This is a fascinating video. It continues on the theme of yesterday's post of where do I end and you (or the world) begin?
Be patient with the video. Watch the whole thing. You'll be tempted to turn it off in the first three minutes. But, it's important you do not. It's only about 8 minutes long.
Image by suburbanslice via FlickrBelieve it or not (and I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't personally witnessed it), on a Universalist message group I'm on, we've been arguing about what is means to be a Universalist. A couple of people actually characterized Universalism as just another -ism, as divisive and as exclusive.
I am now convinced that given enough people and enough time, people can argue about anything and we seem to seek ways to divide ourselves. I don't understand it, I wish it weren't so. For my entire life, I've never wanted anything more than to be one with all around me. I'm deeply saddened by this aspect of human nature.
But, on a lighter note, a friend shared the following story. Gotta laugh or I'll start to cry...
to him crying, "Stop, stop, don't do it."
The man on the bridge looks down and asks, "Why not?"
"Well, there's much to live for."
"What for?"
"Well, your faith. Your religion."
"Yes?"
"Are you religious?"
"Yes."
"Me, too. Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me, too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me, too. Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian?"
"Baptist."
"Me, too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the
Savior?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me, too. Are you Original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist
Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me, too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation of 1879,
or Reform Baptist Church of God Reformation of 1917?"
"1917."
Whereupon, the second fellow turned red in the face and yelled, "Die,
you heretic scum," and pushed him off the bridge."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c89c80d2-dcb8-4f0a-b2b3-263a4b3a32aa)
Image via Wikipedia
"Meditation Without Myth- What I Wish They'd Taught Me in Church About Prayer, Meditation and the Quest for Peace" The title and subtitle of this book don't do it justice. I picked it up because I recognize the author Daniel A. Helminiak from a great little book he wrote called "What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality". I am always interested in learning more about meditation, as I have been practicing it for a couple of years now. The subtitle really caught my attention "What I Wish They'd Taught Me in Church about Prayer, Mediation and the Quest for Peace". It does cover that. But, it's about so much more.
The book analyzes meditation, telling us not only how to do it but telling us how and why it works. If it only did that, the book would be worth the read. But, it also gives us a model for understanding ourselves and our innate human spirituality without the often confusing and always controversial baggage of theology. The author looks at meditation from a strictly humanistic point of view, making this book just as accessible for the atheist as the theist and the Christian as the Buddhist. This is a book on spirituality and ethics that literally can be read by anyone.
Daniel A. Helminiak former priest and is currently a psychologist. The book does not deny the existence of God or God's value in our meditation. But, it does examine human spirituality and meditation without invoking God, allowing us all to speak a common language. The topics in the book include:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The author mentions that he has a background in Buddhism, which is pretty apparent when you read the book. Buddhism is a very pragmatic, down-to-earth, minimalistic approach to spirituality and humanity. There is no talk of grace, gifts of the spirit, or metaphysics. Enlightenment (or as the author might term it- integration) is achieved through discipline and work. Dr. Helminiak does a good job of explaining why this approach is desirable to him and why he used in in writing this book. He gives the following example: Isaac Newton is famous for his explanation of the solar system. In fact, Newton was an extremely devout Christian. He believed hat he was explaining God's creation. In his mind, he had figured out the mathematical marvels that God built into the solar system. But Newton did not include "God" in his mathematical equations. Naming God would not have helped one bit. As Newton knew well, his equations regarded God's handiwork. The physical universe is what concerned Newton, not God. God was outside of- God was beyond- the matter to be explained, so God had no place in Newton's mathematical formulas.
The book does not leave God entirely out of the picture. After explaining a really good model for the human being as body, mind and psyche and giving practical tips on how to meditate and why it works to help us integrate the three and to grow spirituality, the author does discuss God (for those of us like me who really want to hear about it). But, he makes it clear that a believe in God is not necessary to meditate or to grow spirituality and I believe that is the point he is trying to drive home early in the book (and again later in the book). Meditation is beneficial for the atheist, agnostic and theist. And, a belief in God is not a prerequisite to spiritual growth.
The book can be broken down into three general sections
- How to meditate
- How contemporary psychology (the body, psyche, spirit model) explains
how meditation works - What this has to do with God, ethics, spiritual experiences and good
living
One of the key ideas put forth is that the human spirit is a natural aspect of the human being. This is something people of all faiths (or non-faiths) can agree on and is a good starting point for the topic of meditation as well as ethical behavior and how we as human beings can co-exist without killing each other. Buddhism focuses on the human mind rather than on God. Underlying Buddhism is the principle that each human being has a self-transcending dimension that can be unleashed via meditation. In Buddhism, this is called "Buddha Nature". In Christianity, this might be called "Christ Consciousness". But, a key difference between Buddhism and "traditional" Christianity is Buddhists say this nature is present in every being (but let's stick to human for now). Humanistic psychologists speak of "human potential". The chapter on Body, Psyche and Spirit does a fine job of explaining what this human spirit is and how we can recognize it in ourselves. It describes how the spirit relates to the psyche and how one is the stabilizing influence, while the other is the freedom seeking influence. He also discusses some other models and why he thinks the model he has chosen is superior to those others. Another way of expressing his model would be physical, emotional and spiritual (maybe more readily recognized). The author then talks about how there are different ways of accessing the spirit- either through the psyche through the body or directly. Most practices will engage more than one aspect at a time. But, they'll focus on different aspects. Meditation is a way of putting aside the psyche and the body (or at least moving them to the background) and accessing the spirit directly. He uses the term "contentless meditation". This is the first I've heard of this term. But, I like it. In the type of meditation he describes, we are seeking to calm the mind or the psyche to allow the spirit to expand. He also uses the term integration to describe what we are trying to achieve through our meditation practice and spiritual growth. I liked that term also.
The author gives a technique for meditation and some practical considerations. I really like what he says about "distraction" (what is what we usually call it). He refers to the distractions we get during meditation as drifting. This really helps those of us who sometimes struggle with the guilt that arises when we can't keep from drifting during meditation. He talks about why those drifting moments are important.
All of the above is not even the first half of the book. He goes on to discuss some topics that have very little to do with meditation. I appreciated them. But, I suppose some people might find them to be a distraction or a digression. He discusses social interactions and expectations, drugs and alcohol use, sex, and the pursuit of a simplistic lifestyle. This is a very brief section of the book.
In the second section of the book, Dr. Helminiak begins by discussing the Human Spirit. He insists it is "merely human" and not a divine spark. He seems to be very concerned people will make the mistake that we are God and that we are not the source of the universe. I suppose some people who believe there is a divine spark in each of us have difficulty making those distinctions. He points out that by saying "merely" human he is not belittling the human spirit or trying to put limits on its wondrous nature. But he is concerned with what has become a common notion that we are divine and wants to squelch that idea. One benefit of speaking of the human spirit as "merely" human is it does allow us to talk with atheists and people of other faiths without getting into metaphysical arguments. Another problem with confusing humanity with divinity is it limits our understanding and appreciation of the vastness of our own natures and confuses what we mean when we do talk about the Ultimate Mystery- G-d. I think this is an excellent point. This part of the book really started me thinking. For those of us who have meditated and have begun to open up this dimension of ourselves, we often (I know I have) talk about how we are reaching God. This is something I may need to rethink. I have experienced the awe and wonder he discusses in this chapter and maybe I've been too quick to attribute it to the divine.
Dr. Helminiak then discusses expected outcomes of meditation (short and long term). Like any responsible teacher of meditation though, he is careful not to lay out a blueprint. Each person will progress on a different path and at a different pace. But, there are some general outcomes that can be expected. He wraps this section up by talking about sex as a spiritual exercise- an idea I found to be very interesting.
The third and last section of the book brings God and religion back into the picture. Again, he explains why he left God out earlier (to my satisfaction anyway). I loved Chapter 16 which discussed Spirituality versus Religion. While he makes some sweeping generalizations about the effects of religion, he also raises some very good points and brings up a concept which will be frightening to many Christians- a humanistic spirituality. That is a spirituality we all, as human beings, can embrace. These would be the things we hold onto tightly, while leaving the peripheral religious beliefs to be held onto loosely. He says: 'Doctrines differ from religion to religion, so insistence on them undermines human community. Absolute commitment to principles of love, justice and wholesome living is precisely what we need today. We can do without screeching preaching about other-worldly doctrinal claims."
Dr. Helminiak then talks about God and meditation and how, while the experience of meditation is the same for a theist and a non-theist, a theist will put a larger frame on it- seeing not only human spiritual growth and integration but the working of God. The last chapter is on ethics and human spirituality.
Wow! After writing this review, I realized this book had even more packed into it than I had realized. It really is pretty far reaching going way beyond just techniques of meditation. I found myself making a lot of notes and as I thumbed through it for the review made a mental note to read it again in the coming months. I'm sure some people would find the book too humanistic or perhaps even blasphemous. But, I found it to be one of the most straight forward and easiest to understand books on meditation that I've read.
If you decide to get the book, let me know what you think about it. I'd love to discuss it with you.
Peace,
Brian
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=835ee33d-2967-457c-8c60-5778bc4d04de)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ffed0e42-cd8b-4185-be3b-9c4110c609da)
Image via Wikipedia
This morning, I got up and went to the Vineyard with the family. I then came home, grabbed a quick bowl of instant Oatmeal and boogied over to Nexus, the micro-church I have been attending. It's an interesting contrast. I never really wanted to attend a mega church anyway. But, we ended up at the Vineyard because of the people there, the music and the casual atmosphere (the first casual church I had ever been to). Now, almost 10 years later, I'm ready to move on. The church has truly become a mega church (it had a much smaller feel in our old building many years ago) and the theology that once only mildly aggravated me (or so I thought) has become less and less tolerable to me.
I never thought I'd want to attend a micro church either. If it weren't for the family, I probably would have stopped attending church at all a few months ago (or gone to the Quaker church). The idea of home church doesn't appeal to me, really. But, there are some definite advantages to the micro church. I already feel more in "community" on Sunday morning at the micro church that I ever did at even the 8:30am (the most sparsely attended) service at the mega church. The fact that we (the congregation) have the opportunity to interact with each other and the pastor during the service (as limited as it might be) is a huge thing for me. The pastor has left room for questions/comments at the end of his sermons. I'd like to see more of that. But, you can't even attempt that in a service with hundreds of people in it. The other really big thing, that has nothing to do with size of church, is the micro church is progressive. When we started attending the Vineyard so many years ago, if there were any progressive churches in Cincinnati, I had never heard of them or I would have been all over that. Shouldn't all churches be progressive? Shouldn't everyone be progressive? I don't understand the mentality that says we've learned all there is to learn, grown all we need to grow and don't need to move on from here.
I'm not sure what's going to happen with this. Attending both places hasn't been so bad, for a while. But, it's not something I want to keep doing. My wife is perfectly happy at the mega church and hates change. She said to me today that she thought once you chose a religion you were supposed to stick with it for life. She's already changed from being Catholic. (I'm not sure why she equates changing churches with changing religions). I guess that's her one change for her religious lifetime. I'm just the opposite. I don't want to church hop. But, I feel that we should always be spiritually seeking and growing. Inevitably, that's going to lead us to outgrow some things and possibly some places (and even some people). I want to be accommodating to her (and have been). Serving there is one thing. That (serving my family and others) has had to be enough for the last several months as things have just gotten more and more stale for me there.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b5424a35-306c-431d-a233-a54452e34f97)
Image via Wikipedia
My new reader Arthur has presented some excellent comments over the last few days. This one is in response to my post on the execution of Saddam Hussein:
Sooo... you are against all forms of maximum force even if they meant the protection of those principles and persons that you hold near and dear? Do you think that timeouts, conflict resolution, the UN, and other slaps on the wrist, with declarations of this is "inappropriate", will deter the most stubborn and incorrigibles such as the Saddams, Hitlers, Pol pots, Pinochets of the world? Hah, they will laugh in your face. ;) This will not get any respect from the bad guys, who won't take you seriously to desist in their nefarious ways.
It is too bad, that the world requires police, military and other purveyors of maximum force. Heck, if you read the Book of Revelation, I believe, in it, God Himself has been forced by His rebellious creatures into a universal war where there will be wounded, killed and captured so to speak. He didn't invent sin. However, rebellious creatures make it necessary to fight to set the whole groaning Creation and its suffering members ultimate relief from decay, death, and evil. I hate to say it freedom costs blood and lives. This is a natural consequence of living in a universe of free moral agents whom God gives some free rein to, who tend to abuse their freedoms and oppress others. It isn't violence that is bad in and of itself, but rather the motivations and goals behind it. The defence of what is Good, using defensive deterence, works however one may deny it. Vengeance is part of it, but so what, what is wrong with balancing the scales of justice. Blood cries out for Blood .
It is only natural. What is wrong is when one gloats and glories in it, then you might start to become what you hate. Not all killing is murder, some of it is justifiable self-defence. Of course, I realize it can be a slippery slope.
Joke: a liberal is a conservative who has not been mugged yet.
Until you experience bullying, disrespect, and what not in your own personal life, where there is no one else to stand up for you. I suspect that you will continue to have this naive view of life where everything is wonderful. Yeah, but usually you have someone else do the fighting for you. Try doing it yourself, then you will see what I mean.
This Neville Chamberlain appeasement of Hitler approach to life will just get you
steamrolled by evil. Enough Said?
It is too bad, that the world requires police, military and other purveyors of maximum force. Heck, if you read the Book of Revelation, I believe, in it, God Himself has been forced by His rebellious creatures into a universal war where there will be wounded, killed and captured so to speak. He didn't invent sin. However, rebellious creatures make it necessary to fight to set the whole groaning Creation and its suffering members ultimate relief from decay, death, and evil. I hate to say it freedom costs blood and lives. This is a natural consequence of living in a universe of free moral agents whom God gives some free rein to, who tend to abuse their freedoms and oppress others. It isn't violence that is bad in and of itself, but rather the motivations and goals behind it. The defence of what is Good, using defensive deterence, works however one may deny it. Vengeance is part of it, but so what, what is wrong with balancing the scales of justice. Blood cries out for Blood .
It is only natural. What is wrong is when one gloats and glories in it, then you might start to become what you hate. Not all killing is murder, some of it is justifiable self-defence. Of course, I realize it can be a slippery slope.
Joke: a liberal is a conservative who has not been mugged yet.
Until you experience bullying, disrespect, and what not in your own personal life, where there is no one else to stand up for you. I suspect that you will continue to have this naive view of life where everything is wonderful. Yeah, but usually you have someone else do the fighting for you. Try doing it yourself, then you will see what I mean.
This Neville Chamberlain appeasement of Hitler approach to life will just get you
steamrolled by evil. Enough Said?
I hope Susan reads this. He called my POV naive. He's wrong about what I believe. But, it's always cool when someone calls me naive anyway. I like being "naive". Back to Arthur- I'm not a pacifist. I can only assume from your comments you think I am. I'm not saying it's wrong to be a pacfist. But, I'm not one. When I wrote about the execution of Saddam, it was not an anti-violence post or anti-war or anti-self defense. Saddam's execution had nothing to do with self-defense. Surely, you cannot be seriously claiming that Iraq executed a 69 year old deposed and imprisoned man, in self-defense. Saddam was executed in the name of justice, not defense. These are very different things. I am not against "all forms of maximum force". Sometimes evil must be resisted. Sometimes, in this fallen world, violence is even necessary. Executing Saddam was not one of those times. Taking a defenseless man and hanging him is, in no way, self-defense.
But, now to the more interesting part of this comment. You say that G-d has been "forced" into a universal war. Fascinating perspective. Hardly biblical though. So, I wonder where it comes from. The Bible says that God is in control. The Bible says that God is the Creator of everything. I take it your view is God created this whole mess, let it get out of hand and now we have to suffer the consequences while He fights to regain control. I guess God was surprised by what happened in the Garden (even though He is the one who put the Tree of Knowledge and the snake into the Garden). No, Arthur, God is not out of control or fighting evil; while losing many of His beloved Children. I don't have a naive view of life where everything is wonderful. This world is fallen. But, it's fallen by design. I hate the evil and violence in our world and I will do all I can to resist it. But, I will not resort to thinking that somehow God is surprised by it, incapable of stopping it or losing people to to it.
In reply to another post Arthur writes:
You know from a common sense point of view I don't think it is a stretch to say that the systems of justice and mercy on the earth are that different from those in heaven which are more perfect. I don't think God plays dice with the universe as He has this wonderful stamp of consistency everywhere in creation. When God entered time as Jesus, He forever hallowed our human flesh and so He is not above His creation so to speak He is also part of it. Therefore, the proportional punishments that we earthlings use to punish the wicked are also reflected in a principle of proportionality in heaven albeit He sees and knows everything to the thought and intents of our hearts.
You cannot fool God. He knows! He is not unjust. He is what He is. As the scriptures say, our God is a consuming fire and nothing unholy can stand in His presence. Thus, those who by the free exercise of their free will opt to choose evil and do not repent... become constituently less and less like Him. And so, that Fire that is Him would naturally be lethal to such beings.What is not of Him will be consumed. God cannot help what He is. He is an Eternal Being who was, is, and is to come. Hell is a severe mercy as that is the only place in creation where He ultimately
respects the free will of his recalcitrant, rebellious creatures. He is a gentlemen, who will not tyrannically override the free will of all free moral agents in the universe. Because to my mind, Universalism fails here, the evil ones must be permitted to be evil and continue on their path of self-destructions especially if they have willed it. God no doubt gives many chances during the lifetime of a person. But His foreknowledge of outcomes, knows what is ultimately futile or worth saving. We cannot second guess our Creator. Heck, even on earth, there is such a thing as consent to living saving treatments and advanced directives, don't you think God is at least like that. He will not foist treatment on the unwilling even if it means their own good. Unless, there is even an iota of willingness. He ultimately respects free will.
We can choose by degrees as far as we are able to become more like Him and so the scriptures say, when we see Him we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He really is. I suppose that refers to the Elect of God. God would not be a God if He forever permitted evil to exist and plague the universe getting away scott-free. Now, that would be unjust. We all have to expiate sins and their temporal effects somehow in this life or the next. If not, suffer the eternal consequences. Uncomfortable truths, but they are part of what Christ taught. The Master must not be denied. Let everyman be a liar, and God be True.
You cannot fool God. He knows! He is not unjust. He is what He is. As the scriptures say, our God is a consuming fire and nothing unholy can stand in His presence. Thus, those who by the free exercise of their free will opt to choose evil and do not repent... become constituently less and less like Him. And so, that Fire that is Him would naturally be lethal to such beings.What is not of Him will be consumed. God cannot help what He is. He is an Eternal Being who was, is, and is to come. Hell is a severe mercy as that is the only place in creation where He ultimately
respects the free will of his recalcitrant, rebellious creatures. He is a gentlemen, who will not tyrannically override the free will of all free moral agents in the universe. Because to my mind, Universalism fails here, the evil ones must be permitted to be evil and continue on their path of self-destructions especially if they have willed it. God no doubt gives many chances during the lifetime of a person. But His foreknowledge of outcomes, knows what is ultimately futile or worth saving. We cannot second guess our Creator. Heck, even on earth, there is such a thing as consent to living saving treatments and advanced directives, don't you think God is at least like that. He will not foist treatment on the unwilling even if it means their own good. Unless, there is even an iota of willingness. He ultimately respects free will.
We can choose by degrees as far as we are able to become more like Him and so the scriptures say, when we see Him we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He really is. I suppose that refers to the Elect of God. God would not be a God if He forever permitted evil to exist and plague the universe getting away scott-free. Now, that would be unjust. We all have to expiate sins and their temporal effects somehow in this life or the next. If not, suffer the eternal consequences. Uncomfortable truths, but they are part of what Christ taught. The Master must not be denied. Let everyman be a liar, and God be True.
Arthur, I agree with a lot of what you've said here. So, let's start with the positive.
- God is just
- We cannot fool God
- The earthly systems of justice and mercy are (or should be) reflections of God's justice and mercy
- Proportional punishment (in terms of the earthly justice systems) are morally right
- We should strive to be more like God
- God would not be God if He permitted evil to exist forever
I know people who would just jump at the chance to debate you on "free will" and just how much control we have over our eternal destinies. But, since that's such a complicated subject, let's just agree for the moment that we do have the ability to choose to become more like God (or not). It'll make things simpler. But, I do want to recommend Martin Zender's "The Really Bad Thing About Free Will" to you. I think it'll blow your mind. Click the link for a short description of the (very short) book.
My friend, I'm afraid your idea of justice is very distorted. It sounds to me like you interchange the word punishment or what I would call retribution for justice. I can understand why that is. A lot of people seem to be satisfied with the idea of an "eye for an eye". Our justice system uses this idea of proportional punishment to try to maintain order in a world where people harm each other if they don't have outside boundaries. But, that doesn't mean that divine justice is just like our legal system and I'll give you several reasons why. This is going to be quick and dirty. But, if you'd like detail, please, please, please read this post "Justice-why we need to add a book to the Bible" and read George MacDonald's sermon Justice linked to from there. If you do, I don't think your idea of justice will ever be the same again (at least hopefully not).
This idea that God must mete out proportional punishment is based on the notion that God is a "just judge". It neglects the fact that God is also our Father, and more importantly, our Creator and our Lover. This image of a schizophrenic God has the Father God, the Creator God and the Lover God bound by the Judge God to do things that would be unthinkable and unspeakable to any earthly father, a lover or a Creator. He is bound by this system to inflict punishment that He would otherwise choose not to inflict. Honestly, I do think God is a "just judge". I just have a different idea of what just means and what justice is.
There are two basic types or motives for punishment. Actually, the punishment itself might be exactly the same but done for different motives. Retribution or revenge is one type. Correction, rehabilitation or discipline is another- the punishment is inflicted to deter future bad behavior. A responsible parent inflicts punishment on his child to teach the child. What father punishes his child as "pay back"? None that I know of. Now, in our legal system, we punish for the purposes of deterrent (to the perpetrator and to others who would follow his example) and we punish for rehabilitation- both of these are essentially for correction. Unfortunately, people think we also punish for vengeance. Perhaps we do. But, that should not be why the legal system metes out punishment. And, I would argue it is not why our legal system punishes. Have you ever noticed our punishment is rarely ever like for like (eye for an eye); except in the case of where money is stolen, we do not do to the perpetrator what he did to his victim. We don't rape rapists. We don't beat sadists. We don't shoot people who shoot other people. Our punishments are "civilized" being monetary or time in prison. You say we our systems of justice and mercy aren't all that different than they would be in heaven. I agree, to a point. So, what would we say about a legal system that tortures people, indefinitely, forever? Yet, the idea of Eternal Conscious Torment is ascribed to the Most Holy and Just Being in the Universe. Even if you believe in retributive punishment, what is proportional about Eternal Conscious Torment?
You say that God is a gentleman who will not override the free will of moral agents. Let's say I agree. What is gentlemanly about eternally and consciously tormenting your "enemies"? How is it respective of free will to torment people for choosing incorrectly? You mix a couple of concepts here that I can't bring together- proportional punishment and Eternal Torment (you chose to use the word "consequences" instead of torment- Eternal "consequences").
Just to wrap it up here for now. Universalism does not espouse that God continues to allow evil to flourish. Quite the contrary. Universalism believes the Bible when it says God will be all in all. Universalism believes that God will eradicate every bit of evil from the universe. But, God will not destroy His Sons and Daughters in the process. God is a consuming fire and will burn away all that is impure within us. But, a goldsmith doesn't destroy the gold he is refining. Universalism doesn't disbelieve that God punishes (necessarily), but that God punishes with the intention of correction and bring us closer to Herself.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=da708184-8952-45b8-b3e9-7e96f142f42b)
Image via Wikipedia
You thought that Denver had been hit with some storms over the last couple of weeks? The perfect storm hit Phoenix, AZ last night and crushed the Ohio State Buckeyes in its wake. While I was watching the fiasco last night, I kept telling myself that the sun will rise again in the morning and everything will be OK. As I woke from sleep during the night (several times), I thought "Maybe it was just a nightmare". But, when I read the headlines this morning, I realized it really happened. The unthinkable. Not only did we lose the National Championship game, we were crushed, humiliated and defeated every way possible. The Buckeyes got off to the fast start we needed when Ted Ginn, Jr. returned the opening kick 93 yards for a score. Us Buckeye fans hoped that would help knock off the inevitable rust after 50 plus days of not playing competitive football. We fully expected the offense might struggle. After all, timing playing at full speed was something they hadn't done in nearly two months and had not taken any hits in that same amount of time. But, I think everyone was shocked by our defense's total collapse. Not only did they look uncoordinated, the defense actually looked tired to me. It was as if they were a step behind Florida all night long.
After Florida scored on its first drive, we were hoping for some of that Troy Smith magic. But, it just wasn't there last night. The Senior, Heisman trophy winner who always steps up in big games (always), just didn't have it last night. There was such a total collapse by the offense that I don't know if Troy wasn't spotting the receivers, they weren't running their routes properly, the line wasn't protecting well enough or the coaches weren't calling the right plays. But, it seems that everything that could go wrong did. Less than 100 yards total offense by one of the most productive offenses in the college football?
I fully expected some rust. I fully expected a close game. I fully expected that we might lose. But, I did not expect to be beaten on both sides of the ball and on the sidelines. Jim Tressel outcoached? Troy Smith showed up by the two-headed Florida quarterback? I never thought the words would cross my lips. But, I'm afraid both happened last night. Jim Tressel is still my Coach and Troy Smith is still my Boy. But, last night- Whoa!!! Urban Meyer has now become an Urban Legend.
Congrats to the Gators on their impressive victory. The Bengals and the Buckeyes have each crushed me within the last 8 days. At the beginning of the season I wouldn't have believed the Bengals wouldn't even make the playoffs and the Buckeyes would beat Texas and Michigan only to be humiliated in the National Championship game. So, today I think I'll just have a little pity party for myself before facing the long, gray dark days until football starts up again. For me, the season has ended in utter defeat.
Peace,
Brian
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2e12e2a1-6581-4bdc-a71c-1ce489e2071d)
My new reader Arthur has presented some excellent comments over the
last few days. This one is response to my post on the
execution of Saddam Hussein:
Sooo... you are against all forms of maximum force even if they meant the protection of those principles and persons that you hold near and dear? Do you think that timeouts, conflict resolution, the UN, and other slaps on the wrist, with declarations of this is "inappropriate", will deter the most stubborn and incorrigibles such as the Saddams, Hitlers, Pol pots, Pinochets of the world? Hah, they will laugh in your face. ;) This will not get any respect from the bad guys, who won't take you seriously to desist in their nefarious ways.It is too bad, that the world requires police, military and other purveyors of maximum force. Heck, if you read the Book of Revelation, I believe, in it, God Himself has been forced by His rebellious creatures into a universal war where there will be wounded, killed and captured so to speak. He didn't invent sin. However, rebellious creatures make it necessary to fight to set the whole groaning Creation and its suffering members ultimate relief from decay, death, and evil. I hate to say it freedom costs blood and lives. This is a natural consequence of living in a universe of free moral agents whom God gives some free rein to, who tend to abuse their freedoms and oppress others. It isn't violence that is bad in and of itself, but rather the motivations and goals behind it. The defence of what is Good, using defensive deterence, works however one may deny it. Vengeance is part of it, but so what, what is wrong with balancing the scales of justice. Blood cries out for Blood. It is only natural. What is wrong is when one gloats and glories in it, then you might start to become what you hate. Not all killing is murder, some of it is justifiable self-defence. Of course, I realize it can be a slippery slope.
Joke: a liberal is a conservative who has not been mugged yet.
Until you experience bullying, disrespect, and what not in your own personal life, where there is no one else to stand up for you. I suspect that you will continue to have this naive view of life where everything is wonderful. Yeah, but usually you have someone else do the fighting for you. Try doing it yourself, then you will see what I mean. This Neville Chamberlain appeasement of Hitler approach to life will just get you steamrolled by evil. Enough Said?
I hope Susan reads this. He called my POV naive. He's wrong
about what I believe. But, it's always cool when someone calls me naive
anyway. I like being "naive". Back to Arthur- I'm
not a pacifist. I can only assume from your comments you
think I am. I'm not saying it's wrong to be a pacfist.
But, I'm not one. When I wrote about the execution
of Saddam, it was not an anti-violence post or anti-war or anti-self
defense. Saddam's execution had nothing to do with
self-defense. Surely, you cannot be seriously claiming that
Iraq executed a 69 year old deposed and imprisoned man, in
self-defense. Saddam was executed in the name of justice, not
defense. These are very different things. I am not
against "all forms of maximum force". Sometimes evil must be
resisted. Sometimes, in this fallen world, violence is even
necessary. Executing Saddam was not one of those times.
Taking a defenseless man and hanging him is, in no way,
self-defense.
But, now to the more interesting part of this comment. You
say that G-d has been "forced" into a universal war.
Fascinating perspective. Hardly biblical though.
So, I wonder where it comes from. The Bible says that God is in
control. The Bible says that God is the Creator of
e verything. I take it your view is God created this whole
mess, let it get out of hand and now we have to suffer
consequences while He fights to regain control. I guess God
was surprised by what happened in the Garden (even though He is the one
who put the Tree of Knowledge and
the snake into the Garden). No, Arthur, God is not out of
control or fighting evil; while losing many of His beloved Children.
I don't have a naive view of life where everything is
wonderful. This world is fallen. But, it's fallen by design.
I hate the evil and violence in our world and I will do all I
can to resist it. But, I will not resort to thinking that
somehow God is surprised by it, incapable of stopping it or losing
people to to it.
In reply to another post Arthur writes:You know from a common sense point of view I don't think it is a stretch to say that the systems of justice and mercy on the earth are that different from those in heaven which are more perfect. I don't think God plays dice with the universe as He has this wonderful stamp of consistency everywhere in creation.
When God entered time as Jesus, He forever hallowed our human flesh and so He is not above His creation so to speak He is also part of it. Therefore, the proportional punishments that we earthlings use to punish the wicked are also reflected in a principle of proportionality in heaven albeit He sees and knows everything to the thought and intents of our hearts.
You cannot fool God.
He knows! He is not unjust. He is what He is. As the scriptures say, our God is a consuming fire and nothing unholy can stand in His presence. Thus, those who by the free exercise of their free will opt to choose evil and do not repent... become constituently less and less like Him. And so, that Fire that is Him would naturally be lethal to such beings.What is not of Him will be consumed. God cannot help what He is. He is an Eternal Being who was, is, and is to come. Hell is a severe mercy as that is the only place in creation where He ultimately respects the free will of his recalcitrant, rebellious creatures. He is a gentlemen, who will not tyrannically override the free will of all free moral agents in the universe. Because to my mind, Universalism fails here, the evil ones must be permitted to be evil and continue on their path of self-destructions especially if they have willed it. God no doubt gives many chances during the lifetime of a person. But His foreknowledge of outcomes, knows what is ultimately futile or worth saving. We cannot second guess our Creator. Heck, even on earth, there is such a thing as consent to living saving treatments and advanced directives, don't you think God is at least like that. He will not foist treatment on the unwilling even if it means their own good.
Unless, there is even an iota of willingness. He ultimately respects free will.
We can choose by degrees as far as we are able to become more like Him and so the scriptures say, when we see Him we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He really is. I suppose that refers to the Elect of God. God would not be a God if He forever permitted evil to exist and plague the universe getting away scott-free. Now, that would be unjust. We all have to expiate sins and their temporal effects somehow in this life or the next. If not, suffer the eternal consequences. Uncomfortable truths, but they are part of what Christ taught. The Master must not be denied. Let everyman be a liar, and God be True.
Arthur, I agree with a lot of what you've said here. So, let's start with the postive.
- God is just
- We cannot fool God
- The earthly systems of justice and mercy are (or should be) reflections of God's justice and mercy
- Proportional punishment (in terms of the earthly justice systems) are morally right
- We should strive to be more like God
- God would not be God if He permitted evil to exist forever
I know people who would just jump at the chance to debate you on "free
will" and just how much control we have over our eternal destinies.
But, since that's such a complicated subject, let's just agree for the
moment that we do have the abliity to choose to become more like God
(or not). It'll make things simpler. But, I do want
to recommend Martin Zender's "The Really
Bad Thing About Free Will" to you. I think it'll
blow your mind. Click the link for a short description of the
(very short) book.
My friend, I'm afraid your idea of justice is very distorted.
It sounds to me like you interchange the word punishment or
what I would call retribution for justice. I can understand
why that is. A lot of people seem to be satisfied with the
idea of an "eye for an eye". Our justice system uses this idea of
proportional punishment to try to maintain order in a world where
people harm each other if they don't have outside boundaries.
But, that doesn't mean that divine justice is just like our
legal system and I'll give you several reasons why. This is
going to be quick and dirty. But, if you'd like detail,
please, please, please read my post Justice-
why we need to add a book to the Bible" and read George
MacDonald's sermon Justice linked to from there. If you do, I
don't think your idea of justice will ever be the same again (at least
hopefully not).
This idea that God must mete out proportional punishment is based on
the notion that God is a "just judge". It neglects the fact
that God is also our Father, and more importantly, our Creator and our
Lover. This image of a schizophrenic God has the Father God,
the Creator God and the Lover God bound by the Judge God to do things
that would be unthinkable and unspeakable to any earthly father, a
lover or a Creator. He is bound by this system to inflict
punishment that He would otherwise choose not to inflict.
Honestly, I do think God is a "just judge". I just have a different
idea of what just means and what justice is.
There are two basic types or motives for punishment. Actually, the
punishment itself might be exactly the same but done for different
motives. Retribution or revenge is one type. Correction,
rehabilitation or discipline is another- the punishment is inflicted to
deter future bad behavior. A responsible parent inflicts
punishment on his child to teach
the child. What father punishes his child as "pay back"?
None that I know of. Now, in our legal system, we
punish for the purposes of deterrent (to the perpetrator and to others
who would follow his example) and we punish for rehabilitation- both of
these are essentially for correction. Unfortunately, people
think we also punish for vengeance. Perhaps we do. But, that should not be why
the legal system metes out punishment. And, I would argue it
is not why our legal system punishes. Have you ever noticed
our punishment is rarely ever like for like (eye for an eye).
Except in the case of where money is stolen, we do not do to
the perpetrator what he did to his victim. We don't rape
rapists. We don't beat sadists. We don't shoot people who
shoot other people. Our punishments are "civilized" being monetary or
time in prison. You say we our systems of justice and mercy
aren't all that different than they would be in heaven. I
agree, to a point. So, what would we say about a legal system that
tortures people, indefinitely, forever? Yet, the idea of
Eternal Conscious Torment is ascribed to the Most Holy and Just Being
in the Universe. Even if you believe in retributive
punishment, what is proportional about Eternal Conscious Torment?
You say that God is a gentleman who will not override the free will of
moral agents. Let's say I agree. What is
gentlemanly about eternally and consciously tormenting your "enemies"?
How is it respective of free will to torment people for
choosing incorrectly? You mix a couple of concepts here that
I can't bring together- proportional punishment and Eternal Torment
(you chose to use the word "consequences" instead of torment- Eternal
"consequences").
Just to wrap it up here for now. Universalism does not
espouse that God continues to allow evil to flourish. Quite
the contrary. Universalism believes the Bible when it says
God will be all in all. Universalism believes that God will
eradicate every bit of evil from the universe. But, God will
not destroy His Sons and Daughters in the process. God is a
consuming fire and will burn away all that is impure within us.
But, a goldsmith doesn't destroy the gold he is refining.
Universalism doesn't believe that God does not punish
(necessarily), but that God punishes with the intention of correction
and bring us closer to Herself.
Image by Foreign Imagery via Flickr
I was testing the children in my Sunday school class to see if they understood the concept of getting to heaven. I asked them, "If I sold my house and my car, had a big garage sale and gave all my money to the church, would that get me into Heaven?"
“NO!" the children answered.
"If I cleaned the church every day, mowed the yard, and kept everything neat and tidy, would that get me into Heaven?"
Again, the answer was, "NO!"
By now I was starting to smile. Hey, this was fun!
“Well, then, if I was kind to animals and gave candy to all the children, and loved my wife, would that get me into Heaven?" I asked them again.
Again, they all answered, "NO!"
I was just bursting with pride for them. "Well," I continued, "then how can I get into Heaven?"
A five-year-old boy shouted out, “YOU GOTTA BE DEAD.”
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=78c61b96-32df-46e8-a8f0-884366690252)
