Joshua 10.1-15: Ancient Cosmology vs Modern Cosmology

So, I went to church yesterday for "research" purposes and while the music reminded me of my evangelical Christian days in high school, I was appalled by the ignorance that was expressed in the sermon.

The sermon was based on Joshua 10.1-15 and a summary of this passage is that the Israelites are fighting against 5 kings of the Amorites who have united to destroy Gibeon for making a peace treaty with Israel. Joshua, the commander of the Israel army, receives divine help from the Warrior-Deity of Israel in the sky. The deity sends down giant hailstones to kill the Amorites and then, at Joshua's request, stops the sun from moving so the Israelites can continue to slaughter the Amorites.

Now, the preacher of this sermon went nuts about the miracle of G-d stopping the sun in the sky, declaring it the second greatest miracle next to the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The passage literally states:

"On the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the Lord; and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in mid-heaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded a human voice; for the Lord fought for Israel." (Josh 10:12-14 NRSV)

The "preacher" then attempted to explain using modern cosmology that G-d would have to stop the Earth from spinning and maintain gravity OR cause the sun to stay still, which would cause the rest of the solar system to be thrown off course and part of the earth to scorch while the other half was freezing. At this point in the sermon, I lost it because the book of Joshua was not written with a modern cosmology in mind, it was written with an ancient three-tier cosmology in mind. A picture of the ancient three-tier cosmology is at the beginning of this post in the upper-left corner. Now, if you closely examine that picture (a larger one can be found here: http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/OTcosmos.jpg) you will see that the sun and moon are just objects that are moved within a solid firmament or glass dome. Therefore, it would not be impossible for the warrior-deity to reach down and keep the "sun and moon" still for a whole day. There would be little to no implication for this ancient cosmology.

So next time you hear a preacher say something incredible about the "miracles" of G-d in the Old Testament, just remember, it was written in a completely different time in a prescientific time and just like you would never kill an individual for adultery in modern society, you really shouldn't listen to the cosmology/worldview represented therein either.

-SkepticalSparrow

Theology or TheoBabble: Why I No Longer Classify Myself as a Christian

Hello,

As of recently, I have changed my religious views from a type of "Christian" to pure "Humanist." The reason behind this change is the complicated theology behind most of Christianity, especially theories of salvation or Soteriology, as it is known in the field of theological and biblical studies.

The question of what it means to be saved is the clinching point for ending my classification as a Christian: If you want to be saved, save yourself. Did Jesus not say, "The Kingdom of God is within you." I will utilize the wisdom found within the tradition but I will not suffer the question of salvation any longer.

That being said, I wish to participate in the larger striving of humanity and not just the subculture of one religion. I still have experiences that some would classify "mystical" or as "religious experience" but I believe that the fate of this Earth is up to all of humanity, not just the "Christians."

Fear and Anger Now. Peace and Wisdom Later.

The title of this post is adopted from the NakedPastor's blog over at www.nakedpastor.com

He has recently posted a cartoon entitled "Skeptical Sparrow."

The cartoon is as follows:

(Property of David Hayward at the NakedPastor Blog) See http://www.nakedpastor.com/2011/05/30/skeptical-sparrow/ for more details.

In his reflection, he states that the Sparrow on the right expresses "fear and anger" at his questioning of the passage in Matthew 10:29 (NRSV):

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.

This is how I felt when I learned a lot of the things I was initially taught (or assumed to be so) when I was a teenager growing up in church and trying to defend a fundamentalist-intellectual form of the Bible. I assumed that certain things had to be so: that all of the Bible had to be history and had to have happened literally.

So, when I learned that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (two of which are supposed followers of Jesus, Matthew and John) but these names were appended to the Gospels in the 2nd century CE, it was startling. When I learned that Mark was the earliest Gospel and was written nearly FORTY years after Jesus was crucified, I was shocked.

When I learned that Matthew misappropriated certain passages from the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) and misused/misapplied them to Jesus' birth, life, death, and "resurrection," I was afraid.

When I learned that the Bible was chock full of historical errors and contradictions within itself, I was angry.

I was afraid of what was going to happen to my personal faith and I was angry at those who taught me the Bible was inerrant (free of error) and was the inspired, literal "Word of God."

Now, through the usage of metaphor and a lot of time spend rethinking my personal theology, I am transitioning into the "peace and wisdom" that comes with accumulated life and applied knowledge.

I understand that religion (especially the texts that support the religion) contain history but transcend history into a greater, mythical story of meaning and communal experience with the Divine.

Now, for me, religion is primarily a system of meaning-making for all the events of life, including life itself.

I cannot insist on objective accomplishments regarding metaphysical events but I can affirm what is true and right for me.

I can affirm my personal experiences and my relationship to the Divine Other and to others through my religious experience.

I can affirm that I am human and that I am surrounded by other sentient beings who desire much what we all desire.

I can reach out through my developing peace and wisdom in love and compassion to others.

I can be holistic and not fractured in my outlook on life. I can be...

The Fruits of Academia

When I was a teenager, I was taught various protestant doctrines about Christianity. These teachings started at an earlier age than that but from what I recall, I really began to learn these doctrines in a fuller fashion when I was a teenager. The primary doctrine taught was the Doctrine of Salvation, what is known in the academy as soteriology.

Upon reflection, I was taught two different perspectives or aspects on soteriology. A negative aspect (Say this prayer/believe these things or you're going to Hell...) and a positive aspect (God loves you, Christ sets you free from your sin/bondage, etc) during my accumulative time at two churches in the first fourteen years of my life. It is sufficient to say that since I was taught the negative aspect starting at 7 years old, it sufficiently scarred my psyche and put a significant burden upon a child who was carefree and curious about the world before this was repeatedly shoved upon me over and over again.

I learned the positive aspect when I was around 13 years old and accepted this much more willingly then I did the other. Thanks be to the healthy and holistic ministers out there.

However, as much as the Bible was used to support both perspectives and revered as the "Infallible, Inerrant, Holy Word of God," the academic study of these texts were rarely bequeathed to me by those who possessed this knowledge. I know that there were (and still are) individuals who have been to seminary in my church and learned everything that I have learned and continue to research now. Why, I ask, was I not informed by these individuals?

To give an example of the knowledge I now possess, consider the Documentary Hypothesis. The Documentary Hypothesis states that the Torah (I will use Genesis as an example) was redacted or edited together from at least four different primary textual and oral sources known as J, E, P, and D. The first three chapters in Genesis show this primarly by what name they use in reference to the Divine - Genesis 1:1-2:3 use the Hebrew word, Elohim (translated into English as God) to refer to the Divine (this is the P or Priestly source) and Genesis 2:4b-25 use YHWH Elohim (translated into English as Lord God) to refer to the Divine (this is the J or Yahwistic Source).

If you wish to know more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis for ready information or a study Bible such as the New Oxford Annotated Bible or the Harper Collins Study Bible.

Now, it is not that I am stating that the Documentary Hypothesis is necessarily the end-all, be-all of the authorship of the Torah but it is certainly apparent that Moses didn't write the entire Torah. This is the line toted by the church I attended - Moses wrote the entire Torah, which is clearly wrong considering that there are parts of the Torah that continue on after Moses' death.

Therefore, I ask why was information such as this not taught to me in church? The "Fruits of the Academia" were not shown to me until after I was on my own at college and learning them in the classroom? What I learned in the classroom as well as what I experienced in college, "shocked" me out of my "shell" of what I thought I knew. If I was prepared for this, maybe things would turned out differently but alas, they didn't. At least I attended a church in my teenage years that had sense enough to put away unhealthy theology. Thanks be to them for that.

There is a post on a similar topic over on another blog that helped me to make the decision to write this post. Check it out: http://newtestamentperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-intellectual-life-matters.html

Please leave some comments!

A Reconsideration of the Genealogies in Matthew and Luke

So, about a year ago, I wrote a vehement post against the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. I haven't posted anything since that time.

In the meantime, I've been doing some rethinking of Luke's genealogy because of a phrase that is inserted in his text and also the Greek word that indicates "son" in that passage.

These thoughts and reflections were spurred by my reading of some old apologetics I found in a box I had at home that I found over break. I propose these reflections here because I wonder if there are any weight to the thoughts that my reading spurred.

In Luke 3, the beginning of the text reads:

"Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli..." (Luke 3:23 NRSV).

In this passage, the Greek isn't as certain as the English translation makes it out to be. The Greek reads:

" Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ"

The important part about this phrase is that it translates into "And when Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son of Joseph (as was thought) of Eli"

Thus one can argue that Luke is tracing Jesus' lineage through his mother's side (Mary) and that Jesus was a descendant of Heli/Eli because "υἱός" has this wider meaning inferring descendant. Thus, Jesus still isn't Joseph's son but, according to Luke, is the literal "Son of God" via the virgin birth.

Therefore, Jesus' lineage in Luke can be seen as being traced through Mary's side and Jesus' lineage in Matthew being traced through Joseph's side. In either account, Jesus is not his blood son but rather his adopted son while God is the true father.

But, honestly, I think I may be begging the question with the text here a little bit.

Nonetheless, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth isn't that important anyway because it strangles the meaning out of what Jesus did and who he was. There are also other problems with the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke like where Jesus' parents lived (Nazareth or Bethlehem), where was the family during Jesus' first days (being dedicated at the Temple or fleeing from the massacre to Egypt), and so on.

These are all my musings - feel free to tear my argument apart.

Have you found Jesus? Yeah, He's Over There, Behind the Couch!

Most people have probably been approached by the street evangelists or well-meaning Christians trying to save their soul from eternal damnation! The usually asked, "Have you been saved?," "Have you found Jesus?," "Do you know where your going when you die?," or the any of these garden-variety questions concerning intellectual assent in this life so you'll go to heaven after you die...

While these folks may mean well, most of them are severely mislead by their attempts to convert people to Christianity. They think following Jesus (the) Christ is about to going to heaven, but it's certainly not.

Jesus had very little to say about the afterlife and so does the scriptures of Jesus' faith (Old Testament = Hebrew Scriptures = Scriptures of the Jewish people). The majority of the text concerning following the ways of God in the Hebrew Scriptures is directly correlated to benefits in this life and not in the afterlife. See the Wisdom texts (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job) for great examples of following God benefiting this life with no concern for the afterlife.

When the rich young man asked Jesus, "What must I do to be saved?" Jesus didn't reply that he must believe "x,y, and z" but that he must go sell all his goods and give it to the poor. The proper Greek translation of John 3:16 (I owe this translation to Marcus Borg) is not everlasting life, but eternal life with eternal emphasizing that the life that is to come is to be lived now in this life! But how do we do this?

Well, as those attempting to convert everyone suggests, perhaps we should "find Jesus." Well, where is Jesus? According to Matthew 25, he's with those who are poor, naked, hungry, sick, and in prison. That's where Jesus is and that's where the radical grace of God drives us to if we really read the various texts found in the Bible! This is the essence of Jesus' message in the gospels and of the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures!

The ethical and theological essence of the prophets can be summed in one verse from Micah:

"He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (6:8)

So, what is required of humanity? Do justice, live kindness, and walk humbly with God, the term we use for the "more-than" or sacredness outside of ourselves but that is crucial to our existence.

So yes, we must intellectually assent to live this way but we are not asked to intellectually assent to absurdities that the mind rejects and that is based on superstitious fears of the afterlife.

So, how does one do this in a manner that can be considered "Christian?" This will be addressed in my next post but keep in mind, whatever religious tradition you choose, may it be life-affirming and not destructive or deluding of this life.

Jesus: The Son of God?

So, in my last post, I pretty well destroyed any notion that Jesus could be born of a virgin and also be of Davidic lineage through Joseph. Either he is literally, born of a virgin and "Son of God" or perhaps, Son of God (like Christ) could be a title for Jesus.

To begin with, we need to trace back where "Son of God" originated. It originated in the Old Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures and it was applied to the king of Israel.

For example, in Psalm 2:7*, it states:

I will tell of the decree of the Lord:

He said to me, ‘You are my son;

today I have begotten you.

This is addressed to the King of Israel and indicates a special relationship between the King of Israel (Most likely David in this passage) and the God of Israel. Therefore, this is a designation of a special relationship between God and the King.

For another example, 2 Samuel 7:14A states:

I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.

This is a passage regarding Solomon as the new king and God as his father. Again, it indicates that "Son of God" is a special relationship between God and the king.

Therefore, we can see what the title, "Son of God" designates, so let us turn our attention to the Gospel According to Mark, the gospel without a birth story.

When we turn our attention to the beginning of Mark, we see that it begins with the following: "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mk 1:1). Therefore the author of Mark is establishing that Jesus is the Son of God but in what fashion?

This is answered when Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist in the following verses. Mark 1:9-11 states:

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’

Note, what the "voice from heaven" (presumably God) says to Jesus in verse 11: "You are my Son, the Beloved: with you I am well pleased."

What did God say to David in Psalm 2:7? "You are my Son; today I have begotten you."

Incredible. Jesus is the Son of God in that he is the Messiah (Christ [English] = Christos [Greek] = Messiach [Hebrew], which means the "Anointed One") of Israel and later, all nations. However, Jesus is a different type of king, in that his kingdom is the "Kingdom of God," which has all of it's own implications. However, he is anointed by the spirit, just like David was and seemingly given the spirit at his baptism.

This a lot of implications for soteriology (theory or doctrine of salvation) and what the good news of Jesus really is, of which I will explore in a later blog.

As for now, please leave comments and remarks. I open to constructive criticism but please no hate speech or negative remarks about my eternal "soul" and/or character.

*All biblical quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.

Jesus: The Son of Who?

Again, since it's Christmas time, I'll be turning my attention to the birth stories of Jesus of Nazareth and the genealogies recorded in Matthew and Luke. The first genealogy, going in canonical order, is found in Matthew 1:1-17 and the second genealogy is found in Luke 3:23-38.*

Now, the author of Matthew traces Jesus' supposed lineage back to Abraham and before it starts, it states "An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (1:1). Alright, well, that shouldn't be so hard to construct except there seems to be a hiccup at the end of the genealogy. When we get to verse 16, it states, "and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

A funny incident happens in the Greek at this verse that is only subtly present in the English translation. The genealogy preceding this always has a father actively producing an heir as a biological father. However, when it gets to Joseph, the verb that was actively designating the son as of the human father changes from an active verb (egennesen) to a passive verb (egennethe), indicating that Joseph did not take an active part in the fathering of Jesus. Also, the particle pronoun that is translated as "of whom" in the English, is a feminine particle pronoun which indicates that Jesus was born of Mary and was not in any relation to Joseph.

If this is so, then how is Jesus of Davidic lineage? If the Davidic lineage is traced through Joseph and Jesus is not of Joseph, then how is this so? One fellow suggested that perhaps Joseph "adopted" Jesus and that Jesus got all the rights of the household, including Joseph's lineage. But how is this so, if there were no legalities or papers involved? Does anyone have record of Jewish Laws of Adoption regarding a divine child in late antiquity? I think not.

The reason that Matthew seemingly writes this "tension" into his text is because he is trying to make Jesus of Davidic lineage (thus, worthy of the throne of Israel) and attempting to perserve the virgin birth of Christ by indicating that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. By attempting to do so, the author of Matthew seemingly ties his hands together.

When we look at the genealogy of Luke, one sees that Luke traces Jesus' lineage back through Adam and thus, God. However, Luke attempts to preserve the virgin birth as well but does a seemingly better job than Matthew does.

"Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli." (Luke 3:23)

Now, while Luke preserves the "virgin birth" of Jesus by not attempting to link Jesus' lineage to Abraham and David through Joseph (Luke was a gentile, this didn't matter much to him), there is an apparent flaw when one compares the father of Joseph in Luke with the father of Joseph in Matthew. Luke states that Heli was the father of Joseph and Matthew states that Jacob was the father of Joseph (look above, if you don't believe me), so how is this so?

One answer is that Matthew's genealogy of Jesus is traced through Mary but this is not possible because of the grammatical translation I laid out in Greek above.

Another answer is that faith overrides tensions or flaws in the text. Tell me, how is this so if "faith comes from hearing the message?" (Romans 10:17) Isn't the text where the "message" comes from?

Therefore, can Jesus be the Son of God without being born of a virgin? Sure he can; in the say way that he is the "Christ" or the "Messiah" without having to be born of a virgin. The Gospel According to Mark doesn't even have a story of a virgin birth and how do some manuscripts of Mark begin? "This is the beginning of the good news (euangelion) of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1).

Therefore, I would argue that Jesus does not have to be born of a virgin to still be considered "Son of God" and at the center of the Christian religion.

How is this so? That is for the next post.

*All translations are NRSV unless otherwise noted.

The Christmas Story...I mean stories

Today, the service at my home church was pretty cute and very enlightening to my sense of the myths and stories that give meaning to the lifes of Christians, particularly the Christmas story.

The pastor was sitting on the stage and was reading the story of Jesus' birth from Luke 2 on stage. The kids were fairly talkative and kept popping up their hands to make remarks or ask questions. When he got to the part about the sheperds visiting the new-born Jesus, one of the kids said "I know what they brought; they brought gold, frankincense, and myrrh." The pastor replied to the kid, "No, that's the wise men, that's found in the other story."

At this moment, I realized that a lot of Christians would not realize this difference between the two stories. This difference is utterly defeated by the nativity scene that pops up all around churches and in Christian households through out the Christmas season depicting both shepherds and wisemen gathered around the family with the animals looking on with keen interest.

Some may explain this difference because of the different perspectives of the author. However, the term "different perspectives" insinuates that the authors were actually there and saw the shepherds or wisemen entering the barn. This is simply not true for various reasons (how could they of been alive, the Gospels are written in Greek and Jesus' disciples spoke aramaic, etc.). What is true, however, is that Matthew and Luke wrote independent birth stories with the only sharing factor perhaps being the Gospel of Mark (with no birth story) and the elusive "Q" source, which supposedly only contained tales of Jesus' miracles and signs.

Most scholars believe that Luke was written to a primarly Gentile audience and that Matthew was writing to a primarly Jewish-Christian audience. Also, for a compromise between the liberal and conservative estimates of the dating of Matthew and Luke, they were probably composed between the mid 70's and 90 CE. Hence, the authors of Matthew and Luke were writing to different audiences but within the same 15 year old range.

However, because both "gospels" are found in between the same covers and are only seperated by Mark in canonical order, most people assume the stories can be combined and that the gospels would not be compromised but they can't. The authors of Matthew and Luke did not write with each other mind and composed their birth stories using different sources. So, who is modern man to combine them and not perserve them for what they are?

"Cat's Cradle:" It May Be All Foma!

Well, I have this list that I compiled for reading over Christmas break and I just finished one of the books on the list. The book is titled Cat's Cradle and it is written by the famous dark satirist, Kurt Vonnegut.

Now, as a warning in advance, this book will be part review and part reflection, so don't expect a complete scholarly analysis of this rather impressive work.

In connection with my last post and the title of this post, what happens after death is a complete mystery and the different religions and worldviews offer different suggestions or ideas. But the truth is, nobody really knows what happens after we cease our biological functions.

I believe Vonnegut understood this and realized several aspects of a good religion:

1) All religions could be considered to be composed of "foma" or lies. They may speak about to a fundamental truth of what we as humans experience but the "myth" or story that is made up to describe could very well be considered an objective "lie." It is the subjectivity of human experience that attributes any "truth" to these religions. In Vonnegut's work, Bokonon (the founder of the principle religion in this book) states at the book of his work, that it is all "foma" or lies. However, what Bokonon considers to be lies, resonates very much with the people who follow his religion, Bokononism.

2) That a really good religion is form of treason. What more does a good religion, a religion that will survive, inevitably end up doing? Going against government, i.e. some form of treason.* The Christians wouldn't worship the Roman gods or Caesar, hence they were executed for treason. Jesus taught subversive politics (read the sermon on the mount, Matthew 5) and challenged those in charge of the principle "religion" who in turned worked for the government, so he in turn was executed for "treason." See page 143 of the book for this poem:

So I said good-bye to government,

And I gave my reason;

That a really good religion

Is a form of treason.

3) People need meaning and humanity seems to be the only creature pondering this question. Vonnegut puts it like the following through Bokonon by writing:

Tiger got to hunt.

Bird got to fly.

Man got ask himself, "Why, why, why?"

Tiger got to sleep.

Bird go to land.

Man got tell himself, "He understand."

I suppose, that in the end, we have to understand something and I think this is expressed when Vonnegut has a doctor and scientist adminster the Bokonist last rites to the dying President of the Island that the last half of the book takes place on. The dialogue takes place like the following:

"Will this bother you as a scientist," I inquired, "to go through a ritual like this?"

"I am a very bad scientist. I will do anything to make a human being feel better, even if it's unscientific. No scientist worthy of the name could say such a thing."

(Pg. 179-180)

However, this does make the "scientist" a very good human being. In the end we don't know but we do know we exist with each other and because of each other. Therefore, "Love thy fellow human being."

*Although, most religions do not maintain "treason" but are sublimated and corrupted by the government. See Christianity and what happened when it became the official religion of Rome.

Life! Death! Truth?!?

Today, I found myself playing hymns for the elderly and attempting to sing along...

Then, I realized, these songs make me quite uncomfortable. Especially, the one hymn dealing with the end of the world and the afterlife.

Why, ever since I've been a kid, all of this talk of everlasting life, heaven, sin, and all that related-jazz has made me quite uncomfortable. Some say nature points to God and God came to find us by revealing himself in Jesus and did so best of all on the cross. The texts in which all of this is located is rather full of "tensions" about the details of all this business and Jesus is barely mentioned outside of the New Testament in the writings of other historians.

So, what is the truth? What happens after we die? I'm just trying to live life the best I can and to how my conscience, inner voice, divine sign indicates...

I'm rather frustrated at times...

God? Dog? Baloney?

No question about it, but one cannot describe God! One would be the biggest phony-baloney if one tried to describe God. We can come close to it, but words can never describe it. -Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross

"God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.

-Voltaire

I'm a big fan of quotes that throw people off kilter and make them think. That's part of what I do: ask the questions and get other people to ask them. For in the questions, there are plenty of answers...

But enough about me. What about this dude in the sky that people make such a big deal about? What do they call it? God? Dog? If people stopped running their mouths about "God" and attempted to realize the absurdity of calling "God," a "He" and acting if "God" was something they could petition and influence, then the world just might be a better place. Perhaps, people would take more responsbility for their actions and have greater compassion on those they don't understand, those who are different but suffer and come from the same source on the same hands.

Can you really pretend to honor some great dude in the sky, aknowledge this "cosmic" omni-human in the place that you call "church" once a week and ignore your neighbor? Your gay neighbor? Your Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, or Unitarian Univeralist neighbor?

Love God? You can't do that without loving people. Absolutely not.

Want to experience "God?"


Love those around you. Accept love from those around you.

Let go of your hatred or just keep pretending that your prejudices are shared by your cosmic "watchdog?"

All you need is love, love is all you need.

The Wandering Student

"Not all who wander are lost, in fact, we may be in the wonder of it all"

The other day before I went on Spring Break, it was noted that I was open to various religious and philosophical traditions by a close professor of mine and then I was asked if I had a particular tradition of which I followed.

I replied that the truth can be found in more than one place and than in the "Ocean of Truth," Christianity is my bathtub. Jesus is my home-base, if you will, the place where I come back to and decide what is right and wrong for me. Not doctrines, not creeds, not any of the formalized statements with a vengeance that riddles dead and decrepit traditions.

In that sense, I am a heretic. That's a dangerous word but, I confirm it because I refuse to buy into a standard set by others that I have nor will ever meet. So when you find a copy of the Apostolic Fathers, a book on Zen from a Comparative standpoint of a Trappist monk in my bag and the Koran sitting on my desk, don't worry, it's who I am but I know where I'm coming from.

These are just some thoughts on my mind.

-He who knows he doesn't know anything.

The Doctrine of Doubt

When I was a kid, I was brought to church nearly every Sunday and had the doctrine of Heaven and Hell pounded into me to the point of exhaustion by a certain preacher. This church also seemed to find every fiery evangelist they could find to lead mini-versions of the great awakening (I'm not sure if some of these people were awakened to anything positive, rather they were just scared out of Hell or had the hell scared out of them, for the x29392 time) .

The other basic doctrine I was "taught" (I'm not sure if you would call it teaching) was the doctrine of redemption through the blood of Jesus, the Son of God. While I'm still some form of a Christian, all of this punishment, persuasion, blood, and pain did not go over well with me as a kid and still doesn't.

Now, I believe in a different "doctrine," if you will, The Doctrine of Doubt. Doubt allowed me to escape the clutches of a church bent on everlasting damnation or salvation with a permantely crucified and bleeding savior as a way to a better afterlife. Doubt has allowed me to carve my own spiritual niche out of the Bible and other religions to find something that I will live and not just cower in front of. God is not in the business of damning everyone who doesn't say the right prayer or in condemning those who struggle, God is in the struggle with us. If I had to make sense from a human perspective about the crucifixion of Jesus, then it is a display of what happens when one stands up to the domination system of any culture, one gets killed by the system. However, from a divine (yet anthropomorphic) perspective, I believe God suffered in the crucifixion as well. However, I believe the majority of atonement theories are sure moot and made to damn people into doing what the church wants them to do and not is what healthy for the individual in any way.

The truth may set you free indeed, but you can never know what the truth is until you doubt and discover the "said" truth for yourself.

-The Christian Agnostic

Love and T-Shirts

I was reading a book and listening to Pandora when a John Mayer song entitled, "City Love," came on and reminded me of a past dating relationship and of future relationships. The lyric that sparked the memory is this:

"She steals my clothes to wear to work, I know her hairs are on my shirts."

Now, my past girlfriend didn't steal my shirt but we exchanged two shirts when we first started dating that symbolized important parts of each of our lives. She gave me a shirt with "CC" for Cross-Country on the front and with "Fleetfeet" on the back. It was gray with blue lettering and came with a pair of running shoes she bought at Fleetfeet because she was a runner in high school and continued to run for fun and fitness.

I gave her a gray shirt with FSU in red lettering on the front. The story behind that was several guys in my youth group in high school and my youth minister bought cheap gray t-shirts with Harvard on them and I grabbed the last small one. They all looked the same except my shirt had FSU on the front and so our attempt to promote Harvard's sports teams as a joke in the mall kinda failed because they would yell "Go Harvard" and well, I had a FSU shirt on in the midst of the Harvard shirts. So, a shirt with an inside story about the guys in my youth group who were very important to me in high school, especially the friendship I had with my youth minister.

When we broke up in my 2nd semester of college, we never saw each other again and I have lost her CC shirt. However, for ten months we shared those shirts and much, much more for a mostly happy time. She contributed to my life and I did to hers until we started heading down different paths and could no longer maintain the relationship.

In reflection, it was a big turning point in my life and John Mayer's song reminded me of the good times in that relationship. So, here's to the future I have with the girl who I can connect with and share on that deep level again. Life is too short to not love :)

A Musing about God and Society As It Relates to Me

Karen Armstrong writes in her book "The Battle For God" that "The French existentialist Jean-Paul Satre (1905-80) called it the the God-shaped hole in human consciousness, where the divine had always been but had disappeared, leaving an emptiness behind" in relate to the secularism of modern society.

I feel this "hole," in my life sometimes, especially since I've started college and seemingly left what I thought I was in pieces. In high school, life had meaning as I percieved through God, specifically through my experiences in youth group and hanging out with my youth minister. God, at times, was as real as the air I breathed and dictated most of my life through the Bible as I percieved it as a Christian. I learned how to play guitar and helped lead worship in my later years of high school for my youth group on Wednesday nights. I tried to control my hormones in accordance with the purity standards of the church and quotes from the Bible (which I failed utterly at but that's another post) and only dated "Christian" girls until I got to college. Then I discovered Higher Biblical Criticism (beware of biblical inerrancy, it doesn't hold up under critical reading and thinking), the demands of a functioning social life, and the other various aspects of my new life as an undergraduate student.

To say the least, I made it through the first semester with minimal "sin" and with what I though was a really great relationship with a girl I started dating a few months before I graduated from high school. However, when she broke up with me, my faith seemed to disappear and other things took it's place. I felt pain I have never felt before and a lot of things seemed meangingless to me. So, I took up smoking at the suggestion of a friend and began to party a lot more than I thought of before. Basically, I became the person I'd never thought I'd be.

However, now I feel a hole that I need to fill and I can't go back to a faith that is held within a creed and an inerrant Bible. I feel the need for meaning I had in high school and have established some of that but not completely. How is life meaningful on it's own? Is it found in serving others? I have a feeling that lies within the demotion of the ego but in the end, I have to report to myself and perhaps, something higher than me in the end of every day and perhaps at my life.

Any suggestions on where to feel the "hole?" I do agree that society should be secular (seperation of religion/church and state) but what about meaning as an individual?

Procrasination and a Turkey Break...

So, it's about 5 am in the morning and I'm still awake on my break from MHC made possible by a holiday that is celebrating by gathering with one's family and eating lots of food, namely turkey (or ham, like my family does) and other festive holiday foods.

Speaking of festive foods and drinks, Samuel Adam's Winter Ale is on my list to try this winter season, along with their brew entitled, Octoberfest (SP? It may be spelled with a K). Both are seasonal brews that are only produced in the late fall/winter of every year, from what I understand. Ah, but Christmas is coming fast and so is the end of the semester!

The end of the semester this time around is brutal. I'm already late on several assignments and the like, it seems like a lot to catch up but I think I can do it. Who knew 19 credit hours, work study, and the world premiere of a musical could be so much work? I honestly had no idea about the level of commitment and energy all of these things have required of me and that's not all of my activities...just the ones that tend to eat up all of my energy.

Anyways, I need to get back to finishing my final exam/essay for Social Psychology, which I'm pretty sure is late but not totally sure. I need to be more organized, haha.

I hope everyone had a great thanksgiving and if you can, come see the musical! Click here for more info on the musical!