tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-233279872024-03-13T09:17:03.438-06:00GodpuddleSplashing around in theology.Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-57141843730632286192007-03-24T12:25:00.000-06:002008-01-18T23:16:54.485-06:00Re-Direction<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >If you have been directed here via my profile area, well, this is my site but it is not my <span style="font-weight: bold;">MAIN</span> one. I have not written on godpuddle for quite some time.<br />My apologies to anyone who might even possibly, <span style="font-style: italic;">remotely</span> wish I had!<br />My main site is at <a href="http://bookpuddle.blogspot.com/">Bookpuddle</a>.<br /></span><div style="text-align: left;"><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >All the best to you, dear reader-friend.<br /><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.bookpuddle.blogspot.com"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-wuxzQtgQP-sWm_uLR6vBIO9Td3TebtgBhR0ob9Z6giZPVQhn38cn0ZUhm0Afo3BaABxN0kqX7wkzoYr7cIADqxfLvxjXMRVtdCmvyih0a8q6Ay1UHDn6l5JL__1_pOLdci3jNw/s320/bookpuddle.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5045561606917249650" border="0" /></a></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-52486221290362523712006-11-16T00:46:00.000-06:002006-11-16T00:51:54.140-06:00New Ehrman Interview<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5363/2847/1600/misquoting-jesus.1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5363/2847/200/misquoting-jesus.1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:85%;" >Hey, the recent Bart Ehrman interview, on Tapestry, is now available.<br /><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives/2006/111206.html">CLICK HERE</a>!</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">******** </span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1162753008652781042006-11-05T12:50:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:16.199-06:00Be Fruitful and Overpopulate.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/sins_large.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/sins_large.2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">John Shelby Spong.<br />This retired Bishop of Newark (Episcopal Church) once claimed that he was finished with the writing of books. I am so glad that here in what he calls his “third half of life” he has given us yet another insightful look into the relevant theological issues of our day and age.<br />His most recent book [2005] is called <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Sins Of Scripture: Exposing The Bible’s Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love.</span><br />Scorcher of a title huh?<br />Spong, on the face of it, can appear to some to be almost “anti-Christian” but when you really examine his work and read of his personal convictions, you find that a much better summation of his ideas would be “anti-<span style="font-style: italic;">ignorance”</span>.<br />He is all about asking the needful questions, and doing what he can to dispel the ignorance of invalid answers.<br />As a “believer in exile” myself, I find in my own life that I am increasingly identifying with Spongism.<br /><br />Anyhoo... the specific issue that I wanted to point out from this new book is neither all that controversial nor potentially divisive nor heretical enough to burn anyone at the stake over.<br />It is just.... interesting.<br />It comes from Section 2 of the book, in which Spong is discussing <span style="font-style: italic;">The Bible And The Environment</span>, and for his “terrible text” he is looking at Genesis 1:28, which says <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.”<br /><br /></span>Spong’s argument is that at one time (namely, the time at which this Scripture was written, and several millennia thereafter), the injunction had a certain validity and purpose which our current environmental situation can no longer support in an ad infinitum sort of way.<br />In ancient times, it is understandable that population growth was a necessary part of human survival. There just weren’t that many people around. Not only this, but they died a lot earlier (younger) than people tend to die today in most parts of the world. Nowadays worldwide population is growing so exponentially, that if the earth were a bus, someone ought to put the brakes on!<br />In a nutshell, the age-old enemies of human survival have been largely defeated, one after another.<br />He says:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The proof of this is recognized when one looks at the statistics of human population. Human life emerged on this planet, according to the best estimates of anthropologists, between one and two million years ago.</span> [This is me here, not Spong... cutting in to say that I am fully aware that biblical literalists reading that statement would already be giving birth to a sacred cow over it, but I would remind them that it is ignorance we are trying to expel here, not cattle! Back to Spong now...] <span style="font-weight: bold;">Yet it took from that point of origin until 1750 CE </span>[Common Era, same as saying, AD, except more religiously correct to say CE] <span style="font-weight: bold;">for the number of human beings to top one billion. It then took only about one hundred and eighty years for the human population to reach the two billion number plateau, which demographers believe was achieved around the year 1930 CE. It then took only forty years until 1970 to add the third billion. Since then, in the thirty-plus years between 1970 and the present, the world’s population has doubled to approximately six billion people. Even now, when the rate of growth has finally begun to slow, the actual expansion of human beings has not.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Current estimates are that before the twenty-first century fades into history, the human population will reach a figure somewhere between nine and ten billion people. There are still some who do not see this as an impending disaster.</span><br />-- from page 36-37. <span style="font-style: italic;">The Sins of Scripture</span>, John Shelby Spong, 2005 –<br /><br />Spong is not telling people here that there is something wrong with their desire to have children, nor is he implying that people ought to quit having children, or feel guilty that they are contributing to the end of the world because they are impreg<span style="font-style: italic;">nated</span> or are impreg<span style="font-style: italic;">nating.</span> He is merely pointing out that at one time, the biblical injunction presented in Genesis was necessary to enable the human race to survive.<br />Those days are over. How long are we going to <span style="font-style: italic;">continue being fruitful?</span><br />Till there is standing room only?<br />Millions of people around the world are still interpreting this particular scripture as though it were a present-day command to avoid methods of contraception, and I believe that this is very much a distortion of its original context and intention.<br />I agree with Spong when he says:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Now it</span> [Gen.1:28] <span style="font-weight: bold;">must be seen as as nothing less than a prescription for human genocide. Once it was accepted as the “Word of God.” Now it must be viewed as a terrible and life-threatening text.<br /><br /></span>If followed literally and applied worldwide this biblical verse would guarantee our annihilation. Therefore we need to be careful of what we mean when we declare that it is the “Word of the Lord.”</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">************</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1162098054510620352006-10-28T22:55:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:16.111-06:00Wise Words<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/Searching.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/Searching.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The true value of a man is not determined by his possession, supposed or real, of the truth, but rather by his sincere exertion to get to the truth. It is not possession of truth but rather the pursuit of truth by which he extends his powers and in which his ever growing perfectibility is to be found. Possession makes one passive, indolent, and proud. If God were to hold all truth concealed in his right hand and in his left hand only the steady and diligent drive for truth, albeit with the proviso that I will always and forever error in the process, and to offer me the choice, I will in all humility take the left hand and say, “Father, I will take this. The pure truth is for you alone.”</span><br />-- <span style="font-style: italic;">Gotthold Lessing</span> (1729-1781) -- </span>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1160255737176526562006-10-07T15:03:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:16.009-06:00The God Delusion<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/dawkins.0.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/dawkins.0.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >So far, two friends of mine [I only <span style="font-style: italic;">have</span> four, so this constitutes a full 50% of my entire social network…] have asked me, on separate occassions, about the shiny new Richard Dawkins book, <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The God Delusion</span>.<br />Basically, I’ve been asked, “Should we, [the Believers in Exile], read this thing?”<br />And both times my answer has been, <span style="font-style: italic;">“I have no idea.”</span><br />I’ve never read anything by Richard Dawkins, and I know next to nothing of him. There are so many authors writing nowadays about the ideological war between Science and Religion that it is impossible for me to keep up to what is being set out on the bookstore shelves.<br />However, I am at a bookstore right now, as I write this. So I am taking a look at the book.<br />It is very shiny. Wonderfully matches my Mac Powerbook G4!<br /><br />Just leafing through the thing, and reading here and there, I guess I will take the jacket blurb’s description of Dawkins at face value. It claims that he is <span style="font-weight: bold;">“the world’s most prominent atheist.”</span><br />And a scientist. This book seems to be quite forcefully arguing that a belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. Dawkins argues for the abolition of religion as the only hope for the healthy maintenance of mankind. In the preface, we read, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no Gunpowder Plot…” etc.</span><br />As readers of this blog will know, I am no stranger to this argument, because it is similar to the writings and ideas of Sam Harris, an author I have come to greatly appreciate. I think it must be admitted by all rational-thinking people that religious zeal can cause a multitude of “sins.” At one point, Dawkins even quotes Blaise Pascal [yes, he of the wager] as saying, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”</span><br />Yes, yes, assuredly, and verily verily…. yes.<br />So I am paging through the book, browsing, as it were.<br /><br />Then, a neat thing happened as I walked over to the Starbucks section of the store, to get another coffee. I glanced down at a table where someone had left a copy of <span style="font-style: italic;">New Scientist</span>, the magazine. Picking it up, I opened directly to a review of <span style="font-style: italic;">The God Delusion</span>, written by moral philosopher and author, Mary Midgley.<br />Fascinating stuff.<br />The general tone is a bit critical [of Dawkins] and I will get to that part, soon.<br />But first, Midgley points out that in the three evilist [← my word] regimes of the 20th Century [Nazi Germany, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Stalinist Russia], the removal of religion had not helped at all. She says, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“The roots of great crimes plainly lie far deeper than the doctrines people use to justify them.”</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> I keep reading…. walk back to my own table with a new coffee, and this magazine….</span><br /><br />I will greatly summarize here by saying that she…. hmmm, how can I say it…. she points out that Dawkins has a very difficult time with the type of “believer” who may say they do not care much for the doctrine of the Trinity or the historical truth of the gospels. ← I myself am this type of mysterious quasi-believer, so my antennae go up here…! Dawkins declares flatly that people like me [who would say the above, and much more] cannot possibly mean what they say. We cannot be “believers”. As scientists, we must be atheists. Midgley says, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“It seems not to have struck Dawkins that academic science is only a small, specialised, dependent part of what anybody knows.”</span><br />Aha!<br />See, she goes on to point out that when we use the term “fundamentalist” to describe the sold-out, nutso-believer/fanatic out there, we ought to realize that there is also another type of “fundamentalist” running amok! This would be the atheistic “fundamentalist.” [By the way, Midgley does not use this terminology, I am wildly paraphrasing at this point, utilizing a combination of rabid eisegesis and possibly illegal bloggistic license!]<br />In other words, we [including Dawkins himself] can err just as badly on the <span style="font-style: italic;">opposite</span> end of whatever spectrum we are dealing with here.<br />The spectrum of “belief ← → non-belief” I will call it.<br />And to elucidate her reasons for saying this, please allow me to quote directly from the latter part of her review itself. It is, in my opinion, such good stuff that it merits regurgitation in its fullness, here:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> “Most human knowledge is tacit knowledge – habitual assumptions, constantly updated and checked by experience, but far too general and informal ever to be fully tested. We assume, for instance, that nature will go on being regular, that other people are conscious and that their testimony can generally be trusted. Without such assumptions neither science nor any other study could ever get off the ground, and nor could everyday life.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> When we build on these foundations we necessarily use imaginative structures – powerful ideas which can be called myths, which are not lies, but graphic thought-patterns that shape and guide our thinking. This is not irrational: the process of using these structures is a necessary preparation for reasoning. Thus the selfish gene is a powerful idea, so are the Science-Religion war, Gaia, natural selection, progress, and the hidden hand of the market.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> With the largest, most puzzling questions, we have no choice but to proceed in mythical language which cannot be explained in detail at all, but which serves to indicate what sort of spiritual universe we percieve ourselves to be living in. This is the province of religion. Adding God is not, as Dawkins thinks, adding an illicit extra item to the cosmos, it is perceiving the whole thing differently.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> For a long time, this kind of language was reasonably well understood. Since the mid-19th century, however, there has been a disastrous attempt to get rid of it, keeping only literal statements of fact. This is, of course, the root of religious fundamentalism, which tries, absurdly, to treat the whole of that strange compilation, the Bible, as literal fact. Yet in so doing it is only responding to a less obvious fundamentalism on the scientistic side, which claims that our knowledge reduces to one fundamental form – the literal statements of science. Both extremes show a similarly crass refusal to admit the complexity of life.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Dawkins is, of course, quite right to express horror at Biblical fundamentalism, especially in the neocon form that centres on the book of Revelation. But it is not possible to attack this target properly while also conducting a wider, cluster-bomb onslaught on everything that can be called religion. Since this particular bad form of religion is spreading rapidly in the world, we urgently need to understand it: not just to denounce it but to grasp much better than we do now why people find it attractive. It is not enough to say, as Dawkins does, that they are being childish.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> We also need to ask why they have found the other attitudes that are open to them inadequate. As I have suggested, this means becoming more aware of the inadequacies of our own way of life, which are obvious to them and which put them off the opinions that we profess. What we need, in fact, is a bit more self-knowledge.” </span>**<br /><br />Amen to that!<br /><br />Having said all this, and having read all of this… does it make me, as a reader, want to read the Dawkins book MORE, or LESS?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> → MORE!</span><br />Like a cat, I am drawn to shiny things.<br /><br />** From <span style="font-style: italic;">Imagine There’s No Heaven</span>, by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,421561,00.html">Mary Midgley</a>. -- A review of Richard Dawkins, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004/sr=8-1/qid=1160254175/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4022206-7092852?ie=UTF8&s=books"><span style="font-style: italic;">The God Delusion</span></a>. <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns"><span style="font-style: italic;">New Scientist Magazine</span></a>, Oct.7-13, 2006. pp.50-51.</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">**********</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1160101366658259572006-10-05T20:11:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:15.890-06:00On Certainty<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/oneway1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/oneway1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >“Of coffee I am <span style="font-style: italic;">certain</span>. Of <span style="font-style: italic;">tea</span>? Not so.”<br /> -- <span style="font-style: italic;">Cipriano</span> –<br /><br /> Been thinking about certainty, as of late. The reasons are many, but they would include a “certain” confluence of ideas being bandied about by fellow bloggers, along with the haunting relevance of a statement made in the first chapter of the book I am currently reading.<br /> The book is John Shelby Spong’s (1996), <span style="font-style: italic;">Liberating The Gospels: Reading The Bible With Jewish Eyes.</span><br />In setting out his objectives for the book, Spong states, on page 20-21, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“…I offer you something that I have come to believe is better than the religious security system of the past. I offer the exhilarating insecurity of a journey without boundaries or goals. I offer the radical nature of honesty and the intense humanity that is found in seeking truth freely apart from the authoritative pronouncements of yesterday.”</span><br /> Wow.<br />When I read that, I was reminded of why I like his books and his ideas.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"> “The exhilarating insecurity of a journey without boundaries or goals.”</span><br /> That is exactly the kind of journey I want to be on [and believe that I <span style="font-style: italic;">am</span> on] in my process of never-ending idea displacement.<br /> By “idea displacement” I mean that [in the formation of one’s spiritual map or ideological structure] <span style="font-weight: bold;">one never arrives at a place where the journey is over.</span> One never closes up shop and believes that they are “done lookin’!”<br /> Along with this, [and it is evident in what Spong is suggesting, above] one does not attach oneself to a limiting ideology [“religious security system”] that will restrict the reception and/or rejection of ideas that are either surfacing or becoming obsolete. And in all of this, it must be emphasized that we are, at all times, talking about the <span style="font-weight: bold;">individual</span>. True spiritual enlightenment has nothing to do with groupspeak. Neither has it anything to do with the maintenance of harmony within the phalanx. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Idea displacement [and subsequent spiritual enlightenment] only occurs in the individual.</span><br /> Whether we are aware of it or not, idea displacement is the most individual act any of us perform, or <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span>.<br /> Simply put, it is <span style="font-style: italic;">an attitude of willingness</span>, whereby less tenable ideas are exchanged for better ones.<br /><br /> Anything less, is certainty.<br /><br /> And what <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> certainty?<br /> Well, I like the way Ambrose Bierce defines it, way back in the 1800’s, in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Devil’s Dictionary</span>. → <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Mistaken at the top of one’s voice.”</span><br /> Exactly.<br /> And who can deny the truth contained in this following statement, spoken by Bertrand Russell: <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.”</span><br /> Now I turn to my fellow bloggers, who are acknowledging similar things, to prove that it is not only geniuses like the above-mentioned notables, but also just everyday absolute yahoos like myself and these other guys here, that are catching a whiff of the stench of certainty, and choosing to turn toward the fresher air of knowing that there is some junk we just can’t know.<br /> Like the following statement, found on the most recent [excellent] blog from a place called <a href="http://prospectinggod.blogspot.com/2006/09/jesusmy-god-man.html">Prospecting God</a>. The “prospector” said:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> “One of the things that is clearer to me today than ever before is that too much certainty can be misleading.”</span><br /> And I love the way he said the following:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> “I like the analogy of masks – God can be seen through different masks, one of which is Jesus. For Christians, the decisive mask for us is Jesus. He is our decisive revelation of God. And note that this does not require affirming that Jesus is the only adequate revelation of God. But Jesus shows us, as Christians, what a life full of God is like, and is our ultimate sacrament of God. Through Jesus, we see the heart of God.”</span><br /> A reader may disagree with the personal <span style="font-style: italic;">conclusion</span> of the author, but it is virtually impossible to criticize the <span style="font-style: italic;">WAY IN WHICH IT IS SAID!</span><br /> This is the author’s [the individual’s] current journey.<br /> And because he is not shoving his opinions down the throat of anyone else, nor claiming that anyone else need to accept them, it would be the <span style="font-style: italic;">critic</span> that errs on the side of certainty, if he/she dismissed this author’s opinion as being invalid!<br /><br /> Here is something from <a href="http://ageofreasoncafe.blogspot.com/2006/10/certainty.html">The Age of Reason Café</a>:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> “I was thinking more about certainty over the past 24 hrs. One point I would like to make is that I believe that certainty goes hand-in-hand with credibility. Those who say they are certain about their religion or belief system have no credibility when you think about it.”</span><br /> Yes….. “when you <span style="font-style: italic;">think</span> about it.”<br /> That is the problem though. So many people are simply not “thinking about it.”<br /> So I am encouraged by my fellow bloggers.<br /> They are doing it.<br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">Thinking</span> about it.<br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">***********</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1157923128065764102006-09-10T15:09:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:15.799-06:00The New Intellectual<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/ayn-rand-2.0.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/ayn-rand-2.0.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:85%;" >I don't know all that much about Ayn Rand, but I do know this. I like what she is saying here, in this very brief videoclip, where she defines her term, "the new intellectual."<br />Hopefully, this link will work for you -- <a href="http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer?docID=342">Click here</a>!<br />For so long now I have had her novels piled up around me. I regret that I have not yet gotten around to reading her.<br />For more Any Rand info -- <a href="http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_aynrand_biography">Click here</a>!</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">*******</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1157516638124184912006-09-05T22:16:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:15.668-06:00New Harris Book<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/harris.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/harris.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:85%;" >Here’s a new book [coming out this month] that I will definitely be interested in acquiring and thoroughly reading. Sam Harris’s first book, <a href="http://godpuddle.blogspot.com/2006/03/matters-of-ultimate-concern.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">The End of Faith</span></a> was nothing short of fabulous.<br /> This new one is called <span style="font-style: italic;">Letter To A Christian Nation</span>, and here is how it begins:<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Thousands of people have written to tell me that I am wrong not to believe in God. The most hostile of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally imagine that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While we may want to ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that such hatred draws considerable support from the Bible. How do I know this? The most disturbed of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.”</span><br /><br />Cold Molasses, Rantandroar, Sanyavich... should I order three extra copies and have us <span style="font-style: italic;">gang</span>-read it?</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">*********</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1155342839558720782006-08-11T18:11:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:15.516-06:00Arbitrariness!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/graham.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/320/graham.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >The latest issue of Newsweek magazine features legendary evangelist Billy Graham, as their exclusive cover story.<br /> The subject line reads, <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Billy Graham: In Twilight. His New Thinking on Politics, The Bible & The Prospect of Death.</span><br /> So I picked the thing up, and read the article.<br /> I must admit that I have always liked Billy Graham, and still do. I even attended one of his gi-normously stadium-packed meetings, a number of years ago.<br /> Of all of the famous television evangelists out there, he has always seemed to me to be the least “nutty” of them all. Down-to-earth [so to say], respectable, trustworthy, sincere, calm. ← These are all words I would use to describe Billy Graham.<br /> However, the great majority of <span style="font-style: italic;">other</span> television preachers conjure an entirely opposite grouping of adjectives in my mind. Words like → shyster, crazy, greedy, prejudiced, ignorant, and severely unintelligent, would top the listing.<br /> Sad, but true.<br /><br /> Billy Graham, ordained in 1939, has preached the Gospel to more human beings than anyone in history. He is now 87 years old. Earlier this summer, upon awaking in the night, Graham tried to recite the 23rd Psalm, and found that he lost his train of thought after the very first line, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want…”</span> Speaking of it later, he said, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“I missed a sequence, and that disturbed me.”</span><br /> Clearly, the years, the decades of ceaseless traveling, are taking their toll. He has undergone several brain operations and must rely upon shunts to fight hydrocephalus. He has had a broken hip and a broken pelvis, and is now suffering from prostate cancer.<br /> I will not recount all that this article covered here, but I do recommend it to anyone interested in the current state of Mr. Graham.<br />[In fact, the article is available, <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14204483/">here</a>]!<br /> However, I read the piece because the subtitle seemed to promise a bit of a glimpse into some specific theological areas where Mr. Graham may have somewhat changed his perspective [his viewpoint or conclusions] over the years.<br /> That is to say, what interested me <span style="font-style: italic;">most</span> in the cover headline was the mention of His New Thinking on…. → <span style="font-weight: bold;">The Bible.</span><br /><br /> Here are a few pertinent extracts [quotes].<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">“There are many things that I don’t understand. Sincere Christians can disagree about the details of Scripture and theology – absolutely.”</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />“I’m not a literalist [about the Bible] in that every jot and tittle is from the Lord. This is a little difference in my thinking through the years.”</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />“It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be [in heaven] and who won’t… I don’t want to speculate on all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have.”</span><br /><br /> To me, these are very significant statements, [the last one, especially so] and reflect a more rational, mature approach to Scripture than is often represented by fundamentalist types that are too often ranting on our airwaves… be it on television, radio, or in person!<br />I am speculating here, but Graham’s second statement seems to suggest that an earlier [younger] Graham would have been more hard-line on the 100% 24-hour-a-day literal interpretation of Scripture.<br /><br /> The article is clear to point out that in no way do these above concessions imply that Mr. Graham is questioning the fundamentals of his faith.<br /> Jon Meacham [the author of the article] states that Graham <span style="font-weight: bold;">“is not saying that Jesus is just another lifestyle choice, nor is he backtracking on essentials such as the Incarnation or the Atonement. But he is arguing that the Bible is open to interpretation, and fair-minded Christians may disagree or come to different conclusions about specific points. Like Saint Paul, he believes human beings on this side of paradise can grasp only so much. ‘Now we see but a poor reflection in a mirror,’ Paul wrote, ‘then we shall see face to face.’ <span style="font-style: italic;">Then</span> believers shall see: not now, but <span style="font-style: italic;">then</span>.” </span><br /> I would point out that even this latter statement, however, [this reference to the original verse found in 1 Corinthians 13:12 and the subsequent <span style="font-style: italic;">interpretation</span> one attaches to it], is, in itself, the result of a literal rendering of the figurative illustration originally presented. [ie., images in a mirror].<br />In other words, it becomes a literal expectation of a future event, that “event” being the believer’s future state of near-omniscience!<br /> And so it is that I am reminded of the <span style="font-weight: bold;">arbitrariness</span> with which we [all of us] approach our understanding of Scripture and/or sacred texts.<br /><br /> For instance, Billy Graham accepts [in the article] that the exact meaning of the word “day” in the creation account of Genesis is figurative. Yet, on the other hand, he believes that Jonah was swallowed by an actual whale.<br /> With all due respect, the decision to <span style="font-style: italic;">NOT</span> see the story of Jonah as equally symbolic or metaphorical seems arbitrary, to me.<br /><br /> In a similar example, one may [choose to] believe that the creation account does not refer to a literal Adam and Eve [ie., to the idea of the procreation of the entire human race as being generated from these two prototypical people]… and yet believe that the account of Jesus walking on the water refers to an actual literal space-time historical event!<br /> But what would one be <span style="font-style: italic;">basing</span> this [seemingly, to me] arbitrary distinction upon?<br />Mere preference? Some sort of inner acceptance valve?<br /> Of course, some things [even etymologically so] are more obviously figurative than others. For instance, when the Gospel writers have Jesus claim that he is “the bread of life”, they do not mean to imply that at some point in actual history, Jesus thought that he was an actual [literal] loaf of bread.<br /> It is <span style="font-style: italic;">symbolic</span>.<br /> But that’s just it. That’s my point. What is symbolic [metaphorical] and what isn’t?<br /><br /> I am not meaning to criticise Billy Graham’s insistence upon believing that Jonah was swallowed by a real large fish… but what I am emphasizing is that even after nearly a CENTURY of his study of the Bible, there is no consistent way of PROVING [once and for all] the difference between literal and figurative.<br /> How do I know this?<br /> → → I know it by simply acknowledging that there are theologians who have written BOOKS in the defense of the argument that the “days” in the creation account of Genesis are referring to <span style="font-style: italic;">LITERAL</span> 24-hour long DAYS!<br /> In other words, they would argue that Billy Graham….. <span style="font-style: italic;">BILLY GRAHAM</span>…. the man who has spoken <span style="font-style: italic;">about</span> the Bible to more people than anyone else in history…. is WRONG on this particular point!<br /> Isn’t that mind-boggling?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Arbitrariness!</span><br /><br /> Anyone who thinks I am dissing Mr. Graham here, is missing my point, and missing it entirely!<br />I have nothing but respect and admiration for the man.<br /><br /> By the way, he faltered a bit with the 23rd Psalm, but, according to the article, in the end, the last line <span style="font-style: italic;">did</span> come back to him…<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Surely thy loving-kindness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.”</span><br /><br /> And thus relieved, he drifted back to sleep.</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">*********</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1154135348734794142006-07-28T19:02:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:15.383-06:00Wise Words<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/parking_meter.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/parking_meter.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;"><strong>"If a god showed up every time you put a quarter in the prayer slot it wouldn't be God, it would be a puppet that you could control by doing that...that would make the deity subservient to you. So it wouldn't be a deity would it?"</strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">-- <em>Margaret Atwood</em> --</span>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1153719446509092772006-07-23T23:30:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:15.230-06:00Wise Words<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/borg.0.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/borg.0.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ideas matter much more than we commonly think they do - especially our world-views and values, namely our ideas about what is real and how we are to live. We receive such ideas from our culture as we grow up, and unless we examine them, we will not be free persons, but will to a large extent live out the agenda of our socialization.</span><br />-- <span style="font-style: italic;">Marcus J. Borg</span> -- </span>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1153375528857615282006-07-19T23:38:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:15.117-06:00Cause for concern?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/coulter.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/coulter.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:85%;" >I know that I run the risk of being dismissed by 97.34% of any readers of this blog, for placing the following link on this page.<br />I run the risk of being labelled a non-thinking, no-mind, conservative.<br />Anyone who knows me, would literally LAUGH out loud at anyone calling me a "conservative" though.<br />But, they would also [at the same time] have a real difficult time pinning <span style="font-style: italic;">ANY</span> sort of downright descriptive and applicable <span style="font-style: italic;">label</span> upon me, and that is because [in my opinion] I maintain a rather thoroughgoing disinterested stance toward things religious and/or political.<br />I am not partisan, about much.<br />It is maybe the only thing I am proud about, about myself.<br />As far as I am concerned, if something makes sense and is true, I don't care what the hell ideological stripe or political party has <span style="font-style: italic;">discovered</span> that it is true.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">It ought to be rightfully </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">DECLARED</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> as true.</span><br />In my opinion, a good 50% of our over-spending in the political realm is due to our not being able to admit [because of partisan policy commitments] that the other guy has a pretty good idea, when it comes down to it! In fact, he's pretty much doing what we would [or should] do, except that we are paid to argue <span style="font-style: italic;">against</span> him!<br /><br />All of this, to say that I think there is a danger of profound absurdity emerging into the realm of terrorist-logic, as of late.<br />Or "terrorist-speak" as it were. [Or <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span>].<br />We are so fearful of saying <span style="font-weight: bold;">ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS,</span> that we are in danger of not realizing that very <span style="font-style: italic;">nearly</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS!</span><br />There is a tremendous <span style="font-style: italic;">difference</span> in these terms, OK?<br />The former [capitalized] phrase has no truth to it whatsoever.<br />But, the <span style="font-weight: bold;">latter</span> statement has a <span style="font-style: italic;">tremendous</span> amount of truth to it. And we need to take a damn hard look at this truth.<br />Muslims, and non-Muslims alike, need to look at it, if we all [together, as human-beings sharing a planet] want to to continue <span style="font-style: italic;">living</span> while <span style="font-style: italic;">alive</span>, on this planet.<br /><br />Ann Coulter, [shown above] you can love her, and you can hate her.<br />Yeah. Yeah. Don't waste my time by telling me how that she is a long-legged, sexy, opinonated bitch, <span style="font-style: italic;">exploiting</span> the furthest realms of her blonde-haired, long-leggedness.<br />I already <span style="font-style: italic;">know</span> that part.<br />And the first portion of her speech can [admittedly] be seen as quite flippant and even uncalled-for.<br />The really <span style="font-style: italic;">important</span> thing though, to ask, as you listen to this blurb is..... <span style="font-weight: bold;">is what she is saying in the latter 3/4's of it, <span style="font-style: italic;">TRUE</span>?</span><br />If it <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> [and BTW, it is].... then is it a <span style="font-weight: bold;">cause for concern?</span><br />And my mind and my heart says that it <span style="font-style: italic;">is.</span><br />And that is why I post it, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkryhxuvtWc">here</a>.</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">********</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1151464207237578662006-06-27T21:08:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:14.939-06:00Wise Words<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/fromm2k.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/fromm2k.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">A scientific or a rationally valid statement means that the power of reason is applied to all the data of observation without any of them being suppressed or falsified for the sake of a desired result.</span><br />-- <span style="font-style: italic;">Erich Fromm</span> (1900-1980) –<br />-- excerpted from <span style="font-style: italic;">Man For Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics</span>, 1947. –</span>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1151113516464365102006-06-23T19:36:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:14.780-06:00Speaking Some Sense...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/flock.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/flock.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:85%;" >Readers of this blog will know that I have a profound respect for the writings [and opinions] of <a href="http://godpuddle.blogspot.com/2006/03/cant-please-everyone.html">John Shelby Spong</a>.<br />I subscribe to a weekly emailing from him. And you can too. I will provide a link, later.<br />He always has such good stuff to say, along the lines of non-stupid theology.<br />And this week’s mailing was no exception:<br /><br />John Ruddick from North Sydney, Australia writes:<br />"Is it possible that Jesus was inferring that some people were born gay in Matthew 19:12? It reads, <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">'For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some because they are born that way, others, because men made them that way and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.'"</span><br /><br />[The Bishop responds...]<br /><br />Dear John,<br /><br />It is very difficult for anyone living in 2006 to say what Jesus meant in the early years of the first century of this Common Era.<br />First, to the best of my knowledge, Jesus left no written records and there were no tape recorders to record his words for future use. Our best estimates are that the earthly life of Jesus was lived between 4 B.C.E. and 30 C.E. He spoke Aramaic.<br /><br />Matthew, who is the only gospel writer to record the text you cite, wrote between 80 and 90 C.E. or 50 to 60 years after the life of Jesus. He wrote in Greek not Aramaic. So, if Jesus actually spoke these words that Matthew attributes to him, someone had to remember them and pass them on by word of mouth for 50-60 years, translate them from Aramaic into Greek and finally to the English words that you quote. If that process can be navigated successfully and literally, we might begin to answer your question.<br /><br />The next thing we need to raise is the issue to which Matthew is speaking when he had Jesus utter these words. The truth is that some people are born gay and others are born straight. Some have powerful libidos and some weak. Some are male and some female. Some are born with an xxy gene and others with only xx or xy. Some are castrated by religious zeal. Some are rendered impotent by sickness and others by surgery.<br /><br />I find those who think that a particular text in the Bible addresses a specific issue today are operating out of a very superstitious view of the Bible. It is only when the weight of the Bible is employed in a particular human arena that I think it can be legitimately used. By this shall people know that you are my disciples, that you love one another. If you say that you love God and hate your neighbor, you are a liar. Love your neighbor as yourself. Welcome the stranger, care for the weak, embrace the outcast. Jesus is even made to state his purpose in the Fourth Gospel as "I have come that they might have life and have it more abundantly." These are some of the biblical texts that have cumulative power, that build a consensus and that counter the limited, mean-spirited prejudices that we human beings have used so often in the name of religion to violate the humanity of another child of God.<br /><br />I know you probably wanted a yes or no answer. Unfortunately, the Bible does not lend itself to that kind of response.<br /><br />-- <span style="font-style: italic;">John Shelby Spong</span><br /><br />Couldn't have said it better myself!<br />You can subscribe, <a href="http://secure.agoramedia.com/spong/index_spong2.asp?sc=1&promo=79151C46-3751-4055-9ADE-8F0967734A94&email=">here</a>.</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">************</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1149161490225659972006-06-01T05:29:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:14.429-06:00Wise Words<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/witman.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/witman.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">I will not make a poem nor the least part of a poem but has reference to the soul,</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Because having look’t at the objects of the universe, I find there is no one nor any particle of one but has reference to the soul.</span></span><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;"><br />-- <span style="font-style: italic;">Walt Whitman</span> (1819-1892) –</span>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1148868694405475432006-05-28T20:00:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:14.328-06:0022 Years [and a day!]<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" > I have only thought of it now, but yesterday was the anniversary of a significant event in my life. My spirit-versary, the anniversary of the evening when I “accepted Jesus into my heart as Lord and Savior!”<br /> Whoa! Whoa!<br /> <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">WHOA</span><span style="font-style: italic;">!</span><br /> Don’t change the channel folks!<br /> Let me explain!<br /> No… you have not all of a sudden been re-routed to Pat Robertson’s <span style="font-style: italic;">700-Club</span> or the nearest Benny Hinn charade-fest!<br /> I am being serious here though. On the evening of May 27th, 1984, I heard the Gospel message being preached and I bowed my head, raised my hand, and prayed the prayer. If you think that I am going to make light of that decision, well, I am not.<br /> But at the same time, I am going to take a look at it from the perspective of 22 years later. [Well, 22 years and one day!]<br /> For some readers, the term “accepting Jesus” is a term denoting nothing more than a bunch of religious chicanery, double-speak, or outright nonsense. For some others, there are no connotations that come to mind. The phrase is void of all meaning. For others, it may even constitute blasphemy. Typically though, there are few of us that have not heard the phrase “born-again Christian” at one time or another. You yourself either <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> one or know someone who claims to <span style="font-style: italic;">be</span> one, am I right?<br /> Well, inasmuch as no one has ever knocked on my door and asked me to hand over my membership card, I still am a born-again Christian myself.<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">But <span style="font-style: italic;">am</span> I? I mean,</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> really?</span><br /> Well, if I were put on the Hotseat [wherever this is]… if I were interviewed by the Orthodox Christian…. Interviewer-Guy… probably, fairly soon into it, a big buzzer would sound and the floor would open up underneath me!<br /> I would fail the standard quiz.<br /> Why?<br /> Because I have changed in my opinion [my assessment] of a lot of fundamental doctrinal points. [I’ve talked about this <a href="http://godpuddle.blogspot.com/2006/03/three-pillars.html">before</a>, on godpuddle, so I will not go on about it again].<br /><br /> To the steadfastly orthodox, [in any of the big-three Western religions, really] change [deviation] is not seen as some sort of umm… beneficial option.<br /> In other words, focusing on Christianity, when looking at what it typically MEANS to say “I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart as Lord and Savior” it may be best to begin with what it does <span style="font-style: italic;">NOT</span> mean.<br /> On the day that one becomes a “born-again Christian” one is NOT saying:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">“Today I begin an open-ended spiritual quest wherein I will be allowed to embrace all that resonates most soundly with my own inner being, and will encompass that which most fully enhances my evolving understanding of truth and harmony.”</span><br /> No.<br /> Quite the opposite is the case, in fact. [Again, what you are about to read is my own personal opinion, not an actual established creed].<br /> But typically, when one accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as one’s personal savior, what one is saying is:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> “Today I begin a boundaried spiritual journey that puts an end to any previous or future spiritual mystery, for Jesus Christ is now my Savior which is to say my All in All, and I shall seek to conform the questions found in my inner being to the answers provided in the Bible, to the exclusion of other spiritual truths that may be available elsewhere.”</span><br /><br /> Essentially, this is what being a born-again Christian is.<br /> Finding a big huge <span style="font-style: italic;">ANSWER</span>.<br /> Not asking a big huge <span style="font-style: italic;">QUESTION</span>.<br /><br /> The effect of such a decision can be profound, and radically life-changing, as was the case in my own life. This is why I do not belittle it, in any way. Finding big-huge answers can sometimes be the very thing one needs.<br /> And really, there is no religion that does not acknowledge “need" even if expressed as “desire” in its devotee, its adherent, its follower.<br /> Such a decision can contain within it, immense power. Mind-boggling power.<br /> Martyr-making power!<br /> It can be, as with other faith-based decisions one may make, something that only intensifies [grows, builds] as time goes on.<br /> Then again, it may wane.<br /> It may waver, undulate. For most people it most certainly does this.<br /> With time, it may fall away altogether.<br /> With others, it may mutate. Change.<br /><br /> This is what it has done, with me. This last thing.<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">It has changed.</span><br /><br /> I wonder sometimes if the catalyst for change [religious change] isn’t plain old insatiable inquisitiveness. The return of the questioning aspect.<br /> Curiosity.<br /> What I am wondering, nowadays, is how it is that some people can live the next 100 years of their life, never asking another single question regarding their initial faith-experience. I’m not saying that there is something inherently <span style="font-style: italic;">wrong</span> about living this way.<br />I am just wondering how it happens.<br /> I am just saying that any faith… any religion that requires us to quit asking questions…. and I mean <span style="font-style: italic;">ANY</span> questions… that religion cannot be my religion.<br /><br /> So…. cut to the chase…. WHAT AM I nowadays, 22 years later?<br /> Am I a person denying my initial faith experience?<br /> Not at all.<br /> Faith-wise, I do not regret a moment of the last 22 years. All of it is a harmonious part of who I am today.<br /> Am I still a born-again Christian?<br /> My answer to that would be….. <span style="font-style: italic;">WHO CARES?</span><br /><br /> What I am most concerned about nowadays is whether my inner being is at odds with my outer being.<br /> Do I believe what I believe because I believe it, or because I am <span style="font-style: italic;">supposed to</span> believe it? [This is merely another way of asking if what I believe about spirituality and “God” is congruent with the most honest and deepest levels of my inner being.]<br /> This is what I see now, as being of utmost importance.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Someone</span>: <span style="font-weight: bold;">“My friend, you could be very content in your <span style="font-style: italic;">inner being</span> and be totally wrong about your overall <span style="font-style: italic;">spiritual state</span>.”</span><br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">Me</span>: <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Perhaps, but that’s for <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span> to worry about. Not you.”</span><br /><br /> Back then, 22 years-and-a-day ago, the most important word for me was “salvation.”<br /> Nowadays, [and I am not exaggerating] I think it should be a non-word.<br /> Why?<br /> Because I can’t know who is saved [even if it’s me] without also knowing who isn’t.</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">*************</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1148825610136107452006-05-28T07:51:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:14.185-06:00A Clear-Thinking Gen-X'er!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/ladonna.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/ladonna.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:85%;" >I am still recovering this morning from a day of being radically sunburned, chopping wood for a friend. And with friends. It was fun, but exhausting.<br />I came back home only to fall down onto my bed like a split log.<br />This morning I happened upon a really neat clip of a girl by the name of LaDonna Witmer, [shown here] speaking her mind on matters religious... and identity in general.<br />It was my Sunday church service.<br />I hope you like it, too. [<a href="http://www.lifecentre.org/am/audio/AM_338.mov">Click</a>]</span>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1148610488064748772006-05-25T20:24:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:14.107-06:00Wise Words<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/Carl%20Sagan.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/Carl%20Sagan.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. </span><br /> -- <span style="font-style: italic;">Carl Sagan</span> –</span>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1148273774322672062006-05-21T22:48:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:13.992-06:00The Heaven Club<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/grace%3Awill.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/grace%3Awill.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">Note: The following blog was previously posted on the Award-Winning blogsite called <a href="http://bookpuddle.blogspot.com/2006/02/heaven-club.html">Bookpuddle©</a>.</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >The Heaven Club! </span><br /></div><span style="font-size:85%;">One of the things I love most about weekends is that I can sleep in like crazy. Like a tranquilized rhino, on Saturdays and Sundays I just stay in bed until I totally don’t want to.<br /> Then, when I finally do get out of bed, I flick on the TV and there will be back-to-back re-run episodes of one of my favorite shows of all time.<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Will & Grace.</span><br /> Few sitcoms make me actually laugh out loud. <span style="font-style: italic;">Will & Grace </span>is one of them.<br /> I just think that the premise of the show is so good, the writing is so witty, and the actors are so fabulous.<br /> This morning…. well, early afternoon, I just roared! [Like a rhino].<br /><br /> Scene: Jack and Grace were in the kitchen where Grace was preparing supper for Will and Karen, who would soon be returning from a gruelling day of legal work.<br /> Jack is so impressed with Grace’s preparations.<br /> He turns to her and says, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“You know Grace. You’re so nice. If you weren’t Jewish, you’d go to heaven.”</span><br /> During the live audience’s uproar of laughter [and mine too], Grace quits stirring the bowl of whatever-it-is. And then, perfectly timed, she says, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Thanks Jack. And if you weren’t gay, you’d go there too!”</span><br /> LOUDER laughter, as Jack nods and has that “touche” look on his face.<br /><br /> Why does that scene so work?<br /> Why is it so funny?<br /> <br /> Well, I think that it is so hilarious because it plays right into the absurdity of the notion that we can KNOW [or <span style="font-style: italic;">think</span> that we know] who it is that will or will not go to heaven!<br /> When all the while we simply cannot possibly know such a thing!<br /> Believe me when I say that I know there are people… zillions of them in fact, who think that they DO know exactly the groundrules for membership in The Heaven Club.<br /> In other words, they know that if a person does not hold to a particular precise belief system, this fact alone guarantees that the Gate will be shut to them, later on.<br /> I would not at all dispute that we can BELIEVE this.<br /> But I would totally argue that we can not KNOW this.<br /> I would tend to say that we cannot even possibly know this for ourselves, much less apply it to the future disposition of other people.<br /> And you know what is funny?<br /> There are people who, hearing me say the above, would conclude that such a personal statement ensures that I myself will not make it in!<br /> Because surety is Rule #1.<br /> And that statement hacks it to shreds.</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">***********</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1147865693074197152006-05-17T05:33:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:13.881-06:00Wise Words<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/stone.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/stone.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />God can do anything. Except change Himself into a rock with no powers, then change Himself back again, because then He would never have been a real rock.</span><br />-- 8-year old Madeleine McCarthy, in Ann-Marie MacDonald’s <span style="font-style: italic;">The Way The Crow Flies</span> --</span>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1147665387312004202006-05-14T21:41:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:13.796-06:00Meeting Manji<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/prov.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/prov.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >Today I finally purchased this one book I have been ogling and flipping through for a long while now.<br /> It’s called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312327005/sr=8-1/qid=1147663081/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5825465-7936142?%5Fencoding=UTF8">The Trouble With Islam Today</a>. Perhaps yesterday’s movie [see previous blog] inspired me to look into it a bit closer today. The book is incredible, and the author [shown here] fascinating as all get out.<br /><br /> Irshad Manji.<br /><br /> She’s been dubbed, <span style="font-style: italic;">“Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare.”</span> She takes that as a compliment.<br /> [I have a hunch that Monsieur Osama has a few nightmares worse than any involving Irshad Manji though…!]<br /> I am just amazed at how fearlessly outspoken Manji is! I am only partway into the book but it seems there is nothing about the Quran or Islam in general that is going to escape criticism of one kind or another. And she is so witty about it, while maintaining a deadly seriousness. One of the things that I find so interesting, is that Manji retains her faith. In other words, she is a Muslim…. but not in a conventional sense. No, she calls herself a Muslim Refusenik.<br /> She makes me think of me.<br /> I call myself a “Christian” still. Yet I am extremely critical of so many aspects of conventional Christianity. Perhaps I am a Christian Refusenik, and I know it not!<br /><br /> One thing, early on in the book, is very worthy of note.<br /> Manji answers the question implied in the title…. she says, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“The trouble with Islam today is…..”</span> [I pause… so that you all can say it with me, before even reading on…. <span style="font-style: italic;">come on now,</span> if you’ve been reading this blogpage for any time at all, you will <span style="font-style: italic;">know</span> what she is going to say………]<br /> Manji says that the trouble with Islam today is... <span style="font-weight: bold;">“that literalism is going mainstream, worldwide.”</span> [p.3].<br /> Literalism.<br /> There it is again. <span style="font-style: italic;">Literalism</span>.<br /><br /> If someone were to ask me what the biggest trouble with Christianity is today…. I would say the very same thing, for starters.<br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">Literalism</span>.<br /> It’s going mainstream, worldwide.<br /><br /> The <a href="http://godpuddle.blogspot.com/2006/04/uncomfortable-christian.html">Tom Harpur lecture</a> I attended recently was no different. When asked why he calls himself <span style="font-weight: bold;">“an uncomfortable Christian” </span>Harpur replied that it was because he is grieved about <span style="font-weight: bold;">“the large pond, or lake, or slough of literalism into which Christianity has fallen and cannot extricate itself from.” </span><br /> I so agree.<br /> [Interestingly, at this same lecture, Harpur directly referred to two authors who should be read in a far greater measure than they are currently being read. One was the iconic Harold Bloom. The other was Irshad Manji]!<br /><br /> In my own outlining of what I call <a href="http://godpuddle.blogspot.com/2006/03/three-pillars.html">The Three Pillars</a>, my first point is this very thing, concerning literalism.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1) The thoroughgoing literal interpretation of Scripture. That’s got to go.</span><br /><br />I am excited about this book.<br />The next chapter I am about to read is entitled “When Did We Stop Thinking?”<br />Hah!<br />I ask myself this question every day, and endeavor to make it apply to myself as little as possible!<br /><br />Meet Manji, <a href="http://www.muslim-refusenik.com">here</a>.</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">************</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1147579727447622852006-05-13T21:55:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:13.704-06:00United 93<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/united2442.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/united2442.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >I went to this movie today.<br /> How would I describe it? <br /> Probably the word “important” is the first word that would come to mind.<br />And important is an understatement. It’s a movie I think that everyone should see.<br /> I know that there are those who feel that <span style="font-style: italic;">United 93: The Movie </span>is a gross exploitation of a horrid event. A theatre-izing of something so tragic it should be left alone.<br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">Why</span> though?<br /> Is it because someone will make <span style="font-style: italic;">money</span> from the movie? Is that it?<br />Is that why we should leave it alone, and not try to put it on the screen?<br /> Or is it because it was about something in which real people were involved… in other words, because it is based upon an actual event so tragic that it is offensive to even think about what happened on Sept.11th, 2001? [It should be noted that the movie was made in the full support of the families of those onboard that fateful morning.]<br /> Is it [any objection to the very existence of the movie] based upon the idea that portraying it like this, on the big screen, cannot possibly relate what actually went on, and to do it in this almost docu-drama type fashion [falsely] implies that this is pretty much exactly what occurred? Hence, because of unavoidable innacuracy and possible misrepresentation, we should leave it alone?<br /> Would we say the same thing then, of Spielberg’s <span style="font-style: italic;">Schindler’s List</span>?<br /> No one got all upset about the possible inaccuracies of say, James Cameron’s <span style="font-style: italic;">Titanic</span>, even though the film is also based on a very real tragedy. Are these two examples irrelevant because they were not ever <span style="font-style: italic;">claiming</span> to be docu-drama? Is it because the events are so distant in time?<br /> Is Sept.11th still too fresh then, is that it?<br /><br /> Director Paul Greengrass does a tremendous job of taking us through the events of United Flight 93, dovetailing in real time the confusion ensuing as Air Traffic Controllers and Military Command Centers struggle to make sense of what is happening.<br /> To say “you are really there” would be wrong.<br /> Only the people that were there, were there.<br /> But I would say that I think it is about as close as we can get and still be alive afterwards.<br /> In the last portions of the movie I was crying.<br /> And then I was the last person to leave the theatre.<br /><br /> I have never in my lifetime heard such reverent silence, at the end of a movie.<br /><br /> I went to see United 93 based upon several outstanding reviews, along with reccomendations from a couple of friends. Plus, I will admit, I went to see the movie because of my own interest in trying to get within a million miles of grasping how or why something like this event happened in the first place.<br /> In this last sense, the movie did, I think, portray in an “important” way, the true nature [as I see it, and understand it] of why Sept.11th, 2001, happened.<br /> To some, this [what I am about to say] may seem like an insanely stupid oversimplification, but I am going to say it anyway.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> The catastrophic human events of Sept.11th, 2001 were a result of certain people being so certain of their religious beliefs that they felt entirely justified in destroying not only themselves, but other people as well.</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.flight93.net/index.php"> Click to see more</a>.</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;">*********<br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1147392613923703552006-05-11T18:06:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:13.593-06:00Wise Words<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/1600/Grahamg.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/1069/200/Grahamg.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Heresy is another word for freedom of thought.</span><br />-- <span style="font-style: italic;">Graham Greene</span> –</span>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1147142460263088822006-05-08T20:23:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:13.495-06:00Giftings Revisited: HUNCH vs. PUNCH!<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" > Regarding my Saturday blog entitled “Giftings” I received some great comments that I would like to sort of respond to.<br /> Anyone who is reading this current blog and has not read the previous one, I would encourage you to do so now.<br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >***********</span><br /></div><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" ><br /> In response to that blog posting, Cold Molasses [who happens to be a personal friend of mine… no less than one of the Ents, as it were…] said the following:<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">I struggle with your blog entry. Not because I don't share this belief. No, moreso because I struggle with the logic of it in the context of your other postings. Now, it doesn't need to be logical, so don't get me wrong. It's fine for you to believe whatever you believe. My challenge, though, is understanding the "hunch" factor. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Let me explain my curiousity. In other posts, you talk about God not being a hands-on God (if I can refer to it as that)...you know, not (usually at least) interfering in our lives directly. So I struggle with your premise that now God has directly impacted EACH of our lives in the MOST INTIMATE way...by defining for us what our gifting (or bliss) is...which will, to a large degree, influence our happiness and contentedness for all our lives.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Again, this is not a criticism but moreso raises a question I'd like to explore more with you. And that question is...what drives your "hunch" factor? What is the basis for the "hunch"? Is there a thought process you go through along with the "hunch" factor or is it solely a "hunch"?</span><br /><br /> He raises some really good issues.<br /> I will start with the last paragraph, and answer the questions.<br /> What drives my “hunch” factor, and secondly, what it is based upon, is mostly <span style="font-style: italic;">feelings</span>. I guess that is what I mean by using the word “hunch.” Also, it is why I prefaced my comments at the time with the proviso:<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> My belief that God “gifts” us, is a belief that I hold in faith.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> There is no tangible reason I should believe this.</span><br /> Really, I am being sincere, there is no tangible reason I should believe that God “gifts” us. A lot of my feelings on the subject are based upon my own acknowledgment of personal giftings, followed by the question that I ask myself, <span style="font-style: italic;">“Where do they come from?”</span><br /> If I go with the genetic answer, or even that of early childhood conditioning, I am always struck with how different I am [in my giftings and general temperament] when compared to any of my four siblings. When it comes to it, we all of us might as well be from different planets.<br />[I would venture to say that any parent with more than one kid can vouch for the fact that they often wonder if the Milkman really <span style="font-style: italic;">did</span> slip one past the goalie somehow! No?]<br /> Is there a thought process that I work through to come up with my “hunch” regarding giftings?<br /> Not really.<br /> Being totally honest here. It is [I admit] one of those things I am somewhat <span style="font-style: italic;">CHOOSING</span> to believe.<br /> In my blog, I went on to say, in a sort of hyperbolic way… <span style="font-weight: bold;">All of this blog, and not only this one, but all of the previous ones…..is a hunch!</span><br /> In a one-on-one conversation with my friend [the writer of the comments, the asker of the questions] he implied that if this is the case… if all of my blogs on godpuddle ultimately constitute sort of a “hunch”…. an “opinion” [if you will]… then this fact [or <span style="font-style: italic;">admission</span> maybe is the better word] sort of nullifies the PUNCH of what it is I am saying.<br />In other words I have violated a standard of consistency.<br /> I tend to disagree.<br /> The reason I disagree is because when we are discussing theology, really there is <span style="font-style: italic;">never</span> any point where a final conclusion is much more than a <span style="font-weight: bold;">hunch</span> or a deeply felt decision that is fraught with all mannner of subjectivity and personal opinion. What are we to say? “I base my beliefs on……. the <span style="font-style: italic;">Bible</span>?”<br /> Well…… is that not…. a <span style="font-style: italic;">HUNCH</span>?<br /> None of my previous blogs have been <span style="font-style: italic;">ex cathedra</span> statements about anything that could be construed as ULTIMATE TRUTH.<br /> Rather, what the blogs on godpuddle are intended to convey is an element of <span style="font-style: italic;">questioning</span> that is too often [in my opinion] lacking in most theological discussion.<br /> What I am saying here, in a roundabout way, is that <span style="font-weight: bold;">for me to posit anything as being objectively true [as true and applicable to you, dear reader, as it is to me] it is necessary for me to appeal to something beyond myself [as in God, or Scripture or the authority of the Church or its representatives]…. and this is something I will no longer do.</span><br /> I have done it, yes. But I will no longer do it.<br /><br /> And so, what I mean to say is that even in my former blog, entitled <span style="font-weight: bold;">“The Hand Of God” </span>where [yes] I am proposing that God does <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> directly intervene [interfere] with the affairs of our lives anywhere near to the extent that we attribute His involvement…. even my stating of such a thing is based upon a “hunch”. My <span style="font-style: italic;">feeling</span> about the issue at hand.<br /> It is then up to each reader to ask themselves how this [and not only that one, but <span style="font-style: italic;">all</span> of these blogs] measure up to their own “hunches” about things [theological principles].<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">In the end…. all we have are our <span style="font-style: italic;">hunches</span>.</span><br /> Anyone who declares something about God as being unequivocably TRUE, is in danger of SEVERE WRONGNESS.<br /> The answers are out of reach.<br /> But the questions are not!<br /><br /> This is why [in my blog] I qualify even my own statement about beileving <span style="font-style: italic;">IN</span> God, by making sure that readers understand that I am declaring Him to be, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“the indescribable, indefinable, ineffable, God.”</span><br /> Even in ascribing those three words to Him, I am declaring that I believe in Him, <span style="font-style: italic;">based</span> upon a “hunch.”<br /><br /> So, moving on to the topic of “interference”…. or, more specifically, my apparent contention that there is no incongruency involved in believing that God “gifts” us, yet does not seem to “intervene” in our lives.<br /> Firstly, I think this is a very valid issue to explore further. I see where the question is coming from. I admit, it does seem that I am either schizophrenic, or high on benzene!<br /> However, I would point to the analogous situation of my belief that God is the creator of the world, yet He seems to not interfere with our potential to destroy it.<br /> For instance, if I believe that God created the world [which I <span style="font-style: italic;">do,</span> based <span style="font-style: italic;">again</span>, upon a <span style="font-style: italic;">hunch</span> when it really comes down to it], does this mean that I [ipso facto] believe that He <span style="font-style: italic;">sustains</span> it?<br /> No.<br />Not in <span style="font-style: italic;">my</span> way of looking at it anyway.<br /> What I mean by this can be illustrated by the fact that my belief that God created the ozone layer around the earth does not necessarily mean that I believe He will <span style="font-style: italic;">protect it</span> from the fluorocarbons and carbon monoxide that are currently intent upon <span style="font-style: italic;">destroying it!</span><br /> No. I believe that He does not intervene, as such.<br /> I believe we could literally fry ourselves to death with UV rays because of our love of hairspray!<br /> Similarly though, if God “gifts” us, as human beings, with the gift of having propensities and abilities that not only make us unique but allow us the potential of living valuable and fulfilled lives… do I necessarily believe that He is “forcing us” [as another respondent said] to REALIZE these giftings?<br /> No.<br /> But the respondent [rantandroar] went on to suggest that if we, in fact, do not <span style="font-style: italic;">fulfill</span> these giftings, then this implies that God is deliberately <span style="font-weight: bold;">“frustrating” </span>our lives.<br /> I disagree again.<br />I do not see it that way. I would say that <span style="font-style: italic;">WE</span> are the ones who are frustrating our lives.<br />God gives… but His only other option is to <span style="font-style: italic;">NOT</span> GIVE. Which would be the better thing?<br /> If I give my nephew the bike he always wanted for his birthday, and, instead of riding it, he throws it off a cliff…. I think it is pretty much a waste of time to go on and on about the deficient intentions of the gift-giver.<br /> In my own life, I am profoundly aware that to the extent that I have not realized [actualized] my giftings it has always been an aspect of <span style="font-style: italic;">my own fear</span> or [I’ll say it]…. <span style="font-style: italic;">STUPIDITY</span> that has thwarted my degree of fulfillment.<br /> If I have not followed my bliss or been able to follow my bliss, the reason lies at my own doorstep.<br /> Never has it been God [granted, my <span style="font-style: italic;">conception</span> of God] who has tripped me or thrown something in my way. Again, even this is a personal opinion. [Hunch].<br />Someone else may feel that it is “God” that has kept them from realizing goals, but I will never believe that this person is travelling down any sort of Transcendent Highway I myself want to be on!<br /> Another respondent [who does not appear on these pages, does not write to my blog but writes to me personally] suggested that the reason I feel the way that I do about this issue has everything to do with <span style="font-weight: bold;">my own experience </span>in life, regarding “giftings.”<br /> With <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> I agree.<br /> I myself am a textbook case of unrealized potential.<br />A prototype of personal failure, in many ways.<br /> But I can honestly say that I am not bitter about it. I am saddened, but not bitter. Bitterness requires external projection. [What is known as “blame.’] You can only be bitter <span style="font-style: italic;">towards</span> something, while sadness is more inward.<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Sadness means I can be honest about something that is less than it ought to be, while remaining thankful and utterly grateful for what might have been, and what still could be.</span><br />And in this sense, external blame [or projected frustration… the fist shaken in some direction] is non-existent!<br /> And having said this, it is for all of us to come to terms with the way we “feel” in regard to our current levels of “life-fulfillment.”<br />The great psychologist Abraham Maslow would have called it “self-actualization.”<br />Joseph Campbell called it “following your bliss.”<br /> What I find difficult to deny is that <span style="font-style: italic;">every person is unique</span>, and has giftings that transcend our rational explanations as to <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> these giftings, these abilities, should exist as they do.<br /> To go back to the “creation” motif… I would say the same about my belief that God is the designer of the human body.<br />I believe He is.<br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">But</span>... not all people are healthy.<br />He does not <span style="font-style: italic;">intervene</span> as much as we would like to think He does. But [it is my "hunch"] that <span style="font-style: italic;">only God</span> can come up with the design of the body, even if He chooses to let evolution be His wheelbarrow.<br /> Thing is, if I smoke cigarettes and live on a diet of wieners and other foms of lard-cylinders, I am probably going to be gasping for air a lot sooner than the non-smoking vegan-jogger over yonder.<br /> And yet, that guy may keel over long before I do!<br />I may be around to toss my sixteen millionth cigarette butt into his grave and walk right on over to the nearest hot-dog vendor for a juicy bratwurst!<br />I find that there is often very little observable correlation between what OUGHT to happen to us, and what in fact, DOES happen to us! In this sense, what God intends for us may never, in fact, be realized. I have a hunch that the greater majority of people never experience it. Never live to their full potential. Never truly follow their bliss. And whether they do or not [in my opinion] has very little to do with God's direct up-to-the-minute intervention in their lives.<br /><br /> The questions that have been raised by not only these two readers regarding this blog, but other readers, regarding other blogs, are the very reason that I write what I do on this page.<br />*** May the above, this response of mine, never be construed as an ANSWER.***<br />But just some further hunching about my hunches. </span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">**********</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327987.post-1146982876159152232006-05-06T23:54:00.000-06:002006-11-11T00:42:13.392-06:00Giftings<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" > <span style="font-weight: bold;">“For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”</span><br /> -- <span style="font-style: italic;">Romans 11:29 </span>--<br /><br /> Wanna talk a bit about giftings.<br /> Is that OK?<br /><br /> The New International Version is a bit clearer than the old King James Version, above. The NIV says:<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">“For God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.”</span><br /><br /> First of all, I believe in the existence of God. A “god” that is separate from us human beings… in other words, not a figment of our imagination. Rather, this God is the reason that we <span style="font-style: italic;">HAVE</span> an imagination! Having said this, the God I believe in is yet <span style="font-style: italic;">subject</span> to our imaginations, and hence, diverse! This God does not declare Him or Herself unequivocably. The indescribable, indefinable, ineffable, God.<br /> Capital “G”.<br /> The god who deserves upper-case designation.<br /> Let me call him He.<br /> He <span style="font-style: italic;">gifts</span> each of us.<br /> He gives each of us special <span style="font-style: italic;">giftings</span>. Things that we are especially attuned to.<br /> Things that we can especially do. Things that we can especially perform or desire to perform. Things that we can understand in greater depth than someone else, whom He has gifted in some other area, where we are most likely deficient.<br /> GIFTINGS are the reasons we differ, as humans.<br /><br /> My belief that God “gifts” us, is a belief that I hold in faith.<br /> There is no tangible <span style="font-style: italic;">reason</span> I should believe this.<br /> Someone else may acknowledge that different people gravitate to certain abilities as a result of other reasons, even if those reasons have no ultimate god-like source. Even if those reasons are entirely random, conditioned, or the product of a healthy or inhealthy womb, as the case may be.<br /> And granted, an impregnated woman who drinks pure orange juice every morning is more likely to give birth to a “gifted” child, than one who drinks turpentine for breakfast.<br /> I acknowledge that fact, and I do not make light of either contingency.<br /> A mother who is “on crack” is less likely to push out an Einstein after baking the thing for nine months.<br /> Point taken.<br /> But, on the flipside of the coin…. there is no commensurate sort of corrollary principle to apply to those completely doltus-headed mothers who have birthed <span style="font-style: italic;">geniuses</span>! Sometimes “giftings” go far beyond progenitry.<br /> Children surprise us, time and again.<br /><br /> The reason I am even looking at this thing [this issue] at all, is because I have become intrigued by Joseph Campbell’s phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Follow thy bliss.”</span><br /> It is something he used to tell all of his students.<br /> “Follow thy bliss.”<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Follow</span> that which most moves you. Follow that which most excites you. Stirs you. <span style="font-style: italic;">DO</span> that which you are most suited for, <span style="font-style: italic;">FOLLOW</span> that which most makes your heart beat!<br /><br /> Let me back up, before I get too far afield.<br /> [Some of you may be already saying to yourself…. “Oh, this time, he does not have a clue what he is talking about.”]<br /> Let me assure you…. you are right!<br /> All of this blog, and not only this one, but all of the previous ones…..is a hunch!<br /> But I have a hunch that there is something within all of us that speaks most directly to the core of who we are. There is something for which we feel we are most suited, most <span style="font-style: italic;">equipped</span>.<br /> Because of diversions, roadblocks that get thrown in the way of our true heart’s desires, we get thrown off these paths, and thrust into occupations that so take us off of our true path, that we even <span style="font-style: italic;">forget</span> what we were meant to be.<br /> But the angst is there. We know we are missing something.<br /> God, if there is one at all, in your schema….. this God must be chagrined at your confusion. Yours and mine. He put you here for a purpose.<br /> I am not talking about being a missionary in Borneo, or being a nun, or being a priest, or being an evangelist….. <span style="font-weight: bold;">NO</span>.<br /> I am talking about being an actor, a plumber, a computer technician, a guitar-player, a sheet-metalist, a boiler-room operator, a songwriter, a graphic artist, a politician, a poet, a cab-driver, a surgeon, a dentist, a pilot, a veterinarian, a greeter at Wal-Mart, a teacher, an astronaut, a popcorn expert.<br /> In other words, there is no reason [I really believe there is no reason] why we need to assume that the giftings that God grants us are limited to some sort of <span style="font-style: italic;">God-ish</span> thing.<br /> God’s greatest desire [I believe] is that we are <span style="font-weight: bold;">fulfilled in our lives.</span> In that which occupies our greatest amount of time spent on earth. Our <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">vocation</span>.<br /> If we cannot find a way to “follow our bliss” in that which comprises the bulk of our time and energy [our jobs] I believe that we need to seek these areas out in the <span style="font-style: italic;">other</span> time we are given.<br /> For me, this [currently] means the other time of the day and night. The time when I am <span style="font-style: italic;">NOT</span> at work. That is sad….. but it is not <span style="font-style: italic;">TRAGIC</span>.<br /> It is not a death sentence!<br /> Many people are in a similar place.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> They spend the greater part of their active day in a place where they are not especially “gifted.”</span><br /> I am one of those people, so I know what it is like.<br /> For me, “following my bliss” would mean firstly, being a professional musician.<br /> Secondarily, a writer.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> But I am not professionally employed in either of these pursuits.</span><br /> Should I go kill myself, then?<br /> No, I should acknowledge the fact and then do what I can, within reason, to compensate for, or change it! To redeem the rest of my available time and energy.<br /> It is profoundly important though to be <span style="font-style: italic;">aware</span> of those realms in which we are most gifted, and to do the most with them as we can…. not so much to PLEASE <span style="font-style: italic;">GOD</span>, as to please <span style="font-style: italic;">OURSELVES</span>!<br /> And in this, I think we, in turn, please God!<br /> Why?<br /> Because these gifts COME FROM HIM. From God! This being said, He is <span style="font-style: italic;">ALREADY</span> pleased with us!<br /> Our acknowledging our giftings is going to please US, more than it pleases God.<br /> He is not jealous of this. This is His gift to us. Ourselves. We are our gift. He is the giver.<br /> If we cannot fulfill our giftings in our place of <span style="font-style: italic;">employment</span>, I believe it up to us [individually] to seek their fulfillment elsewhere.<br /> And to the extent that we succeed in doing this, we enjoy life.<br /> In turn, we are one with God. Harmonious.<br /><br /> When a NASA scientist launches a mission, is he [or she] doing what God has gifted them to do? Only they themself can answer that question. Maybe that person comes home afterwards, and feels <span style="font-style: italic;">more</span> fulfillled in writing a poem about the sunset that day. Only they themself know what is truer to their inner being. To their inner bliss.<br /> When Mick Jagger swings his hips on stage in front of 50,000 screaming fans, is he doing what God placed him on this earth to do? Only he [Mick Jagger] is able to answer that!<br /> When a cab-driver goes home at night after navigating a thousand streets, does he know that he did what God put him on this earth to do? To deliver ten drunk people home safely? Only he [the cab-driver] knows this.<br /> When a cable TV installer solves a crucial problem for a client, putting a TV where a TV was previously thought impossible….. is he or she doing what they were put on this earth to do?<br /> I don’t know.<br /> Only <span style="font-style: italic;">THEY</span> know!<br /> All I know is, I could not do it. I would have drilled holes in every wrong part of every wrong wall, till the entire house could drain spaghetti! So this other guy, the cable-guy is “gifted” in ways that I am not! It’s quite obvious.<br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> “Well, he did not get an ultimate fix out of it!” </span>says the Devils' Advocate.<br /> Well…. then [I believe] he is obligated to find out where his ultimate fix <span style="font-style: italic;">comes from</span>, and go there, after work…. because this is what God has called him to! This…. this thing, this other thing is why he is here, among us!<br /> Find it.<br /> Do it!<br /> It is thy bliss!<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Follow thy bliss!</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Any time we can look at someone else, and recognize something in them that goes beyond what we ourselves could do, we are recognizing God’s unique gifting in them.</span><br /> This means that when I am at a Sheryl Crow concert and I see her playing guitar in a way that I could never play it, and singing a song that I could never sing, and she wrote it in a way that I never could have written it… then, in all of these aspects of actuality, I should acknowledge <span style="font-weight: bold;">God’s</span> gifting in her.<br /><br /> I could say so much more, along these lines.<br /> But I won’t.<br /> Suffice it to say that what I believe the verse in Romans [above] is telling us [rather unequivocably] is that once God gives us these gifts, He does not take them back. <br /> He does not charge us for them for being overdue, in their non-usage.<br /> This is good news.<br /> I’ve got gifts.<br /> You’ve got gifts.<br /> They come from God, and God’s not interested in taking them back.<br /> He does not need them. <br /> So……. use them.<br /> Follow thy bliss.<br /> Would that someone preached this to me, when I still had my custom-built Milestone drumset.</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">**********</span><br /></div>Ciprianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00254338542624853230noreply@blogger.com3