"So, I hope nobody will read this site and be motivated into committing suicide. This site is not here to justify it and it’s not here for that reason. Besides, how many people are like me in this world? Maybe two if I’m looking in a mirror."
I'm not sure how I feel about his, nor do I have anything to say. I just felt compelled to register it.
This man decided, after much contemplation, to take his life on his 60th birthday and rather than leaving a suicide note, he left a large website behind.
It's not my place to decide how anyone should live or die. I know I'll be haunted by his legacy for sometime.
What do you think?
* His site was originally hosted by Yahoo who took it down for violating the TOS - but the group Anonymous has mirrored it here: http://www.martinmanley.org
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Monday, July 8, 2013
Be an activist, not a slacktivist!
I used to work as a fundraiser for the March of Dimes. It was hard work, it was very hard to convince people to part with their money, even for research that could save the lives of babies. Getting people to walk in an event was easy; everyone was happy to walk for babies. Let me make this clear: your act of walking saved no babies. The walk is a celebration of thanks for everyone who raised money to support the mission. So, please, if you haven't donated or raised money, stay home. Don't show up to a walk (or any other similar event) and think you're supporting a cause! And furthermore - DONATE MONEY. Don't just change your Facebook profile photo or update your status.
I am sick and tired of the Facebook status updates that are “in support” of something. The next person who updates their status in support of something, I will punch in the face (okay, maybe not really).
Why such vitriol, such hatred for raising awareness for something as horrible as cancer or child abuse you ask with your doe-eyes open wide in disbelief. Because the people who mindlessly post these updates are helping absolutely no one. In fact, they may be doing more harm than good.
If you’re ready to throw rotten tomatoes at me for raining on your good feeling rainbows, honestly answer these questions.
1) How does your status update help anyone? Why would that cartoon character stop anyone from beating a child?
Say for example you are posting it to show your support for war veterans, or to demonstrate that you’re always there for a friend in need. How have you helped? Did you donate money? Did you actually lend a helping hand to a friend in need? No. Up to this point all you’ve done is update your status, the same activity you do 5 times a day. Let me reiterate that – you have provided zero actual help. If my house is on fire, a real friend would be at my house pulling out my valuables alongside me, not putting something banal on Facebook like: “If you’re reading this you can rest assured I’ll always be there for you when things catch on fire. Please copy this if you agree.” Actions speak louder than words.
2) Regarding the particularly infuriating breast cancer campaign – how does the top secret nature of the status updates raise awareness? And why does keeping it a secret from all men seem helpful?
Instead of making men aware of the devastating effects this disease has on the women in their lives and in rare occasions on men themselves, we’ll just make sexual innuendo and get their attention for NO DAMN REASON. There’s not even a link to click through to the American Cancer Society’s website to make a donation. If you like sexual innuendo, a better use of your status update would be: “Like looking at boobies? Breast cancer makes ‘em ugly. Click here to donate to keep boobies pretty.” <— Hey look, all the fun of an inappropriate joke along with something helpful.
3) Gut check – how many times have you copy and pasted some helpful “in support of” status update and not done anything else?
You feel like you have done your part, you’ve contributed to the cause and are ready to move on. The reality is, you haven’t donated money, you haven’t encouraged your friends to donate money, and you haven’t even raised awareness about how horrible the something you’re supporting is. This really happens and it’s why it frustrates me most of all. It’s called slackitivism – something that feels good but has no real effect at all.
I know your fingers are twitching to leave me hateful comments about how it’s all a fun way to show your support for something very serious. I get it — it’s fun and we all want to feel like we’re a part of something. You’re generating lots of great PR with these status updates, right?
Think of it in off-line terms. If you were hanging around with some friends and randomly said “hey, you know what guys and gals? I am patently against child abuse” would you feel like you’ve helped prevent child abuse? It amounts to the same thing.
You’re just copying and pasting and in the real world helping someone is never that easy.
If you are among the people who do donate and or volunteer, or did help your friend pull her belongings out of a burning house, please use the extra real estate in your status update to share how your friends can be as helpful as you. If not, you’re just missing the point of “raising awareness.”
Real world example: This blog post highlights how incredibly hurtful the latest version of the breast cancer game can be. Again, if you want to help a cause DO SOMETHING. Your games are not helping anyone, and as you can clearly see this incarnation is particularly insensitive to women who are unable to conceive by pretending to be pregnant.
I am sick and tired of the Facebook status updates that are “in support” of something. The next person who updates their status in support of something, I will punch in the face (okay, maybe not really).
Why such vitriol, such hatred for raising awareness for something as horrible as cancer or child abuse you ask with your doe-eyes open wide in disbelief. Because the people who mindlessly post these updates are helping absolutely no one. In fact, they may be doing more harm than good.
If you’re ready to throw rotten tomatoes at me for raining on your good feeling rainbows, honestly answer these questions.
Say for example you are posting it to show your support for war veterans, or to demonstrate that you’re always there for a friend in need. How have you helped? Did you donate money? Did you actually lend a helping hand to a friend in need? No. Up to this point all you’ve done is update your status, the same activity you do 5 times a day. Let me reiterate that – you have provided zero actual help. If my house is on fire, a real friend would be at my house pulling out my valuables alongside me, not putting something banal on Facebook like: “If you’re reading this you can rest assured I’ll always be there for you when things catch on fire. Please copy this if you agree.” Actions speak louder than words.
2) Regarding the particularly infuriating breast cancer campaign – how does the top secret nature of the status updates raise awareness? And why does keeping it a secret from all men seem helpful?
Instead of making men aware of the devastating effects this disease has on the women in their lives and in rare occasions on men themselves, we’ll just make sexual innuendo and get their attention for NO DAMN REASON. There’s not even a link to click through to the American Cancer Society’s website to make a donation. If you like sexual innuendo, a better use of your status update would be: “Like looking at boobies? Breast cancer makes ‘em ugly. Click here to donate to keep boobies pretty.” <— Hey look, all the fun of an inappropriate joke along with something helpful.
3) Gut check – how many times have you copy and pasted some helpful “in support of” status update and not done anything else?
You feel like you have done your part, you’ve contributed to the cause and are ready to move on. The reality is, you haven’t donated money, you haven’t encouraged your friends to donate money, and you haven’t even raised awareness about how horrible the something you’re supporting is. This really happens and it’s why it frustrates me most of all. It’s called slackitivism – something that feels good but has no real effect at all.
I know your fingers are twitching to leave me hateful comments about how it’s all a fun way to show your support for something very serious. I get it — it’s fun and we all want to feel like we’re a part of something. You’re generating lots of great PR with these status updates, right?
Think of it in off-line terms. If you were hanging around with some friends and randomly said “hey, you know what guys and gals? I am patently against child abuse” would you feel like you’ve helped prevent child abuse? It amounts to the same thing.
You’re just copying and pasting and in the real world helping someone is never that easy.
If you are among the people who do donate and or volunteer, or did help your friend pull her belongings out of a burning house, please use the extra real estate in your status update to share how your friends can be as helpful as you. If not, you’re just missing the point of “raising awareness.”
Real world example: This blog post highlights how incredibly hurtful the latest version of the breast cancer game can be. Again, if you want to help a cause DO SOMETHING. Your games are not helping anyone, and as you can clearly see this incarnation is particularly insensitive to women who are unable to conceive by pretending to be pregnant.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
"You're an idiot" and other divisive things we say.
I'm guilty of it myself - some talking head says something
pretty ludicrous, my mouth opens up and
out comes something like "what an idiot!" Thankfully, my parents
raised me with the mantra "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say
anything at all" so these outbursts are (mostly) limited to yelling at the
television.
Unfortunately this seems to be contrary to how things work
in the online world. I won't waste your time and mine bemoaning the loss of
online civility - all you have to do is read any comments on any news
article with even the most passing mention of taxes, religion, or bad drivers.
What I will bemoan today is how rude we are to our
political/religious foes when they change their minds. "He was for it
before he was against it!" Why is changing your mind a bad thing?
ESPECIALLY when the change of opinion is a really good thing?!
Case in-point; several of the most Conservative figure heads
have recently acknowledged that fighting same-sex marriage is contrary to the
Republican position of less government interference.
(Lest you jump to conclusions too soon -- they are not
saying they approve of same-sex marriage, they still think it's icky and
immoral.)
- Bill
O'Reilly said: "The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals.
... We're Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else. That's a
compelling argument, and to deny that you've got to have a very strong argument
on the other side. And the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump
the Bible."
- Glen
Beck said: "We have been so foolish. It is not about gays. It's not
about homosexuals. It's about freedom. And the reason why they've won is
because they've made it about freedom ... And so the argument has been, 'Who
are you to tell me what I can and cannot do?' And by saying, 'Well, because it
always is.' What's happened? You've lost. And by doing so, by not turning into
it soon enough, what's happened is you've been painted into a corner of a
bigot. That's why they've won. Because the principle of it is right ... the
principle is easy to understand."
- Rick
Perry said: "We cannot condemn certain lifestyles while turning a
blind eye to sins that, in God's eyes, are just as grievous. We must love all
... welcome all...and be a model for Christ."
- Rush
Limbaugh even said: And I think they [gay marriage opponents] are just
worried about the survivability of the country. And to which the opponents say,
"Well, the country's changing and you better get with it and understand it
because this genie's not getting put back in the bottle." And I think
that's right. I don't care what this court does with this particular ruling,
Proposition 8. I think the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that
there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide.
My complaint is this - if you're going to make the claim
that you are the rational one, you are the voice of reason, you are open and
affirming of all, then don't fall to this level of pettiness. These types of
responses are why it is so hard for someone in the public eye to change their
minds. They're going to get a lot of grief from the co-religionists or party
members. Lets us just be thankful they've come to our side and offer them a
little support. When opposing sides can at last agree on such polarizing
issues, that is the time to embrace the other, to work together, to try to heal
some of the incredible division tearing our country apart.
We'll never see eye-to-eye on everything. Let's embrace over
things we can embrace over and start engaging in meaningful dialogue to find
solutions to other very contentious issues, not resort to childlike name
calling.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Are we built to discriminate?
This photo meme is going around the interwebs lately. I love the message, it's beautiful and inspiring. But at the same time, it denies the very basics of human nature. We are not born blank slates. Human beings are largely shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptions that are encoded in our genes.
Our ancestors survived the very dangerous world of the past by forming groups, largely family groups. This grouping allowed them to protect themselves from other tribes who might try to steal their food or kill them. It helped them instantly identify a person of another tribe who might be a danger. Sure, we don't need to do that anymore, but we don't need an appendix anymore either and it's still in our bodies, just waiting to burst.
In this study a group of white children, whose parents never discussed race with their children (preferring to assume the "blank slate" theory will lead to children who don't even see race) watched some multicultural videos. Later the majority of these white kids answered "how many white people are mean?" with "almost none." And they answered "how many black people are mean?" with "some" or "a lot."
We have evolved to prefer being with people like us. This applies to everything - we prefer to hang out with people who share our interests, who have the same political and religious beliefs we do and, yes, people who look like us.
Prejudice is natural; but natural does not mean good. We do thousands of unnatural things every day, and they make our lives so much better. Parents, family, society has a responsibility to the children to teach them that is is OK to notice differences in other people, but teach them that the differences are what makes us interesting.
Overcoming prejudice is the mark of an evolved, sophisticated person. Perpetuating prejudice is ancient tribalism and the sign of a scared person.
For more information about the reasons the "blank state" theory don't hold up, check out this book:
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker
Thursday, February 7, 2013
I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians.
Can any article about some Christian doing something stupid be complete without this quote from Ghandi? "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are not like your Christ."
Today this quote is making its appearance on every online article covering the story of the Lutheran pastor who apologized for taking part in an interfaith service for the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting.
I’ve read four or five different articles on this topic, and each time someone comments “I like your Christ, but I do not like you Christians.”
Look, I share the sentiment here. I love the teachings of Jesus, I hate the way they have been misconstrued by masses of “pew potatoes” the world over. But we can’t criticize all of Christianity based on the actions of a few lunatics who get attention.
Just because one very conservative division of Lutheranism believes that participating in an interfaith event is the same thing as affirming that all religions equally lead to God (and heaven) doesn’t mean they all do.
Many Christians do believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to know God and get to heaven. Other Christians believe that Jesus showed us one way to know God, but other ways will also get you there in the end. Some Christians even believe that Jesus is another isha-devata (a favorite deity to worship).
The Westboro Baptist Church is no more representative of Christianity than the Unitarian Universalists are. Despite what some really outspoken fundamentalist would have us believe, there is not, nor has there ever been one universally agreed upon bedrock called “Christianity.” The various, sects and denominations are as varied as humanity itself.
There. I’ve done my good deed in defending this thing called Christianity.
I was outraged by this story, but I know it is not the view of every Christian. I hope that even those who believe Jesus is the only way to know God or get to heaven would see the value of interfaith dialogue and ceremonies like this where we can all come together as a human race joined in our sufferings, and not worry about the stupid divisions we’ve created.
But to Christians that believe Jesus is “the way, the truth and life” and that no one “comes to the father” but through Jesus I have this to say:
This quote comes from the Gospel of John, which is unlike the other three gospels in nearly every way. It is a very gnostic book. It is highly unlikely that anything recorded in John are records of actual events.
Despite what we have been led to believe, the disciples did not follow Jesus around worshiping him as God. They followed him around as a teacher, as a leader, as someone to strive to be like. They had no idea he was God. Go re-read the gospels with fresh eyes. I’ll wait.
Did you see that? Even when Jesus hints at things like the fact that he’ll be raised in three days, the disciples had no idea what the heck that meant. If everyone who knew Jesus knew he was the incarnation of God it wouldn’t have taken some 100 years to develop the theology that taught that Jesus was both God and man. Philosophers hammered at that idea for ages, it’s not spelled out as clearly as you now think.
You can feel certain about the truth of your faith because you live in an echo chamber where people who think just like you pat you on the back for thinking just like them, and then when you pray you get warm, tingly feelings. That’s not a firm foundation for rejecting the possibility that every non-Christian on the planet will roast in eternal hell fire, or even to assume that they’d be so much happier if they could just worship your God. They live in their own echo chambers and get their own warm tingly feelings.
When Jesus told his disciples to evangelize to the whole word, I don’t think he meant to do so by insulting them. The best way to convince non-Christians that Christianity is a good thing is by embodying the principles the faith espouses. Love, kindness, charity, patience. Love your neighbor, be kind to strangers, help foreigners. The best way to convince non-Christians that Ghandi was right and that Christians are nothing like Jesus is to scold each other for participating in interfaith events, by smugly declaring that you have the whole truth and nothing but the truth with no room for any misunderstanding.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Why? Just why?
Westboro Baptist Church Says It Will Picket Vigil For Connecticut School Shooting Victims
From the Huffington Post
How do these people sleep at night?
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Your God is Too Small
There's a lot of finger pointing and handwringing right now about who to blame for the tragic shooting yesterday. Everyone agrees it was a shocking, horrible thing and many of us wept for those lost, and those left behind.
It's only natural to ask how any loving god could let this happen. I find it appalling that atheists have rushed forward to scream "where's your God now?" and I find it equally appalling that theists have rushed forward to say "not allowed in schools, that's where!" If anything should unite believers and unbelievers it is the tragic loss of so much young, innocent life.
Shame on you, atheists who have used such a painful tragedy to make anyone question their faith, the very means they draw comfort and hope from. Shame on you, Christians for your poor response. This is not the answer:
How dare you marginalize God this way? God is the supreme being, creator of heaven and earth, omnipresent and omnipotent. How dare you suggest that God is bound by politics. Do you think God was allowed into Egypt when he freed the Jews from slavery? Do you think the Roman's wanted God to violate the laws of nature when he raised his son from the dead? God is not bound by laws or politics. There is nowhere God cannot go. There are no laws, no walls, no boundaries mere mortals could construct to keep him out.
"Where could I go to escape your spirit? Where could I flee from your presence? If I climb the heavens, you are there, there too if I lie in Sheol. If I flew to the point of sunrise, or westward across the sea your hand would still be guiding me, your right hand holding me." Psalms 139:7-10
'"Am I only a God nearby,' declares the Lord, 'and not a God far away? Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?' declares the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth?' declares the Lord." Jeremiah 23:23-23
"Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:20
We live in one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world. You don't have to agree with anyone else's religion, but you have to respect their right to have it. Government employees are not Sunday school teachers. If you want your children to know God, teach them. If anyone seeks God and has a relationship with him, that does not stop at the doors of any building.
To suggest otherwise makes your god a very small god indeed.
It's only natural to ask how any loving god could let this happen. I find it appalling that atheists have rushed forward to scream "where's your God now?" and I find it equally appalling that theists have rushed forward to say "not allowed in schools, that's where!" If anything should unite believers and unbelievers it is the tragic loss of so much young, innocent life.
Shame on you, atheists who have used such a painful tragedy to make anyone question their faith, the very means they draw comfort and hope from. Shame on you, Christians for your poor response. This is not the answer:
How dare you marginalize God this way? God is the supreme being, creator of heaven and earth, omnipresent and omnipotent. How dare you suggest that God is bound by politics. Do you think God was allowed into Egypt when he freed the Jews from slavery? Do you think the Roman's wanted God to violate the laws of nature when he raised his son from the dead? God is not bound by laws or politics. There is nowhere God cannot go. There are no laws, no walls, no boundaries mere mortals could construct to keep him out.
"Where could I go to escape your spirit? Where could I flee from your presence? If I climb the heavens, you are there, there too if I lie in Sheol. If I flew to the point of sunrise, or westward across the sea your hand would still be guiding me, your right hand holding me." Psalms 139:7-10
'"Am I only a God nearby,' declares the Lord, 'and not a God far away? Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?' declares the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth?' declares the Lord." Jeremiah 23:23-23
"Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:20
We live in one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world. You don't have to agree with anyone else's religion, but you have to respect their right to have it. Government employees are not Sunday school teachers. If you want your children to know God, teach them. If anyone seeks God and has a relationship with him, that does not stop at the doors of any building.
To suggest otherwise makes your god a very small god indeed.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Nice quote
He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.
--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
I'm a panentheist
Paul Tillich said that we should retire the word “God,” because it had become virtually meaningless. Meaningless because there is no consensus about what the word means. Wars have been fought, people have been slaughtered of the "right" and "wrong" definition of God. (It always makes me laugh when people say God is so transcendent that we can't know his mind, but then they DO know his mind about what he wants, what he expects, where he will send me when I die ...)
Tillich used expressions such as “Ultimate Concern,” “Ground of Being,” which pointed toward a concept of God as not a supernatural person somewhere “out there,” but as the ultimately unknowable direction in which all things point.
As Marcus Borg has articulated better than I could hope to, the God I reject is the god of supernatural theism, a “supernatural being somewhere out there.” The God that has become a selfish transaction for the unknowable afterlife. Christianity is not simply believing the right things so you can avoid eternal Hell Fire, it's about knowing and loving God, loving your fellow man, and as Jesus said in John's gospel that we "might have life, and have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). Borg's book, "Speaking Christian" has challenged me to rethink my opinion of God and of Christianity.
Unlike pantheism, which says the universe is God, God is the universe and that is all, I realized I'm a panentheist. Panentheist means all in God and God transcends everything. God is "the ground in which I live and move and have my being" (Acts 17:28). An imperfect analogy is of fish in a river. Fish (that would be us) live in a river, rely on the river for breathing, moving ... and yet the river is more than just the fish and flora and fauna, it flows into the Ocean, it nourishes life.
Life itself is a sacrament - simply by living our lives as genuine and authentic human beings we can meet God, not just know God, but meet him and know him completely.
This is also becoming the foundation of Progressive Christianity and the Emergent Church. I would be happily involved with these denominations because they allow for the intellectual honesty of searching, discovery, questioning and rejecting. And yet they acknowledge the traditions of Christianity and the beauty of the Bible - as a human creation. They acknowledge the beauty in and borrow ideas from other religions. They follow the truth, and still have an encounter with God.
I won't claim the title of Christian. The traditional, cultural understanding of that word means someone who believes things which for the sole purpose of going to heaven, of avoiding hell. I'm not that person, I don't just believe anything.
Watch this video from my favorite church (unfortunately it's in Springfield, IL or I would go every week) for a fuller understanding of my faith journey, which will continue until the day I die.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Pascal's Wager
Several people have said to me "I'd rather believe and be wrong then not believe and be wrong, because if you're wrong you're going to hell." What you may not realize is that this is actually called Pascal's Wager, created by the seventeenth-century philosopher, Blaise Pascal. In a nutshell, Pascal's Wager says that since we can never really know if God exists, there is so much more to gain by simply believing God does exist. Essentially if you wager that God exists you gain everything (eternal life) and if you lose (and God doesn't exist) you've lost nothing.
It seems like a compelling proposition, right? Just believe the right things and you'll go to heaven! But what are the right things to believe? Why should anyone wager the Christian God is the right God to gamble your eternal soul on? He is not the only option. Maybe the Hindu God is the right one. Maybe Zeus is the right one.
Secondly, I've given up my previously held beliefs because of reason and thinking. I simply can't force myself to un-know all the things I've learned during the last five years. Surely God would know I was faking it. Believe me, there are plenty of times I think to myself "why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?" but I can't take the blue pill and forget everything.
And finally, is faith really just a matter of mentally assenting to a checklist of established beliefs? That seems so hollow, so pointless. I think any God (who every religion says is utterly transcendent and ineffable) wouldn't endow us with an intellect and ability to reason and then require we throw those abilities out the window and just blindly believe what we're told. I genuinely believe any God would much prefer those who honestly seek the truth, wherever that may lead.
So please stop lobbing this argument at me. Like everything else, I've given it a good deal of thought before rejecting it, but I find it lacking and frankly disrespectful of God.
Secondly, I've given up my previously held beliefs because of reason and thinking. I simply can't force myself to un-know all the things I've learned during the last five years. Surely God would know I was faking it. Believe me, there are plenty of times I think to myself "why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?" but I can't take the blue pill and forget everything.
And finally, is faith really just a matter of mentally assenting to a checklist of established beliefs? That seems so hollow, so pointless. I think any God (who every religion says is utterly transcendent and ineffable) wouldn't endow us with an intellect and ability to reason and then require we throw those abilities out the window and just blindly believe what we're told. I genuinely believe any God would much prefer those who honestly seek the truth, wherever that may lead.
So please stop lobbing this argument at me. Like everything else, I've given it a good deal of thought before rejecting it, but I find it lacking and frankly disrespectful of God.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
This I love and believe with my whole heart.
I've mentioned before my fondness for authors like Bishop John Shelby Spong and Karen Armstrong. I did not realize until recently that there is a church that also loves these authors. THIS is a church I would love to attend. THIS is a faith I whole heartedly embrace. Here is a church that loves the Bible as I do, the wants to follow the teachings of Jesus, as I do, and is not afraid to call a spade a spade; to recognize myths, metaphors and the historical setting. Here is a church that believes Jesus taught us how to LIVE our lives, not just a list of things we need to mentally ascent to!
This is a spiritual approach I wholeheartedly embrace. It focuses on how to live our lives, how we can make the lives of others better without concern for some magical after life we can't possibly know anything about.
This is a spiritual approach I wholeheartedly embrace. It focuses on how to live our lives, how we can make the lives of others better without concern for some magical after life we can't possibly know anything about.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Orthodoxy or Orthopraxy?
Orthodoxy: Adherence to accepted norms; specifically creeds. In other words "right beliefs."
Orthopraxy: Emphasis on action/activity. In other words "right doing."
Of course beliefs and practices should go hand-in-hand but we're all human and struggle to live the best possible life according to our beliefs. So I'm interested in starting a conversation with you, my readers. What do you think is more important; right beliefs or right actions? Why?
Earlier in my life I interpreted the entire Christian faith and Bible through the lens of Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and that not of yourself. It is a gift of God." But I no longer just accept what I was taught in church, I've studied and learned how to think, not just what to think.
Ephesians is credited to the apostle Paul; probably the second most influential person in Christianity (after Jesus, of course). But I no longer interpret the Bible through this lens for two main reasons:
1) Paul never met Jesus, he only learned about Jesus from the teachings of his disciples. Jesus' own teaching (up next) contradicts this idea.
2) Most Biblical scholars don't even think Paul wrote Ephesians, that it was written by someone claiming to be Paul. (This is fairly common and immensely interesting. If you want to know more about this, I highly recommend Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.)
So what did Jesus teach? After all the Christian faith is about following Jesus and being Christ-like.
When asked what the most important commandment is, Jesus didn't name any of the 10 commandments, he said "Love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind." Followed immediately by "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 23:37-39)
Jesus taught a radical message of love. You can't love anyone by just quietly believing it in your heart and never expressing that love! If your spouse says they love you but they never hold your hand or kiss you good night, you wouldn't feel very loved.
Today, I understand the Bible and more specifically the person of Jesus through the lens of Matthew 25:35-45 "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. Then the righteous will answer him 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and cloth you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go visit you?' The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" (repeat for those who did NOT do these things)
The best part of this description is the people who did the good deeds were surprised to learn this pleased the lord! They didn't care for their fellow man because they expected eternal reward or public recognition, they just did these things because they were the right things to do.
If you profess to love Jesus with all your heart and yet you proclaim the poor deserve their lot and refuse to help them, that is not Christ-like. If you believe Jesus died for your sins but you spend your weekends in strip clubs, that is not following his teachings.
Remember "If you love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15
So there you go, that's my opinion. What's yours?
Orthopraxy: Emphasis on action/activity. In other words "right doing."
Earlier in my life I interpreted the entire Christian faith and Bible through the lens of Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and that not of yourself. It is a gift of God." But I no longer just accept what I was taught in church, I've studied and learned how to think, not just what to think.
Ephesians is credited to the apostle Paul; probably the second most influential person in Christianity (after Jesus, of course). But I no longer interpret the Bible through this lens for two main reasons:
1) Paul never met Jesus, he only learned about Jesus from the teachings of his disciples. Jesus' own teaching (up next) contradicts this idea.
2) Most Biblical scholars don't even think Paul wrote Ephesians, that it was written by someone claiming to be Paul. (This is fairly common and immensely interesting. If you want to know more about this, I highly recommend Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.)
So what did Jesus teach? After all the Christian faith is about following Jesus and being Christ-like.
When asked what the most important commandment is, Jesus didn't name any of the 10 commandments, he said "Love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind." Followed immediately by "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 23:37-39)
Jesus taught a radical message of love. You can't love anyone by just quietly believing it in your heart and never expressing that love! If your spouse says they love you but they never hold your hand or kiss you good night, you wouldn't feel very loved.
Today, I understand the Bible and more specifically the person of Jesus through the lens of Matthew 25:35-45 "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. Then the righteous will answer him 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and cloth you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go visit you?' The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" (repeat for those who did NOT do these things)
The best part of this description is the people who did the good deeds were surprised to learn this pleased the lord! They didn't care for their fellow man because they expected eternal reward or public recognition, they just did these things because they were the right things to do.
If you profess to love Jesus with all your heart and yet you proclaim the poor deserve their lot and refuse to help them, that is not Christ-like. If you believe Jesus died for your sins but you spend your weekends in strip clubs, that is not following his teachings.
Remember "If you love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15
So there you go, that's my opinion. What's yours?
Saturday, August 25, 2012
What I do believe ...
I laid out in my previous post what I don't believe, which basically boils down to everything I was taught in various churches through my life. Many people have wrongly assumed this means I believe nothing, that I've made up my mind and declared there is no God. That's not true.
Yes, I attended the Minnesota Atheist Convention and in many ways my views are aligned with atheism. But there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheist means and how it is perceived - atheism like it's counterpart theism is a statement of belief, while agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. I don't believe in the God taught by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions. I think any attempt to anthropomorphize God are simply human attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible.
There is a Buddhist proverb I think explains how I understand God:
Yes, I attended the Minnesota Atheist Convention and in many ways my views are aligned with atheism. But there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheist means and how it is perceived - atheism like it's counterpart theism is a statement of belief, while agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. I don't believe in the God taught by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions. I think any attempt to anthropomorphize God are simply human attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible.
There is a Buddhist proverb I think explains how I understand God:
Several blind men were gathered around an elephant and each of them ran their
hands over different parts of the elephant. The man who felt the leg declared "an
elephant is like a tree!" The man who felt the torso declared "an elephant is like a wall!"
The man who felt a tusk declared "an elephant is like a spear!" The man who felt the trunk
declared "an elephant is like a snake!"
Each of the world's religions offer truth and beauty and meaning. It's impossible to study other world religions and maintain that yours is the one true religion. I think each religion is humanity's attempt to describe their experience with something numinous.
I believe the divine can be found within rather than without. I believe the divine can be encountered in the beauty of nature, in the moments of love between people. I believe any religion that leads you to treat other people with love and compassion is a wonderful religion. I believe any religion that leads you to demean and abuse other people is a bad religion.
I don't fully know what I believe. I am still searching and I don't think I will ever have a definitive answer, but that's OK with me because I enjoy the search.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
What I don't believe
It's been a while since I posted anything here, so I thought I was due for a check-in.
First, my apologies to anyone who has been offended by what I've written. I never meant to persecute anyone and if you've interpreted anything I've said as persecution, I am very sorry.
That said, I will admit I was carrying around some anger for a while and poking fun at certain aspects of Christianity was very cathartic to me, after laboring under a repressive version of Christianity for years. I was angry at my church leaders who perpetuated hate, I was angry at the people who were so quick to condemn me to hell, and I was angry at myself for believing without question for so many years. What was I so angry about?
I was angry about these church teachings:
That black people are black because they are the decedents of Canaan, who committed an atrocious sin so God changed the color of his skin, and all his decedents skin so everyone else would know what horrible sinners they ALL are. That everyone who was not only NOT-Christian, but not our particular brand of Pentecostal Christianity was going to hell, a place of eternal, conscious torment. That as a woman, the thing I could do that would be most pleasing to God would be to marry a man would be my spiritual leader and submit in all things to his will. I was angry that I was taught the Bible was the infallible word of God, free of mistakes and easily understandable to all who read it. Because it turns out, none of that is true. And not just because I don't like these things, but because these things aren't actually true according to the Bible itself. Shame on the system that perpetuates these lies because they're comforting to the masses, and shame on the masses who blindly believe these things and use them to justify their own personal prejudices and hates.
(I learned most of these at Emmanuel Christian Center. If you think I'm exaggerating, just visit the link they spell out everything they believe.)
I think because of some of that anger, I've misrepresented myself. I am not an atheist (well, I sort of am, many of you will think I am) and I don't bear any ill will toward most Christians (except those who so confidently proclaim that we can never know the mind of God, except that we know God hates gays, Hindus, people who work on Sunday, Democrats, etc.) And despite my aposty, I'm still very drawn to the Bible and Christian views. I am a philosophy nerd, I love studying world religions, and Christianity and the Bible are what I know the best. Christianity is like an amazing ex-boyfriend, the yard stick I compare all others to, but just can't be with anymore.
So with that long preamble, on to what I don't believe, and a little bit about why.
1) I do not believe in God. Yep, there it is, throw the label Atheist at me, it is sort of fitting. But look again, that is God with the capital G. The "God" I grew up with. The God who created a three tiered universe, who answers prayers, intervenes in human affairs and desires a personal relationship with us lowly humans. There is just no good reason to believe in this God. Prayer doesn't work - study after study shows that people in the hospital who are prayed for recover at the same rate as people who aren't prayed for. Maybe you feel like God has intervened in your life. I've felt that way too when I was a believer. I'm not asking you to answer the Problem of Evil because people smarter than you and I have contemplated that idea for thousands of years without coming to a satisfactory answer, but I do want you to consider the possibility that you misunderstood what happened or just made up a nice comforting story. Did God really align things just right so you could meet your spouse? That was nice of him. Why didn't he answer the prayers of a mother who pleaded for her child to survive cancer? Why didn't he answer the prayers of ten thousand starving people? Yeah, I know ... we can never know the mind of God and why He doesn't answer every prayer, we just have to be thankful when he answers our prayers. But if God is just, why would he give you beautiful weather for your family picnic, but not send some manna to a family starving to death? That is not just. So either God CAN do these things and just chooses not to, in which case he is NOT all loving. Or he CAN'T do these things, in which case he is NOT all powerful. As I've already mentioned - I'm a philosophy nerd so I've heard the explanations apologists come up with for this problem, but they just don't satisfy me at all. If this problem at all bothers you (and I will go so far as to say if the Problem of Evil doesn't bother you, then you are blind and deaf to suffering) at least be humble enough to stop publicly praising God for every little thing that happens to you that can much easier be explained by chance (did God really help you find that $20 bill on the ground? did God really remind you to run home to discover you'd left the stove on?) Neither of us have any good answer to why more than 20,000 people had to die as a result of the 2004 Christmas Tsunami and Earthquake, and neither of us have any good answer why it was not a rainy day when I got married - that's just the way things happened.
2) I do not believe in an eternal paradise or eternal torture after death. Have you ever really sat down and thought about what heaven would be like? I mean more than just how big the waterfall in the backyard would be and how you and your favorite people would ride around on unicorns (ok ... that's a holdover from MY view of what heaven would be!). If there is no sin, no sadness, no death ... is there free will still? If there is no free will, are we just happy robots? And if we have an eternity to lounge poolside, won't we get bored? No, as wonderful as the idea of an eternal paradise where no one annoys me is ... I think this life is all there is. I can't speak further on this issue because I have no idea, I have no experience with this to go on, and science has no data on anything outside of biological death, but since I have no experience/memory of being alive before this life I can't expect to be alive after this life. I do know that the atoms that make up my body were at one time parts of stars, and will some day be parts of stars and trees and planets ... that's pretty awesome to me. In this way, I will go on forever. In the meantime, I will enjoy THIS life as fully as I can, because it's probably the only one I will have. I won't have eternity to figure out how ride a horse or paint a masterpiece, I just have this life so I plan to fully live it! (And before you respond to this claim by referring me to books like Life After Life or Heaven is Real ... you know as well as I do that anecdotal experiences are not evidence.)
3) I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead. Moreover, I don't believe the earliest gospel writers literally believed this either. The earliest versions of Mark (the oldest gospel) ends with an empty tomb, it's a cliff hanger to be sure, but it's not a resurrection. At a later date, I plan to write about the process of midrash. In the meantime Google it. For now, it's enough for me to say that dead people don't just come back to life. But it does make for a great, symbolic way to tell a story that death has been conquered, that access to God is available to all. I think the earliest gospel writers were creating a myth. As Karen Armstrong describes it a myth is something that is true once for all time, not a lie. I think the gospel writers never intended for us to literally believe Jesus came back from the dead, that there are enough clues in the gospels to indicate this, in much the way that today's writers indicate a story is fantasy by saying "once upon a time." I promise to return to this at a later time because it's pretty critical to everything.
That's enough for now. I will return to address what I DO believe another day, and I think you'll be surprised. I've been greatly influenced in what I do and do not believe by Dr. Robert Price, Karen Armstrong, and Bishop John Shelby Spong, Each of these began their faith careers as fundamentalists and have since revised their views to varying degrees. I encourage you to read their works and diligently seek truth. We ALL spend far too much time confirming what we already believe; we could benefit from exposing ourselves to and understanding things we don't believe.
First, my apologies to anyone who has been offended by what I've written. I never meant to persecute anyone and if you've interpreted anything I've said as persecution, I am very sorry.
That said, I will admit I was carrying around some anger for a while and poking fun at certain aspects of Christianity was very cathartic to me, after laboring under a repressive version of Christianity for years. I was angry at my church leaders who perpetuated hate, I was angry at the people who were so quick to condemn me to hell, and I was angry at myself for believing without question for so many years. What was I so angry about?
I was angry about these church teachings:
That black people are black because they are the decedents of Canaan, who committed an atrocious sin so God changed the color of his skin, and all his decedents skin so everyone else would know what horrible sinners they ALL are. That everyone who was not only NOT-Christian, but not our particular brand of Pentecostal Christianity was going to hell, a place of eternal, conscious torment. That as a woman, the thing I could do that would be most pleasing to God would be to marry a man would be my spiritual leader and submit in all things to his will. I was angry that I was taught the Bible was the infallible word of God, free of mistakes and easily understandable to all who read it. Because it turns out, none of that is true. And not just because I don't like these things, but because these things aren't actually true according to the Bible itself. Shame on the system that perpetuates these lies because they're comforting to the masses, and shame on the masses who blindly believe these things and use them to justify their own personal prejudices and hates.
(I learned most of these at Emmanuel Christian Center. If you think I'm exaggerating, just visit the link they spell out everything they believe.)
I think because of some of that anger, I've misrepresented myself. I am not an atheist (well, I sort of am, many of you will think I am) and I don't bear any ill will toward most Christians (except those who so confidently proclaim that we can never know the mind of God, except that we know God hates gays, Hindus, people who work on Sunday, Democrats, etc.) And despite my aposty, I'm still very drawn to the Bible and Christian views. I am a philosophy nerd, I love studying world religions, and Christianity and the Bible are what I know the best. Christianity is like an amazing ex-boyfriend, the yard stick I compare all others to, but just can't be with anymore.
So with that long preamble, on to what I don't believe, and a little bit about why.
1) I do not believe in God. Yep, there it is, throw the label Atheist at me, it is sort of fitting. But look again, that is God with the capital G. The "God" I grew up with. The God who created a three tiered universe, who answers prayers, intervenes in human affairs and desires a personal relationship with us lowly humans. There is just no good reason to believe in this God. Prayer doesn't work - study after study shows that people in the hospital who are prayed for recover at the same rate as people who aren't prayed for. Maybe you feel like God has intervened in your life. I've felt that way too when I was a believer. I'm not asking you to answer the Problem of Evil because people smarter than you and I have contemplated that idea for thousands of years without coming to a satisfactory answer, but I do want you to consider the possibility that you misunderstood what happened or just made up a nice comforting story. Did God really align things just right so you could meet your spouse? That was nice of him. Why didn't he answer the prayers of a mother who pleaded for her child to survive cancer? Why didn't he answer the prayers of ten thousand starving people? Yeah, I know ... we can never know the mind of God and why He doesn't answer every prayer, we just have to be thankful when he answers our prayers. But if God is just, why would he give you beautiful weather for your family picnic, but not send some manna to a family starving to death? That is not just. So either God CAN do these things and just chooses not to, in which case he is NOT all loving. Or he CAN'T do these things, in which case he is NOT all powerful. As I've already mentioned - I'm a philosophy nerd so I've heard the explanations apologists come up with for this problem, but they just don't satisfy me at all. If this problem at all bothers you (and I will go so far as to say if the Problem of Evil doesn't bother you, then you are blind and deaf to suffering) at least be humble enough to stop publicly praising God for every little thing that happens to you that can much easier be explained by chance (did God really help you find that $20 bill on the ground? did God really remind you to run home to discover you'd left the stove on?) Neither of us have any good answer to why more than 20,000 people had to die as a result of the 2004 Christmas Tsunami and Earthquake, and neither of us have any good answer why it was not a rainy day when I got married - that's just the way things happened.
2) I do not believe in an eternal paradise or eternal torture after death. Have you ever really sat down and thought about what heaven would be like? I mean more than just how big the waterfall in the backyard would be and how you and your favorite people would ride around on unicorns (ok ... that's a holdover from MY view of what heaven would be!). If there is no sin, no sadness, no death ... is there free will still? If there is no free will, are we just happy robots? And if we have an eternity to lounge poolside, won't we get bored? No, as wonderful as the idea of an eternal paradise where no one annoys me is ... I think this life is all there is. I can't speak further on this issue because I have no idea, I have no experience with this to go on, and science has no data on anything outside of biological death, but since I have no experience/memory of being alive before this life I can't expect to be alive after this life. I do know that the atoms that make up my body were at one time parts of stars, and will some day be parts of stars and trees and planets ... that's pretty awesome to me. In this way, I will go on forever. In the meantime, I will enjoy THIS life as fully as I can, because it's probably the only one I will have. I won't have eternity to figure out how ride a horse or paint a masterpiece, I just have this life so I plan to fully live it! (And before you respond to this claim by referring me to books like Life After Life or Heaven is Real ... you know as well as I do that anecdotal experiences are not evidence.)
3) I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead. Moreover, I don't believe the earliest gospel writers literally believed this either. The earliest versions of Mark (the oldest gospel) ends with an empty tomb, it's a cliff hanger to be sure, but it's not a resurrection. At a later date, I plan to write about the process of midrash. In the meantime Google it. For now, it's enough for me to say that dead people don't just come back to life. But it does make for a great, symbolic way to tell a story that death has been conquered, that access to God is available to all. I think the earliest gospel writers were creating a myth. As Karen Armstrong describes it a myth is something that is true once for all time, not a lie. I think the gospel writers never intended for us to literally believe Jesus came back from the dead, that there are enough clues in the gospels to indicate this, in much the way that today's writers indicate a story is fantasy by saying "once upon a time." I promise to return to this at a later time because it's pretty critical to everything.
That's enough for now. I will return to address what I DO believe another day, and I think you'll be surprised. I've been greatly influenced in what I do and do not believe by Dr. Robert Price, Karen Armstrong, and Bishop John Shelby Spong, Each of these began their faith careers as fundamentalists and have since revised their views to varying degrees. I encourage you to read their works and diligently seek truth. We ALL spend far too much time confirming what we already believe; we could benefit from exposing ourselves to and understanding things we don't believe.
Friday, April 27, 2012
How much do you know about your own religion?
On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx
This is important to me because it illustrates what I've been trying to say, but not doing a very good job. If you don't know what other world religions teach, let alone the doctrines of your own religion, how on earth can you be so confident that you're right?
What is so disheartening to me is the number of White Protestants who got the basic things about their own religion wrong. 33% think "Do unto others ..." is in the 10 Commandments [Jesus said it, thousands of years after Moses came down from the mountain with the 10 Commandments], 60% think Catholics take communion symbolically [the doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine change into the substance of Christ's body] and only slight more than half (of the protestants!) know who inspired the Protestant Reformation.
If you scored low on this test, and especially if you scored low on your own religions questions, please do study the history of your religion. The Christian faith has not always been a monolith with a few minor differences between denominations. It seems today that many people think of the differences in Christian denominations like the difference in sports fandom - so what if I like the Vikings and you like the Patriots, we both like football, just different teams. What you really have to watch out for are those hockey fans. But the reality is nothing could be further from the truth ... Catholics and Protestants were killing each other for centuries over things that seem so minor to us today (transubstantion, sola fide, indulgences, etc).
For centuries theologians, church fathers and philosophers mulled over these very important issues. The idea of salvation through faith alone took a long time to be developed. Study the history of the faith, watch how the doctrines evolve, change and get dismissed. At one time in history, it was widely held that women did not have to worry about salvation, as long as they bore children, they would be saved (look it up, that's in the Bible 1 Timothy 2:15) .
Please don't interpret this as an attack on any of you, I have a deep appreciation of all the world's religions, even if I don't believe them. But if there is one point to make it is this:
When you claim your faith is the exclusive way to salvation because the plan is very clearly and obviously laid out in the Bible, you have failed to understand how any of these doctrines came to be. You are no better than the people who pick and choose from all the world's religions, a little of this, a little of that ... take out THAT part, maybe half of this line .... Centuries of consideration, examination, searching, debating, voting, and bloodshed have gone into each of those tenants you hold so dear and consider self evident 2,000 years later.
This is important to me because it illustrates what I've been trying to say, but not doing a very good job. If you don't know what other world religions teach, let alone the doctrines of your own religion, how on earth can you be so confident that you're right?
What is so disheartening to me is the number of White Protestants who got the basic things about their own religion wrong. 33% think "Do unto others ..." is in the 10 Commandments [Jesus said it, thousands of years after Moses came down from the mountain with the 10 Commandments], 60% think Catholics take communion symbolically [the doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine change into the substance of Christ's body] and only slight more than half (of the protestants!) know who inspired the Protestant Reformation.
If you scored low on this test, and especially if you scored low on your own religions questions, please do study the history of your religion. The Christian faith has not always been a monolith with a few minor differences between denominations. It seems today that many people think of the differences in Christian denominations like the difference in sports fandom - so what if I like the Vikings and you like the Patriots, we both like football, just different teams. What you really have to watch out for are those hockey fans. But the reality is nothing could be further from the truth ... Catholics and Protestants were killing each other for centuries over things that seem so minor to us today (transubstantion, sola fide, indulgences, etc).
For centuries theologians, church fathers and philosophers mulled over these very important issues. The idea of salvation through faith alone took a long time to be developed. Study the history of the faith, watch how the doctrines evolve, change and get dismissed. At one time in history, it was widely held that women did not have to worry about salvation, as long as they bore children, they would be saved (look it up, that's in the Bible 1 Timothy 2:15) .
Please don't interpret this as an attack on any of you, I have a deep appreciation of all the world's religions, even if I don't believe them. But if there is one point to make it is this:
When you claim your faith is the exclusive way to salvation because the plan is very clearly and obviously laid out in the Bible, you have failed to understand how any of these doctrines came to be. You are no better than the people who pick and choose from all the world's religions, a little of this, a little of that ... take out THAT part, maybe half of this line .... Centuries of consideration, examination, searching, debating, voting, and bloodshed have gone into each of those tenants you hold so dear and consider self evident 2,000 years later.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
The left and right need each
Moving away from religion for a while, I want to talk about something even more divisive -- politics. But I'm not going to preach about why we liberals are awesome and those crazy conservatives should be locked away. I'm going to preach against that very notion.
Both sides of the political spectrum bring balance to the equation. The liberal brain is fundamentally different than the conservative brain. Liberals tend to be more willing to embrace change, to seek harmony and equality, and to question authority. Their houses also tend to be messier. Conservatives are more likely to embrace respect for authority and elders, to take decisive action, to preserve traditions. They balance each other out.
I once had a friendship where we trusted each other enough to tell the other when she was being an idiot. If I would complain about a situation at work that I felt was unfair, she could remind me that this is how the world works, and I can accept it and move on or I can try to fight it and be angry. When she complained about her husband doing something amazingly stupid and threatening to throw his clothes on the lawn, I reminded her that it only seems like a big deal right now and he has lots of other good qualities. Neither of us wanted to hear these things at the time, but because we both knew we were speaking from a place of love and understanding, it was just what we needed to hear.
Liberals and conservatives could learn from this model. If more liberals realized that conservatives are not gun-toting facists out to shoot everyone who disagrees with way they want the world to be, we could all work together. If conservatives could recognize that the greatest changes in history have come by challenging the status quo, we could affect change we need. We could COMPROMISE which is the essence of politics.
Lately it seems like we're getting further away from this ideal. Liberals want to rewire the Conservatives brains so they can "think straight" and Conservatives want Liberals to stop hugging those damn trees and go to church and "live right." This is not helping our nation that we all share.
If there is anything I've learned in my life it is that it is possible, and at times amazingly awesome, to hold different views and opinions as someone else and still get along. You can learn a lot from someone who doesn't think exactly like you.
It's important to call out the really big, hairy mistakes but if we can do it from a place of understanding, with the goal of creating a better world, we'd all be better off.
I know, typical naive liberal. :-)
Both sides of the political spectrum bring balance to the equation. The liberal brain is fundamentally different than the conservative brain. Liberals tend to be more willing to embrace change, to seek harmony and equality, and to question authority. Their houses also tend to be messier. Conservatives are more likely to embrace respect for authority and elders, to take decisive action, to preserve traditions. They balance each other out.
I once had a friendship where we trusted each other enough to tell the other when she was being an idiot. If I would complain about a situation at work that I felt was unfair, she could remind me that this is how the world works, and I can accept it and move on or I can try to fight it and be angry. When she complained about her husband doing something amazingly stupid and threatening to throw his clothes on the lawn, I reminded her that it only seems like a big deal right now and he has lots of other good qualities. Neither of us wanted to hear these things at the time, but because we both knew we were speaking from a place of love and understanding, it was just what we needed to hear.
Liberals and conservatives could learn from this model. If more liberals realized that conservatives are not gun-toting facists out to shoot everyone who disagrees with way they want the world to be, we could all work together. If conservatives could recognize that the greatest changes in history have come by challenging the status quo, we could affect change we need. We could COMPROMISE which is the essence of politics.
Lately it seems like we're getting further away from this ideal. Liberals want to rewire the Conservatives brains so they can "think straight" and Conservatives want Liberals to stop hugging those damn trees and go to church and "live right." This is not helping our nation that we all share.
If there is anything I've learned in my life it is that it is possible, and at times amazingly awesome, to hold different views and opinions as someone else and still get along. You can learn a lot from someone who doesn't think exactly like you.
It's important to call out the really big, hairy mistakes but if we can do it from a place of understanding, with the goal of creating a better world, we'd all be better off.
I know, typical naive liberal. :-)
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Freedom of Religion
I know many Christians lament our pluralistic, secular society and want nothing more than a return to the Christian days of yore. Of course, history bears out the fact that these "good old days" they pine for were from about 1950 to 1958. The founding fathers weren't religious fanatics, but whatever.
While I reject the truth claims of Christianity, I respect others who believe it. I also respect the beliefs of people who think the spirit of God can be found in nature, and the beliefs of people who think there is no God at all. That's precisely what make us such a great nation, I think. Because we have to be tolerant of other religions, other worldviews, we never get so comfortable into thinking everyone believes exactly the same thing. That kind of thinking is dangerous and leads to Sharia law.
So, the people like Christian apologist Dr. Norm Giesler really make me sad and angry. He is a fundamentalist who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, teaches that practicing yoga and meditation is simply an open invitation to communion with demons, and actively proclaims that Christian theology must permeate every aspect of American life.
I support Dr. Giesler's freedom to believe whatever he wants, but not his insistence on being 100% correct and demanding that all others behave exactly like him.
While I reject the truth claims of Christianity, I respect others who believe it. I also respect the beliefs of people who think the spirit of God can be found in nature, and the beliefs of people who think there is no God at all. That's precisely what make us such a great nation, I think. Because we have to be tolerant of other religions, other worldviews, we never get so comfortable into thinking everyone believes exactly the same thing. That kind of thinking is dangerous and leads to Sharia law.
So, the people like Christian apologist Dr. Norm Giesler really make me sad and angry. He is a fundamentalist who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, teaches that practicing yoga and meditation is simply an open invitation to communion with demons, and actively proclaims that Christian theology must permeate every aspect of American life.
I support Dr. Giesler's freedom to believe whatever he wants, but not his insistence on being 100% correct and demanding that all others behave exactly like him.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Desmond Tutu on the Bible and Gay Marriage
Tutu says he still reads the Bible every day and recommends that people read it as a collection of books, not a single constitutional document: "You have to understand is that the Bible is really a library of books and it has different categories of material," he said. "There are certain parts which you have to say no to. The Bible accepted slavery. St Paul said women should not speak in church at all and there are people who have used that to say women should not be ordained. There are many things that you shouldn't accept."
In the debate about Anglican views of homosexuality, he has opposed Christian discrimination against homosexuals while suggesting homosexual church leaders should currently remain celibate.
Tutu has remarked that it is sad the Church is spending time disagreeing on sexual orientation "when we face so many devastating problems – poverty, HIV/AIDS, war and conflict."
Tutu has increased his criticism of conservative attitudes to homosexuality within his own church, equating homophobia with racism. Stating at a conference in Nairobi that he is "deeply disturbed that in the face of some of the most horrendous problems facing Africa, we concentrate on 'what do I do in bed with whom'". In an interview with BBC Radio 4 on 18 November 2007, Tutu accused the church of being obsessed with homosexuality and declared:
"If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."
Tutu has lent his name to the fight against homophobia in Africa and around the world. He stated at the launching of the book 'Sex, Love and Homophobia' that homophobia is a 'crime against humanity' and 'every bit as unjust' as apartheid. He added that "we struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins...It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given."
Grand questions with Grandma
Moving this from Facebook ... Comments from ME are in RED, comments from Grandma in BLUE
I haven't had a chance to do much research on the King James Bible like you requested, but I did recently learn that King James I of England was openly bisexual with a strong preference for men.
I don't know what that means for the veracity of the translations, I just found it quite interesting since so many of the quotes against homosexuality comes from the KJV of the Bible. More research to come, I'm very interested now!
Many of the Royals have been
very openly bisexual and various other unique choices. I've wondered about Paul
because of his attitude toward women. The man who became Paul was originally
Saul of Tarsus, and proud of it. Saul boasted that he was born a Roman citizen,
a distinction which often saved him from ill treatment. When he later broke
with Judaism, Saul went by the name of Paul, which was probably his Roman name
since birth. In any case, the Jewish name Saul was a handicap in Greek-speaking
circles because "Saulos" meant "effeminate" in Greek.
The things they don't teach you
in Sunday school! This is ALL new information to me!
They don't teach it because
they teach from their Sunday school books and pamplets; and if they get away
from the provided materials they are in danger of losing their retirement or
losing their position at the church, or both. And during the "gospel
reading" they will read a verse or two from the bible and the rest of the
hour is devoted to personal testaments. Bet you heard about that apple in the
Garden too....dare you to find "apple" in the Genesis story.
I knew the forbidden fruit
wasn't really an apple, but probably a pomegranete. Not a big deal, unless we
were told eating all apples is wrong. But after years of demonizing
homosexuality, or really sex in general, learning how much the church heroes
engaged in "unnatural" behavior casts doubts on the authority of such
declarations. (Doubts I already did away with ... Fornicate away
folks!) ...
Pretty sure I never thought I'd
write "fornicate away" to my grandmother ... Surely i should be
struck by lightning about now!!
So they ate a pomegranete? And
then they covered their private parts with fig leaves? Ch.3;v.3 -"Ye shall
not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die". When you have
research time, look up the word "touch" in the Strong's concordance.
Do use the standard King James version as the new versions have changed too
many words and their meanings. And DUCK! We're probably both drawing lightning!
And old people are not
necessarily old fuddy duddies. Sarah was old when she put her maid out to
whoredom with Abraham so he could have a child. And then Abraham put his
helpless whore out with their son and never paid a penny child support! So all
this middle east war was started for the lack of child support?!
Just so you know; my Church
(Catholic) would not let me teach Bible school. I do tend to get a little
carried away with my interpretations.
Of course you couldn't teach
Bible school, you're a woman. Jesus was very clear that women shouldn't speak
in church but hold their tounges and ask their husbands for clarification if
their weak minds were unable to grasp what was being taught
NO, that was Paul . . . again
with Paul. Jesus, if anything, was partial to women. Did he meet a man at the
well and speak to him? To whom did he appear first after the crucification? Did
he consider his Mother when he changed the water to wine (or grape juice)? He loved
Mary Magdeline and there is a writing by her; however that was not accepted by
the Church and is in the Accrophia. Maybe a lot of jealousy there, especially
from Peter. Oh, and yes, I know your comment was "tongue in
cheek".
Now forgive me if I seem
impertinent but isn't the Bible at least divinely inspired, if not divinely
written? So, according to the traditional orthodoxy if Paul wrote it, its
because the holy spirit moved in him to write it right?
If we can't trust the accuracy
of Paul why should we trust the accuracy of second and third hand stories of
Jesus recorded at the earlist 60 years after his alleged resurection?
If we can't trust the accuracy of Paul why should we trust the accuracy of second and third hand stories of Jesus recorded at the earlist 60 years after his alleged resurection?
If we can't trust the accuracy of Paul why should we trust the accuracy of second and third hand stories of Jesus recorded at the earlist 60 years after his alleged resurection?
§ Devinely written? Of course. But in the hands of man
for many years before the common man saw or read it.
§ Most people do not know that we only have part of the Bible.
Man's first meddleing came by deciding which books would be accepted and which
banned from the writings. You can read so much on the internet if you go to
Lost Books of the Bible.... I won't reprint it all here, but here's a
partial list of those lost or banned. So if these books didn't make the
cut, no wonder the Hindu scripture and others are not here....they would be
considered the Pagan beliefs, I believe.The Old Testament Scriptures were first
written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, the oldest being known as
the Septuagint, or "Version of the Seventy," made at Alexandria for
the library by a company of seventy learned Jews. This was about 285 B.C.
§ The New Testament was all originally written in Greek, except
Matthew which was first written in Hebrew, and later translated into Greek.
§ Latin translations of both the Septuagint and the Greek New
Testament were made by different individuals, and the more carefully prepared
Latin Vulgate of Jerome, the Bible complete, was made A.D. 383-405.
§ Printing was yet unknown and copies of the Bible were laborious and
expensive -- written by hand. It's illuminating and saving truths were
largely hidden for centuries by the errors, superstitions, and apostasy of the
dark ages. The common people knew little of its contents.
§ The first book printed from movable type was the Bible in Latin
which came from the press of John Gutenberg, at Mentz, Germany, in 1456, a copy
of which, in 1926 was sold in New York City for $106,000, the highest price
ever paid for a single book.
§ Moses wrote in the language of the people of his time; the prophets
spoke in the tongue familiar to the men whom they addressed; and the New
Testament was written in the language then current throughout the Roman
world. All the bibles, except in England, were in an ancient tongue and
could be read only by the educated. Usually, the common man heard it read
by their Priest.
§ Then Martin Luther did not believe the living Word should be
confined to a dead language. He gave his countrymen the New Testament in
1522, and the Bible complete in 1534. This was not without opposition.
§ As Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and the princes under King Zedekiah
showed their contempt for God by burning the writings of Jeremiah, and
confining the prophet in a dungeon (Jer. 36: 20-23; 38: 1-6,) so now men sought
to stem the rising tide of reform by burning the Bible and its translators.
§ Bible burning was started in England by destroying copies of the
Antwerp edition of Tyndale's New Testament in 1527, and again in
1530. "If Luther will not retract" wrote Henry VIII of
England, "let himself and his writings be committed to the flames."
§ The Bible had taken deep root with the people by now and the
prelates and kings began to foster and supply. Henry P. Warren's Stories
from English History, pp 196, 197: "Henry, by Cromwell's advice,
ordered a translation of the Bible to be made in English, and a copy to be
placed in every church. Cromwell then appointed Cranmer and the bishops
to revise the Bible and publish it without note or comment; and in the year
1539 a copy of the English Bible was chained to the reading desk in every
parish church.
So, I believe, Samantha,
in the devine origin of the Bible. Since then, however, I believe that
man has had ample opportunity to make their "changes".
Translations can be dangerous things. Some languages have no
corresponding word in other languages; most words have more than one meaning,
and some words are just changed to our detriment.
I'm
familiar with many of the writings that didn't make the cannon. Some of them
seem like pretty logical choices to... be excluded, others not so much. Most of
my life I was taught that we simply have to believe that God guided the
canonization process, just as he guided the writings of the books of the Bible.
So back to the original question, refined further - do you think
it's possible, at least, that God also inspired the writings of other
scriptures? The Tao Te Ching is, in my humble opinion, one of the most
beautiful pieces of religious works ever created. If that wasn't divinely
inspired, why should we accept that a book full of war, celebrating the death
of children and a cosmic wager on a mans life between God and Satan, to be
divinely inspired?
And in a complete 180 -- (here comes the blasphemy ... run for your
life!!) doesn't the crucifixion and resurrection seem a little self-serving? I
mean, wouldn't YOU gladly climb onto a cross to be tortured if you knew 1)
within hours you'd be hanging out in Paradise 2) the result would be the
saving of mankind from eternal death and 3) that 3 days later you'd be
walking around alive and well again?
And to that point, why do we have crucifixes as iconography? If, for
instance, I was walking across the street arm-in-arm with a couple children and
a bus came hurdling toward me, and a stranger threw himself in front of me,
died by being hit by the bus and saved our lives, I would eternally grateful,
but I would not hang images of a bus around my house to remind me of his
sacrifice, that's always seemed macabre to me.
I am not familiar with The Tao Te Ching (never
heard of it, in fact), so I will take your word for it that it is at beautiful
piece of religious works. I know there are many more. In
fact, once during a meeting of The Northeast Georgia Writer's Club, one of our
members gave an invocation that was the most beautiful prayer I have ever
heard. I can't tell you how touched I was by this; however beautiful
though it was, I did not even begin to think it was "inspired".
As far as the other religions' holy books, let those religions rely on
them. There were many other religions and pagans during the time of
Christ, too. The Bible cautions us to be aware of other religions
and false prophets throughout. The Bible also gives us the best way
to deal with the differences in human beings:
"Judge not, that ye be not
judged." Matt. 7:1.
Satan is "The accuser of our breatheren
---which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10; and
Then when we judge, accuse, or condemn one another, we are doing the work of
Satan.
Your question - do you
think it's possible, at least, that God also inspired the writings of other
scriptures? Sure I do. There were many found with the Dead
Sea scrolls. No telling how many others are out there. But for me
to personally accept them, they would be confirmed by the known
Bible (the two witnesses rule) Example: The Quoran(sp)
justifies honor killing—a --father/brother to uphold the family's honor
can kill is wife or daughter! I just couldn't buy that.
For you to personally accept
other scriptures they would be confirmed by the known Bible - could you
elaborate on that? The known Bible, as canonized by politicians,
distributed by Monarchs ... with the finger prints of man and politics and
manipulation all over it? As we've previously discussed,
there are all kinds of problems with the Bible, beautiful and inspiring though
it may be. We have to rely on our own minds and hearts to find truth, not just
centuries of teachings and harmonizing passed on to us to people just as
fallible as ourselves.
You said "As far as
the other religions' holy books, let those religions rely on them" and
that's the heart of the problem! If it's truth we're after, not just warm
tingly feelings and fitting in with our culture, then shouldn't we consider
other religion's holy books as possibly true? We can't just dismiss them out of
hand because we're from a Christian culture!
The Q'ran justifies honor
killing and you couldn't buy that ... that's good! The Bible justified
slaughtering an entire city so the Jews could take it over as the promised
land (there were ALREADY PEOPLE LIVING THERE!) With that
example, the European conquest of America and slaughter of Native Americans was
every bit as justified as our promised land.
"The Bible cautions
us to be aware of other religions and false prophets ..." which
again brings me right back to the start -- why are we just assuming the Bible
is the true book? The Vedic scriptures (Hindu) encourage embracing everything,
that God can be found everywhere. Why shouldn't that be true? The Tao Te
Ching teaches that you can’t have something without it’s opposite. You can’t
have good without evil, you can’t have up without down, everything must be
balanced (seriously, I love this book. You should read it. Here’s a link to it, it’s
a very short book, I’ve read it at least a dozen times and learn something new
every time.)
The Old Testament teaches
that if a man rapes a woman, he should marry her! I can't buy that. In Psalms,
a book of PRAISE, not laws, one verse says "Happy is he [God]
who shall seize your children and dash them against the rock"
But wait, before you tell
me Jesus told his followers to be more kind and loving than the law of Moses as
prescribed - Jesus himself said he came not to bring peace, but a sword. And
that every one who wants to follow him must hate his family. Further, in the
parable of servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding Jesus
says when the master returns and finds his servant drunk and haven beaten the
other servants the master will "cut him to pieces" and that the
servant who knows his masters will and will and does not do it will be
"beaten with many blows." So even if he is speaking in a
parable it seems Jesus is saying that God is going to beat the living s*it out
of me for disobeying him, and then he'll kill me and annihilate my soul.
It also seems that Jesus is OK with owning slaves, as he never spoke out
against it or even encouraged slave owners to be nicer to their slaves.
So in summary, the same
reasons I rejected Islam is why I reject Christianity (and let's not forget
they are members of the same religious family) -- my deep investigation of the
Bible has led me to conclude :
1)
It’s full
of contradictions
2)
Advocates
at least as much awful as it does good
3)
Was shaped
by the desire of man rather than God
4)
Is no
better than many other world scriptures
In
fact, I think I have a much stronger reason for not being a Christian than I do
for not being a Muslim. I’ve never looked into Islam very much, I’ve just dismissed
it for being crazy. I’m sure people who were not raised in a Christian household
think that about Christianity. (Really:
if you hadn’t been raised Christian, wouldn’t it be weird to have people
telling you that this guy died, went to hell and them came back to life, and so
to honor that we eat his body and drink his blood? What the hell? Are we
Vampires?)
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)