Monthly Archive for May, 2007

The rewards of writing

Published
by
Ken
on May 31, 2007
in quotes, thomas merton and writing
. 0 Comments

Thomas Merton wrote this in a letter to Amiya Chakravarty and it truly echoes my feelings:

For a writer there is surely not much that can be more rewarding than the fact of being really read and understood and appreciated. After all, the great thing in life is to share the best one has, no matter how poor it may be. The sharing gives it value. Often when I reread things I have written I find them so bad that I am irritated with myself: of course this is only vanity. But once I realize that they have meant something to someone they acquire something of the other person’s value and meaning. What you read and liked of mine I shall like better now because you have all enjoyed them: I will like them because of all of you. I will like them because they are more yours than mine.

From: The Hidden Ground of Love: Letters on Religious Experience and Social Concerns

Holding God accountable

Published
by
Ken
on May 30, 2007
in atheism, belief, bertrand russell and god
. 2 Comments

Bertrand Russell, in an essay titled Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?, writes:

… Perhaps we might … ask ourselves whether we have any evidence of purpose in the universe apart from the purposes of living beings on the surface of this planet.

The usual argument of religious people on this subject is roughly as follows: “I and my friends are persons of amazing intelligence and virtue. It is hardly conceivable that so much intelligence and virtue could have come about by change. There must, therefore, be someone at least as intelligent and virtuous as we are who set the cosmic machinery in motion with a view to producing Us.” I am sorry to say that I do not find this argument so impressive as it is found by those who use it. …

Then again, considered as the climax to such a vast process, we do not really seem to me sufficiently marvelous. Of course, I am aware that many divines are far more marvelous than I am, and that I cannot wholly appreciate merits so far transcending my own. Nevertheless, even after making allowances under this head, I cannot but think that Omnipotence operating through all eternity might have produced something better. … So far as scientific evidence goes, the universe has crawled by slow stages to a somewhat result on this earth and is going to crawl by still more pitiful stages to a condition of universal death. If this is to be taken as evidence of purpose, I can only say that the purpose is one that does not appeal to me. I see no reason, therefore, to believe in any sort of God, however vague and however attenuated. (emphasis mine)

And I’ve heard others object on similar grounds with something like: “I just can’t believe in a God who would …” and fill in “condemn millions to Hell” or “let little children suffer” or “allow such evil to exist.”

But, I wonder. Does God have to do what WE want him to or think he should? We try to hold God to some “moral” standard that seems right to us. We accuse God of not acting to eliminate evil — should be easy for him, no? After all, God is an omnipotent, omniscient, awesomely powerful being so he should be able to erase evil from the world!

But … God is an omnipotent, omniscient, awesomely powerful being. What gives us the right to hold him accountable for anything he does or does not do? Russell makes the same claim — “I am aware that many divines are far more marvelous than I am, and that I cannot wholly appreciate merits so far transcending my own” — and then claims to be able to see beyond his own limitations — “Nevertheless, even after making allowances …”

But is seeing beyond our own limitations really possible?

The second line of objection I mentioned above can basically be labeled as double standards. God says one thing and then does another. A God of love condemns people to Hell. A God of love allows suffering and evil. God says “Thou shalt not kill” and then kills. God says not to be jealous and then calls himself a “jealous God.”

Here is one example of a double standard that every single person in the world has taken part in — and in most cases, on both sides.

Little Johnny is five years old. He can’t vote, drink, drive, or serve in the military. He must be in bed by 8:00. He should not swear, fight, yell, hit, be selfish or stubborn, or tell lies — even tiny white lies. He must always be polite, share, say “please” and “thank you.” He must eat all his broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and beans. He should not date, make out, watch porn, or have sex.

Little Johnny’s dad, however can vote, drink, drive, and serve in the military. He does not have to be in bed by 8:00. He can swear, fight, yell, hit, be selfish or stubborn, and tell white lies. He does not always need to polite, share, say “please” and “thank you.” He can throw his broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and beans in the garbage if he wants. He can date, make out, watch porn, and have sex (all on the same night, if he wants).

Is this a double standard? Dad tells Johnny to not lie and then tells white lies to Johnny’s mother about how that dress makes her look. Dad tells Johnny to not be selfish and then misses Johnny’s school play because he was too busy. Dad tells Johnny not to swear and then calls Bush a dumb $%&@#$%&!.

Yes, this is a double standard but Johnny’s dad can get away with it because he’s an adult and he’s Johnny’s dad. Now, I submit to you that the gap between God and us is a tad bigger than that between a parent and child. So, if Johnny’s dad is not held to the same standard that Johnny is, then why should God be held to the same standard that we are?

Does Not Play Well With Others (v0.1)

Published
by
Ken
on May 26, 2007
in christian fundamentalism, faith, judging others and tolerance
. 3 Comments

The following is a work-in-progress. It’s a draft I wrote for a Writers Group I go to once a month (more or less). I’ll be editing, revising, reworking, redoing it in the future and will post the new versions. Your comments will help me fine tune my thoughts. Thank you in advance.

Does Not Play Well With Others

In this age of diversity, tolerance is required. Tolerance of those diverse from ourselves and tolerance of those so much like ourselves that we can’t stand them. Yet, there are those who are not, and do not claim to be, and claim that they will never be religiously tolerant. The Christian Fundamentalist and Christian Evangelical come to mind. They want to dictate what others believe and how others act. Putting aside the issues of hypocrisy and assuming they are on the up and up, how do we deal with them? Is it possible to tolerate them and let them believe what they want to believe? If so, how do we go about doing this? If not, then what, exactly, do we do when you can’t live with someone and you can’t shoot them?

In other words, how do we tolerate those who do not play well with others?

So as to not “stoop” to their level, we cannot dictate to them what they can or cannot believe. This seems very reasonable because that is the major complaint we have of them. So, is that the answer? Do we let the Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals believe what they want and preach what they want and we do on with our lives and with our beliefs?

The answer appears to be “yes” but with a major caveat: Keep your beliefs to yourself and don’t let me catch wind of them. This is the same basic attitude we have grown into regarding smoking. Used to be that a smoker could smoke anywhere she liked as long as she didn’t force a cigarette on us. But now, we are bothered by the smell and fear for our lives and so we’ve told the smokers that they can’t smoke just anywhere. They must smoke outside. And then we started getting bothered by having to walk past the smokers congregated just outside the main doors on cold, rainy days and so we told them they had to move further away or couldn’t smoke anywhere on the premises.

This is the attitude that is brewing towards the Fundamentalist. Don’t bother me with your ideas. Don’t preach to me as I walk into my place of business. Don’t try to influence the government with your crazy ideas. Just go off by yourselves and believe what you want to believe.

The problem is that this is impossible. Not because of the person but because of the belief. Pretty much everyone believes that murder is wrong. We have enacted legislation to this effect and enforce it daily. There may be some discussion as to degree of guilt and appropriate punishment but there are clear-cut cases of murder. No one has an issue with the belief that murder is wrong being inflicted on everyone regardless of race, creed, etc. Even if someone does not believe that murder is wrong and wants to murder in private without bothering us about it, we generally do not accept their belief and still hold them accountable.

Now consider the stance that abortion is murder — cut and dried murder. Anyone holding that belief would be considered immoral if they let others committing or facilitating murder by abortion get away with it. Even if that person did so in private and didn’t bother us with it.

By condemning those who publicly and vehemently oppose abortion and those who try to get anti-abortion legislation passed are we not condemning their beliefs and telling them that they can’t believe whatever they want but must believe what we tell them to?

Separation of church and state seems to be a much discussed issue these days. The separation of moral ideals and religious ideals seems to be the crux. But what if your morality is a direct result of your religion? What if your religion dictates your morals? How can you separate them?

What would you say about a Christian who went to church and prayed piously and tithed and was a deacon or elder on Sunday but then cheated and lied and stole on Monday? A hypocrite, no doubt. If the Christian does not live his Christian life outside of church, then what kind of Christian is he? How can a truly Christian woman NOT shade all her decisions and actions by what she believes? We all do this; perhaps implicitly but we all do this. Some beliefs are not religious in nature but the principle, I think, is the same. Is it reasonable to expect, then, that a religious president not make decisions based on his religion?

The only real way to effect a separation of church and state is to have atheists running the country. I doubt that despite all the so-called, self-proclaimed liberals in this country that a Bertrand Russell or a Richard Dawkins could come close to winning an election. We may not want a president who is influenced by his religion but sure as hell don’t want a president who doesn’t go to some kind of church.

I am THE Way, yada yada yada

Published
by
Ken
on May 25, 2007
in christianity, god, jesus, religion and religious pluralism
. 1 Comment

Jesus didn’t say, “I am a Way, a Truth, a Life,” did He? Therefore, Jesus is the ONLY way to God.

Have you heard that one before?

But what if Jesus was not talking about himself as a person or as a god/man. What if he was talking about what he represents?

For example, when J.F.K. gave his immortal speech in which he said, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” was he talking about J.F.K. and only J.F.K.? No way! (I just love unintentional rhymes, don’t you?) He was using himself to represent everyone in the United States, if not the world. This is classic synecdoche. (Which, by the way, is not a city in New York. Lost a ten-spot on that bet!)

Why could Jesus not have been employing synecdoche? Yes, Jesus is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life. But it’s not the “THE” that’s the issue here. It’s the “I”. Jesus was singling out himself as an example because that was the only example anyone he was talking to could understand. But if you put Jesus into a larger class with Buddha, Brahman, Atman, etc., then Jesus was referring to all of them as being THE Way, yada yada yada.

“Whoa!” you shout. “Buddha was a MAN and Jesus was GOD! How can they both represent the same thing?”

Well, when Buddha became enlightened, he became one with God. Just like when a person “accepts Jesus Christ into his heart,” that person becomes a child of God and is indwelt with the Holy Spirit (i.e. God).

And if you accept my premise, it makes perfect sense!

What do some Christians have in common with some atheists?

Published
by
Ken
on May 25, 2007
in atheism, christian fundamentalism, christianity and god
. 2 Comments

Q: What do some Christians have in common with some atheists?

A: The assumption that the Christian God is the only God and when you speak of god, even in a general sense, you are speaking of the Christian God.

Why?

Because when some Christians say “there is a God,” they really mean “the Christian God exists and is the only god.” And when some atheists say “there is no god,” they really mean “the Christian God is the only god and does not exist.”

I went through both these stages. As a Fundamentalist while I was growing up, the only God in town was the God taught from the pulpit in my church. I didn’t even consider the possibility of another god. It was unthinkable! Then, starting in my college years, I became disillusioned with God as taught from the pulpit in my childhood church. I said, “that God is a crock of horse pucky; ergo, there is no God” and promptly threw religion — in general and as a whole — out the window because I was still brainwashed into thinking that the only god in town was the god taught from the pulpit in my childhood church.

Years later, I’ve come around to realize that the God as taught from the pulpit in my childhood church can be a crock of horse pucky but that does not mean that there is no God. I need not throw all religion out the window. I need not even throw all of Christianity out the window for there is a huge chunk of Christianity that was not taught from the pulpit in my childhood church.

I like to think that I’ve “grown up.” I no longer express that knee-jerk reaction to one aspect of Christianity which only resulted in a complete purge of everything and everyone who even mentioned the word god. Now, I realize that “Christianity” does not necessarily mean The Christianity I was taught as a child. There are other aspects to Christianity and so the Christian God is not necessarily The God I was taught as a child. I can reject the one without rejecting them all.

I hope that all atheists — and all Christians — will someday come to realize the same thing.

Someone’s not doing their job!

Published
by
Ken
on May 23, 2007
in belief, evil, faith, god and religion
. 1 Comment

Atomic bomb dropped on NagasakiWe experience tragedy. Whether it’s a hurricane, an earthquake, the early or unexpected death of a loved one, a mass shooting, or a terrorist attack which kills dozens or hundreds or thousands … we experience tragedy. And we have, as a race, experienced tragedy for thousands of years (or longer, depending on your viewpoint). So, I wonder why tragedy still takes us by surprise. Why are we always left reeling and searching for answers when bad things happen? Why do we not have the answers; or at least an inkling of an answer?

It seems that instead of seeking meaning in a tragic event we try to figure out who is to blame. It’s all God’s fault or the President’s or this agency’s or that company’s or that person’s or the Devil’s. As long as we can blame someone and focus on bringing that person to justice or bad-mouthing him or her long and hard enough we can get past the event and get on with our lives. But by doing this, we don’t learn a damn thing! Which is why, the next time something bad happens, we are dazed and confused all over again.

I think that it is religion’s place to give us reasons for tragedy. After all, religion lives with ideas about God and evil and morality and the after-life and the before-life. And religions have been trying to explaining the unknowable to us for as long as we can remember. So why, after thousands and thousands of years of religion, haven’t we gotten an answers that can be used in the real world? Why does tragedy still knock us off our feet?

Some of it, of course, is probably that we are not listening because we’re too busy blaming. But if our religious leaders have the answers, why are they not making us sit down and shut up and listen? And if they don’t have the answers, why not? Did the religious leaders of long ago have the answers but they were lost? If no one ever had the answers, then what good are the religions we have?

Maybe it’s time to be open to new religions or further evolve our current religions so that we can get the answers we need so desperately.

They are not the enemy, my friends

Published
by
Ken
on May 20, 2007
in christianity and judging others
. 1 Comment

This from the Internet Monk. Amen! Read the entire post here.

I often wonder why Christians, in building so much that is for themselves, haven’t stopped and looked at the world as Jesus did. Look at the fields white unto harvest. Look at the sheep without a shepherd. Look at the lost, needing to come home.

We could do so much for them, if we would simply allow them to not believe, but to still be loved. If we could include them, help them, love them…and let them not believe. We could treat them respectfully, like people made in God’s image and loved by Christ Jesus. If we did, they would say “Thank you.”

They are not the enemy, my friends. They are like us in every way. We distort the gospel to exaggerate the differences between ourselves and those that do not confess Christ. We are not God, nor do we sit in God’s place. The cup of cold water is given to the brother or sister in whom Christ dwells, but it is also given to the thirsty.

Just a thought … about Intelligent Design

Published
by
Ken
on May 18, 2007
in christian apologetics, christianity, evolution, god and just a thought ...
. 4 Comments

You can talk all you want about the “watch needing a watchmaker” but some Christians seem to think that Christianity is somehow validated by this. I’ll grant you the Intelligent Design argument and say “yes, there is a watchmaker.” Now, show me how, exactly, this validates Christianity? How does one go from an Intelligent Designer to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? How does one go from an Intelligent Designer and not get to the myriad of other Gods who “created” the world in other relgions’ cosmologies?

Just because there is a god doesn’t mean that god is the God of the Bible.

Just a thought …

tol·er·ant (adj): What the other guy should be

Published
by
Ken
on May 17, 2007
in belief, christian fundamentalism, jerry falwell, jesus, judging others and tolerance
. 3 Comments

Reading this post and the subsequent comments about Jerry Falwell was like listening to a bunch of 2nd graders bicker. “Was not” “Was to” “Not” “To” “Not” …

Basically the anti-Falwellians were complaining about how intolerant he was. The pro-Falwellians then criticized the anti’s for being intolerant hypocrites. All which reminded me of something I’ve been mulling over on the back burner of my mind for a while:

What does it mean to be tolerant? Can you be tolerant of those who are intolerant?

If I have a migraine, I can either tolerate the pain or I can take something to make the pain go away. The latter is not the same as the former.

If there is someone who holds beliefs different from mine, I can either tolerate that person and his/her beliefs or I can (try to) convert her/him to my own beliefs. The latter (attempted conversion) is not the same as the former (religious tolerance).

Christian Fundamentalists are — by self-definition, I would say — an intolerant bunch because of the exclusivity of their beliefs. It’s kind of like having someone claim that 2+2=5. You can tolerate that belief all you want but that person really is wrong and in need of correction. That’s how the Christian Fundamentalist feels. Everyone else really is wrong and in need of correcting. Jesus said “I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life,” after all. Tolerance is no more an option here than with arithmetical errors.

And that’s their belief. And so we, non-Christian-Fundamentalists, who are all for tolerance and religious pluralism, should respect that belief and be tolerant ourselves and let them believe what they want, no?

Of course we should, BUT …

But what if they don’t keep their beliefs to themselves? What if they try to make me do something I don’t want to do or try to stop me from doing something I do want to do by getting legislation passed or influencing the government or getting elected to political offices? What if they don’t just practice their religion on Sunday but bring it to work with them on Monday? And what if they let their crazy religious ideas influence how they act?

What if they try to pass anti-abortion laws to prevent me from having an abortion even when I believe that abortion is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against abortion then they shouldn’t have one. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-abortion laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.

Or what about homosexuals and same-sex marriages? Same deal applies.

So, what if they don’t play well with others? How can we be tolerant of them when they are so intolerable?

…

Well, unfortunately, I don’t have the answer … yet. Comments, anyone???

I’m afraid of the Light, mommy.

Published
by
Ken
on May 16, 2007
in christian fundamentalism, christianity, evil, jerry falwell, jesus and judging others
. 0 Comments

I was reading this post about Jerry Falwell and just a few of the (as of right now) 358 comments. Talk about a polarizing figure! In between some of the hardcore anti-Falwellian comments was this one :

The hate-filled vitriol towards Dr Falwell speaks volumes that he was correct. Jesus said it first through (John 3). Folks hate Jesus and Dr Falwell because they love their evil deeds.

Men do indeed have a sinful heart that is in enmity towards God. Those that are lost without Christ can’t even pay respects to a fine man, husband, father, and grandfather because he stood for Christ. You that are spewing hate today should be ashamed of yourselves, if you were capable of shame that is.

The commenter is referring to John 3:19-21 where Jesus says:

“And this is the judgement, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

This also reminds me of something else Jesus said in Matthew 5:11,12:

“Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

The implication here is one that I fear many out-spoken fundamentalists hold and wear as a “Scarlett H,” so to speak. If I am hated for what I say and do then that proves I am doing God’s work. But some key ingredients are explicitly missing in this. Jesus said that “everyone who does evil hates the light.” Jesus did not say “everyone who hates is evil and everyone who is hated is the light.” The fact that there is hatred does not prove a damn thing either way.

So people hate Jerry Falwell. I’m sure that there were people who hated Bernardo Gui (watch The Name of the Rose with Sean Connery and Christian Slater) and other members of the Inquisition. There were and are people who hate Hitler, Stalin, Nero, Hussein. Does this mean all these people were doing God’s work and were “the light”? And if you hate Hitler, are you necessarily an evil doer?

Of course not. Even God hates!

So, the mere fact that Falwell is hated by some does not prove anything. Falwell’s “correctness,” as the original commenter says, cannot be proved by how much or little Falwell is hated. It can only be proven by the fire of God’s judgement.

The key to how much light we have in our selves is how much we emulate Jesus. The only fingers Jesus pointed were at the Scribes and Pharisees — religious leaders who should have known better. He didn’t condemn adulterers, prostitutes, tax collectors. He didn’t separate himself from them as many Christian Fundamentalists are doing today with homosexuals, liberals, pro-lifers. No. Instead, he ate with them; hung out with them; loved them. You can talk all you want about “loving the sinner and hating the sin” but all too often the “loving the sinner” part is missing.