Tangibility (from Wikipedia)

“In law, tangibility is the attribute of being detectable with the senses. In criminal law, one of the elements of an offense of larceny is that the stolen property must be tangible. In the context of intellectual property, expression in tangible form is one of the requirements for copyright protection“

Spirituality is intangible. Religion tries to make it tangible – the expression of the intangible. They will use things like communion or baptism to make this point. Even attendance to a church and becoming a member is an expression of this intangible endeavor. Yet, one knows spirituality is intangible. Yet it still exists.

‘I have faith in you’

There’s a line I have used a lot. Yet even in the insubstance of what is being said – there is some sort of substance. The subject can be something as simple as passing a driving test or tough as interviewing for a job and I will say “I have faith in you’. Faith implies ones personal belief in that person – as unseen as this is. In this case it’s a type of support for the person…a belief in their abilties to get the job done. I can’t prove my support – it just is.  

Now one cannot truly prove ‘faith’ per se – yet it is somethings inspires people into action. Now I have tangible scriptures to read from mind you – but it’s just a book in all reality…unless put into action. The true depth of faith is how it can inspire a person to do something with their life…from reading words to proving themselves in action…and evaluating the outcomes of the ideas to become a better person (and in some cases, a worse person).

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1)

I think this is a fair critique of what faith ‘is’. I believe in people’s abilities, I also believe in a God I cannot see…both reveal an aspect of someone’s faith. Faith is type of trust – a type of support – for what is basically the unknown. Faith, in and of itself, is not problematic…in fact I think it is an essential to human living.

Don’t worry – if you don’t believe me – I will still support you.

“The mark in Leviticus correlates to the mark in Revelation. That is enough for me to make a discerning judgment” (Kim)

How exactly is the mark (for the dead) in Leviticus even remotely linked to the mark idea in Revelations? Even if this had some plausbility (which I would need explained as to connection) – tattoo’s don’t neccesarily fall under the idea of the ‘mark of the beast’ – of the which we cannot even be sure is an actual ‘mark’ (since Revelations uses metaphor and imagery quite a lot).

However, if there were a ‘mark of the beast’ it also would have made sense to the early believers that recieved that letter to know about it…and they mention nothing about it in ancient literature of the church (maybe 100 AD to 400 AD). To me, the mark might be directly connected to idolatry – which mainstream tattooing isn’t. So no worries there.

“And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name” (Rev 14:11)

It seems to me this ‘mark’ is directly connected to idolatry – and the beasts’ ‘name’. So even if this is a ‘tattoo’ – it is pretty specific one with the name of the person and certain places that name will be written (hand and forehead)…if we are taking that passage literally. I have yet to see a tattoo like this – of some anti-christ’s name on someone’s hand or forehead.

However, this could all be metaphorical in nature also. Maybe there is no literal ‘mark’ but the adherence to an anti-christ figure and his mandates which would effect one’s actions (work of your hands) and mindset (what you think about the world). This could be a simple warning to John’s people about not following the Roman system with variety of gods and corrupt practices. Which may have effected the amount of work they could find in society or even corrupted their thoughts on ‘right and wrong’. It’s a possibility.

Which is a warning to us – even in this day – about joining systems that are ’anti-christ’ in nature. Nazism would have been a great example of this concept. However there are tonnes of other ideas that are quite anti-christ in nature – even certain business (greed) and environmental (destroying the earth and animals habitats) ethics can be seen this way. We just need to keep looking at what Jesus taught and if society is not lining up with those ideals – we need to follow Jesus over those ideals…even if it hurts the pocketbooks or respectability.

***Comment originally aired at Discern It’s ‘Should a Christian Get a Tattoo?‘

I don’t think the early communities came to do away with rules (or even law for that matter) – we as humans need that type of direction (teaching).

I think faith is about developing a finer committment with those around you and I and with our faith in God (it becoming something meaningful). The teachings seem to safeguard against making mistakes that will only hurt you in the long-run – reaching out to our common sense – asking us to weigh in on our personal actions and responsibility in society.

One needs to remember this all started as a ‘law’ (Torah) for a nation of people – to set them apart from the surrounding ideas in societies. Now law functions to help people fit their behavior into what is acceptable for society. In one sense, one can see the law as helping people to become more humane. At least that’s how I think about it.

The gospel is just a furtherance of that idea for all people – about kingdom ethics. It’s basically the teachings redacted from Jesus own words or one of the disciples. They seem contrary to law but they aren’t…they still seek a personal accountability of the person to ethics – or the spirit of the law (which was good).

The way I see it all is the way some of the Psalms (or Deuteronomy) kind of look at it -

“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.” (Deut 30:15-16)

Leviticus 18:5 “So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD” (also in Nehemiah 9:29)

I see them as speaking about life and living that life to the fullest potential…people may want to focus on the bad aspects of that ‘law’ – but it is what it is – rules to help one focus their lives in a positive direction.

***Comment originally aired on Deacon Blue’s ‘Random Babble’

making less and less sense these days (to me).

Had a chance to watch a program on tithing the other day and I was quite flabergasted at the conclusions being made – heck I even argued with the tv a few times (lol). They can put a spiritual ’spin’ on anything can’t they?

What bothered me the most was the justification and reasoning for the ideas behind tithing. It was practically a litany of ‘no-no’s’ when it comes to interpreting scripture and pulling scripture from here to mesh with this one there (or the old copy and paste idea of interpretation). Top it off, the person speaking wrote a book on tithing – which pretty much floored me. Sometimes you just have to laugh I guess.

I am starting to realize why people would consider Christians ‘dumb’ though…that show revealed a lot to me. At one point a lady comes on the show and tells the people how she has followed the principle to ‘tithe’ and lots of bad things have been happening to her…not as promised by the scripture. The hosts basically ignore the problem and ask her to keep giving and God will be faithful…has the lady wondering ‘when’? But they didn’t hesitate – even when presented with proof against their theory – ‘just be more faithful’ was the answer…the mystery of God’s timing huh?

I guess that type of spirituality just irks me.

Accountability.

How can we blame an entity for our actions? It’s puzzling to me – in all honesty. The biblical ethics are a code of accountability which were given for our responsibility for our actions…have we been forewarned about what our actions entail?

I thought about this for a bit…I don’t blame God for people’s actions (or my own actions). When we are young we are under the responsibility of our parents – at this point they are responsible for our care (they are accountable for our well being). As we grow up we become accountable for our actions and responses (how we percieve what happened to us as kids and how we’ll react). How is it God becomes a blaming factor anywhere in there?

Maybe it’s just me thinking this – but I see a lot of blame going God’s way for some things which I am not sure is completely justified.

If your brother asked you to sacrifice your other brother – would you?

If your parents (or parent) asked you to sacrifice your brother – would you?

If the church asked you to sacrifice your brother – would you?

If the gov’t asked you to sacrifice your brother – would you?

What if any or all of them were sanctioned by God – would you re-consider?

What if God asked you to sacrifice your brother – would you?

If science/the law said the world was better without your brother – would you oblige?

If someone held a gun to your head and said ‘it’s you or your brother’…would you then?

How much do you love your brother? Treat the citizens of the world as if they are your brother.

Here is a subject I have ignored like the plague…but since the world is facing a pandemic I figured I’d discuss this idea – the rapture.

Is the rapture plausible?

The scriptural basis for it is flimsy at best and the doctrine wasn’t even in Christian theology until the mid 1700’s and 1800’s. Here is some historical timelines from Wikipedia.

“The concept of the rapture, in connection with premillennialism, was expressed by the American Puritan father and son Increase and Cotton Mather (both part of the Salem Witch trials). They held to the idea that believers would be caught up in the air, followed by judgments on the earth and then the millennium. The term rapture was used by Philip Doddridge (1738) and John Gill (1748) in their New Testament commentaries, with the idea that believers would be caught up prior to judgment on the earth and Jesus’ Second Coming. The concept of a pre-tribulation rapture was articulated by Baptist Morgan Edwards in an essay published in 1788 in Philadelphia.”

“John Nelson Darby, considered the father of dispensationalism, first proposed the pre-tribulation rapture in 1827. This view was accepted among many other Plymouth Brethren in England. Darby and other prominent Brethren were part of the Brethren Movement which impacted American Christianity, primarily through their writings. Influences included the Bible Conference Movement, starting in 1878 with the Niagara Bible Conference. These conferences, which were initially inclusive of historicist and futurist premillennialism, led to an increasing acceptance of futurist premillennial views and the pre-tribulation rapture especially among Presbyterian, Baptist and Congregational members. Popular books also contributed to acceptance of the pre-tribulation rapture, including William Eugene Blackstone’s book Jesus is Coming published in 1878 and which sold more than 1.3 million copies, and the Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909 and 1919 and revised in 1967″

As is told by the history of this theological belief – it started in the 1700’s and caught momentum afterwards (namely publications and conferences helped push this along). But for like 1500 years prior the belief was pretty much non-existent. Which makes me wonder – why did it even spring up and in relation to what? Christians that needed this idea were persecuted under Roman rule many centuries earlier and never held such a viewpoint. They held the view they would ’suffer like Christ’…Paul is pretty quick to admit this in his letters and the gospels also keep this idea afresh in the believers minds.

History is not on the side of the doctrine (that’s pretty clear). I also think the idea is not plausible and falls into the category of ‘make belief’. I think it is a best wish scenario based on a passage (from Thessalonians) that is pretty vague to be building such a detailed doctrine upon. I don’t see the theological or historical credibility of such an idea – as it is presented in this day in age (I am talking pre-trib ideas here).

I figure if the early Christians had to take the hard road and face most of the persecution from society around them – why would that change for the West (if this were to ever happen)? Also, wouldn’t WW2 have been a good time for this to occur? Some 200 million men went to fight in that war – likely some 30% or higher (maybe even 50%) were Christian (UK, Canada, America, France, and other northern territories). I figure, if people were gonna escape some tribulation – that would’ve been quite ideal.

I have heard a claim for years and I am not sure how warranted it actually is. Here is the claim:

‘Jesus suffered more than any person that ever lived’

Christians use all kinds of sayings to depict this idea…but is it true?

I am not saying Jesus did not suffer – crucifixion and torture are both horrible ways to go. But did he suffer more than…well…let’s say other political prisoners crucified during his era? What makes his suffering worse if this is the case?

Also, suffered more than anyone that ever lived? I don’t know about everyone else but I have quite a few stories of people that have suffered a lot worse. For example, I read a story about a girl that was enslaved by her father for 28 years in a basement and forced to raise their 5 kids (all incest) without any real sunlight or freedom. By any and all accounts she was a prsioner of her father’s for that whole time – suffering massive mental trauma and a variety of health concerns (bore children without a doctor’s aide – 5 times). Then there are stories from World War II and some of the stuff those victims had to endure for months even years one end…just to end up dying of starvation.

In fact, most Christian will openly admit Jesus died within 6 hours of being on the cross from the torture prior…which amounts to about 7 or 8 hours of suffering in total. In comparison to many months even years of suffering that is like a very minut %.

I think the claim is over-exaggerated for the sake of telling a good story. I think the messiah suffered – from the stories – this is not the way I would choose to go out that’s for sure. The point the bible is making is the messiah suffered – a rather new concept for it’s day – and unheard of for the messiah (made no sense in the messianic ideology). The point is he did not suffer more than every single person ever – actually there is no scripture supporting this claim.

“Karen Armstrong was hardly the point of the whole talk” (Temaskian)

I agree – however my point about Karen’s words is really key to the whole talk. What if they are misrepresenting what Karen Armstrong is saying in her book ‘the history of God’? What if they are taking something they read and making it say what they think she is saying? Are you willing to accept that if it is true?

I mean I may be making a mountain out of what you would consider a molehill – but if there is misrepresentation on one level – what makes anyone think there isn’t more? This really is a key issue. Now I don’t know what Karen meant by her saying ‘God is not a being’ but I am pretty sure she believes in God (thus her continual writings on the subject). Which makes me think there is some ’spin’ happening in this process.

And that is what I am pointing out – one lump in the dough can ruin the whole thing (it may not but it can). I think many of things they think about the sociology of some de-converts or Christian atheists is right on the money – but some of it’s carried too far in conclusions. I am just keeping them honest if anything.

“I backed up my interpretation by going back to the original Hebrew words and by attempting to reason with you” (Temaskian)

I am not sore about this – good on you. I backed up my interpretation by going to Jewish sources and for some reason you see them as biased…oh well…even did everything linguistically I could to show you the form of the sentence is on Monotheism – but to no avail…oh well.

I am pointing out what I will call ‘false weighting’. It’s okay for atheists to make some of the mistakes you claim I am making but not okay for me. I think that needs to be re-examined if that is the case…maybe it is – maybe it isn’t?

“I don’t think Dan has misinterpreted what Karen said” (Temaskian)

Well what you think and what actually is being said by Karen are 2 different things. So I took the liberty to at least look this stuff up – and I have to buy that book and read it to prove my point – I am more than game (something we can both do – as friends).

Some of the concepts of God (the being) Karen found in literature:

“The Rabbis: “God is the place of the world, but the world is not his place.” The Rabbis stress on the one hand the Shekinah–the presence of God in distinct places in the world–and on the other the ultimate mystery of God. To create an official doctrine of God is a sin because it limits the essential mystery of God”

“God had, as it were, adapted himself to each person ‘according to the comprehension of each.’ As one Rabbi put it, ‘God does not come to man oppressively but commensurately with a man’s power of receiving him.’…”

“Aristotle had said that God was “the unmoved mover,” Necessary Being. In Exodus, God defines himself to Moses with: “I am What I Am.” Aquinas fuses these two definitions and calls God Qui est: “He Who Is.” God is not any particular form or kind of being, but rather Being Itself: esse seipsum” (the actual passage in question)

From the site: http://www.necessaryprose.com/armstrong.htm

*You will be happy to note Karen does support your theory of various identities of God during the early writings of Judaism (from El to YHWH). Just thought I’d note these things.

***Comment taken from Temaskians blog ‘A Conspiracy Without a Mastermind’

I find theists and atheists can never really understand one another (as sad as that is) because in the end they are respresenting competing claims (and they do no neccesarily hide this) they both hold as ‘true’ about the realities they live in.

In conclusion, one side must lean towards the other in order to make room for discussion or agreeance must occur for one side to feel they are ‘right’ and feel some justification for their stance. Both sides that want a discussion do this.

Truth is – you cannot prove God – so we can discuss any and everything under the sun after this claim is made (which is logical and also a justification for the atheist). Someone made the claim we all use ‘faith’ (in the sense of ‘trust’) – so for the theist this is also justifcation for their side. Convo continues.

Luke lables this as ’searching’ – we all must continue in this process…and this is the middle ground for both sides…or is Luke making a point that an atheist has to concede some ground to make discussion? Convo continues.

Fact is, all of us have a story that differs from one another and we want to put the facts of any issue outside of that reality (our biases being as limited as we can make them). This is common ground also – and we all admit to having bias in our thinking in some way. Convo continues.

I find, as a theist, I really don’t care if an athiest believes in God or not – and this is pretty much the norm for the athiest towards the theist. I think we like the discussion because it helps us learn and defend our points better. It’s maybe a search for the truth on some level but in essence do we really care about any of this?

***Comment taken from Sabio Lantz’s blog ‘Misunderstanding Each Other’