SocietyVs Proverb

“Great art deserves some mystery”

The best art I have seen comes from a mysterious place in us…where creativity, imagination, and our inner-selves meet and have coffee.

Advertisements

The Problem With Jesus is…

He’s the frontman for the leaders of the church. He’s the fall guy and the reason for anything a church does. But Jesus really isn’t Jesus, he’s some form of you.

Jesus may have been real and walked this earth, but I am pretty sure the Jesus being taught in most churches is a construction of their own imaginations and desires, they are seeing what matches up with their own images.

I know I am right about this – I have had some time over the past week to see a history within America, and in the West, of the changing face of Christianity. I saw the south and north argue over slavery and segregation – and each side represented by their lawyer, Jesus. Also denomination splits in early America into the 1900’s became part of the normal Christian landscape – each with their version of Jesus and what ‘he really meant’. One cannot look at all of this and find a clear picture of Jesus – since it is severely convoluted.

One has to admit the obvious, Jesus is a construct of each denomination’s desires and reflects themselves, not what Jesus actually was and did. This is why someone can justify as a Christian the death of an abortion doctor, because they want it and they can put an excuseable face on their notions, Jesus. Slavery, homophobia, segregation, church splits, anti-Jewish sentiments, and any issue can also be lumped in this category. Jesus ain’t Jewish, Jesus is American that hated communism in the 50’s, felt we needed to mesh politics and religion, cares about prayer in school and the 10 commandments in front of courts, etc. It’s not such a crazy thought to ask ‘who is Jesus’ with all the insanity about who many think he is?

I read the bible. I like Jesus. But Jesus isn’t Western in his mindset or feel when I read him. He is Jewish, from the Middle East, practicing Judaism and upholding Torah and Prophets. He is not a messianic Jew, he is thoroughly a Jew and loving it. He believes in the Shema and One God, that God being His Father – the father of all Israel. Jesus never heard of Christianity nor Paul. Jesus claims were to messiah type ideals within the land of Israel, which did include a concern for Gentiles. Jesus had a mother and brothers and sisters, was not born of a virgin, believed in the idea God was active in humanity, seen a need for ‘renewal’, and functioned like a prophet figure (and should be read with this in mind). Jesus bought into ideas of his time, things that were constructs (influenced) of time amongst Gentiles. In fact, messiah was a theology developed over time when faced by problems outside Judaism and dealing with a more global national identity (ie: exile). In a nutshell, Jesus was a Jew, not a Lutheran, not a Methodist, not a Baptist, not a Catholic, etc.

What hasn’t changed about Jesus is he probably would of been killed today as he was in his own day, by people claiming to know him. I would say he is being crucified daily by churches across the country who use his image to justify their own behaviors, behaviors which mirror nothing about Jesus in scripture. If Jesus does come back, what will be his words for the church? Good intentions sure, but interpretations and structures that seem to betray his every vision. I won’t ‘pretend’ to speak for Jesus on the subject, you decide what your version of Jesus will say.

The End of The World (as we knew it)

Just watched ‘How to Boil a Frog’ yesterday.

Documentary about the all the problems in society and how they are effecting global temperature (ie: global warming). It addresses the problem in some pretty straight-forward ways and realizes that the upward curve in consumption occuring is driving this whole process. It also offers some solutions one could do to make a difference here and now to change some of what our carbon footprint is andhow we support others with larger carbon footprints (ie: don’t buy from Exxon and don’t eat beef as examples).

After watching the show I had a few small critiques, namely on who’s to blame and maybe the actual outcomes of all of this.

He mentions over-population as one of the problems that need to be addressed. I agree, the world is getting over-populated – but is this the problem? Do we blame medicine for making us live longer? Isn’t the problem that the wealth of the nations resides in so few irresponsible hands that poverty remains an absolute terror on 3rd world nations? Let’s take the blame of the severely wealthy and tell the poor and middle classes to wear condoms…interesting. Isn’t that ‘passing the buck’?

As for outcomes of such a catastrophe in the future which includes things like deforestation, resource depletion, need for water and food, avoiding the heat and natural disasters, etc…what might happen? It’s not hard to figure if push comes to shove, he with the most weapons and money takes what he wants first while others languish in the resulting tide (ie: I think we see that with Oil right now).

The future is not about to be kind if global warming cannot be averted. I would be amazed if we made it past 2085 to be perfectly honest (and that may even be a stretch). Once the temperatures of this planet reach 2% higher than normal – the process is irreversible – we reach 5% in some time after that. One must remember, 1987 was the year we should of been planning for the future, not 2010, that puts us 23 years behind, and a few new generations accelerating the process.

The land grabs in times of pressure might be more obvious than one thinks, Canada and Russia. 2 biggest land sources on this planet that could face the least amount of problems in face of this catastrophe – also both have abundant resources. Russia is still a somewhat super-power so a grab there is not going to be easy, but Canada? Just saying when things come to ‘shove’, he with the most money and power will make their way first.

If global warming doesn’t end us, war will. No one is getting out of this unscathed it would seem.

Ideological Atheism Will Fall Pt.2

Now to why atheism, as an ideology, will fall.

(1) It’s narrow minded.

I have read many atheists comments over the past 5 years, and there are some very narrow world-views coming from this mindset.

Atheists do not know that a Catholic bishop secured the right for them in America to have the right to ‘no belief system’ (ie: John Hughes). But what will atheism give to religion. Well according to many atheists, nothing, it needs to dropped from human history.

(2) It’s unreasonable.

There seems to be no 2 ways with this ‘new atheism’, religion is bad and of no use to the discourse in this country (or countries). This is the premise they actually start with and defend it like the mason-dixon line. This type of reason wants war, not compromise.

(3) It’s lacks compassion (and sometimes ethics)

Most new atheists determine most everything by something they define as ‘factual’ (ie: stats or some take on history or scientific reasoning). But if this is the reasoning to be used, is it really empathetic to human conditions and needs?

What’s so good about statistics anyways? What if by statistical vote the country wanted to allow the poorest people in the country to die so they could save space for the population that matters (ie: to avoid over-crowding on this planet). Over population is not good, but there is no good solution of how to answer that one outside of un-ethical procedures. Statistics also has no concern for the human condition, it’s numbers and they can be read in a variety of ways and also may be mis-represented.

(4) It can be hateful

New atheism does have some attachements to it that seem outright absurd. They hate religion, and if you are attached to one, you just made their list of ‘idiots’, ‘dumb*sses’, ‘ignorant’…basically someone that can be dehumanized on some level as compared to their enlightnement. I have seen this before in countries that outlawed religion, many people were massacred before that country realized how stupid an idea that is.

(5) Thinks scienctific reasoning is the ‘saviour’

I have found science lacking in it’s ability to address moral needs probably because that’s of no concern to science (as admitted by almost any atheist). So how can it ever be reasoned that science will somehow provide the guidelines for a better ‘humanity’? There seems to be some kind of smokescreen happening here to make up for atheism’s lack of a ‘moral code’ within it’s ideology.

In fact tildeb just quoted to me biology as a moral guideline. But this is as absurd as saying astronomy will provide a moral guideline. They are sciences and are not concerned with guidlines for human behavior, only to define scientific reasoning to human processes or human knowlegde, No science really says anything about human solutions to problems or the implementation of the findings of science – as true as they are.

(6) Plays with the facts

Like any other ideology with some mission to accomplish new atheism has this small problem, they play with the facts in their subjective reasoning on history, statistics, and even science. Ever meet a atheist who could admit they were wrong when debating someone that was ‘religious’? Ever meet some religious that could admit they were wrong in a debate with an ‘atheist’? Truth is, most new atheists cannot afford to be wrong since they have an agenda to keep moving and alive. If this means a mis-representation of history or some statistical figure, so be it.

I cannot imagine living in a society where science was used as some moral code, it would be purely ‘subjective’ nonsense.

If science is not an ideology, which it may not be, then why the concern with the replacement of religion, which is an ideology, with something else? That argument in and of itself reveals the truth behind much atheism I have read; it’s an ideology and proposes philosophical positions or at least tries to partner with philosophical positions in defense of it’s own basic belief in ‘a-theism’.

Why Atheism Will Also Fail.

Because like every other ideology prior to it – humans are involved. Humans like to label things this or that way, define something this and that way, narrow the scope of something this or that way…it’s just another trend in the ideological cycle.

I like atheism, I also hate atheism. In the same vein, I like Christianity, I also hate Christianity.

Nothing is really living at it’s ‘ideal’ – everything has been corrupted by the human need to control it. I have met lots of great atheists in my time, I have also met my fair share of people that ruin it for everyone else.

Atheism is going to enjoy some of it’s ‘heyday’ right now and maybe for the next 15 to 20 years. But like everything else it will also fall – mistakes will be made to taint what seems like such a bright endeavour. So that when it’s finger that wags at people unlike it will reveal there are 4 others pointing at its-self. Such is life.

Atheists believe there is no God, it doesn’t mean they don’t believe in something else.

Faith Be Reasonable

It used to be said that ‘faith and reason cannot co-exist’.

But I say to you ‘Faith without reason is non-existent’.

Truth is most people’s ‘trust or faith’ is based on some reference point that makes sense to be built upon. Faith, in it’s essence, is based on the idea we can trust this person or situation more and more – so we feel free to enter into whatever it holds. Faith is always reasonable and when it is not, it is no longer a form of trust but a form of sabotage. Who would believe in something unreasonable to their own detriment?

Now I command you ‘Faith Be Reasonable!’

A God Who Kills?

Is it okay to not serve a God that kills?

I don’t want to kill, I stand opposed to the use of force in general.

Does God kill?

Dreams. Maybe? Fascinations. Perhaps?

How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock” (Psalm 137:9)

Now that’s dashing someone’s dreams.

Is it okay to not serve the God that kills?