Recently, I was sent a youtube video called, "This will make us all think" and an invitation to join a group called "Keeping Christ in the Classroom" ("KCITC"). This person also posted it in a public place where other people could see it. You can see it here, and the group that posted it. I hate to ask this, but I'd encourage you not to watch the video and give them the readership in order to inflate both their numbers and their egos. I'll provide a link to the complete story in the next paragraph. I'd heard the story years ago; this was nothing new, but alarm bells went off in my mind because the story claimed that the events happend "recently". Me, being me, I went to snopes.com - that great debunker of urban myths and legends. It's a great resource for checking out all those stories that you come across on the internet.
Just as I thought: It's false. They had the story posted there with different variations. It's nothing but an urban legend. I hit the roof; I was so angry.
I was angry that this KCITC would post such a story without either (a) checking their facts or, (b) posting this propaganda knowing it was myth and legend in order to further their cause, which is a blatant violation of the separation between Church and State and a violation of the U.S. constitution and is illegal. If you want Christ in the classroom, send your children to christian school. Either that, or home school them. Your choice. There is room for both secular and relgious education in this society. Even if you agree that Christ should be in the classroom, don't you want your viewpoint represented by solid facts and not urban legend? The fact that they would use myth and legend to propagate their illegal agenda just made me livid with rage because most christian people wouldn't even bother to check the story; they'd just blindly accept it.
Let me define what I mean by myth and legend. Merriam-Webster describes myth as: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society. It's a belief not facts. Legend they define as: a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable. In this case, the story is insupportable. I don't mean to say that myths are lies just because they didn't happen. They are just stories and often there is a moral or lesson to them. They are that: just stories.
I let the person know that forwarded this story and invited me to join this KCITC (obviously she hadn't even bothered to read my blog, or she'd know where I stood on such things) that this was just legend and guess what I was told? It didn't' matter. It was the lesson that was important - standing up for what one believed. Several other people chimed in the same. Not one other person had an issue with it. I couldn't believe it. If the story was told as an anecdote or prefaced with, "There is a story about a professor..." but it wasn't. It was told as an actual event that happened USC.
I was told that this was no different than a movie or a novel where the lesson was what was imporant. I disagree. Novels and movies often have disclaimers stating that "This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance between the characters or actual events is mere coincidence." Or, if the story is based on actual events, they will say certain parts of the story/dialogue were changed for dramatic purposes. There is NO such disclaimer here. Jesus spoke in parables, but he didn't try and pass the stories off as actually having happened - and his audience knew that.
I was told that "I once knew the truth" and that I'd been "deceived by a logical sounding lie." Yet, I've done far more research, reading and study on all these topics than the lot of that group put together. In any other field, I'd be regarded as an amateur expert and my knowledge taken seriously. But not when religion's myths are exposed as just that and people's worldviews are in jeopardy. No way. Then it's me who's in the wrong.
I posted again asking the people that had responded saying they were fine with the story being just a lesson, "Which one of you would have checked this out? I bet you none of you would have. You would have just accepted this as fact if it hadn't been for me doing some research". Do I get any thanks? No. Guess what? I got an email entitled "enough venom spitting" and the thread was deleted - with the exception of the original post. This person obviously isn't interested in truth or rational discussion but simply propagation.
I love the hypocrisy of KCITC's statement, "...if we simply have faith and one person stands up for him. There is a lot of power in faith and we need to keep it strong so that when people do try to break it we can hold on". I seem to be one of the only ones that's interested in standing up truth against these devious manipulators.
This really bothers me. Deeply. On many levels. First, that KCITC is using myth and urban legend to affect public policy. If that's the best they have as evidence, they shouldn't be taken seriously. Any judge would dismiss this in court. Second, that when the story is exposed as urban legend that it doesn't bother people. Third, that someone would shut down a discussion leaving the story in place without the disclaimer that the story is just legend thereby helping propagate this myth leading others to believe it's true.
So who is right? Is it important to expose things like this as myth and urban legend that are told as historical events when the group telling the story is using it for political ends, or is it the lesson that's important? I'd really like to think I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Sherlock Holmes 2009
I first fell under the spell of Sherlock Holmes before I was ten years old. I can date that fairly accurately as I remember reading "The Hound of the Baskervilles" that I took out of my public elementary school library(I switched to Catholic School in grade four, so that's why I can date it). At least I think it was that book; I can't be sure now. When I was 20, I received a book containing all the Sherlock Holmes short stories for Christmas and immediately began reading them and thorougly enjoyed them. I now have the complete works of Holmes in one volume.
When I heard that Madonna's soon-to-be-ex-husband Guy Ritchie was doing a Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. I knew I would be seeing it.
I confess that I am a bit of a fan of Robert Downey Jr. He was the best thing about Tropic Thunder and I think if it hadn't been for Heath Ledger dying, Downey would have won the Oscar this last year for Best Supporting Actor. He was absolutely brilliant.
Downey wasn't the stiff, loner, Sherlock Holmes. No, he was more physical. Downey's Holmes can box and shoot a gun. There are a few sequences when you are allowed into his thought processes as he quickly analyses and assesses his situation. He was a convincing Brit, and carried it off well. He doesn't take himself too seriously. I am not a fan of Jude Law; I would have preferred to see Ewan McGregor in the role of Dr. Watson, but Law handled himself well as Holmes patient, loyal friend.
True to the spirit of the stories, Holmes and Watson are roommates, with Watson engaged to be married to his beloved Mary. We see that Watson takes notes and keeps records of their adventures, which, of course, are the basis for the stories. (If you remember, Watson was the narrator of the stories). You may also remember that Holmes was a frequent user of cocaine. There is only the faintest of hints of that in this tale.
Excellent re-creation of Victorian-era London; art direction and costumes were well done. Along for the ride is Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, who was immortalized as "the woman" from the story "A Scandal in Bohemia". From what I remember, she was the "love" and passion of Holmes' life - and only woman who ever bested him. I was thrilled to see that they had they had brought that character into this story. McAdams plays the role with perfect zest and spunkiness - and looks great in the luscious period costumes she's given. I did, however, find her makeup a tad distracting, as I thought it was a little overdone for the period.
A thorougly enjoyable adventure which leaves the door open for a sequal. In fact, it's almost necessary.
When I heard that Madonna's soon-to-be-ex-husband Guy Ritchie was doing a Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. I knew I would be seeing it.
I confess that I am a bit of a fan of Robert Downey Jr. He was the best thing about Tropic Thunder and I think if it hadn't been for Heath Ledger dying, Downey would have won the Oscar this last year for Best Supporting Actor. He was absolutely brilliant.
Downey wasn't the stiff, loner, Sherlock Holmes. No, he was more physical. Downey's Holmes can box and shoot a gun. There are a few sequences when you are allowed into his thought processes as he quickly analyses and assesses his situation. He was a convincing Brit, and carried it off well. He doesn't take himself too seriously. I am not a fan of Jude Law; I would have preferred to see Ewan McGregor in the role of Dr. Watson, but Law handled himself well as Holmes patient, loyal friend.
True to the spirit of the stories, Holmes and Watson are roommates, with Watson engaged to be married to his beloved Mary. We see that Watson takes notes and keeps records of their adventures, which, of course, are the basis for the stories. (If you remember, Watson was the narrator of the stories). You may also remember that Holmes was a frequent user of cocaine. There is only the faintest of hints of that in this tale.
Excellent re-creation of Victorian-era London; art direction and costumes were well done. Along for the ride is Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, who was immortalized as "the woman" from the story "A Scandal in Bohemia". From what I remember, she was the "love" and passion of Holmes' life - and only woman who ever bested him. I was thrilled to see that they had they had brought that character into this story. McAdams plays the role with perfect zest and spunkiness - and looks great in the luscious period costumes she's given. I did, however, find her makeup a tad distracting, as I thought it was a little overdone for the period.
A thorougly enjoyable adventure which leaves the door open for a sequal. In fact, it's almost necessary.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Merry What?
Born December 25th to a virgin mother;
Son of God;
A travelling preacher who had 12 disciples;
Performed miracles;
Known as the "good shepherd", "the way the truth the light", "redeemer", "saviour"
Died at Easter
Sound familiar? Well it should. However, I'm not talking about who you might be thinking I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Jesus; I'm talking about Mithras.
The cult of Mithras pre-existed Christianity for at least 600 years. The similiarites between Jesus and Mithras were so similar and the early Church fathers were so fearful that their sheep would discover this that they claimed that the devil went back in time and created the story. Have you heard anything more ridiculous in your life??
Oh, and Mithras isn't the only demi-god that was born at Christmas and killed at Easter. There was Attis, Adonis and several more. Like the Mithras story, all those demi-god stories pre-dated Christ by several hundred years.
So, this begs the question. Which one is historically true? Which ones are myth? To me, it's obvious that NONE of them happened and they are all myth. Here's why:
One: We know that Caesar Augustus NEVER ordered such a census as Luke says he did. As I've said before, we have excellent records of that period of Roman history and no census was ever recorded. It would also have been logistically impossible.
Two: Look carefully at the geneologies in both Matthew and Luke. They contradict themselves. I've heard the contradictions explained away by being told that one lineage was Mary's and the other was Joseph's. Not true. Luke clearly states that it's Joseph's family tree and not Mary's.
Three: There was no massacre of the innocents by Herod as Matthew describes. There is absolutely no historical proof of this. Herod was a tyrant and despised by the Jews, but this is one crime he didn't commit.
Four: Quirinius and Herod were not contemporary. Herod was dead by the time Quirinius was governor of Syria, which Luke claims he was in his attempt to date Jesus' birth.
We all know that Christianity stole (or borrowed) things from the cultures it imposed itself upon. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about outright plagarism. There were no copyright laws back then, so no one had an issue with it. However, Christianity is the one religion that claims this stuff actually, historically happened. They claimed Jesus was unique. Obviously not true when so many parallels existed between Jesus and the other demi-gods. It doesn't bother me that Christianity stole the date of Jesus' birth. After all, Queen Elizabeth was born in April and the official celebration of her birthday is the Trooping of the Colour ceremony in June. However, if you strip away all the myth that pre-existed centuries before what are you left with? Um, not much. In fact, nothing at all.
If Jesus was so important, why don't we know more about him? The only records we have of him are in the Bible and a reference in Josephus. Yet, we now know that the reference in Josephus was a forgery. It was added by a monk a very long time later.
I'm not saying Jesus never existed. I don't know; I suspect he did, but I'm not sure. To me, however, it's obvious that he's not what we were told in the Bible.
So, where did all this mythmaking come from? I have read enough to be convinced that it was Paul - for many reasons. Paul was from Tarsus, which was a seat of the Mithras cult. Eating bread and drinking wine in a ritual meal was also part of the Mithras cult/Greek Mystery Religions. We know that I Corinthians (an authentic Pauline letter) was written before the gospel stories, so guess who made that up? You guessed it: Paul. Also, remember, since drinking blood or eating food with blood in it was forbidden to Jews, Jesus NEVER would have said, "This is my blood." I quote Hyam Maccoby (who, obviously, is Jewish):
Sometimes I wonder why I even post this stuff. After all, those that know this stuff don't need me "preaching to the choir" and those that want to believe in Santa Claus still will. I get tired of people telling me I've been deceived by "logical sounding lies" when they haven't read anything about church history and the origins of christianity. But if I can convince one person to look at the house of cards christianity is built on and rationally examine their beliefs by looking at the cold, hard facts, it will be worth it. This is shocking; heck, I know. It's as shocking to the modern day christian as Gallileo's heliocentric model of the universe was to those who lived in the 16th and 17th centuries. Yet, Gallileo was the one that was right. Experts say that mainstream christianity has only one or two more generations left. I hope so. When one wakes up from this myth, one feels as silly as if they were 21 years old and still believed in Santa Claus.
Merry Mithras, Happy Holy Days (whatever you chose to celebrate) but please try and keep the myth in Christmyth.
Son of God;
A travelling preacher who had 12 disciples;
Performed miracles;
Known as the "good shepherd", "the way the truth the light", "redeemer", "saviour"
Died at Easter
Sound familiar? Well it should. However, I'm not talking about who you might be thinking I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Jesus; I'm talking about Mithras.
The cult of Mithras pre-existed Christianity for at least 600 years. The similiarites between Jesus and Mithras were so similar and the early Church fathers were so fearful that their sheep would discover this that they claimed that the devil went back in time and created the story. Have you heard anything more ridiculous in your life??
Oh, and Mithras isn't the only demi-god that was born at Christmas and killed at Easter. There was Attis, Adonis and several more. Like the Mithras story, all those demi-god stories pre-dated Christ by several hundred years.
So, this begs the question. Which one is historically true? Which ones are myth? To me, it's obvious that NONE of them happened and they are all myth. Here's why:
One: We know that Caesar Augustus NEVER ordered such a census as Luke says he did. As I've said before, we have excellent records of that period of Roman history and no census was ever recorded. It would also have been logistically impossible.
Two: Look carefully at the geneologies in both Matthew and Luke. They contradict themselves. I've heard the contradictions explained away by being told that one lineage was Mary's and the other was Joseph's. Not true. Luke clearly states that it's Joseph's family tree and not Mary's.
Three: There was no massacre of the innocents by Herod as Matthew describes. There is absolutely no historical proof of this. Herod was a tyrant and despised by the Jews, but this is one crime he didn't commit.
Four: Quirinius and Herod were not contemporary. Herod was dead by the time Quirinius was governor of Syria, which Luke claims he was in his attempt to date Jesus' birth.
We all know that Christianity stole (or borrowed) things from the cultures it imposed itself upon. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about outright plagarism. There were no copyright laws back then, so no one had an issue with it. However, Christianity is the one religion that claims this stuff actually, historically happened. They claimed Jesus was unique. Obviously not true when so many parallels existed between Jesus and the other demi-gods. It doesn't bother me that Christianity stole the date of Jesus' birth. After all, Queen Elizabeth was born in April and the official celebration of her birthday is the Trooping of the Colour ceremony in June. However, if you strip away all the myth that pre-existed centuries before what are you left with? Um, not much. In fact, nothing at all.
If Jesus was so important, why don't we know more about him? The only records we have of him are in the Bible and a reference in Josephus. Yet, we now know that the reference in Josephus was a forgery. It was added by a monk a very long time later.
I'm not saying Jesus never existed. I don't know; I suspect he did, but I'm not sure. To me, however, it's obvious that he's not what we were told in the Bible.
So, where did all this mythmaking come from? I have read enough to be convinced that it was Paul - for many reasons. Paul was from Tarsus, which was a seat of the Mithras cult. Eating bread and drinking wine in a ritual meal was also part of the Mithras cult/Greek Mystery Religions. We know that I Corinthians (an authentic Pauline letter) was written before the gospel stories, so guess who made that up? You guessed it: Paul. Also, remember, since drinking blood or eating food with blood in it was forbidden to Jews, Jesus NEVER would have said, "This is my blood." I quote Hyam Maccoby (who, obviously, is Jewish):
“This is not to say, of course, that Jesus did not distribute bread and wine to his disciples at the Last Supper. This was quite normal at a Jewish meal... The leading person at the table would make a blessing (blessing is the original meaning of the word Eucharist) and then break the loaf of bread and pass a piece to everyone at the table. Then at the end of the meal, grace would be said over a cup of wine, which would be handed around at the end of grace... This procedure, which is still practiced today at Jewish tables had no mystical significance; the only meaning of it is to thank God for the meal He has provided. The addition of mystery religion trappings (i.e. the bread as the body of the god and the wine as his blood) was the work of Paul, by which he turned an ordinary Jewish meal into a pagan sacrament. Since the blood of an animal was forbidden at a Jewish meal by biblical law (Leviticus 7:26) the idea regarding the wine as blood would be found disgusting by Jews.” The Mythmaker pgs 115-116
Sometimes I wonder why I even post this stuff. After all, those that know this stuff don't need me "preaching to the choir" and those that want to believe in Santa Claus still will. I get tired of people telling me I've been deceived by "logical sounding lies" when they haven't read anything about church history and the origins of christianity. But if I can convince one person to look at the house of cards christianity is built on and rationally examine their beliefs by looking at the cold, hard facts, it will be worth it. This is shocking; heck, I know. It's as shocking to the modern day christian as Gallileo's heliocentric model of the universe was to those who lived in the 16th and 17th centuries. Yet, Gallileo was the one that was right. Experts say that mainstream christianity has only one or two more generations left. I hope so. When one wakes up from this myth, one feels as silly as if they were 21 years old and still believed in Santa Claus.
Merry Mithras, Happy Holy Days (whatever you chose to celebrate) but please try and keep the myth in Christmyth.
Monday, November 2, 2009
It's a Sad Day
It's a sad day in the stitching world. If you aren't a cross-stitcher, the name Teresa Wentzler probably won't mean anything to you, but for us stitchers, she was a well-known designer.
I first discovered her work in 1993. My first chart was her Rapunzel. So far, I've completed only one of her designs, a freebie, Jeanne Love's Angel. I don't have all her charts, but I have most that I want; there's just one or two more that I would like. Going through my "stash", it's her designs that I have the most of. In many ways, she is my favourite designer.
She specialized in mythological and fantasy pieces and almost singlehandedly brought cross-stitch out the dark ages of aida cloth and tea towels, and made it something special, and created wonderful art. Peaceable Kingdom, Egyptian Sampler Mermaid, and her Four Seasons Faeries rank high as some of my favourites of her designs. She was known as the "Queen of the Blended Needle" due to the profiliery of blended colours in her designs. Not only was she a very talented designer, she also had the reputation of being one of the nicest people one could ever hope to meet.
Economic times being what they are, it's not longer feasible for her to keep her business running. It's a real shame. It's always sad to hear of a designer or a Local Needlework Shop/Online Needlework Shop ("LNS/ONS") going out of business. It's a loss to the stitching community.
Good luck, Teresa, and thank you. You will be missed.
I first discovered her work in 1993. My first chart was her Rapunzel. So far, I've completed only one of her designs, a freebie, Jeanne Love's Angel. I don't have all her charts, but I have most that I want; there's just one or two more that I would like. Going through my "stash", it's her designs that I have the most of. In many ways, she is my favourite designer.
She specialized in mythological and fantasy pieces and almost singlehandedly brought cross-stitch out the dark ages of aida cloth and tea towels, and made it something special, and created wonderful art. Peaceable Kingdom, Egyptian Sampler Mermaid, and her Four Seasons Faeries rank high as some of my favourites of her designs. She was known as the "Queen of the Blended Needle" due to the profiliery of blended colours in her designs. Not only was she a very talented designer, she also had the reputation of being one of the nicest people one could ever hope to meet.
Economic times being what they are, it's not longer feasible for her to keep her business running. It's a real shame. It's always sad to hear of a designer or a Local Needlework Shop/Online Needlework Shop ("LNS/ONS") going out of business. It's a loss to the stitching community.
Good luck, Teresa, and thank you. You will be missed.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
The Slippery Slope to Legalism
I've heard it suggested that if we followed the Ten Commandments, those are "standard moral laws". I find that interesting. You see, Christians are supposed to be "under grace" and not "under law". So, if one is trying to follow those and use the Ten Commandments as a guidepost because they are "good moral laws", then one is not following grace, but law. That's my definition of a legalist, someone who follows rules to the letter of law instead of the spirit of the law.
I submit that most Christians violate those Commandments every week. I'm referring to "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy". How is that? That's because most churches meet on Sunday and not the Sabbath (Saturday). Early Christians began meeting on Sundays and not Saturdays in order to distinguish themselves from Jews who met on Saturdays.
As James said, if you are guilty of violating one commandment, you are guilty of violating them all. (James 2:10). In other words, one is guilty of murder, committing adultery, bearing false witness, taking God's name in vain, etc. all because church meets on Sunday and not the Sabbath.
One could say that we don't have to worry about keeping the Sabbath because we are now under grace, but then that's a slippery slope, isn't it? What other commandments do we decide not to keep based on that? I eat bacon and shellfish; always have, and I see no reason why I would give them up based on some ancient rule. Both are forbidden under Jewish law (though not the Ten Commandments), so all my life I violated the law and was, by association, guilty of murder, etc. That seems overly harsh, doesn't it? And what choice did I have? None. I didn't decide when Church met; I was a child taken there by my parents. So, therefore, there were sealing my doom by taking me to a church that didn't line up with what the Bible said. Does that seem just? The church that I was raised in - and all that I've ever attended - therefore, were all not following the law. What about the grand total of 613 laws the Jews had? I can imagine some people saying that it doesn't matter to a christian if they eat such things as bacon or shellfish. But again, the slippery slope. If you throw out that, then you can't call yourself a Bible believing Christian, and claiming to strive to have your life "line up with God's word", or claim that your church follows the word of God because you are picking and choosing which rules to follow. Hey, I have no problem with not keeping the Sabbath or eating bacon, but then I'm not claiming to be a Bible-believing, Christian. All I'm saying is that if you are claiming to be such, you'd better think about what you are saying in order to be consistent in your arguments. Either one changes all church worship services to Saturday, or one admits that one doesn't have to follow the Ten Commandments.
If things like eating pork and/or keeping the Sabbath can be dismissed because one is now under grace, then one has to seriously think about the other laws that one doesn't follow anymore because we are no longer under the law but under grace. If one considers that the Ten Commandments are good moral laws, and that the biblical punishments for breaking those laws are just, then we need to be executing people for taking the Lord's name in vain, stoning those that work on the Sabbath, etc. Surely one must see how ludicrus this is because the Law does not just constitute the Ten Commandments.
Doing good deeds wasn't forbidden on the Sabbath. The Pharisees understood that. Jesus understood that. The Pharisees were somewhat pragmatists. They understood that sometimes you have to answer to a higher law. They, like me, had natural law tendencies. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. In fact, I've read convincing arguments that Jesus was himself, a Pharisee. Please see Hyam Maccoby's "Jesus the Pharisee" and "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity". Jesus words' in Mark 3 where he is quoted as saying that "the sabbath was made for man" was actually a Pharisaic motto according to Maccoby (but he doesn't cite his source for saying that). It was not original to Jesus. So, there was no way he was arguing against the Pharisees as the writer of Mark suggests. He was actually quoting Pharisaic doctrine and beliefs. The Pharisees were more traditional Jews and "of the people" and the Sadducees were nothing but Hellenized Roman quislings. The two groups hated each other and did not get along. I first heard of that in Bible College, and that seems to be confirmed by all the readings I've done. In the verses immediately following the story in Mark 3, it says that the Pharisees "began plotting against him [Jesus] with the partisans of Herod to see ow they could make away with him." This was impossible; there was no way the Pharisees would have done that, as the Pharisees were against the Roman occupation and the Herodians were for it. The word should not be Pharisees, it should be Sadducees. (The Mythmaker page 34). I can't recommend that book enough; it's fabulous and sheds a whole new light on Jesus and Paul. It's sad Maccoby is not better known that he is.
That also goes for the story in Mark 2, where Jesus and his disciples eat grain from a field in violation of the Sabbath rules. I quote: "One may violate all laws in order to save life, except idolatry, incest or murder." (Palestinian Talmud, Seviitt, 4:2 (35:a); Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a). When Jesus was questioned about the grain eating incident by the Pharisees, in Pharisaic tradition, Jesus recites the story of David eating the shew bread (which was forbidden) while David was fleeing from King Saul. It was a case of severe life or death, and so, therefore justified. All the Pharisees were doing when questioning Jesus was checking out the facts; they weren't accusing him.
My point is, one cannot get bogged down in rules and dogma. If one does, one will go crazy (almost literally) trying to keep every single piece of the law. Believe me; I've tried. In fact, it's impossible. Some of those rules were meant only for the times anyways due to the unsanitary conditions. They didn't have toilets or disinfectant soap and they had no idea of bacteria and infections and how germs and contagion could be spread.
I highly doubt Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." If someone was to say to you, "If you love me, you will obey me," what kind of person is that? That certainly does not show love, which Jesus supposedly came to do. That's something that an abusive, tyrannical wife-beating husband would say to his wife. Anyone that would obey under such circumstances is anything but free; they are under bondage and are obeying out of fear, not love. Either Jesus was nothing but a demanding control freak, or he did not say those words. I find the latter the most likely scenario. Here's why: Jesus supposedly said those words at the Last Supper. If so, why were they not recorded in the other three gospels? In no other gospel does he say anything like that. John was the oldest of the gospels, written possibly as late as 135 C.E., and it's authenticy was hotly disputed because of the gnostic teachings that pervade it. To quote Maccoby, "In the Fourth Gospel, that of John, Jesus has become unrecognizable. He uses no parables, nor any idiosyncratic rabbinical expressions; instead he spouts grandiose Hellenistic mysticism and proclaims himself a divine personage. Here the authentic Jesus has been lost in the post-Jesus myth. It is not here that we find the genuine Jesus, rooted in the Jewish religion of his time, and pursuing aims that were intelligible to his fellow Jews." (Jesus the Pharisee p. 136) Note the word I highlighted, Hellenistic, not Judaic.
One doesn't find grace by meditating on rules and law, but by looking beyond them to what the goal should be. I've never discovered anyone who followed a rulebook to the "last jot and tittle" that was gracious; in fact, quite the opposite. Jesus was willing to break some rules because of a higher goal, and I agree with him.
I submit that most Christians violate those Commandments every week. I'm referring to "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy". How is that? That's because most churches meet on Sunday and not the Sabbath (Saturday). Early Christians began meeting on Sundays and not Saturdays in order to distinguish themselves from Jews who met on Saturdays.
As James said, if you are guilty of violating one commandment, you are guilty of violating them all. (James 2:10). In other words, one is guilty of murder, committing adultery, bearing false witness, taking God's name in vain, etc. all because church meets on Sunday and not the Sabbath.
One could say that we don't have to worry about keeping the Sabbath because we are now under grace, but then that's a slippery slope, isn't it? What other commandments do we decide not to keep based on that? I eat bacon and shellfish; always have, and I see no reason why I would give them up based on some ancient rule. Both are forbidden under Jewish law (though not the Ten Commandments), so all my life I violated the law and was, by association, guilty of murder, etc. That seems overly harsh, doesn't it? And what choice did I have? None. I didn't decide when Church met; I was a child taken there by my parents. So, therefore, there were sealing my doom by taking me to a church that didn't line up with what the Bible said. Does that seem just? The church that I was raised in - and all that I've ever attended - therefore, were all not following the law. What about the grand total of 613 laws the Jews had? I can imagine some people saying that it doesn't matter to a christian if they eat such things as bacon or shellfish. But again, the slippery slope. If you throw out that, then you can't call yourself a Bible believing Christian, and claiming to strive to have your life "line up with God's word", or claim that your church follows the word of God because you are picking and choosing which rules to follow. Hey, I have no problem with not keeping the Sabbath or eating bacon, but then I'm not claiming to be a Bible-believing, Christian. All I'm saying is that if you are claiming to be such, you'd better think about what you are saying in order to be consistent in your arguments. Either one changes all church worship services to Saturday, or one admits that one doesn't have to follow the Ten Commandments.
If things like eating pork and/or keeping the Sabbath can be dismissed because one is now under grace, then one has to seriously think about the other laws that one doesn't follow anymore because we are no longer under the law but under grace. If one considers that the Ten Commandments are good moral laws, and that the biblical punishments for breaking those laws are just, then we need to be executing people for taking the Lord's name in vain, stoning those that work on the Sabbath, etc. Surely one must see how ludicrus this is because the Law does not just constitute the Ten Commandments.
Doing good deeds wasn't forbidden on the Sabbath. The Pharisees understood that. Jesus understood that. The Pharisees were somewhat pragmatists. They understood that sometimes you have to answer to a higher law. They, like me, had natural law tendencies. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. In fact, I've read convincing arguments that Jesus was himself, a Pharisee. Please see Hyam Maccoby's "Jesus the Pharisee" and "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity". Jesus words' in Mark 3 where he is quoted as saying that "the sabbath was made for man" was actually a Pharisaic motto according to Maccoby (but he doesn't cite his source for saying that). It was not original to Jesus. So, there was no way he was arguing against the Pharisees as the writer of Mark suggests. He was actually quoting Pharisaic doctrine and beliefs. The Pharisees were more traditional Jews and "of the people" and the Sadducees were nothing but Hellenized Roman quislings. The two groups hated each other and did not get along. I first heard of that in Bible College, and that seems to be confirmed by all the readings I've done. In the verses immediately following the story in Mark 3, it says that the Pharisees "began plotting against him [Jesus] with the partisans of Herod to see ow they could make away with him." This was impossible; there was no way the Pharisees would have done that, as the Pharisees were against the Roman occupation and the Herodians were for it. The word should not be Pharisees, it should be Sadducees. (The Mythmaker page 34). I can't recommend that book enough; it's fabulous and sheds a whole new light on Jesus and Paul. It's sad Maccoby is not better known that he is.
That also goes for the story in Mark 2, where Jesus and his disciples eat grain from a field in violation of the Sabbath rules. I quote: "One may violate all laws in order to save life, except idolatry, incest or murder." (Palestinian Talmud, Seviitt, 4:2 (35:a); Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a). When Jesus was questioned about the grain eating incident by the Pharisees, in Pharisaic tradition, Jesus recites the story of David eating the shew bread (which was forbidden) while David was fleeing from King Saul. It was a case of severe life or death, and so, therefore justified. All the Pharisees were doing when questioning Jesus was checking out the facts; they weren't accusing him.
My point is, one cannot get bogged down in rules and dogma. If one does, one will go crazy (almost literally) trying to keep every single piece of the law. Believe me; I've tried. In fact, it's impossible. Some of those rules were meant only for the times anyways due to the unsanitary conditions. They didn't have toilets or disinfectant soap and they had no idea of bacteria and infections and how germs and contagion could be spread.
I highly doubt Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." If someone was to say to you, "If you love me, you will obey me," what kind of person is that? That certainly does not show love, which Jesus supposedly came to do. That's something that an abusive, tyrannical wife-beating husband would say to his wife. Anyone that would obey under such circumstances is anything but free; they are under bondage and are obeying out of fear, not love. Either Jesus was nothing but a demanding control freak, or he did not say those words. I find the latter the most likely scenario. Here's why: Jesus supposedly said those words at the Last Supper. If so, why were they not recorded in the other three gospels? In no other gospel does he say anything like that. John was the oldest of the gospels, written possibly as late as 135 C.E., and it's authenticy was hotly disputed because of the gnostic teachings that pervade it. To quote Maccoby, "In the Fourth Gospel, that of John, Jesus has become unrecognizable. He uses no parables, nor any idiosyncratic rabbinical expressions; instead he spouts grandiose Hellenistic mysticism and proclaims himself a divine personage. Here the authentic Jesus has been lost in the post-Jesus myth. It is not here that we find the genuine Jesus, rooted in the Jewish religion of his time, and pursuing aims that were intelligible to his fellow Jews." (Jesus the Pharisee p. 136) Note the word I highlighted, Hellenistic, not Judaic.
One doesn't find grace by meditating on rules and law, but by looking beyond them to what the goal should be. I've never discovered anyone who followed a rulebook to the "last jot and tittle" that was gracious; in fact, quite the opposite. Jesus was willing to break some rules because of a higher goal, and I agree with him.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Some People Just Don't Get it
I just have to laugh at some people and shake my head. I really feel sorry for those christians who don't understand grace. They can talk all they want about it, but they are simply "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals." I feel sorry for them, as they are missing out on so much. Anyone that would point to a list of mission groups and try to discuss grace on the level of "the doctrines of grace" just doesn't get it - especially if they name their blog after a lawgiver. It's so ironic. I really feel sorry for such people, as they are living under law and not grace. The sad thing is, they don't realize it I pity them. Yet I can't be too harsh, for I once was the same way.
Ryan O'Neil said, "Love means never having to say 'I'm sorry'" in the movie "Love Story". When I first heard that line, I really didn't get it. I think I understand it better now, as in many ways, you can substitute the word grace for love in that sentence. You don't have to keep saying "I'm sorry" and keep beating yourself over the head. God knows your heart. You don't have to keeping coming to him cowering and saying "I'm sorry". They even make fun of that in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. (Be warned: some people may not share the same sense of humour). You don't have to continually keep track of your errors. After all, sin just means that you've missed the mark. It's not a moral word. It means you've missed the goal, the target mark. That's what the word meant. It means you didn't score 100% on your test, or win the gold medal.
Do you really like people that continually pick at you and demand perfection, or you you prefer to be with people that accept you just as you are, warts and all? I know I certainly prefer the latter. Isn't that the way God is supposed to be? Then why do some people think that you have to keep confessing, or examining your heart and conscience before God? Doesn't grace mean that you are now a son of god and that you have the spirit of God inside of you guiding you? If so, how could you go wrong?
Grace means you don't refer to some church's doctrines on the subject. It's something that happens on a personal level, and it can mean different things to different people. It's an experience and not one that can be found by reading doctrine. The legitimate letters of Paul talk about "radical" grace. The disputed letters contradict the legitimate Paul. Grace means that "If it pleases you to please the Lord, you can please yourself." No one has the right to judge you.
Martin Luther may have talked grace, but since he was a well-known anti-semite, he was definitely missing out on the whole point of grace. Yet, he was definitely on to something. However, no one that could say the things he did about the Jews really didn't understood grace. That being said, anti-semitism was rife in the culture, and he was a product of his times.
I remember a class in Bible College where the teacher was talking about groups of people in the church. There were those who could be hurt by your actions, by your "eating meat offered to idols". Those people you should be sensitive to. To put it in modern terms, be considerate and sensitive to people: don't go indulging in a bottle of wine in front of someone that has a problem with alcoholism. However, there are other peopl in the church, who run around and think they have the right to tell other people what to do: "Don't do that. You'll offend somebody!" These people weren't offended themselves; they were just control freaks justifying their actions by telling the person that they "might" offend someone. Such people one didn't need to be worried about upsetting.
Since I don't like control freaks, I have no problem ignoring such people.
It's just sad, and is a big part of the reason I no longer attend church, as I've said before.
Ryan O'Neil said, "Love means never having to say 'I'm sorry'" in the movie "Love Story". When I first heard that line, I really didn't get it. I think I understand it better now, as in many ways, you can substitute the word grace for love in that sentence. You don't have to keep saying "I'm sorry" and keep beating yourself over the head. God knows your heart. You don't have to keeping coming to him cowering and saying "I'm sorry". They even make fun of that in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. (Be warned: some people may not share the same sense of humour). You don't have to continually keep track of your errors. After all, sin just means that you've missed the mark. It's not a moral word. It means you've missed the goal, the target mark. That's what the word meant. It means you didn't score 100% on your test, or win the gold medal.
Do you really like people that continually pick at you and demand perfection, or you you prefer to be with people that accept you just as you are, warts and all? I know I certainly prefer the latter. Isn't that the way God is supposed to be? Then why do some people think that you have to keep confessing, or examining your heart and conscience before God? Doesn't grace mean that you are now a son of god and that you have the spirit of God inside of you guiding you? If so, how could you go wrong?
Grace means you don't refer to some church's doctrines on the subject. It's something that happens on a personal level, and it can mean different things to different people. It's an experience and not one that can be found by reading doctrine. The legitimate letters of Paul talk about "radical" grace. The disputed letters contradict the legitimate Paul. Grace means that "If it pleases you to please the Lord, you can please yourself." No one has the right to judge you.
Martin Luther may have talked grace, but since he was a well-known anti-semite, he was definitely missing out on the whole point of grace. Yet, he was definitely on to something. However, no one that could say the things he did about the Jews really didn't understood grace. That being said, anti-semitism was rife in the culture, and he was a product of his times.
I remember a class in Bible College where the teacher was talking about groups of people in the church. There were those who could be hurt by your actions, by your "eating meat offered to idols". Those people you should be sensitive to. To put it in modern terms, be considerate and sensitive to people: don't go indulging in a bottle of wine in front of someone that has a problem with alcoholism. However, there are other peopl in the church, who run around and think they have the right to tell other people what to do: "Don't do that. You'll offend somebody!" These people weren't offended themselves; they were just control freaks justifying their actions by telling the person that they "might" offend someone. Such people one didn't need to be worried about upsetting.
Since I don't like control freaks, I have no problem ignoring such people.
It's just sad, and is a big part of the reason I no longer attend church, as I've said before.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Amazing Grace
Why is it that one so often finds more grace outside the church than inside? That's something I've wondered about for a very long time. Let me start this off by saying that I am not writing this from a victim's standpoint, whining and bitching that I've been hurt by people in the church and that's why I no longer attend. No. If I did, I would be extremely hypocritical, as I know that I, too, can be extremely ungracious; I still wrestle with it at times. To those I've hurt, I am deeply sorry. This may sound a tad hypocritical coming on the heels of my last post, but it needs to be said.
When I first started dating DH 12 years ago, he told me that he was a "radical gracist" in the Pauline tradition. When he at first explained to me where he was coming from, I really didn't understand it. I was one of those that really liked rules: black and white. I liked defined lines where I knew where I stood and understood my boundaries. If I stepped outside those boundaries, well I knew there would be consequences for my actions - but at least I knew that. I had a very sensitive conscience, and hated breaking rules. I didn't like things that were subjective. The funny thing is, I should have liked math, as there are always right and wrong answers, yet due to my chromosomal deficiency, I hated it. Oh, sure, I talked grace, but somehow I had missed out what it really was. I really didn't understand it. I didn't realize that at the time; I thought I did. But I didn't. I very much had a rod up my you-know-what and was a stick-in-the-mud and could be extremely judgemental. For example, I really didn't understand how certain denominations could justify ordaining gay ministers. I mean, it was right there in black and white in the Bible that they were going to hell. How could they not see it?
Yet, on the other hand, I always felt that it was more important to show people love than rules. I really didn't see how throwing a bunch of rules at someone would encourage them to come to church or convert them to christianity. Showing them that you cared was the only way to make them see that you had something special that they might be interested in knowing more about. Launching a lot of scripture at them would not be the appropriate thing to do.
In schools of legal thought, I would consider myself a natural law person, as opposed to a positivist. Let me take a moment to explain that. Natural law means that there is a higher law or higher principle than man-made rules. For example, if a pregnant woman was speeding to the hospital because she was miscarrying her baby and a policeman pulled her over, the right thing to do by natural law would be to let her off: there was a higher goal, preserving the life of the baby. Now, if the policeman was operating under positive law, he would give her the ticket: she had violated the law, and should therefore receive the ticket, even if there was a reason.
The whole idea of radical grace was a little disconcerting to me. I mean, Paul does say that everything is acceptable, but that made me uncomfortable. Everything??? When I thought of the ramifications, that made me very uncomfortable. Then I met some of DH's friends. They were some of the most gracious people that I've ever met. I haven't always been that gracious towards them, I'm sorry to say. Yet, they had something that I admired.
Slowly but surely, I felt some of my legalism and judgementalism strip away. It wasn't working anyway. The more I tried to be good and failed, the more miserable I was. I wanted freedom. Not because I was planning on running around abusing my freedom, but inwardly, I've always hated rules for the sake of rules. Sure, we need some rules to function by as a society, but there was enough of a rebel in me to say that some rules weren't worth keeping. Just because it's a rule doesn't necessarily make it right. For some rules, there is no basic moral reason behind them. For example, we don't drive on the right-hand-side of the road in North America because it's immoral to drive on the left.
As someone said to me, "If it pleases you to please the Lord, then you can please yourself." I began to realize that who was I to judge someone because they were gay? What did it matter to me? Wasn't it between God and their conscience? Why was it any of my business? Why did I think I had the right to judge them? When I realized that, it was a tremendous relief. It was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. I realized that I had been very arrogant in thinking that I could play judge and jury. People are grown ups and can be responsible for their own decisions. Now, I may not necessarily like what a person may do, but it's not my place to judge. Here's an example: I don't like abortion - not by a long shot. Yet, I don't feel I have the right to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want or can't afford. All I hope is that she makes an informed choice.
It reminds me of the novel, "In His Steps" in which a group of church members took a vow that for the next year they would do nothing without first asking themselves the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" How they anwered that question was between them and God. No one else in the group that took the pledge was to question a choice that another member had made. A decision one person made would not be the same decision that another person made. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could live like that? Wouldn't it be intensely freeing?
I'm not saying that *everyone* inside the church is ungracious; I'm talking more about the institution in general. I think Jesus was right when he said, "If your neighbour is taking you to court and on the way you meet up with him, settle it there." The reason would be it's better if you the two parties can work it out together; the minute you get an institution involved, you end up handing over some (or all) of your autonomy and nobody gets the result they want and often justice isn't served. The same thing with church; it's an institution. It seems to be the nature of institutions. The minute they are involved (whether government or churches), rules, protocol and procedure come into play and the whole goal of the exercise is lost. The rules are there so that people have guidelines of behaviour; so that people can "expect" others to behave in a certain way. The church, sadly, becomes more about keeping the flock in line than showing grace. How often has a person in a church either unconscionably or consciously done something unexpected? I don't need to elaborate; we've all seen the reaction and fallout when that happens.
A long time ago, I know of an individual who was going through a tough time (Person "A") and the church didn't make it easy on them. Yet there was one person (Person "B") who stepped up to the plate and went and did something very loving and gracious for Person A. I know some people thought that perhaps Person B was condoning what Person A had done. Who cares? I'm sure what Person B did was a real bright moment during what was otherwise a very very painful time for Person A.
Perhaps because we're all walking wounded and it's those that are disturbed by the legalism they've come across in the church that it's those of us who are outside can understand grace more than those inside. (Notice I said *can* not *do*). I'm not perfect - far from it. As I said, I still wrestle with legalism and ungrace. I still lose my temper (as evidenced by my last post). I'm a pilgrim on this road searching for truth - just as you are. Where your path may go, may not be the same as me. And I'm all right with that. I don't expect you to agree with me 100%. Wouldn't it be ironic if I got hate mail for this post? I think it would just go to prove exactly what I've been saying...
When I first started dating DH 12 years ago, he told me that he was a "radical gracist" in the Pauline tradition. When he at first explained to me where he was coming from, I really didn't understand it. I was one of those that really liked rules: black and white. I liked defined lines where I knew where I stood and understood my boundaries. If I stepped outside those boundaries, well I knew there would be consequences for my actions - but at least I knew that. I had a very sensitive conscience, and hated breaking rules. I didn't like things that were subjective. The funny thing is, I should have liked math, as there are always right and wrong answers, yet due to my chromosomal deficiency, I hated it. Oh, sure, I talked grace, but somehow I had missed out what it really was. I really didn't understand it. I didn't realize that at the time; I thought I did. But I didn't. I very much had a rod up my you-know-what and was a stick-in-the-mud and could be extremely judgemental. For example, I really didn't understand how certain denominations could justify ordaining gay ministers. I mean, it was right there in black and white in the Bible that they were going to hell. How could they not see it?
Yet, on the other hand, I always felt that it was more important to show people love than rules. I really didn't see how throwing a bunch of rules at someone would encourage them to come to church or convert them to christianity. Showing them that you cared was the only way to make them see that you had something special that they might be interested in knowing more about. Launching a lot of scripture at them would not be the appropriate thing to do.
In schools of legal thought, I would consider myself a natural law person, as opposed to a positivist. Let me take a moment to explain that. Natural law means that there is a higher law or higher principle than man-made rules. For example, if a pregnant woman was speeding to the hospital because she was miscarrying her baby and a policeman pulled her over, the right thing to do by natural law would be to let her off: there was a higher goal, preserving the life of the baby. Now, if the policeman was operating under positive law, he would give her the ticket: she had violated the law, and should therefore receive the ticket, even if there was a reason.
The whole idea of radical grace was a little disconcerting to me. I mean, Paul does say that everything is acceptable, but that made me uncomfortable. Everything??? When I thought of the ramifications, that made me very uncomfortable. Then I met some of DH's friends. They were some of the most gracious people that I've ever met. I haven't always been that gracious towards them, I'm sorry to say. Yet, they had something that I admired.
Slowly but surely, I felt some of my legalism and judgementalism strip away. It wasn't working anyway. The more I tried to be good and failed, the more miserable I was. I wanted freedom. Not because I was planning on running around abusing my freedom, but inwardly, I've always hated rules for the sake of rules. Sure, we need some rules to function by as a society, but there was enough of a rebel in me to say that some rules weren't worth keeping. Just because it's a rule doesn't necessarily make it right. For some rules, there is no basic moral reason behind them. For example, we don't drive on the right-hand-side of the road in North America because it's immoral to drive on the left.
As someone said to me, "If it pleases you to please the Lord, then you can please yourself." I began to realize that who was I to judge someone because they were gay? What did it matter to me? Wasn't it between God and their conscience? Why was it any of my business? Why did I think I had the right to judge them? When I realized that, it was a tremendous relief. It was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. I realized that I had been very arrogant in thinking that I could play judge and jury. People are grown ups and can be responsible for their own decisions. Now, I may not necessarily like what a person may do, but it's not my place to judge. Here's an example: I don't like abortion - not by a long shot. Yet, I don't feel I have the right to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want or can't afford. All I hope is that she makes an informed choice.
It reminds me of the novel, "In His Steps" in which a group of church members took a vow that for the next year they would do nothing without first asking themselves the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" How they anwered that question was between them and God. No one else in the group that took the pledge was to question a choice that another member had made. A decision one person made would not be the same decision that another person made. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could live like that? Wouldn't it be intensely freeing?
I'm not saying that *everyone* inside the church is ungracious; I'm talking more about the institution in general. I think Jesus was right when he said, "If your neighbour is taking you to court and on the way you meet up with him, settle it there." The reason would be it's better if you the two parties can work it out together; the minute you get an institution involved, you end up handing over some (or all) of your autonomy and nobody gets the result they want and often justice isn't served. The same thing with church; it's an institution. It seems to be the nature of institutions. The minute they are involved (whether government or churches), rules, protocol and procedure come into play and the whole goal of the exercise is lost. The rules are there so that people have guidelines of behaviour; so that people can "expect" others to behave in a certain way. The church, sadly, becomes more about keeping the flock in line than showing grace. How often has a person in a church either unconscionably or consciously done something unexpected? I don't need to elaborate; we've all seen the reaction and fallout when that happens.
A long time ago, I know of an individual who was going through a tough time (Person "A") and the church didn't make it easy on them. Yet there was one person (Person "B") who stepped up to the plate and went and did something very loving and gracious for Person A. I know some people thought that perhaps Person B was condoning what Person A had done. Who cares? I'm sure what Person B did was a real bright moment during what was otherwise a very very painful time for Person A.
Perhaps because we're all walking wounded and it's those that are disturbed by the legalism they've come across in the church that it's those of us who are outside can understand grace more than those inside. (Notice I said *can* not *do*). I'm not perfect - far from it. As I said, I still wrestle with legalism and ungrace. I still lose my temper (as evidenced by my last post). I'm a pilgrim on this road searching for truth - just as you are. Where your path may go, may not be the same as me. And I'm all right with that. I don't expect you to agree with me 100%. Wouldn't it be ironic if I got hate mail for this post? I think it would just go to prove exactly what I've been saying...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)