The Beautiful Heresy- Christian Universalism

Am I a heretic? Maybe. If believing that God is all powerful, all loving, wiser than His creation and perfectly willing and capable of saving all of His children makes me a heretic, sign me up.


There's No Way I'm Saving That Guy  

0 comments

I wish I had written this. This appeared in the Onion.

There's No Way I'm Saving That Guy

All right. I realize I am supposed to be all-merciful, universally loving, the Light and the Way and everything, but even a divine avatar of the Supreme Being's loving grace has His limits. I know I've said many times that there is always room for one more—even the lowliest—at the table of the Lord, but even so, there is just no freaking way I'm redeeming this S.O.B. I don't want to name names, but his initials are Gus Feigert, owner-operator of Feigert Automotive down on Seybold Road, by the gas station. There, I said it. And you know what? I don't care. I'm glad I said his name. If he's going to suffer damnation for all eternity—which, I assure you, he most certainly is—then I don't see how much more damage revealing his identity during his brief time on Earth is going to cause the bastard in the long run.  

The guy is a jerk.

First of all, he overcharges everyone who sets foot in his shop. That's a given. I'm omniscient, I see what's going on. He completely doctors the books and hasn't filed a legit tax return since he opened that damn place. Plus, he's a tyrant to his employees, slaps waitresses on the ass, and he cheats at cards. Come on. And then, after being a complete boner all week, he still shows up at church every Sunday like clockwork, with that stupid yellow tie he always wears, all smug-looking with that phony-ass grin on his face, and bows his head to "humbly" ask My forgiveness. Well, not anymore!
He just has this way of getting under My skin, and I have had about enough of it. For years now he's been pulling this crap, and what do I do? I keep forgiving the ungrateful bastard, every Sunday, like some kind of chump. But does it make any difference? No sir. Come Monday morning he's back to his old tricks. 

Find a new Messianic redeemer, Gus F&#khead Feigert, because I'm not taking your shit anymore. Ask the Holy Ghost for help next time, or maybe try intercessory prayer to My mom. Maybe she'll listen to you. But not Me. Don't get Me wrong. I'm extremely forgiving—to a fault, maybe. I've absolved some of the worst people you can imagine. We've got thieves, adulterers, murderers, even Romans sent to persecute my followers out the wazoo up here. In fact, if you ask Biblical scholars or learned clergy, they'll go so far as to tell you My capacity for forgiveness is infinite. Well, that's usually true. But not with this a-hole.

Yeah, I know I'm supposed to forgive everybody, and all can find refuge in Me blah blah blah. Fine. Fair enough. But not that prick. No f'ing way.

I don't have to tell you that I was sent down to Earth by God Almighty the Father in Heaven for a reason. I know that. Forgiving people is kind of My whole thing. So as long as someone comes to Me in full and honest supplication and asks Me to be their personal Savior, I'm pretty much obligated to do it. But come on, this guy? I have suffered on the cross and died for the sins of humanity, but I sure as hell didn't die for the sins of that ball-buster Gus Feigert, nor was I sent down to this Earth to suffer the agonies of the Passion just to be that obnoxious know-it-all's personal doormat.

He can go rot in Hell for all I care.



A Christian Framework for Universalism  

0 comments

As I sat in church this morning, I had some time to gather some thoughts about why I am an universalist. (Yes, I was that bored).  I can't recall where I first heard this.  But, I've heard it in more than one place.  There are four things a Christian should consider when thinking about a spiritual matter or doctrine.  Those four are:

  • Experience
  • Reason (Logic)
  • Scripture
  • Tradition

As I've examined Universalism and other topics I've wrestled with, I've found this framework to be of great use to me.   My background is Christian.  That's undeniable.  And, I don't really want to deny it.  As I've mentioned more than once in my blog, while I am far from one who holds onto things simply because tradition dictates that I do or even because scripture might say so, I think it's just foolish to reject everything I've experienced and been taught and fashion my own "unbiased" view of the world (even if such a thing were possible).  Some say that's the price one must pay to be a postmodern. I say "poppycock".  But, I'll address that some other time.   So, very quickly, I want to drape my view of Universalism over this Christian framework for you.  If you are a Christian Universalist, this might help you feel more comfortable with why you are.  If you are not, it might give you a tool that you can use to examine the issue and come to your own conclusions.
Experience

This is the second draft of this article.  In the initial draft, I wrote off experience.  My reasoning was that since none of us has experienced the afterlife, experience gives us nothing to say concerning Eternal Conscious Torment.  Arguably, Near Death Experiences (which are almost universally positive) could be said to give us a glimpse.  But, for most of us, that's not personal experience.  However, as I rethought this, I realized I had come to this conclusion too quickly.  I do have some experience concerning the nature of God.  I do commune with Him (even though He doesn't speak to me audibly).  I am experiencing God more and more, on a daily basis.  Overall, I think this world is a good place.  And while we definitely could all imagine how it might be better, there is no sign of eternal, unrelenting suffering.  For some  life is disappointingly short.  For some, death is a welcome respite. But, there is a limit to our sufferings in this world.  We see no evidence to point us to the belief that the God is planning an eternal torture chamber if we don't make the right choice here.  My personal experience of God is as a caring, loving and just Creator.

Justice is another thing to consider when we're talking about experience.  God told Israel to establish a system of justice.  Even in the Noahide code (a simplified set of 7 laws for Gentiles), God makes it clear that He wants people to establish a system of justice.  The most common argument in favor of ECT is "justice".  God is "just". So, God must punish sin.  So, how would we view a society that labels all sin the same.  Spit on the sidewalk- the death penalty.  Kill 5,000 people, the death penalty.   Think an evil thought- the death penalty.  We'd find this completely absurd.  In the Middle Ages, this idea that the punishment for an offense should be in proportion to the person being offended.  This is where the justification for eternal punishment for finite sins came in.  The justification being that any sin against an infinitely good God deserved an infinite amount of punishment.  How petty does this make God?  Does this doctrine really make sense?  What systems of justice do we find most admirable?  Those that mete out punishment in proportion to the crime and that have some sense of mercy and an eye to rehabilitation or those that demand excruiciating payment for any offense, no mattter how small?  How about those who demand exorbitant payment based on who is offended?
My Experience Conclusion:  While there is suffering in this world, overall, it is "good".  Justice systems that are merciful, rebilitative and fair are more highly valued than those that are rigid, punitive and harsh.  There is no evidence for a God who is capable of torture worse than anything Adolph Hitler even dreamed of.

Tradition

Next, I'd like to address tradition.  This is an interesting one.  I have to admit that current church tradition tell us that Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is the "official" Christian doctrine.   I think
it's undeniable that belief in the eternal suffering of the wicked is a common teaching by Christian churches today.  What I find fascinating is most individuals seem to back away from this when really pushed on it. Many churches have completely unbiblical (as in they can't back them up with scripture) loopholes to avoid really making the statement that God is going to eternally torment a whole
bunch of people. They know that it's just wrong to say that God will torture babies who die before making a decision, or people who have never heard the gospel or the mentally incompetent.  So, they usually make up something to give God an out.  But, as much as it causes me pain to say it, I have
to say that Eternal Conscious Torment has to be considered tradition. As tradition, I think we have to have good reason to change from it.  We can't simply toss tradition aside without any consideration, even if we are postmoderns.

I have two further things to say about tradition though.  Tradition is only one consideration in our framework. The church has been dead wrong about a number of subjects (and in my opinion still is).
Slavery and women's rights leap immediately to mind.  Things the church has been adamant about in the past, it has now realized it was wrong about and repented of.  And, these wrong positions were taken, even though those things were supposedly backed up by "inerrant" scripture.   The second thing I have to say concerning the traditional teaching of the chuch on the subject of Universalism may surprise many. That is the traditional view has not always been the concensus view of the church
(and still is not).  In fact Eternal Conscious Torment has not always even been the view of the majority.  See my post "The Early Church" for more detail on that.  So, I respect the traditional teaching.  And I caution that before we move away from the current traditional teaching, we should do so carefully, thoughtfully, prayerfully and cautiously.  But, I do not think that we should say that we believe anything simply because tradition dictates it.  There has to be more than that. 
My Tradition Conclusion: Current tradition tells me to reject Universalism in favor of Eternal Conscious Torment.  But, past tradition (closer to the foundation of Christianity) gives me reason to consider that Eternal Conscious Torment may not have been the view of the founders of Christianity.

Reason

What does logic tell us about how we would expect God to be?  I also think this is fair place to throw in emotion or just gut feel. But, let's stick to logic for now. It's not the intention of  this short article to completely make a case for Universalism.  The intention is to give you a framework.  But, I have heard many "rational" arguments for and against the concept of Eternal Conscious Torment. Thus far I haven't heard one argument for ECT that didn't sound contrived and didn't seem desperate to prove a point.  When listening to these arguments it has always seemed to me the people putting them forth started with the conclusion that ECT is true (I think based on tradition or a perverted sense of justice) and are trying to build a case to support their conclusion.  I don't have a major problem with the wish that evil is punished and good is rewarded. I think that's human nature.  But, we're not discussing proportional punishment here. We're not talking about corrective discipline.  We're discussing Eternal... Conscious... Torment.  Read that last part slowly.  Eternal.  Conscious.  Torment.  Let that sink in.  A finite, flawed creature is put on this earth and lives a few short years- nilliseconds in the grand scheme of things.  The traditional teaching tells us that, if that creature doesn't perform an act of faith, in those years, that creature is deserving of receiving an infinite amount of punishment.  If you really think about it, I think you'll agree that goes against any concept of human justice or reason or logic we can think of.  As I said earlier, the cases I've seen made for this view are based on the fact that the punishment warranted by an offense is in proportion to the status of the offended party and since God is infinite, any sin against Him warrants an infinite amount of punishment.  I won't take the time to pick this argument apart. I'm sure if you really think about it, you will be able to do so yourself. 

To me, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that an all powerful (which the Bible say He is), all loving (which the Bible says He is) God would be able and willing to save all of His creatures.  To say that such a being would do anything less goes against reason.   That doesn't mean it can't be true. But, I think reason falls on the side of Universalism. 
My Reason Conclusion: Reason contradicts tradition and tells me Universalism is true and to reject Eternal Conscious Torment. 

Scripture

Here's where we really have to roll up our sleeves.  Calvinism, Arminianism and Universalism all draw different conclusions about the eternal fate of mankind.  As has been pointed out in earlier articles, we can narrow these three views down pretty simply.  For a quick discussion of that, see here.  We can find scriptures that seem to say that God is all powerful.  We can find scriptures that seem to say that God is all loving.  And we can find scriptures that seem to say that God will send some of us to Eternal Torment.  Individual scriptures can also be read to say that God will save each and every soul.  Reason tells us that all of these things cannot be true.  So, Calvinists, Arminianists or Universalists will either have to ignore some scriptures, assume some to be in error or find a way to interpret the scriptures that seem to contradict their conclusions in a way that harmonizes them with their conclusions. 

Let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that scripture is inerrant.  We know the interpretation of it isn't inerrant or the church would never have been wrong, as we discussed above in the section on tradition.  And, if the interpretation of scripture were inerrant, we would not have the literally tens of thousand of Christian denominations we have today.  We'd have one, at least amongst those who agree the Bible and its interpretation is inerrant. 

Since scripture is inerrant, it cannot contradict itself (this is simple logic).  If it did contradict itself, one of the two statements would be false and scripture would not be inerrant.  Since we know that God cannot be willing to save all, capable of saving all and some perish, scripture cannot possibly teach all three of these things.  So, we must read scripture from an overall perspective, looking for the big-picture themes.  We must use reason to interpret scripture.  And, then we must harmonize the bits that don't seem to fit into the bigger picture. Passages that initially seem to contradict the bigger picture must be analyzed carefully.  Because if they truly don't fit, scripture is not inerrant.

I would argue that scripture is, generally speaking, Universalistic.  While the Old Testament (many say) gives a picture of a vengeful and even angry God, there is also a lot of talk about love, justice and reconciliation.  And the reconciliation is not just for Israel.  The Hebrew scriptures speak a great deal about how Israel will be used to bring the whole world, all of the nations, to live in harmony with each other and with God.  But, honestly, the Old Testament is silent on the subject of individual salvation.  While there is a lot of talk about how things will be made right on the earth, the Old Testament doesn't talk about individual judgement after death, one way or the other.  The Old Testament is about peace on earth- literally.  Not so great for the Universalist camp maybe.  But, there's not a whisper about Eternal Conscious Torment either.  For more on this, see my article here:  "Why Didn't God Tell the Israelites About Hell?".
The New Testament on the other hand practically screams Universalism.  Romans, 1 Corinthians, passages in Timothy and on and on talk so clearly about Universalism that Calvinist and Arminians have to tie themselves into knots to get even Satan into hell.  Even the book of Revelation, when read with the right understanding is about the ultimate salvation of all. What does Death and Hell being destroyed mean to you?  I know what it means to me.  Read Romans Chapter 5 and try to come to any conclusion other than through Adam all were condemned and through Jesus all will be saved. The parallellism between where Paul says the all or the many were condemned by Adam's act and that same all or many are saved by Jesus' obedience.  C'mon!

(note to self- "OK, OK.  Deep breaths, Brian.")  The point here is scripture must be read in light of reason.  We need to interpret it wisely.  We should not just choose our favorite passages and say "There.  That proves I'm right."  We need to try to understand the overall themes of scripture and to, where possible, harmonize it with reason.  When I do that, I come to the conclusion that scripture and reason are not in conflict with each other. 
My Scripture Conclusion:  Scripture can be reasonably interpreted to support the reasonable conclusion that an all-loving and all powerful God would not allow any of His creatures to suffer the fate of Eternal Conscious Torment.

Summary

Once again, I didn't set out to make an airtight case for Universalism.   This is a very quick outline of how to reasonably approach the subject.  There are several great books that take this much further. I've read a few.  And, in one way or another, they use a similar framework.  I'm reading one right now called "The Evangelical Universalist" that I will review here, once I finish it.  Don't take my word for any of this.  Do you own studies.  What does your experience tell you?  What do you think is reasonable?  Read scipture, as objectively as you can. That is after getting a good literal translation and doing some research on which words were chosen and why.  Research Universalism in the early church.  Research churches that have taken a scriptural Universalist stance.  Don't simply rely on the fact that current tradition tells you that you have to believe something.  If, after examining your tradition, you find it valid, good for you.  If not though, what will you do about it?
My Overall Conclusion: 

  • Experience gives me no reason to think God is capable or desirous of tormenting me eternally.  This idea comes strictly from what I have been taught (tradition).  ECT is an idea that would have never entered my head based on my own experience. 

  • Current tradition tells me to accept ECT.  But, I know that this tradition has not always been the prevailing tradition.  And, based on a new understanding of scripture and church history, I believe this was not the belief of the Bible writers or of the Early Church Fathers.

  • Reason tells me that a God who would Eternally Torment me for any reason is not a God of reason or of justice and certainly not a God of love.  Reason tells me that a God who loves me unconditionally and is all-powerful would not allow me to go to Eternal Torment.

  • Scripture tells me that God is desirous that all come to Him.  It tells me that God is desirous of reconciling His entire creation.  It tells me He will leave the 99 to save the 1, etc., etc.  Scripture also tells me that God gets what He wants, because He is all-powerful.  Scripture aligns with reason.

Peace,
Brian

Justice- A book we need to add to the Bible  

, , 0 comments

Cover of "Unspoken Sermons"Cover of Unspoken Sermons

Who do I see about this? I want to add a new book to the Bible. It's been approaching 1,700 years since we closed the book on the Bible. Isn't it about time we think about putting a new one in there? Did God stop talking when the last gospel writer sat down his pen? I think not.

I've got the perfect candidate for the book. It's every bit as theologically and philosophically sound as Paul's letters. It discusses the true nature of God and Jesus and their relationship to us. It's Biblically sound in that it doesn't contradict with what is already in the canon. It makes perfect sense of what is can be a confusing issue of how God could be both infinitely merciful and infinitely just. It blasts that damnable doctrine of "penal substitutionary atonement" back to the pit it came from. It makes sense of why and how God could punish us and be merciful, at the same time. It gives us a picture of the true meaning of the word Justice, not the distorted and petty human justice that we've projected onto God- returning the favor of His creating us in His image by creating Him in ours. And, we can read it in its original language. No need for The Message type translations, or even literal translations. It's right there in plain old English.

The book I'd like to propose is simply titled "Justice". It's a sermon by the Scottish author, poet and minister George MacDonald. It's in his book "Unspoken Sermons" available via the Internet and in hard copy. But, don't worry, I've created a PDF file for you that you can download here.

"Why do we need this book in the Bible?", you might ask. When the Bible was canonized, we didn't need it. But, that was before Jonathan Edwards (the author of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"), John Calvin, Saint Anselm and others gave us the image of a god who doesn't know how to forgive without blood and who punishes simply to inflict suffering. That was before we were given the image of a god who would prefer to inflict suffering on One perfectly innocent than allow His honor to be besmirched. That was before we were told about a god who would create imperfect creatures bound to sin eventually, and then eternally torment them for being just as he made them. We didn't need the book "Justice" in our Bibles 1,700 years ago. But, we need it today!

I reread Justice over the past couple of days. It's probably the fourth time I've read it. Each time, I just try to soak in as much as possible and make it a part of me. I read it when I get weak and begin to think "Maybe God really is the monster I was told He is." When I feel that way, I read George MacDonald and all is right with the world again.

I wanted to pull out some highlights from the sermon. But, if I begin, I'm afraid I'll just end up writing the whole thing over again. So, I'll just pull out one. Each time I read the sermon, something a little different really hits me. This time it was this passage. And, it actually actually made me feel ashamed. I had to pray for forgiveness after reading it. George pulls no punches, that's what I love about his style. He writes...
Where there is no ground to believe that God does a thing except that men who would explain God have believed and taught it, he is not a true man who accepts men against his own conscience of God. I acknowledge no authority calling upon me to believe a thing of God, which I could not be a man and believe right in my fellow-men. I will accept no explanation of any way of God which explanation involves what I should scorn as false and unfair in a man.

Ouch! That one hurt. I had to reflect on how through so many years, I allowed people to tell me things about God that I just knew couldn't be true. Things that made me wish God had never created me. What's also weird (well this happens all of the time now, so it's not really that weird), just a few days before I decided to read George MacDonald, the Quaker Pastor I met with said something similar. When I told him how I had uncritically accepted the atrocious things people had taught me about God, he said that when people told him things that he knew were not consistent with God's character, he simply rejected them as not true. Oh, how I wish I could have done that!

Back to the point, I've uploaded the Justice file as a PDF for your easy reading. It's pretty long and George was Scottish and lived a long time ago. So his English can be a little difficult to read. But, I think this (and all his other sermons) are well worth wading through.

Let me know what you think... Click here to download Justice. Until we can get it officially added, you can just print it out and stick it in your Bible.

Peace,
Brian
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Karma and Tithing  

1 comments

I've been studying Buddhism lately.  It's been very interesting.  There are many similarities between Buddhism and Christianity (in spite of what a lot of Christians would say).  While studying karma, I learned a lot of interesting things about this concept that basically says what we do/say/intend returns to us in kind.  IOW, do good things and good things will happen to you.  Do bad things and bad things will happen to you.  I'll say more about karma later.  In Buddhism anyway, it's not quite that simple.  I've always thought of karma as being basically unscriptural and un-Christian.  After all, Jesus said that the blind man was born blind for the glory of God, not because either he or his parents sinned (this is a hint about a possible belief in reincarnation. But, that's another article.)
A couple of weeks ago while listening to a teaching about tithing, something clicked because I had just been studying karma. The verses Christians* use to defend the practice of tithing supposedly* speak of
God repaying us in kind for tithing (or for not tithing).
* Note: I say "supposedly"  and specify that Christians use these verses because Jews (the people who wrote the book), don't tithe.  They do not interpret the verses the way the Christian ministers who tell us we're supposed to give 10% of our income to God
(in the form of the "church")
The teaching I heard was a presentation to a group of young people who were about to get married.  During the financial part of the presentation, the couples were told how vitally important tithing is, as part of your financial plan.  What I find interesting about this is whenever Christians mention this, they almost always give some sort of indication that you will be blessed financially/materially by tithing.  I've heard people trying to convince others to tithe time and time again say that just as they began tithing, God began giving them money or steaks or something else, in return.  In fact the main verse they cite to indicate you should tithe is interpreted as karmic and one of the most misquoted passages, by evangelicals, in the whole Bible.
Malachi 3:8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my
house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty.
Following the pitch for tithing that I was listening to, the couples were given an exercise.  During the exercise, thay were asked to make various choices concerning a budget.  Were they going to buy a large house or a small one?  Were they going to buy a Lexus or a Kia?  And, were they going to tithe the full 10%, a lesser amount or nothing at all?  Then, in spite of the disclaimer that had been given that God doesn't necessarily have to repay you in money; the couples were told that, if they had chosen to tithe, they could later add an additional amount back into their budget "a tithing blessing".  This amount was (lo and behold) the very amount they had tithed in the first place.  So, pay a tithe and nothing really comes out of your pocket.  Actually, this was far from the worst presentation I've heard on tithing.  I've actually heard that God will repay much more than you could possibly pay Him, making God the world's best investment banker. If this were true, we should give 100% of our income directly to the church and just sit back and watch the "blessings" flow in.  Eventually, we'd never have to work at all, just pay 10% of the tithing blessing that will inevitably flow in and we're set!  No? Darn.  I thought that was the way it works.

Sidenote:
Please don't get me wrong.  I think it's important to give to charity and to give generously.  Ten percent is even a great idea.  But, I don't think its required for Christians to give ten percent of their off-the-top income to their local church, because the Bible says so. Many (most?) churches would waste the money. True religion is religion that takes care of orphans and widows. I give to my church not because I think giving to them is what the Bible commands but because I know they do good things with the money. Giving ten percent to your local church, as a requirement, is is a gross misapplication of Old Testament scripture.  It takes verses way out of context, even the context of the time and the people that they were written for, let alone trying to apply them to the 21st century gentile church.
Back to karma for a moment.  I think it's an interesting (though completely unprovable) concept.  But, it's been given a bad rap (like tithing). So, let me take a minute to explain it, as I understand it. Karma is only one factor in why things happens.  According to Buddhist thought, karma can be carried over from lifetime to lifetime (rebirth).  This is what was hinted at in the disciples' question to Jesus concerning the blind man.  The question indicates a belief in previous life or lives and in karma.

There are actually five factors that determine what happens to us, according to Buddhism.  These are:
  1. Nature- natural forces, gravity, weather, etc. can impact us.  This is also known as "shit happens".
  2. Genetics- influence the things we say and do and can cause illness or health.
  3. Karma- the results of things we say/do and our intentions that come back to us.  Also keep in mind that there is group karma.  For example, nations have karma, tribes have karma, etc.  Hanging out with people with bad karma could involve you in the negative energy coming back to them.
  4. Dharma- practice.  For a Buddhist, this would be meditation, mindfulness and following the teachings of the Buddha.  For a Christian, this would be prayer and following the teachings of Jesus
  5. Mind- right mind can improve circumstances.  Again, I think prayer can fall into this category.

About now you might be wondering what the point of this post is. That is besides the obvious chance to take a shot at the practice of forced giving to the church, under the guise of the Torah instruction to
the Israelites to give a portion back to support their theocracy.  One point is that I have heard Christians (myself included) take shots at other religions based on incomplete knowledge about them and hypocritically ignoring similar teachings in our own religion. Karma is very similar to the way a lot of Christians think God works.  They think God is coin-operated.  Do good and God will be forced to repay you with "good".   I think the whole idea of karma is really underneath a desire for "justice" and predictability in life.  It's an effort to control.  We'd like to believe that if we do good things, good things will happen to us.  We want to see bad things happen to bad people.  So, we come up with a system like "karma" or say God will visit "justice" upon people based on their behavior.  Of course, we see that things don't always work this way.  We know "shit happens".  So, we kind of water the system down by saying there are no guarantees that if you give your tithe God will give money back. Or that karma might not be visited upon you in in this lifetime or that you can actually cancel bad karma with good karma, making the whole thing so complicated that we can't possibly really know what is going to happen to us, based on our behavior.  So, while it's kind of nice sounding idea and it encourages good behavior, it doesn't really have great practical application.  My advice?  Just be good for goodness sake. 

That's the other point of the post.  Don't give to get (or to avoid being zapped).  Don't do good deeds to store up points in the karma bank.  Do good for the sake of doing good. 


This brings up another point.  How do we judge if a thing that happens to us is good or bad?  Ideally, we want to be like Paul, happy in all circumstances (see the book of Phillippians for more on this).  The Buddhists call this "equanimity".  Here's a Taoist story to wrap up this post:

There was once a wise old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.  "May be" said the farmer.



A Visit with the Quaker Pastor  

, 0 comments

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Quaker Pastor wanted to meet with me. We had our meeting on Thursday. It was very pleasant, very low key. Pastor Dan told me a little more about Quaker history and the current "structure" of the "church", such as it is. The Quaker "church" is a very loose organization with beliefs ranging everywhere from Evangelical Christians to downright Atheists. (And I use the term organization loosely). We shared our stories about how we got to where we are today. His story, like everyone's, was fascinating. He explained the silence of the worship services a little more to me. And how almost everyone struggles with it at first (if not for a long time). He also told me he thought the conversation here at my blog was interesting. We talked about how people view God and why the belief in hell seems to be so important to some people. I explained how damaging I think the view is not just in terms of just being wrong but because, for sensitive people, it hinders a true loving relationship with God that is not based on fear or coersion.
One thing that he said that really struck me was (and I can't recall the exact words. So I'm paraphrasing) how it's sometimes a good thing to stay in relationship/community with people with whom you have differences because in this way we can truly learn to love our "enemies". We live in artificial communities, in artificial neighborhoods where we never really have to interact deeply with people and share deeply and deal with real differences. In the church, we have this opportunity. So, in actuality, he gave me one more ticky mark in my "Stay" column.

But, (there's always a but), it doesn't make sense to stay in relationships just because there's tension. One of the tests the Quakers have to determining if they're hearing from the Spirit concerning doing a thing is "Is it something I wouldn't want to do?". So, people were walking around naked thinking it must be the Spirit leading them since they wouldn't normally walk around naked. So, wanting to leave the Vineyard, in and of itself, is not sufficient reason to stay.

The Quakers believe that anyone can hear from God. As one person on the CD they gave me put it, that God is love and that God is accessible. They believe in continual revelation. God didn't stop talking when the last gospel writer put down his pen. The Quakers believe we are all ministers (called to service). The point of silence in their meetings is everyone is qualified to hear from God and anyone can have a message from God for the Meeting. The Quakers do not force conformity of beliefs although they do hold community very dear. They have a system to balance the desires of the individual with the needs of the community. Pastor Dan gave me some information on it that I haven't had the opportunity to read yet. Because Quakers don't force anyone to believe certain creeds, they might appear to be disorganized. I have to admit it's a bit unnerving to ask a "church" what they believe and to hear that members in good standing can be Atheists or not have any particular belief about Jesus. But, in a way, it's refreshing. BTW, I guess the "Friends" are the Christian subset and they do believe in Jesus. Quakers have confidence that God will deal with each individual in His own way. That's several steps ahead of any church I've been to so far.

I really enjoyed my talk with Pastor Dan. I'd like to talk to him some more. He's a soft spoken, intelligent and sensitive guy. He mentioned nothing about joining the Quakers, until I brought it up. So, it wasn't a recruiting meeting. I won't be joining anytime soon. He said most people visit for six months to a year before joining. I think that is an excellent idea. But, I would like to visit them again. The Quakers have a lot of things right.

Peace,
Brian

Why Didn't God Tell the Israelites About Hell?  

, , 1 comments

I was at lunch the other day with some friends who are struggling with the concept of Universalism. I think they'd kind of like to believe. But, their combined 80 plus years of religious training makes them doubt. One of them is reading the book of Ezekiel and he's kind of caught up on this "Old Testament" God of fire and judgement versus the "New Testament" God of love and mercy. He asked us for my take on the whole thing. I could give my answer. But, that's not the point of this very quick post. After answering his question, I asked him one.
If God is going to send people to hell for Eternal Torment and we actually believe the Hebrew Scriptures are a perfect and complete revelation of how God dealt with the Hebrews (which I don't believe but many Christian fundamentalists do), why is there not a single mention of Eternal Torment in the entire revelation?

When God was face-to-face with Adam &Eve coudn't he have given them a heads up that not only would they surely die, but they'd be resurrected to face Eternal Torment? He told them about having to sweat and work the ground. He told them about pains in childbirth. But, not a word about raising them up after they died to be tortured eternally. Couldn't He have just added a footnote to all of the punishments He gave to Moses? How about Abraham, Isaac or Jacob? No mention from them about an endless hell. Likewise, Joshua, the Judges of Israel and the Psalmists are silent about it. Wouldn't the Psalmists in one of their rants about their enemies have asked God to send them to eternal torment instead of just bashing their babies on the rocks? The prophets of Israel and Judah, though they say much of God's wrath, say nothing about eternal torment. Jeremiah mentions "the valley of the son of Himmon" (Jer. 7:32). We know this is the Gehenna that Jesus spoke of (poorly translated in many Bibles as "hell"). But, Jeremiah calls it the "valley of slaughter", not the "valley of Eternal Torment".

Isaiah speaks of "everlasting burnings" in his prophecy (Isa. 33:14). But, Isaiah calls it a "devouring" fire. And he specifically says no one can dwell or live there. No eternal torment here.

There are some old translations of the Bible that translate the Hebrew word "Sheol" as Hell. But, modern scholars agree that this is better translated as grave or abode of the dead (actually with no differentiation between righteous and evil). There is no indication the Hebrews ever believed Sheol to be a place of torment.

C'mon. Are we supposed to believe that when this angry God was passing out threats to the Israelites all of those years was neglectful enough to never once mention the biggest one of all? No. He saved that for the New Testament when He chose to reveal how loving He is. Yeah, right.

footnote: inspired by a post in Freethinking Faith blog. That's where I most of the specific scripture references. But, I did have this conversation with my friends on Wednesday at lunch

Your Inner Child is Going to Hell  

, , 1 comments

A couple of days ago I ranted about a remark made by our pastor in his sermon on Sunday.  Now I've had a chance to review the video (from a later delivery of the same sermon) and can put his remarks more into context.   And, I'm ready to rant some more.

Here are the remarks as well as I was able to transcribe them:

Professor Darrell Bock  says the major subject of the Gnostic gospels is the inner human being, not God.  The major problem spiritual problem was ignorance, not sin. Ignorance of the mystery caused people to suffer.  In the Gospel of thomas, Spirituality is merely understanding who one is and what God has already placed in you. (reading from the Gospel of Thomas) "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you.  If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."  that sounds like the Sphinx in the movie Mystery Men. "When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known and you will see that it's in you who are the children of the living Father.  But, if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty.  And it is you who are in that poverty." 


He writes "In this view spirituality is not driven by an alliance, allegiance to the living God in response to His love and care for us, rather spirituality merely means understanding who one is and then seeking what God has already placed in us."


I gotta tell you "That pseudo-spiritual self-actualization babble is not what jesus died on the cross for.  And it's not what the apostles were martyred for.  Your inner child is going to hell, unless you get that thing right with Jesus. (inaudible remark from the audience) Thank you, I'm doing my best." 

After watching the replay, I was more upset about parts of it and less upset about others.  I don't recall in the service I went to the qualification of the hell remark (the "unless you get that thing right with Jesus" part).  Maybe he said it at the earlier service and I just missed it.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the major problem I had with this talk is the fact that our church doesn't talk openly about hell and our beliefs concerning it.  I have to assume from a remark here or there that the church doctrine is that those don't "accept Jesus" in this lifetime are going to be tormented eternally. But, this remark is the clearest one I can recall in the almost nine years I've been attending.  There was another reference toward the end of the sermon about if we go through this life and don't accept the witness of the New Testament, we will end up "missing a piece" (of the puzzle).   I can only assume that we are to take it that missing that piece means our inner child goes to hell because this was not made clear in the sermon.

The second part of my problem with this passage from the talk was the dismissive way Dave talks about "self-actualization".   He poo-pooed the Gnostics and the passage from the Gospel of Thomas.  I want to make it clear I do not think any of the Gnostic gospels carries the same credibility of any of the canonical gospels.  But, I do see some parallels in some of the things there.  Dave made fun of some of the miracles claimed in some of the other non-canonical gospels.  Granted, some of them are outlandish.  But, isn't a talking donkey (Balaam's ass) pretty wild?  How about Jesus walking on water?  How about Jesus raising a man from the dead after three days?  All of these things most Christians accept without question.  So, miracles in the non-canonical gospels, in and of themselves, are no reason to dismiss the gospels.

I can think of a couple of passages, in the New Testament, where Jesus said things similar to the passage in the Gospel of Thomas.  Things about cleaning up our insides and bringing forth  what is in us.  Is this "pseudo-spiritual self-actualization babble"?

Check these out:

Mark 7: 14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
Matthew 23:25 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Until I started looking for God inside of myself, manifested as the still small voice of the Holy Spirit and got into counseling that helped me deprogram from the years of crap loaded into me by the church, I was a basket case.  I was full of fear, self-loathing and doubt.  And, I felt guilty about being that way because Christian shouldn't feel all of that stuff. And all of the stuff the church was feeding me about just reading my Bible more and praying more wasn't helping one bit.  My inner child wasn't going to hell, my inner child was in hell- tormented on a daily basis.

Thank God I found the babble that led me to finally be able to find Him right where He had been hiding all along- deep inside of me.

If you'd like to see the video, it's here.  You'll need RealPlayer.  The part I'm talking about begins about 50 minutes in.



Newer Posts Older Posts
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)