Faith and the problem of certainty

When it comes to faith, achieving certainty does not help. If something remains clear all by itself without requiring of you any attempt to be certain, then it has properly found a long term stability. But when a person feels the need for certainty then without realizing it they merely paint themselves into a mental corner where they can no longer think honestly and openly.

US vs. THEM; THIS vs. THAT

Religious devotion to Theology tends to divide people; however a scholarly dispassionate devotion to theology tends to unite. I think the reason for this is because religious people, without realizing it, tend to think in an “us opposed to them” mentality. In other words they tend to think in terms of “This is what WE believe and that is what THEY believe.” They then go forward to champion their own tradition.

But scholars, on the other hand are not opposed to changing their mind when the facts warrant, and scholars are usually less concerned about breaking with the pack when the facts require it. In deed in many scholarly circles it is considered a real accomplishment if you can formulate a different insight and win over those of a former view with the facts. So they tend to be more open to changes in perspectives, and open to entire paradigm shifts when warranted.

Einstein was considered a kook at first; traditional views of physics were well accepted. What he proposed would change everything. He was actually black listed for a while and could not obtain a teaching position because of his non standard views. Fortunately for him, the world of physics was approaching a brick wall and when they hit it, so to speak, Einstein’s views that he had published were reconsidered. The rest is history and today physics has moved well beyond where Einstein brought it.

But such changes have yet to really become the norm for theists. People of faith still tend to be overly focused on “US VERSUS THEM” even when they do not realize that is what they are doing.

One of the reasons I like being a part of the New Covenant Group is that they want to give voice to all points of view and want to face all the questions without creating barriers as much as possible. When we discuss theology we are not interested so much in the US VERSUS THEM mentality, we want to pursue the THIS VERSUS THAT mentality.

When dealing with people who have different opinions about God, Jesus, the bible and such things, we do not believe that THEY are the enemy. If there are any problems those problems are not in THEM or in US, those problems are in THIS or THAT.

If you are trying to make more sense of Christian thought, I would encourage you to reconsider if you are operating on an “US VERSUS THEM” modality or a “THIS VERSUS THAT” modality.

Protecting Tradition vs Seeking Honesty

If you know me you know I am a believer in Christ, but you also know I consider Western Christianity to be an historical distortion of the original message.

I accept many of the same things I just understand them differently. When traditionalists scold non traditionalists something strikes me as very off.

Traditional fundamentalist Christian theology can only survive by getting people accustomed to shutting down their brains and not trusting the obvious or the decent.

Am I to accept the notion that Christ came to free me and to be directly available to me through His amazing indwelling yet there is an institution that must be authorizing my theology?

Am I to accept the bible as what they claim it to be when it has too many horrible examples of an evil god such as god making a nation out of a people who were not a nation by authorizing them to commit ethnic cleansing to wipe out all the inhabitants of a land flowing with milk and honey? Can they not see the obvious projection upon god in the text for their own nationalistic desires?

Can I accept at point blank the authority of a text that tells me if I beat a slave to within an inch of his life but he is able to walk a few days later that I have done nothing wrong? How does justifying the alleged revelation from god affect my own standards of right and wrong in how I treat those who are under my authority at my job?

But most importantly to me, as a linguist, I find the text to be so badly translated by people who obviously never studied Greek and Hebrew except so as to sustain their already confirmed theology that it has become a text biased in the direction of a theology that has a low view of the value of mankind and an institutional authority. So when traditionalists come along to defend their faith it leaves me wondering what exactly is their sense of honesty or right and wrong.

Institutions are helpful and we cannot get much done without them, but it was never Jesus intention to put an institution or a creed between you and Him.

The behaviors of love

Love cannot be a duty; it is not a list of acceptable behaviors to do and a list of unacceptable behaviors to not do. Love is not actually an emotion either; do not confuse love with affection. Affection is wonderful, but affection is a self-reflecting joy of things and people you like.

Love is a dynamic of a perception that motivates; it is an awareness of inarticulate high value that results in a compelling desire to celebrate that high value and to behave in a manner that keeps who or what what is valued inviolate. Love is the experience of awareness that naturally desires to express itself through behaviors.

And this might sound strange to you but I Corinthians 13 is not teaching us how to love. You do not love by being patient, by being kind, by squelching envy, by holding your tongue from boasting, or by denigrating your sense of pride. You do not love by honoring others, or by foregoing self-seeking, or by holding back your anger, or by erasing your grudge list. You do not love by keeping yourself from finding evil delightful, or by noticing truth and remembering to rejoice in it. You do not love by deciding to protect, or choosing to trust, or by looking for something to hope in, or be disciplining yourself to persevere.

Those behaviors do not make you a person who loves. In fact deliberately attempting to engage in those behaviors makes you a shallow hypocrite. Love is not a to-do list of behaviors to do and behaviors to avoid. LOVE IS the conscious awareness of HIGH VALUE and it is a strong awareness so that it naturally results in various behaviors being used to express it. Now go back and read that list from 1 Corinthians 13. Love will behave that way without having to even think about it or checking off a to-do list. I Corinthians is not a how to love passage, it is a passage that describes how love expresses itself as it proceeds from the core of your being.

Nonsense and Separation of Church and State

Few Americans, be they atheists or theists seem to understand what Separation of Church and State is. Most people think of it they way they simply want to think of it. If they dislike religion they want to believe that it has no place in public life especially anything in which the government is involved. On the other side of the issue are people who fear monger the notion that God will judge this nation supposedly once founded on Christian principles because we have kicked God out.

Even many lawyers and judges argue over the words of law simply because that is their job. They do not really care about meaning, or the full outcome of their ability to prevail. They too simply use the law of the land as a tool to be interpreted according to precedents and political points of view to whatever degree they can manage to prevail on their current case or political agenda. They have lost sight of the law itself. This is another topic, but it seems to me that the law of our land is not really the law as it is written but rather the law as it is or is not enforced and as it is interpreted by courts. If the actual written law can be ignored based on any number of since evolved procedures and precedents they will have at it. It is job security for lawyers and judges.

As I read the 1st amendment to our constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is the only supreme law of the land that even mentions any thing concerning Separation of Church and State. What most people fail to realize is that the concept of SOC&S was a fully developed philosophy that many believed in but not all. Consequently the philosophy was NOT made law except for this one small part of the philosophy. However, this one small part of the philosophy is today read by some as if it represents and institutes the entire philosophy.

It is done through linguistic dishonesty. The phrase "an establishment of religion" is treated as if it were a verbal phrase - and as a result that is what it has come to be understood as meaning today - and for no other reason than this false interpretation of that phrase was played with by lawyers ignorant of the linguistics of the day the amendment was written. When the 1st amendment was written, that phrase was grammatically and linguistically only used as a noun phrase.

AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION is not a behavior, action or condition that results in firming up religion notions. AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION is an organization operated for the furtherance of religious activities. The first amendment protects church organizations from being told how they are to do their business. Congress cannot, for example, tell Presbyterians how to confirm bishops or what their qualifications must be, nor can Congress tell Muslims who they must pray to. The business of the church or other religious establishments is of no concern of the government and beyond its legislative domain. That amendment protects church organizations from being legislated. It has nothing to do with if people can pray in school or mention God, or swear upon a bible in a court room. In fact such laws would inhibit the free exercise thereof. That amendment is an organizational wall between the institutions of government and the institutions of religion.

The only other aspect of SOC&S that was "written" in to the constitution was actually something NOT written into it. The constitution does not establish any state church or specific religion. The end result is that both institutions are organizationally and procedurally free from each other.

In the entire history of the USA the church has never once violated the constitution. In this country no one by virtue of the office they hold in a religious institution automatically possesses any official authority in the state government or vice versa. Just because someone is a local Bishop they do not thereby have the authority to appoint the local sheriff. There have been countries where the church and state have had just such arrangements. But the federal government has done plenty to inhibit the free exercise thereof.

When cases come to court such as when the catholic church in 1962 sued to complain that in Wisconsin the KJV bible was used in public schools, the proper decision of the court should have been NO decision, the case should have been dismissed on the basis that it is an issue beyond the scope of the law. If anything they could only have only decided on that issue if the decision to use the KJV was done using procedures contrary to the charter of the school such as if the school board made the decision when the charter requires a public vote. As to the issue of it being the KJV or some other bible, they will just have to work that issue out among themselves as free individuals. A year later prayer was removed from public schools by the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a decision beyond the domain and authority of the court. That was a violation of the 1st amendment clear and plainly.

Religious people of any, every or no faith are free to be religious or irreligious and to involve themselves in personal meaningful rituals wherever they may happen to be on their own private property or on public property. The courts can keep civility and order but they cannot prohibit any particular behavior on the basis that it has an element of religiosity in it. That is NOT the degree of Separation that is supposed to be the law of our land according to the constitution.

Be pure of mind

Jesus used Poe's Law often.

There are many things Jesus said in sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek that his devoted but frightened followers actually take seriously.

For example, do you really think Jesus believed that looking at a woman and experiencing sexual attraction was equal to adultery? Do you really think Jesus felt that those "guilty of" masturbation should feel offended and cut their hand off or that those "guilty of" looking at an attractive woman should feel offended and poke their eyes out so as to avoid ending up in a garbage heap? Do you really think Jesus felt that people should fear the one who can destroy both body and soul rather than just those who can only destroy the body?

Or is it possible Jesus was making fun of the absurd claims of purity by the self-righteous traditionalists and making use of Poe's Law?

Do not get me wrong. I am not making an argument for not regulating our behavior or exercising appropriate social tact as we deal with many of our biologically induced responses. We can exercise a reasonable degree of self control, and that should be more than sufficient. But an obsession with a fake standard of purity as if God required such antiseptic brains strikes me as not only absurd but also as responsible for a great deal of over reaction that actually makes those problems even worse.

I have never met a porn addict, for example, who was not also deeply entrenched in and energized by dark shame and self loathing at a very personal and private level. They have no clue how it is their shame combined with a false standard of purity that causes them to give up the impossible and then give in to their miserable inclinations with utter hopelessness. They might even hide it by dismissing the entire conflict altogether.

They would simply be better off thinking to themselves something like, "WOw!," and then 3 seconds later moving on into more worthwhile activities. Do we realize how much sexual damage we do to others by being so extreme in our absurd standards?

Accept Jesus as your personal savior or else...

Accept Jesus as your personal savior or you will burn in hell for all eternity.

This sounds way too much like the criminal organization of heaven. Where the real threat is from God who is making us an offer we can't refuse of turn or burn whereby we must join the organization and offer it our loyalty in order to escape the mayhem that would never come our way if it were not for the very one also making us the offer of grace.

If God's love is insufficient on its own to bring us into fellowship then it is insufficient for everything. Creating all this fearful drama is ridiculous.

To think that any one's eternal destiny is fully dependent upon their acceptance of unverifiable terms is not just absurd, it is insane and abusive beyond measure.

That is not good news. That god should not be worshiped, he should be indicted for racketeering.