The Woven

Raft-centric

2012-02-18T21:01:00.000-08:00

"[A] man, who going on a journey, sees a great stretch of water, the near bank with dangers and fears, the farther bank secure and without fears, but there is neither a boat for crossing over, nor a bridge across. It occurs to him that to cross from the perils of this bank to the security of the further bank, he should fashion a raft out of sticks and branches and depending of the raft, cross over to safety. When he has don this it occurs to him that the raft has been very useful and he wonders if he ought to take it with him on his head or shoulders. What do you think? That the man is doing what should be done to the raft?

"When he has crossed over to the beyond he must leave the raft and proceed on his journey. [A] man doing this would be doing what should be done to the raft. [T]he raft [is] for getting across, not for retaining."
Adapted from the Majihima Nikaya, translated by Christmas Humphreys.

Religion is a tool. Religion can be a useful tool, even a necessary one.
A tool serves its purpose, accomplishes its task and then must be either left behind for another to use, or simply abandoned and discarded.

Like a raft built to cross to the other side of a river. Once the other shore is reached, dragging the raft behind you through the trees, brambles, and thickets only holds you back. It is falling victim to the disease of Religiosity.

Our purpose was never to build, protect, guard, or worship the raft. Our purpose is the journey. We should never be raft-centric.

The Three Lotuses

2012-02-04T15:59:00.000-08:00

The three Jewels of Buddhism are 1) the Buddha, 2) Dharma, and 3) Sangha.

I don't believe this concept belongs exclusively to the religion of Buddhism. I believe Buddhism only expresses it through its own particular paradigm. In fact, I think these 3 treasures - these three jewels - are universal truths. I see these as three Lotuses.

“Nirvana shares one quality with the lotus. As the lotus is untainted by water, so is Nirvana unstained by all the defilements”.

The first jewel – the Buddha – does not necessarily have to mean Siddhartha Gautama himself, but, in all likelihood, might refer to the awakened nature of all beings. I see this as extremely similar to the martial art's Taekwon-do's tenet Guk-gi (Self-Control). (And Solace is a fruit of Guk-gi).

The second Jewel, Dharma, is the teaching, but let's not take this too literally. This doesn't have to mean Buddhism's teaching(s). We shouldn't become frightened that to accept this Dharma means a path away from whatever belief or religion we currently belong to. No, I think this treasure - this universal truth - is simply being open to learning. I take Dharma as taking and accepting truth whenever and wherever we find it. (In fact, this might very well fly in the face of propositional truth [fundamentalism?]). I see this Dharma as akin to what is borrowed from the Chinese -do, or Dao, or possibly Tao, meaning the way or path or route to something, and that something is the fundamental nature of the universe.

The Sangha in Buddhism generally refers to the Buddhist's community itself. But the further we take this concept the larger one's Sangha becomes. On its largest level we are faced with the global community as our own, and I think this is a perfect place for us to reflect on the underlying concept of Compassion. I think it is important not to mistaken, or force a necessary interpretation, of this Sangha as meaning a specific and exclusive religious body of followers. I take this Sangha concept as being boundless and without boarders.

I believe the most valued truth that we can discover is that of Solace and Compassion.
And Solace and Compassion are entangled by Dharma.
These are what I call the Three Lotuses.

Solace, Compassion, and Dharma

That's one of the reasons I have three lotuses tattooed on my arm. It is one symbolism it holds to me. But not the only one.

The third lotus has a skull within its heart. It reminds me of impermanence; of both mortality and immortality. As I myself am mortal, I know of my own impermanence, of my own mortality. Yet the other two lotuses represent my children, and through them I have achieved immortality.

The final significance is the only method I have discovered to overcome Lust. (See A Practical Guide for the Spiritual Sojourner: A Cure for Lust).

The Hidden Faces of Fundamentalism

2012-01-07T16:56:00.000-08:00

We have two people in a car involved in a discussion about the nature of the car's occupants.The first says, "There are only two categories of people in this car.Me, and not-Me".
The second occupant isn't impressed by this sort of categorization and disagrees. The second occupant sees the catogories in terms of Him and not-Him, much to the first person's dismay.
Both argue that they are dealing with cold, hard facts and therefore won't back-down because they hold the truth and are unarguably in the right!

I believe this is how most Westerners think and function; in dichotomies. This is a Western-paradigm; a Dichotomy-paradigm.

Both arguing occupants in the car have missed several facts.
First, that the truths they cling to, are only 'facts' from a certain point of view and are conditional truths at best.

(A person believes the sky is blue. It is an obvious fact - don't be silly! Just look up! It is not a conditional truth and certainly not true only from a certain point of view. Fact. Plain and simple. Right?
A second person (who only goes out at night) believes the sky is black. This - clearly - is a fact. It isn't a conditional truth, now is it?
Only through a non-dichotomy-paradigm can these two conditional truths be reconciled and a larger truth be discovered - the fact of night and day.
...but interestingly enough, this fact, this truth of night-and-day, is itself only valid from a certain point of view. It is only true under certain conditions.

Day and Night are in themselves only an illusion; a man-made construct. Just take a step off the planet. They no longer exist. It's no different than the two people in the car arguing about is it "Me and not-Me" or "Him and not-Him").

Secondly, they miss the point that they are actually agreeing with one another in the sense that they both agree that there are two occupants in the car. They just can't (won't?) agree on how to catergorize them.

A Harmonious-Dichotomy-paradigm can accept both seemingly contradictory facts as true. No, not contradictory, but harmonious facts.

What are the nature of the car occupants?
a) Me and not-Me?
b) Him and not-Him?
Answer: Yes.

The Japanese have an expression - a single work really - Mu. Unask the question. The error is not within one's answer, but within the question being asked itself.

Another simple example is that of theft. Stealing is against the law almost everywhere (Let's leave well enough alone that the Law does not define what is and isn't Truth). Even people who may frquently steal will most definitely not accept being stolen from.
There is an unaccounted for illusion here; the assumption and understanding of ownership. The truth in this example supersedes the question.

"Stealing implies ownership". V from V is for Vendetta

Is stealing wrong? Is theft a simple black and white issue?
When you pose the question of whether stealing is an absolute, you are asking the wrong question. Is ownership absolute? What is ownership? How exactly do we define ownership? What can I claim that I truly own? If I have paid for something, if I've bought something, does that mean I own it? How does that apply to slavery?

Let us jump to another example.
I have my thoughts and opinions and beliefs as to how the universe came into being, but I don't need to be right. Ultimately, we will never know this one truth. It is nothing but an opinion and a belief. (Does might make right?)

One core tenet of Buddhism is that when we attempt to force our beliefs into facts, this is the genesis of human suffering. This truth supersedes any other.
Creationism or Secular-Atheistic Evolution?

Mu. (You're asking the wrong question).

The Western Dichotomy-Paradigm deals with truth often exclusively in terms of knowledge only. The need for truth in certain circumstances is irrelevant and unnessary, especially once we introduce Wisdom (and remember, Wisdom cares).

In our first example, the fact is that there are two people in a car.
In our second example, the fact is our planet spins on its axis and revolves around the sun.
But facts aren't truth. We interpret these facts into our subjective truths.

I think an important issue is our methodologies in pursuing truths rather than actual facts and/or truths we discover. I think it is vitally important how we come to the truths we claim to hold rather than what our end results are. It is important to be aware of the illusions we cling to.

And for those who insist on clinging to their fundamental illusions - ultimately their 'facts', their 'truths' and their inflexible beliefs, will lead to conflict and an obstacle to peace.

Review of "Clean Water for Elirose", by Ariah Finz

2011-12-26T13:30:00.000-08:00

What I loved so much about this children's book was that it didn't just speak of ideas (and educate through its teachings), but that it offered a very real way for children - who are often times very aware and interested in problems of the world - a direction to actually do something about it.

Two lessons struck me the most. (And I hope, as an adult, I'm not missing its point)
The first was to make children aware of things we take for granted. Like Maria first starts off by saying, "Do you like it if your drink is dirty and yucky? Me neither", only later to be introducted to Elirose who, "Has to walk a long way every day to get water for her family. And the water isn't even clean, it's yucky and dirty."

The second are some very practical activities children can do to raise money to help, but more importantly, to learn that they have the ability within their own hands, to change to world. They aren't helpless.

The book ends with questions for discussion along with ideas and activities to participate in!

What a beautifully simple yet profound book.
I plan to have my children read it and hear their take on it.

Disclaimer: I received this book free from SpeakEasy Blog Network. Providing me a free copy in no way guarantees a favorable review. The opinions expressed in this review are my own.

XXX-mas: Porn for the Soul

2011-12-24T19:24:00.000-08:00

I can remember my dad saying every Christmas time how he was upset that the commercial industry would abbreviate Christmas to Xmas. He thought it took the spirit out of it. I can remember thinking this same thing for years myself. It wasn't until I was in St. Pius X Catholic High School that I learned what the X in Xmas stood for. Khris-tos in Greek, meaning the anointed. I would have never guessed that the Greek letter “X” was often used as the abbreviation for the “Christ”, or the Messiah. It made sense after learning this, and I couldn't really fault my father for not reading Greek. I don't read it either; I guess few do. So, in this case, it wasn't so commercial.

Christmas is never the same until you have children of your own. Christmas this year will be the 16th year we, as a family with children, celebrate Christmas. But this year, like last year and the year before, I'm not looking forward to it at all.

I know why that is. Ultimately, I'm teaching my children the value of porn. Yes, that's right, porn, as in pornography. Not the culture of porn, and definitely not the imagery of porn, but the philosophy of it. The philosophy of porn teaches us the quick fix. It teaches us near instant gratification. It offers us something we all legitimately desire and crave, and hope and long for. But offers something shallow and hollow in its place. I like what society thinks porn should be. It's supposed to be fun and exciting, and alive and pleasurable. It supposed to simply be sexuality. Sexuality is a normal aspect of being human and we enjoy it within our relationships – it is supposed to be harmless. No one really gets hurt. But why does porn leave me empty? What's missing? Porn is really a bait-and-switch sales tactic, isn't it? Porn's selling you one thing, but delivering you something else.

One kind of Christmas teaches our children and us materialism. And the fat ol' jolly elf named Santa Claus – who Coca-Cola Ltd. played a big hand in creating and establishing – only adds to this frenzy. But, I say to myself, that's only one kind of Xmas – that is only the secular, commercial driven materialistic kind of Xmas. This kind of Xmas is so akin to porn that I have to start teaching my children otherwise!

Another kind of Xmas is attempting to connect with the religious facet of it. "The real meaning of Xmas", as some say. "Jesus: He's the reason for the season", and cute catchphrases like that. Of course it's all true, but sometimes it sounds like a formulated marketing scheme, and I'm beginning to wonder if it really is.

So how do you connect with a spiritual part of it? I guess you go to church. We attend church. We sit and watch the spectacle and entertaining shows and hope to have our emptiness filled. Like porn, a different aspect of society (Christianity) tells us what Xmas should be like. Like porn, we're still searching for gratification - not physical pleasure, but spiritual gratification. Attending church, especially at Xmas, is supposed to be exciting and alive! It's supposed to be a celebration of our liberty and salvation! Not only is it supposed to be harmless, but's supposed to be just the opposite! We're expecting - somehow - to be healed, to be made full and whole again. This kind of Xmas is still nothing more than the bait-and-switch sales tactic. This kind of Xmas is selling you one thing, but delivering you something else.

I can't speak for anybody but myself, but Xmas celebration in church leaves me feeling empty. Maybe because Xmas - and I mean the religious aspect of it - has really become XXXmas. The religious Christmas today has become, for many people, porn for the soul. They're showing up looking for their "fix". They're searching for the quick fix - whatever that may be. They're looking for the permanent "feel-good" pleasure of the spirit, but are left with something that very quicly fades, and often times leaves feelings of guilt.

The true meaning of Christmas has nothing to do with church. And it doesn't have to do with giving to the poor. Giving to the poor is about charity, not about Christmas day. If you honestly believe Chrimstas is about giving to the poor, then you're trying to fulfill some sort of checklist the easy way. And I know this is a cliche, but Christmas is about giving. But it's not about giving gifts and presents. It's not about volunteering at the soup-kitchen once a year and serving the poor. It's about giving ourselves, our time, our relationship, our friendship. And not for just one season of the year! Strangers make the worst people to give these gifts to, because it makes these strangers little more than "projects" or receptive object of our "obligatory" dues. These "gifts" do not come from the heart, they come from some sort of installed sense of obligation. We are attempting to appease our own sense of hollowness - our own sense of guilt. Because deep down inside, these people know how miserable, wretched, and empty they truly are. Deep down inside they know that no one single day has that kind of magic to cure what ails them. They are fallen and they damned well know it. To hope and search for this kind magical cure at XXXmas is looking for love in porn. We will never succeed.

I cannot find the meaning of Christmas in the materialism of this commerical "Holiday Season".

I cannot find the meaning of Christmas in the pews of churches and in the holy quest of porn for the soul.

The meaning of Christmas must lie beyond the churches and beyond the shopping malls. There must be another kind of Christmas.

(Notice: This is a significantly older piece, rewritten from 2006 and reposted. Some of you may be familiar with it).

A Practical Guide for the Spiritual Sojourner: Hook-Line-and-Sinker, or Through-the-Looking-Glass?

2011-12-18T06:24:00.000-08:00

Old Highway 17

I have a vague memory of the first time I encountered God. I shouldn't say “God” for at that time in my life I held absolutely no concept of the divine.

“God's” a funny word. We should really be careful when we use that word. It means so many things to so many people. To a child it's an old man with white hair and beard sitting on a cloud. To some it's an impersonal entity or force running or guiding the universe. To others it's a universal-mind itself. To many God has been imbued with a personality - “personhood”. I suppose this is necessary for our very finite minds to wrap themselves around a very infinite being – the Being. The problem with this is that we also tend to pass on all too human traits. Jealousy, anger, Tribalism, Nationalism, Hatred, let alone using God as a tool to further our own agendas and ends.

Allow me to just say that I can remember the first time I encountered something other.

My mom and dad and I were on a car ride. It was long before my sister was born – during that long chapter in my life as the only child.

I can remember that I had absolutely no sense of time-reference. Not days of the week, not actual dates (numbers), not even larger time-frames, like Grade-1, or Grade-2. It must have been pre-kindergarten so I'll put myself as being under 4 years old; probably 3.

I can remember the car traveling what felt like west-bound (not from my childhood memory, but from how I remember it as an adult), but towards to main-city of Ottawa with a body of water (river?) on my right and rocky fields to my left. (For any locals, I figure it was Old Highway 17 between Ottawa and Wendover).

We stopped at what I can only remember as a sort of rocky quarry. I can't remember any machinery or equipment so it probably was more of a outcrop of rocks than a quarry proper, but there was definitely what appeared to be a sharp (cut stone) wall behind, with a litter of stones and rocks everywhere.

I remember my goal was to find and collect rocks! (Not any sort of special rocks. Just rocks!) It felt like I must have been miles away from where my parents were. I was busy 'exploring', but in all likelihood, I'm sure I wasn't far from them.

And then, suddenly, I became aware of a presence. Like someone or something accompanying me. Friendly, warm, caring. I never questioned whether it might have been my imagination or not, I think I was simply too young. But that memory has always stuck with me.

Ultimately, it was the genesis of my searching out God.

However, simple and powerful that one 'encounter' with the unknown was, it wasn't my any means the only one.

I have had several paradigm-shattering encounters and experiences in my life. This earliest one in the quarry was the first. Then there was my dream of The Storm in '83. My mother's death in '87. My precognitive dreams the led to my wife and marriage in '90; the end of a 10-year exile from God in '97. The birth of my autistic son and an experience 20 years later at my mother's grave.

All of these experiences have feed this quest and journey and search.

~

Allow me to switch gears – change topics. I think I might go at this from a different perspective.

I have never been one for institutional religions and I know by some people, I have been accused of taking the easy path; the path of least resistance.

I have been told by some that being an adherent to a particular church or temple (or religion or even community) requires a commitment not unlike a relationship, or even a marriage. By these same people I have also been told that I fail to make this sort of commitment. I should actually be insulted (most specifically because of the comment to failing to commit to a community) because – really – what I am being accused of is a lack of loyalty, and loyalty is something I do not lack.

I have recently reflected upon, not so much my experiences themselves, but upon my attempts to search out the truth behind them, and what I discovered.

Often times, I so wanted the truth to be enlightening, to lift all worry and anxiety and give me an overwhelming sense of peace, that I would be more than willing to suspend my disbelieve, to suspend my cold analytical eye. And sometimes, briefly, it would work.

As my searching brought me into more and more contact with more and more people and others' experiences my understanding of God, my belief of God, grew and changed. Ideas and images that I struggled with died and newer, better ones came into existence. Certain problems with the idea of God ceased to be issues once viewed from a different point of view. Spiritual maturity? Possibly.

I have often wondered whether I subject myself to believing something hook-line-and-sinker. (Because when I think back to numerous experiences and involvements with various groups it's kind of embarrassing. My, how I've changed). Am I just lost soul, floating from one to another faith, desperately embracing everything or anything like a drowning man clings to anything thrown to him? Maybe my naysayers are right.

I came to realize something that I eventually called -ologies.

You know, as in Archeology. Biology. The science of, or the study of any said topic.

However, it was with Theology that this method fell apart in my opinion.

As a biologist studying a paramecium under a microscope this same analogy absolutely could not work – or at least would fail miserably – in the realm of theology.

You could not objectively observe and study God from a distance. (And on a side note, I think that is what's wrong with so many churches, religions, and theologists today).

In this particular “science” you must go through the looking glass. The biologist would need to use his microscope as a slide to sit side-by-side with the paramecium he is studying (and hope it doesn't mistaken him as a food source!)

You cannot 'study' God. You experience it. The act of “studying” God is to change you. It doesn't work any other way. Or so I thought.

I don't think I take the path of least resistance. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that 'how' I pursue my searching for this encounter I had as a 3-year old puts me in danger.

I think what I 'do' is not so much like a lost soul adrift, nor like a drowning man desperately clinging to absolutely anything thrown to him, but more honest and more akin to traveling through the looking glass. Putting myself 'out-there' and allowing myself to be affected and changed by my encounters. Not objective and distant.

But the more and more I've practiced this, the more and more I realized that it wasn't God that I was encountering and experiencing, but people. It was people's hopes and dreams and ideas, and projections that shaped what we hope God is. (And even what God isn't in the case of Atheists).

Broken China

I've realized that I am a potter.

I've spend most of my life inadvertently making theological pottery. Beautiful China if you will.

I've also realized that God has spend most of his life breaking it.

So, my question is really, do I, as a spiritual sojourner, indiscriminately swallow numerous 'truths' hook-line-and-sinker, or do I practice going-through-the-looking-glass? I have found precious few brave enough to travel down this path. Allowing oneself to be changed is a scary thing.

Path of least resistance? I think not.

Masks

2011-11-11T17:17:00.000-08:00

What is an identity? Is it your name?

Well, I own my names and they are not my identity, most especially if you have gone through more than one.

I think identity and one's name are two very different creatures; one being a sort of manifestation – a reflection if you will – of the other. But for the time being I am going to use 'name' and 'identity' as synonymous and interchangeable.

You wear your name; you wear your identity like a mask. I have found that once they're removed, we can never see them for anything other than exactly what they are: masks.

It doesn't change the fact that we still wear them, but it does change our level of awareness. We will no longer mistaken the perceptions and ideas we project to others – we will no longer accept the labels placed upon us by another – the masks we wear – as ourselves. It is simply self-delusion.

It is terrifying and exhilarating and enlightening once we see beneath our masks. It becomes extremely difficult to name the thing we see below the surface.

It becomes difficult to even clearly see any distinctive outline of the being beneath.

Where I end and my wife of 23 years begins - half my entire life - all of my adult life! - becomes blurred. Where my existence is seen as an extension of my children and my existence as an individual can only be expressed through an analogy of a manifestation of identity.

Where my long since dead mother – little more than a dead thing in the ground, dust and bones, continues to exist and live through me, even now influencing me as I speak and write. I am equally a product of the traditions (or lack of traditions) and environment and culture they had brought me up in as I am a product of their specific DNA. I am an indistinct part of a continuum, a living aspect of a century-spanning life form we call humanity; a tiny member of a great gestalt. Individuality is the illusion.

In July, 2008 I had to opportunity to spend a few days and nights out on the moors, in the Yorkshire Dales.

I haven't included many pictures because they simply do not do the beautiful and desolate landscape justice.

My days and nights of the lonely moors has served as a sort of private and personal spiritual retreat, giving me time to collect my thoughts, regroup, and reflect over this recent identity 'crisis'...

On the moors I was surprised at all the wildlife I saw. Giant black slugs the size of my thumb, all racing towards a local congregation for purposes I can only imagine.

Multitudes of brown bunnies, perfectly camouflaged and hidden, visible only when they moved; and when they moved they would run and race, each triggering and affecting another. Pheasants and quail, fowls I could not identity, all going about their daily business. Sheep and rams looking for little more than new grasses to eat. Single individual lone trees standing on cloud-shrouded hilltops, silent witnesses and sentinels of decades.

All this life and activity thriving and existing interdependently and outside of my consciousness and awareness. How truly alien I must seem to them. How truly arrogant I must be in my ignorance to their lives. They exist and live and eat and reproduce and die independent of whether I acknowledge them or not – regardless of whether I believe or not.
The rains that fell on me; the constant moisture and dampness in the ground; the clouds that would pass and literally kiss the hilltops and engulf me, blocking out all vision. The water I would drink and even the very water that would compose my physical being... all the same... all one.

As alien as I was, I was still part of this unseen world. The giant black slugs, the brown bunnies, the Pheasants and quails, the sheep and ram, the lonely trees and the water that surrounded and permeated us all. We're all composed of the exact same material. Stardust. Fully recyclable. Fully interchangeable. Fully interrelated.

After the masks that I wear were removed, I could no longer find individual identity in my being – seeing myself as only an “inter-being”.

I can no longer find individual identity in my physical body, being made of the simple raw material we all share; interconnected.

How truly arrogant of me to have entertained the idea that I might have a unique spiritual identity. Why must I think that the bunnies dash and run randomly and without guidance or purpose; victims of chaos? Why must I believe God is not present in the giant black slugs' morning routine of gathering at a certain given plant?

As desolate and lonely as the moors were, there was also an awareness of something pure and holy. Something truly beautiful. It was a place where God walked barefoot. It was a hidden place where God walked naked of our assumed projections. Unclothed in our pretentious theological knowledge. A place where God's only answer to one's questions and mental meanderings was simply and repeatedly ”I am”.

As I returned to the cobblestone and concrete wilderness of civilized towns, I realized that this very same God live and walks barefoot, naked, and unclothed. He/She/It is just more difficult to see because of the masks we wear. They obstruct our vision somewhat, but they don't need to.

On the first morning of my return from the moors I walked through a town. I saw faces and people I do not know, speaking in an accent and dialect that was not my own, living lives I could only imagine.

At first I felt out of place; alien. They would look at me. They didn't know me. I was a stranger but in a far more profound way. They couldn't recognize or understand me for what I was because I wore no mask. Etched on each one of their faces was evidence of their mental meanderings. Imprinted on their expressions was one question: ”Who are you?”

I realized the truest answer was that barefoot-naked-unclothed-God's answer: "I am".

I also realized that I had to replace my mask. I realize that we cannot function as a civilization or a society without a sense of individuality; without some degree of illusion; without our masks.. But I hope we can all realize that our masks are not us. I hope we all can begin to see the seems around the edges of our faces, the edges of our identities – the awareness of our masks.

I hope we can also begin to realize that we dress and put masks on God. Whether it be through projections of what our traditional upbringings have taught us, or what our hopes and aspirations are, or stoically through our acquired theological knowledge, or even through pure pretension.

“...an old Zen caution: “Don't mistake the finger for the moon.” Buddhism, Zen, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Judaism, Confucianism, and so on are all useful fingers. Teachings that point the way to fully actualizing ourselves and benefiting others are pointers, but not the end itself. All religious teachings are about what is, but if we focus on the teachings as objects we miss the point.” Dairyu Michael Wenger, Soto Zen priest and Dean of Buddhism Studies at the San Francisco Zen Center, San Francisco, California

A Practical Guide for the Spiritual Sojourner: A Cure for Lust

2011-10-12T14:39:00.000-07:00

What do we look to religion for?
Why do we seek it out?

To some, I’m sure, it's in search of the truth. But I've learned 'religious truth' is an ambiguous, fickle, and tricky thing at the best of times, with a tendency to become more subjective and righteous than anything else. (And I would include Atheism within this umbrella, 'religious' definition). To some (I hope a minority) this subjective truth and righteousness, unfortunately, is exactly what they seek.

I should like to believe that we look to Spirituality in hopes of learning and better understanding Compassion towards others and Solace for ourselves. To find peace with the world around us and be at peace with ourselves.

Solace. Although in times past I am sure I would not have been able to successfully articulate it, it was what I've spend decades seeking and searching for.

I have written on how Christianity has failed me, but maybe it was I who have failed Christianity's test. Maybe I have never been baptized by Fire, by the Holy Spirit. Maybe it is I who has never successfully been born again. Baptized through Catholicism but never Confirmed, maybe I truly am not a part of the Body, but apart from it. Maybe at one point in my life the cleansing fires of the Holy Spirit washed over me, measured me, and found me wanting... My point being this isn't about pointing the finger at Christianity but simply that it hasn't 'worked' for me.

I think the three darkest demons I have wrestled and struggled with have been Fear, Anger, and Lust.
Capital “F” Fear. Not so much being scared or afraid of something or someone, but Fear as in Worry, Anxiety, Dread. The kind of worry and fear that consumes your Perpetual Now and obliterates your tomorrow. The kind of fear that controls your ability to make decisions for yourself.

~

I've never been sure exactly how to label the second; Anger or Rage.
A distinction should be made between righteous anger – anger one feels at an injustice – vs. blind, out of control anger; rage. When rational thought evades you. When it is the anger, the rage that is calling the shots.

I am by no means pretentious and I have no intention to give the false impression that I have successfully and permanently purged them. There are still moments when I battle them. However, I have through my decades of searching, through various 'methodologies' and 'religions' and spiritual paths and avenues found control, peace, and solace. Primarily through – believe it or not – martial arts. (Taekwon-do to be exact. I've written a blog on it. Tattoo: Solace in Pain. And don't kid yourself into believing that a martial art is all about combat and fighting an opponent).

~

...but Lust is another demon. When I say Lust I am referring to Lust of the sexual kind. (Truth be know, I have never really suffered from coveting material goods and 'stuff').
The church, Catholicism, Christianity, and Christ have in every method and way failed to offer succor. The closest I've come was the realization – or maybe it's better and more accurate for me to say, acceptance, of God, as the Holy Spirit, as most definitely female. “God the Mother”. Sophia. The divine feminine Catholicism sees in the Virgin Mary (not Mariolatry).

Just use your innate ability of Imagination (as opposed to 'make-believe') and pray and confess to a female God. It is a drastically different and refreshing experience.

But even this only succeeded temporarily to suppress Lust, not battle it.

It was only recently, through a serious of coincidences, that I came across a simple Buddhist mediation. A simply Buddhist method of combating Lust that has knocked it flat on its ass. (Not, this isn't a story about religious conversion or proselytism. I'd have to definitely be something first to convert to another, wouldn't I?)

It begins by sitting cross legged, preferably on a pillow or something soft. Then, remove “counterproductive currents of energy” or “airs” or “winds”, through 9 inhalations and exhalations.

(I know this part might sound a little bit silly, but bear with me).

First, inhale deeply through your right nostril by pressing the left nostril closed with your left thumb; then release the left nostril and press your right nostril closed with your left middle finger, exhaling through the left nostril. Do this three times.
After that, inhale deeply through the left nostril by continuing to press the right nostril closed with your left middle finger; then release the right nostril and press your left nostril closed with your left thumb, exhaling through the right nostril. Do this three times.
Finally place your left hand back on your lap beneath your right hand, both palms up with your thumbs touching, forming a triangle. Then inhale deeply through both nostrils and exhale through both nostrils. Do this three times.

Then I conjure an image of a Lustful object of desire. But now, meditate and contemplate on their body, from the top of her head to the soles of her feet. Skin, flesh, blood, bone, marrow, urine, feces, etc. Focus on her hair, but her removed hair, like clumps you might find on a hair salon's floor or in a bathtub's drain. Finger and toe nail clippings. (This isn't for the faint of heart). Then I focus on the body's decaying and decomposing. The soft subtle skin being quite literally stripped from the body through its disintegration. Its liquids spilling out. (I've even had moments when my mind meandered on its own and animated this corpse into some sort of zombie horror)
… and I think you get the idea. Lust is the last thought on your mind. And no, I don't enjoy this, and yes, I find this exercise extremely disturbing.

I have since “streamlined” this method over time down to a single simple image. A tiny statue of a skull carved out of stone and I can summon this image into sharp focus in my mind's eye – usually – without going through the meditative process I previously described, if needs be. Its quicker that way; more practical and useful.

In fact, I use 3 images (3 tiny statues), one for each Fear, Anger, and Lust.

So far, so good. I can't complain.

I'd be interested in hearing how some of you deal with these issues – Fear, Anger, Lust – or whatever you may struggle with and successful methods.

But please, success stories only. I've heard my fair share of BS over the years, ranging from ”When I get lustful thoughts, I read my bible”, to ”I never suffer from fear or worry since I've been born again”.
… ya... okay.

I like to believe spirituality – like truth – is progressive and cumulative; it grows and evolves and expands. For those of us on this path, it makes us spiritual sojourners.

What's your story?

...nothing...

2011-09-14T20:25:00.000-07:00

Mu... nothing... not.

Mu can mean 'nothing'. The absence of anything.

“I see nothing.” - Alice

“My you have good eyes.” - Cheshire Cat

Do you hear silence?

But even nothing must have great value.

It isn't the clay vase that is of importance, but it's center, it's hollow, it's nothingness, that makes it useful.

One of mankind's greatest inventions was the wheel, yet the wheel itself, its spokes, and even its hub isn't of most value, but the center hole that drives the wheel.

There is no hollow in the vase without making the vase, no center hole without making the spokes and hub that define it.

It is to remind us that there is always a passive and empty component that coexists with an active, coercing and shaping component. The two provide the means towards action and purpose.
Nurture and acting.

Action is often coercion and coercion often manifests as aggression. If we can separate aggression from action we are not left with emptiness but inactive action. Wu wei.

~ ~ ~

I've always loved bonzai trees. They are fantastic examples and manifestations of universal wisdom.
Although we can coerce and control and shape them (yang), ultimately they passively remain the same - a tree (yin). We must accept this because we cannot change it. It is it's nature. It lives and grows on its own. Some might argue that if we were to stop watering the tree it would die, but even death is within its nature as all things eventually die. It is inactive action. Wu wei.

~ ~ ~

Mu... not.
It may be used grammatically as a prefix. Not good. (Bad). Not day (Night).
But in Buddhism, Taoism, and Eastern religions, it can stand alone. Simply Not; an answer to a koan; an answer to unanswerable questions. Mu.
Unask the question. It indicates the question cannot be answered; that the question itself is at fault.

I have found it becomes a good philosophical method or tool, when addressing and struggling with the contradictions within theological conundrums – for I believe is in the contradictions and the paradoxes in which the divine wisdom – Sophia - is most challenging and speaks the loudest. It is not in the religions' commonalities that she speaks and challenged us to change and grow and learn but in their apparent conflicts. And to claim that there simply are not any conflicts or contradictions is nothing more than denial and suffering from an ostrich-syndrome.

~ ~ ~

I can't help but wonder if, in the center, the genesis point of all creation, there exists a Great Nothing. I think to attribute this as God – a Creator – is 'asking' the wrong question. It's looking at the situation from the wrong angle. For Creation itself, and even the act of creating itself, are controlling and coercive actions. Yang energy.

This central genesis point must be Yin energy. Non-coercive. Nurturing. Loving. Lacking aggression.

From a Theistic perspective, we really cannot have a God that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. We can, however, have a God that suffers from necessary, involuntary, and irreversible kenosis. Self-emptying.

... that is, of course, if we are forced to address this issue within a theistic context...

...but, like the banzai tree, what is the nature of this "divine" center; this divine Great Nothing?

What is the inactive action of this central nothingness?

What is God's wu wei?

Review of Seven Spirits Burning, by John Crowder

2011-09-05T09:17:00.000-07:00

Allow me to begin by saying, many of the pitfalls and criticisms present in John Crowder's previous book – Mystical Union – are present in Seven Spirits Burning as well.

Poor editing and/or grammar, contradictions, use of 26 biblical translations (which, ultimately, must be better than the 48 used in Mystical Union). John Crowder tends to fall victim to speaking in Christianese; words and terms that only Christians or church-goes would readily identify and recognized, yet terms that are mostly ambiguous and undefined; possibly with intent to deliberately allow the reader to assume.

~ ~ ~

The book, primarily, is about the Holy Spirit. Early on Crowder begins by, what I can only assume to establishing that Holy Spirit (he tends not to use the term the Holy Spirit, but truncates it down to a proper noun - Holy Spirit) is indeed God and not some sort of impersonal force.

“Since Holy Spirit is a spirit being, we should understand that He has a personality and traits. He speaks (Tim. 4:1); He has a will (1 Cor. 12:11); He is knowledgeable (1 Cor. 2:11), He teaches (John 14:26); He has a mind (Rom. 8:27); He loves (Rom. 15:30); and He can also be grieved or insulted (Eph. 4:30; Heb. 10:29).

“Furthermore, He is eternal, omnipresent – existing everywhere – and He is omniscient – knows everything (1 Cor. 2:10, 11; Ps. 139:7-10). Scripture is clear that He was involved in the creation of the world, along with the Father and the Son. He brought life to mankind as He was exhaled by the Father”. pg. 14-15

If we are going to lay-out the 'properties' of the Holy Spirit – establish Holy Spirit's nature, if you will – then let's go all the way, shall we?

Let's list Proverbs 8:12-30 (which I think may be the reference Crowder is making in the final two quoted sentences). And if this is the case, let's address the fact that this Sophia - God's personified Wisdom – is female.

If we are to provide biblical quotes and support to establish that Holy Spirit is indeed omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and has a personality and an individuality as Crowder so seems inclined to do, why not quote Wisdom of Solomon (or Book of Wisdom) 7:23 and 7:27? They are perfect examples.

Oh, but wait! I know why. Wisdom of Solomon is an apocryphal book, belonging to the Catholic Bible.
And here is what John Crowder has to say about that:

“When we count up all of the various almond parts of the lampstand – flowers, buds, blossoms, etc. - we find a total of sixty-six parts. Did you know that there are sixty six books in your Bible? This is an ancient confirmation of the canon of scripture”. pg. 44.

[So, Jeremiah 1:11-12 is to become the infallible bible's Table of Contents? The historical fact of the matter is that the 66 books were established by a Church Council. Whether or not this council was divinely inspired is up for debate].

“Never let anyone try to convince you that religious leaders suppressed other books of the Bible, or that apocryphal works hold the same weight of authority as the canon of scripture. Some apocryphal works are helpful, but they are not infallible...” pg. 45

But yet, shortly afterwards while attempting to convince the reader that the power – the Glory - of Holy Spirit will enrich and fill the believer to overflowing, he quotes Psalms 65:11.... four times over.

“...where thy feet have passed, the stream of plenty flows”. Psalms 65:11, KNOX
“You... deluge your tracks with butterfat”. Psalms 65:11, ARTB
“...your paths overflow with a rich harvest”. Psalms 65:11, NAB
“Thy footsteps are dropping with riches”. Psalms 65:11, DEW
pg. 54

All from various biblical translations/versions; including the Catholic NAB (New American Bible).

This quote from page 54 completely flabbergasted me!

I cannot say what stuck me more. That fact that he's willing to discredit the Catholic Bible (apocryphal books) but yet contented to quote from it when it suits his needs, or the fact that he's willing to quote the same verse four times over, to support a simple point he is attempting to make.

I can't help but think of Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Goebbels. What was that quote again?

”A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth”.

I am not necessarily accusing John Crowder of attempting to drive a blatant lie down our throats, but commenting of the methodology employed.
In short, Propaganda... and it is at this point that I feel John Crowder has crossed a line.
He strikes me as hypocritical and double-dealing.

It should be noted that out of the hundreds (thousands?) of books I have read over the decades, whether for review, theology, fiction, casual reading, or whatnot, I can honestly count on one hand, with fingers to spare, how many books I've chosen not to finish. John Crowder's Seven Spirits Burning is one of them. I am going to write and post this book review having not read past page 54.

I see no point.

What little degree of trust I held for the author is now gone.

Disclaimer: I received this book free from SpeakEasy Blog Network. Providing me a free copy in no way guarantees a favorable review. The opinions expressed in this review are my own.

Book Review of Mystical Union, by John Crowder

2011-09-01T04:29:00.000-07:00

This book self-proclaims itself to be revolutionary and is said to speak of a scandalous truth of grace and the promise to wreck self-effort theologies. In fact, in the author's notes within the first 10 pages, he gives a humorous warning; "We will barbecue some sacred theological cows. At times, it could be a virtual slaughterhouse".

At this point, he had my undivided attention and unbridled curiosity! Unfortunately that is as far as it went.

He spends a great deal of time establishing that we do not have to add to God's grace.
That we are free from the laws of Judaism. That we are freed from the Law, that we are freed from legalism, yet often the church attempts to replace the old Judaic laws with their own new laws. He makes a great statement on page 150,

“Remember, grace has to be drunk straight. The law is an add-on

Always remember this simple equation: grace plus law equals law.”

He goes out of his way to bring into sharp focus silly self-help programs and those who might monopolize on those of us in need. Inner healing, deliverance courses, Christian counseling (having no differential comparison to secular psychology).

He then goes on the warn of the deliverance counselor's (focusing on keeping themselves in business indefinitely) who keeps their patience in a perpetual state of need – as well as making the patient subjective to a form of “works”. (Legalism as opposed to Grace).
Ultimately he is making all these things as being synonymous with a “Old Covenant, do-it-yourself perspective”.

He makes great points in regards to 'acquired' spiritual 'gifts'. The warning, the point being that these are some form of self-effort of their own doing.

“Paul said that the Galatians were bamboozled. They had been hoodwinked... The Galatian bewitchment, very simply, mean to work for the gift... These guys [Charismatic speakers] never fail to mesmerize the crowds with their self-abasement. Though they wouldn't say it, they take great delight in making you feel lazy, less spiritual and incompetent in comparison to them.” pg. 141

It has been years since I read a book that pissed me off as much as this one did. (And no, not because, as John Crowder says, this "gospel I may have never heard before... threatens to turn my Christianity upside down". Not as all. I thoroughly look forward and enjoy my ideas of Christianity turned upside down. It's sobering and refreshing.

I am faced with some difficulties when writing this book review.
Allow me to first say that I wholeheartedly disagree with the angle this book is pitching. But that posed a significant problem for me. Am I the kind of person who gives good book reviews to those whose opinions a line with my own and bad reviews to those who I disagree with, I asked myself?
Ultimately I fear this will not be simply a book review, but is going to contain elements for discussion, and a certain degree of analysis alongside being a review.

I needed to establish the parameters that this book exists in; John Crowder's rules of the game if you wish. Clearly an Evangelical, a Born Again Christian, and Charismatic.

“Jesus did not come to be your example. He came as your substitute.” pg. 164

So, clearly, Jesus is in no way an exemplar to this author.

He makes the point that the gospels were written for the sake of the Pauline epistles and not the other way around. (which is true and near impossible to disagree with). He then states that we have to see the entire bible through “Pauline eyes”, which if we're going to promote Grace, works quite well.

The basic message, put simply in a nutshell, is that once saved, the sinful nature is instantaneously gone. No more "old man" to do battle with. No more struggles with sin. No more personal cross to bear". No more purgation. In fact, a Christian cannot sin. No process, no time, no sanctification; instant change.

And more importantly, absolutely no need of self-effort (Because of grace) you cannot earn your way or God's favour. It's all instant and free. (I agree with this part).

But that's where the first cracks appear. On page 23 he says, "Your union with God in Christ is instant and effortless. It happened the first moment you believed". (I don't agree with this statement, but I need to remember that I am reading this book within the parameters of the author).

Rob Bell, in Love Wins puts it best,

"If the message of Jesus is that God is offering the free gift of eternal life through him - a gift we cannot earn by our own efforts, works, or good deeds - and all we have to do is accept and confess and believe, aren't those verbs?

"Aren't verbs actions?

"Accepting, confessing, believing - those are things we do".

But John Crowder at least attempts to address this 'condition' to some degree by says, “Granted, loving God is definitely the “greatest” commandment. But it is still a commandment. It is the grand summation of the law. And we know that law does not save us.” pg. 183
It is a great point and nearly echoing Rob Bell's point. But then he takes a complete 180, saying “The cross is the fountainhead of all love. If you won't accept that He [God] accepts you... then you have no part in Him” pg. 183, returning to a conditional grace.

I think one the the biggest stumbling blocks faced by this book is a lack of imagination when it comes to viewing metaphoric truths and literal truths.

“One of the most amazing aspects of martial union is that of co-habitation. You do not have an infrequent audience with the King. You sit ever with Him enthroned. Just as the husband and wife live together in uninterrupted fellowship, so do we dwell in God's house both now and forevermore. A wife is afforded benefit that a stranger could never conceive possible” pg. 190-191

Here is the inherent problem. When a metaphoric interpretation is forced into a literal reality it becomes delusional. He continues by saying,

“The abundant blessings of this union are far too many to account. Physical healing. Financial provision. Reconciliation in relationships. Emotional fulfillment. Unspeakable joy. Righteous authority to be wielded over regions and people groups. Creative miraculous abilities. Mystical powers. Authority in this age and the age to come. The possibilities are endless, as you are wed to God”. pg. 190

Physical healings? Financial provision?!
Really?!?
The danger with this is when these fruit do not manifest. What does that mean?

But then John Crowder answers this question.

“One of the biggest stumbling blocks to the gospel message (from charismatics anyway) revolves around the topic of manifestations. If I am really in effortless union with God, then why don't I levitate every day? Why don't I heal every single person I meet on the street? Why don't I glow like a light bulb?... A powerless life is a symptom of the fall. But be assured that the antidote to this disease will always [be] the same. Belief in Christ's finished work is the mother lode of all supernatural power and experience.” pg. 191-192

“So the born-again person can never be, basically, self-centered again. You can move in a self-centered act. You can't be self-centered”. pg. 85

“Your union with God in Christ is instant and effortless. It happened the first moment you believed.” pg. 23 (Crowder's definition of a true Christian).

“Saved people don't sin”. pg. 39 (Again, fleshing out his definition of what a Christian is).

But here's where the confusion starts.
“Nor am I saying that it is impossible for a Christian to sin”. pg. 202

”A powerless life is a symptom of the fall”
What?! I thought a Christian was free of, absolutely cured of, and immune to sin.
I think what he unknowingly and unintentionally revealed was the Achilles Heel of the Charismatic movement. But, ironically enough, he goes on pointing out the problems with churches.

He subtly ditches Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox churches. I believe he misses the values he would identify as Mariolatry and theosis, but yet rambles on about his witnessing miracles of levitation, healings, gold dust creation, oil running down church walls, tongues, etc., in what I can only hope is meant as some form of humour. Ultimately I think John Crowder is exhibiting little more than veiled Tribalism.

"When I wake up everyday, I just know that my old depressed self went into the grave with Jesus. It is difficult for a dead man to be worried about his bank statement or a bad doctor's report. No circumstance can dictate my emotional state. The gospel tells me that my old critically religious self no longer exists! If I'm feeling bored with my Christian walk, the message of the gospel quickly snaps me out of that lie. My old boring self is dead. The new me is intoxicated on the wine of the New Covenant. I can "reckon myself dead" with Christ... simply realizing that I do not own those negative feelings any longer". Mystical Union, by John Crowder, page 34-35

What is this, the Prosperity Gospel? What this is preaching is the delusion of perpetual happiness. The facts of the matter are people (yes, even Christians) do worry about their financial health and are concerned when bad news comes from their doctor. People/Christians do struggle with right and wrong and do choose incorrectly and selfishly at times - they still sin.

"Saved people don't sin". pg. 39

Yes, they do. So, how do we deal with the problem of evil?

“Some think that an over-emphasis on God's sovereignty and a diminishing of the human will blames God for evil. Rest in this: God is sovereign, but He is also good. Rather than blame Him for sickness and trials, let us believe Him for healing and deliverance. He doesn't dirty your water, but His sovereignty, He changes it into wine.” pg. 162

This really says nothing. It absolutely side-steps the problem of evil and relegates it into infantile levels. I can't honestly blame or fault anyone for avoiding the problem of evil. It's no simple issue. However, please don't spoon feed me crap if you're not up to the task.

This isn't even worth addressing, it is so outlandish.

...but all this aside! As scandalous and incredible as this all is, does he make his case?

Well, for those of you truly interested in reading this book, I won't give it away. But I'll say this much. In the introduction, he provides a biblical translation index (just to help you out and make things clearer) he goes on to list the forty-eight bible versions he quotes from!

Although I agree that making use of at least a couple of biblical translations is good practice, especially when attempting to make head-and-tails of some difficult passages, there is a danger when this many versions/translations/interpretations are used. The tendency is to pick and choose whichever one best fits the angle you're trying to sell. Not all translations are good and accurate.

~

In every book review I always like to attempt to address either the book's "target market" or who would be interested in reading it.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can answer these questions. I get locked up in a preemptive state. I notice what can only be poor editing or poor grammar. Take your pick.

...so I check who the publisher is.
"Sons of Thunder Ministries & Publications"
Founder?
The author himself; John Crowder.

Reminds me of how many magazine covers Oprah appears on. Wow! A lot... until you realize she owns the magazine.

I can't help but think the prime "target market" would be people in his ministry itself. (And I hope I'm wrong on this one because it sounds a little too cultish to me). Maybe people attending his seminars/speeches may pick of a copy in the spur of the moment.

“We do not base our theology on subjective experience. Rather, we allow the Word to be our springboard for experiencing the divine”. (read in Sola Scriptura or Biblioatry). ”Experience is in no way a qualifier or pre-requisite for union. But experience will follow true faith, because true faith always manifests, works and demonstrates”. pg. 195-196
What exactly is he saying here? I can't help but think his point is one's experiences are only valid if confirmed through the bible. What about those experiences that are not?

But I think he ultimately answers this question as well.

A true Christian is sinless, cannot sin, and is immune to sin.
A true faith always manifests miracles.
...and for those who do sin and cannot or do not manifest miracles?
This is the same old divisive Christianity that the world has long since grown tired of. This is, yet again, another attempt to market Unconditional Grace with religiosity's conditions quietly slipped in. There's little 'scandalous and revolutionary' about this concept and even less so about this book.

“If you are exploiting the grace of God – sinning under the guise of your perfection – please do the rest of us a favor and stop calling yourself a Christian”. pg. 202

Disclaimer:
I received this book free from SpeakEasy Blog Network. Providing me a free copy in no way guarantees a favorable review. The opinions expressed in this review are my own.

State of Emerge-ncy

2011-08-14T05:04:00.000-07:00

I have long since stopped (or at least attempted to avoid) using certain terms. Postmodernism, postmodernity, pomo, Emergent, the Emergent Church, etc.

To me, I see religion in general as having entered a particular (and dangerous) stage. We no longer live in a world where the religionist can enjoy the luxury of isolation. Cultures have little choice but to meet one another and either embrace or clash. I see this spiritual conflicts as "A State of Emerge-ncy" .

But I wonder if it could very well be some sort of veiled Discordianism. (Although I'm not sure using the word "veiled" is necessary or not. After all, how difficult is it to successfully identify a real Discordian?! Irreligious yet spiritual? And let's not forget, Atheism is itself a Belief-System too).

What I am really curious about, more specifically, isn't whether spiritual postmodernism is or isn't Discordian, but rather whether I am or am not. (Or whether you are or are not). I think I'd have to admit some of my methodologies are. But what's at the core beneath it?

And let's not allow subterfuge to misguide us here. I am not going in a direction that Discordianism is the blight of all things spiritual and, therefore, must absolutely be stopped.
No, not at all.

Could holding a belief in a "parody religion" - a deliberate mock or faux religion - be a postmodern approach to religion? More importantly, could this "joke methodology" exercise actually be part of a legitimate path to "enlightenment"?

(And on a completely aside note, I wonder if a parody could be our modern (Sorry! Our postmodern) equivalent to a parable?)

Dead Off-Center

2011-08-10T20:13:00.000-07:00

Paul so often talks about Grace over the Law. There is an odd and strange tension between the two.

But what concerns me are two things: Firstly, either extreme manifests serious and dangerous issues. Jesus repeatedly and unrelentlessly attacked Legalism because of it's indifference and hard heartedness. But the other end of the spectrum, is a chaotic free for all! The belief that Christ's atonement has been complete and absolute, to the critical point where we no longer carry any accountability. The belief that we have been given free licence to do whatever we want with no consequences. After all, God will forgive us, right? This is Licentious.

My second concern is its effect on dialogue; on how Christians communicate (or miscommunicate) and suffer severe misunderstanding over this issue. We have a dichotomous scale with Legalism at one extreme end and Licentiousness at the other.

Both will warn the other of its potential danger, and rightfully so! Fundamentalism is a move, a shift towards the dangers of Legalism, while the "Emergent Movement" runs the risk of entering into the Licentious. But to point out flaws and errors while not offering any sort of solution or goal is not complaining, but bickering at best, or bitching at worst. Bitching and bickering are not only counterproductive, but also divisive.

But what is the answer? If we are not to be legalists and we are not to be licentious, what are we supposed to be?

I am not content with the cookie-cutter answer of, "we are to try to be like Jesus". Although the answer is true, it is lame, a cop-out, and poorly thought out at best.

Was Jesus a legalist? Absolutely not! Was Jesus given to free licence? No. So are we to believe that Jesus maintained a perfect balance between the two; the exact epicenter; the balance point of this scale?

Many would say, yes, but I would completely disagree. From what I have seen, this "balancing point" is a sellout and a watering down of all truth.

Jesus does not represent 50% Grace + 50% Law. Jesus is 100% Grace and 100% Law. This position does not exist on this dichotomous scale. I've come to the conclusion that this scale is only useful in determining where we begin our journey, but cannot be used to map our journey itself. To move in any direction on this one-dimensional dichotomy represents absolutely no spiritual growth.

This paradigm - especially within ecumenical discussions - must be laid to rest. There is a third option, a third direction in which we all need to focus on and move in.

Legalism: Exaltation of law or formula, red tape. Preference of the Law to the gospel, doctrine of justification by works.

Licentious: Lascivious, lewd. Disregarding accepted rules or conventions.
Liberty: Being free from captivity, imprisonment, slavery, or despotic control.

We are free to break the Law, but only for the right reasons.

What we really need to be aware of is that this message, this gospel, this good news, this Jesus, is an extremely dangerous one. One that is a threat to nearly every kind of establishment and institutionalism that we know of.

Are we ready to explore what this new avenue means?
Are we prepared to follow his lead?

I don't see this as a perspective or a certain point of view. I would hope this is something we could all collectively agree upon. Namely, that our spiritual maturity, our growth must not be in any sort of horizontal direction on this diagram, but only vertically, only "up"; only towards christlikeness.

It is the clearest it has ever been made to me personally. It seems clear to me this is the core of Christianity, framed in the context of "love thy neighbour".

If I had to trim Christianity down to it's core essentials, I think this would summon it up perfectly in its profoundest simplicity.

This is a christianity I can wholeheartedly embrace. This is a kind of christianity that I could cease being a Rogue in; that I could cease "living apart from the herd".

If this truly isn't the core of christianity; of God's will, then I'm not sure I want anything to do with it.

Please allow me to give credit when credit's due.
The core idea behind this post was from a friend of mine - a baptism youth minister - on his last and final sermon. You can listen to it here.
Freedom ... free from or free to?

Why Christianity Failed for Me

2011-07-25T18:37:00.000-07:00

Why Christianity Failed for Me

I'm not a pretentious man. I don't suppose that I'm all that unique or the exception, or all that different from the average block. I'm actually quite common.

I fear for my wellbeing and safety.
I worry for my security and the security for those that I love and especially for those I've been entrusted to care for.

Like everyone else, I cannot know the future and the future is a devious thing. Since I cannot know the future, I need to grasp on tightly to the illusions of stability I have.
Because Stability is the antithesis of Change, therefore Change is never a good indicator to the maintenance of this desired illusion.

The last thing I want to hear is that I am going to be prosecuted and discriminated against.
The last promise I want made is that I will endure hardship.

Yet these are the very promises and statements Yeshua makes. (Now, it's debatable whether he's making these statements and promises specifically to me, a 21st century, while male, or specifically to his early first-century audience). But they don't bide well with my hopes of stability.
They're kinda a slap in the face!

Truth be known, I have found more comfort in Taoism with its statement that the only thing we can be certain will never change is Change. The entire universe – every aspect of it and us – are in a constant state of flux. Change is the only norm.

~

How Christianity Succeeded for Me

I can't honestly say that Christianity as a whole has succeeded for me. But certain, very powerful aspects, have.

The escape from the binds and shackles of religiosity; being made free from the endless rules and regulations and conditions needed to appease God and “get right” and “earn” the divine love, only to discover you've always had this divine love since your very conception. You've never needed to earn it.

The totally freeing concept of the death of religion. The idea of a truly unconditional Grace. I think that's unique.

I think that's unique to the heretical rabbi, Yeshua of Nazareth's teachings. Hell! He's the ultimate Religious Heretic of all time! (Including the Religion of Christianity).

~

I no longer get bogged down with issues or questions regarding the nature of Yeshua's divinity – or even if he was divine. It's a silly question really. Mu. We're clearly asking the wrong question.

I've come to realize that I hold an odd and strange relationship with Christianity's founder. I don't see him as a close friend or confidant. He's too dangerous for that. He's even a little scary at times. He needs to be kept at a distance. But at times he speaks truths that are undeniable and world-shaking. It's a love-hate sort of thing really. If anything, this peculiar tension allows me liberty. It allows me to springboard into outer, stranger, and undiscovered areas of spirituality. Without fear of getting lost and without fear of (a least divine) judgment.

~

How did it succeed and fail for you?

A Symbiotic God?

2011-06-15T18:33:00.000-07:00

This thought has been on my mind for quite some time now.

It really isn't a full blown idea or concept. Just a half-formed 'suspicion'...

...that God may be just as 'dependent' on us as we are on "Him".

...a sort of byproduct of humanity's existence... or, possibly the fruition of man's consciousness... No, not just an abstract concept we've imagined ... yes, transcendent but not subservient.

Not a parasitic God but a symbiotic one. We, the human species (and possibly all life beyond us) are just as interlinked and dependent on this entity.

...some sort of hybrid betwixt an anthropomorphic theistic deity and an amorphous non-theistic 'entity', potentially like the Tao.

Is this to suggest that we are all gods ourselves? Not in the sense that we are each individually gods, but possibly that the one singular God is all of us collectively.

I don't really like approaching this issue from this angle. I'd rather approach it like this; Imagine if humanity didn't exist – became extinct. So too would God. ... even this isn't really going where my mind's wandering, because it creates a conundrum. (What about the time of creation, before man existed? But what I'm approaching is a sort of 'created' God that becomes extra-temporal...it doesn't really create a conundrum, but rather a paradox).

We are (each other and God included) intrinsically and necessarily connected. There is no (absolutely no) separating man from God.

I can't personally see any other way it could be.
The idea of a God that is omnibenevolent, (is Love itself), omnipotent, and has 'person-hood' simply must be abandoned. God cannot be these three things simultaneously.

Review of Thomas Jay Oord's "The Nature of Love: a Theology

2011-05-29T05:23:00.000-07:00

”The God whose nature does not include love for the world is a God whose love for creation is capricious.” pg. 110

Thomas Jay Oord doesn't shy away from a challenge in this new book. In The Nature of Love: a Theology, he is attempting to tackle the theological problem of evil and what those implications are for God.

This is going to be difficult for me to write. Normally, when reading a book I am going to review, I have a loose method. (I am a creature of habit). I carry a hi-liter marker with me, and as something catches my attention, I will hi-lite that phrase, sentence, or paragraph, dog-ear the page, and continue reading.

Once done the book, I will habitually sit outside in my gazebo (usually just before the sun rises) and go through my hi-lited points and dog-eared pages. Occasionally some hi-lited points will be of personal interest rather than for the review.

I fear this book will, quite literally, leave my method broken.

I had found myself left with as many hi-lited notes of personal interest as reminders for this review. I had began scribbling notes in pen in the margins and even debated using up to three different colours of hi-liters! So many dog-eared pages had I left that I used one of my daughter's hair elastics to keep the book shut.

This book clearly would greatly lend itself to a group study and discussion. How the author contained his (new?) theory – the Essential Kenosis Theology – which addresses the problem of evil, within a small book of about 157 pages is nothing less than incredible.

This book touches upon something close to my heart, as I have struggled and wrestled through tears and heartache with the question of an omnipotent Deity who either creates Evil Himself, allows Evil to co-exist, or indifferently turns a blind eye. My personal quest has led me into the distant past to Creation itself searching for answers, as has Thomas Jay Oord, who dedicates a fair amount of ink into the latter part of the book. He contrasts God as outside of Time (timeless) with God as fully immersed in Time (time-full). He also seriously questions God's need of Creation and asks who must god truly love?

Thomas Jay Oord has even provided some material that forces me to revisit and reevaluate certain conclusions I have already concluded!

”Essential Kenosis theology not only solves the theoretical aspect of the problem of evil. It also resolves the question of why a loving God would not guarantee the fair distribution of goods to the poor and needy. It solves the problem of why a loving God would allow errant and ambiguous revelation, rather than making crystal-clear the information apparently necessary for full salvation.” pg. 126

I have questioned this issue of ”errant and ambiguous revelation” in A Pluralistic Sophia (which I must now, at least to some degree, revisit).

However, it is also at this point where we begin to see some minor tell-tale signs of problems.

This book; this Essential Kenosis Theology theory, is based upon, as the author himself puts it, the biblical witness. Ambiguous and less than crystal-clear revelation. Although I believe Thomas Jay Oord is in all likelihood referring to other holy script, it never-the-less should apply to the bible also. It explains the possibility of errant, conflicts, and inconsistencies of the bible itself. So it “allows” for ”errant and ambiguous revelation” yet rests upon the authority of the biblical witness. That's problematic. (And on a side note, I would very much like to know what does “full salvation” and its implications – a lack of salvation – mean from a necessarily all loving God).

The Essential Kenosis Theology, as presented in this book, goes a long way in forwarding my understanding of addressing the problem of evil in this world. However, I believe it isn't a “whole”, complete, or finalized theology. It is on page 134 that it broke down for me:

”...a biblically oriented doctrine of creation... [should]... reject theories of creation that imply God initially created our universe from preexisting materials God did not create but “happened upon” or “found at hand”.”

“When the Genesis writer first mentions God's creative activity, he describes God creating from something rather than nothing”.

Here is a problem. Either we run with the “biblical witness” as authoritative, or we do not. We cannot have it both ways.

If you are going to broach the issue of initial creation (which the author has) you need to address it one way or another. Not leave it in a confused and ambiguous state and then attempt to sidestep it altogether, providing a half-baked answer like,

"...sharing power and asking creation to participate in the creative process"; co-creating alongside God and continuously creating from the created. Basically stating the (answer to this problem) is the ”everlasting God has everlastingly been creating from that which God previously created. In each moment of God's everlasting life, God creates something new from what God created in the past. God's creating has always been occurring in the past and will always occur in the future” (pg. 136).

But all this aside, there is a wellspring of refreshing ideas presented in the book contrasted alongside older and more traditional ones. I would say it is a relativity heavy read but one worth the while all the same.

Review of Fall to Grace: A Revolution of God, Self, and Society, by Jay Bakker

2011-04-30T04:14:00.000-07:00

Try as I might, I could not find an appropriate place to segue two outstanding quotes into this review. So, I'll open by simply listing them:

“We are punished by our sins, not for them”. pg. 1

“…what’s more important than believing in life after death is believing is life before death”. pg. 157

One of the most refreshing and striking points I’ve noticed with Jay Bakker’s book, “Fall to Grace: A Revolution of God, Self, and Society” is that he doesn’t avoid or shy away from the fact that there are issues, conflicts, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the bible, while maintaining the fact that the bible is still extremely important and valuable. Not only is this something I personally wholeheartedly agree with, it is also an honest and respectful position.

We are told this is a book about Grace; Revolutionary Grace!
But sort of on a side note, I am left wondering how revolutionary Jay Bakker’s grace really is.
In the introduction, he defines Grace as follows:

“Grace is so poorly understood that it’s worth defining right up front. Grace literally means ‘unmerited favor’. It is the idea that we receive salvation as a gift from God through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Not as something we’ve earned”. pg. xi

Fair enough! I’ve no problem with this definition. I know many Christians who would happily cite this, or very similar definitions of Grace, yet only upon the acceptance of Christ. (And isn’t that in itself a criteria? Wouldn’t this become a required check mark?)

A little ways on he speaks of Robert Wright’s book, “The Evolution of God” mentioning that “…there’s a clear evolution in our descriptions of God – a trajectory that points inexorably from judgment and punishment in the distant past through time towards forgiveness and all-encompassing love… That’s right: Our understanding of God (though not God Himself) changes over time.” pg. 72 (another book that I’ve read and enjoyed), suggesting – I should think – that understandings must be subject to growth and change. Can the above definition of grace be capable of evolving and growth?

Although nowhere does Jay Bakker say that this definition of Grace is solely dependent upon acceptance of Christ, or even suggest it, it is a question of curiosity that remains and concerns me. (I would very much like to directly ask Jay Bakker this question should the opportunity present itself. And if you’re reading this review Jay, please feel free to contact or email me!)

I wonder this because one minor theme that seems to follow throughout this book is why believers and non-believers alike, stay away (or are driven away) from church. Although the question is not directly asked, it is glazed over and assumed that church needs and/or deserves to be saved through some sort of revolutionary revival. As I understand unconditional Grace, should we truly grasp and live it out, there would cease to be a need or dependency on church (… and church is not necessity for community, btw).

~

I’ve read, re-read, and then re-read again the jacket and sleeve of this book, looking for some sort of hint or indication as to this book’s real topic matter and I have found disappointingly nothing of the sort. The book is toted and sold as exploring the topic of Grace; Revolutionary Grace!; but ultimately it is about acceptance of homosexuality.

Now, please, my gentle reader, don’t misunderstand me. I have no problem with homosexuals. Like Jay Bakker, I do not consider it a sin. Nor do I believe they should be discriminated against or ostracized from their churches or religion of their choice, or in society in general. I do not have issues with people championing this cause nor do I have issues with reading books that champion their cause. However, I do like to be free to make this choice, which this book did not have to grace of permit me.

I cannot help but wonder if Jay Bakker just didn’t quite purge the Evangelical habit of bait-and-switch out of his methodology. His topic matter is clearly gay Christian rights but I’ve yet to hear this stated in any sort of synopsis, summary, or even made mention of the book’s jacket cover. Although I personally embrace and share his concept and interpretation of how open and free Grace is, I don’t believe this is really the direction the book is moving in, and I can’t help but feel duped; lied to even, which left a very bad taste in my mouth.

And finally, like all my book reviews, I like asking the question, who is this book’s target audience?

Well, for the Conservative mainstream Christian, I’m sure they will dismiss this book out-of-hand.

For the more liberal Christians I’m sure they’d find the reading interesting, but not without trepidation and hesitancy.

It will most definitely appeal to the more extreme liberal Christians – the ‘fringe-dwellers’ – but unfortunately, I’m not convinced this group has the power or authority to instigate the necessary changes.

To the non-Christian yet spiritually-minded, I am convinced they’d find a healthy amount of common ground, but there’s a reason why non-Christian-spiritually-minded- people are non-Christian… and I fear Jay Bakker is still – consciously or not – attempting to draw in converts and disciples (admittedly of a very different nature). He is still ultimately proselyting, and whether intentional or not, this will only serve to further divide the church.

Is Jay Bakker right about the absolute unconditional nature of Grace? Yes.

Is this a message that can change the world, break down racial, political, and religious barriers, and even heal and offer salus to this world? Yes, most definitely!

However, it is with a heavy heart that I regretfully say, I feel this is a book without an audience. I hope I am wrong. (God knows, it wouldn’t be the first time).

Is Jay Bakker’s “Fall to Grace” worth the read? I would recommend that it is

The Theological Problem of Worms

2011-02-27T08:28:00.000-08:00

It early in the afternoon the day I went for a walk around my neighbourhood. It had rained heavily during the night and early morning, but the sun was out and shining in its full force. The freshness after a good rainfall had now dried up and that scent of healthy moist earth along with it. Now all I came across was the shriveled bodies of hundreds of worms on the pavement; lifeless dried out husks.

As my eyes were drawn to their bodies I noticed they didn't count in the hundreds, but more like in the thousands. The road was absolutely covered with them.

What a horrible existence. What a horrible life.
Designed to live and thrive beneath the earth's surface, in the soil; warm and safe. But when the water comes; when the rain falls, they are faced with a terrible decision. Stay in their burrows and drown, or escape to the surface making themselves vulnerable to giant-sized predators. (Although a Red-breasted Robin isn't particularly threatening to us, to a worm they're a monstrosity). Then they must hope to time their entrance into their subterranean safety after the water's subsided but before the sun dries them to death.

Why would a loving God create worms? I can completely understand the need and function worms perform. They are a necessity. But why this horrific choice between drowning and monstrous hunters?

...but I guess this isn't really an important theological question, is it? After all, they're only worms, right?

~

I can remember the World Trade Center falling in 2001. we still struggle and reel with questions like why? How could so many innocent people, people just like you and me, fall victim to a crime like this?

I can remember when the Tsunami hit India in 2004.
We never really ever got an accurate body count but they estimated somewhere around 200,000 people were lost. Swept away. Whole and entire islands, simply gone.

...How can a loving God allow these things to happen? Most especially if we believe nothing in this world happens without God's permission or direction.

Please don't think I am making light of these horrific events. But they seem to put the blight of the common everyday worm to shame. But you see, the theological problem with worms is the exact same theological problem we face and question.

I partially believe the problem lies in the fact that we presume God plays favourites towards us humans. Not only that, but we presume God must absolutely be anthropomorphic. “He” is a god of us human beings.

I realize these thoughts and views are difficult. But this is the same God who has created worms as well as humans... the same God who loves us both.

The theological problem of worms is our theological problem.
I believe – at least in part – the answer to these problems lies within out anthropomorphic views (or maybe insistence) of God's nature. Maybe even our belief that God must be personal. Or even a 'person' as we understand the term. (Maybe God is significantly more akin to the idea of what the Tao is?)

To me, I have only come across 3 possible explanations. Atheism, Deism, or Gnosticism. Little else would seem to explain this theological problem of worms.

Fear or Wisdom?

2011-02-25T14:26:00.000-08:00

There can be no argument that punishment (and please remember, punishment is not the same as discipline) is within God’s power, right, and authority. However, is it within God’s nature? 1 John 4:16 says that “God is love”. It does not say that God is loving. It says that God is love itself, and love and hope are intricacy connected. 1 John 4:18, reads:

"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

And again, Psalm 103:13:

"The Lord is like a father to his children, tender and compassionate to those who fear him."

Some Christians see "fearing God" as a judge or master and tremble in fear of punishment. However with the verses I've quoted this doesn't fit at all, especially 1 John 4:18.

There are two types of fear, servile fear and filial fear. I believe the only justified fear (for a Christian) is filial fear. Servile fear is the fear of a slave and has NOTHING to do with the type of fear that is the origin of wisdom. Filial fear (of the father-son kind) "drives out all fear" (1 John 4:18), it drives out servile fear - it drives out the fear of a slave - the fear of punishment, the fear of "holy terror".

I would say that filial fear really isn't fear at all. It is interesting because if these types of Christians are scared to death of what God thinks of you or what he may do to you to punish, then, as 1 John 4:18 says, "...because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love", makes me wonder about these people. Sounds like this servile fear of God and what He, as a Slave Master, can or will do to you makes one more slaves than children.

This servile fear will spiritually murder you on the inside.

“When we feel the need to be seen to be good, like a frightened child, we will pretend in order to please. Pretense kills more people than cancer”. The Beautiful Life, Bloomsbury, London, 2007, pg. 60

...and that, I think, is the defining difference between the two. Pretense. Wearing Masks.

Attempting to be something to appease some one, be that someone a social group, congregation, priest or pastor, or even a deified spiritual superman in the sky.

But it is filial fear that I believe is the path to freedom and wisdom. Once we cease fearing punishment and constant reprisals we become free to accept accountability and responsibility. We are no longer dependent upon this deified spiritual superman; in fact, we become free of this idolized anthropomorphic God.

So, what then becomes of wisdom?

Learning how to think rather than what to think. Education over Indoctrination; but not simply the collection and acquisition of Knowledge and Data – that's rote – not much different than indoctrination – but its benevolent, practical, and relational application; Wisdom.

Questioning is not sinful.

Thinking is not being 'Worldly'.

Doubt is not the absence of Faith, but a necessary and healthy composite of it.

(The arrogance needed to deny doubt is simply amazing!)

'From caring comes courage'. We might add that from it also comes wisdom. It's rather significant, we think, that those who have no compassion have no wisdom. Knowledge, yes; cleverness, maybe; wisdom, no. A clever mind is not a heart. Knowledge doesn't really care. Wisdom does”. The Tao of Pooh, by Benjamin Hoff

Mentors, Protégés, & Printers

2010-12-31T06:10:00.000-08:00

”The success of the reformers was due in large part to the invention of the printing press, which not only helped to propagate the new ideas but also changed people's relationship to the text”.“The Case for God”, Karen Armstrong, pg. 171

”Printing helped to secularize the relationship of the reader to the truth that he was trying to acquire. In the past, the Church had – to an extent – been able to supervise the flow of ideas and information, but the proliferation of books and pamphlets after the middle of the sixteenth century made this censorship far more difficult. As the printed book began to replace oral methods of communication, the information it provided was depersonalized and, perhaps, became more fixed and less flexible than in the old days, when truth had developed in dynamic relation between master and pupil”. “The Case for God”, Karen Armstrong, pg. 172

Outside of the lack of control (which in and of itself isn't necessarily bad) it dehumanized the process; the human relationship of mentor-protégé was removed.

And as the technology advanced, the printed page itself became an icon of precision and exactitude, even shaping a certain mental outlook. A precursor to science. This cold Knowledge was more of a definite call sign of Modernity itself.

Macleans Magazine had listed the top 10 inventions of all time a few years back. The printing press made the list (as I believe it should). The Internet also made this list. Not everyone agreed however. The dissenters had claimed that the Internet didn't actually do anything new; it only did the same things but faster.

I think, at least certain aspects of the Internet did to the Postmodern day what the printing press did for the Reformation's Modernity.

Even less control, Anyone and everyone has their soapbox to preach from (and this most definitely includes this blog! Have you ever asked yourself what qualifications I do or do not have?)

The concept of Library and (real) Research has been near obliterated. The personal relationship of the Mentor and Protégé has been completely removed.
...maybe not removed; replaced possibly. With the advent of the printing press and the depersonalized exchange of information (data?) and zeal for Knowledge of Modernity, I believe what was lost via the removed of the human mentor-protégé relationship was Wisdom. And Wisdom cannot be learn from a book.

I very much like how The Tao of Pooh (Benjamin Hoff) makes the distinction between knowledge and wisdom.

”'From caring comes courage'. We might add that from it also comes wisdom. It's rather significant, we think, that those who have no compassion have no wisdom. Knowledge, yes; cleverness, maybe; wisdom, no. A clever mind is not a heart. Knowledge doesn't really care. Wisdom does”.

Now this is something the Internet, blog sites like this one and others, discussion forums and the like differ from. Although nothing is immune to the depersonalization of Knowledge over Wisdom, these environments are relational and interactive.

The nature of our Knowledge has taken a step back towards Wisdom.

Where the printing press may have done away with the Mentor-Protégé system of learning, the Internet has – at least potentially – replaced it with a different system. Discussion, debate, argument even. The all powerful authority of the institution has been all but removed. Although there are challenges and pitfall present, if nothing else we have at least moved towards a people-focused paradigm again; we have re-embraced Relationship, even if it is in a imaginary cyberspace sort of way. (And please remember, Imagination and Make-believe are not the same things).

The “M” in Morality.

2010-12-27T08:18:00.000-08:00

My dictionary defines the word “Morality” as follows:

The degree of conformity of an idea, practice, etc., to moral principles. Right moral conduct.

I realize one of the most obvious questions that should strike us is the question of whose ideas or whose moral principles?

But that isn't the point that stays with me.
The point that jumps off the page to me is the simple fact that this whole confusing issues of morality and ethics is simply a byproduct of humanity being gregarious. We are an extremely social animal. In fact, I might even debate whether we could live (I deliberately chose the word live and not survive) in total and prolonged isolation. My point being, from a certain point of view, we are not really individuals.

Ethics, Morality, right and wrong; these things are of absolutely no value to a creature who does not depend on anything other than itself. Unfortunately for the human race, this does not apply.

So, morality is what? Is it the glue that binds us into this necessary social conglomerate? Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that it is the conglomerate itself? Either way, it provides the necessities of life.

Now, and only now, do we come to that first thought to be most obvious question; Whose ideas and whose moral principles?

~

I prefer not to use the term “religion” for the simple reason that it can – to some people's definitions – be misleading. I would rather use the term “Belief-System”. For many “religion” is strictly reserved for the traditional organized religions of the world; many of which would include a belief in a supernatural deity or deities.

A “Belief-System” is a bit more broader. It would include Agnosticism and Atheism, to name a few. A Belief-System does not necessitate moral belief in deity, but yet an adherent to a given Belief-System is still vulnerable to the disease of religiosity; and that is the defining difference (or possibly similarity) between the two. Religions would fall under the umbrella of Belief-Systems.
When the question is asked, ”Whose ideas and whose moral principles?” the answer is a Belief-System's

~

The Belief-System that is the “M” in morality, that governs society's morality itself, ultimately controls the very nature of that society's life. No, I don't mean the society's way of life. I mean life itself. The ability to live. (And again, I deliberately chose the word live and not survive).

Every religion, every Belief-System that I can think of has taken it upon themselves that this – that becoming the “M” in morality – is their very purpose, their goal. Whether it is in reaction to another's religion or belief-system or morality or through a direct statement of belief.

But at the end of the day, regardless of what we are told, Religions and Belief-Systems are not about morality, are they?… it is a subtle and elusive battle for supremacy, isn't it? It is about control. Whether we like it or not it is about control. The real issue becomes if control is a deliberate focus or simply a byproduct of morality. Whether said given Belief-System is about governance or engineering; are they focused on meeting the needs of their population or shaping the needs of their population?

... Let's not get side tracked here. Although it may sound like I am speaking of government, I am not. (Although a government could fall under the umbrella term of a "Belief-System").

We all adhere and follow some sort of Belief-System. Some of us can name and clearly identify it. Others may not so easily do so. Some of us may claim to be one thing but in truth be another. Some ruling Belief-Systems do not belong in the realm of the more common and traditional ones. Some may not even as of yet have a title. Some (as I suspect, many) are a sort of hybrid synthesis. Some are within contantly growing and evolving systems. Some are trapped within prison-systems incapable of growth. None of us are outside of a Belief-System. We'd no longer be alive if we were. (And there are poor souls who exist in this state also).

I think a few important questions we need to ask ourselves is whether we can clearly identify what and which Belief-System we belong to. Another is to question our Belief-System itself. Is it focused on being our society's, our culture's, our sub-culture's engineer? ...or the more humbling roll of its maintainer?

Is everything it sees in dichotic terms? Is everything either with it or against it? How does it view different or other perspectives and opinions? Does it demonize disagreeing or dissenting views as Evil? I should rather think this would be a warning sign.

Does it allow one's spiritual growth to exceed itself? (And I do believe Atheists have a spiritual aspect, btw). Or does it cripple one's ability to grow, maintaining its subjects as prisoners?

More importantly, can it be questioned?

Where do you belong?

Tattoo: Solace In Pain

2010-12-08T13:55:00.000-08:00

I have been questioned by some as to why I wear tattoos.

All of my tattoos have deeply personal and spiritual significance. Each has a story to tell.

Our greatest moments of growth are often during our most painful experiences. The only difference between myself and the "un-inked" is that I wear my scars on my sleeve; literally on my skin.

But this tattoo is a summation of my 'journey' and not such a simple story to explain.

"The highest form of goodness is like water.
Water knows how to benefit all things without striving with them; nourishing life effortlessly.
It stays in places loathed by all men. Flowing without prejudice
to the lowliest places. Therefore, it comes near the Tao".

Excerpt from Tao Te Ching, verse 8, by Lao Tzu

Although both goodness and badness coexist, it is goodness that flows effortlessly like water, because it is goodness that is more at the core of nature.
I see this 'action' of goodness as the Taoist sees Wu Wei.

Wu Wei literally means 'without action', but often meaning 'action without action', or 'effortlessly doing'. As planets revolve around the sun, they "do" this revolving, but without "doing" it; or as trees grow, they "do", but without "doing".

Goodness, like water, is similar to a valley. All surrounding water naturally flows towards this depression, eventually forming a reservoir; rivers running and flowing into a pond, lake, sea, or ocean, and it is the ocean that is by far and away one of the most powerful forces I have personally ever experienced – whether placid and at rest, or during violent storms.

This passiveness strikes me as more of the Yin; the feminine, inaction so to speak. Nature - as Man - is innately good. Not Fallen, not corrupt, not depraved.

There is no need for me to abandon my cultural references to the bible and/or the book of Genesis either. Outside of the option of allowing for a metaphor rather than a literal historical story, there are other interpretations with this same source material (the book of Genesis) that do not necessitate Original Sin, the Fall of Man, or Total (or even partial) Depravity. For further reading see Gnostique: Genesis Reinterpreted.

If we are honest with ourselves, we can never know which is ultimately true. Innately good, or depraved. I prefer to believe Man is innately good, not 'fallen' and necessarily corrupt. The problem with choosing to believe in these Christian doctrines (the doctrine of Original Sin, or Total Depravity, or TULIP) is that, in day to day life and activities, we really shouldn't trust anybody. They're all corrupt and out to screw me. Now that is a way of life and not a very good one.

I choose to live my life trusting people know right from wrong, and in the most part, attempting to do good. Whether it's correct or incorrect I think choosing to see people as innately good is a better and more respectful way of living life. And if nothing else, at least I stand a chance of being a good example. (Jungshin Sooyang). Ultimately with goals of making a better world.

...thus the water in the tattoo.

~~

The fifth oath in Taekwon-do is “I shall build a more peaceful world”.

Easier said than done. The question is, how do I even attempt to accomplish this?

"Tao gave birth to One,
One gave birth to Two,
Two gave birth to Three,
Three gave birth to all the myriads things of the universe".
Excerpt from Tao Te Ching, verse 42, by Lao Tzu

This basically says that Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. But this in itself is somewhat useless. I like calling this the Purple Plasticine Problem.

In the Purple Plasticine Problem, I have a piece of red plasticine in one hand and a piece of blue plasticine in the other. I mix them and work them into each other. In the end, I end up with a large piece of purple plasticine. Few would argue this point. However, it means little by itself. ( Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis).

So, let's look at it from another perspective:

I believe the sky is blue. So, I go around 'preaching' to everyone and anyone who'll listen why and how the sky is blue. (I can prove it too!) On my proselytizing journeys I stumble across another who's 'preaching' to anyone and everyone how they believe the sky is paisley.

The two of us sit down and have a nice long discussion and come to the agreed conclusion that the sky is really paisley-blue (or maybe sometimes bluish-paisley). Then, the two of us part ways spreading the word of the newly discovered Bluish-paisley sky!
The problem is, it's simply not true.

Okay. Let's start again.

I believe the sky is blue. So, I go around 'preaching' to everyone and anyone who'll listen why and how the sky is blue. (I can prove it too!) On my proselytizing journeys I stumble across another who's 'preaching' to anyone and everyone how they believe the sky is black (And this time they can prove it too!!)

The two of us sit down and have a long discussion and discover a previously unknown truth! Night and Day. It isn't so much that we were both right (or both wrong) but that there was a larger truth we've both missed. Then, the two of us part ways spreading the word of the newly discovered Night-and-Day!

To fundamentalists, the first example (The Paisley-blue Sky Doctrine) is why we cannot enter discussions because, ultimately, the truth - their truth – can only ever suffer being watered-down. Thesis + Antitheses = Synthesis is always a derogatory thing and a movement away from the truth. Ultimately, they are not looking for the truth, but are looking to defend the truth as they know it. This only works assuming that their position is completely and absolutely valid and true.

On the other side of the coin. The Night-and-Day Doctrine people, do not believe they know or hold the entire truth, and are searching for it, rather than defending what little they know.

I belong to the latter, my “religion” best being described as a Non-institutional Syncretist... and Syncretism is akin to wringing the truth out of 10,000 lies.

~ ~

The Dragon is Yang - action, the masculine – to the water's Yin. A good friend of my wife's is from Taipei, Taiwan, and she tells me that, in her culture, the dragon (especially as a tattoo) represents a sort of protection from harm and fear (but only on a man, because the dragon is a masculine power of Yang). However, it isn't that the dragon is tattooed on one's body that gives it its 'power' but that it exists within one's heart.

The Asian Dragon represents many things.

The dragon often symbolizes power, strength, courage, and also Indomitable spirit ("Baekjul Bulgul", in Taekwon-do):

To strive to have indomitable spirit means to have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, no matter what odds you are up against and always give 100% effort in whatever you do.

It symbolizes a protector of hidden treasures (see the above mentioned Gnostique: Genesis Reinterpreted.)

It represents a sort of freedom. ("A piece of Burlap. Strong and tightly bound, yet unbound in my liberty").

~ ~

Worry, anxiety; Fear of what might yet be. Fear kills the Future; murder's its potential; Slays the perpetual Now, for it is in the Now that Fear's price is paid...

Fear, my greatest enemy.
It is a battle I've fought my entire life and one I continue to wage war with.

I have battled and struggled with worry, anxiety, and Fear for far too long. One of the driving reasons why I choose to study the martial art of Taekwon-do under one of the world's Masters (Master Florin Fratean) was to at least attempt to combat this internal Fear. Through Taekwon-do I can see this desire and growth with the meanings of its belt colours:

White is innocence
Yellow is the fertile earth from which a plant sprouts and takes root.
Green signifies the plant's growth.
Blue signifies the heavens or sky towards which the plant matures into a towering tree.
Red is the colour of the plant's first fruits. Red indicates danger. The student has sufficient skill to inflict injury to an opponent so must exercise caution and control (Guk Gi). The red also acts as a warning to opponents.
The Black belt is the exact opposite of white. The black colour represents the student's ability to overcome Fear and triumph over Darkness.

The dragon represents this fearlessness; the confrontation and triumph over Darkness. This Darkness is not only the absence of Light, but includes triumph over ignorance. Some traditions believe that to journey past a dragon is to answer its riddles. But some things cannot be known, therefore defeating this Darkness - overcoming this ignorance - sometimes means actually embracing its unknowability. What might prove to be the most divisive issue on this planet is the question of God. A Question of Theism. I have embraced this divisive issue and have found a peace with the non-answer to this question: The Zen of Contemplating God.

~ ~

And finally there is an important symbolism of the symbol. The imagery and symbolism of the dragon is most definitely a non-Western one. It is a step outside of what we are and what we know. It is the willingness to embrace a different mind-set; a willingness to challenge and question ourselves before anyone and anything else.

I have sat for 25 hours for this piece, with the artistic talent and company of the tattooist and artist, Milena Fusco. (And if it wasn't for her pleasant company and conversation, it would have been a brutal 25 hours). In my personal, private, and spiritual battle with darkness and Fear I have found Solace in Pain. This tattoo carries Martial Arts, Taoist, Hegelian (or is it Kantian?), and even Gnostic influences. It is not a simple thing to explain. It is a summation of sorts.

The Walking Dead

2010-12-04T03:22:00.000-08:00

I thoroughly enjoy watching and attempting to see the shadows and echoes of our society's, our culture's concerns, fears, and beliefs in our fictions – because they are truth.

And I think this is also true with the new AMC series The Walking Dead.
If we look at the small band of survivors as the whole of society or civilization we can see two conflicting leaders.

Shane (the cop's partner), whose underlying agenda seems to be survival (not living), and potentially and more accurately, self-survival, embodying little more than an animalistic nature.
But it is within the leadership of Rick Grimes (main character) that we see the dichotomy set up.

A willingness (nay, a need) to help a potentially threatening and dangerous stranger (Merle Dixon). He is told by numerous people that Merle doesn't deserve it, to which he answers, it isn't for Merle, it's for me.

He doesn't necessarily embody the survival of the group, but survival of the very sense of morality itself. He juxtaposes to Shane's animalistic nature.

What I find so interesting about The Walking Dead is that it really is not a story about zombies, or survival or post-apocalypse world. Neither is it a reflection or commentary of consumerism like the entire George Romero's zombie-genre has been.

This story could be told as a Western with cowboys as the main characters; the zombies being replaced by the obstacles and threat of Indians and wild animals.

Ironically, The Walking Dead, really isn't about zombies at all. (And on a side note, I don't believe the title is referring to the zombies, but rather to the survivors).

It poses the question of the moral state of our society. It questions the moral fiber of our society. Are we innately altruistic and good? Or are we nothing more than savage animals in need of being kept in check?
...or maybe it's making the statement that there needs to be some sort of balance betwixt the two...

Christianity has attempted repeatedly, in times past and present, to question the moral fiber of our society and has most often times failed – or at worst been ignored. (Often taking a finger-pointing and accusational tone).

I think that may very well be the defining difference between Spiritual Growth and Religious Growth.
When we question the moral fiber of our society we are really inviting spiritual growth. However, I don't believe this is what Christianity has attempted. Religious growth questions the world around us and is an attempt to change that world into what we are. Spiritual growth questions ourselves.

...and if we are only interested in Religious growth (proselytizing) and not at all with spiritual growth, we become dead on the inside. How funny – how ironic – that the lifeless and walking dead – zombies – have succeeded where God's chosen people have failed...

Love and Control, and the God of Eden

2010-11-20T05:01:00.000-08:00

It was decades ago when I drew this picture. Pedro is a Mexican marionette, or string puppet, and like myself, Pedro saw an inherent problem with the imagery of God. It would be much later when I realized that what I struggled with really wasn't so much God, but the Abrahamic/Monotheistic image of God.

Pedro is a marionette, a string puppet. But everything and anything Pedro did was completely and absolutely according to the will of God.

On the issues of sticks and carrots - Pedro thought - I am being rewarded or punished according to actions I am not completely in control of or even guilty of. How can this be a loving God?

Pedro realized – that from a certain point of view – he was enslaved to this deity, regardless of whether he chose to “surrender” to this God or not. What attached him to God; the strings that controlled and manipulated him, put bleeding wounds that could never heal. Pedro's ambitions were to somehow regain control – to take possession of the puppeteer's central rod & control bar; to be in control of himself, and potentially from that position, choose to follow or not follow this deity; to legitimately make the choice to 'surrender' or not.

The story ends sadly for poor Pedro. For once he does finally gain possession of his central rod & control bar, he discovers that he completely and totally looses control. He can never find himself in a position to legitimately make that choice to follow this deity or not. That he was never anything more than a slave.

...poor Pedro.

~

Now I realize this is only one of many potential perspectives. I also realize that this would upon initial glance appear near atheistic in nature. But this is an issue of the tension between Love and Control. And I for one do not believe these two things are compatible.

A great example of this is the story (graphic novel and movie) of Coraline. It is The Other Mother, (or the Beldam) and her alternative and near identical 'Other World'. On initial look everything is better. Everything is catered to Coraline because the Other Mother loves her.

But as the story unfolds we discover that that nagging uneasiness we've felt from the very get go may very well have been justified. The Other Mother is the true power and force behind this entire other world. God-like in her power with a tiny exception; she cannot create, but only copy, twist, and manipulate.

But why? She just wants someone to love. There's a price for her love and adornment. The sacrifice of one's freedom. You must stay in her fabricated world forever. In essence, becoming her slave. (And as the story advances, we discover that it becomes worse than this for this fake God – this Demiurge – becomes easily bored of her newly acquired objects of love and affection, only to discard and abandon them, essentially, to death). (On a side note, it is also interesting that another name for the Gnostic's Demurge is Ialdabaoth, or Yaldabaoth, an imperfect god, a blind god even. What's further interesting is that Coraline's Other Mother has artificial eyes - buttons! - sewn on, for without them she is blind).

~

Coraline reminds me so much of a certain point of view of Gnosticism that I am somewhat surprised nobody has made the comparison before.

If we reread Genesis, but from a certain Gnostic perspective, we can clearly see this exact same pattern. The source material (the book of Genesis) itself is not altered, but its interpretation is. In this perspective it is the symbols and imagery that are switched. (If interested, you can read a more detailed analysis of this at Gnosticism, Valentinus Style).

The Garden of Eden is only a deceptive paradise created by 'The Lord God' for reasons little more than a cage, in which Adam & Eve are (unknowingly) imprisoned. Objects of this deity's love and affection (and a source of worship) but only under certain conditions. But mankind is not content and somehow innately knows it; is missing something and reaching for it. ”The Lord God” (desperately) attempts to fulfill this longing and repeatedly fails.

Enters the subtle, crafty, and shrewd serpent. (And you'll note that none of this descriptive words mean evil). In this particular interpretation the symbol and imagery of the serpent is more akin to (possibly) the Holy Spirit, giving directions to their escape from this delusional cage of Paradise. The serpent is acting of behalf of something or someone external to this Garden of Eden. Something or someone above and beyond ”The Lord God” of the Garden of Eden.

The 'secret' to exit this existence of enslavement and servitude is to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. (For which the God of Eden is concerned with, but even more concerned with, what if Adam & Eve were to eat of the Tree of Life?!

The potential, while still maintaining this alternative symbolism and imagery, is that the Son of God – not the God of Eden, but an external and alien God – a 'true' God – Yeshua is the Fruit of the Tree of Life (and must be consumed...) not so much for Salvation, but for enlightenment. Not so much the roll of Redeemer but as Revealer.

Now I am fully aware that the Conservative Christian will bolt with fear of heresy and damnation, making accusations of following Satan (or at least being duped by him). Let's add that this interpretation (either interpretation) are not literal history. I don't believe either historically happened. They are myths (and myths are not lies or fiction), but myths with meanings. The truth is not in the fact of whether these events really happened or not. I think many people fail miserably to see and recognize within this Gnostic interpretation as well as within their own bible, that it doesn't have to be literal or historic to be true.

~

Love and Control.

I think this may very well be the defining difference between being Religious and being Spiritual.
The stories of Pedro, and of Coraline's Other Mother, and the Great Escape from the Prison of Eden, are all lessons from parting ways with organized and institutionalized religion. These are slave masters.

The Mexican marionette Pedro made a simple mistake. What he thought was God was really little more than his religiosity.

Coraline (interestingly, with the help of a Black Cat who was not subjective to the Other Mother's powers...?) saw through the Beldam's deception and lies.

And Adam & Eve (mankind) became enlightened by the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, gaining the potential of Tree of Life.

~

In conclusion, I believe to the Spiritual, God loves us, while to the Religious, God controls us.
I don't believe you can have it both ways.

Terminator: Time-lines

2010-11-14T10:08:00.000-08:00

(For fans and buffs of the Terminator movies)

The Terminator story is only temporally linear from the first to the second films. These two are critical to the story/time-lines. However, both time paradoxes (predestination paradoxes) are finalized.

All following movies/books/stories/series are “splinters” or branches in probabilities (not considering the various video games). What becomes obvious is that in the vast majority of probabilities Judgment Day cannot be stopped, only delayed or advanced. (Judgment Day being the precursor to to a future war between man and machine, the probabilities following John Connor's various attempts to advert or avoid this future war).

However, what becomes extremely interesting to me is that in The Sarah Connor Chronicles this “future war” is actually being fought today, in the here and now! Skynet and John Connor having sent their soldiers and agents back in time to do battle – essentially starting a time-war rather than a war at a future historic date.

The only aspect of these time-lines that do not change are the first movie ("Terminator”), the second movie (”T2: Judgment Day”), and the never-seen final conflict between John Connor and Skynet (in 2029) in which all the various agents, soldiers, and Terminators are sent back.

If we were to map out these time-lines it might look like this:

The only real story left to be told is that of the final confrontation between John Connor and Skynet in 2029.

The real question – due to the various and numerous (potentially countless) time-lines becomes, must this future John Connor and Skynet send back agents for all probabilities?

This future John Connor and this future Skynet become more akin to some sort of mystical entities rather than individuals. It becomes a story that may very well be impossible to tell. Both these future figures become unknown (possibly even unknowable), mutable, non-fixed, and definitely historically non-static.

We know that this future John Connor is aware of the predestination paradox and deliberately sends Kyle Reese back in time to secure not only his birth, but his very existence.

Skynet does the exact same thing – securing its own genesis and existence. The only difference with Skynet is a question of awareness and intent. However, this becomes an insignificant question when we look at another. Must both the future John Connor and Skynet have taken action in regards to “failed” probabilities? Must these two Unknowable Future Entities have even been aware of the grandfather paradoxes?

What I mean by this is, in 2029 does Skynet send back a T-101 to 1984, a T-1000 to 1994, and a T-X (“Terminatrix”) to 2004, while – to combat these potential time “ripples” - John Connor sends back Kyle Reese to 1984, a reprogrammed T-101 to 1994, and Kathrine Brewster (John's wife) sends back another reprogrammed T-101 to 2004?

Ironically, the success of these “missions” or “operatives” would obliterate their future necessities... a grandfather paradox.

It is not my intention to point out a flaw in the storyline (even though I don't believe this is a flaw) but to attempt to draw some truth out of it.

In this analogy the Future John Connor and Skynet (both seemingly near omniscient) represent God and Satan; Good and Evil, engaged in a final war yet to come – The End Times. Certain quite literal interpretations of the book of Revelation, Final Judgment and Salvation and Damnation.

But what if, like The Sarah Connor Chronicles, this battle is not one off in the future – at the End Times – but right now, everyday, in the here and now?

Skynet is much more than a super-smart computer. It is much more than the leading-edge of AI technology. It is much more than the first self-aware AI. It is even much more than the first machine endowed with Free Will. Skynet is excising a sense of morality.

In order to exercise judgment against mankind, this action also necessitates awareness, intent, motive, and some sort of moral sense (granted a poor one – at least for us).

Skynet faced the temptation of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil and Fell.

Similar to what Rob Bell suggests in Velvet Elvis in regards to Adam and Eve and the Fall. Namely, that there were not a historic or literal Adam or Eve and the story of the Fall is true only in metaphor; that this story, this temptation and struggle and Fall is an extremely personal one – one we each as free willed individuals faces daily.

Again, I am revisiting the abandonment of literal holy script interpretation.

Can we take the whole Terminator storyline as an analogy (regardless of its creator's intentions), as a sort of reflection of our collective cultural, or possibly artistic interpretation, views, thoughts, and fears of our times?

I've written an article some time back titled Cultural Mythology about this apparently inherent fear present in our culture. We see it repeatedly in movies and TV like Terminator, Star Trek's The Borg, and The Matrix. Could these monsters represent a manifestation of our collective unconscious fear of Modernism?

Could they be the zenith of Modernism?

But there is another less dark way of looking at this: In the original Star Trek series Dr. Spock represents the Modern Man – believing all can be controlled, understood, and dissected by logic, science, and reason.

While in Star Trek: The Next Generation, Data represents the Postmodern Man – having achieved the pinnacle of scientific and technologic advancement yet longing not only to be human but to understand being human – realizing the limits and limitation of logic, reason, and science.

I have found much of the Modern Church and many Christians (most notably Evangelicals and Fundamentalists) function on this Spock-level.

We see this same Now-Future dichotomy in Islam. In the Golden Age of Islam, before the “Gates of Ijtihad” (Islam's third 'source' or root) were “shut”, the focus was to attempt to encourage and be receptive to new ideas – to live in harmony with other faiths and peoples. Although it wasn't perfect, the intention was there. Blind Faith was frowned upon and resolving an issue using analogical reasoning, thought, and dialog was promoted. The focus was on the Living Now and, to a certain degree, benefiting society.

Since the “closure” of this 'third root', many aspects and factions of Islam now reward and promote Blind Faith, a tribal and imperialistic idea of Islam. Would-be martyrs are promised 72 virgins in the afterlife. (Although certain scholars argue that the correct translation might not be “virgins” but “white dates”, a very valuable commodity in the 7th century desert. And it is unlikely the 72 white dates would be for the martyr but his surviving family).

This kind of mentality and these beliefs are the Skynet and Terminators of our time. They, ultimately, bring nothing less than destruction.

They become guilty of the same thing Skynet is guilty of; The belief that the end justifies the means. Its lack of understanding of the nature of truth; seeing the only valid and valuable truth as being only the literal, historic, factual, and ultimately, empirical.

Can there be truth in fiction?

This “battle”, this personal struggle is not one yet to come, like a war we are to prep and prepare ourselves for (similar to what St. Paul seems to advocate in his writings, saying that we are to race towards some goal, a future reward)...

...but rather, a perpetual internal struggle (with external manifestations), similar to the advise Yeshua gives when he says to “be on guard”, to live your life right here, right now! - like the End Times are already upon us; don't wait! Do it right here and now!

Maybe the truth of the matter isn't that Yeshua didn't know when this time would come (”Only the Father knows...”) but that he knew there really wasn't a time beyond the present, the perpetual Now; there was not End Times.

When we combine this with Yeshua's confusing description of The Kingdom of God – that it is not here or there, but it is here, right now, within you and within me...
... I've never believed Yeshua's Kingdom of God was synonymous with the Heaven of the Afterlife, the byproduct of Salvation, judgment and the End Times...
... in fact, I'm not convinced Yeshua ever promoted or taught of the Heaven of the Afterlife.

~

I'll attempt to bring this post to some sort of conclusion:
So, which do you engage in?

Collecting some sort of Divine Brownie Points for a judgment yet to come by a hidden Supernatural God ?

Or attempting to live Yeshua's Way right now – today - for a truly ever present God?

Which ”time-line” do you follow?

A Question of Theism

2010-10-17T08:12:00.000-07:00

Theism (of any sort) ultimately is a statement of belief, in which the burden of proof or definition is upon the Theist.
Atheism is also a statement of belief and the onus of proof or definition lies upon the Atheist.

From a certain perspective both of these positions’ commonality are that they’re “systems of belief” (not facts) and they both have an obligation of proof, or to define themselves (ie There is a God. There is not a God).

This is a dichotomous scale with Theism and Atheism being either polar end, and the central “gray area” being degrees of Agnosticism.

I’m wondering if some who claim to be agnostic do so only because there would appear to be no other options available within this paradigm; feeling somewhat lost. To claim to be agnostic is near synonymous with being a sort of seeker, yet I know many who have ‘found’ their position after years of ‘seeking’ and have no other position to refer to themselves but Agnosticism.

Agnosticism is either a position of indecision, or one of having given up or having decided the answer is unknowable. They are still posing the very same question: Does God exist? These positions are fundamentally based upon proof, or lack thereof. All these positions presume the goal (intentional or not) to be proof or definition.

The “Black” polar position of Atheism, the “White” polar position of Theism, the “Gray” positions of Agnosticism (in all its forms) all fall into a particular and singular world view. A Paradigm of Proof.

To the Theist, to the Atheist, and to the Agnostic, it is all a question of theism. Does God exist?
They all share the same question; they just differ as to what the correct answer is.
I’m not suggesting yet another method of discovering the correct answer (if one even exists), but to cease asking the question altogether; to change the question itself.
A completely different perspective would be to move beyond aTheistic one. There is no “statement of belief”. There is also no focus on nor onus of proof or definition. No belief has been stated therefore no proof need be forwarded. This particular ‘position’ isn’t one of proof. The focus is elsewhere.

So what good does thinking about God’s theistic and atheistic nature have? To simply abandon this line of questioning and wondering returns us to a position to this selfsame Paradigm of Proof. It returns us to Agnosticism. (Don’t know. Can’t know. Don’t care).

It isn’t that we need to choose or find the correct answer, but rather, we need to find the correct question. I think the problem we’re facing here is that we’re asking the wrong questions and allowing the wrong questions to be asked. We're missing (or chosen to simply not see) the blantantly most obvious fact.
The question of God cannot be answered.

Tul-Wisdom (Patterned Wisdom)

2010-09-20T03:44:00.000-07:00

I worry about the future. This has always been a problem I've struggled and battled with. I worry about my financial stability (or instability), about my family's health, my kids' schooling, my wife's business, my job, my friends, my relationships, my well-being. And when I allow that rogue beast, Worry, to roam free, it does nothing but further feed and breed Fear.

Too often I fall into the trap of living in the Past. Analyzing whether this or that choice or decision could have changed where I find myself today. When I open the memories and doorways to the past I run the risk of flooding myself with regret for what might-have-been. (Those saddest words of tongue or pen...)

When I spend my energy worrying about Tomorrow and regretful for Yesterday, I do nothing but destroy my Today.

Do not pursue the past.
Do not lose yourself in the future.
The past no longer is. The future
has not yet come. Looking deeply at life
as it is in the very here and now,
the practitioner dwells in
stability and freedom.
Bhaddekaratta Sutta

The illusion is that our Today – our Now – is a tiny hairline separating Yesterday from Tomorrow. The truth of the matter is that there is no future and there is no past but only an eternally endless Now.

“Alan Watts likened the practice of living from our center to marital arts, where we are encouraged to “stay always in the center position, and stay always here”. He says, “If you expect something to come in a certain way, you position yourself to get ready for it. If it comes another way, by the time you reposition your energy, it is too late. So stay in the center, and you will be ready to move in any direction.” When living from your center, in the now, he adds, “you stand a much better chance of being able to deal with the unforeseen than if you keep worrying about it” Candance B. Pert, The Molecules of Emotion: The Science Behind Mind-Body Medicine (New York: Touchstone, 1997), 27

I have found practicing the Tuls (patterns) in Taekwon-do extremely “centering” and nearly a form of Meditation. The concentration and focus clears the mind, forcing one to 'forget' everything but the Now, returning the balance.

I do not miss the point of every pattern (at least to my limited knowledge) begins in one position and returns to this same position. A centering. A balance point. A Zen of Now.

I can't help but wonder if General Choi (the founder of ITF) deliberately encouraged this “symbolism” of centering; reining in our runaway imaginations – not dwelling on the past and not worrying about the future, but always returning to this state of centeredness.

I believe the trick is to borrow this learned wisdom as we practice it in our patterns and apply it to our lives on a daily, on an hourly level. It can only make us better and stronger.

The Zen of Contemplating God

2010-09-05T16:27:00.000-07:00

I've been told that most Buddhists have happily and willingly moved away from Theistic religion. I've also been told that Buddhists do not contemplate what cannot be known – and God cannot be known.
I can't help but wonder this on a few levels. Firstly, I need to ask what does 'moving away from Theistic religion' really mean? I had always believed there are not only two positions. It doesn't have to be a question of either Theism or Atheism. I believe there is also Non-Theism.

Mu.
I've also read that students of Zen concentrate for years on koans as a method attaining enlightenment. I wonder if Buddhists spend time focusing on koans too?

If so, I've come to wonder whether contemplating God could in itself act as a koan?

Personally, attempting to 'find' God, attempting to define God is a practice that has no solution. Attempting to understand the incomprehensible would seem to be a fruitless endeavor, but only if we are searching for a definitive answer. If we practice to understand the incomprehensible as a journey, it can become a koan of sorts.

Admittedly, I've never really looked at it from this point of view, but I think I've practiced it for years. A summation of my experiences could be to say witnessing the repeated death and rebirth of “God” - continually. Repeatedly shattering my images and concepts of God.

To-understand-the-incomprehensible is my koan.

The Zen of Contemplating God.

Interesting thoughts...

Harmonious-Dichotomies

2010-08-30T04:58:00.000-07:00

We modern day Westerners tend to see everything through some kind of dichotomy. You're either this or you're that; you're either guilty or you're innocent; you're either in or you're out; it's either black or it's white.

Many of us - as we get older - become more mature and attain enough wisdom to come to understand that there exists many shades of gray, eventually realizing the possibility that either extreme is more of a hypothetical and that the world might very well be all various shades of gray. However, this is still functioning within the Western-paradigm of Dichotomies.

I believe there exists Harmonious-Dichotomies; polar opposites that not only co-exist, but co-exist in harmony with one another interdependent one another.

The Japanese have a concept called Mu.
Mu; unask the question. It isn't that we need to choose or find the correct answer, but rather, we need to find the correct question. I think the problem we're facing here is that we're asking the wrong questions (or allowing the wrong questions to be asked).
.
I am beginning to see this Harmonious-dichotomy more and more often.
With an extremely simple example, I first saw it manifested concretely in Taekwon-do.
Either you are striking (let's say punching) or you are blocking.
Either you are striking or defending, right?

The correct way to throw a punch (either technically or practically, as in sparring) involves both.
(Let's say I'm throwing a left jab punch). My left fist rotates, reaches, and strikes forward. However, my right fist moves up and beside my head, creating a block, protecting my head/face.

The Western-dichotic-paradigm might say you cannot be offensive and defensive. You must be either one or the other. The truth of the matter is it is only functional (it is only true) when both are in harmony.

Another perspective is either you are a 'victim' (let's say you are starving) or you are a 'rescuer' (the one who donates the life saving food to the starving victim). Either you are the 'victim' or you are the 'rescuer'.

Really, these two polarities have everything to do with either "service to self" (I am the victim) or "service to others" (I am the rescuer). This fundamental division makes assumptions (deliberate or not).

If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.
This is the victim-rescuer paradigm.

If you teach him how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.
You have broken the victim-rescuer paradigm. You have not 'saved' him from starvation, but allowed him to rescue himself from starvation. Ultimately, promoted him to your (erroneous) position of 'rescuer'. He is also no longer the victim.
This becomes a Harmonious-dichotomy.

Service to others should be a voluntary gifting rather than a compulsion driven by the belief that one must serve others to be a 'good person'.

We are often taught that in order to be a 'good person' we must be generous and charitable. Therefore, ultimately, we must have the resources to be charitable; we must sit in a position of power. We must be – in one form or another – wealthy.

That forces the need to begin in a position of power and/or authority; we need to fulfill the role of 'rescuer' in the rescuer-victim paradigm, which necessitates superiority in one way or another.

… so what happens if you're not wealthy, or in a position of power, or don't have the necessary resources? I'll tell you what happens. You struggle with your conscious and guilt (potentially becoming a slave to your religion or you 'morality', making you anything but free). Because, from this Western-Charity point of view, you're not really a good person. (How interesting is it that from this particular point of view we must be wealth to be a "good person"?)

We're not to serve others so that we're a 'good person'. We're to serve others for no other reason than simply voluntary gifting. Anything else is self-serving. Call it spiritual hedonism.

I believe this is breaking of this rescuer-victim relationship and I think empowers us to cease being victims, to cease our longing for and searching for a divine rescue (or rescuer) to break the addiction and bonds of religiosity.

Cultural-Mythologies

2010-08-29T05:16:00.000-07:00

"Insular Christianity has a very serious and crippling disability with modern cultural mythology.“

It is kind of strange and a little bit sad how this piece came to be. I had seen the preview of the new and upcome Christmas release of Aliens vs. Predators: Requiem movie. I had sent out an email to an all men small group that I belong to, basically saying "check out this preview, wow I can't wait to see it!" I added at the end (very much tongue in cheek) that I thought we should collectively watch this movie and discuss, as a topic, it's Christian and/or biblical message. (And for clarity's sake, if you've missed it, the final sentence was a joke).

Knowing the guys, I really didn't expect any replies as excited as I felt we should all actually be. (And again, if you haven't picked up on this yet, I'm a big Aliens fan). Some people simply aren't into it, and that's fine.

However, one responded (privately and not through a “reply all” return) that he didn't feed it was a good idea and didn't see any edification value to it....

...[insert crickets chirping here]...

“Ahhh...You're joking... right?” I said "It wasn't intended to have edification value but simply some fun."

Nope. Dead serious.
And it was this comment that got me thinking – and not because I had some ulterior agenda to defend the Aliens-franchise that I am such a big fan of, but in defense of our collective cultural mythologies.

Most people tend to think that mythologies only exist in the past, from distant ancient - and usually extinct - civilizations. Mythologies exist in every culture. They are how a society communicates. Literature, movies, music, nearly all forms or art & entertainment reflect the current culture's – society's – understandings, philosophy, loves, concerns, and fears.

To embrace the insular, or isolationism, is to disconnect from these numerous and various richnesses of art & entertainment; it is to disconnect with society.

There are elements of profound truths in fictitious television programing like Star Trek: The Next Generation's the Borg and big screen movies like Terminator, Terminator 2, Terminator 3, and the Matrix movies. Incredibly deep-rooted fears and concerns about our rampant technological race and our blatant dependency on it manifest themselves in their forms of mythology. The Borg and Terminator are the realization of this technological dependency brought to life in detailed nightmarish quality. Not to mention as a side note our fear of some sort of apocalyptic end of the world.

We see this brutally and disturbingly presented in H.R. Giger's artwork – even as offensive as it can sometimes be. We see the blending of organic creature with machine and we see his art come to life in the Alien-mythology.

Vampires in literature came to the front primarily during the Victorian era. The concern, fear, and realization was twofold with the vampire-mythology. One was the nightmare cognation that we – as human beings – are feeding on one another. The upper elite class surviving and stifling and killing the lower peasant class. The other nightmare realization was that (as an upper class elite) we are nothing more than a monster in a dressed-up disguise of a human being.

Brian Lumley's Necroscope-series (13 volumes) and the whole Wamphyri-mythology poses the haunting question of how far we can sink into depravity before any hope of salvation is lost.

My favourite author, H.P. Lovecraft, writes of forgotten eon-old Elder Gods in blasphemous worship and the insanity of the Spaces where aliens reside. Lovecraft's Cthulhu-mythos voiced the apprehensions and fears in the '20's and '30's of foreign immigration. Although manifested in the fear of discovering their inbred alien heritage, it had the potential of setting the stage for a paranoia run amok to what would become the Nazi's belief in the Aryan purity of the One Human Species, and the genocide of all other subhumans. Thank God it failed.

Even Pornography holds cultural truths. (And if porn itself was a cultural mythology, I would suggest we watch them too.) On a side note, I believe the majority of Christians subscribe to the philosophy of the hedonistic porn addiction. See the article, XXX: Porn for the Soul.

To choose to be blind to these fears and concerns or to entertain them as only intellectual fancies is to arrogantly ignore the plights that surround us.

Movies likes Blade Runner, characters like Data from Star Trek:TNG and the cloned Ellen Ripley in Alien Resurrection all scream the question of what does it mean to be human? What does it truly mean to possess a soul? And more importantly (and disturbingly), maybe some of us don't have one.

Is our society voicing a concern or fear with it's cultural mythology of the Aliens-franchise? I think it is, and strongly.

With all 7 movies, all 10 books (that I read, there are more), and numerous graphic novels, there is a common enemy within each and every one of them. The Wyland-Yutani Corporation. Not the Aliens. Not the Predators. A corporation.

It's okay, alright, acceptable and has edificational value to watch the documentary series The Corporation, in which the central theme is the documentary is an attempt to assess the "personality" of the corporate "person" by using DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders) to label the Corporation as a psychopath. However, when this truth and concern is played out in science-fiction or horror genre, like Aliens, it becomes unacceptable, without edificational value, and "unnecessary and mindless gratuitous violence" (I've been told by another).

Strange. It's acceptable to label a Corporation as a psychopath, but when we play it out to it's logical conclusions, it becomes unacceptable. However, when a Christian friend of mine felt compelled to read a fire-and-brimstone preacher's sermon describing in minute, shocking, and disturbing detail, the very nature of the brutal tortures of hell, it was justified, apparently, out of a "necessary" to better motivate us to evangelize.

Am I the only one seeing the hypocrisy here?

When we look at this tiny slice of our society's cultural mythology that I provided as an example, we see that our non-religious - our secular society is painfully aware of our collectively fallen, or "condemned" state. It is manifested in our art & entertainment. We are aware of it, concerned about it, worried about it, and even frightened of it.

We do not need Christians preaching the heresy of Bad-News-First-Evangelism (as the French philosopher Jacques Ellul puts it). We do not need to be convinced or convicted of our sins or condemnation. The Spirit of God moves and lives within the secular world; they just don't see it and too often Christians just won't recognize, acknowledge, or allow it. The invisible Spirit of God has already convinced them of their "condemnation" through their cultural mythology. God is at work.

Evangelical Christians who subscribe to the One-Two-Punch method of evangelizing (first the Bad News and only then the Good News) really have an agenda all their own. It isn't good enough that society acknowledges it's own "condemnation" through it's own cultural mythology. No sir! It must recognize it's fallen state through the Christian Subculture's Mythology. Christianity is not reaching out to people in a context they can understand or relate to. Christianity has stopped speaking the language of the people. Call it the new-Latin if you please.

So I ask you, are watching these movies, viewing these artworks, listening to this music, reading these books have an edification factor? I don't know. In a postmodern world, I think understanding it's numerous cultural mythologies is quite valuable.

Is it really any wonder why church attendance and membership is dropping? Is it really surprising to find the Institutional Church slowly dying? Is it really shocking to discover that the Christian Subculture is so rejected and viewed with such contempt and disgust?

Our society is simply ripe for the 'Good News'. The problem is the subculture of Christianity is too blind and self-obsessed to deliver it.

The proof is in the pudding. The Religion of Christianity has failed. I find its obsessive desire of becoming insular very sad.

But maybe I'm wrong. I've been told this whole "rant", this entire "diatribe" has been for no other use or purpose than to fulfill my love of a movie. I guess I'm the hedonist.

Review of Imaginary Jesus by Matt Mikalatos

2010-08-22T15:54:00.000-07:00

From a work of pure fiction, this book is great!
Entertaining and comical with a healthy splash of seriousness and even tears at times!

It was a lighthearted and pleasant read.

...however, I can't help but wonder to what degree of seriousness is truly intended.
I think, quite a bit. (Spoiler alert) As much fun as it to laugh at the numerous imaginary Jesus' in mockery of various forms of ridiculous Christian beliefs there are out there, we inevitably come across our imaginary Jesus and our brand of belief... and somehow it just isn't quite so funny.

I can't help but wonder if this piece of fiction is meant to be something a lot more serious than it would appear on the surface. I wonder what deeper theological thoughts swim just beneath the calm and comical surface.

It made me ask a question; Exactly how do we know – or know of – Jesus?
After a bit of thought, I've come to believe there are only 4 ways to 'know Jesus'. (And I am not speaking of the Born-Again-Evangelical kind of knowing-Jesus).

1) There is the Jesus we know through historical texts (which is precious little).
2) There is the Jesus we read of in the gospel accounts, each flavoured to a certain degree by its author. (which – interestingly - leaves the 'real Jesus' veiled or hidden 'beneath' or 'between' the gospel accounts. Inaccessible; having become isolated and hidden between the pages of history and gospel).
3) There's the Jesus that we meet through good Christians – truly embodying the Body of Christ concept,
4) and finally, there is the Jesus of our imaginations. (And it really should be noted that something that is make-believe and something that is imaginary are not necessarily synonymous).

Ultimately how we 'know' Jesus is shaped to some degree by all four 'ways'. I cannot help but believe it is our imaginary Jesus that plays the largest and strongest part.

After all, I doubt many professing Christians really want to 'meet' and 'know' the real Jesus.

I like when Matt Mikalatos' protagonist (...or is it really himself?...) voices a concern about the real Jesus:

”...he can do whatever he pleases. Who knows what he might ask of me? I can't control him. I can't box him in with my own beliefs and philosophies...”

If we're honest enough with ourselves, we would have to admit that the Jesus we want will – at least to some degree – bow to our beliefs, and bend towards our philosophies. I honestly believe it is impossible to do anything else.
It is when we use and abuse our imaginary Jesus – bending it to our agendas – that the real crime and harm occurs. That is where the danger lies.

~

I'd love to do Matt Mikalatos' Imaginary Jesus in a group study. I'd love to see if and how biblical literalists struggle with the truths that are present within a piece of pure fiction.

Review of The Gospel You've Never Heard by David Rudel

2010-08-02T11:54:00.000-07:00

I'm going to approach this particular book review, as I was invited to, by a comparison with Andrew Farley's ”The Naked Gospel”

Where I was suspicious of Andrew Farley's ”The Naked Gospel's” intent (fearing that the author may have been a Conservative Evangelical Christian with a subterfuge agenda of repackaging and remarketing the same old religion) this suspicion and accusation absolutely cannot be made of David Rudel's ”The Gospel You've Never Heard”. He leaves little to the imagination when he expresses the hope ”...to break the hegemony [of the] evangelicals”, pg. 170. He also goes on the clarify that by “evangelicals” he means “Conservative Evangelicals”, recognizing and apologizing for any overgeneralizations (pg. 7), then goes full-steam ahead.

Where in Andrew Farley's ”The Naked Gospel” I had asked ”who exactly is this book aimed at?”, David Rudel's answers point-blank. ”I've tried to make the book meaningful to evangelicals, liberal Christians, and non-believers.” (pg. 2).

~

Although ”The Gospel You've Never Heard” by David Rudel is a man after my own heart – namely biblically and theologically 'gunning' down the Conservative Evangelical – I have to wonder whether this is a good or healthy position to begin with. I mean, wouldn't it seem like little more than a debate or rebuke against a preexisting position; a contradicting shadow against another's position? But once this book is gotten into I've found very little evidence to support this concern. If anything, this apparent anti-Conservative-Evangelical angle is little more than a segue to enter David Rudel's topic at hand.

Having said this, maybe comparing this book to Andrew Farley's ”The Naked Gospel” isn't such a good idea. I'm going to inevitably paint a picture otherwise! But Andrew Farley makes some pretty flawed statements (presented as facts) and leaves himself wide open. He states, ”If we accept God's blood-only economy... blood sacrifice is the only action that results in forgiveness and cleansing. This was true in the Old Testament and there's no exception today.” Andrew Farley, The Naked Gospel, pg. 135.

Well... if you, my gentle reader, will allow me to use this expression, David Rudel tears him a new one on page 160 in ”The Gospel You've Never Heard”.

He begins by addressing the defining differences between expiation and propitiation.

”There is also a need to address God's wrath that exists in reaction to... sin. The cleansing and removal of sin is referred to as expiation and the addressing of God's wrath is referred to as propitiation.”, pg. 160

Regarding Vicarious Punishment, he says, ”Strictly speaking, this is not even propitiation, which refers to wrath being cooled due to a change of disposition... The Vicarious Punishment... does not provide actual propitiation. It simply claims the wrath was vented on someone else.”, pg. 162.

He then (I believe somewhat comically) cites and example of ”When God relented of the wrath in store for Nineveh (Jonah 3:10), the Almighty didn't have to blow up one of Jupiter's moons to exhaust the pent-up anger”. pg. 163.

Once again, David Rudel cannot be accused of speaking in Christianese (as Andrew Farley has). He is using certain terms and terminology, but clearly defines them.

Andrew Farley's ”The Naked Gospel” previous quoter's point being that sacrifices have always been and must always be of blood and that ”Jesus' blood sacrifice on the cross was the once and for all blood sacrifice” provides the appeasement of God's wrath now becomes, at the very least, questionable.

Now add to that the numerous biblical examples Rudel provides of non-blood sacrifices.

Exodus 30:15 made through silver. Numbers 16:46 made through incense. Numbers 31:50 through jewelry. Lev. 5:13, Exo. 32:30, Numbers 8:21, 2 Chronicles 30:18. (He even offers the possibility of sacrifices being for a purpose other than expiation or propitiation, ”...passages like Leviticus 19:20-22 suggest the guilt offerings were actually the punishment itself. Rather than a bribe or payoff of God, the sacrifice is more like a fine designed to deter sin”., pg. 162)

Let me just finish off my comparisons between these two books. Andrew Farley's ”The Naked Gospel” at approximately 70,000 words put me past my 'allowed' time frame of 30 days to read and write a review on, while David Rudel's ”The Gospel You've Never Heard”, at over 85,000 words (estimate) took about 12 days.

What's interesting is that I – personally – like Andrew Farley's “gospel” (not book) better. It's a truth I would prefer. David Rudel's “gospel” (again, not book) isn't as attractive to me, but more convincing.

This book addresses difficult issues that I know I have (and continue to ) struggle with. The author identifies apparent conflicts between Old Testament and New Testaments. He identifies apparent conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and Paul. He attempts to broach these difficult issues by redefining our understanding of salvation and judgment and presenting the possibility that these two issues may not be intrinsically linked, but separate issues.

He presents the idea that “salvation” be something less juvenile and more mature than simply making it to Heaven, or avoiding Hell; both somewhat spiritually hedonistic endeavors!

One of the most memorable (and continuing to echo in my conscious) questions he asks is, ”What gospel can Christ and His apostles preach if Jesus forbids them to tell anyone He was the Christ, and His disciples do not realize He is going to die after He tells them in private?” pg. 98. It would seem to very strongly suggest the gospel has nothing to do with Judgment or post-Judgment “bliss” (heaven).

In Dead Off-Center I voiced a view and a concern about an option outside of either the Law-only or Grace-only dichotomy. Andrew Farley's ”The Naked Gospel” does little to explore these concerns, but really – more or less – confirms this dichotomy. David Rudel's ”The Gospel You've Never Heard”, however, seems to identify with my similar concerns. He gives a great analogy – a parable perhaps – of three artists in Budapest running orphanages for artistically talented children (pg. 77-79) demonstrating there are other options than legalism or licentiousness.

This book also brought to light a challenge for me. Although I had said I agreed with Andrew Farley's ”The Naked Gospel's” point regarding the Law of Sabbath Observance and Tithing (calling it the church's modern day Membership and Revenue Stream) as relating to the (now defunct) priesthood of the Old Testament times. However, this does not and cannot “write-off” all observation of Mosaic-law. This does not give us carte-blanc to become antinomian.

When Jesus is asked which is the greatest (Mosaic) Law, he answers to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself (Lev. 19:18). Although we are not bound to tithe we are to help the poor (Deu. 15:7), the orphans, and the widowed (Deu. 24:20).

This is not the abandonment of Mosaic-law...

”Christians marginalize these laws because we, quite frankly, don't like being told what to do and feel we deserve more from God than a list of rules. Furthermore, there is an unfounded idea that the revelation of God in the Old Testament is somehow no longer applicable.” pg. 113

...but simply not the abuse of it:

”Christians often suggest the Jews erred by focusing on the Law. But the problem was not that the Jews were too focused on the Law. (It is hard to say what else they could have focused on!) The problem was that their leaders abused scripture to give themselves political power. They warped the Torah to their own devices by selectively picking which scripture to emphasize and which interpretation they liked – the Christian church arising afterward did the same.” pg. 113

If forces me to at least question my own motives. Do I use the defunct Tithing “law” to possibly justify not helping the poor, or orphan, or widows? I can only hope not!

We underestimate the Torah.
”The Gospel You've Never Heard's” good news is a people-orientated one. It has precious little to do with the hedonistic and gnostic Heaven of eternal bliss of the Afterlife.
This gospel is much more practical and one of live and caring for your fellow man.

Review of The Naked Gospel, by Andrew Farley

2010-07-18T04:51:00.000-07:00

For starters – on a very simplistic level – this book's laid out very well with chapters that are easily read within short, manageable time periods.

I'm very mixed on this book though. I found myself 'suspicious' at times, more often in the first half. I don't believe this was due to any sort of apprehension or hesitancy with the author Andrew Farley's ideas. I think more because he seems to walk a line between Churchianity and a Christianity that's free from an Institutionalized church.

I was quite happy to see, in chapter 7, how heavily he focused on the fact that the Law breeds sin, arouses sinful passion, and is a ministry of condemnation; that the Christian who believes they are bound to the Law have missed the point. That Christian cannot and should not mix the two.

[But on a side note, he does seem to confuse Moses' ministry of condemnation with the entire bible at times, stating, ”Once enlightened by the Scriptures, we also agree that we're born in a sinful condition.”, pg. 98]

But this angle isn't new. Countless churches and sermons and pastors have spoken on this issue. What impressed me was, in chapter 9, the author takes it a necessary step further – takes it to the street, so to speak, and applies it to the Institutional Church's Holy of Holies. Sabbath Observance and Tithing; membership and money.

This caught my attention, as I have pondered and questioned some of these exact same issues in Repairing the Torn Veil

...but it was also at this point where I think he dropped the ball. He never really conclusively addressed this issues of Sabbath Observance or Tithing; or the implication it would have on the future church.

The overall impression I got was that we are free of the Law and how we cannot pick and choose which laws to observe or be free of (”The law is an all-or-nothing system”, pg. 65), but yet, - somehow – in some unspoken and elusive way, Sabbath Observation (read in, Going to Church) and Tithing (revenue stream) still count.

I'd like to learn more about Andrew Farley. I believe he is being honest and genuine in The Naked Gospel, please don't misunderstand me. However, I can't help but feel like this is a Conservative Evangelical Christian (pastor?) attempting to repackage and remarket the same old religion.

When I say Conservative Evangelical I suppose I really mean biblical literalist. There are certain statements that quietly presume this.

”If we accept God's blood-only economy... blood sacrifice is the only action that results in forgiveness and cleansing. This was true in the Old Testament and there's no exception today”, pg. 135

”We believe that a flood engulfed the earth and that a man spend 3 days in a big fish. To top it off, we believe Jesus rose from the dead and then floated up into the sky amidst many onlookers. What crazy events we've chosen to swallow as truth!”, pg. 128

Well... you pretty much need to be a literalist to choose to swallow some of these events as fact. And God's economy of blood doesn't resonate very well with the more Liberal minded. Which leads me to seriously wonder, who exactly is this book aimed at?

The author tends to fall victim to speaking in Christianese; words and terms that only Christians or church-goes would readily identify and recognized. Yet he leaves these terms hanging; never retracing his steps to flesh out what they mean; I suspect deliberately allowing his reader to assume. Yet, if the initiated and experienced church-goer is the target, he shakes them up by stating,

”...[these] requirements to remain in God's favor. This collection of “Thou Shalts” - read you Bible, share your faith, participate in a lot of “church” - was a measuring stick... criteria served as a concrete way of determining whether or not I was in right relationship with God”, pg. 81

...are unnecessary, or even wrong.

~

In the latter half of The Naked Gospel he seems to then swing to a near Universalist perspective. How else can we take this?

Jesus' blood sacrifice on the cross was the once and for all blood sacrifice. He speaks of the priests of the Old Testament having to stand, (signifying that their job of attempting to repent and cleanse sin is never done), vs. the singular Priest (Jesus) of the New Testament sitting at the right hand of God because that job is now and forever finished.

Then he would seem to turn on the traditional Conservative Evangelical position when he states,

”... they delicately dance around the reality of once-for-all forgiveness and push the idea of a two-tiered forgiveness system in which eternally God is satisfied, but right now we somehow maintain our own daily cleansing...”, pg. 150

and

”... we rest by ceasing from the dead works we thought would gain us favor with God. Rather than performing religious acrobatics to rid ourselves of sins, we can sit down with Jesus. We can simply agree, “Yes, it's finished”.”, pg. 66

I, personally, can wholeheartedly agree, whether this is the author's deliberate point or not. This is the end of religion. This is the death of religiosity.

The Law of condemnation has been decimated by Grace... and Grace is unconditional. Conditional Grace is no Grace at all.

Half of the endeavor is getting to this point – which I believe is this book's agenda. But this is only half-way. Where do we go from here and what does this liberty look like is a necessary follow-up. To continue with religion and church as is, is the empty practice of repackaging and remarketing an old and defunct religion. Putting new wine in old wineskins.

… and I'm afraid this book fails to deliver this second stage in the equation. Maybe it was never meant to. I'm concerned this is a new fangled way of revitalizing stagnant church members while pitching what, on the surface, appears to be something New, appealing to and drawing in the masses of spiritually mindful people done with church; but all for the intent of renewing membership and increasing revenue. I sincerely hope it isn't just a repackaged religiosity. I hope it will give its readers food for thought, challenge them to revisit presumed theological positions, and hopefully and legitimately ask the question,

Now where do we go from here?

Looking for God in all the Wrong Places

2010-03-06T02:11:00.000-08:00

I very much like how Mark Townsend described his view of what a mature ecumenism looks like and – more specifically – how it shouldn't hope to amalgamate the Church in to featureless dull greyness; water down everything to its lowest common denominator. (I tend to agree wholeheartedly, as I've expressed - somewhat obscurely - in A Plurlaistic Sophia).

“...the seven colours of the light spectrum that we see inside a rainbow, a soap bubble or a pool of oil spilt on the floor. I used it as a symbol of how the pure white light of The Divine is simply too rich, too vast, too much for any single tradition to fully contain. All each tradition can do it add its own colour to the picture, so each of the colours, together, creates the big picture. I went on to ascribe the various colours to the various denomination s of the Church, stating that dodgy ecumenism tries to make us all conform – water down to the lowest common denominator, where we end up with a dull greyness. However, a mature ecumenism lets the reds be red, and the greens be green. It does not attempt the futile dream of complete uniformity. We need to see the beauty of each colour, for the colour is the colour of God. And we will see a bigger picture of the divine if we don't try to harmonize and make it all work together...” Mark Townsend, “The Path of the Blue Raven”, pg. 122

However, from my point of view, I would apply this rainbow, this light spectrum analogy to broader implications, applying it to may various faiths rather than just the Church of Christianity. (Not to say that Mark Townsend does or doesn't based upon the above quote. It must be understood that this quote exists within the context the author was speaking in at this point in his book; that context being how he used to see various denominational (Christian) differences as all being different facets of the One picture. Then to go on to say that he has moved on to see this as an appropriate way of understanding religions too. Each one adds it's own unique and equally insightful 'gemstone' to the great mosaic.)

John Churcher, in his new book, Setting Jesus Free, comes a bit closer to 'where' I'm 'at'.

“'God' is not a name. It is a three letter word attempting to describe 'Whatever' is within, about, and beyond; whatever we may call the 'transcendent and the imminent'. Human language can never define whatever it is that some call 'Ground of All Being', 'Eternal Sacred', 'Spirit of Life' and a myriad other names. We only have human language to try to describe an experience of that which is always 'ore Than' and human language is never sufficient for the task. Therefore I will use the word 'God' as shorthand for a set of eternal principles, including Perfect, Sacrificial and Unconditional Love that accepts and values people as they are. This is the Spirit that dwells within and beyond all Humanity...

...I have discovered something of this Perfect Love that I name as 'God' through the pilgrimages of faith of members of other religious groups. This god is the Indwelling Spirit summed up, in my experience, in the Hindi word 'Namaskarum' to mean 'the God in me welcoming and respecting the God in you'....This God is accessed by and knowable to the Jew as 'Yahweh', to the Muslim as 'Allah', and to the Hindu in the different manifestations of the One God... [b]ut as a Christian, the Perfect Love that I experience and name as 'God' is made known to me in Jesus of Nazareth.” John Churcher, “Setting Jesus Free”, pg. 2-3.

If you'll allow me to link these two authors thoughts on this issue, I think we come very close to where and how I strive to “see” 'God'. However, John Churcher makes an incredibly good point near the end of this quote when he says, “...as a Christian... 'God' is made known to me in Jesus of Nazareth.”
I like that, can understand and accept that, but in a sad sort of way, also makes me disheartened... because, I can't say I feel this way towards Jesus. At least not the Jesus the church places as its 'front man'. I can't help but admire and attempt – maybe hope's a better choice of words – to (pathetically) emulate.

Fact is, I don't like Christians. I wish we could still feed them to the lions. Maybe that's because I make a lousy one. I'm not good enough to be a Christian.

I had a pet Siamese cat. Every morning he would race in front of me - but just in front me me – usually nearly tripping me and always in my way. Deep down I knew my pet loved me but in the morning he's only really interested in getting fed. I'm afraid I'm more like my Siamese cat than a Christian. I'm usually not following behind Yeshua but racing in from of him. I'm sure I'm in his way, screwing things up, and tripping him up most of the time (and I do worry about my own wellbeing – being fed so to speak). The real difference is that, unlike my cat and me, Yeshua doesn't kick me when I get in his way. I suppose that a good thing.

But I have found that the Religion of Christianity has kidnapped Jesus from me.

I chose these two quotes and their authors because I know them. It's just an example, but an interesting one. I think the three of us share similar points of view (at least to a certain degree). But it is the difference that captivated me.

In an online forum (TheOoze), Mark Townsend had said, “...I love – LOVE – the one we call Jesus” (but not in the evangelical way, he later added), and that's great... but I can't honestly say that.

He then says, “I love – LOVE – what we call God or Deity or Source etc. and try had to plug into that energy by daily prayer and meditation, but it's an allusive mystery which I know will take my whole life (and beyond) to understand”.

This statement I can agree with. This is closer to what John Churcher's quote says.

Now I know many (including these two I suspect) will tell me that we all have difference paths, come from different angles or directions. Clearly (as Churcher's quote plainly states) these two come from, or through, a Christian paradigm or perspective of 'God', and acknowledge and respect other paradigms and journeys. However, I'll left to question my own.

I think, like Mark Townsend, that I love – that I'm constantly searching, for what we call God or Deity or Source, but I'm hungry for a much larger (and even confusing) picture of It. The more 'angles' I can see 'God' from, the better. I don't think I see or look at 'God' necessarily through Jesus, but Jesus as one of many facets to understanding God/Deity/Source/'Ground of Being'.

My point being (and please feel from to jump in and correct me if I'm wrong in any way) that we (potentially) are seeing two or three perspectives, which may reflect various peoples points of view; an Inclusivist's and a Pluralist's.

Is my 'journey' a legitimate 'path' to God?...and is it Christian?
I don't normally refer to myself as Christian - whether or not I really am or am not.

My 'being' a Christian is a very subjective matter. I'll let my 'fellow' Christian tell me - according to their definition - whether or not I am one.
Personally, I really don't like being called one. Far too much baggage attached to the name.

A Pluralistic Sophia

2009-11-05T23:43:00.000-08:00

I suppose to many, religious pluralism embraces many derogatory issues, like “the path of least resistance”, or watering faith down to the lowest common denominator. I suppose it falls victim to political correctness and attempting to be warm & fuzzy, believing that all paths lead to God.

I can't honestly say I know the proper or official definition of being a religious pluralist, so you'll have to put up with me and the terms and words I choose to use. But I believe there is a certain kind of religious pluralism that doesn't embrace the path of least resistance, or watering one's belief-system down to the lowest common denominator, or being politically correct, or believing all religions are alright and that all paths lead to God. Hardly. I think, possibly, just the opposite.

It is not that I believe all religions lead to God, but that none do. God's wisdom - Sophia - is subtle, elusive, hidden between the lines.

I believe God 'distributes' His wisdom – His Sophia – with all peoples of all nationalities, in all geographic locations, and all cultures. Whether this Sophia speaks their “culturalistic languages” or that they hear her voice through their “culturalistic filters” mattes little. The outcome is the same. She meets them where they are.

A think a common accusation levied against pluralists is that they water down the 'truth' to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather see this aspect as deliberate choice to focus on what unites us rather than on what divides us for the sake of relationships, simply getting along, peace, mutual respect and tolerance.

But what about the actual truth itself, outside of social or civil environments? This doesn't address how to 'hear' God's wisdom; God's Sophia.

It is easy to find common ground within various belief-systems but I'm not totally convinced this is necessarily the voice of Sophia. After all, this could just be various cultures or people in agreement.

I think it is in the contradictions (or possibly paradoxes) in which Sophia is most challenging and speaks the loudest.

It is not in their shared commonalities that she speaks and challenged us to change and grow and learn but in their apparent conflicts. It is in the parts that don't 'fit'.

If God's word and will were so simple, so clear in its intent, then why are holy scriptures so ambiguous? Outside of personal and/or private manipulation and agenda, why can so few people agree? We would be following an apparent omnipotent deity who failed in His endeavor to successfully communicate to us.

If I'm trying to communicate an idea or message to you, there's three places for it to go wrong.

Firstly, I may not have the idea or message straight or correct in my head to begin with. If this is the case there will be guaranteed failure.

Secondly, I may not properly articulate my idea or message and it may be misunderstood.

And finally, you may not properly interpret or understand my idea or message.
If any one or all of these occur the effort to successfully communicate will fail.

Let's lay down several assumptions:
1) the bible is the final and total revelation of or by God.
2) that God is omnipotent,
3) God is omnipresent,
4) and most importantly, God is omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Now, if God has attempted to communicate a message to mankind, there's three areas it could (at least potentially) go wrong.

1) the communicator doesn't have the message properly
2) the communicator doesn't articulate the message well enough or clear enough for the recipient to understand
3) the receiver doesn't proper receive or understand the message.

But, when dealing with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity, these “rules” change somewhat. The first two point deal with errors or flaws with the communicator, which in the case of God, cannot be, or else we need to reevaluate one of our presumptions (omni potency and/or omniscience). If there were errors or flaws then they would be deliberate omissions, which could put into question God's omnibenevolence.

The problem cannot be in the articulation of the message itself (the bible) unless we are willing to compromise that God is its author, or had less than genuine intentions. (An alternative possibility is that the bible is a sort of hybrid of human and divine authorship and editing, but this carries its own set of problems and issues and is an avenue I don't really want to explore in this topic as I don't think it would be constructive).

And finally, as far as the recipient not correctly receiving or understanding the message properly; I struggle with this one. A perfect God would know how to successfully reach and communicate His message, unless the deliberate intention was to make it veiled, hidden to all except a select few (which would only work with the selected-damned of extreme Calvinism, but, I should think, would compromise God's omnibenevolence).

We find ourselves in this conundrum because of an overlooked assumption; that the bible is the final and total revelation of God. This assumption includes that the bible is somehow the answer or the solution; that it is in and of itself the goal, or contains the goal, or is some sort of map to the goal.

What if it isn't? What if it is directional in the sense that it points to a process, a direction of growth, a spiritual evolution, rather than a goal?

Why couldn't the bible be God's method of teaching us that spirituality is an evolutionary process and not a destination to arrive at? The bible is one stop on this journey? The fact that we've assumed it's the answer is the reason why we've missed the point. How else can you explain the near countless interpretations, conflicting doctrines, labeled heretics, and denominations?

I don't believe God's 'revelations' are the answers in and of themselves. I believe they are progressive; that they're directional. I believe there is a divine agenda afoot – a prime mover in and throughout human history.

That is how I see being a religious pluralist. It is no path of least resistance. It is not for the faint of heart. It is not for those who seek spiritual security.

...And to those who would argue with me that there is only one true religion (theirs) and the consequences of turning from this religious truth is to be brutally tortured relentlessly and continually for all eternity......if this is really the case (and I've seriously pondered this), then I am truly screwed, no matter which way I slice and dice it. It paints a picture of a truly dismal and near Lovecraftian cosmos. Because the only hope I have - at best – is to lie to this terrorist and tyrant god and hope he doesn't see through it.

Above and Beyond Christianity: a summation

2009-10-04T03:37:00.000-07:00

Hidden Worship
Nov. 21/07

Depending on how one defines “worship”, in some cases it can be restricted to only conscious and deliberate acts while in other definitions one can worship without being aware of it.

I have found in many Christians' cases their definition toggles back and forth between the two, depending on what the topic is. For example, one must choose to follow and worship Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, to surrender their will and life through a confession of faith. This must be a conscious and deliberate act. It is not acceptable (or even conceivable) that this may occur unconsciously. But they will most certainly allow unconscious worship; a good example being the statement that everybody worships something. A materialistic secular-atheist may unknowingly worship money or material goods, while never being able to consciously acknowledge it.

I think “worship” (as a verb) incorporates both conscious and unconscious forms, and by no means in the above listed strict or limited ways.

~

By the age of 20 I had given up on institutional religion, abandoned Christianity, and revolted against the concept of God that I held and understood at that time. For all practical purposes, becoming atheistic.

Ten years later I had an epiphany of sorts; an eye-opening experience that revealed a different and truer “image” or concept of God. Although this was most definitely a step away from atheism and towards theism, it was by no means necessarily Christian in and of itself.

Four years after this I took the church-hosted Alpha Course- sort of giving the Christianity I had abandoned 14 years ago a second chance. I had dedicated myself to be completely open and, more importantly, open minded.

Early on, and throughout the course, I repeatedly came across issues or problems, but, in the spirit of legitimate second chances and open mindedness, I overlooked them, didn't dwell on them, or simply “filed” them away.

At one point, I even came to the belief that the most important question everybody should explore and address was, ”Who was Jesus?” Once this question was honestly engaged by anyone they would be left with few options; a madman, a liar, the devil himself, or... God. (the option of a morally good man and wisdom teacher simply wasn't an option).

Although I saw through this at the time, I also buried it deep beneath my open mindedness, and it would be this point, all these 6 to 7 years later, that brings me back to my initial topic of “hidden worship”.

Many Christians unconsciously worship the bible.

...Yeah, I know... ouch.

In chapter 2 of The Alpha Course Manual, the author attempts to establish Jesus’ status as God by appealing to human reason and using logic. He does this by quoting C.S. Lewis,

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher” he’d either be insane or else he’d be the “devil from hell”. “You must make your choice,” he writes. Either Jesus was and is the Son of God, or else He was insane but, C.S. Lewis goes on, “Let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” The Alpha Course Manual, pg. 10

The Alpha Course begins this process of educating by offering up logical possibilities as to Jesus’ status.

What this point really is saying is the same thing that Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of Four:

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

My problem lies in its methodology (and even possibly in its potential of manipulation).

They are appealing to our logic to accept the only possibility left – no matter how incredible it may seem to the modern mind, while deliberately sidestepping an equally possible answer. That the gospel stories themselves could be opinions or partially fabricated stories by unknown authors, or written as response to other wittings, or even influenced or tainted by previously established doctrines.

Like Sherlock Holmes said, once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable (or undesirable), must be the truth.

Although the Alpha Course is attempting to educate or teach, what it is beginning is the process of indoctrination; teaching what to think rather than how to think. I don't believe it is intentional, but I do believe it is a byproduct of Bible-worship; the bible being believed to be unquestionable.

The books of the Old Testament are listed chronologically. However, the books of the New Testament are not. The four gospels come first, followed by the Pauline Epistles and other shorter letters. I've wondered why. The fact of the matter is that all of Paul's letters chronologically occur first and therefore outdate the gospels. One conclusion I've come to is that Christianity as we have it today is based upon a Pauline construct. I believe Paul made Jesus Christian. However, Jesus (Yeshua) preached and taught “the Kingdom of God”, but what he got was the Church. The gospels (not only written significantly after Paul's letters and the beginning of the established orthodox doctrine, but even after his death) may very well have been tainted by this Pauline Christianity. There is significant evidence of editing and additions and tampering, possibly for doctrinal purposes. (1 John 5:8, the endings of Mark, etc.). But, again in the spirit of fairness and open mindedness, it is also possible that they were not.

I am left only with the idea that the truth of the Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth is so enmeshed and coddled as to be inaccessible, hidden and even unknowable. I am fully aware that many Christians will argue that the Bible is inerrant and without contradiction and that any perceived contradiction is the fault of the reader who doesn't fully understand...
... there's not much to say to this. This is a statement of belief, not fact. It is also an admission to the abandonment or lack of objectivity and willingness to learn.

This is unconscious worship
bibliolatry

~

Coming to this conclusion leaves me with two problems:

1) The first is the Incarnation; whether Jesus was literally God.
Where at one point in time a few years ago I believed this was a critical question all needed to explore, I am now of the belief that it is a question that not only should be left unanswered, but shouldn't be asked at all. Mu.

Must he be literally God incarnate? I've stopped asking this question. I think the answer to that question hinges solely on choice, is inconclusive, but damningly divisive and destructive. I have come to leave it unanswered.

When we force the question of, "Was Jesus literally God" to be answered, we begin a journey down a path that cannot end in any other way but intolerance, discrimination, suffering, and a counterfeit religion. It ceases to be authentic – and some might argue – even valid

How do I, personally, come to terms with it? I am perfectly content (if I may use that word) in accepting Yeshua as a mortal man (even perfect man) – and wisdom teacher – who, through his life, presented a perfect or near perfect representation of the nature of God. God incarnate in metaphor. I don't (and believe, can't) look any farther. (This isn't denying Christ but rather avoiding Christolatry [Matthew 19:17, to some degree could suggest this position. ”Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God...”]). [And on a side note, to the Evangelical who would tell me this is the difference between Hell and Salvation, I say Jesus' core message was never “worship me or burn”].

I suppose by many definitions I am by no means even Christian.

2) The second problem embraces exactly where I stand right now.
Although to many my path could have led to atheism, in my case it most certainly did not. It does not diminish my belief in God at all. But when faced with the issue of following the will of God, the question must be asked, how am I to know the will of God? And again, in a certain and odd way, we return to the topic of “worship”.

I believe, as I've mentioned earlier, that it is completely possible and likely that we “worship” both consciously and unconsciously.

I don't and never have believed we should pray or worship Yeshua, but rather God as presented through Yeshua. I also believe it is completely possible and probable that people can unconsciously worship this same God.

Just as an atheist can unconsciously worship material goods so too can this atheist worship the God of Yeshua through action and practice... or Jew, or Buddhist, or Muslim, or Confucian, etc.

Yeshua said he was the way (to the Kingdom I presume). He never said he was in the way and he never said he was the destination.

Could the Kingdom of God exist in a completely non-Christian or Christ-ignorant community or society? Maybe a better way of asking this question is to ask, is Yeshua's way present in non-Christian or Christ-ignorant societies or communities?

I believe it is.

I (also) believe the critical flaw in most Christian-based systems is that they have made Yeshua the goal or the destination, rather then the path. They have failed to successfully answer the question of what that destination is.

To call this belief an Anonymous Christianity would not only be insulting to these people, but technically incorrect, but it gives the basic idea. (Yes, I am a religious pluralist by some definitions. No, I don't believe all religions lead to God.)

I am left wondering where am I to journey from here? I suppose following some sort of path of religious tolerance or even pluralism, but ultimately I know it involves moving past Christianity.

Moving Past Christianity (Originally posted as Finale)
July 4/09

Am I searching for happiness? Well, yes, of course I am – we all are. I'd be lying to say otherwise. But I don't believe searching out God has much to do with happiness.

Christianity never offers that. Joy possibly, but not happiness. What does the Christian seek? Or have they found everything they seek so that they seek nothing? Ultimately I think the Christian seeks God's approval, or possibly to be found worthy of God (whether manifested by the desire to be a servant to others or of God or to become more Christlike.)

But as far as my understanding is limited to, these two goals – divine approval and divine worthiness - have, by implication of the cross, already been accomplished. God has already shown His approval for the human race. The divine has already found us worthy. The only purpose the Christian may seek is entrance to a heaven of the Afterlife – which, to me, would seem to reek of spiritual hedonism and most selfish causes. I feel almost as if it is a carrot dangled before my face. Happiness is never promised, Joy is. What is joy in the face of adversity, but passive resignation?
The truth is offered, not as a process but rather as the completed and final product.

Over the past 8 years I have found that Christianity faces some of its most difficult questions and problems with the poor and self-serving methodology of the Anti-Theory. And when it doesn’t use an anti-theory, is takes its answer by distorting something far out of its Jewish context.

~

The four canonized gospels were written significantly after the rest of the New Testament books. Is there any way of knowing whether they were written as a supplement to the Pauline Epistles and possibly influenced or tainted by them? Are the four canonized gospels historically accurate or are they a rewritten and reinterpreted history?

I am at a point where I believe the evidence is inconclusive. Although I believe Jesus is the Truth (whether literally or through metaphor), I no longer believe he is ‘accessible’ through the bible. It is because of the canonized bible that he has become isolated in a hidden and inaccessible part of history.

I have come to believe the New Testament is a product of what would become mainline Christianity and Christians of the early church. The 1st-Century Church was not a product of the New Testament. I no longer believe the early church was shaped by the New Testament, but that only a certain 'branch' shaped it. I’ve come to believe various other ‘branches’ were simply snuffed out – they lost the ‘competition’.

~

I needed to ask myself a question:
Do I believe in God?
Let's not be sidetracked here. I am not asking whether I believe in Church (or Synagogues, or Temples, or Mosques); I'm not questioning whether I believe in Religion or the organized institution. I don't.
But do I believe in God?

That's not really the important question. (Even demons believe in God, they just don't obey God). Belief in itself really isn't the question or issue. The real question is, Do I want to be obedient to God?
But how is one to know the will of God, most especially without Religion?

I've come to the conclusion that I am a Religious Pluralist.
I do not believe all religions lead to God... I believe no religion leads to God.

God is not a nationalist. God does not suffer from Tribalism. That is a human affliction.
I have chosen to seek out God's word, wherever it may be found – I have chosen to find God's Spirit wherever it might lead – I have chosen to find God's wisdom wherever it may thrive.

I realize there are some inherent difficulties with this perspective. I have hoped more than ever to attempt to explore these difficulties, without beginning with a preconceived notion.
It had become draining.

I am seeking out the truth; little to do with happiness or approval or worthiness.
But seeking the truth for what purpose? I don't believe the truth is a goal but a process, a journey. And I am beginning to believe that is where Christianity ends for me.

In its attempt to become the only truth, Christianity has effectively made what actual truth it possesses inaccessible at worst and only 'knowable' through 'faith' at best. If it were only willing to compromise its exclusivity to the truth, this might not have been the case.

The proof is in the pudding. Christianity is no longer a world sweeping religion.

I think I am at a point where I need to move past Christianity. I realize this might sound like an arrogant statement. I realize one can spend two lifetimes studying the bible and Christian history and doctrine, but I am not speaking of moving beyond some sort of academic knowledge.

I have had Christians imply to me that family members (wife and children) will not be saved.
I have lost friends through Christianity, having hedged themselves slowly away from the world in hopes of maintaining “Holiness” and “Purity”.
I have been “un-invited” to a Christian 'coffee-house' kind of discussion group before – ostracized from any further contact. Told not to phone or email.
I have enjoyed warmer welcomes and hospitalities from secular and even atheist friends of mine. To be honest, I prefer the company I find out there in the “spiritual wilderness” more than I do behind church doors.

I am beginning to believe that Christianity is a religion that failed; that Christ was the God who failed through his followers.

I believe God encompasses and reveals His truth to all people in all cultures. The moment we feel justified in defending God (like an omnipotent deity needs our defense) is the same moment we abandon God and fall victim to idolatry; creating God in our own image and defending our concept of the god we hold.

Woven
Aug. 28/09

I can carry Taoist values, as reflected through certain martial arts - dichotomies often existing in harmony, not at the expense of one another.

I can learn the tranquility of the Buddhist, to let go of issues that cause stress, as there is a time and place for passivity.

I can value, revere, and worship the divine directly through Nature, paralleling paganism.

I am free to hold Christian and monotheistic metaphoric truths to further understand the incomprehensible and hope to love others better, without the trappings of literalism, tribalism and legalism.

I can appreciate and accept Catholicism’s veneration of the Virgin Mary as a manifestation of the much needed yet unaddressed divine-feminine.

I can see the symbolic power and beauty of Orthodox icons and not suffer from idolatry.

Because of the Gnostics, I hope to be free of the addictive nature of historicity and religiosity.

I need not abandon the open-eyed skepticism of the Humanist, Atheist, or Agnostic on watchful guard for liars, “words of knowledge”, cheats, spiritual frauds, “prophetic gifts”, and charlatans.

~

I am Woven; a living tapestry of identities, languages, cultures, and faiths.
A piece of burlap; Strong and tightly bound, yet unbound in my liberty.
I am not a subject of the lowest common denominator. I am a gestalt. The unweaving of one part is the undoing of the whole.

What the Religionist must call purification – the purging of alien practices and ways – is to become unwoven. A single thread is easier to capture than a richly woven tapestry.

The lost, the forgotten, the abused, the broken, the abandoned, the common, and the mundane; we are woven.

A Review of Mark Townsend's “The Path of the Blue Raven”.

2009-10-03T17:06:00.000-07:00

I've decided to go out on the limb with this review, so to speak, in hopes of capturing a certain essence of this book. The author, Mark Townsend is honest - sometimes brutally so - and raw, and it is this that I hope to relate in my choice of quotes.

The picture of the God Mark Townsend has learned to see is simply marvelous! He speaks of Jesus thus,

“It's a marvelously messy and muddled up picture of a 'god who meets us in the shit' – divinely intertwined with the animal muck! How native! How Celtic! How wonderful!

“And what about the wandering preacher's final hours? Well the story tells of a gruesome experience – one load of shit after another. He was betrayed, rejected, beaten, spat upon, humiliated and then killed in the ugliest way possible. And the period between birth and death was not much better. He was misunderstood, called names, chased out of town, viewed with suspicion and cursed with a group of total misfits who kept getting it wrong. This is the god-image who lives in the gutter rather than at the top of the ladder.” (pg. 51)

“... the divine is not separate from us, the divine is not afraid of darkness and messed up humans. The symbolic god-man Jesus shows us how to find the beauty – the hidden treasure – by looking right beneath our feet. If there is one phrase I could use to sum up the glory of the whole Christian gift it is Transfigured Shit. Honest and real spirituality is not primarily concerned with making folk 'good' but 'true'...” (pg. 52)

I cannot count how many times I've heard a Christian tell me that God doesn't change his mind; that God is immutable... yet paradoxically (or maybe hypocritically) they whole-heartedly believe the Crucifixion somehow changed God's mind – that mankind was doomed, wallowing in its damnation – then, because of some sort of satisfied blood lust, changed His mind. Yet this is a good and loving God?! It just doesn't jive. It never did.

“The sacrificial love displayed on the cross does not change God's mind about us(as the so called objective views of the Atonement). The spectacle of the cross changes us not God! How? By displaying costly love rather than brutal judgment.

“If we see Jesus as a literal, perfect offering, a human blood sacrifice, then we have no choice but to view God as wrathful, and who needs his mind changing by having Jesus pay the price for our sins. He dies, we get let off the hook!

“But if we see the symbol of the god-man Jesus hanging on a tree as a selfless act of love, joining humankind at its ugliest, lowest, shittiest place, and not retaliating with any sense of hatred of revenge, than there is more chance of our own view of God being changed. We might even fall in love with such a loving God rather than being terrified of Him”. (pg. 79)

This book at first struck me as meandering and without a direction, until I realized the journey itself was the direction. That I had been conditioned over countless books and authors to expect to be preached to, expecting to be told how things are. It was a forgone conclusion that I was going to be told what to think. I was pleasantly surprised.

Interestingly enough the last person I met who gave me “permission” to question, explore, and grow was a baptist youth minister who has since left ministry. (Never my pastor, but always my good friend).

Now I've “met” Mark Townsend, a Church of England priest who also has left ministry. Mark Townsend, through “The Path of the Blue Raven” also gives this same sort of “permission” to question, explore, and grow in our spirituality. But he does more than just this. It is an invitation and a fearless one full of innocence and absolute wonder of a truly jaw-dropping God! It is refreshing, comical at times, painful at others, and always truthful. Mark seems to demonstrate little fear with leaving himself transparent and vulnerable. There are numerous moments when I felt he was telling my story, so closely I could relate.

Definitely a book worth the read!

Review of George Barna's The Seven Faith Tribes

2009-08-12T00:01:00.000-07:00

Review of George Barna's The Seven Faith Tribes

Review of Carl McColman's Spirituality: A Postmodern and Interfaith Approach to Cultivating a Relationship with God

2009-05-25T23:57:00.000-07:00

Review of Carl McColman's Spirituality: A Postmodern and Interfaith Approach to Cultivating a Relationship with God

Plagued by Passover

2009-04-13T07:07:00.001-07:00

As both a Jew and a rabbi the week before Passover is for me one of the most painful times of the Jewish liturgical year. While my friends are cleaning their homes of chumetz, the foodstuffs and products forbidden to Jews during Passover, and preparing for their Passover Seders commemorating our people's exodus from Egypt, I find myself agonizing over the terrible misfortune this week held for the ancient Egyptians.

This past Wednesday at sundown, the anniversary night before our exodus from slavery, Jews all over the world gathered to celebrate our god and good fortune. Yet that very night is the anniversary of a horrifying mass murder as well. That night our god slaughtered thousands upon thousands of innocent first-born Egyptians boys and men to make a point: that Yahweh alone is God (Exodus 7:2-5). As the Ten Plagues are read during the Seder Jews diminish the wine in their cups so as to take no joy in Egyptian suffering, but this is an insufficient gesture in the face of the needless horrors inflicted upon the ancient Egyptians.

The plagues in general and the tenth plague in particular are examples of collective punishment unparalleled until the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the Holocaust was not punishment but genocide). It was Pharaoh, not the Egyptian people who enslaved the Hebrews. It was Pharaoh, not the Egyptian people, who ordered the death of the newborn Hebrew boys. The murder of the first-born sons of Egypt, the innocent along with the guilty, is not an act of justice, but of madness perpetrated by a god whose thirst for blood, both human and animal, seems endless. Is this the god I race out of Egypt to follow?

Those of you who are Christians may imagine you have escaped the clutches of this brutal god, following instead the Prince of Peace who made love his creed (Matthew22: 37-39), and the hallmark of his followers (John 13:34-35). But who is the god behind Good Friday? Is it not the same god whose thirst for blood can only be slaked by the murder of his Son? Isn't this what Jesus' death ransoms us from: a god who demands blood, whether it is the blood of Jesus or of all humanity? Isn't Jesus' death supposed to ransom us from eternal damnation? And even if it does, the god who creates such insanity remains unchallenged. While the Easter resurrection may prove the truth of the Son, it does nothing to change the nature of the Father who sent him. Indeed, the very notion that failure to accept Jesus as one's Lord and Savior results in eternal damnation makes plain to anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear that the god of the Passover is unrepentant and unchanged, and that his followers, by whatever name, are still trapped in a system of unsurpassed brutality.

Why? Because the gods we worship have nothing to do with God, and everything to do with us. We create god in our image. The god we create is the god we desire, and the god who sanctions our desires. And what we desire above all else is to impose our will on the world that we might grasp what we want when we want it. We create a murderous god along with a way to shield ourselves from being murdered even as we stand idle while the murder of "the other" is done in our name and by our hands washed clean by our god who revels in it.

I am ashamed of the silence of Moses in the face of Egyptian horror. I am ashamed of the willingness of Jesus to be the Lamb of God, to die for us rather than challenge the cult of death his Father relishes.

What we need today is not another Moses leading his people to freedom over the corpses of their neighbors. What we need is not another Jesus who submits his will to god's will and takes his place upon the cross (Matthew 26:39). What we need today is the Abraham who dared to confront God's madness and injustice, insisting that the Judge of all the world act justly (Genesis 18:25). What we need is the indignation of the Hebrew prophets whose God has no need of blood and death, and desires only justice, compassion, and humility (Micah 6:8). But we will not get what we need; we will only get what we are. And what we are is a species enslaved to enslaving others whether in this world or the next.

My prayer for this Passover Week and Easter Sunday is not one of praise and thanksgiving, worshipping the god of my own insanity. My prayer is this: "May steadfast love and faithfulness meet, may righteousness and peace kiss" (Psalm 85:10), and may humanity be free of gods that we might at last hear the call to justice and compassion for all life that is the hallmark of the true God.

Plagued by Passover was written for Passover and Easter by Rabbi Rami Shapiro.
Rabbi Rami is widely recognized as one of the most creative figures in contemporary American Judaism. A graduate of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, he also holds a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Union Graduate School. An award-winning poet, liturgist, and essayist, his prayers are included in worship services across the denominational spectrum of American congregations.

The Back Cover of the Bible

2009-03-29T10:41:00.000-07:00

[Please allow me to apologize to Roman Catholics first. I do not write this particular post against Catholicism nor Catholics. I have the utmost respect for them, myself having come from this background. Any apparent antagonism against Catholicism is illusionary at most. I express my following opinion and thoughts simply due to the fact that I have began my 'journey' - if you will - from a Catholic paradigm which I no longer hold. It is simply part of my story].

The Back Cover of the Bible

As in all religions, Catholicism also has its source material and its source authority structure. In Catholicism there is Holy Scripture and there is Holy Tradition. Both are authoritative.

Holy Scripture is the bible. That one is pretty straight forward.
Holy Tradition – for all intent and purposes – includes any rulings of the various Church Councils (believing to have also been divinely revealed, guided, inspired, and protected), and Papal Infallibility (also divinely revealed, guided, and inspired). In short, after Jesus Christ, divine revelation began and continues to this day.

(It is obvious to me that the Church (capital “C”) has come off the rails at some point.
Although I am sure we will all share this particular opinion, I think I have a perspective no other within our group does, and thus can bring a very different 'angle'. Although not Catholic, I come from a Roman Catholic background, was essentially brought up through a Catholic education system, and was left with little options (at least in my earlier years) at viewing all things theological or spiritual through a Catholic lense.)

The next question becomes when did the Church come off the rails? It's really a rhetorical question. I'm not interested in pursuing this line of thought. But the point itself is important.

Maybe a better question should be, where is the dividing line between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition? Well, that one isn't a rhetoric question and it's easy to answer. That dividing line is clearly the back cover of the bible.

...Going off on a slight tangent; Martin Luther never wanted to do away with the Catholic Church or make it defunct; only correct certain problems. He created a Frankenstein's monster, didn't he? He, more or less, gave birth to the Protestant Reformation.

The Reformation realized that the Church had come off the rails and rather than become bogged down with attempting to determine when, dropped the “cutting edge” down at that clean decisive point between Holy Tradition and Holy Script; the bible's back cover. Done away with was Holy Tradition and Papal Infallibility in an attempt to return to the original, the first century church.

~

1) The bible is not a book. It is a library of books wrapped in a man-made cover. (Couldn't it be said that this “man-made” cover was divinely revealed through a church council (Holy Tradition)?)

2) Holy Tradition (and church history) did not begin after the back cover of the bible, but began within the confines of the bible.

3) The Protestant Reformation had in effect removed the validity of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility from all Popes (including the first Pope, Peter) yet allows “Papal Infallibility” under the disguise of Biblical Inerrency to apply to Paul's writings.

I personally am of the opinion that the Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth preached the Kingdom of God but got the Church instead... or maybe it was that Yeshua preached the Kingdom of God but the Church preached Jesus...?

So we go back past the Pauline Epistles and directly to the Gospels themselves.

...and here lies the problem. The Gospels were all written significantly after the Epistles by members of the first century church.

I find myself in a dilemma. I find myself at a dead end with no obvious way forward.
The way forward would seem to me to be to listen to where God's voice leads?

Truth Claims

God is so exalted beyond the capacities of mortal men that it is impossible to describe God or even hint at the nature of God's essence. Consequently it is impossible for humans – even scholars and theologians – to capture God's glory in words. All descriptions then are limited by the viewpoint of the making them. No matter how hard a person strives for knowledge of the divine the only achievement will be better knowledge of one's own self.

Using the metaphor of a compass: No matter how far the compass travels, it is only going around the point at its center and, similiarily, however much men may strive and achieve within the realms of spiritual knowledge, ultimately they are only achieving a better and greater knowledge of themselves (or of the Absolute manifested within themselves), not of any exterior Absolute.

[I know this sounds like monism, which would seem to contradict a dualistic belief. (Dualism says, “there are fundamental differences between the human and the divine”. Monism says, “there are no fundamental difference between the human and the divine”.)

We must give up the rational laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle.

The apparent contradiction arises only because of our limited capacity which prevents us from seeing them both as correct. This can be intuited but not known conceptually or logically.]

Understood this way, all theology is partial and relative (hence the theory of relativism which effectively deals with conflicting truth claims between the religions).

All religions are equally valid in that they embody equally valid human responses to the divine (although we shouldn't rule out that some small religions and cults may be false).

The different religions reflect different stages in a single process, namely, the progressive unfolding of religious truth. Differences between the various religions are regarded as a functions of the different social conditions and receptive capacity of individuals that prevailed at the time and place that these religions first appeared.

Religions truth is not absolute but relative.
Divine revelations is progressive, not final.

~

"The true spiritually achieved one respects the natural spiritual world without having to personify it with a white or purple robe or a gold crown. That is junk. It is really childish. It is not true. Religions fight each other over the conceptual level of life. Once you formalize God with a certain shape and color and robe, you fight over what is in your mind as opposed to what is in someone else's mind. At the true spiritual level, conceptual vision is both all right and all wrong, until you reach the subtle essence...
...There is no separate "God" in the realm of integral truth."
Hua-Ching Ni

Ultimately, when we attempt to force God into a pre-defined box, we are completely in error. Our perceptions of who or what God is is extremely cultural in nature.
Rather then attempting to force God into a preconceived box of definitions we attempt to force others into following these preconceptions is when human suffering, misery, and pain begins.
To me, this is the process of religious conversion.

Lewis Black's ”me of little faith”

2009-03-25T17:10:00.000-07:00

I've always enjoyed a comedian's perspective on certain things.
My father had given me a book for Christmas; Lewis Black's me of little faith and I am just reading it now.
Lewis Black says this,

“Can't you just practice what Jesus preaches and live a good and upright life? Isn't that spiritual enough? What if you did do that and because you didn't believe in God, he sent you to hell? Well, for me that would sure justify not believing in him in the first place, especially if he's going to be such a prick”.
Lewis Black, ”me of little faith”.

An interesting question. A question I'm sure many wonder.
Any thoughts, opinions, comments?

(And the answer, “the bible says so”, isn't really a good answer, is it?)

Spiritual but Not Religious

2009-03-19T15:58:00.000-07:00

I used to know an older Presbyterian Elder and his wife who would say this.
“We're spiritual but not religious”. It was a conversation opener. Unfortunately it was also a bait and switch tactic to lure you into their 'religion'.

Maybe we should ask the questions, ”What does it mean to be spiritual”? and ”What does it mean to be religious”? What is really at the core of these ideas?

I think religion is about fear.
Fear of pain.
Fear of misery.
Fear of suffering.
Fear of death.
Religion is about control. Attempting to control these fears, or our attempts at gaining control over others through use of these fears.

Religion without fear is tradition. I don't see tradition as harmful.

I think spirituality is about compassion. What Karen Armstrong says is ”that universal principle of empathy and respect at the core of all major religions”; the reason why Yeshua said his yoke was light (Matthew 11:30).

I think spirituality should accomplish solace for the individual and install compassion towards others.

It isn't difficult for me to imagine what spirituality might look like without religiosity. But it is incredibly difficult for me to imagine what spirituality would look like without compassion. I suppose it would be little more than spiritual masturbation. Maybe that's what religion is. Just another addiction. Porn for the soul.

Zen or Zoe?

2008-10-06T19:32:00.000-07:00

”Life as an end is qualitatively different from life as a means.”

This line from a book I'm currently reading forced me to stop and give it a significant amount of thought. It isn't important what the book is or who the author was. It also isn't important what context it was stated in. It strikes me as a ”stand alone” statement.

~

What is Life? Is Life a means to an end – and if so, to what end – or is Life an end or purpose onto itself?

If Life is the purpose itself, then Yeshua (among others) becomes a guide into how to live that life. It also leads to another very divisive issue; Is man innately good?

These paradigms drastically shape how we understand, how we choose to interpret, and how we absorb Yeshua's teachings and example.

If Life is only a means to an end – and I am going to presume that salvation of the human soul is that end – then one must believe man is inherently hopeless, corrupt, or worse.

I think this is a fundamental difference between Eastern and Western Religion and Philosophies.

Western Religion (Christianity) lacks faith in mankind. It believes man to be innately corrupt and evil. And by implication, embraces Hopelessness in a certain sense.

Eastern Religion/Philosophies have hope and faith in mankind, but realize it is in need of guidance.

One puts its faith and hope only in a postmortem future while the other believe in the now.

(And on a side note, I am not convinced the “religion” the Jewish Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth taught was necessarily a “western” religion in its original form, nor am I convinced that it was what Western Christianity has today become).

~

I am going to leave you with two questions to ponder. Please don't confuse what I am asking you. I am not asking you what your interpretation of your religion teaches. I am asking what you think:

Is Life a means to an end, or is Life the purpose itself?
Do you believe man is innately good?

What Happens When You Die?

2008-09-01T10:36:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking alot about how I'm going to teach my children about the after life when they are old enough to start asking questions. I've been thinking about it because I do NOT want to leave this up to whatever church I happen to be going to at the time. I think I will use the following parable:

When you die you go to a road that stretches out in two directions. One goes to Heaven, the other goes to Hell. You are free to choose the path that goes to Hell but before you get there you will encounter the body of Jesus blocking the path. You will have to step over Jesus' body and jump into Hell. No one will force you to jump in, but you must step over the body of Jesus and jump in yourself.

If you choose the path that leads to Heaven, then all along the path you will encounter the times you hurt others and hurt yourself. Each encounter will have a lesson for you to learn. Once you have learned all the lessons of all the times in your life that you hurt others or hurt yourself you will be able to enter Heaven.

Evil and The Devil

2008-08-24T19:52:00.001-07:00

The Devil has been coming up in different conversations recently and caused me to do some thinking about what I think the Devil is. Humans have always had impulses they have a hard time controlling. Humans will want to do one thing but do another and later feel guilty about making the wrong choice. Before there was the language of psychology and neuroscience humans needed some way to talk about the impulses they had that they found difficult to control. In ancient times they used the language of the Devil and demons. When I hear people talking such a way at church or on TV I usually try to translate it into something that is personally meaningful for me. Probably my favorite way of talking about evil and the Devil is the Jungian idea of the shadow.

I like the idea of the shadow because it allows people to own their own "evilness" without the threat of being squashed by God. It also allows people to realize their "evilness" is coming from somewhere within and if they "own" it they can diffuse its power. I think people that are busy externalizing evilness and sin and condemning it are people that have not owned their own evilness - i.e. Ted Haggard. (Not that homosexuality is evil. Ted thought his desires were evil and was not able to own them so they got the better of him).

I like the idea of the external personification of evil (Devil with horns and pitchfork) because it allows people to disassociate their "evilness" if it is to threatening to own it. It also just helps to externalize things and blame them on something to be honest. The most important thing is for people to begin a dialogue about the evil they see within themselves. The can begin this dialogue just with themselves personally or with someone else. If externalizing evil to a literal sentient Devil is what they need to do to begin thinking about it then I say it is a good idea.

For example if someone is really self-condemning or just hard on themselves you can suggest that it is the Devil telling them these things because they are really meant for great things and when the Devil tells them they are lazy/ugly/whatever they should tell themselves what a lie that is and immediately tell themselves the opposite - that they're worthwhile/beautiful/etc.

What are your thoughts on the Devil? Is he a literal sentient being? Has the idea of the Devil outlived its usefulness and is more destructive than anything?

Oranges and Mangos

2008-08-09T16:25:00.000-07:00

“It is good that an orange is an orange and a mango is a mango. The color, the smells, and the tastes are different, but... we see that they are both authentic fruits.
If religions are authentic, they contain the same elements of stability, joy, peace, understanding, and love. The similarities as well as the differences are there. They differ only in terms of emphasis”.Thich Nhat Hanh, "Living Buddha, Living Christ".

I think this is a very good analogy and understanding of Religious Pluralism.

However, this understanding runs into a direct problem, a direct confrontation with Jesus. No, strike that. The problem isn't with Jesus. The confrontation and problem is with mainstream Christian theology, Doctrine, and ideology.

I think the following statement from Pope John Paul II's book, “The Threshold of Hope”, summons up the collective voice of Christendom's concern best:

“Christ is absolutely original and absolutely unique”.

“Of course Christ is unique." answers Thich Nhat Hanh, "But who is not unique? Socrates, Muhammed, the Buddha, you, and I are all unique. The idea behind the statement, however, is the notion that Christianity provides the only way of salvation and all other religious traditions are of no use. This attitude excludes dialogue and fosters religious intolerance and discrimination.”Thich Nhat Hanh, "Living Buddha, Living Christ".

Christianity will tell you that this position not only denies the divinity of Christ, but denies Christ Himself...
... but I'm not convinced that it does.

I have come to the conclusion that the New Testament as we have it today was shaped by the 1st-Century Church and not the other way around. The 1st-Century Church was not a product of the New Testament.

The four canonized gospels were written significantly after the rest of the New Testament books. Is there any way of knowing whether they were written as a supplement to the Pauline Epistles and possibly influenced or tainted by them? Are the four canonized gospels historically accurate or are they a rewritten and reinterpreted history?

I am at a point where I believe the evidence is inconclusive. Although I believe Jesus is the Truth, I no longer believe he is ‘accessible’ through the bible. It is because of the canonized bible that he has become isolated in a hidden and inaccessible part of history.

I believe the eternal and divine "Cosmic Christ" (Logos?) is a projection (and undeterminately a construct) of the church and also (emperically) inaccessible.

The real issue comes down to one's understanding of what the Incarnation is.

"...the idea of divine incarnation,... in which both genuine humanity and genuine deity are insisted upon, has never been given a satisfactory literal sense; but that on the other hand it makes excellent metaphorical sense. When, for example, Gandhi, asked what his message was, said that his life itself was his message, he was saying that his message was embodied, incarnated, made visible, in his life. For a human life can 'incarnate', or live out, truths and values". John Hick, "The Metaphor of God Incarnate"

"It is a natural tendency of man to personify qualities like love, freedom, understanding, and also the ultimate... The true body of Jesus is His teaching. The teaching of Jesus is His living body, and this living body of Christ manifests itself whenever and wherever His teaching is practiced".Thich Nhat Hanh, "Living Buddha, Living Christ".

I can say with all honesty and a clear conscious, that I believe Jesus was a perfectly accurate reflection of the divine; a metaphor of God at least/for certain. I can also honestly say I believe the Jewish Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth was fully, wholly, and completely human.

But was he literally God incarnate? I had struggled with this quesiton for in excess of 8 years.

Must he be literally God incarnate?
I've stopped asking this question. I think the answer to that question hinges soley on choice, is inconclusive, but damningly divisive and destructive. I have come to leave it unanswered.

Many will tell me this means I cannot be a Christain. It isn't a title I've proclaimed nor treasure anyway.

Others will begin launching biblical verses at me, demanding that I account for their meaning while in actual fact, only attempting to defend their personal positions.

Well, what is the most important thing a Christian believes in?
The Bible? A man? His teachings? Or what He represents?

When we force the question of, "Was Jesus literally God" to be answered, we begin a journey down a path that cannot end in any other way but intolerance, discrimination, suffering, and a counterfeit religion. It ceases to be authentic – and some might argue – even valid.

"Worship me or burn" is not the core message.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not denying your Christian God. I am simply not willing to force a belief into a fact.

I'm through with posing, or pretending, or allowing others to think I'm something I may, or may not be.

This is who I am and where I find myself today. I am not forcing it upon you. You can take it or leave it. You can accept me or reject me for who I truly am. But I am what I am and I'm extending to you the open honesty I usually reserve for God alone.

Am I fearful of the possible consequenses? Yes. But I refuse to wear this mask any longer

Windblown

2008-06-10T15:35:00.000-07:00

I have never been comfortable with this statement, or profession of “faith”, because it is professing faith in the wrong thing – a book. Not only is it blind faith and circular thinking, it misplaces faith in a book and not God (and I don’t care if it’s the Torah, the Bible, or the Qur’an). It is the first step towards idolatry - biblio-idolatry to be specific.

The fact of the matter is, there are conflicts, inconsistencies, and incompatibilities between the Old Testament and the New Testament (if there wasn’t we’d have never heard of Gnosticism), most especially when Christians narrowly focus only on the bible’s words as ultimate and absolute authority.*

Admittedly there are conflicts and incompatibilities between the Bible and the Qur’an as well*, but, once again, only when viewed (by both sides) through the paradigm of a book as being the source of authority and not God.

The real issue isn’t whether the Torah of the Old Testament and the New Testament are not compatible, nor whether the bible and the Qur’an are in conflict and suffer incompatibility. We are misled and misdirected when we focus on and come into conflict over these issues. We fall victim to pride and seek to answer the question of whose right rather than listening to the voice of the Spirit.

When we decide to follow the Way of Yeshua (or the Holy Spirit for that matter) we must decide whether

A) we will narrowly focus only on a book’s words as our pinnacle of authority, or

B) allow the principles of the Spirit beneath the words to be our guiding force.

It is these two possibilities that are in conflict. It is these two options that are totally incompatible. There is no happy medium between these two points.

You deliberately follow the letter of the law, or you deliberately follow the spirit of the law. You may only do both incidentally. One will shackle and bind you while the other will set you free – whether Jew, Christian, Muslim, freeman, master, or slave.

And it is important to make note that Yeshua was very specific about disregarding the will and direction of the Holy Spirit.

* I suspect these incompatibilities stem from different and varying authors, historic contexts, and cultures btw.

Jet Li's views on religion

2008-06-10T14:57:00.000-07:00

"Is there a religion that is superior morally and spiritually with respect to all others? I strongly believe the answer is no. Sure, religions differ from one another in their outward trappings, in the Gods their followers worship, in the customs and rituals which their practitioners observe. But upon closer inspection, the underlying heart and central principle in every religion is the same. Every religion boils down to love, to a respect for all living things, to choosing peace over violence as a means of resolving a conflict. The essence is universal; it is only the means to the end that varies.

"If intrinsically all religions preach the same thing, then why all the different world religions and their numerous offshoots? The explanation, I believe, lies in the fact that people across the world live under very different circumstances. Depending on the cultural, historical, and geographical background of the individual, some religions are easier to understand and practice than others. An individual may opt to follow a certain religion because it falls in place with the way he or she interacts with society at large. Perhaps the religion helps foster and protect the pre-established living patterns along which the individual is used to following. Or maybe the religion helps the individual confront a longstanding fear or personal weakness.

"I like to explain the technical side of the proliferation of such a wide variety of religions through the concept of Bagua, a Chinese form of mathematics. As I've already pointed out, the common denominator of all religions is the concept of love and forgiveness. A tree trunk grows branches; in the same way, the major world religions (such as Buddhism and Christianity) spring from the root source of love. From these major world religions other smaller sects and subdivisions arise, like twigs from a bough. Populations in different regions throughout the world put a differentiating mark on what is otherwise the same religion and make them into unique ones, out of cultural, moral, or sometimes even political reasons. For instance, the Buddhist sects found in India differ from those, say, in China. And from those sub-religions arise another smaller and more specialized set of other sub-religions. It's an infinite process of divisions and offshoots. But if you reverse the process of proliferation and retrace the paths of all these religious sects, you find that they all boil down to one common root - love.

"Another analogy to religion I always like to draw is that of school. In every school, you have different departments that teach different subjects, such as mathematics, English, history, and science. Within each of these departments, you have another set of divisions. For science, there are the divisions of physics, biology, chemistry, and so forth. And within each of these divisions lie another set of subdivisions, and so forth. Different subjects with different areas of specialization - but the purpose is the same - education.

"Why then, one might ask, are there religions that preach evil deeds? Why has religion, in numerous historical instances, been used to promote and justify the acts of terrorism, political propaganda, cult suicides, and so forth? Here, I think it is crucial to draw a distinction between the religion itself and the way with which an individual or group of people may choose to interpret or use such a religion. Sometimes, for political motivations or for a personal agenda, a group of people in power may choose to distort a particular religion to serve their own self-interest. In that case, the essence of the religion - love- is no longer pure and has been warped by a negative outside factor. In the continual proliferation and outgrowth of so many different religions, it is inevitable that distorting factors such as self-interest are introduced and divorce the resulting new "religion" from its original intent.

"Hence, it is important to remember that religion, per se, is a good thing. When one practices a religion, one should be aware of what it is ultimately about and not be misled into blind practice of its specific tenets. I always believe it is important to develop such an awareness. Rote memorization and recitation of a religion's principles and ideas, and perfunctory performance of its rituals mean little if one doesn't live it. Only through a lifestyle of generosity, kindness, and love, and a positive contribution to humankind can one consider oneself a true practitioner of any religion."
Jet Li

The Unspoken Rules of Lego

2008-06-02T14:37:00.000-07:00

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (chapter 26), I like what Pirsig has to say about the Japanese Mu as a “third option”; ”unask the question”; the context of the question asked is in error. The concept itself isn't really new to me, it's just nice to have a word, a name to actually identify it with. It makes the abstract and nameless concept so much more solid and concrete.

I think this may actually apply to the Unspoken Rules of building with Lego.

I've built with Lego and I've watched my children build with Lego. It always begins the same way: with a bag or a box (or possibly a bucket or pail) of blocks. After that, the sky's the limit as to what may be created! Houses, cars, trucks, animals, people, letters, etc., etc., etc.. This is always true, regardless of what the boxed set was supposed to be. Right or wrong, you can still build an alphabet letter out of a medieval castle set. I suppose it could be said that one is only limited by their imagination.

Although I'm not sure what the Unspoken Rules of Lego are, I am sure that they exist. Now, I realize this is free play we are talking about, but what if we were to view playing with Lego as an unsolved problem or question? Say you could not “find” the answer in the almost unlimited varieties of forms. What would the Japanese Mu option be here? What would Lego's Unspoken Rules be?

Build outside the box... literally.
Get pieces from another set. Or, even better yet, try out Megabloks. They are compatible you know.

Let's step away from this analogy. What I am talking about is understanding God. I agree, it isn't enough to say, ”Yes, I believe in God”. It must go one step further and ask the question, ”How am I to know God's will so that I may attempt to follow it?”
Too often this question is assumed to be, how am I to understand the bible, or, more specifically, the Unspoken Rules of understanding the bible. Let's be clear here; I am not talking about interpreting the bible. There are numerous ideas, theologies, and doctrines, all built from the bible. But that is the unspoken rule, isn't it? That the 'building blocks' are all contained within the bible. This isn't a question of understanding and interpreting the bible. This is a question of understanding God.

I've built with Lego and I've watched my children build with Lego. It always begins the same way: with a bag or a box (or possibly a bucket or pail) of blocks. After that, the sky's the limit as to what may be created! Houses, cars, trucks, animals, people, letters, etc., etc., etc.. This is always true, regardless of what the boxed set was supposed to be. Right or wrong, you can still build an alphabet letter out of a medieval castle set. I suppose it could be said that one is only limited by their imagination. What if playing with Lego was an unsolved problem or question?

How big is your bag of Lego?

Care to share your opinions or join the conversation?

Repairing the Torn Veil

2008-04-20T08:11:00.000-07:00

Part I: The Bad News First

“… only one conclusion is possible… religion that human beings must get right in order to have a correct relationship with god – is a subject that shouldn’t be given Christian houseroom… There were no works of any kind we had to get right to achieve the relationship; we had only to trust him and be pleasantly surprised at the light burden he had substituted for the iron yoke of religion” Fr. Robert Capon

“Therefore, when Jesus would say to people “your sins are forgiven” (see Matthew 9:2; Luke 7:6-50), he was not just being a source of encouragement to hurting people. He was completely bypassing the religious system of his day and helping people connect with God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness, directly… So offering forgiveness to sinners directly was, in a way, both a creative and destructive gesture. Creative for the human spirit; destructive for the religious system. At the same moment he was building people up, Jesus was also tearing religion down.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 135.

Bruxy Cavey quotes William C. Plancher as saying,
“’If you couldn’t buy the right kind of animal, then how could you sacrifice? If you couldn’t sacrifice, why have a Temple? By his actions, Jesus seems to be challenging the very basis of religion’”

Herbert Haag, in his book “Upstairs Downstairs: Did Jesus Want a Two-Class Church?”, shares this same opinion:

“Jesus’ threats of the imminent destruction of the Temple should not be overlooked… When Jesus announces that he will rebuild the destroyed Temple in three days, this can only mean the absolute end of the Jerusalem Temple and of any earthly temple at all, and indeed not just of the Temple as a building but of it as it functioned in the way Jesus had experienced it… [D]riving the traders out of the Temple [and] the expulsion of those selling animals and the action against the money-changers… can only have been directed against the Temple practice of sacrifice…If Jesus drives out those buying and selling animals and overturns the tables of the money-changers – all of which was necessary for the conduct of sacrifices – then he makes the whole traditional ritual of sacrifice impossible, he proclaims it to be over and done with… One should indeed bear in mind “that the Temple ritual was genuinely for Israel a heavenly gift through which God wished to save his people from the consequences of their sins and trespasses… When Jesus started driving the traders and buyers out of the Temple and when he overturned the tables of the money-changers and of the pigeon-sellers, then he was offending against the only thing that could secure the continued existence of the people of God’.” Herbert Haag, “Upstairs Downstairs: Did Jesus Want a Two-Class Church?”, pg. 52-53.

Its interesting that the book’s title questions a two-class system – or more specifically, a priesthood-class; Clergy and laity. It made me question, what exactly did Jesus ‘banish’ at the temple?

“…he was upset with the institution’s financial practices, charging too much money for their services and the like. But the meaning runs deeper than that. A den of robbers is not a place where thieves go to rob people, but where they go to hide out after they have done the robbing. The religious system of Israel (like any religious system today) was repeatedly used as a spiritual hideout for people with a guilty conscience. Rather than change how they lived, the people of Israel simply added a little religion to their lives to keep everything balanced. Like the godfather going to Mass on Sunday morning or going to confessional before returning to his life of crime, religious systems make it all too easy for self-centered people to find comfort in familiar rituals without experiencing a change of heart or committing to a life of love.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 136-137.

I cannot help but think of Roman Catholicism because of the references to the Mass and the Sacrament of Confession. It has also made me think that the Temple System that Jesus was so set against is very similar to Sacramental Theology. And Sacramental Theology requires a priesthood-class.

It would seem to be that those denominations that subscribe to Sacramental Theology also adhere to the need of those who administer the sacraments. This would specifically be the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and most Orthodox Churches. They would seem to be attempted to repair the veil Jesus torn upon his death. The symbolism is very important because it would be an attempt to undo what Christ had done.

However, before we begin taking the splinter out of our brothers’ eye, maybe we should also check to see if we’ve a log in ours.

Protestantism has done away with the priesthood-class. There are no Protestant priests. Ministers and Pastors, yes, but Ministers and Pastors are not Priests. The difference may be technical or even semantic to some people, but they are not the same thing.

“Some Christians not only call the building they meet in their “church” but they also call a special room where they hold Sunday services the “sanctuary”, a word that means the sacred place where God dwells. And, to confuse our minds just a little bit more, at the front of the sanctuary is often a big table called the “altar”, a word that refers to the place of animal sacrifice in Old Testament ritual.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 139.

However, Protestantism – for the most part – maintains the tithing system. Tithing is directly linked to a priesthood-class. Although I don’t personally agree with Sacramental Theology, and by implication those that would administer sacraments (a clergy or priest-class), I have to admit, at least the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox aren’t playing both sides of the fence. How can the modern Protestant church seriously justify tithing?

“It is biblical”
No, actually, it isn’t. It was biblical for the support of a priest-class, which Jesus did away with.

“It is necessary to support the Establishment/Institution”
(This sounds dangerously close to attempting to repair the torn veil). This reasoning becomes justification for the price of admission. Therefore church would become a show, a stage, entertainment, a spectator sport. I can understand this logic to a certain point. If I were to frequent, let’s say Good Life Fitness, I should expect to pay its fees or membership fee at least. I am, in essence, a member of a club. Now this is fine and fair, however, this is not tithing and under no circumstance should be called such. Also there is the issue of the exclusivity of being a club member. This would seem to fly in the face of some of Christ’s core teachings.

Or, this “It is necessary to support the Establishment/Institution” argument must be some sort of insurance premium paid. If I don’t buy the insurance policy, I shouldn’t expect to benefit when in trouble or in need. Again, this isn’t tithing. In fact, this is closer to blackmail.

Now, I’m not suggesting that this is actually what Protestant churches are actually doing. What I am saying is that you cannot justify tithing once the priest-class has been abolished.

My point being the “Bad News” is religion itself.

Part II: Now the Good News

“Jesus seems to be saying that God’s presence is best experienced in the sacred space that exists between people when love is offered and received rather than in special buildings or pious places.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 137.

Now, many of you may be familiar with the aversion I have to what I usually call The Evangelical One-Two-Punch; First the Bad News and only then the Good News.

The first ‘punch’ is the Bad News – “you’re a sinner and you’re going to hell!” Then the second ‘punch’, the Good News – there’s hope in Jesus Christ. Just come to church and… etc., etc., etc.,… you get the idea.

However, I’m going to come across as a complete hypocrite and actually use the One-Two-Punch method of first the Bad News and then the Good News. However, I am going to use the definition Fr. Robert Capon uses for the Bad News.

“In spite of the fact that the Good News of Jesus Christ (to give Christianity one of its own titles of preference) has been seen as a religion by outsiders and been sold as one by its adherents, it is not a religion at all. Rather, it is the announcement of the end of religion... far from supplanting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Paul actually rescued the Good News of Jesus from the danger of being converted into the bad news of religion... That is why the Gospel alone is Good News and all the religions of the world – whether they're about God or some lesser thing – are bad news.”

Religion itself is the Bad News, and it is Religion itself that Jesus saves us from. Not necessarily from our sin.

But the issue that should actually force us into some serious thought, is when we look at the Bad News as religion itself (and Christianity is a religion), then what exactly does the Good News looks like now?

I will again quote from Fr. Robert Capon:

“...our baptisms (to come finally to the root sacrament of the Good News) do not divide the world into the saved (us, inside) and the lost (them, outside). Baptism – and the church it constitutes – is simply the authentic, effective sign of the mystery of the Christ who has already saved all, whether in or out.”

Once successfully freed from Religion, the Good News becomes a celebration! It becomes a mind-opening experience. It forces us not only to admit, but to legitimately see how 'big', how incredibly huge and magnificent God really is. God's love and mercy and grace no only breaks through the man-made boundaries of Religions – it decimates them!

I realize this concept terrifies many Religionists. I like what passinthru from TheOoze had to say about this:

“Once I realized my box was woefully insufficient, I started to discover that God is in so many places I once thought impossible for him to be. I discovered that when a human being helps another human being out of compassion, that regardless of the face of their faith, God is there. That when a father is utterly devoted to his family and treats them with genuine love, tenderness and respect, that regardless of what name he calls God, God is also there. God is in every true act of charity, in every landscape of breathtaking beauty, in every bar of uplifting music, in every drop of life-giving rain, and in every word on behalf of one who is defenseless, in everything of beauty and worth.

“I'm not saying I'm necessarily a Universalist. But I am saying that I don't believe that all of the actions and words of non-Christians are completely devoid of His nature and His truth.”

This topic can be engaged in conversation at TheOoze's Repairing the Torn Veil.

A Problem with Religious Pluralism

2008-04-13T05:29:00.000-07:00

Many people claim to believe in God.

Are just as many people obedient to God?

How is a Religious Pluralist to be obedient to God? To be obedient you must obey God's will. How are we to know God's will?

To the Religious Exclusivist or Inclusivist this isn't an issue (regardless of whether what they believe God's will to be is right or wrong).

If one is to believe or entertain that certain scriptural writings is a combined effort of God's revealed will and man-made agendas (which I do believe), then how are we to know which is which? How are we to discern one from the other?

This is the problem with religious pluralism. This is a problem I'd be interested in hearing an answer to.

Trinity's End

2008-04-02T18:46:00.000-07:00

I had never subscribed to the Trinity as a Doctrine. I was willing to accept the Trinity as a man-made concept; a man-made explanation to attempt to explain, or define, the nature of God. It is a useful tool to help a finite mind grasp an infinite entity and concept, but is, at its core, flawed.

The closest I've come to understanding the Triune nature of God (or more specifically, Jesus, or "God the Son") was as follows:

I cannot say with certainty whether I believe in Jesus as being truly eternal. It is a difficult issue. To me it is a paradox. I know the Father is eternal: having no beginning and no end. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I believe He became incarnate in flesh and bone in Jesus, and in that state was a temporal being (bound by the laws of physics and time). Yet He was both perfect Man and perfect God. In essence the Father “stepped into the time-stream”, exiting his state of infiniteness. But on the same note, even if you remove a small piece of an infinitely large being, you are not left with fractions. You are still left with infinite sums. (And similarly, the fraction 'broken' off must in itself remain infinite). Yet the very nature of an eternal being is not bound by the constraints of time. If it ever existed then it always existed.
However, in John Hick's "The Metaphor of God Incarnate" makes an incredibly good point on pg 52 & 53:

"[Jesus]... became conscious of being in a state of mutual I-Thou awareness with the second person of the Trinity. In these moments he was conscious of being in the presence of God the Son and at the same time aware that God the Son was conscious of him. Such a picture would seem to fit the New Testament indications – except of course that the encompassing divine presence of which Jesus was so vividly aware was not the second person of a trinity but simply God, known as abba, father.

"[A] possible way of spelling out a limited access of the human to the divine mind is in terms not of occasional consciousness-consciousness interaction but of occasional consciousness-consciousness unity. That is to say, from time to time and perhaps with varying degrees of clarity, the human mind of Jesus became conscious of its identity with the divine mind of God the Son. In these moments Jesus was consciously divine, aware that he was God the Son incarnate. This is consonant with the picture of Jesus offered in the fourth Gospel - except that there Jesus is depicted as believing that the divine presence with whom he was in unity with was God the Father: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30), 'he that hath seen me hath seen the Father' (John 14:9)."

What I had understood, or accepted, as the "left-behind", ever-present and eternal part of God, was the Father. Hick clearly makes the point that this belief necessitates this 'piece' as not being God the Father, but must only be God the Son. ... and he's right.

I can no longer accept what I had understood the Trinity - and for that matter, the Triune nature of God - to be. I know many will say or think that I have been unduly influenced by this singular book. However, that would be a wrong assumption. These are thoughts that have been on my mind, in one form or another, for more than 8 years now.

Now combine that with the impossibility of all "two-natured" theses and all "kenosis" theses (all these theses fail or end in heresy), I can no longer accept the concept of the Trinity.

How does one successfully explain, understand, and accept a literal "perfect God and perfect man" without resorting to some loose and undefined mystery? I know the cookie-cutter answer many would offer me: faith. But, again, I am forced to agree with Hick. This formula "is a humanly devised hypothesis; and we cannot save a defective hypothesis by dubbing it a divine mystery."

I am forced to conclude, "...the Christian doctrine of incarnation... has not been found to have any acceptable meaning."

The implications are also far reaching. It confirms something I have always suspected (which I wrote about in Three Syntheses): The bible (the writings of Moses and the epistles of Paul make the greatest examples: see Mat. 19:8 re. Moses, and 1 Corinth. 7:10 vs. 1 Corinth. 7:12 re. Paul) are a mixture of divine inspiration (or 'laws') as well as man-made ideas, theologies, philosophy and 'laws'.

'Seph

What makes a religion a "good" religion?

2008-04-02T05:29:00.000-07:00

I don't know if I'm for the idea that "all religions lead to the same place". There just have to be some religions bad enough out there that can be excluded from the "good religions" category, and therefore should be place in the "bad religions" category.

What would be the standard of the "good" category. Good religions tend to have abstract ideologies (which is fine and good). Good religions must also have some guidelines for putting these ideologies into practice. Here are some possibilities (admittedly expressed in Christian terms):

1. Love God - Having some kind of focus on the importance of loving God and worship. Some kind of clarification that worship is a discipline as well as being enjoyable. That act of worship necessitates the believer to receive love from God

2. Love your neighbor - It would have to have some version of The Golden Rule as even atheists agree (Sam Harris, Karen Armstrong) this is the highest form of moral development.

3. Love is the "most excellent way" - The more stuff you do where love is the motivating principle the better. i.e., NOT giving the guy on the corner a dollar if you know he's going to buy crack. Again, this is a discipline as well as something that feels good.

4. Love you enemies - This is probably the truest litmus test as far as practice goes. My personal opinion is that if a religion teaches that someone should be killed or their rights limited because they believe the wrong stuff or the religion identifies their lifestyle as sinful, than this religion fails this test. On an even more practical level is the daily discipline of this guideline. Who will I come into contact today that I must love? Who did I fail to love yesterday and how can I learn from that mistake?

Going to Church as a Pluralist

2008-03-28T11:25:00.001-07:00

I went to church for a long time as an fundamentalist evangelical ("fundagelical") and it was easy to fit in. As I was becoming a pluralist I didn't want to stop going to church because there is really no other place to have a sense of community that is available in churches. If secular humanists had churches and home groups that would be awesome, but it's just not an available option.

At various times people have asked me pointedly what I believe about Jesus. I'd like to be able to say I believe all the fundagelical pop theology just to avoid a sermon from the person asking the question. And that is what I do sometimes but am uncomfortable doing it.

The problem with saying Jesus is fully human, fully divine, existed before the Earth, and came to it to take on all humanity's sin in order to forgive it all, is that for it to be true, you have to believe in the doctrine of Original Sin. I've stated earlier in this blog that I think 90% of theological doctrine is BS, and the doctrine of Original Sin is among this BS.

I don't believe humans are evil first and then become good somehow. I believe humans a good first and bit by bit loose their goodness and become dysfunctional to varying degrees. The point in time this process of deterioration is reversed is salvation. The ensuing process of the deterioration of evil is also salvation. Does one have to be Christian to be on the journey I just described? No.

An important part of the community of churches is the idea that Christians are saved and members of other religions are not. It is also common to believe that members of other religions are saved, but it is still better to be a Christian than a member of another religion. Part of the communal element of churches is getting together and affirming that this is true. This is a part of church community that I cannot take part in.

Another important part of the community of churches is the struggling together in the problems of everyday life. Work, home, difficult relationships, major life decisions, stuff that pisses you off, are all things that get dealt with in church community. This is a part of church community that I can take part in. The trick for someone like me is to find churches that are light on theology and heavy on struggling with everyday issues as the main form of bonding. When theological issues come up, I'll just have to be a spectator.

Is The Golden Rule Really Golden?

2008-03-25T14:04:00.000-07:00

“Jesus replied, 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind'. This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” Mat. 22:37-40, NLT

...all other commands are based on these...

“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful”. Buddhism

“If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.” Dalai Lama

“Do not do unto others what would cause pain”. Hinduism

“Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself”. Islam

“I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed I am a friend to all”. Sikhism

“Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.” Baha'i

“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Confucianism

“What you wish your neighbours to be to you, such be also to them.” Greek Philosophy

“I ask you a question - “Is sorrow or pain desirable to you?” If you say “yes it is”, it would be a lie. If you say, “No, it is not” you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breath, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.” Jainism

“In everything you do, do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Christianity

“What is hateful to you do not do unto your neighbour that is the entire law; all the rest is commentary”. Judaism

I know a tactic is the claim that the Golden Rule isn't a single rule, but a pair of them – the first – 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind'– being the first and missing part, thus discrediting those stating only the second: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. However, I don't believe this.

If we are 'right' with God (the first Golden Rule) then we will naturally become 'right' with our fellow-creatures and neighbours (the second Golden Rule). It stands to reason that this is also true in reverse. If we are not perfectly 'right' with our fellow-creatures and neighbours, then we are also not 'right' with God.

Can any of us honestly claim we are perfectly right with our neighbours? Can any of us honestly claim we are perfectly right with God? It becomes a moot argument. These two conditions are tied together. They are indivisible. One is the byproduct of the other.

It strikes me that these are all variations of The Golden Rule; or in fact, they actually are the Golden Rule. But why are they discredited when spoken from a differing source, or from a different culture?

Evil Fruit

2008-03-24T13:29:00.000-07:00

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:15-23, KJV

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them [false prophets]. Jesus gives direct instruction as to how to identify “false prophets”. Ultimately it is not by their words or teachings but by their actions and the results of their actions. This forces us to carefully examine certain issues:

Islam has produced the Islamic extremist terrorists (who do not even follow the Quran. 2:178 and 2:190 clearly states that God does not love those who overstep the limits and that grievous suffering awaits those who do). So can we therefore say that Islam has produced “evil fruit” and condemn it to the realms of false prophets? There is some truth to this but it is somewhat of a blanket statement. The Islamic extremist terrorists are really not true Muslims, but nevertheless are still “evil fruit” of Islam. If we are to adhere to Jesus’ definition of “false prophets” and apply it to Islam, then by these same definitions we must begin looking at other religions.

Christianity has produced the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the overall eradication of the Central and South American Indians (Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs) and the warfare and “conversion” of the North American Indians. The sexual abuse and pedophilia of the modern day Roman Catholic Church. The embezzlement and lying of certain Christian televangelists. There is no shortage of “evil fruit” in Christianity. And before we use the excuse that these were acts of individuals and not reflective of Christianity as a whole we need to revisit our thoughts and opinions of the previously mentioned Islam Extremists. I believe Christianity has produced “evil fruit”. I also believe that Jesus had no intention of beginning a new religion. If asked the question, Was Jesus Christ Christian, the answer would be, no.

Atheism (as a "religion" or belief-system) has produced the Nietzsche-like belief or philosophy of the Nazi-party whose fruition was a World War and The Holocaust. I would very much like to meet an individual who would seriously state that this was not “evil fruit”.

Judaism becomes an interesting religion when viewed from this point of view. As previously mentioned in The Flawed Priesthood, it is not incorrect to say that Jesus was Jewish, neither is it completely true. Jesus was a Jewish heretic. Jesus systematically “disassembled” the Jewish priesthood and threatened its very foundation. It is obvious that Judaism was “off course” and in need or correction. The genocide that the Israelites committed under the leadership of Moses (primarily in the book of Numbers) is most definitely questionable. The “commissioning” and building of idols (Nehushtan), the practice of animal sacrifice, the very existence of an elitist priesthood, and the aforementioned genocide should be highly suspicious and questioned as the product of “evil fruit”.

By Jesus’ own teachings and definition of “false prophets” Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Atheism have all produced “evil fruit”. For that matter, most if not all religion has.

Where a Religious Pluralist might say a variation of all beliefs are equally valid within a believer's particular context - or all beliefs are correct - what I am suggesting is that all Religions are in error; are incorrect.

If all have produced “evil fruit” then what exactly is Jesus teaching? If none of these are correct or the truth, then what is the truth? The only conclusion I can come to is that Religiosity itself is “evil fruit” and as such Jesus’ teaching was not to create another religion, but to end all religion.

“If the cross is the sign of anything, it’s the sign that God has gone out of the religion business and solved all of the world’s problems without requiring a single human being to do a single religious thing. What the cross is actually a sign of the fact that religion can’t do a thing about the world’s problems – that it never did work and it never will…” Robert Farrar Capon, “The Mystery of
Christ…and Why We Don’t Get It”, pg. 62

Built

2008-03-23T06:41:00.000-07:00

Beliefs are man-made, or Religions of Requirements. Religions of Requirements tend to create a scale with Blind Obedience on one end (whether obedience is to itself or to God is questionable) and Doubt on the other end. They tend to equate doubt with sin. This "scale" is a false dichotomy. Reason cannot exist within a blind obedience and if reason leads to doubt it is in sin. Reason has no place. It has been worked out of the equation.

It should not be an issue of either obedience or doubt. This kind of religion of requirements does not allow for a faithful doubt but only a doubtful faith.

"Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned." Nietzsche, "Daybreaks" 89, R.J.
Hollingdale translation.

How disturbing that James 1:8 could, and has been twisted into meaning the presence of reason is synonymous with doubt, and is a sin.
I have to admit, his assessment of certain forms of Christianity is accurate. Some would say Nietzsche only errs by making this a blanket statement. Nietzsche is more accurately describing religiosity: Religions of Requirement. The only valid question becomes, has Christianity become a religion of requirement? What Nietzsche is describing is Belief.
Everyone has Beliefs. It doesn’t matter if they admit it or not; doesn’t matter if they know it or not. Everyone has Beliefs.

You also cannot have Beliefs and be completely tolerant. Beliefs necessitates some degree of Intolerance by definition. Although I don’t like Intolerance, I respect it. To maintain Beliefs balanced with Intolerance is actually a sign of Integrity.

(Unless our Belief is that we are never wrong) a healthy balance of Belief-Intolerance includes a Humbly-acknowledged-ignorance (see 1 Corinthians 13:12). That is the love and desire of the Truth. This is Faith.

A healthy balance of Belief-Intolerance and Humbly-acknowledged-ignorance makes for Open-mindedness. What strange bed fellows, Intolerance and Open-mindedness! But this is the tension between Belief and Faith.

Belief find its origin in man; Belief is man-made.

"Belief provides answers to people's questions while faith never does. People believe so as to find assurance, a solution, an answer to their questions to fashion for themselves a system of beliefs. Faith (biblical faith) is completely different. The purpose of revelation is not to supply us with explanations, but to get us to listen to questions." Jacques Ellul, "The Living Faith: Belief and Doubt in a Perilous World", 1983

Faith finds its genesis in God. Faith originates in God.

When this falls out of balance, close-mindedness ensues, either as an inflexible ridged abandonment of Humbly-acknowledged-ignorance (Faith), or as a patronizing passive pretense of tolerance. They are two sides of the same coin: Close-mindedness. I’d prefer the “inflexible-ridged-abandonment-of-Humbly-acknowledged-ignorance”-type. At least you know where you stand and can choose what to do about it. It’s the ”patronizing-passive-pretense-of-tolerance”-types that bother me.

Both presume to know the truth and love the truth they’ve come to know. But they have lost the desire of the Truth. But what they love is their Belief and not their Faith. Their journey is over. They’ve discovered their goal. The gates of Open-mindedness are closed. They have closed their gates of ijtihad (Islam's lost tradition of independent thinking, as opposed to taqlid, which is imitation, really obedience to tradition.). Their ability to grow is crippled if not outright killed. Their Faith is dead.
Belief is to be seen as belief, not as fact. When we see our beliefs as facts, then we are deluding ourselves. When we see our beliefs as beliefs, then we are not. Seeing things in their true light is the most important thing in Buddhism. Deluding ourselves is the cause of much suffering. So Buddhists try to see beliefs as beliefs. They may still believe in certain things - that is their prerogative - but they do not cling to those beliefs; they do not mind or worry about whether their beliefs are true or not, nor do they try to prove that which they know cannot be proved.

I like this of what Buddhism says.
Belief says, I know the answer.
Faith says I don't.

Belief is comfortable.
Faith is scary.

Belief builds religions.
Faith threatens them.

I think we miss the point of the story of Jesus walking on water (Mat. 14:22-33).

"Tell me to come to you on the water."

Peter walked on water!! Faith is gifted. He began to sink, not because he lacked faith, but because of his dependency on Belief squeezed out his remaining Faith. He thought he needed some sort of belief-system... some sort of religion.

"You of little faith. Why did you doubt?"

Jesus asks. "Why did you choose religious-dependency over me?" Then He immediately saves Peter from drowning - from his religiosity.

This is Belief at the expense of Faith. Beliefs are constructs.

Beliefs are...

...built.

Shekinah

2008-03-05T13:43:00.000-08:00

Certain rabbis spoke about the Spirit of God brooding over creation (Gen. 1:2 ?) and they compared it to a rider of a horse. While the rider is on the horse the rider depends on the on the horse, but the rider is never-the-less superior to it and has control over it.

When God “steps” into our natural universe from His external, eternal, and supernatural (holy – kaddosh) state, we could only see the “ripples” of His steps, like those in a pond. This is the part that enters Creation, the only aspect of God we can perceive. This is God's echo or ripple or emanation. This aspect of God is very much dependent on our created universe for it would not – could not – exist without our universe – much like the rider is defined as such by his mount. He ceases being a rider if he has nothing to ride.

The term Shekinah comes from the Hebrew word shakan, that means “to pitch one's tent”. The Shekinah was not a conceived, separate divine being, but the presence of God in our world. A personification of the Jew's Shekinah, much like Sophia (God's Wisdom in Proverbs 8:12 & 24), it is a “begotten” being in the sense only because it exists as God communicates and interacts within our created universe. The personification is the ripple that emanates from God's foot dipping into the pond we call our universe. This was the Jewish rabbinical concept of the Shekinah.

A parallel is God's presence in, first, the Ark of the Covenant, then the Tabernacle (tent), and finally Solomon's Temple. It is also in the same matter that the Shekinah is connected to prophecy in Judaism and Christianity.

~

“It was He who made His tranquillity [sakina] descend into the hearts of the believers, to add faith to their faith...” (Qu'ran 48:4)

says the Qu'ran. This sakina is Tranquility, or the Spirit of Tranquility; God's blessing of solace and rescue. Qu'ranic verses also call Sakina reassurance, or the Peace of Reassurance.

“God was pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance to you under the tree: He knew what was in their hearts and so He sent tranquillity [sakina] down to them...” (Qu'ran 48:18)

The Sakina is said to have descended upon Muhammad during their unarmed pilgrimage to Mecca.

In “Muhammad: A Biography of a Prophet”, Karen Armstrong relates the Sakina to the Shekinah as both being God's presence in the world.
“The sakina it will be recalled, seems to be related to the Hebrew Shekinah, the term for God's presence in the world.”

~

In some Sufi writings, the inner peace of Sufi contemplation – residing in a sancturary or in one's heart – would seem to solidify the relationship between the Sakina and the Shekinah both. The Sufi's sa-ka-na means both stillness and habitation, implying it's indwelling nature and it's presence of God's Spirit within.

~

The female energy of Hindu gods, Shakti has been seen as compatible by some comparative religionists. Interesting more-so when we consider that the rabbinical view of the Shekinah, the Spirit of God hovering over or brooding over Creation is most definitely female as in Proverbs 8:1,1-2, 11 etc.).

~

In Christianity this indwelling Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit and is even fully credited for all prophecy:

“For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”
2 Peter 1:21, NIV

Although the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, or the Shekinah, is no longer viewed as dwelling in the Temple in the Christian Epistles of the New Testament, it is most definitely seen as God's presence or indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer. (The believer himself being the new temple).

Ezekiel's vision (Ezekiel 1:1-28) strongly suggests that God's presence was not a sacred one nor restricted to the priestly elite nor to the Solomon Temple. In John 4:20-24 Yeshua confirms this in saying that God's presence is manifested outside of, and beyond the Jersalem Temple (a shift from the Sacred/Secular to an almost panentheistic paradigm). He even goes on to suggest how far beyond in John 3:8 when he speaks of the Spirit being like the wind, not knowing where it comes from or where's its going; being uncontrollable by men”

“The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes fro or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit”.

It has a mind of its own and is not bound by political, geographic, or religious borders or claims of religious exclusivity.

Yeshua's perception of the Spirit of God seems to be in perfect alignment with the Shekinah and the Sakina.

Interestingly Yeshua also listed one sin – and only one sin – which was unforgivable (and thus a guarantee for damnation) and that was blasphemy against the Spirit. (He even includes saying that speaking a word against the Son of Man – against Himself – shall be forgiven).

“Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come." Mat. 12:31-32

The emphasis doesn't seem to be the denial of Christ as Lord (which the New Testament Epistles focus on), but denial of some indwelling Spirit of God; Shekinah.

Holy Spirit – Shekinah – Sakina – Shakti – Sa-ka-na.
Outside of cultural differences; other than linguistic nomenclature, I see little difference between these presences of God... for like the wind, God is not bound or restricted to the confines of man or our claims of exclusivity.

I'm not quite sure Yeshua of Nazareth's primary emphasis was on accepting himself as one's Lord and Saviour so much as accepting the presence of God among and with us.

This idea of the Shekinah answers for me a concern I've harboured for quite some time. If the indwelling Spirit of God (name it what you will) is the only sign of a true believer, and that is restricted to one faith and only one faith, then that makes God a bigot.

It makes God a bigot because he discriminates against people born and raised in different geographic locations, cultures, nations, races and colours.

The Shekinah – as I understand it and have attempted to describe it here – shows the very real possibility that God has revealed his presence to all people of the world and is in no way a bigot.

I believe the Age of Exclusivity must come to an end. This is Tribalism and the way I see it, Tribalism – just like Bigotry – is a far too human trait for God to exhibit.

John Hick: God Has Many Names

2008-02-19T15:43:00.000-08:00

According to John Hick, the reason God has many names is that since God's general revelation is revealed to everyone the world's religions sprang up as different responses to the divine reality, embodying different perceptions which have been formed in different cultural and historical circumstances. All of these perceptions have their strengths and weaknesses and when they are in dialogue they can learn from one another.

There is a difference between a world religion and an world theology. Hick (like the Dalai Lama) doesn't advocate the abandonment of the religion of your youth in favor of a one universal religion where everyone worships pretty much the same. He does advocate for a theology that interprets religious experience within Christianity as well as in the other "great streams of religious life." These would include non-theistic religions of hinduism, buddhism and even Marxism and Humanism.

Karl Rahner's idea of the "anonymous Christian" is that there are members of other religions to whom Christ has been revealed and so they are saved. The common criticism of this idea is that nothing is stopping anyone from calling Christians "anonymous Buddhists" or "anonymous Muslims." Hick abandons the idea of the anonymous Christian and says that all religions can be viewed as equally salvific if you understand Jesus being God as a metaphor. He says Jesus never taught that he was God. Others referred to Jesus as God because he lived in complete openness to God's Agape love. Since God is love this is kind of the same as saying something like, "Steve Jobs is geek chic incarnate." He says, "Agape is incarnated in human life whenever someone acts in selfless love." I think this is what it comes down to for Hick, as far as we act in self-giving love God is made incarnate in us also.

It is a common belief in inclusivist soteriology that all religions are expressions of God. The closer they come to Christianity the better, and they are not perfect until they are explicitly Christian. In this way all religions are moving toward Christianity.

John Hick speaks of a Copernican revolution in religion. Early astronomers believed all the celestial objects revolved around the Earth. After they started observing these objects in more detail they realized they don't move in perfect concentric circles around the earth. They decided that celestial objects must move in other orbits while ultimately orbiting the Earth. They called these additional orbits "epicycles." In trying to describe the epicycles they become more and more complex until someone (Copernicus) dared to say that maybe all the celestial objects don't revolve around us, maybe they revolve around the Sun. This got him into lots of trouble.

Like Copernicus, Hick says that maybe all religions don't revolve around Christianity but maybe all religions revolve around God. He says this Copernican revolution in religion "must involve a shift from the dogma that Christianity is at the center to the thought that it is God who is at the center and that all the religions of mankind, including our own, serve and revolve around him".

Theologies

2008-02-02T02:43:00.000-08:00

Claims, or doctrines, such as Papal Infallibility are prime examples of Dogmatic Theological Methods - or circular thinking. They are self-authorizing and self-asserting “proofs”, and therefore cannot be challenged or questioned.

Biblical Inerrency is another good example of this. What becomes interesting is that the more Problematic Theology evolves, the more epicyclic Dogmatic Theology grows in response.

Its all about paradigms, isn't it? Maybe it would be better to refer to the two as Ptolemaic Christians and Copernican Christians. It is only the Ptolemaic Christian that makes use of “Epicycles”. Actually, these terms apply far beyond just Christians.

I like the word “epicycle” because it reminds me of the epicycles needed to add to the Ptolemaic view of the universe to accurately maintain the earth as it's center.

The paths of the planets and the sun and the stars were all to orbit around the earth. But as the planet's and sun's paths became better known, they didn't match this Ptolemaic view. So to resolve this discrepancy, epicycles were added – a series of smaller orbits, revolving with their centers on their original larger circle, or orbit. If the planet could be imagined moving on one of these smaller circles, while still following its original orbit, the actual path more complex and significantly closer to what was empirically observed.

These additions of epicycles allowed this view, this paradigm, to maintain its core belief that the earth was indeed in the center. However, adding epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle in an attempt to 'tweek' the system to match the evidence became increasingly contrived and encumbered.

It would be like two computers talking with one another and deciding to explore the question of how Artificial Computer Intelligence came to be, but, before starting this discussion agreeing that the answer simply could not be a human being.

The same may be said of a group of atheistic scientists attempting to discover the origins of life, but agreeing on the onset that the answer absolutely cannot be supernatural or God. (One of the reasons why I hold so much respect and admiration for Stephen Hawking. He is definitely a Copernican thinker), even if the evidence leads in that direction.

...maybe this is an all too intellectual way of attempting to describe what Problematic Theology, or a Copernican Christian is. Sometimes I've found that satire - comedy - humour is another effective way. The following comic strip particularly jumped out at me. (Especially when we understand "bullshit" more along the lines of what Harry Frankfurt means in his piece On Bullshit)

I suppose what is important is that we take an honest look at ourselves, at our beliefs, at our "theologies", and being willing to ask the question some of these questions...