had there religion, politics, language, culture, and livelihood taken from them and switched for another one. They were taught to be English or French - not First Nations. I am a by-product of over 150 years of this interaction.

B - Bird, my last name. Originally in Saulteux 'Mista-keep-ness' meaning Landing Bird (the original name of the person from whose lineage I come from). Canadian gov't felt it neccesary to brand my family with a last name so they shortened it to Bird.

C - Colonialism. The English gov't's doctrine of 'Manifest Destiny' afforded them the right to overtake Canada and place upon the inhabitants a system they used in Britian. It was the conquering of the land in the name of God and Queen. This then led to the dehumanization of the inherent races upon this land - this still plays out in parts of the world (ex: Iraq). It's the 'we know best' attitude (over and above these inhabitants).

D - Desnomie. My mother's family's last name. It's a Metis name from the late 1800's and is mix of Cree and French. They were adopted into my reserve via marriage.

E - Education. Peepeekisis, Balcarres, Thomson, Wetmore, Sacred Heart, O'Neill, Johnson, and Scott Collegiate - and the school of hard knox. And tonnes of friends from all the other schools. Stay true to your roots.

F - Family. I have a big family of 6 brothers (one deceased) and 1 sister. I have a mother still living, a father who died when I was 10, and grandparents from both sides who died before I ever knew them. I am now married to a Greek-Ukranian girl for 2 years now.

G - God. For as long as I can remember there was a God. I used to pray to him as a scared child during thunderstorms or abusive nights that happened with my parents. I never thought there wasn't a God and I saw the need for a God throughout my life. The questions of existence mean as much to me as hope itself.

H - Hierarchy. I have a real love/hate relationship with structured systems. From the days I was small until my teen years I could not trust social services, police, teachers, politics, etc. The system was a cruel bitch to my people (and to me) and I recieved more the lashing of it's anger than the comfort they say it provides. Thus I am by nature a questioner but I know these systems are meant for so much more.

I - Indian. That's what Columbus called the first people he met in South America and that name is forever grained in Canadian politics as the term to classify First Nations. I actually use the word all the time with my friends and is within every piece of legislation regarding First Nations people of Canada (ex: The Indian Act). A term used also to classify a variety of Nations under one branding (ex: we are Cree, Saulteux, Mohawk, Haida, etc - lots of nations and people groups).

J - Jason. This is my first name and it is most interesting. I was not named after a single ancestor from my lineage, although every other single sibling in my family is. Coincidence, no. You see I was actually dis-liked from birth (my father was sure I wasn't his) so my mother was left to the naming - she chose a name popular for the day. I was named after 'nobody' (which is somewhat a disgrace where I come from). Odd thing is I was born like nobody I know - I was born in a car on the way to the hospital. I have sinced changed my name to 'born to fight' - having been in such a way as to fight for his life.

K - Knowledge. I have a great thirst to know as much as I can about any single thing that sparks my interest. I pulled straight 'A's throughout school and have two degree's (Bachelor of Theology & a Bachelor of Business Administration). But I know I am way short of what I want to know about life.

L - Love. I grew up without love (generally speaking) and was not much of a loving person. I had problems with my dad (physical abuse) and with my mom (who abandoned me at the age of 11), so recourse did I have? But I remember attending church this one time and I felt the extreme freedom of the love of God - of which this day I count a miracle. I can't say what happened that day but my outlook went from sad to happy, hurt to forgiveness, judgment to mercy...and I refuse to look back from that perspective.

M - Mercy. I am nothing without mercy. I know the life I live can only string itself together under the mercy of those who should look upon me. When I was broken, they cared to fix it. When I was poor, they cared for me. When I was hurt, they hurt with me. When I was wrong, they forgave. When I owed them, they counted it as nothing. I am nothing without mercy.

N - Negative. My outlook on life sways from positive to a negative very quickly, and this from the life I was born into. I am negative, I see my people suffering (as I did) under atrocious conditions of poverty, welfare, discrimination, crime, abuse, and violence. In me is an anger that refuses to be burnt out.

O - Open. I am open to all points of view, not knowing by innate knowledge which is the best to choose. I give people the benefit of the doubt when I am wronged, I have an open ear if your views can only sharpen mine, and I am non-chalant about who I am.

P - Peepeekisis. This is where I come from and this is the name of the reserve my family lived on for almost 100 years. This reserve was a 'test run' for the gov't to see if First Nations people could become farmers - my family comes from Keys (matriarch) and Cote's (patriarch) and they were shipped here to become farmers (none of us farmers to this day).

Q - Queen City, Regina. This is the city where I made my home at about the age of 12 (19 years ago). I grew up in North Central - our inner-city. I attended the school region with the highest rates of violent crimes and murder (about 90% of murders in our city happen in this area). I never had a single friend that owned a home (all rented), a new car, or wasn't in trouble with the law. I, myself, have committed every petty crime one could imagine just to scrape by or have pocket change. I rolled with a gang before this city even had them, only because we wanted to protect ourselves (and make some money). I am aware of what poverty does to people and how having 'no place' can become a factor in what you become.

R - Residential Schools. My mother and father were products of the Canadian/Church system of Residential schools in Canada (literally a genocide without the death part). These schools were set up so First Nations kids could be a part of Canada - problem was they were also designed to strip every single kid of their culture (ex: language, hair length, symbols, etc - all outlawed). The kids were taken from their homes and shipped to these school systems (without the consent of their parents - mandatory) and the kids may not see their parents at all for the whole school year. The physical and emotional abuse in these schools made them prison-like and the kids were trained to resent being 'Indian' - identity issues cropped up afterwards. My mother and father were incapable of the kind of love they desired to offer us kids - I realize that now, they never saw their parents parent them.

S - Salvation. I came to Christ when I was 18 with no education (dropped out), no money, no hope, and no goal for life (my goal was just to live). I had a family mired in poverty (along with friends), alcohol, drugs, and the welfare condition and I had friends who were partying, into criminal activity, violence, drugs, sex, etc. When I came to God, I came willingly.

T - The Action Group. I started this little endeavor earlier this year (jan 06) as a way for churches to address the needs of people within poverty conditions. We haven't grown from more than 5 members and the idea is still continuing to press on me. I see an endeavor that can both unify the churches and help eliminate some of the conditions of poverty - I have big goals and if I give up, who's actually going to care?

U - Unity. I have been striving for church unity for about 1 year now, little to no results are showing. It's just not that big of an issue it seems. But if 'divided we fall', then there is only one answer.

V - Violence. I have lived a life surrounded by violence, for as long as I care to remember. I was physically abused, in turn I fought others. The lives around me in my community are shrouded with this time and time again, it's hard to turn a 'blind eye' when you have experienced it first-hand. The jails are packed with violent offenders and some of them are my friends (It has been reported that 75% of Aboriginals make up the population of jails in Saskatchewan). This is one of the reasons I challenge my fears of people, I just won't play the victim role any longer.

W - Wards of the State. First Nations people were deemed 'wards of the state' under Canadian gov't and even have legislation to prove it (Indian Act). This same act has usurped Indian rights for generation after generation causing it to never gain a foothold of independance. This legislation provided for an Indian Agent to direct the affairs of First Nations people (still exists to this day). They funnell the money, take a cut then deliver it to First Nations for housing and what not. It has been the sole reason for all the problems in First Nations people. They set up the schools, didn't allow us to vote until 1961, gave us a pass and permit system (so we couldn't even leave the reserve until the 50's), started us on a welfare system, etc. If you ever took a look at South Africa, they used this legislation (Indian Act) to build their Apartheid Act.

X - X-cellence. I have this weird thing about winning awards thru-out my life. In Kindergarten I won a trophy (attendance), In grade 8 I won the academic award, In grade 12 I won numerous scholarships, and in university I also won numerous scholarships. I have two degrees in which I never failed a class. Still ain't too proud to beg.

Y - Youth. I really missed out on a child-hood in my life but I did have the funnest youth experiences ever. All of my friends used to play sports every week - pretended we were pro's (hockey, basketball, football, baseball, etc) with all the equipment we stole. We used to bumpershine in winter, get chased by the cops for what we called 'bombing', kicked down garage doors for pop bottles, stole bikes/clothes/raided gardens together, played all kinds of pranks on one another, collected cards and comics, made our own baseball bats one time, played blind tag in the church, stole from stores (one time got caught), and for that I love every single one of them and they are as close to me as family. This list could really go on and on.

Z - Zen. All things come around that go around. I should have to pay for what I have done. It's the basic principle I now life my life by.

Give Unity a Chance

Everyone talking about
luther-isms
calvin-isms
catholi-cisms
prebytery-isms
evangelical-isms
alliance-isms
methodist-isms
mormon-isms

All we are saying is...give unity a chance

Everyone talking about
charismatic-isms
Baptist-isms
Wesley-isms
Emergent-isms
Unitarian-isms
Reformed-isms
Episcopal-isms
Pentecostal-isms

And all we are saying is...give unity a chance

Everyone talking about
Othodox-isms
Mennonite-isms
Gnostic-isms
Adventist-isms
Vineyard-isms
non-denomination-isms
Waldensian-isms
Quaker-isms

And all we are saying is...give unity a chance

Everying talking about
Yahweh-isms
Jehovah-isms
Christian-isms
Father-isms
Freedom-isms
Fellowship-isms
Brother-isms
Disciple-isms

And all we are saying...is give unity a chance

Everyone talking about
Scripture-isms
Faith-isms
Servant-isms
Icon-isms
Prayer-isms
Worship-isms
Tithe-isms
Proselyte-isms

And all we are saying is...give unity a chance

Everyone talking about
Everywhere-isms
Nowhere-isms
Somewhere-isms
Anywhere-isms
Returning-isms
Human-isms
Science-isms
Learning-isms

All I am saying is...is give unity a chance.

Credibility: How do I know who is credible?

I have been wrestling with this issue for the past few days and figured I would throw it on a blog. Credibility within the Christian faith is becoming increasingly something I look at more intently, as if I would find answer to who is and why? What I have found is that credibility is something the church thinks they can decide as to 'who speaks the truth within their faith'.

Being an outcast (of sorts) from within the Christian juggernaut (which consists of many a strand of denominations) I have come to see my own credibility (as a person that speaks for the faith)...it is close to non-existent. It's not because I don't have the background or study to so speak for the Christian faith, I only lack one thing...harmonizing with the denominational beliefs. I am so spooled as an outcast with no real way to speak into the very thing I claim, faith in Christ...at least until I hold some position within the juggernaut or rightly uphold their missions, visions, and laws (see any denominational church website for more on that). But I accept that and continue to strive for more clarity on the subject of credibility.

I see the church as something that designates itself and has lost some it's 'voice' and in need of real accountability. They claim to be following the faith in it's fullness and it lacks nothing...right from the way the church is set-up, worship, offerings, interpretation, and prayer. If you are within the structure in some position then you have the 'say' of what can be done, if you are a lowly peon like myself (a congregationalist not striving for more then that) then your 'say' is limited to the group of congregants you 'hang with'. Top that off denominations cannot speak with other denominations and you get a ball of confusion with no end in sight (for clarity). Begging the obvious, if this denomination thinks it's right and the other thinks it's right (yet practicing varying beliefs)...which is credible?

They will tell you they gather all their beliefs from the bible and 'thus and thus' says the passage of scripture they base their beliefs on (or doctrinal statement)...but if you read any statement they take scripture from 'here and there' in a paste job for justification. To be honest, is that true to the intentions of the biblical writers? If we follow their pattern (paste job I call it) then I can justify anything I so choose and I have seen it done...slavery, tongues, war, and circumcision to name a few. I ask then, if they being credible do use the bible as a 'paste job' for justification, how is it if I read the whole book or letter (and find the context and intent) without using a quoted scripture have none? Simply put, I am not on the 'A' list of people within the faith nor do I use the bible as a scripture quoting machine.

In my questioning is the 'rub'...call it credibility but it also leads to accountability. I suppose they my faith does not have it all together as they so seem. We have denominational splits and a church choice for every day of the week (which Paul was adamantly against saying there is one body not 100's of them). These denominations rarely, if ever, work of the same page and discuss their beliefs as to what needs to be taught within their strands of faith (as in councils of Nicea and the early church fathers did to hash out their ideas), thusly they are not working together as much as they make it seem (not even in the same cities). No one calls into account people within their Christian faith that are giving it a 'bad name' or mis-using the scripture for what seems 'evil' ends (ex: gay-bashing). There are list upon list of such things and if I were to go into them all I would be writing to no end (wouldn't have room for it all). But what I am saying is on the question of accountability is the church has no avenue within it for such questioning.

But my solution is simple and is one I live by, we have the right to question our respective churces on their practices if they do not follow the intentions of the biblical writers. I have come up against 2 in recent days and I will recite them here. (1) A certain church in my city is telling a person to stop taking prescription meds and psychiatric counselling since they are deemed 'evil' and not of the faith (this person has schizophrenia) and reveal a lack of trust in God. (2) A person within my city who claims 'Christianity' as his faith is going around passing out leaflets, posting things in the paper, wearing t-shirts, and picketing anything 'gay' as 'doomed to hell'. He has been fined by the city $17,000 for his abuses but refuses to quit. He is not only an outright 'gay-basher' but claims this is from his biblical beliefs and has been 'called' to do this.

2 scenarios of many but they will suffice. Who holds these people and their teachings accountable to what is really taught in the Christian faith? Are they credible and who deems what they say as such? Problem is they are within the structure and have their haven in some denomination that see's no problem with their actions. I see a problem in their actions and a strong rebuke is coming (if I ever get a chance to find out where they worship). You see even in my lack of credibility I still have enough sense to know these people are wrong in their interpretation. If a 'gay person' does not have the right to be treated as I am treated, then show me justification for such an action? As far as the church not allowing the schizophreniac the help he so deserved and offering teaching that triggers problems within him, I also have to step in and question their tactics. I know we live by faith but this is ridiculous. If he has does have 'that kind of faith' then we should do all the more to support someone who I consider of the 'poor' in society.

I am asking for accountability (and it stems from the church perspective - or credibility). If it is too much to ask then I will ask again and again until something is done. How can I, a person of the same faith, sit back and watch this game of incredulity go on? I can't. It's driving me and many others straight out of congregations in droves. Time we stood up and in these 'non-profit' organizations and offered some checks n balances. So if you give money, ask to see the books and how your money is spent...if you don't like it request a change. If the teaching in your church is not quite right...step up and question the leadership about it...they are no more than designated leaders anyways...and request a change. Start programs that allow for your faith to be enacted in some way...if the leadership so disapprove...request a change in leadership (if the idea you hold is true to the faith). It's a call for accountabilty and working together in this faith to stop the destruction from within.

I am reading the Qu'ran

I have recently started reading the Quran and the OT at the same time, well the Torah of the OT as it stands now. Fascinating reads the both of them and I would suggest if anyone reads tge Quran to read it aside the OT...it's funny how the Quran picks from the Torah and Genesis a lot.

Why amI reading the Quran? I have the ability to do so and I want to know more about this religion and some of the motives behind it. Also I have a friend that is a Muslim and he gave me a free copy, I figure I'll put it to good use.

I really have some reservations about the Quran at this point. I have read 5 chapters (Sura's) in and some of things Mohammed is teaching is just right out there (from left field so to speak). I find the book more trying to convince me this is God (Allah) than any other type of scripture I have ever read. It also sends a lot of mixed messages from a reader's standpoint. But I'll mention some noteable things I have found.

1. Men are allowed to marry up to 4 wives (but not to treat one better than the other). Should I take exception to this...I know my wife would.

2. The divorce law is beyond weird. If a man leaves a woman then marries a 2nd time and divorces again, then the woman can come back to the man only when she has since divorced a 2nd time (a matter of equality). I have found this just doesn't work on any level. Also divorce seems quite allowable for matters of small circumstances and the man takes 2/3 of the property.

3. Those who fight on behalf of Allah have a greater reward (higher position) in the garden compared to those who do not fight (although they still get to the garden). At one point Allah mentions that we may not like something that is good for us...in reference to fighting. However, if you can somehow forgive and let people off from their penalty then you are also considered great. So fighting is good and fighting is not good?

4. The Quran borrows tonnes from the OT in regards to laws...food laws, who you can marry, etc. They also use Abraham as their guidepost in faith (as ther father of the Muslim faith) and add Ishmael onto the old saying 'Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'. The book wavers on if the Jew can be a friend or not and comes close to calling them the enemy at points (for their lack of faith in Allah) but it never crosses that line (as of 5 chapters anyways).

5. The Christians are in the same boat as the Jewish faith, in that we haven't accpeted Allah. We seem to stand on better moral ground are even called 'their best friends' at times. However, Mohammed again wavers on this and considers us non-believers like the rest (apparently in those days we must have accepted them more readily). To Mohammed we committ the most grievous of sins (detestable and worthy of punishment)...we allow there to be more than 1 God in joining Jesus to what we refer as the 'Trinity' (actually mentioned in the Quran). This is unforgiveable (mentioned a few times as the worst sin).

6. At the very beginning of chapter 2, as proof of the validity of this book being from God, there is challenge to write a better Sura (scripture) than the one's you will read...it then goes onto say this is impossible. However, I think I may be able to at least match Mohammed's ability and I still find the writings of the disciples a lot better than that of Mohammed's.

7. Everything that is written is always followed by 'cause Allah is such n such'. Who can argue with that? I find this the same as a Christian saying 'because God told me so'...to which you cannot argue. So basically the book sets itself up so that you cannot argue against it or you argue against God and this is damnable (who wants to be arguing with what God said?). This is what I mean by trying to 'lead the reader' into something in which they have no voice.

8. The people that were once believers and followers of Allah seem to be a hated sort...the Muslim has the right to kill that person wherever he should find him...likely because he backed out of fighting on Allah's behalf and watched his former brothers die in battle. Note to self, if you ever do convert you are stuck.

I am only 5 chapters in thus far and those are some of the questions I have found. But if you want my personal opinion, since I am well read in the OT & NT, I think Mohammed was quite familiar with the Jewish Torah and the early disputes amongst Christians and Jewish people, namely on the validity of their scriptures. He must of saw how in-cohesive they were towards one another and built arguments upon that. He also must of felt a great urge to call his own people into account based on what he knew about the OT and NT...for unity purposes and to offer a better way than what they had (which he calls 'pagan').

I really feel for the guy since he just wanted a better life for his people and on that I can't knock his intentions. There are a lot of good morals being taught within the book (as with all scripture) and the idea's of charity and forgiveness rank high as virtues of Allah (Allah is oft-forgiving and oft-Merciful...mentioned around 50 times thus far). So I think it is a great read and something to do if you want to understand some of the idea's behind the 2nd biggest religion in the world. It is really helping me to understand my brother (who is a Muslim), although I may have reservations about some of the teachings, and to step on an even playing field with him. I am not reading to condemn him but to uplift him. Even if I should find myself condemned in the Quran, love is greater than that and mercy is a good reminder of the human condition. So...what do you think of this?

Tear it down and I will rebuild it in 3 days: Changing the Status Quo

Lately I have had the chance to review the aspects of the church I have problems with, in talking with friends and counter-parts. I have come to sincerely realize the church 'doesn't think it has a structural problem' or it goes unrecognized. Which is hard to ignore when I read plenty of bloggers and their absolute dismay with the current affairs of the church. Some say 'you shouldn't care' while others think 'it is unchangeable'. But I find it hard to watch an institution that I both love and care about lose some of the original focus of the gospels, which are the greatest teachings I have ever read. So the real question I pose is 'can the church be changed?'.

1. The Structure of the Church

Here is the structure laid out: Power people (Pastors, teachers, church board, elders, musicians), the show (worship, offerings, testimonies, message from head guy, and possibly some prayer for you), and the audience (congregation). The role of the whole thing is draw you closer to God whether that be in a 'sinner's prayer', some worship, learning from ideas of the speaker, or some ministering towards you (ex: praying over you + the laying on of hands). This is the daily service in a nutshell. The church also asks for your money (standard rule being 10%) for which they use for the ministries they have which might include missions, sunday school, local charities, bible college or a school, pastor's salary, new equipment for the band, additions to the building, etc. This is basically how it looks to the people that are 'in the know'. Can that be changed or better yet, should it?

2. The Problem with trying to change it (credibility)

You see it is okay to have questions about your faith (just don't doubt) but to have questions about the affairs of the church may be as 'taboo' as asking if God is a 'woman' during a Sunday Service. The problem lies in the fact you have no credibility unless you are the 'power people', hang out with the 'power people', or have some pull with them (ex: a family member). So if you have no credibility with that crowd then you are 'out of luck' in trying to make any changes whatsoever. If you a simple 'audience' person well you count for very little in their midst since you have no 'sway' with the power people nor do you have an active place to voice concerns. There is no credible people outside the 'power people', since they carry the doctrines of God and apparently live them out better then the audience (thus they have the right to minister these ideals to you). If you do have questions and want to make a change then you best be approaching the 'power people' and relating your ideas...nothing might happen but this is the correct procedure. So even if you have, well let's say, 2 degree's (one a bachelor of theology) and a wealth of great ideas to use you still are sub-servient to the leaders and your ideas are not valid since they never came from the minds of the enlightened 'power people' of the church...maybe they feel slighted by the fact you have these ideas in the first place and they cannot be shown to be 'behind the times' (lest someone question their position of power).

3. The absurd reality: we are all equals

The really weird thing about this whole structure is that we are all equal and no one has more power than the next dude. Nowhere in the bible is someone ever deemed as more powerful than others nor is this structure taught as gospel truth (it's actually not even mentioned in there so we have to find it on a blog). Music is never mentioned as part of the faith, although it is fun, nor is the importance of buildings as the place to meet God. But still the status quo will not be changed unless you know the 'power people' (who have no power except that they have from a denomination bestowed upon them - ex: accreditation). Then how do you personally change the structure, you go around their rules and do it yourself (a lone wolf so to speak).

4. Tear this building down

If you want to change the structure of the church you are in there are some easy steps to follow in the process. First, deny the right of the 'power people' to determine your faith - I know it's absurd but this is where to start. The 'power people' are just as human as you and I and make mistakes and some are paid by the structure (with respect) to uphold it...so they are kind of compromised in that regards. Secondly, don't doubt your ideas if the ideas are biblical. Just because some 'power person' says they are not, you already know they are trying to uphold their beautiful traditions and will not move to the left or right for you (you are a peon and have no power anyways so 'it's in one ear and out the other'). Thirdly, go about it for yourself and don't let the church decide if it is 'ministry worthy'. You won't have access to the money they have, nor the resources they have, but that is half the battle and something you can do nothing to change. Best thing to do is ignore their ministry lines and do you own thing without their blessings. Fourthly, rally the people to support your endeavor (obviously from the audience) and offer them a way to do something meaningful besides watching the show. They will be your support group and where your resources will come from. Once they feel empowered the 'power people' will not be able to break you down (they like to single out lone wolves). Lastly, be prepared for the worst. You will be denied by the church, you will be called all 'evil things', your reputation will become useless, you will be judged harshly, and in the end you will be an 'outcast'. But that's what you get for trying to change the structure and have no 'power' to do so. These same ideals got Jesus killed in his day, so I say be prepared for the worst.

So I personally believe the church structure can be changed and the focus they have can be altered. I don't think the church is beyond hope in this regard but it is quite the challenge. The 'old dogs' won't let their guard down too quickly and there bark is worse than their bite. Still, if you see problems in your church and want a change, well here's a model to use. At some point the 'old dogs' will fade away and their upheld traditions will fade with them, have some patience. If you are blessed enough the 'old dogs' might even support your idea, which feels great. Why do I say wait it out? Well, I don't agree with church shopping and if you are in a congregation why should you leave to get what you need? That seems divisive to me and further supports their irresponsibility as change agents in society. The adamant question is 'does it work'? Well I don't know but it seems like someone else did this in His day.

Is God Green? Evangelicals Fight Over Genesis

How did conservative evangelicals, who tend to present a unified front on most matters of political significance, end up in such a public battle over how to approach environmental issues like global warming? What's behind this difference of opinion? (Taken from http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/green/environment.html)

In most respects, the divide comes down not to a disregard for the world — which is, for evangelicals, the creation of God but on how exactly to care for that creation. Evangelicals part company on what God calls them to do about the environment: where to focus their attention, how to interpret scientific data, what the role of legislation and/or the free market should be in protecting the environment and human interests. Does God ask Christians, explicitly or implicitly, to make environmentalism, or "creation care," part of their ministry and political platform? (Find out more about creation care, wise use and environmental stewardship)

Concern for the environment, and the current debate it has engendered, might be a hot topic in the evangelical community, but it is not a new one. Environmental policy debates emerged among evangelicals...in the 1960s and '70s. There were some critics, like medieval scholar Lynn Townsend White Jr., who went so far as to blame organized religion itself for the world's ecological ills, arguing that medieval Christian attitudes in particular, and the entire Judeo-Christian tradition in general, taught a disregard for nature and led to exploitation of the environment. That argument finds echoes today among certain evangelicals who insist that in Genesis, God gave man "dominion" over the earth and its creatures — essentially, carte blanche to do what he wants with his environment.

But for a number of religious Christians and evangelicals, this represents a dangerous misreading of the Bible. God, they contend, appointed man steward of the world, to protect it and sustain it as a way to honor to the divine work of the Creator. Caring for the environment, they say, isn't a political issue — it's a theological imperative.

In 1970, one such group, the National Association of Evangelicals (NEA), released a strongly worded policy resolution that called on Christians "to support every legitimate effort to maintain balance in ecology, preservation of our resources, and avoidance of the cluttering of our natural beauty with the waste of our society." And they didn't hedge at adding a bit of fire and brimstone: "Today those who thoughtlessly destroy a God-ordained balance of nature are guilty of sin against God's creation." (Read the documents)

In 1993 the Evangelical Environmental Network began to turn creation-care beliefs into action, publishing a declaration which began, "As followers of Jesus Christ, committed to the full authority of the Scriptures, and aware of the ways we have degraded creation, we believe that biblical faith is essential to the solution of our ecological problems."

But another religious group, which later became known as the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship, wanted to take the environmental debate in a different direction. They made their opposing views known in the 1999 "Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship," which warned that groups like the Evangelical Environmental Network's presented "a romantic view of nature, a misguided distrust of science and technology, and an intense focus on problems that are highly speculative and largely irrelevant to meeting our obligations to the world's poor."

The Cornwall Declaration stressed a free-market environmental stewardship and emphasized that individuals and private organizations should be trusted to care for their own property without government intervention. It also claimed that environmental concerns like global warming, overpopulation, and the extinction of species were either unfounded or greatly exaggerated. In the words of Father Robert A. Sirico of the conservative Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty and member of Interfaith Council, "Environmental ideology is increasingly being used, not to preserve nature's beauty, but to restrict human enterprise that is essential to a more humane existence for people."

The Evangelical Climate Initiative The rhetoric over the role of evangelical Christians in the global warming debate escalated significantly in February 2006 when 86 Evangelical leaders signed and publicly released a statement entitled Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.

Among the tenets of the statement:

(a) Human-induced climate change is real.
(b) The consequences of climate change will be significant and will hit the poor the hardest.
(c) Christian moral convictions demand our response to the climate change problem.
(d) The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate change-starting now. (Read the document)

News that the call to action was in the works in January 2006 prompted the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, a group related to the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship and the Acton Institute, to attempt to forestall any global warming policy statement by the National Association of Evangelicals. They sent the group a missive warning them to "not adopt any official position on the issue of global climate change," as "global warming is not a consensus issue, and our love for the Creator and respect for His creation does not require us to take a position." Led by high-proflie evangelical leaders Charles Colson and James Dobson, (also included Pat Robertson/John Hagee/Calvin Beisner) Interfaith Stewardship Alliance called for the National Association of Evangelicals not to put their name to the document.

For others in the evangelical community, taking a public stand on issues like global warming just isn't part of the religious plan. Christian broadcaster Jan Markell believes that evangelicals are called by God to win souls for Jesus, not to take up social issues, and that environmentalism distracts from the real mission of the evangelical church.

I personally like the fact the NEA took a stand for something to do with the environment, which caused the split in the first place within evangelicialism. I have been fairly big on social issues and this one fell into my lap while watching Moyers TV show. What do you think? Is environmentalism a Christian ideal or just a bunch of hog-wash?

Losing My Religion: That's Me in the Corner

I was asked by another blogger (Jim Jordan) to comment on the 'Losing My Religion' lyrics and I thought that was a great idea. I am a fan of REM and this song's title really meant something to me when I began to write this blog, so here's my take on the song.

Losing My Religion (R.E.M.)

(a) Life is bigger, It's bigger than you, And you are not me
The lengths that I will go to, The distance in your eyes
Oh no I've said too much, I set it up

(b) That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion

(c) Trying to keep up with you, And I don't know if I can do it
Oh no I've said too much, I haven't said enough

(d) I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

(e) Every whisper, Of every waking hour, I'm choosing my confessions
Trying to keep an eye on you, Like a hurt lost and blinded fool
Oh no I've said too much, I set it up

(f) Consider this
The hint of the century
Consider this
The slip that brought me to my knees failed
What if all these fantasies come flailing around
Now...I've said too much

(g) I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try
But that was just a dream
That was just a dream...just a dream

(a) Life is bigger than any of us and this is what causes our search for something outside, greater than us (Ex: God). The person admits they are not you and their search is their's. The lengths to get to know God are numerous for anyone but they are met with 'distance' by people within religion (can't relate to them and their rules). They feel they can't reveal too much about themselves to the religious (fear of judgment or being told all the answers) but they still wonder.

(b) My take on the chorus is 2-fold. Firstly, the person who 'hears' us has their doubts justified by those in the 'corner' (the congregation) and those in the 'spotlight' (the preacher) - it's all 'mere words' in a structured system. Secondly, I used the title because I empathize but also because I am 'losing my religion' - (1) casting off old religious structurism's and (2) the faith I love has become something useless in society (a lot of talk) with little action (I challenge it).

(c) The hopelessness of the individual to meet our high expectations (ex: perfectly sinless or rules based system) and they become unsure of their own faith. Leaving them with no recourse for action or any voice within the church, 'they say too much, they never say enough'. They see the problem but cannot handle being left voiceless in a 'don't question God' system.

(d) The people can see us trying or 'putting on the show' but they cannot relate with it. We laugh we sing and we seem so damn happy...what about those who come to the church not that way? I can see their problems with relating to a bunch of 'happy all the time' clones (almost fake to them?).

(e) Again the person is trying to live up to the rules set for them by religion (ex: prayer and repentance) and they are trying to obey (as hard as they can). They are watching you to see if they can find the little bit of answers they cannot seem to find in religion (since you have been there longer and may know more about the system). In all their mis-connections within religion they feel 'hurt, lost, blind and foolish'...like they missed a mark or something. Again saying too much can work against you in the system and in these doubts 'the religious' feel they have to somehow correct you.

(f) In the final part the person feels they have gained nothing from religion. They ask us to consider this religion as failed, even a fantasy...due to the fact they only got the hint this was all 'faked and contrived' (a systemic way of viewing God failed this individual). At this point the individual admits 'they've said too much' and this will not be tolerated within that system.

(g) It was all just a dream, a dream they feel has no validity in their personal life. The system failed them and they feel it's more 'a dream' than a reality.

I am not saying I agree (by no stretch) but I empathize with the views being expressed. A lot of people lose their trust for a rules-based system that tells them who/what/where/when/and why about God (like there is no mystery). The religion that is so sure isn't at all, they can't relate to someone struggling (system vs. personal touch). I don't think my faith is 'a dream' but I can see how someone can get there, in pure dis-illusionment with the church and it's 'do's and dont's'.

It seems like anyone that says 'God said this...' or 'God taught this...' or 'God told me...' can pretty much put anything after those sentences and how can you dispute it? God said it! A lot of people are using God's name in 'vain' and feel they have the right to invoke His name when they feel questioned (a total cop-out). They use God as someone who backs their idea's and to provide them with a 'self-righteouness'. That's the essence of this song. The right to question someone'e beliefs as possibly, not quite what it seems. I am in this role with mainstream church at the moment, wanting this ideal but seeing ideals so clamoured in the system that questioning the doctrines/dogma's is questioning God also. Basically, how do you get around that? Easy. Leave altogether and forget you questioned. But that's also irresponsible and changes nothing in the system that will forget you just as easy. Quite the conundrum. I'll err on the side of questioning.

He didn't just say what I think he did? Did he?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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'.

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.