The Word of God & Prophecy - Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Christianity & Atheism Dialogues - Best Attack Wins!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) An Atheist Allison said this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tipi Ceremony & Breathing New Life into Old Teachings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Evil Intent/Spirit and Learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moderate Intellectualism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's how I became a moderate intellect.

Finding Meaning in the Gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth and the Search for it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Nations Christianity Value System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question on the Purpose of Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me and Myself - Honesty & Brutality & Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me & My Mormons - honesty and brutality

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

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

Some examples are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passover - should we celebrate this yearly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Define the 'Christian' movement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Now I Even Forget to Forget" (SNFU)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wake Up Call

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context - My wife & I - and Luke

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

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

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

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

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

Undercover of the Night

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a Beginning Reader - How do you read it?

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

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

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