Nah! … well, maybe. This is brilliant!! (via Lee)
Sphere: Related ContentWhy d- p–pl- wr-t- G-d -nst-d -f God? F-r -ngl-sh sp–k-ng p–pl-, th- n-m- -f G-d -s n-t h-ly -r s-cr-d. -t’s -n -v-ryd-y w-rd. W- -s- th- t-tl- -f g-d f-r m-ny p–pl- -nd th-ngs. - j-st d-n’t g-t -t.
Sphere: Related ContentI think that many, if not most, mainstream Christians would say that experience alone cannot tell us anything about God. We need to filter our experience through the Bible for it to be reliable and “true.” So, the Bible is the authoritative word on how we experience God and what we know about God. But, at the same time, the Bible is what it is because of who and what God is. So, the Bible tells us about God but God’s nature gives the Bible the authority to inform us about the God whose nature gives the Bible … Isn’t that a bit of the-chicken-n-the-egg reasoning?
But what to do to break this circular cycle? I think we need to iterate.
There are many “problems” that people struggle with. God’s actions do not always make sense to us. We don’t understand what happens in the world because it doesn’t fit with our understanding of God. The Bible has difficult passages because it seems to say two, or three or four, different things. It seems that most mainstream Christians just hunker down and hope that when they get to Heaven God will explain all. They take refuge in the fact of God’s love and omniscience and leave it all up to him. But most of the time, that doesn’t seem to provide much real comfort.
And this is where iteration enters the picture. If something doesn’t make sense then perhaps what we need to do is change something—iterate toward a more consistent solution. The problem is that we get so stuck in our current mindsets that we don’t even consider revising our basic assumptions. Our concept of God should not be static. Our handling of the Bible should not be the same today as it was yesterday. But these are too often not even considered to be variable and so we sit and spin and get no where.
Sphere: Related ContentBird at The Thinklings asks “Why?“. Why did God condoned such violence in the O.T? And some of the comments are making me shake my head and ask “What?” As in “What’s you talkin’ ’bout Willis?” and the less eloquent “What the f*** are people thinking?”
Some commenters say that God’s wrath has to do with the treatment Jesus received. What? God is commanding and condoning the killing of babies because of something that’s going to happen hundreds of years in the future? And I still don’t get all the angst over the death of Jesus. He had to die, didn’t he? That was the whole farggin’ reason he was here. So why is it such a horrible, devastating, criminal act that he was crucified?
Then there’s the person who says that all those Canaanite kiddies had it coming. After all, if they were over the age of accountability, then they must have “done a great many terrible things.” What? Unless that guy thinks the age of accountability is somewhere near 25 then he’s got problems. All (as in every single solitary) 8 year olds had already “done a great terrible things”? That’s inconceivable.
Then there’s the guy who says that everyone God commanded to be killed deserved it because they all saw (or heard about) God in action yet they personally and deliberately chose to harden their hearts against him. What? First of all, back to the 8 year olds. Did they really see or hear about God and did they really harden their own hearts? I know when I was 8, I did what my parents told me and believed what my parents told me.
Secondly, let’s just assume—hypothetically, of course—that Quetzalcoatl is the real God. Now, many people have heard about him but let’s say they are all at the portal to the pearly pyramid and St. Montezuma is the gatekeeper. Who would even possibly accept the judgment that they had heard about Quetzalcoatl and yet personally refused to believe in him and so they are to be sacrificed and sent to hell?
Thirdly, it seems that God does not always play fairly. Let’s look at the plagues God sent on the Egyptians. After plagues 1-7, it seems that Pharoah hardened his heart against God and did not let the Isrealites go. But look at Exodus 10:20, 10:27, and 11:10. There it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart! It sounds like Pharaoh was about to give in but God had 10 cool plagues planned out and he just had to get them all in so he put the fix in to make sure he had is fun. Yes, people do deliberatley turn away from God but it seems that God admits to giving them a bit of a nudge sometimes, too.
Most of these rationalizations for God’s wrath in the O.T. are the same arguments that people today use for rationalizing how God can send millions and millions of people to hell because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time. They just don’t work. They are flawed and inconsistent. And if you really try to make sense of it all, the only option is to alter your notion of God. Trying to say that God is 100% love and God is 100% just and God is 100% this and that and the other doesn’t fit. One characteristic must trump the other and in most cases, when dealing with the “heathen,” it’s justness that trumps love yet when dealing with “Christians” it’s love that trumps justice. That’s just not playing fairly and if you realize that it will force you to reconsider the basic assumptions you’ve unconsciously made.
So don’t question God or the Bible. Simply question your assumptions and see how that changes your view of God and the Bible.
Sphere: Related Content
We were in Charlotte a few weeks ago and in the hotel was this beautiful water display. The water flowed from the back to the front, over smooth stones, and fell in a tiny waterfall at the front edge. It was beautiful and tranquil and calming. I was fascinated by the waves and ripples caused by stones just below the surface or slightly protruding out of the water. I watched bubbles float on the water: some made it to the waterfall to tumble over while others were captured in the eddies behind the stones and were stuck, unmoving until their inevitable demise.
My daughter was equally fascinated by the display but her attention was held by the stones, themselves, rather than by their effect on the water and bubbles. Every time we left the hotel, she wanted to pick out one of the stones and take it with her. When we returned, she’d toss it back into the water and pick out another one to take up to the room.
It was a unique and fascinating dynamic sculpture that evoked a tranquility from the soul.
Then I looked more closely …
Despite the water’s constant motion, there were scummy blobs and strands sticking to the stones. There was a rusty, open safety pin lying on top of one of the stones. The waterfall ended in an off-colored, bubbly froth that brought to mind scenes of industrial waste being dumped into the water supply of an unsuspecting rural town.
In short, the closer I looked the more my stomach was turned and the less tranquil became my soul. The water and stones were beautiful from afar but close-up all their faults became visible. Sort of like those mirrors in hotel rooms—the round ones with the light and the one side magnifies your face to ungodly proportions so you can see everything. And I mean everything. Yuck!
But, despite how revolting it may appear, the face in that mirror, in all it’s massive grandeur, is my face. And there’s nothing I can do about it.
Well, there is one thing I can do: accept it!
As James McGrath points out on Exploring Our Matrix (and whose post’s title subliminally infected my mind so much that I “independently” came up with the exact same title for this post) some of the scum that lies beneath our beautiful exterior needs to be purged, expunged, extirpated. And it is very important to be self aware enough that you know where the scum is and where the weak floor-boards are.
But some of it is simply there and cannot be “rennovated.” We all have a history. We all have biases and prejudices and a worldview that influences—defines—who we are and what we do. And it is not a simple matter to tear out these defining ideas and install new, better ones. So, all we can do is accept that they are there, accept ownership of them, and become aware of how they define us.
It is only by getting to know ourselves that we can have any hope of transforming ourselves. If we continually deny our ugly bits then we’ll never understand their effect on us and, therefore, never have any chance of transforming ourselves.
So, as McGrath points out, “We should investigate deeper than we do when we have opportunity to do so.” It’s not easy and it’s not always the most comfortable task, but it is necessary.
Sphere: Related ContentI’m very excited to read about this new series just begun by Richard Beck at Experimental Theology. I read Peanuts (Beck’s previous series) growing up but read C&H while in grad school (apparently, I was not as busy as Beck). In fact, I mention Bill Watterson in the dedication of my Ph.D. thesis and credit him with helping me get through the trying time of studying for and passing my prelims.
Sphere: Related ContentOne can be a person of faith without being an idiot.
“Faith and Science” by Mystical Seeker on Find and Ye Shall Seek
It is a notorious fact that the morality of society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this. Hence, every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when acting alone; for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility. . . . Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitable be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the State has a hand. In a small social body, the individuality of its members is better safeguarded; and the greater is their relative freedom and the possibility of conscious responsibility. Without freedom there can be no morality.
Carl Jung
“The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious” (1928)
in Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. CW 7
While mulling over two recent posts from Notes From Off Center about abortion (Abortion Is a Symptom of Social Illness and Making Pro-Life Plausible) and one from A Thinking Reed about animal cruelty (The Victorian PETA) I was struck by a similarity which I had never noticed before. This similarity is in the reasons behind the anti movement against each. Or, perhaps more precisely, the why of taking a stand against one (or both) of these rather than opposing something else.
Being opposed to the farming of ducks and geese for foie gras has become the big news way of opposing animal cruelty but there are a lot of other ways to combat animal cruelty and help victims. Similarly, opposing abortion is the “cornerstone” of the pro-life platform but, again, there are many other ways of demonstrating your pro-life beliefs. So, why do these two specific targets seem to get all the attention?
I think it’s because it is extremely easy to be anti abortion and/or anti foie gras. It’s easy because for me to take this stand requires absolutely no change and has absolutely no effect or consequence in my life. None. Zip. Zilch.
To be against the farming of ducks and geese for foie gras simply means that you don’t eat foie gras. Now, I love foie gras — probably more than the average foie gras consumer. But if I had to forgo eating it for the rest of my life it would be no big deal. It would be easy. I could easily take that platform and stick to it. But, animal cruelty is rampant on a much much larger scale in the factory farms where the chickens and cows we eat are raised. But if I start boycotting factory farms and getting states to outlaw factory farms then I’m going to see an effect in my life — specifically in my wallet. I’m going to have to drive further and spend more money to buy free range chickens and eggs and to find grass fed beef. Take the mass-producing factory farm out of the equation and suddenly demand is going to far exceed supply which will only drive up the price more and I won’t be able to buy enough meat to eat 3 times a day 7 days a week.
Likewise, I can support the SPCA or animal shelters to demonstrate I’m against animal cruelty. But if I start doing that, I’m likely going to have to adopt a pet or volunteer my time at the shelter or take part in fund raising. In all these cases, demands are made on my time and money.
But people need to be against animal cruelty so they pick the easy case where all they have to do is sign a petition to get foie gras banned in restaurants and then they have bragging rights for how much of an “activist” they are.
The same criticism applies to the anti-abortion movement. Protesting at abortion clinics is easy. You throw all the blame and all the responsibility and all the guilt onto the mother and require her to make changes in her life and make the sacrifices while you can pack up your signs and head back home in time to catch Oprah or the Big Game. See how that works? You get to be pro-life with a squeeky-clean conscious and without lifting a finger! As “Notes From Off Center” points out, abortion is not the disease but the symptom. But treating the symptom is so much easier so that’s what gets done.
Let me suggest that the next time we get up on a soap box or start marching in protest or even start bitching about something to our friends that we take an honest look at what our position costs us. If we don’t see anything in the debit column then, perhaps, we are not fighting the right fight.
Sphere: Related Contentticks, lice, tapeworms, fleas, hookworms, E. coli, Giardia, mites, chiggers, bed bugs, mosquitoes
Are you freakin’ kidding me?
