I just finished watching Kevin Anett's documentary called 'Unrepentant' and I must say - bingo! You want some enlightenment on the Aboriginal condition and history of my people group(s) within Canada - watch this video.
Kevin Anett claims the Canadian Government and 3 church groups (Anglican, United, and Catholic) progressively set up to assimilate Indigenous peoples of Canada. This assimilation occured mainly via the residential school system but also included stripping Indigenous lands, killing Indigenous children, subverting justice for Indigenous people, and a continual process of hushing the whole dirty history of church work within Indigenous communities and letting it continue to this day - a genocide. Each of those churches I, along with many Indian nations in Canada, call for a total boycott of - since they will not deal with their 'crimes against humanity'. See Kevin's site for more info on this 'hidden from history'.
I have not a single qualm about what Kevin has said in this video and my mother was also in Residential School as a child - in which she was severely abused and taught not to 'love'. Actually watching the documentary - the lady that dies at the end could very well be the testimony of my own mother (and likely is - she refuses to talk about it due to it's pain). The video is explicit about how this same genocide has also helped to keep the Indigenous population in Canada oppressed and broken - a cycle started since the Indian Act in 1876 - legislation which still exists until this day.
It is absolutely abhorent that a supposed civilized gov't and religious structure could do this to a whole nation of people - and not care. Fact is most problems within Indigenous communities stems back directly to residential schools and the torture this had upon Indigenous families - which was then continued by several abuses by the Canadian Government (including the AIM program - adopting Indian children away from their homes and a slack justice system which see's Indian's get life for vicious crimes and when Indians are victims - people get slapped on the wrist). This inhumanity has to stop.
This is where I come from and where I live - and what I have also had to live through as a Indigenous child of the Cree and Saulteaux (Anishnawbe) nations in Canada - this is part of my history whether I like it or not. I suggest, if you want to find out something about Aboriginal peoples in Canada (or even the USA) - to watch the video...learn something they never teach you in any school.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Hope - The Novel Idea
I was watching some Christian programming the other day when I heard something very interesting about this faith that made me realize something - hope should not die - for no reason whatsoever.
The idea of 'hope' was discussed concerning suicide and how the absence of hope is the pre-cursor to taking one's life. I chewed on that thought for a day or so and I think the program is 'on the money' with that idea. I felt a little ashamed also - I notice becoming so realistic and logical that I began functioning outside the idea of possibilities and hopes. My bad to be honest. Somebody slap me!
What is this Christian faith without the idea of 'hope'? I realize without this notion faith is a failure and useless to all (like salt without taste). In the end of the day, faith should lead to hope - for the now & for the later. I was dealing so in the now that I missed that hope is always possible (now and in the future) - it is the figurative smile of the gospel writings.
Faith without hope is like life without happiness - and this is essentially true. Try live one day in total uncertainty in any area of your life (work, family, faith, sport, etc) and you soon realize none of that is fun - and eventually you just get depressed into apathy. If life is without hope - life soon becomes worth ending - worth not deciding about anymore. Hope is absolutely essential to the gospel - and I think it is the 'selling point' - I think it directs humanity to it's core spirituality and life-blood - 'things do change'.
Life will be better...times will get easier...struggles will disappear...jobs will come your way...friendships can be made whole again...love can be restored and healed...faith can move mountains...promises do come true...etc...this is hope - we all do this - to stop doing this is to not 'believe' anymore - and not believing means you stopped breathing. Humans detoriate without possibility and choice concerning future - so let's help people see something they sometimes cannot - there is hope. This is good news.
The idea of 'hope' was discussed concerning suicide and how the absence of hope is the pre-cursor to taking one's life. I chewed on that thought for a day or so and I think the program is 'on the money' with that idea. I felt a little ashamed also - I notice becoming so realistic and logical that I began functioning outside the idea of possibilities and hopes. My bad to be honest. Somebody slap me!
What is this Christian faith without the idea of 'hope'? I realize without this notion faith is a failure and useless to all (like salt without taste). In the end of the day, faith should lead to hope - for the now & for the later. I was dealing so in the now that I missed that hope is always possible (now and in the future) - it is the figurative smile of the gospel writings.
Faith without hope is like life without happiness - and this is essentially true. Try live one day in total uncertainty in any area of your life (work, family, faith, sport, etc) and you soon realize none of that is fun - and eventually you just get depressed into apathy. If life is without hope - life soon becomes worth ending - worth not deciding about anymore. Hope is absolutely essential to the gospel - and I think it is the 'selling point' - I think it directs humanity to it's core spirituality and life-blood - 'things do change'.
Life will be better...times will get easier...struggles will disappear...jobs will come your way...friendships can be made whole again...love can be restored and healed...faith can move mountains...promises do come true...etc...this is hope - we all do this - to stop doing this is to not 'believe' anymore - and not believing means you stopped breathing. Humans detoriate without possibility and choice concerning future - so let's help people see something they sometimes cannot - there is hope. This is good news.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Sicko - Policies and Procedure
I watched Moore's new movie 'Sicko' last night and I think it is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen - namely on the universalism of health-care. Here is my take on the movie.
Firstly, universal health care does work and works in a variety of ways in several countries including France, Canada, Britian, and Cuba...and the majority of these countries are not socialist or communist - actually 3 of the 4 have conservative govt's. I think Moore brings up the idea that we see other countries new consumer goods and we buy them (since they are good ideas) - why can't we do this with health care? And 2 of these systems flourish in leaps and bounds - Britain only asks you pay $10.00 for all your perscriptions and France even has doctors who make house-calls (for free). I seen those examples and I was shocked - great ideas.
Secondly, universal health care is an idea that works for the poor and rich alike - it's very Robin Hood-ish indeed - takes from the more wealthy (in taxes) and helps to keep the system going so all can access it - even those without jobs. For me, this is the absolute selling point of the system - no one gets left out of essential care - irregardless of their class status. To me, this is an absolute Christian value and I can't see why any Christian would ever speak against 'helping the less fortunate'.
Thirdly, one example of someone losing their loved one for the sake of not getting essential health care in a progressively rich country is one too many. Moore however does not stop at one story - he has a plethora of examples to choose from (about 30 people) - even Americans in other countries weigh in...even 6000+ e-mails of medical horror stories. Now some Americans may not like Cuba but Che's daughter said some of the most encouraging things I have ever heard - I paraphrase - 'Cubans can not understand how the richest country can even have problems - shouldn't everyone be well taken care of'?' Some examples are: a man having to chose between fingers he cut off in an accident (couldn't afford both), a ladies daughter not getting antibiotics for her daughter (later died), and some victims of the 9/11 disaster not getting adequate medical care for conditions suffered from their volunteer work. Very sad indeed.
Fourthly, a system of health care and insurers that is run 'for profit' is a system in need of serious change. Health care is as essential to the human as the need for food and water is - it is essential to human happiness & life (which I think are mentioned in the constitution). People are getting rich by denying some people the cures to their very ills and this is not only barbaric, it's straight from the pit of evil (apparently some people can be worth less than a dollar sign). No one single person should be denied the right to 'live' - this is an absolute essential to humanity - that to deny it is tantamount to crimes against humanity.
Fifthly, people do not need to fear their government. Ironically, it seems the opposite is what true democracy is - government revering it's own people and listening. France was an overwhelming example of the people speaking out and being heard - and the government listened - including things like standing up for a 35 hour work week, holidays, and their health care system - and they were heard. They do not fear their government but respect that role it should play - and the government listens. I actually find it much scarier when business is in charge since ethically business is not a 'person' nor does it care about people - it's mission is to make a profit. If business can get away with selling your families drugs that will kill them - they will do just that - or have we forgot about the tobacco industry. Just thought I'd remind ourselves of that.
So for me the movie was a contemplative experience - I thought about what humans will take as they are told what to do - that even sometimes ethics can be cleansed from the human conscience if we are told this 'is our job' or 'this is just how it is'. Collectively we are being taken apart and being individualized - we are losing a grip on our collective strengths as a people. We are a democracy and in a free country - just how much more of this are we going to take? Shouldn't accountability start with us and not with lobbyists? I am ranting a bit but honestly - if you knew a better way why wouldn't you ask for it?
Firstly, universal health care does work and works in a variety of ways in several countries including France, Canada, Britian, and Cuba...and the majority of these countries are not socialist or communist - actually 3 of the 4 have conservative govt's. I think Moore brings up the idea that we see other countries new consumer goods and we buy them (since they are good ideas) - why can't we do this with health care? And 2 of these systems flourish in leaps and bounds - Britain only asks you pay $10.00 for all your perscriptions and France even has doctors who make house-calls (for free). I seen those examples and I was shocked - great ideas.
Secondly, universal health care is an idea that works for the poor and rich alike - it's very Robin Hood-ish indeed - takes from the more wealthy (in taxes) and helps to keep the system going so all can access it - even those without jobs. For me, this is the absolute selling point of the system - no one gets left out of essential care - irregardless of their class status. To me, this is an absolute Christian value and I can't see why any Christian would ever speak against 'helping the less fortunate'.
Thirdly, one example of someone losing their loved one for the sake of not getting essential health care in a progressively rich country is one too many. Moore however does not stop at one story - he has a plethora of examples to choose from (about 30 people) - even Americans in other countries weigh in...even 6000+ e-mails of medical horror stories. Now some Americans may not like Cuba but Che's daughter said some of the most encouraging things I have ever heard - I paraphrase - 'Cubans can not understand how the richest country can even have problems - shouldn't everyone be well taken care of'?' Some examples are: a man having to chose between fingers he cut off in an accident (couldn't afford both), a ladies daughter not getting antibiotics for her daughter (later died), and some victims of the 9/11 disaster not getting adequate medical care for conditions suffered from their volunteer work. Very sad indeed.
Fourthly, a system of health care and insurers that is run 'for profit' is a system in need of serious change. Health care is as essential to the human as the need for food and water is - it is essential to human happiness & life (which I think are mentioned in the constitution). People are getting rich by denying some people the cures to their very ills and this is not only barbaric, it's straight from the pit of evil (apparently some people can be worth less than a dollar sign). No one single person should be denied the right to 'live' - this is an absolute essential to humanity - that to deny it is tantamount to crimes against humanity.
Fifthly, people do not need to fear their government. Ironically, it seems the opposite is what true democracy is - government revering it's own people and listening. France was an overwhelming example of the people speaking out and being heard - and the government listened - including things like standing up for a 35 hour work week, holidays, and their health care system - and they were heard. They do not fear their government but respect that role it should play - and the government listens. I actually find it much scarier when business is in charge since ethically business is not a 'person' nor does it care about people - it's mission is to make a profit. If business can get away with selling your families drugs that will kill them - they will do just that - or have we forgot about the tobacco industry. Just thought I'd remind ourselves of that.
So for me the movie was a contemplative experience - I thought about what humans will take as they are told what to do - that even sometimes ethics can be cleansed from the human conscience if we are told this 'is our job' or 'this is just how it is'. Collectively we are being taken apart and being individualized - we are losing a grip on our collective strengths as a people. We are a democracy and in a free country - just how much more of this are we going to take? Shouldn't accountability start with us and not with lobbyists? I am ranting a bit but honestly - if you knew a better way why wouldn't you ask for it?
Monday, July 09, 2007
"Philosphy Does Not Make Me a Better Person"
The last few weeks I have been having some very deep discussions with a lot of people about aspects of this faith - mainly free will/choice. Funny thing is I learned a lot about myself in the discussion - and who I truly am.
I have noticed (and this needs to be a bumper sticker) 'philosophy does not make me a better person'. Wrangling with some very deep issues and looking at something from every logical angle is good to do - but it in no wise makes me a better person. Actually, thinking deep can draw out new emotions and ideas from within we never deal with very often - sometimes making us a worse person for the moment. I find thinking a great exercise but sometimes we need to get back to real life - and love and care for people in the world we live in (so yes - I suck).
My theology is not 'set in stone' and is open to change - I am not 100% sure of all the things I say - so discussion is good for me - it opens my mind to new thoughts and interpretations I may have never considered before. Truth is not something stagnant - it is open and we are learning as we go - so 'no' I am not a theological expert of any sorts (things are still being shaped). I am alright with that - cause Ninjanun said something that spoke volumnes to me "Doubt is not the opposite of faith, certainty is."
The way we treat others on the internet is a sign of the way we treat others in real life - since this is an aspect of reality. I find nothing wrong with disagreeing about points in a discussion and then working through those ideals (and maybe never coming to a concensus) - but to start talking someone down is rude (ie: calling names or just disregading them altogether). I know I don't like it when I am treated this way (disregarded) and I see no reason to do this to others. Maybe there is still a lot to learn about how we treat others on the internet - which I think Dagoods has pointed me towards in a few of his recent posts.
But all in all - I like discussing tough issues about life and how this all works out - since we have to live with our choices and ideologies. I guess I will always be game for a good discussion - about the finer things in life - and I think I could continually use the refining.
I have noticed (and this needs to be a bumper sticker) 'philosophy does not make me a better person'. Wrangling with some very deep issues and looking at something from every logical angle is good to do - but it in no wise makes me a better person. Actually, thinking deep can draw out new emotions and ideas from within we never deal with very often - sometimes making us a worse person for the moment. I find thinking a great exercise but sometimes we need to get back to real life - and love and care for people in the world we live in (so yes - I suck).
My theology is not 'set in stone' and is open to change - I am not 100% sure of all the things I say - so discussion is good for me - it opens my mind to new thoughts and interpretations I may have never considered before. Truth is not something stagnant - it is open and we are learning as we go - so 'no' I am not a theological expert of any sorts (things are still being shaped). I am alright with that - cause Ninjanun said something that spoke volumnes to me "Doubt is not the opposite of faith, certainty is."
The way we treat others on the internet is a sign of the way we treat others in real life - since this is an aspect of reality. I find nothing wrong with disagreeing about points in a discussion and then working through those ideals (and maybe never coming to a concensus) - but to start talking someone down is rude (ie: calling names or just disregading them altogether). I know I don't like it when I am treated this way (disregarded) and I see no reason to do this to others. Maybe there is still a lot to learn about how we treat others on the internet - which I think Dagoods has pointed me towards in a few of his recent posts.
But all in all - I like discussing tough issues about life and how this all works out - since we have to live with our choices and ideologies. I guess I will always be game for a good discussion - about the finer things in life - and I think I could continually use the refining.
Friday, July 06, 2007
SocietyVs on Choice & Faith - an Excerpt
Slapdash and I have been having some good convo's lately - have made me think about what I believe - this is an excerpt of how I see this faith. I must say - she really is a great person and is asking some awesome questions - thanks!!!
"Parents restrict the negative/bad choices of their children when they will clearly hurt themselves or others." (Slapdash)
Correction - you try to restrict their choices - even as a parent it is impossible to control their minds and choices they will make on a daily basis (ex: run away from you in a supermarket, smoke pot as a 15 year old, go into something even when forbidden, etc). You literally could write a memoir and ask your kids to obey it and demand it of them (of all the things you have taught in your life to them) and they might or might not obey...kinda like this whole choices thing we discuss about God (who also left us some remnant of writings to peruse - I would use Jesus' myself). Interesting parellel for me - at least - this is the way I see the whole thing.
"This is the crux of the matter for me - we act as though for choice to matter, God has to step completely out of the picture" (Slapdash)
I don't think God is out of the picture - this is a viewpoint we adopt when things don't work out - but it's not my perspective. The crisis' we all spoke of in all of these forums have either ended or will end at some point - yet we have a timeline all our own for them (since we play God in that aspect also). Or am I wrong? Will the problems in the Sudan be everlasting? Even dictators get killed, die, or kill themselves. Evil and good work out their own timelines in grudge matches with one another on this planet it would seem - and this is quite common (I am using black n white terms here for no good reason). But maybe things are that simple? Choices come from voices.
"And I still don't get how you can argue free will til you're blue in the face and still PRAY TO GOD to intercede in this world in big or small ways." (Slapdash)
Why not? I am free to make chocies irregardless of what any philosophy says either way - in the present tense.
My example is simple - I want to own a home and their quite a few barriers in the way to that goal. Now I can look at this two ways (both of them choices) - go for it (don't pay homage to doubts) or give up (pay homage to my weaknesses at this point). Now my view of prayer is that God is acting - but he also requires our action in that endeavor - partners of sorts - for what we need (shelter is a neccesity). If I ask, seek, and knock on doors - guess what happens? I get answers to the questions I am asking and helps in removing the barriers to the problem (I ask around about how to solve credit issues, seek out mortgages and financial help, and knock on doors of which people are willing to work with me on this). Then I develop a plan for my goal - let's say 9 months (following through on my asking in prayer). This is a real situation. I am currently doing this process - I'll update on the details and struggles I go through (if need be) - but I believe in the end I will own a house even without the actual means to do so at this point (except I have a job). But that's how this all works for me and I see that as the clear biblical strategy laid down in Jesus teachings. If you ask and recieve nothing - you never asked for something you saw as possible (which is a belief we all hold dear to).
"Of course, you get big kudos, SocVS if you never actually pray for God to intervene in this world...because that would at least be consistent. :)" (Slapdash)
I don't need to pray as much as I need to believe the words that come out of my mouth. This seems to be the problem with the whole dilemma - this 'what is possible' ideal?
"Parents restrict the negative/bad choices of their children when they will clearly hurt themselves or others." (Slapdash)
Correction - you try to restrict their choices - even as a parent it is impossible to control their minds and choices they will make on a daily basis (ex: run away from you in a supermarket, smoke pot as a 15 year old, go into something even when forbidden, etc). You literally could write a memoir and ask your kids to obey it and demand it of them (of all the things you have taught in your life to them) and they might or might not obey...kinda like this whole choices thing we discuss about God (who also left us some remnant of writings to peruse - I would use Jesus' myself). Interesting parellel for me - at least - this is the way I see the whole thing.
"This is the crux of the matter for me - we act as though for choice to matter, God has to step completely out of the picture" (Slapdash)
I don't think God is out of the picture - this is a viewpoint we adopt when things don't work out - but it's not my perspective. The crisis' we all spoke of in all of these forums have either ended or will end at some point - yet we have a timeline all our own for them (since we play God in that aspect also). Or am I wrong? Will the problems in the Sudan be everlasting? Even dictators get killed, die, or kill themselves. Evil and good work out their own timelines in grudge matches with one another on this planet it would seem - and this is quite common (I am using black n white terms here for no good reason). But maybe things are that simple? Choices come from voices.
"And I still don't get how you can argue free will til you're blue in the face and still PRAY TO GOD to intercede in this world in big or small ways." (Slapdash)
Why not? I am free to make chocies irregardless of what any philosophy says either way - in the present tense.
My example is simple - I want to own a home and their quite a few barriers in the way to that goal. Now I can look at this two ways (both of them choices) - go for it (don't pay homage to doubts) or give up (pay homage to my weaknesses at this point). Now my view of prayer is that God is acting - but he also requires our action in that endeavor - partners of sorts - for what we need (shelter is a neccesity). If I ask, seek, and knock on doors - guess what happens? I get answers to the questions I am asking and helps in removing the barriers to the problem (I ask around about how to solve credit issues, seek out mortgages and financial help, and knock on doors of which people are willing to work with me on this). Then I develop a plan for my goal - let's say 9 months (following through on my asking in prayer). This is a real situation. I am currently doing this process - I'll update on the details and struggles I go through (if need be) - but I believe in the end I will own a house even without the actual means to do so at this point (except I have a job). But that's how this all works for me and I see that as the clear biblical strategy laid down in Jesus teachings. If you ask and recieve nothing - you never asked for something you saw as possible (which is a belief we all hold dear to).
"Of course, you get big kudos, SocVS if you never actually pray for God to intervene in this world...because that would at least be consistent. :)" (Slapdash)
I don't need to pray as much as I need to believe the words that come out of my mouth. This seems to be the problem with the whole dilemma - this 'what is possible' ideal?
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
100 Posts - Still Losing My Religion...
This is officially my 100th post on this site - although I have authored a few at NorthVU's site (about 10 or so)...but this is my 100th here...almost 2 years of blogging...what have I learned - a lot!
- I have read 1/2 the Quran up to this point (and blogged with people working w/Muslims)
- Discussed many an issue with Atheists - concerning biblical texts, history, and life in general
- Discussed Mormon issues and pondered them
- Learned Evangelicalism might not be altogether correct - in fact - it isn't
- Talked about First Nations culture and my faith - the inter-twining
- Met a variety of Christian people with a variety of theologies - most quite nice
- Blogged with people concerned with the Christian airwaves in Canada
- Blogged with locals from Saskatchewan about life and faith (and Canada)
- Learned and questioned a lot of what I once believed about this faith
- Had an idea abound then levelled it for a future date (ie: Action Group)
- Made a lot of friends and have discussed all kinds of issues with them
- I am still Losing My Religion...
I have learned a lot from all the people I have blogged with and I still have a ways to go - which I am thankful for - lots of people have opened my eyes for me. I would like to thank Bruced for all the people I met via his site and the intro to universalism, To Chris (ledge) for his quirky stories and great spirit, Jim/Cinder/JollyBeggar/Hineini/Ken/Tim/URSA/MyGarden - for all the Saskatchewan flavor and what they have shown is around me - and it is good, HIS for all the great posts he put down and the discussions he got rolling, Dagoods for our disagreeances but also for his knowledge, Jefe/Dorsey/SCP - for all the great church questions they got me involved in, Jim Jordan - for being a long time support and getting me to look into some political stuff, John Schuck for his liberal views - really got me thinking and seeing things in new ways, Gracehead for some of the best discussions I have ever had on the internet, Burning Bush for the blogs and our head-banging on ideas, and Heather for her blog and the way she thinks - got me looking into the more Hebraic ideas within this faith. I am grateful.
In the end of the day I am still losing my religion - questioning it and seeing it re-shape before my eyes. Who knows what will change in the next 100 posts - but I do know I like to learn - and the crew I read right now is making that happen - thanks!
Friday, June 29, 2007
AFN - National Day of Action
Today (June 29) was the National Day of Action as called by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) in Canada. I was in Regina, SK for the event and I decided (previously) to attend the event they hosted here - a march.
Part 1: March of Solidarity
We did a march from the First Nations University to the Legislation building in Regina - which is a fairly nice walk. Leading the group was a band called 'Red Dog' - a drum group that plays the drum and sings Aboriginal cultural music. They were followed by the dignitaries, the elders, the veterans, and then the crowd. I really enjoyed it - had a great time with everyone else in the march.
Part 2: Legislative Building Speeches and Lunch
After the march we heard from a lot of speakers including the FSIN (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations) chief, the vice-chiefs, the premier of Saskatchewan, the opposition leader, and a few local Liberal party leaders (no Conservatives attended). Then we had lunch. The whole thing was televised and will hit the airwaves throughout Canada today - and I think I made the local news.
What was it all about? A few issues were discussed but they all focused around the appalling conditions First Nations people are dealing with (thus the need for solidarity) which includes gang problems, suicide issues on reserves, poverty, treaty rights educations, education funding, housing, and employment/economic opportunities. Here are few examples:
(a) Kelowna Accord: Was a bill that was almost passed under the Liberal party that would of seen 6.1 billion dollars go to the solution of poverty within Aboriginal communities - this bill has since been scrapped by the Conservative government and has never passed.
(b) Education Funding Cap: Currently the Canadian Government has a cap on funsing to Aboriginal education funding of 2% (since 1996 and was even lower prior to this) and has not changed even with the rising Aboriginal population. The problem is the Aboriginal population is the youngest in the country and could desperately use that funding to allow for more economic participation - top that off - this is a highly regaded area by Aboriginal communities as a 'treaty right' (a contract from the late 1800's - around 12 of them were signed in Canada).
That is what I did this morning - I showed my solidarity to the movement (a peaceful march in Saskatchewan) since I believe in the actions being called upon - namely with regards to ending poverty in my community...I really have little choice in that matter...it affects me deeply. So I did what I could - support the people around me and the issues at hand that need to be dealt with - in a participative way amongst all communities in Canada (this being an awareness issue). That was my morning today!
Part 1: March of Solidarity
We did a march from the First Nations University to the Legislation building in Regina - which is a fairly nice walk. Leading the group was a band called 'Red Dog' - a drum group that plays the drum and sings Aboriginal cultural music. They were followed by the dignitaries, the elders, the veterans, and then the crowd. I really enjoyed it - had a great time with everyone else in the march.
Part 2: Legislative Building Speeches and Lunch
After the march we heard from a lot of speakers including the FSIN (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations) chief, the vice-chiefs, the premier of Saskatchewan, the opposition leader, and a few local Liberal party leaders (no Conservatives attended). Then we had lunch. The whole thing was televised and will hit the airwaves throughout Canada today - and I think I made the local news.
What was it all about? A few issues were discussed but they all focused around the appalling conditions First Nations people are dealing with (thus the need for solidarity) which includes gang problems, suicide issues on reserves, poverty, treaty rights educations, education funding, housing, and employment/economic opportunities. Here are few examples:
(a) Kelowna Accord: Was a bill that was almost passed under the Liberal party that would of seen 6.1 billion dollars go to the solution of poverty within Aboriginal communities - this bill has since been scrapped by the Conservative government and has never passed.
(b) Education Funding Cap: Currently the Canadian Government has a cap on funsing to Aboriginal education funding of 2% (since 1996 and was even lower prior to this) and has not changed even with the rising Aboriginal population. The problem is the Aboriginal population is the youngest in the country and could desperately use that funding to allow for more economic participation - top that off - this is a highly regaded area by Aboriginal communities as a 'treaty right' (a contract from the late 1800's - around 12 of them were signed in Canada).
That is what I did this morning - I showed my solidarity to the movement (a peaceful march in Saskatchewan) since I believe in the actions being called upon - namely with regards to ending poverty in my community...I really have little choice in that matter...it affects me deeply. So I did what I could - support the people around me and the issues at hand that need to be dealt with - in a participative way amongst all communities in Canada (this being an awareness issue). That was my morning today!
Monday, June 25, 2007
Peak Oil - A Change is Gonna Come
The world supply of oil is slowly diminishing - and by 'slowly' I mean within our lifetime...and this could/will get ugly ('end of suburbia' - movie I just saw). We need to wake up and start challenging our gov't to take this plight seriously.
The America's absolutely rely on oil as a way of life and economy. The peak time of the use of oil is actually happening right now - and may even be slowly in decline (ie: this rising gas prices/energy prices). This doesn't seem like much of an issue (except for our cars) but once one considers that oil is used in every aspect of the society we live in - and there is no replacement at this point - we might see an economic crash similar to that of the 1920's.
The problem with the issue is it so overlooked and not taken very seriously - yet financially - this is the worst nightmare any of us can dream of in a capitalistic society. This economic collapse will destroy life as we know at (well the convenience of it). We could be looking at lack of electricity and energy (to heat homes), cars will no longer be the main mode of transportation, housing markets will deplete and lose their value, big business will lose it's ability to transport things so it will eventually 'crash' and 'destabilize', and the value of our money might not be worth a dime.
It's a little gloomy and a little doomy - but hey - we built this city - we have to live with it. The film gives some clues to making life easier in this peak oil crisis. Neighborhoods need to ban together and start working towards viable clothing and food options within their sphere of living (ex: gardens and the return of the local small business owner). Business needs to be localized to make travel to work affordable and possible (no more 1 hour drives). There are small answers to big problems.
But this is a lesson we learned so damn late at the local 'hoe-down's' of big business' profit driving machine - they played and played and we danced and danced - this is a 'pied piper' type thing - in this 'rat race' someone has to pay (drown). Take a good hard look at the reality of life as you know it - see the kingdoms big business has built for us to live in - the convenience - the cities - the infrastructure - the toys - the technology - the happiness. You know I almost think they know we are 'as stupid as we look'.
Who do you think walks away with hope in an economic boom and an economic crash? We needed to start making these businesses accountable for their greed and stripping of the world resources for our happiness - but the media machine and politicians make this impossible (they limit our knowledge). I believe the saying is 'we reap what we sow' - well we live in a country that has effectively undermined the stability of this planet and something strange is going to happen - we are going to realize forms of poverty for the lack of compassion we had on other impoverished nations and for our greed.
But if you think I am yanking your crank - go check it out and see how dependant America is on oil and our viable options for energy (in the future). I had never really thought about this but I knew the 'good times' couldn't last forever (economically). This issue is worth a look into and worth your examination - so you can both condemn the practices of big business (call for accountability) and see what you can do before the oil drains to a screeching halt.
It's only fitting I grew up poor.
The America's absolutely rely on oil as a way of life and economy. The peak time of the use of oil is actually happening right now - and may even be slowly in decline (ie: this rising gas prices/energy prices). This doesn't seem like much of an issue (except for our cars) but once one considers that oil is used in every aspect of the society we live in - and there is no replacement at this point - we might see an economic crash similar to that of the 1920's.
The problem with the issue is it so overlooked and not taken very seriously - yet financially - this is the worst nightmare any of us can dream of in a capitalistic society. This economic collapse will destroy life as we know at (well the convenience of it). We could be looking at lack of electricity and energy (to heat homes), cars will no longer be the main mode of transportation, housing markets will deplete and lose their value, big business will lose it's ability to transport things so it will eventually 'crash' and 'destabilize', and the value of our money might not be worth a dime.
It's a little gloomy and a little doomy - but hey - we built this city - we have to live with it. The film gives some clues to making life easier in this peak oil crisis. Neighborhoods need to ban together and start working towards viable clothing and food options within their sphere of living (ex: gardens and the return of the local small business owner). Business needs to be localized to make travel to work affordable and possible (no more 1 hour drives). There are small answers to big problems.
But this is a lesson we learned so damn late at the local 'hoe-down's' of big business' profit driving machine - they played and played and we danced and danced - this is a 'pied piper' type thing - in this 'rat race' someone has to pay (drown). Take a good hard look at the reality of life as you know it - see the kingdoms big business has built for us to live in - the convenience - the cities - the infrastructure - the toys - the technology - the happiness. You know I almost think they know we are 'as stupid as we look'.
Who do you think walks away with hope in an economic boom and an economic crash? We needed to start making these businesses accountable for their greed and stripping of the world resources for our happiness - but the media machine and politicians make this impossible (they limit our knowledge). I believe the saying is 'we reap what we sow' - well we live in a country that has effectively undermined the stability of this planet and something strange is going to happen - we are going to realize forms of poverty for the lack of compassion we had on other impoverished nations and for our greed.
But if you think I am yanking your crank - go check it out and see how dependant America is on oil and our viable options for energy (in the future). I had never really thought about this but I knew the 'good times' couldn't last forever (economically). This issue is worth a look into and worth your examination - so you can both condemn the practices of big business (call for accountability) and see what you can do before the oil drains to a screeching halt.
It's only fitting I grew up poor.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Let Me Tell You 'A Secret'
My wife and I finished watching the DVD about 'The Secret'. I thought some of the idea's about positivity work real well in life. Here is my take.
The idea behind the secret is the 'law of attraction' - meaning you attract what you want from life (via thoughts and feelings). I think the basic premise makes a lot of sense - if you think a certain way then those same things you constantly focus upon will likely become you. If you are a very negative person then you will likely draw in negative energy - and vice versa for being positive (based on the premise we are beings of 'energy'). A lot of this stuff also shows up in Quantum Physics, Philosophy, and Religion.
The things I take away from 'the secret' are:
(1) Nothing is impossible - what you think is possible just might be.
(2) Doubt is the biggest enemy between us and the life we seek to live.
(3) Reach for the stars and don't let your dreams by squashed
(4) You control your destiny - and you control your perspective on life - what you want from life is what you will get
(5) We need to learn to see ourselves as very 'worthwhile' people and not undermine that
To be perfectly honest, some of this stuff is just second hand news to me - as I have read the teachings of Jesus for sometime and many of these ideas about 'asking and believing' are within those teachings also.
All the secret is saying is 'life has a spiritual component' to it - I agree. In my culture we are 4 components (physical, spiritual, mental, and emotional) and the sum of all these things provides balance and health to life. What you actually want from life is possible - but this takes a lot of mini-steps before we realize some of those goals we grasp at...but life is a series of ideas we make real.
If your goal is to own a home - and your completely broke...come up with a plan (idea). Go to school to earn a top-rate education or work your way up in a company. Keep your eyes and ears open to the market and build your credit. At some point owning that home just keeps moving closer and closer (step by step). But it all started with a 'dream' an 'idea' and nothing more. This is how life really does work. You had an idea - then believed it - so as to committ actions to the endeavor - then in the end - you realize you got what you 'asked for' (or what you truly believed was possible). That's simple - that's too easy - but that's all we are - an idea (a thought).
Where does God fit into this for me? He is - it all flows under His guidance - and He respects our choices - He wants the best for us - but most of the time we are not sure if we want the best for ourselves. In the end, you are a series of choices/directions - and you can change every single thing about yourself - but it's a step here and step there (there is no giant step for humankind) and things progress accordingly.
There is no secret or 'mystery' to a better life - it's all rather quite simple - we need to take control of our lives and determine what we want from our 'living'. You can ask God for a way out of poverty or depression - but if you just leave it at that - then your missing the essential piece of that puzzle - 'ask and YOU will recieve...'.
The idea behind the secret is the 'law of attraction' - meaning you attract what you want from life (via thoughts and feelings). I think the basic premise makes a lot of sense - if you think a certain way then those same things you constantly focus upon will likely become you. If you are a very negative person then you will likely draw in negative energy - and vice versa for being positive (based on the premise we are beings of 'energy'). A lot of this stuff also shows up in Quantum Physics, Philosophy, and Religion.
The things I take away from 'the secret' are:
(1) Nothing is impossible - what you think is possible just might be.
(2) Doubt is the biggest enemy between us and the life we seek to live.
(3) Reach for the stars and don't let your dreams by squashed
(4) You control your destiny - and you control your perspective on life - what you want from life is what you will get
(5) We need to learn to see ourselves as very 'worthwhile' people and not undermine that
To be perfectly honest, some of this stuff is just second hand news to me - as I have read the teachings of Jesus for sometime and many of these ideas about 'asking and believing' are within those teachings also.
All the secret is saying is 'life has a spiritual component' to it - I agree. In my culture we are 4 components (physical, spiritual, mental, and emotional) and the sum of all these things provides balance and health to life. What you actually want from life is possible - but this takes a lot of mini-steps before we realize some of those goals we grasp at...but life is a series of ideas we make real.
If your goal is to own a home - and your completely broke...come up with a plan (idea). Go to school to earn a top-rate education or work your way up in a company. Keep your eyes and ears open to the market and build your credit. At some point owning that home just keeps moving closer and closer (step by step). But it all started with a 'dream' an 'idea' and nothing more. This is how life really does work. You had an idea - then believed it - so as to committ actions to the endeavor - then in the end - you realize you got what you 'asked for' (or what you truly believed was possible). That's simple - that's too easy - but that's all we are - an idea (a thought).
Where does God fit into this for me? He is - it all flows under His guidance - and He respects our choices - He wants the best for us - but most of the time we are not sure if we want the best for ourselves. In the end, you are a series of choices/directions - and you can change every single thing about yourself - but it's a step here and step there (there is no giant step for humankind) and things progress accordingly.
There is no secret or 'mystery' to a better life - it's all rather quite simple - we need to take control of our lives and determine what we want from our 'living'. You can ask God for a way out of poverty or depression - but if you just leave it at that - then your missing the essential piece of that puzzle - 'ask and YOU will recieve...'.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Exodus: A Jewish Viewpoint
This article was published in the Spring 1995 issue of Jewish Action (e-mail from rabbi's at JewishAnswers.org)
The Exodus and Ancient Egyptian Records
"And Moses said unto the people: Do not fear! Stand and see the deliverance of Hashem which he shall do for you this day. For as you have seen Egypt this day, never will you see it again." (Exodus 14:13)
When was the Exodus? The Exodus from Egypt was not only the seminal event in the history of the Jewish People, but was an unprecedented and unequaled catastrophe for Egypt. In the course of Pharaoh's stubborn refusal to let us leave and the resultant plagues sent by Hashem, Egypt was devastated. Hail, disease and infestations obliterated Egypt's produce and livestock, while the plague of the first born stripped the land of its elite, leaving inexperienced second sons to cope with the economic disaster. The drowning of the Egyptian armed forces in the Red Sea left Egypt open and vulnerable to foreign invasions.
From the days of Flavius Josephus (c.70 CE) until the present, historians have tried to find some trace of this event in the ancient records of Egypt. They have had little luck.According to biblical chronology, the Exodus took place in the 890th year before the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians in 421 BCE (g.a.d. 587 BCE) [1]. This was 1310 BCE (g.a.d. 1476 BCE). In this year, the greatest warlord Egypt ever knew, Thutmose III, deposed his aunt Hatshepsut and embarked on a series of conquests, extending the Egyptian sphere of influence and tribute over Israel and Syria and crossing the Euphrates into Mesopotamia itself. While it is interesting that this date actually saw the death of an Egyptian ruler - and there have been those who tried to identify Queen Hatshepsut as the Pharaoh of the Exodus - the power and prosperity of Egypt at this time is hard to square with the biblical account of the Exodus.
Some historians have been attracted by the name of the store-city Raamses built by the Israelites before the Exodus. They have drawn connections to the best known Pharaoh of that name, Ramses II, or Ramses the Great, and set the Exodus around his time, roughly 1134 BCE (g.a.d. 1300 BCE [2]). In order to do this, they had to reduce the time between the Exodus and the destruction of the Temple by 180 years, which they did by reinterpreting the 480 years between the Exodus and the building of the Temple (I Kings 6:1) as 12 generations of 40 years. By "correcting" the Bible and setting a generation equal to 25 years, these imaginary 12 generations become 300 years.
Aside from the fact that such "adjustments" of the biblical text imply that the Bible cannot be trusted, in which case there is no reason to accept that there ever was an Exodus, Ramses II was a conqueror second only to Thutmose III. And as in the case of Thutmose III, the Egyptian records make it clear that nothing even remotely resembling the Exodus happened anywhere near his time of history.
We appear to be at a standstill. The only options are to relegate the Exodus to the status of myth, or to conclude that there is something seriously wrong with the generally accepted dates for Egyptian history.
In 1952, Immanuel Velikovsky published Ages in Chaos, the first of a series of books in which he proposed a radical redating of Egyptian history in order to bring the histories of Egypt and Israel into synchronization. Velikovsky's work sparked a wave of new research into ancient history. And while the bulk of Velikovsky's conclusions have not been borne out by this research, his main the-sis has. This is that the apparent conflict between ancient records and the Bible is due to a misdating of those ancient records, and that when these records are dated correctly, all such "conflicts" disappear.
Both Thutmose III and Ramses II date to a period called the Late Bronze Age, which ended with the onset of the Iron Age. Since the Iron Age has been thought to be the time when Israel first arrived in Canaan, the Late Bronze Age has been called "The Canaanite Period," and historians have limited their search for the Exodus to this time. When we break free of this artificial restraint, the picture changes drastically.
According to the midrash [3], the Pharaoh of the Exodus was named Adikam. He had a short reign of 4 years before drowning in the Red Sea. The Pharaoh who preceded him, whose death prompted Moses's return to Egypt (Exodus 2:23, 4:19), was named Malul. Malul, we are told, reigned from the age of 6 to the age of 100. Such a long reign - 94 years! - sounds fantastic, and many people would hesitate to take this midrash literally. As it happens, though, Egyptian records mention a Pharaoh who reigned for 94 years. And not only 94 years, but from the age of 6 to the age of 100! This Pharaoh was known in inscriptions as Pepi (or Phiops) II [4]. The information regarding his reign is known both from the Egyptian historian-priest Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE, and from an ancient Egyptian papyrus called the Turin Royal Canon, which was only discovered in the last century.
Egyptologists, unaware of the midrash, have wrestled with the historicity of Pepi II's long reign. One historian wrote: [5]Pepi II...appears to have had the longest reign in Egyptian history and perhaps in all history. The Turin Royal Canon credits him with upwards of 90 years. One version of the Epitome of Manetho indicates that he "began to rule at the age of 6 and continued to a 100." Although modern scholars have questioned this, it remains to be disproved.
While the existence of a 2 kings who reigned a) 94 years, b) in Egypt, and c) from the age of 6, is hard enough to swallow as a coincidence, that is not all. Like Malul, Pepi II was the second to last king of his dynasty. Like Malul, his successor had a short reign of 3-4 four years, after which Egypt fell apart. Pepi II's dynasty was called the 6th Dynasty, and was the last dynasty of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. Following his successor's death, Egypt collapsed, both economically and under foreign invasion. Egypt, which had been so powerful and wealthy only decades before, suddenly could not defend itself against tribes of invading bedouin. No one knows what happened. Some historians have suggested that the long reign of Pepi II resulted in stagnation, and that when he died, it was like pulling the support out from under a rickety building. But there is no evidence to support such a theory.
A papyrus dating from the end of the Old Kingdom was found in the early 19th century in Egypt [6]. It seems to be an eyewitness account of the events preceding the dissolution of the Old Kingdom. Its author, an Egyptian named Ipuwer, writes:
*Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
*The river is blood.
*That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!
*Trees are destroyed.
*No fruit or herbs are found...
*Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
*Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
* The land is not light [dark].
Velikovsky recognized this as an eyewitness account of the 10 plagues. Since modern men are not supposed to believe in such things, it has been interpreted figuratively by most historians. The destruction of crops and livestock means an economic depression. The river being blood indicates a breakdown of law an order and a proliferation of violent crime. The lack of light stands for the lack of enlightened leadership. Of course, that's not what it says, but it is more palatable than the alternative, which is that the phenomena described by Ipuwer were literally true.
When the Bible tells us that Egypt would never be the same after the Exodus, it was no exaggeration. With invasions from all directions, virtually all subsequent kings of Egypt were of Ethiopian, Libyan or Asiatic descent. When Chazal tell us that King Solomon was able to marry Pharaoh's daughter despite the ban on marrying Egyptian converts until they have been Jewish for 3 generations because she was not of the original Egyptian nation, there is no reason to be surprised.
In the Wake of the Exodus: It was not only Egypt which felt the birth pangs of the Jewish People. The end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt preceded only slightly the end of the Early Bronze age in the Land of Israel. The end of this period, dated by archeologists to c.2200 BCE (in order to conform to the Egyptian chronology), has long puzzled archeologists. The people living in the Land of Israel during Early Bronze were the first urban dwellers there. They were, by all available evidence, primitive, illiterate and brutal. They built large but crude fortress cities and were constantly at war. At the end of the Early Bronze Age, they were obliterated.
Who destroyed Early Bronze Age Canaan? Some early archeologists, before the vast amount of information we have today had been more than hinted at, suggested that they were Amorites. The time, they thought, was more or less right for Abraham. So why not postulate a great disaster in Mesopotamia, which resulted in people migrated from there to Canaan? Abraham would have been thus one in a great crowd of immigrants (scholars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries often felt compelled to debunk the idea of divine commands).
Today, the picture is different. The invaders of the Early Bronze/Middle Bronze Interchange seem to have appeared out of nowhere in the Sinai and the Negev. Initially, they moved up into the transjordan, and then crossed over north of the Dead Sea, conquering Canaan and wiping out the inhabitants. Of course, since we are dealing with cultural remnants and not written records, we don't know that the previous inhabitants were all killed. Some of them may have remained, but if so, they adopted enough of the newcomers' culture to "disappear" from the archeological record.
2 archeologists have already gone on record identifying the invaders as the Israelites. In an article published in Biblical Archeology Review [7], Israeli archeologist Rudolph Cohen demonstrated that the two invasions match in every detail. Faced with the problem that the 2 are separated in time by some 8 centuries, Cohen backed down a bit: "I do not necessarily mean to equate the MBI people with the Israelites, although an ethnic identification should not be automatically ruled out. But I am suggesting that at the very least the traditions incorporated into the Exodus account may have a very ancient inspiration reaching back to the MBI period."
The Italian archeologist Immanuel Anati has come to similar conclusions [8]. He added other pieces of evidence, such as the fact that Ai, Arad and other cities destroyed by Israel in the invasion of Canaan were destroyed at the end of the Early Bronze Age, but remained uninhabited until the Iron Age. Since the Iron Age is when Israel supposedly invaded Canaan, we have been in the embarrassing position of having the Bible describe the destructions of these cities at the very time that they were being resettled for the first time in almost a millennium. When the conquest is redated to the end of the Early Bronze, history (the Bible) and physical evidence (archeology) are in harmony. Anati goes further than Cohen in that he claims the invaders really were the Israelites. How does he get around the 800 year gap? By inventing a "missing book of the Bible" between Joshua and Judges that originally covered this period.
Both Cohen and Anati are in the unenviable position of having discovered truths which conflict with the accepted wisdom. Their "tricks" to avoid the problem are lame, but the only alternative would be to suggest a radical redating of the archeology of the Land of Israel. And there is good reason to do this. It is not only the period of the Exodus and Conquest which suddenly match the evidence of ancient records and archeology when the dates of the archeological periods are brought down:
1. The Middle Bronze Age invaders, after some centuries of rural settlement, expanded almost overnight into an empire, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. This empire has been termed the "Hyksos Empire," after a group of nomads that invaded Egypt, despite the fact that there is no historical evidence for such an identification. History knows of one such empire. Archeology knows of one such empire. The same adjustment which restores the Exodus and Conquest to history does the same to the United Kingdom of David and Solomon.
2. The Empire fell, bringing the Middle Bronze Age to an end. Archeologists and Egyptologists are currently involved in a great debate over whether it was civil war or Egyptian invasions which destroyed the "Hyksos" empire. The biblical accounts of the revolt of the ten northern tribes and the invasion of Shishak king of Egypt make the debate irrelevant.
3. The period following the end of the Empire was one of much unrest, but saw tremendous literary achievements. Since this period, the Late Bronze Age, was the last period before the Iron Age, and since the Iron Age was believed to have been the Israelite Period, the Late Bronze Age was called the Canaanite Period. Strangely, these Canaanites spoke and wrote in beautiful Biblical Hebrew. Semitic Canaanites? Did the Bible get it wrong again? But then, coming after the time of David and Solomon, they weren't really Canaanites. The speakers and writers of Biblical Hebrew were, as might have been guessed - Biblical Hebrews.
4. Finally we get to the Iron Age. This is when Israel supposedly arrived in Canaan. But it has been obvious to archeologists for over a century that the archeology of the Iron Age bears little resemblance to the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan. There were invasions, but they were from the north, from Syria and Mesopotamia, and they came in several waves, unlike the lightning conquest under Joshua. The people who settled the land after the invasions also came from the north, though there is much evidence to suggest that they weren't the invaders, and merely settled an empty land after it had been destroyed by others. The south remained in the hands of the Bronze Age inhabitants, albeit on a lower material level.
The conclusions drawn from this evidence have been devastating. The people in the south, who constituted the kingdom of Judah, from whence came the Jews, has been determined to be of Canaanite descent! If not biologically, then culturally. And the people in the north, the other 10 tribes of Israel, have been determined to have been no relation to the tribes of the south. The idea of 12 tribes descended from the sons of Jacob has been removed from the history books and recatalogued under "Mythology, Jewish."
What is most strange is that multiple waves of invasion followed by northern tribes settling in the north of Israel is not an event which has gone unmentioned in the Bible. The invaders were the Assyrians. The settlers were the northern tribes who eventually became the Samaritans. And if the people in the south were descended from the Late Bronze Age inhabitants of the land, why, that merely means that the kingdom of Judah was a continuation of the kingdom of Judah. The only historical claims which are contradicted by the archeological record are those of the Samaritans, who claim to have been the descendants of the 10 tribes of Israel.
A simple redating of the archeological periods in the Land of Israel brings the entire scope of biblical history into synchronization with the ancient historical record. Only time will tell whether more archeologists will follow Cohen and Anati in their slowly dawning recognition of the historicity of the Bible.
Notes
[1] Contrary to the Jewish historical tradition, the generally accepted date (g.a.d.) is 166 years earlier, or 587 BCE (see "Fixing the History Books - Dr. Chaim Heifetz's Revision of Persian History," in the Spring 1991 issue of Jewish Action). This difference applies to all Mesopotamian and Egyptian history prior to the Persian period. The dates for Egyptian history given in the history books are therefore off by this amount. For our purposes, we will use the corrected date followed by the g.a.d. in parentheses. return to text
[2] Some people have been excited about the generally accepted date for Ramses II coming so close to the traditional date for the Exodus. This is a mistake, as Egyptian and Mesopotamian histories are linked. If Ramses II lived c. 1300 BCE, then the destruction of the Temple was in 587 BCE, and the Exodus was in 1476 BCE. return to text
[3] Sefer HaYashar and The Prayer of Asenath (an ancient pseudepigraphical work) contain this information, though Sefer HaYashar only gives the 94 year reign length without Malul's age. return to text
[4] Egyptian kings had a vast titulary. They generally had at least five official throne names, not to mention their personal name or names, and whatever nicknames their subjects gave them. return to text
[5] William Kelly Simpson in The Ancient Near East: A History, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1971. return to text
[6] A.H. Gardiner, Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden (1909). Historians are almost unanimous in dating this papyrus to the very beginning of the Middle Kingdom. The events it describes, consequently, deal with the end of the Old Kingdom. return to text
[7] Rudolph Cohen, "The Mysterious MB I People - Does the Exodus Tradition in the Bible Preserve the Memory of Their Entry into Canaan?" in Biblical Archeology Review IX:4 (1983), pp.16ff. return to text[8] Immanuel Anati, The Mountain of God, Rizzoli International Publications, New York 1986. return to text
The Exodus and Ancient Egyptian Records
"And Moses said unto the people: Do not fear! Stand and see the deliverance of Hashem which he shall do for you this day. For as you have seen Egypt this day, never will you see it again." (Exodus 14:13)
When was the Exodus? The Exodus from Egypt was not only the seminal event in the history of the Jewish People, but was an unprecedented and unequaled catastrophe for Egypt. In the course of Pharaoh's stubborn refusal to let us leave and the resultant plagues sent by Hashem, Egypt was devastated. Hail, disease and infestations obliterated Egypt's produce and livestock, while the plague of the first born stripped the land of its elite, leaving inexperienced second sons to cope with the economic disaster. The drowning of the Egyptian armed forces in the Red Sea left Egypt open and vulnerable to foreign invasions.
From the days of Flavius Josephus (c.70 CE) until the present, historians have tried to find some trace of this event in the ancient records of Egypt. They have had little luck.According to biblical chronology, the Exodus took place in the 890th year before the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians in 421 BCE (g.a.d. 587 BCE) [1]. This was 1310 BCE (g.a.d. 1476 BCE). In this year, the greatest warlord Egypt ever knew, Thutmose III, deposed his aunt Hatshepsut and embarked on a series of conquests, extending the Egyptian sphere of influence and tribute over Israel and Syria and crossing the Euphrates into Mesopotamia itself. While it is interesting that this date actually saw the death of an Egyptian ruler - and there have been those who tried to identify Queen Hatshepsut as the Pharaoh of the Exodus - the power and prosperity of Egypt at this time is hard to square with the biblical account of the Exodus.
Some historians have been attracted by the name of the store-city Raamses built by the Israelites before the Exodus. They have drawn connections to the best known Pharaoh of that name, Ramses II, or Ramses the Great, and set the Exodus around his time, roughly 1134 BCE (g.a.d. 1300 BCE [2]). In order to do this, they had to reduce the time between the Exodus and the destruction of the Temple by 180 years, which they did by reinterpreting the 480 years between the Exodus and the building of the Temple (I Kings 6:1) as 12 generations of 40 years. By "correcting" the Bible and setting a generation equal to 25 years, these imaginary 12 generations become 300 years.
Aside from the fact that such "adjustments" of the biblical text imply that the Bible cannot be trusted, in which case there is no reason to accept that there ever was an Exodus, Ramses II was a conqueror second only to Thutmose III. And as in the case of Thutmose III, the Egyptian records make it clear that nothing even remotely resembling the Exodus happened anywhere near his time of history.
We appear to be at a standstill. The only options are to relegate the Exodus to the status of myth, or to conclude that there is something seriously wrong with the generally accepted dates for Egyptian history.
In 1952, Immanuel Velikovsky published Ages in Chaos, the first of a series of books in which he proposed a radical redating of Egyptian history in order to bring the histories of Egypt and Israel into synchronization. Velikovsky's work sparked a wave of new research into ancient history. And while the bulk of Velikovsky's conclusions have not been borne out by this research, his main the-sis has. This is that the apparent conflict between ancient records and the Bible is due to a misdating of those ancient records, and that when these records are dated correctly, all such "conflicts" disappear.
Both Thutmose III and Ramses II date to a period called the Late Bronze Age, which ended with the onset of the Iron Age. Since the Iron Age has been thought to be the time when Israel first arrived in Canaan, the Late Bronze Age has been called "The Canaanite Period," and historians have limited their search for the Exodus to this time. When we break free of this artificial restraint, the picture changes drastically.
According to the midrash [3], the Pharaoh of the Exodus was named Adikam. He had a short reign of 4 years before drowning in the Red Sea. The Pharaoh who preceded him, whose death prompted Moses's return to Egypt (Exodus 2:23, 4:19), was named Malul. Malul, we are told, reigned from the age of 6 to the age of 100. Such a long reign - 94 years! - sounds fantastic, and many people would hesitate to take this midrash literally. As it happens, though, Egyptian records mention a Pharaoh who reigned for 94 years. And not only 94 years, but from the age of 6 to the age of 100! This Pharaoh was known in inscriptions as Pepi (or Phiops) II [4]. The information regarding his reign is known both from the Egyptian historian-priest Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE, and from an ancient Egyptian papyrus called the Turin Royal Canon, which was only discovered in the last century.
Egyptologists, unaware of the midrash, have wrestled with the historicity of Pepi II's long reign. One historian wrote: [5]Pepi II...appears to have had the longest reign in Egyptian history and perhaps in all history. The Turin Royal Canon credits him with upwards of 90 years. One version of the Epitome of Manetho indicates that he "began to rule at the age of 6 and continued to a 100." Although modern scholars have questioned this, it remains to be disproved.
While the existence of a 2 kings who reigned a) 94 years, b) in Egypt, and c) from the age of 6, is hard enough to swallow as a coincidence, that is not all. Like Malul, Pepi II was the second to last king of his dynasty. Like Malul, his successor had a short reign of 3-4 four years, after which Egypt fell apart. Pepi II's dynasty was called the 6th Dynasty, and was the last dynasty of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. Following his successor's death, Egypt collapsed, both economically and under foreign invasion. Egypt, which had been so powerful and wealthy only decades before, suddenly could not defend itself against tribes of invading bedouin. No one knows what happened. Some historians have suggested that the long reign of Pepi II resulted in stagnation, and that when he died, it was like pulling the support out from under a rickety building. But there is no evidence to support such a theory.
A papyrus dating from the end of the Old Kingdom was found in the early 19th century in Egypt [6]. It seems to be an eyewitness account of the events preceding the dissolution of the Old Kingdom. Its author, an Egyptian named Ipuwer, writes:
*Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
*The river is blood.
*That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!
*Trees are destroyed.
*No fruit or herbs are found...
*Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
*Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
* The land is not light [dark].
Velikovsky recognized this as an eyewitness account of the 10 plagues. Since modern men are not supposed to believe in such things, it has been interpreted figuratively by most historians. The destruction of crops and livestock means an economic depression. The river being blood indicates a breakdown of law an order and a proliferation of violent crime. The lack of light stands for the lack of enlightened leadership. Of course, that's not what it says, but it is more palatable than the alternative, which is that the phenomena described by Ipuwer were literally true.
When the Bible tells us that Egypt would never be the same after the Exodus, it was no exaggeration. With invasions from all directions, virtually all subsequent kings of Egypt were of Ethiopian, Libyan or Asiatic descent. When Chazal tell us that King Solomon was able to marry Pharaoh's daughter despite the ban on marrying Egyptian converts until they have been Jewish for 3 generations because she was not of the original Egyptian nation, there is no reason to be surprised.
In the Wake of the Exodus: It was not only Egypt which felt the birth pangs of the Jewish People. The end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt preceded only slightly the end of the Early Bronze age in the Land of Israel. The end of this period, dated by archeologists to c.2200 BCE (in order to conform to the Egyptian chronology), has long puzzled archeologists. The people living in the Land of Israel during Early Bronze were the first urban dwellers there. They were, by all available evidence, primitive, illiterate and brutal. They built large but crude fortress cities and were constantly at war. At the end of the Early Bronze Age, they were obliterated.
Who destroyed Early Bronze Age Canaan? Some early archeologists, before the vast amount of information we have today had been more than hinted at, suggested that they were Amorites. The time, they thought, was more or less right for Abraham. So why not postulate a great disaster in Mesopotamia, which resulted in people migrated from there to Canaan? Abraham would have been thus one in a great crowd of immigrants (scholars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries often felt compelled to debunk the idea of divine commands).
Today, the picture is different. The invaders of the Early Bronze/Middle Bronze Interchange seem to have appeared out of nowhere in the Sinai and the Negev. Initially, they moved up into the transjordan, and then crossed over north of the Dead Sea, conquering Canaan and wiping out the inhabitants. Of course, since we are dealing with cultural remnants and not written records, we don't know that the previous inhabitants were all killed. Some of them may have remained, but if so, they adopted enough of the newcomers' culture to "disappear" from the archeological record.
2 archeologists have already gone on record identifying the invaders as the Israelites. In an article published in Biblical Archeology Review [7], Israeli archeologist Rudolph Cohen demonstrated that the two invasions match in every detail. Faced with the problem that the 2 are separated in time by some 8 centuries, Cohen backed down a bit: "I do not necessarily mean to equate the MBI people with the Israelites, although an ethnic identification should not be automatically ruled out. But I am suggesting that at the very least the traditions incorporated into the Exodus account may have a very ancient inspiration reaching back to the MBI period."
The Italian archeologist Immanuel Anati has come to similar conclusions [8]. He added other pieces of evidence, such as the fact that Ai, Arad and other cities destroyed by Israel in the invasion of Canaan were destroyed at the end of the Early Bronze Age, but remained uninhabited until the Iron Age. Since the Iron Age is when Israel supposedly invaded Canaan, we have been in the embarrassing position of having the Bible describe the destructions of these cities at the very time that they were being resettled for the first time in almost a millennium. When the conquest is redated to the end of the Early Bronze, history (the Bible) and physical evidence (archeology) are in harmony. Anati goes further than Cohen in that he claims the invaders really were the Israelites. How does he get around the 800 year gap? By inventing a "missing book of the Bible" between Joshua and Judges that originally covered this period.
Both Cohen and Anati are in the unenviable position of having discovered truths which conflict with the accepted wisdom. Their "tricks" to avoid the problem are lame, but the only alternative would be to suggest a radical redating of the archeology of the Land of Israel. And there is good reason to do this. It is not only the period of the Exodus and Conquest which suddenly match the evidence of ancient records and archeology when the dates of the archeological periods are brought down:
1. The Middle Bronze Age invaders, after some centuries of rural settlement, expanded almost overnight into an empire, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. This empire has been termed the "Hyksos Empire," after a group of nomads that invaded Egypt, despite the fact that there is no historical evidence for such an identification. History knows of one such empire. Archeology knows of one such empire. The same adjustment which restores the Exodus and Conquest to history does the same to the United Kingdom of David and Solomon.
2. The Empire fell, bringing the Middle Bronze Age to an end. Archeologists and Egyptologists are currently involved in a great debate over whether it was civil war or Egyptian invasions which destroyed the "Hyksos" empire. The biblical accounts of the revolt of the ten northern tribes and the invasion of Shishak king of Egypt make the debate irrelevant.
3. The period following the end of the Empire was one of much unrest, but saw tremendous literary achievements. Since this period, the Late Bronze Age, was the last period before the Iron Age, and since the Iron Age was believed to have been the Israelite Period, the Late Bronze Age was called the Canaanite Period. Strangely, these Canaanites spoke and wrote in beautiful Biblical Hebrew. Semitic Canaanites? Did the Bible get it wrong again? But then, coming after the time of David and Solomon, they weren't really Canaanites. The speakers and writers of Biblical Hebrew were, as might have been guessed - Biblical Hebrews.
4. Finally we get to the Iron Age. This is when Israel supposedly arrived in Canaan. But it has been obvious to archeologists for over a century that the archeology of the Iron Age bears little resemblance to the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan. There were invasions, but they were from the north, from Syria and Mesopotamia, and they came in several waves, unlike the lightning conquest under Joshua. The people who settled the land after the invasions also came from the north, though there is much evidence to suggest that they weren't the invaders, and merely settled an empty land after it had been destroyed by others. The south remained in the hands of the Bronze Age inhabitants, albeit on a lower material level.
The conclusions drawn from this evidence have been devastating. The people in the south, who constituted the kingdom of Judah, from whence came the Jews, has been determined to be of Canaanite descent! If not biologically, then culturally. And the people in the north, the other 10 tribes of Israel, have been determined to have been no relation to the tribes of the south. The idea of 12 tribes descended from the sons of Jacob has been removed from the history books and recatalogued under "Mythology, Jewish."
What is most strange is that multiple waves of invasion followed by northern tribes settling in the north of Israel is not an event which has gone unmentioned in the Bible. The invaders were the Assyrians. The settlers were the northern tribes who eventually became the Samaritans. And if the people in the south were descended from the Late Bronze Age inhabitants of the land, why, that merely means that the kingdom of Judah was a continuation of the kingdom of Judah. The only historical claims which are contradicted by the archeological record are those of the Samaritans, who claim to have been the descendants of the 10 tribes of Israel.
A simple redating of the archeological periods in the Land of Israel brings the entire scope of biblical history into synchronization with the ancient historical record. Only time will tell whether more archeologists will follow Cohen and Anati in their slowly dawning recognition of the historicity of the Bible.
Notes
[1] Contrary to the Jewish historical tradition, the generally accepted date (g.a.d.) is 166 years earlier, or 587 BCE (see "Fixing the History Books - Dr. Chaim Heifetz's Revision of Persian History," in the Spring 1991 issue of Jewish Action). This difference applies to all Mesopotamian and Egyptian history prior to the Persian period. The dates for Egyptian history given in the history books are therefore off by this amount. For our purposes, we will use the corrected date followed by the g.a.d. in parentheses. return to text
[2] Some people have been excited about the generally accepted date for Ramses II coming so close to the traditional date for the Exodus. This is a mistake, as Egyptian and Mesopotamian histories are linked. If Ramses II lived c. 1300 BCE, then the destruction of the Temple was in 587 BCE, and the Exodus was in 1476 BCE. return to text
[3] Sefer HaYashar and The Prayer of Asenath (an ancient pseudepigraphical work) contain this information, though Sefer HaYashar only gives the 94 year reign length without Malul's age. return to text
[4] Egyptian kings had a vast titulary. They generally had at least five official throne names, not to mention their personal name or names, and whatever nicknames their subjects gave them. return to text
[5] William Kelly Simpson in The Ancient Near East: A History, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1971. return to text
[6] A.H. Gardiner, Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden (1909). Historians are almost unanimous in dating this papyrus to the very beginning of the Middle Kingdom. The events it describes, consequently, deal with the end of the Old Kingdom. return to text
[7] Rudolph Cohen, "The Mysterious MB I People - Does the Exodus Tradition in the Bible Preserve the Memory of Their Entry into Canaan?" in Biblical Archeology Review IX:4 (1983), pp.16ff. return to text[8] Immanuel Anati, The Mountain of God, Rizzoli International Publications, New York 1986. return to text
Monday, June 18, 2007
Feast of Remembrance
This lunch hour I attended my first feast - for a former school teacher who passed away 1 year ago (yesterday). I thought the event was very interesting and fun.
The feast started with approximately 1 hour of prayer and ceremonies - via the elder. All the men sat down by the food (in the middle of the room) and we did 2 things:
(a) Smudged: It was the passing around of the sweetgrass and we motion the smoke over ourselves to 'cleanse ourselves'.
(b) Peace Pipe: They passed the peace pipe to all the men and we took some puffs of it - then smudged with the smoke - and passed it to the next person. This happened 4 times as it circled the room.
We then had the feast - made a plate for the person that passed away 1 year ago - and we served by a few people until all the food was gone (needless to say we all took some home of which we are required not to waste).
What I truly enjoyed about the whole thing was the 'remembrance' aspect of the ceremony - sort of like communion in a way. I found that aspect of it very cool and included all members of the community in the feast. I think this is just another great example of how First Nations ceremonies can be incorporated into the symbolism of the Christian faith - 'do this in remembrance of me'. You really felt a great passion of that feeling in the ceremony. I wonder why we don't do this in 'remembrance' of those who walked and talked with us? Maybe some of the communion we share needs to recognize this aspect of community.
Food for thought.
The feast started with approximately 1 hour of prayer and ceremonies - via the elder. All the men sat down by the food (in the middle of the room) and we did 2 things:
(a) Smudged: It was the passing around of the sweetgrass and we motion the smoke over ourselves to 'cleanse ourselves'.
(b) Peace Pipe: They passed the peace pipe to all the men and we took some puffs of it - then smudged with the smoke - and passed it to the next person. This happened 4 times as it circled the room.
We then had the feast - made a plate for the person that passed away 1 year ago - and we served by a few people until all the food was gone (needless to say we all took some home of which we are required not to waste).
What I truly enjoyed about the whole thing was the 'remembrance' aspect of the ceremony - sort of like communion in a way. I found that aspect of it very cool and included all members of the community in the feast. I think this is just another great example of how First Nations ceremonies can be incorporated into the symbolism of the Christian faith - 'do this in remembrance of me'. You really felt a great passion of that feeling in the ceremony. I wonder why we don't do this in 'remembrance' of those who walked and talked with us? Maybe some of the communion we share needs to recognize this aspect of community.
Food for thought.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Laughter - What is the Biblical Ideal?
I would like to thank Burning Bush for bringing this to my attention - this idea of the biblical approach to laughter. It really gave me something to think about.
Luke 6:21-25 mentions laughter as the antithesis of mourning/weeping 2X in a matter of a few verses - making one ponder what ideal is being taught there. Is laughter a bad thing? I don't think so.
I think the verses reitterate an obvious idea about dealing with our pain/hurts in our own lives - so that we can laugh again (have joy in our lives). The teaching is this:
(a) If you do not deal with your pain (and the seriousness thereof) and hide behind laughter - later on you when it all wears down - you will weep/mourn for the state of affairs you might be found in.
(b) If you deal with your pain/hurts (face them head on) at some point you will heal - and later on you will be able to enjoy life and have joy/laughter/gladness.
Laughter is not a bad thing. Actually, I find it one of the greatest human traits we share one with another (can put a smile on our face). I am reminded of a few biblical examples:
(1) In Gen 21:5-7 Sara names her son Isaac (which means laughter). She attributes her laughter to God and thinks people will laugh with her - for this birth at such an age. Sara see's her laughter as a great thing (names her son it).
(2) Psalm 126:1-3 talks about laughter in a similar fashion as I see in the Luke verses. We see the captives are freed and this erupts in ideas of joy, laughter, and gladness. I see this as the same idea about dealing with our pain, getting healed (freed), then we are free to have the joy we desire.
(3) Ecclesiastes 3:4 mentions the idea - where Luke would of framed the teaching from about Jesus - since it so similar. Solomon says there is 'a time to weep and time to laugh' (there is a time for everything). Laughter is not seen as bad here - but in the right context - can be seen as something healthy - a part of normal life. Again weeping is the antithesis of laughter.
I think laughter is a great gift we have been given - and we share it with one another. Yes we must mourn and weep (deal with pain) but we also can heal and have joy - laughter is an expression of that. I think if we laughed a little more and were a little less serious - think of the ramifications on one's life. We might just find we are 'happy' after all?
Luke 6:21-25 mentions laughter as the antithesis of mourning/weeping 2X in a matter of a few verses - making one ponder what ideal is being taught there. Is laughter a bad thing? I don't think so.
I think the verses reitterate an obvious idea about dealing with our pain/hurts in our own lives - so that we can laugh again (have joy in our lives). The teaching is this:
(a) If you do not deal with your pain (and the seriousness thereof) and hide behind laughter - later on you when it all wears down - you will weep/mourn for the state of affairs you might be found in.
(b) If you deal with your pain/hurts (face them head on) at some point you will heal - and later on you will be able to enjoy life and have joy/laughter/gladness.
Laughter is not a bad thing. Actually, I find it one of the greatest human traits we share one with another (can put a smile on our face). I am reminded of a few biblical examples:
(1) In Gen 21:5-7 Sara names her son Isaac (which means laughter). She attributes her laughter to God and thinks people will laugh with her - for this birth at such an age. Sara see's her laughter as a great thing (names her son it).
(2) Psalm 126:1-3 talks about laughter in a similar fashion as I see in the Luke verses. We see the captives are freed and this erupts in ideas of joy, laughter, and gladness. I see this as the same idea about dealing with our pain, getting healed (freed), then we are free to have the joy we desire.
(3) Ecclesiastes 3:4 mentions the idea - where Luke would of framed the teaching from about Jesus - since it so similar. Solomon says there is 'a time to weep and time to laugh' (there is a time for everything). Laughter is not seen as bad here - but in the right context - can be seen as something healthy - a part of normal life. Again weeping is the antithesis of laughter.
I think laughter is a great gift we have been given - and we share it with one another. Yes we must mourn and weep (deal with pain) but we also can heal and have joy - laughter is an expression of that. I think if we laughed a little more and were a little less serious - think of the ramifications on one's life. We might just find we are 'happy' after all?
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Theological Retardation - Blood/Body
I got up this morning and as is the usual habit I thought upon a biblical teaching I have heard plenty of times - transubstantiation. I began to wonder - where did this idea really come from?
Transubstantiation really is about the idea of the body of Jesus and the blood of Jesus in the communion service becoming the actual blood and body of Jesus. I think the Catholics still believe this is how it works but it's funny that for many a year in Christendom this was the actual belief about the communion service. Isn't that odd?
I think we have to come to a finer and deeper understanding of the communion service (symbolism and use of the service) and that in looking back we can see the theological weirdness of this old view. It would point to the idea that maybe we are looking a lot deeper into the scriptures and actually viewing them more appropriately - as in interpretation in these days. Maybe as a Christian society we have 'grown up' and are starting to use our ideas about literature when reading the bible - to both scope out literalness and creative symbolism in passages.
This is one of many examples that have been taught as literal at one point but appear to be not quite when done in reality. I cannot imagine actually eating flesh and drinking blood - regardless if it's our Messiah we are doing it to (ie: literal view). It actually makes no sense since the disciples are pretty sure Gentiles should abstain from 'drinking blood or eating it' within Acts. So how can a church become so quick to look at this idea from the disciples yet not use this in regards to communion - simple answer - misunderstanding.
It's really too bad too - since this is only one of the many ideas the church has thrown around as fact and found to be not quite that. One could make a proverbial listing of many of these mis-interpretations that still exist - ex: word of faith ideals, tongues, and judgement to name a few. Let's not move backwards in our understanding of these scriptures - but forward - we know the literature motifs much better now and the use of context - let's apply it. Let's not pretend that something has to be literal to have meaning.
Transubstantiation really is about the idea of the body of Jesus and the blood of Jesus in the communion service becoming the actual blood and body of Jesus. I think the Catholics still believe this is how it works but it's funny that for many a year in Christendom this was the actual belief about the communion service. Isn't that odd?
I think we have to come to a finer and deeper understanding of the communion service (symbolism and use of the service) and that in looking back we can see the theological weirdness of this old view. It would point to the idea that maybe we are looking a lot deeper into the scriptures and actually viewing them more appropriately - as in interpretation in these days. Maybe as a Christian society we have 'grown up' and are starting to use our ideas about literature when reading the bible - to both scope out literalness and creative symbolism in passages.
This is one of many examples that have been taught as literal at one point but appear to be not quite when done in reality. I cannot imagine actually eating flesh and drinking blood - regardless if it's our Messiah we are doing it to (ie: literal view). It actually makes no sense since the disciples are pretty sure Gentiles should abstain from 'drinking blood or eating it' within Acts. So how can a church become so quick to look at this idea from the disciples yet not use this in regards to communion - simple answer - misunderstanding.
It's really too bad too - since this is only one of the many ideas the church has thrown around as fact and found to be not quite that. One could make a proverbial listing of many of these mis-interpretations that still exist - ex: word of faith ideals, tongues, and judgement to name a few. Let's not move backwards in our understanding of these scriptures - but forward - we know the literature motifs much better now and the use of context - let's apply it. Let's not pretend that something has to be literal to have meaning.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Goodbye to Romance
I have been running a thing called the Action Group for about a year and a half...I have decided to call it quits. It's strange but I really think this is the right thing to do.
The idea was to help the church develop into a community that actually lives up to biblical precepts/teachings about helping the 'poor'. I have become very aware that this is not the focus of the church and likely never will be. The idea was way ahead of it's time and the church is not prepared to become a community of people that work on behalf of society to help reduce the suffering of people within their communities. The church is just to concerned with salvation and that aspect of the gospel - weird that salvation wouldn't be an all inclusive term for betterment as Jesus used it (here and now) - but that's just my opinion (apparently).
I was not a good leader and I failed in a lot of aspects - and I admit that. My group never really got an acceptable level within the church - it became so marginalized it became something I did not envision...thusly I am dropping the vision altogether. Maybe some other day things will be different - and that's the path I will now trod - awareness.
I need to move forward in life - and this group was not something I was prepared to handle anyways. I can live with failure - I find no problem with that - I will merely learn from it. So where to for me now? I haven't a clue - but that's the genius of life - it's goodbye to romance today - finding another love tomorrow.
The idea was to help the church develop into a community that actually lives up to biblical precepts/teachings about helping the 'poor'. I have become very aware that this is not the focus of the church and likely never will be. The idea was way ahead of it's time and the church is not prepared to become a community of people that work on behalf of society to help reduce the suffering of people within their communities. The church is just to concerned with salvation and that aspect of the gospel - weird that salvation wouldn't be an all inclusive term for betterment as Jesus used it (here and now) - but that's just my opinion (apparently).
I was not a good leader and I failed in a lot of aspects - and I admit that. My group never really got an acceptable level within the church - it became so marginalized it became something I did not envision...thusly I am dropping the vision altogether. Maybe some other day things will be different - and that's the path I will now trod - awareness.
I need to move forward in life - and this group was not something I was prepared to handle anyways. I can live with failure - I find no problem with that - I will merely learn from it. So where to for me now? I haven't a clue - but that's the genius of life - it's goodbye to romance today - finding another love tomorrow.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Figuring Out The Term 'To Judge'
I have recently given this some thought - this term that is thrown around in Christian circles - 'judgement' and I think it is being used all wrong. I think a careful look at that term might reveal a little more than meets the eye.
The term 'to judge' actually means to make a ruling (ex: to sentence or to free) - in relations to the law (torah) or a law. In this country (or any country) we have a court system that makes rulings about aspects of the law - and keeps 'law and order' around us (ex: if you steal you might have to pay reperations). This is how I have also come to see the term 'to judge' within the bible, but on a more personable level.
Jesus teaches 'do not judge...' - and I think that means just that - don't cast your sentences about the 'teachings' you follow upon others - to somewhat 'punish' them. But if you have to judge then measure yourself in accordance to the 'teachings' - and make that judgment a personal one (within yourself). In essence, judge the ethics/values you will adopt against a backdrop (teachings + experience).
I see many Christian folks using the term judgment wrongly (I think) when referring to judging situations - like we have the right to judge one of God's creatures - over-ruling the Creator (who is the only real judge of any situation). No, I think we can make those judgements on values within ourselves and to go beyond that is quite atrocious (or can be). Like I have the right to call you 'this or that' because I have different values than you - I should just keep my yap shut and follow the ethics I believe and hope that others will emulate it (that's how I measure it).
Our measurement is in regards to what we follow (teachings) and not in regards to what we say to others about what we follow (since in judging them we make no real in-ways). But Jesus was not too much a stickler on this - if you have to judge (sentence or free someone) - pick the path which is 'righteous' (mercy/forgiveness). Let's start freeing people from the labels we put upon them - we had no right to do so. Let's treat them how we want ot be treated - with equality and respect. Or as I have thought 'I shouldn't have to ask for your respect, if you respect yourself'.
I am not your judge, your jury, or your prosecuter...I am your friend. If you ask me about something I will tell you what I believe but that is the nature of discussion. What is not the nature of discussion is pointing fingers and making blatant calls on someone's life - that's making a label for someone to live down (which can really drag some people into various crisis'). Let's free them.
The term 'to judge' actually means to make a ruling (ex: to sentence or to free) - in relations to the law (torah) or a law. In this country (or any country) we have a court system that makes rulings about aspects of the law - and keeps 'law and order' around us (ex: if you steal you might have to pay reperations). This is how I have also come to see the term 'to judge' within the bible, but on a more personable level.
Jesus teaches 'do not judge...' - and I think that means just that - don't cast your sentences about the 'teachings' you follow upon others - to somewhat 'punish' them. But if you have to judge then measure yourself in accordance to the 'teachings' - and make that judgment a personal one (within yourself). In essence, judge the ethics/values you will adopt against a backdrop (teachings + experience).
I see many Christian folks using the term judgment wrongly (I think) when referring to judging situations - like we have the right to judge one of God's creatures - over-ruling the Creator (who is the only real judge of any situation). No, I think we can make those judgements on values within ourselves and to go beyond that is quite atrocious (or can be). Like I have the right to call you 'this or that' because I have different values than you - I should just keep my yap shut and follow the ethics I believe and hope that others will emulate it (that's how I measure it).
Our measurement is in regards to what we follow (teachings) and not in regards to what we say to others about what we follow (since in judging them we make no real in-ways). But Jesus was not too much a stickler on this - if you have to judge (sentence or free someone) - pick the path which is 'righteous' (mercy/forgiveness). Let's start freeing people from the labels we put upon them - we had no right to do so. Let's treat them how we want ot be treated - with equality and respect. Or as I have thought 'I shouldn't have to ask for your respect, if you respect yourself'.
I am not your judge, your jury, or your prosecuter...I am your friend. If you ask me about something I will tell you what I believe but that is the nature of discussion. What is not the nature of discussion is pointing fingers and making blatant calls on someone's life - that's making a label for someone to live down (which can really drag some people into various crisis'). Let's free them.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Coup D'etat (or something like it)
I was at church today and I got some rather odd news from my older brother (who pastors the First Nations church I attend). This person who has been attending the church for a while (he's from Korea) wrote a letter to the person above my brother at the Alliance to usurp authority.
I read the letter and basically it was all about this Korean dude becoming the 'head pastor' and my brother becoming the 2nd pastor (although my brother has pastored the church for like 7 years or so). I read it and thought this is a regular 'coup d'etat'.
I was kinda miffed about the whole thing and wondered why the Korean dude (who hadn't even attended the church for 6 months) wanted to usurp power? I thought the letter spoke volumnes about how he saw my brother's skills in the ministry - which is run by a First Nations person and geared to First Nations people. Needless to say, the letter was just another attempt to back-door someone who was doing a fine job - but not as fine as this dude would of liked (by not fine I mean - not Christian enough).
The Korean dude was not at church today - apparently he won't be coming back (as he stated). Reminds me of a line from the Big Lebowski 'somtimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you'. Well, you can guess who the bar ate up.
**I wasn't offended by the Korean dude but if I had to say some words to him - they wouldn't of been to kind and I woulda called him on this tactic he used.
I read the letter and basically it was all about this Korean dude becoming the 'head pastor' and my brother becoming the 2nd pastor (although my brother has pastored the church for like 7 years or so). I read it and thought this is a regular 'coup d'etat'.
I was kinda miffed about the whole thing and wondered why the Korean dude (who hadn't even attended the church for 6 months) wanted to usurp power? I thought the letter spoke volumnes about how he saw my brother's skills in the ministry - which is run by a First Nations person and geared to First Nations people. Needless to say, the letter was just another attempt to back-door someone who was doing a fine job - but not as fine as this dude would of liked (by not fine I mean - not Christian enough).
The Korean dude was not at church today - apparently he won't be coming back (as he stated). Reminds me of a line from the Big Lebowski 'somtimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you'. Well, you can guess who the bar ate up.
**I wasn't offended by the Korean dude but if I had to say some words to him - they wouldn't of been to kind and I woulda called him on this tactic he used.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Faith as a System - Paradigm Shifts
"Is it a viable position for a person to choose not to believe based on no other reason than they just do not feel that God exists?" (Steve at SCP)
This is where this question gets real interesting. How much can we trust feelings? How much can we trust experience? How much can you trust you thoughts? What serves as the back-drop for filtering these things and making a paradigm for them? I do know for certain that all aspects of the human experience make us.
I personally use my belief system (Jesus' Teachings) as a back-drop to develop a system whereby feelings and experiences are thought upon and then developed into the paradigm (value system). I feel, I think, I live, I interact, I draw a conclusion (value - changeable), I develop - then do it all over again. I don't know - does anyone else's faith system work this way - so easily?
PS: I don't actually think faith is based in feelings (which differ from experiences - they are not one in the same - actually sometimes run contrary to one another and help define each other).
This is where this question gets real interesting. How much can we trust feelings? How much can we trust experience? How much can you trust you thoughts? What serves as the back-drop for filtering these things and making a paradigm for them? I do know for certain that all aspects of the human experience make us.
I personally use my belief system (Jesus' Teachings) as a back-drop to develop a system whereby feelings and experiences are thought upon and then developed into the paradigm (value system). I feel, I think, I live, I interact, I draw a conclusion (value - changeable), I develop - then do it all over again. I don't know - does anyone else's faith system work this way - so easily?
PS: I don't actually think faith is based in feelings (which differ from experiences - they are not one in the same - actually sometimes run contrary to one another and help define each other).
Monday, May 21, 2007
Jewish Scriptures (Joshua and Judges)
Recently, I have picked up to resume where I stopped reading - right after the first 5 books of the Tanakh. I felt I need to re-read the Tanakh to see if my view of the scriptures has changed whatsoever - or maybe I can bring more clarity now by reading as someone less doctrinated - with simple eyes.
I just finished reading Joshua and 9 chapters of Judges - and my view on those books is quite simple - they are 'war books' (in a nutshell). They seem to be Jewish history about war for the land of Canaan framed within the promises to Moses (and the law) - but mainly describe the people, territories, and situations they are found 'fighting' in.
It's a fun read and all (I'll try to finish Judges today or tomorrow) but I have found very little 'teachings' within the 2 books thus far. For Joshua it seems like a recant of the victories on way to taking all of Canaan (which does not happen by the end of the book). Then Judges starts with that premise (chapter 1 is a re-hash of Joshua) and the Israelites having 'mini battles' for the rest of the land. The story usually goes (in Judges) the Israelites worshipped idols, they got ruled by another one of the people groups around them, then a 'judge' stood up for the people and freed them (from this bondage), and the land had peace again.
I just don't find the need to base teachings out of these books to be perfectly honest - there seems to be very little of that being done. It seems more Jewish writing about history and the wars they fought within that land. If you think about it - Jesus does not mention any of these stories in his teachings (or characters). Were these books that mentioned in the synagogue or were they plainly known to be a Jewish historical (of sorts) recant of those battles alone? I have to lean to the latter from some simple reading of it.
I just finished reading Joshua and 9 chapters of Judges - and my view on those books is quite simple - they are 'war books' (in a nutshell). They seem to be Jewish history about war for the land of Canaan framed within the promises to Moses (and the law) - but mainly describe the people, territories, and situations they are found 'fighting' in.
It's a fun read and all (I'll try to finish Judges today or tomorrow) but I have found very little 'teachings' within the 2 books thus far. For Joshua it seems like a recant of the victories on way to taking all of Canaan (which does not happen by the end of the book). Then Judges starts with that premise (chapter 1 is a re-hash of Joshua) and the Israelites having 'mini battles' for the rest of the land. The story usually goes (in Judges) the Israelites worshipped idols, they got ruled by another one of the people groups around them, then a 'judge' stood up for the people and freed them (from this bondage), and the land had peace again.
I just don't find the need to base teachings out of these books to be perfectly honest - there seems to be very little of that being done. It seems more Jewish writing about history and the wars they fought within that land. If you think about it - Jesus does not mention any of these stories in his teachings (or characters). Were these books that mentioned in the synagogue or were they plainly known to be a Jewish historical (of sorts) recant of those battles alone? I have to lean to the latter from some simple reading of it.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Equality of the Nations - starts with our churches
My brother(s) have begun a little campaign (which I am backing) concerning a certain idea about the missionary mindset in Aboriginal communities (started by a certain pastor and his mindset). Which couldn't of happened at a weirder time for me - I just had it out with 2 managers of mine at work about 'what seems to be vast cultural differences' and the way we view ourselves. That being said, I stood my ground for self-respect and now see my brothers doing the same (on a somewhat larger scale).
My older brother has been somewhat harrassed by a local church pastor about his son (who attends a church school there). The incidences seem to involve a syatematic picking on of his children for not following the cultural norms of the school (ex: hair length). One of his sons was booted for accusations of pornography and for 'long hair' (which were unfounded and without proof). Now the second son is feeling the heat for that (it seems) - he was picked out of a whole service and made to feel ashamed for his 'haircut' and said to not 'be listening' (again accusations without ground and made the kid feel such shame). The real problem in this is these kids are Aboriginal and 'long hair' is a sign of pride in our culture (something we see a right to do).
This was later followed by that pastor calling my older brother's wife and calling them bad parents - for the 2 kids more or less. Needless to say, you know what attitude happened next (anger). The pastor apparently never stopped there and went on to blame my younger brother for being a parapalegic on his choices and the 'he brought this on himself'. Top that off, I also had a sister who just went through a divorce at that church and was judged very extremely by that congregation there - and her kids attended that church school only to hear 'un-truths' about their mother. Add this all up and you have the systematic damaging of one family - that one being mine.
My younger brother is now writing letters to a group that supports that church and is questioning the very tactics of the faith they use towards Aboriginal people (and with these incidences at his side - he has some good reason to be skeptical). He uses much more militant language than I do but makes his point very clear - calling that church to account what they are doing. He has a meeting with these church funders later this week (unbelievably they granted him some time to hear his case).
I don't usually make a stand for anything but this time I am asked to search my conscience on the issue and I have heard the stories first-hand - and they are not heart-warming in the least. What seems to be at the core of the issue is European views and Aboriginal one's regarding the teachings of the faith (at least this is the case being made by my younger & older brother). I agree they are onto something. I can't quite recall when this particular church has ever built the esteem of the Aboriginal peoples they 'preach' to in regards to history, culture, community, and family. It's a real sad state of affiars that one un-accountable pastor cannot find the reality to humble himself and make things right (and maybe even being some cultural training about the people he thinks he is a missionary to).
The real odd thing is - this is the same pastor I wrote that letter of thanks to (concerning my time spent under his tutolage as a youth) - yet he can't find the heart to do the same for my family? I find that extremely sad. But I will continue to hear this story out and defend my family with all their faults and their faith (of which we all share in common) - only on the issues of accountability and cultural identity of this inner-city church. I can't help but think why this pastor to the inner-city has pushed away so many Aboriginal peoples he has worked with (and this possibly un-intentionally)?
In the end, I want a total halt to the superiority of some 'European' view on the faith and find equality for the Aboriginal view of it. This mentality may have worked in times past but those days are now past - and now we need to grow up. Maybe this endeavor will spark just that - a re-birth of the Aboriginal giving to the faith and how there is nothing wrong with viewing it through our experiences (which oddly enough was horrendously oppressed by Churches and the gov't in Canada through years of documented school-churches/institutions). One can hope that it will get more respect and value the views of the Aboriginal in the faith.
My older brother has been somewhat harrassed by a local church pastor about his son (who attends a church school there). The incidences seem to involve a syatematic picking on of his children for not following the cultural norms of the school (ex: hair length). One of his sons was booted for accusations of pornography and for 'long hair' (which were unfounded and without proof). Now the second son is feeling the heat for that (it seems) - he was picked out of a whole service and made to feel ashamed for his 'haircut' and said to not 'be listening' (again accusations without ground and made the kid feel such shame). The real problem in this is these kids are Aboriginal and 'long hair' is a sign of pride in our culture (something we see a right to do).
This was later followed by that pastor calling my older brother's wife and calling them bad parents - for the 2 kids more or less. Needless to say, you know what attitude happened next (anger). The pastor apparently never stopped there and went on to blame my younger brother for being a parapalegic on his choices and the 'he brought this on himself'. Top that off, I also had a sister who just went through a divorce at that church and was judged very extremely by that congregation there - and her kids attended that church school only to hear 'un-truths' about their mother. Add this all up and you have the systematic damaging of one family - that one being mine.
My younger brother is now writing letters to a group that supports that church and is questioning the very tactics of the faith they use towards Aboriginal people (and with these incidences at his side - he has some good reason to be skeptical). He uses much more militant language than I do but makes his point very clear - calling that church to account what they are doing. He has a meeting with these church funders later this week (unbelievably they granted him some time to hear his case).
I don't usually make a stand for anything but this time I am asked to search my conscience on the issue and I have heard the stories first-hand - and they are not heart-warming in the least. What seems to be at the core of the issue is European views and Aboriginal one's regarding the teachings of the faith (at least this is the case being made by my younger & older brother). I agree they are onto something. I can't quite recall when this particular church has ever built the esteem of the Aboriginal peoples they 'preach' to in regards to history, culture, community, and family. It's a real sad state of affiars that one un-accountable pastor cannot find the reality to humble himself and make things right (and maybe even being some cultural training about the people he thinks he is a missionary to).
The real odd thing is - this is the same pastor I wrote that letter of thanks to (concerning my time spent under his tutolage as a youth) - yet he can't find the heart to do the same for my family? I find that extremely sad. But I will continue to hear this story out and defend my family with all their faults and their faith (of which we all share in common) - only on the issues of accountability and cultural identity of this inner-city church. I can't help but think why this pastor to the inner-city has pushed away so many Aboriginal peoples he has worked with (and this possibly un-intentionally)?
In the end, I want a total halt to the superiority of some 'European' view on the faith and find equality for the Aboriginal view of it. This mentality may have worked in times past but those days are now past - and now we need to grow up. Maybe this endeavor will spark just that - a re-birth of the Aboriginal giving to the faith and how there is nothing wrong with viewing it through our experiences (which oddly enough was horrendously oppressed by Churches and the gov't in Canada through years of documented school-churches/institutions). One can hope that it will get more respect and value the views of the Aboriginal in the faith.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Matthew 5:17-20 - Examining Jesus' Authority on the Law
I have been at Gracehead for a bit (again commenting on the law) and have found myself asking what does Matthew 5:17-20 mean? It seems to be very controversial on the aspects of what the law means. I have examined it a few times and again I do it here - for discussion.
(v.17-18) "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
Jesus mentions the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Tanakh - the Law) and the prophets (a series of books from prophets to Israel) - the two great movements in Jewish faith (bookends within the Tanakh). Jesus simply says he came 'to fulfill/accomplish' these things (likely in a messianic sense). Well what would that look-like (or what can he mean)? Would you say Jesus has accomplished/fulfilled the law/prophets? This is what is being pointed to here. Matthew seems to be making this exact point - he will 'fulfill/accomplish' by the end of this book. Matthew also splatters numerous messianic quotations from prophets and the law in his writings (maybe as proof-texts of this point). Then the resurrection at the end- really what more do we need as 'proof' it is 'fulfilled'?
Matt 7:12 also seems to make sense here - "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets". Same point being made here by Jesus in Matt 22:36-40 (love God & your neighbor - on these 2 commandments depend all the law and prophets). Matt 24:35 says "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." Jesus seems to be the person who outlines the meaning of the law (also in Matt 5:21-48) for us and equates his words with 'not passing away'. How interesting the 'Love God and love your neighbor as yourself' values have never fallen out as the cornerstones of the Christian faith? Those words have 'never passed away'. As for other aspects of the law - well some faded out - not much to say there (ex: temple sacrifices).
(v.19-20) "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."
One key point is being made here and it relates to these words 'these commandments'. What commandments? Nothing has even been really said up to this point except for the beatitudes (which I could see being the reference for this passage as 'these commandments'). If you actually look at the beatitudes they are framed like the Moses scene @ Sinai. Jesus is on a mountain, there is multitude of people, and then gives 10 'blessed are you's' - quite the parallel. Just maybe, these are the ideals that frame the book of Matthew as an index of the core teachings Matthew will touch upon as we continue to read on (and if you check it out - those beatitudes are continually touched upon).
But the goal that Jesus points to is 'unless your righteousness surpass that of the scribes/Pharisees'. Anyone ever study the Pharisee's? They were literalists and they followed the law to it's core. Surpass that? How? Well what makes it easier is Jesus lays down some of their mistakes throughout Matthew (check almost any chapter). But right after this passage (vs.20) Jesus does go into a whole teaching pattern of 'how this (vs. 21-48) righteousness' looks. Then at the end of the chapter 7 (v.24-29) Jesus again relates these teachings to wisdom and folly, or his teachings are a good foundation vs. some of the other teachings he over-rides. Jesus claims 'authority' even within the sermon on the mount - as someone who knows God more than the scribes.
I think Jesus teachings are the 'fulfillment/accomplishment' of the law - even the very person of Jesus was (ie: messiah). I don't think Matthew is hearkening to the idea 'keep the whole law' but 'keep the teachings of Jesus' (as they are the greater weight in authority). The law has to be looked at through this newer rabbi's sayings - our teacher - and to look back in that lense if we look back into the law. Basically, it's 2 commandments - Love God and love your neighbor (as yourself) - and that is the end/beginning of the law for us.
What do you think - am I hitting the mark here or am I off? Jesus levies 2 commandments as the 'whole law and prophets' - twice within Matthew - is this true? Is teaching against those ideals what Jesus is referring to (ie: least in the kingdom)? Or is the law still in tact and this is only a piece of what is being said about the 'whole law'? Worth considering that's for sure - especially if you are of a Gentile culture who came to this faith.
(v.17-18) "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
Jesus mentions the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Tanakh - the Law) and the prophets (a series of books from prophets to Israel) - the two great movements in Jewish faith (bookends within the Tanakh). Jesus simply says he came 'to fulfill/accomplish' these things (likely in a messianic sense). Well what would that look-like (or what can he mean)? Would you say Jesus has accomplished/fulfilled the law/prophets? This is what is being pointed to here. Matthew seems to be making this exact point - he will 'fulfill/accomplish' by the end of this book. Matthew also splatters numerous messianic quotations from prophets and the law in his writings (maybe as proof-texts of this point). Then the resurrection at the end- really what more do we need as 'proof' it is 'fulfilled'?
Matt 7:12 also seems to make sense here - "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets". Same point being made here by Jesus in Matt 22:36-40 (love God & your neighbor - on these 2 commandments depend all the law and prophets). Matt 24:35 says "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." Jesus seems to be the person who outlines the meaning of the law (also in Matt 5:21-48) for us and equates his words with 'not passing away'. How interesting the 'Love God and love your neighbor as yourself' values have never fallen out as the cornerstones of the Christian faith? Those words have 'never passed away'. As for other aspects of the law - well some faded out - not much to say there (ex: temple sacrifices).
(v.19-20) "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."
One key point is being made here and it relates to these words 'these commandments'. What commandments? Nothing has even been really said up to this point except for the beatitudes (which I could see being the reference for this passage as 'these commandments'). If you actually look at the beatitudes they are framed like the Moses scene @ Sinai. Jesus is on a mountain, there is multitude of people, and then gives 10 'blessed are you's' - quite the parallel. Just maybe, these are the ideals that frame the book of Matthew as an index of the core teachings Matthew will touch upon as we continue to read on (and if you check it out - those beatitudes are continually touched upon).
But the goal that Jesus points to is 'unless your righteousness surpass that of the scribes/Pharisees'. Anyone ever study the Pharisee's? They were literalists and they followed the law to it's core. Surpass that? How? Well what makes it easier is Jesus lays down some of their mistakes throughout Matthew (check almost any chapter). But right after this passage (vs.20) Jesus does go into a whole teaching pattern of 'how this (vs. 21-48) righteousness' looks. Then at the end of the chapter 7 (v.24-29) Jesus again relates these teachings to wisdom and folly, or his teachings are a good foundation vs. some of the other teachings he over-rides. Jesus claims 'authority' even within the sermon on the mount - as someone who knows God more than the scribes.
I think Jesus teachings are the 'fulfillment/accomplishment' of the law - even the very person of Jesus was (ie: messiah). I don't think Matthew is hearkening to the idea 'keep the whole law' but 'keep the teachings of Jesus' (as they are the greater weight in authority). The law has to be looked at through this newer rabbi's sayings - our teacher - and to look back in that lense if we look back into the law. Basically, it's 2 commandments - Love God and love your neighbor (as yourself) - and that is the end/beginning of the law for us.
What do you think - am I hitting the mark here or am I off? Jesus levies 2 commandments as the 'whole law and prophets' - twice within Matthew - is this true? Is teaching against those ideals what Jesus is referring to (ie: least in the kingdom)? Or is the law still in tact and this is only a piece of what is being said about the 'whole law'? Worth considering that's for sure - especially if you are of a Gentile culture who came to this faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)