Archive for the 'jesus' Category

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
. 2 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.

Just a thought … on being born (again)

Published
by
Ken
on March 26, 2007
in born again, christianity, jesus, just a thought ..., stephen levine and who dies?
. 0 Comments

From chapter 2, “Being Born,” of Who Dies? by Stephen Levine:

The body dies, the mind is constantly changing. But somehow, behind it all there is a presence, called by some “the deathless,” that is unchanging, that simply is as it is.

To become fully born is to touch this deathlessness. To experience, even for a moment, the spaciousness which goes beyond birth and death. To emerge into a world of paradox and mystery with no weapon but awareness and love.

When I read this, I was struck by its similarity to “born again“? Deathless. Beyond birth and death. A dying body but a living presence.

But Levine is not talking about Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus from John chapter 3. Earlier, he says:

Discover yourself. Because you are the truth. And no one can take you there except you. Buddha left a road map. Jesus left a road map. Krishna left a road map. Rand McNally left a road map. But you still have to travel the road yourself.

No. Levine is talking about the essence of things that is everyone. “Being” itself. Our bodies, our minds, our joys, our fears, all that we attach to are not “us” but are outside “us.” This essence is the church or the body of Christ or the kingdom of Heaven or … One body but many members. One body of which we all are a part.

God is not “out there.” God is “in here.” After all, Jesus said that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” and what’s closer to us that our Self, our Being?

Just a thought …

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Published
by
Ken
on March 20, 2007
in christianity and jesus
. 0 Comments

On Saturday, there was a New York Times article about a free-speech case dividing Bush and the Religious Right (if you can imagine that). Briefly (and quoting the NYT article):

As the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of Juneau on its way to the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City, students were allowed to leave the school grounds to watch. The school band and cheerleaders performed. With television cameras focused on the scene, Mr. Frederick and some friends unfurled a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

Mr. Frederick later testified that he designed the banner, using a slogan he had seen on a snowboard, “to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on television.” Ms. Morse found no humor but plenty of meaning in the sign, recognizing “bong hits” as a slang reference to using marijuana. She demanded that he take the banner down. When he refused, she tore it down, ordered him to her office, and gave him a 10-day suspension.

Ok, putting aside the legal ramifications and precedents and what not, let’s get to the crazy stuff. The Bush administration is siding with the principal and the school board which are being represented (sans fees) by Kenneth Star (you know, the Clinton thing).

And in the opposite corner are the ACLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship — not much surprise there. But, right behind them are …

… the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson; the Christian Legal Society; the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization based in Arizona that describes its mission as “defending the right to hear and speak the Truth”; the Rutherford Institute, which has participated in many religion cases before the court; and Liberty Legal Institute, a nonprofit law firm “dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights and religious freedom.”

I don’t get this at all. What, exactly are the issues of “Truth” and “religious freedom” here? If taken seriously, the sign was condoning illegal drug use in the name of Jesus. If taken not seriously, the sign was merely a prank by a high schooler. What, exactly, are these organizations doing?

My feeling is that they are all involved because and only because the sign had “Jesus” on it. They view tearing down a sign that says “Jesus” as blasphemy or something. The marijuana reference is secondary and is not the real issue because is it about the most innocuous, harmless, non-blasphemous thing that could have been written.

Don’t believe that? Well, I wonder how many of these religious right organizations would be so involved if the sign read “Smoke Crack 4 Jesus” or “Sodomize 4 Jesus” or “Vote Democrat 4 Jesus”? These would all be “First Amendment”, “right to speak” issues as much as “Bong Hits”, would they not?

More on Christianity’s Evolution

Published
by
Ken
on March 9, 2007
in christianity, evolution, god, holy spirit, i am that, jesus, ravi zacharias and trinity
. 1 Comment

I’ve been reading I Am That by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and while reading page 15 where he says:

All there is is me, all there is is mine. Before all beginnings, after all endings — I am. All has its being in me, in the ‘I am’, that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable without me. Whatever happens, I must be there to witness it.

the following thoughts started flowing. They carry on where what I posted here leaves off. These are rough thoughts and were written while drinking coffee and feeding my daughter her lunch. As such they may not be very eloquent or complete but that’s ok. Anyway, here goes …

Don’t you see that Jesus had to portray God as being “out there”? He had enough troubles claiming that he was God’s Son and, therefore, God himself. Imagine if he started saying “Oh, and so are you!” His ministry wouldn’t have lasted three days let alone three years. He was talking to Jews, afterall, who had some real issues with “blasphemy”.

Ravi Zacharias, in the Introduction to Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message, talks about Deepak Chopra “who teaches a doctrine … woven into Vedic teachings, karma, and self-deification.” And the inference is that self-deification is bad because only God can claim to be God. But Zacharias’ version of self-deification is saying “I am the God of the Old Testament. I am the God whose name cannot be pronounced. I am the God who cannot be looked upon or else you will die.” But that’s not what the eastern religions are saying. There is no notion of the God of the OT — there’s no valid comparison between “I am God” said by a westerner and an easterner.

So, Jesus portrayed God as out there but he didn’t stop there. Now, I don’t know where the Jesus and Holy Spirit pieces of the Trinity were in the Old Testament but they were not a big part of it. But they are in the New Testament and this is the evolution I talked about the other post. Let’s see what they are in the NT.

Jesus is the way to God. And we are to be like Jesus. We are called children of God — just as Jesus was the son of God. The Holy Spirit is God in us. God is in us. God is part of us. The character of Jesus is the character in us that points us to God. The Holy Spirit is that part of us that is God.

So, Jesus starts with the bordering-on-blasphemous idea of his being God. He showed us God in human form. This is exactly what we needed. We needed a way to God. This is through Jesus Christ. But if Jesus was the son of God and we are children of God, then isn’t Jesus that part of us that points to God?

That’s all I’ve got … for now.

God is not …

Published
by
Ken
on February 22, 2007
in christianity, god, holy spirit, jesus and trinity
. 0 Comments

I’ve touched on this idea in several other posts but while browsing my usual blogs I ran across several talking about the Trinity. The other day, I started outlining my own Trinity post but what I saw today led me in a slightly different direction.

On Faith and Theology, Kim Fabricius has a post called Ten propositions on the Trinity. Propositions 2-4 read as follows:

2. The Trinity is not an academic doctrine thought up by clever scholars, rather it grew out of the Christian experience of worship, i.e. it expressed the early church’s pattern of prayer to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit.

3. The driving force of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity was Christological and soteriological, i.e. it served to articulate the Christian experience of salvation in Christ. The first Christians already knew God; through Jesus they came to know God as Jesus’ Father and Jesus as God’s Son; while in the Spirit Jesus continued to be present to them, forming a family of prayer to the Father and building a community of witness to Christ.

4. The church’s thinking was this: As God discloses himself in worship and salvation, so God must be in Godself. In the technical language of (Karl) Rahner’s Rule: the “economic” Trinity is the “immanent” Trinity, and the “immanent” Trinity is the “economic” Trinity. What you see is what you get, and what you get is what there is.

So, according to props 2 and 3, the Trinity “grew out of” and “served to articulate” an experience. But “experience” is very subjective. We can — and do in everyday life — experience things as “other than” what they are.

You experience the chair you are sitting on as a solid surface but at the atomic level there is far more empty space than occupied space.

You experience a firetruck as “red” but it appears red because that is the wavelength of light (i.e. color) that the paint on the firetruck rejects — it absorbs the other colors. So, is it really red or is it really not red or “other than” red.

We all experience time as other than the passing of regular intervals. “I spent the longest winter of my life in Chicago one weekend.” “Time flies when you’re having fun.”

I am fortunate enough to have seen Michelangelo’s The David in Florence. This is, in it’s physical essence, a chunk of stone. It’s been handled by a true genius but in it’s being it is a chunk of stone. But I experienced awe when I saw it. I did not perceive this piece of stone as just stone but as a presence.

So, is the chair “really” solid as I experience it? Is the firetruck “really” red as I experience it? Is The David “really” more than a chunk of stone as I experience it? Can we say that God “really” is a Trinity because that’s how we experience God?

Proposition 4 then claims that how God is disclosed to us through our experience must be God. This is the same God who could only flash his backside to Moses without killing him. We can know this God with certainty?

I find it simply fascinating that in one breath (some) Christians will talk about their perfect, all powerful, all knowing, all present God who is powerful enough to create the world by merely speaking and who works in such mysterious ways that we cannot know them and who is outside time and yada yada yada and yet in the very next breath say with utter conviction, “but that notion of God is 100% wrong”. In other words, “we can’t know everything that God is but we do know everything that God is not“.

Since (some) Christians experience God as the Trinity then God must be the Trinity and even though they don’t really know God they do know that if you don’t experience God as the Trinity then you are not really experiencing God and are a heretic. Bruce makes some excellent points along this line in his post Is Belief in the Doctrine of the Trinity Essential?:

The question I have is “can someone believe a heretical doctrine and still be a Christian?” How much heresy until they fall away from the faith? Where is that line where a person goes from child of God to child of the devil? Is salvation by “correct doctrine” or is it by personal faith in Jesus Christ? What about the Christians of the first 4 centuries before this issue was settled? Are they to be considered Christians if they did not believe in the Trinity they had not been taught yet? Did the Apostles teach Trinitarianism during the first 100 years of the Church? If not, how can they be considered Christians if Trinitarianism is essential to the Christian faith?

I also question our selective appeal to Church history. The Church, almost universally, throughout history baptized people for the remission of sins. History clearly bears this out. Yet, Baptists reject this. Are they not heretics for refusing the witness of the historic Church? Why is one group heretical but not the other? Who decides? The Pope? The National Council of Churches? The National Association of Evangelicals? Every little pope that pastors a local, evangelical Church? Who decides and by what authority?

I think that any and all notions of God that are disclosed to us (regular people — true mystics aside, perhaps) must be “dumbed-down” approximations of God’s true being. The concept of the Trinity (among others) is, very purposefully, just beyond our comprehension. It is a mystery that we can embrace without being completely overwhelmed. It is God showing us his backside as he did with Moses. But it is also less than God’s true being. It is the veil hiding God’s true face.

God may very well have seven veils — the Trinity being one. God may choose to disclose his being in different forms at different times to different people. If we have seen but the one veil, who are we to say that another, different veil does not hide the same face?

Thoughts on inerrancy

Published
by
Ken
on February 21, 2007
in bible, jesus and truth
. 1 Comment

These are some “stream-of-consciousness” thoughts on what it means for the Bible to be inerrant. So please take them as that — spontaneous ideas and questions that have not been fully thought out. As always … comments are solicited.

Does inerrant mean true? Absolutely true? True absolutely?

Does inerrant mean historically accurate, precise?

Does inerrant mean that Jesus really said the words attributed to him in the gospels? Does inerrant apply to the words spoken by Jesus — i.e. Jesus really said the words and the words he said are also inerrant?

If so, then Jesus’ parables are inerrant even though the events they depict did not actually occur. The story of “The Prodigal Son” is inerrant even though said son never existed.

So, the parables are inerrant in that their symbolism is accurate, true?

But back to true. If the entire Bible is inerrant then the entire Bible is true. But is the entire Bible equally true? If we are talking absolute truth then yes, the entire Bible would be equally true because absolute is absolute, no?

If the entire Bible is absolute truth then we seem to have a slight problem. Absolute truth does not change — otherwise it’s not absolute. One absolute truth cannot alter, modify, negate, replace another absolute truth. Therefore, we are bound by every absolutely true verse and therefore by the Old Testament Law and by the New Testament teachings. Absolute truth is not applicable based on social situations or time period or any other restriction. If this verse does not apply to me today then this verse cannot be absolute truth, i.e. truth without condition.

So, is the Bible, then conditional truth? This verse is true under these conditions, for these people, at these times, under these social situations?

But if it’s conditionally true, then isn’t it conditionally inerrant?

Christianity’s Evolution

Published
by
Ken
on February 16, 2007
in christianity, evolution, god and jesus
. 7 Comments

I think Christianity must evolve into something new. As I said in Beliefs that Work, religion has got to “work” and I think it’s pretty obvious that the “Old Time Religion” is not working for more and more people. And the timing is nigh perfect: 4000 years for the Old Testament and 2000 years for the New Testament means it’s time to start anew. Plus there’s a certain mathematical multiplicity to it.

I don’t have all the details worked out but extrapolating on the trend from OT to NT I think the next step will be that we are God and just don’t know it yet. Here’s my train of thought:

Old Testament New Testament New New Testament
Israel was God’s “chosen people” Christian’s were the “children of God” and Jesus was the “son of God” Since a “son” is the same as a “child” then we are the same as Jesus and, hence, we are God
God was “out there” and “up there” and very distinct from his people God was “in the hearts” of the Christians God is us
People had to go through the priests to have contact with God People could have direct contact with God People are God

The only problem with this new religion is that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the homeless guy on the corner are all God … just like me.

Beliefs that Work

Published
by
Ken
on February 14, 2007
in belief, christianity, god, jesus, religion and religious pluralism
. 0 Comments

Why do we believe what we believe? I think that it’s because the beliefs we choose to believe are the ones that “work” for us. That is, there is something about the belief that attracts us. The belief makes “sense” to us. The promised results of believing are manifested. This is also the exact way that I word my main reason for leaving the Fundamentalist Christianity in which I was raised from the womb: it just didn’t “work” for me.

Christianity does work for some people — my parents, for example. They see God’s hand everywhere and feel God’s presence. They live “by the grace of God” through all their physical problems. They are not disillusioned by God’s “testing” them with yet another difficulty. And many people are converted to Christianity because it just makes sense — people like Lee Strobel and Ravi Zacharias. It just plain works for them. And that’s great. More power to them. But just because it works for you doesn’t mean that it will work for me no matter how hard I try.

I have seasonal allergies. I’ve had them my whole life and everywhere I’ve lived. Some years it’s not too bad and other years it is bad. Sometimes the only thing that gets me through is to overdose on allergy medicine, crank the AC to arctic conditions, sit down with my head tilted slightly back and go to sleep. When I’m in this condition, the worst thing possible is to be around someone who does not have any allergies. They just don’t understand what I’m feeling and can’t believe that all I want to do is sleep all day and all they want to do is go outside and do something. They just can’t sympathize or empathize. That’s how it is with Christians for whom Christianity really works. “If it works for me then it’ll work for anyone” … “You just have to hang in there” … “You can’t blame God or the church or your family” “God will see you through” … and on and on.

This is one reason I don’t think that Christianity can be the one and only true religion. It is unrealistic to force every person from every culture to believe the exact same thing and have those beliefs be alive and meaningful. Why do you think there are different cultures to begin with? The anti-pluralist Christians who say that everyone must be a Christian (and especially their flavor Christian) are a lot like Captain James T. Kirk who zooms around the universe telling everyone he meets that their brand of society and government is wrong and they need to be a democracy — just like his society. Democracy just doesn’t work for everyone the same way. And neither does religion.

For proof, I show you ol’ J.C. himself. Now many Christians will say that Jesus did not break from Judaism but only fulfilled the Old Testament and the prophecies. But it seems pretty clear to me that the Old Testament concept of God was not “working” for the Jews anymore. The Old Testament concept of God was not helping them cope with their current situation with the Romans. They needed something different. And that’s exactly what Jesus brought them. A new concept of God — the same God, so to speak, but a different way of approaching him and a different way of worshiping him. Something new that “worked” for them. So, if Jesus brought something new to a people for whom the old religions were not working, then how can you possibly think that 2000 years later the same Christianity should be expected to work for us?

Christians and Money

Published
by
Ken
on February 11, 2007
in christianity, jesus, money and wealth
. 0 Comments

In my posts No Christian should have a bank account or an IRA and Blogger Solves World Problems. Details at 11:00, was I exaggerating? I think that if you literally do what Jesus preached (and I mean literally as in the Bible is literally true and is literally the fully inspired, inerrant word of God and the Bible is literally absolute truth) then no, those were not exaggerations. But given how we interpret the Bible today (see my post The Bible and Society — which conforms to which?) I doubt we should be expected to take anything Jesus said as literally applying to us today since we are so far removed from the social situation of his time. But I would like you to think about a few things in light of Jesus’ generic commands of loving one another, helping one another, yada yada yada.

  • Should there be multi-millionare Christians? Is being a a plain old millionare not enough? Think about how much good those millions would do in the name of Jesus.
  • Should a Christian sock away 15% pre-tax in a 401(k) yet only tithe 10% (and often much less) post-tax?
  • Should a Christian drive the top of the line Mecedes sedan? The E-Class is pretty darn nice and think about how much good those tens of thousands of dollars would do in the name of Jesus.
  • Should a Christian have a basement full of stuff and a Public Storage space and a PODS full of stuff gathering moths and rust? Imagine if you sold everything you didn’t use or, better yet, didn’t buy it in the first place?
  • Should Christians take six-figure vacations or have six-figure weddings? Are they really necessary?
  • Should Christians work 60-70 hours a week and not have time to spend with his/her family let alone give of their time for others?