Thursday, July 12, 2007
The churches of Hank, the pope and Christ
ELAshley went off on the pope for the non-news news of the week -- that officially the Roman Catholic Church believes that it is the only "true" Christian church (whatEVER) -- thusly:
"Communion for Catholics is like going to a great big boar-roast-- a glorified Hawaiian luau. Every time good faithful Catholics line up to the altar the priests carve a little off His pierced side to plop into the starving mouths of the faithful."
Classy. Read it all. The funniest thing is that EL and the pope are the same peas in different pods: Each thinks he has the ONLY means of salvation.
Oh, EL gives lip service to the "shed blood of Jesus (and) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit." But, really, if you don't line up perfectly behind the way EL sees things -- that is, fundamentalist, dispensationalist, Rapture-ready, professing to believe every single word of the Bible is infallible and inerrant, but ignoring the particularly loving, forgiving Jesusy parts -- chances are you are l-o-s-t LOST.
It's dangerous to make fun of the idiosyncracies of others' faith traditions. And it's easy, too, once someone throws a swing, like EL did. Here. This just rolled out of my head and onto this keyboard:
Going to church for a fundamentalist is like going to a seance: They sing superstitious songs and utter magical phrases from a book of spells, hoping to call forth the ghost of their long-dead founder, who then enters the bodies of the faithful, animating them to do certain "holy" rituals, numbing their senses to "unclean" thoughts and slowing their tendencies to perform certain "sinful" behaviors.
Sounds plumb loony, don't it?
Which is why I think the Church of Hank -- first mentioned in previous post -- is funny and thought-provoking: It's crazy what people believe. It's plumb loco what I believe!
Thank God Almighty that what we believe ain't what saves us. God saves us all who will TRUST God to do so through Jesus, TRUST being the operative sentiment behind "BELIEF," not adhering to certain alleged facts and assertions about God, Jesus, Life, the Universe and Everything. And I say that's true whether or not anyone has even heard of Jesus.
All of which sounds plumb crazy to some people.
Pshaw. I am in good company when it comes to believing crazy things. See ELAshley. See Hank. See the Bible.
--ER
"Communion for Catholics is like going to a great big boar-roast-- a glorified Hawaiian luau. Every time good faithful Catholics line up to the altar the priests carve a little off His pierced side to plop into the starving mouths of the faithful."
Classy. Read it all. The funniest thing is that EL and the pope are the same peas in different pods: Each thinks he has the ONLY means of salvation.
Oh, EL gives lip service to the "shed blood of Jesus (and) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit." But, really, if you don't line up perfectly behind the way EL sees things -- that is, fundamentalist, dispensationalist, Rapture-ready, professing to believe every single word of the Bible is infallible and inerrant, but ignoring the particularly loving, forgiving Jesusy parts -- chances are you are l-o-s-t LOST.
It's dangerous to make fun of the idiosyncracies of others' faith traditions. And it's easy, too, once someone throws a swing, like EL did. Here. This just rolled out of my head and onto this keyboard:
Going to church for a fundamentalist is like going to a seance: They sing superstitious songs and utter magical phrases from a book of spells, hoping to call forth the ghost of their long-dead founder, who then enters the bodies of the faithful, animating them to do certain "holy" rituals, numbing their senses to "unclean" thoughts and slowing their tendencies to perform certain "sinful" behaviors.
Sounds plumb loony, don't it?
Which is why I think the Church of Hank -- first mentioned in previous post -- is funny and thought-provoking: It's crazy what people believe. It's plumb loco what I believe!
Thank God Almighty that what we believe ain't what saves us. God saves us all who will TRUST God to do so through Jesus, TRUST being the operative sentiment behind "BELIEF," not adhering to certain alleged facts and assertions about God, Jesus, Life, the Universe and Everything. And I say that's true whether or not anyone has even heard of Jesus.
All of which sounds plumb crazy to some people.
Pshaw. I am in good company when it comes to believing crazy things. See ELAshley. See Hank. See the Bible.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
I have an ongoing discussion with a commenter on my site over the rationality or lack thereof of religious belief, doctrine, etc. My defense of the faith in general is a pragmatic, functionalist one, because I believe that to get in to fine points of doctrine outside the context of belief is to spin one's wheels.
On the other hand, the whole God-question is raising its ugly head in my own thoughts due to reading and studying about American Liberal Protestantism. My own view, which is worth less than the paper it is printed on, is that any attempt we make to capture our understanding of God is doomed to fail; God is neither personal nor impersonal. God is beyond category, but implicit within any attempt to comprehend God within whatever set of categories one chooses to use. I think the God-talk of traditional Christian theology is a way of comprehending certain actions God has taken to bring Creator and Creation together; I just think that it is both more and less than simple metaphor. We cannot rigidly adhere to any principle, doctrine, teaching, whatever, because to do so is a limitation on God that always crumbles under the force of experience and reflection.
My own belief is in a God in whom and for whom Love is all. This is a belief resting upon reflection upon Scripture, the traditions of the Christian Church, and my own experiences. Incidentally, I made mention on my blog of a "mystical experience". Now that I've brought it up, it continues to nag at me to discuss it, but I fear to do so for a variety of reasons; I cannot escape the idea that I need to describe it as best as I can, and talk about what it meant, and continues to mean, for me. I am, not to put too fine a point on it, scared s***less, because the incident in question left me feeling stripped of all defenses, and it shattered me emotionally for a long time. Indeed, for a long time, I wouldn't even acknowledge the incident occurred, because of the fear it engendered.
All this is to say that this is one Christian for whom the whole question of who is right and who is wrong ends up in a situation where none of us are right, and all of us are arguing over meaningless words. The reality hidden behind the God-talk of Christian faith is so huge, so terrible, that words simply cease to have any meaning.
Sorry for using profanity.
On the other hand, the whole God-question is raising its ugly head in my own thoughts due to reading and studying about American Liberal Protestantism. My own view, which is worth less than the paper it is printed on, is that any attempt we make to capture our understanding of God is doomed to fail; God is neither personal nor impersonal. God is beyond category, but implicit within any attempt to comprehend God within whatever set of categories one chooses to use. I think the God-talk of traditional Christian theology is a way of comprehending certain actions God has taken to bring Creator and Creation together; I just think that it is both more and less than simple metaphor. We cannot rigidly adhere to any principle, doctrine, teaching, whatever, because to do so is a limitation on God that always crumbles under the force of experience and reflection.
My own belief is in a God in whom and for whom Love is all. This is a belief resting upon reflection upon Scripture, the traditions of the Christian Church, and my own experiences. Incidentally, I made mention on my blog of a "mystical experience". Now that I've brought it up, it continues to nag at me to discuss it, but I fear to do so for a variety of reasons; I cannot escape the idea that I need to describe it as best as I can, and talk about what it meant, and continues to mean, for me. I am, not to put too fine a point on it, scared s***less, because the incident in question left me feeling stripped of all defenses, and it shattered me emotionally for a long time. Indeed, for a long time, I wouldn't even acknowledge the incident occurred, because of the fear it engendered.
All this is to say that this is one Christian for whom the whole question of who is right and who is wrong ends up in a situation where none of us are right, and all of us are arguing over meaningless words. The reality hidden behind the God-talk of Christian faith is so huge, so terrible, that words simply cease to have any meaning.
Sorry for using profanity.
In many of these types of debates I remember a story my grandmother told me. She was debating a muslim (back in the late 70s) about the nature of God. Of course a hard core Baptist preachers wife debating a muslim will never change any minds. She asked the man to describe God in one word. This is itself is a bad thing for a lot of reasons, one of which I will show here. The man's response was God is Mercy. My grandmother's reply was "no you are wrong, God is Love". She was trying to point out the wrongness of Islam, but in the story actully points to the wrongness of trying to argue God's nature, and also religious dogma.
I believe we have made God into our image, and continue to do so. Each and everyone one of us makes a determination on what God is or isn't. Is God Mercy or Love?
My reading of the bible, what little of it I do anyway, shows God is not catagorizable. So let's not.
My belief on the church is you go to the one that most fits your values. It is right for you. Religion and spirituality is a personal thing, and should be kept that way. No one is going to change my mind about what God is, or isn't, and what church is right or not.
I believe we have made God into our image, and continue to do so. Each and everyone one of us makes a determination on what God is or isn't. Is God Mercy or Love?
My reading of the bible, what little of it I do anyway, shows God is not catagorizable. So let's not.
My belief on the church is you go to the one that most fits your values. It is right for you. Religion and spirituality is a personal thing, and should be kept that way. No one is going to change my mind about what God is, or isn't, and what church is right or not.
"My reading of the bible, what little of it I do anyway, shows God is not catagorizable."
Are you stating this categorically?
Are you stating this categorically?
Following the exgenisis of the gospels to the rule of reason laid down by William of Ocam:
All Grace is of God, God is Grace.
Grace does not require belief. Grace does not require submission. Grace does not require confession.
The origin of Grace is Love.
Grace does require acceptance.
The only sin Grace will not erase is the rejection of Grace, either for ones self or for another.
That's is as simple as I can get it for myself.
All Grace is of God, God is Grace.
Grace does not require belief. Grace does not require submission. Grace does not require confession.
The origin of Grace is Love.
Grace does require acceptance.
The only sin Grace will not erase is the rejection of Grace, either for ones self or for another.
That's is as simple as I can get it for myself.
And thus the conundrum of the flawed human being and the gift of free will. God still loves those who can't fathom the gift of grace. He keeps seeking to bring us all back to Himself, whether we want to go or not.
I don't know about grace being abused.
Whupping somebody over the head with the Bible, or with a specific interpretation of it, or insisting that one has The Truth and it Must Be Accepted, or threatening people with hell -- that ain't good news OR grace -- if that's what ya mean Mom2. I do abuse that a lot.
Trixie: That there is the Lost Sheep deal.
Whupping somebody over the head with the Bible, or with a specific interpretation of it, or insisting that one has The Truth and it Must Be Accepted, or threatening people with hell -- that ain't good news OR grace -- if that's what ya mean Mom2. I do abuse that a lot.
Trixie: That there is the Lost Sheep deal.
ER, If you do something terrific for your step daughter and she just is angry with you or her mother and if you had other children; would not give any of you a good word....would you not feel that she was stepping on your good grace toward her?
I think we fail to show gratefulness for God's grace when we think that we can do anything we wish. Our salvation does not depend upon our works, but it is because of our faith in Jesus and what He has done for us that our works will then show forth that we have been saved. The scriptures say that faith without works is dead. It's sorta like the song, "If you're happy and you know it, then your face should surely show it".
James 1 explains it.
I think we fail to show gratefulness for God's grace when we think that we can do anything we wish. Our salvation does not depend upon our works, but it is because of our faith in Jesus and what He has done for us that our works will then show forth that we have been saved. The scriptures say that faith without works is dead. It's sorta like the song, "If you're happy and you know it, then your face should surely show it".
James 1 explains it.
Mom2, Jesus admonished his disciples, some of whom those who claim the mantle "Christian", to forgive "as my Father forgives". When asked for specifics, Jesus replied, depending upon the translation (this is one of those texts that try the soul of the literalists because of its vagueness), "Seventy time seven times" or "Seventy seven times". In other words - God forgives us all the time and we are to do likewise. That isn't abusing grace - that is grace. Unless you are now perfected in love (a la John Wesley) it seems to me that you are in need of God's grace today, as am I, as is ER, as are we all.
There is a difference between cheap grace and costly grace, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood and elaborated. Even Bonhoeffer, however, was willing to admit that God's grace still prevails, even over our attempts to ignore, belittle, and run from it.
There is a difference between cheap grace and costly grace, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood and elaborated. Even Bonhoeffer, however, was willing to admit that God's grace still prevails, even over our attempts to ignore, belittle, and run from it.
Mom2, I think there is a difference between "good works" and attitude, which can change with the weather, the kind of day I'm having, my blood pressure or what I had for lunch.
My kid acting up, or acting out -- that's an attitude, sometimes with accompanying acts, but mainly an attitude. But she continued to do "good works": she got up and went to school, came home and did her chores, etc. -- not because she wanted to, nor because she was afraid she'd get in trouble if she didn't, not really in gratitude, I don't think, but because that was what she was supposed to, as a member of the family.
I did the same when I was a teen: I did what I was suppsoed to do as a memhber of my family -- even when I had attitude problems, even when my attitude caused me to act up or act out. I still got up and went to school, mowed our pasture-yard, and did other chores.
As for the attitude stuff: Mama ER got angry with me, she got exasperated with me and she was human with me, but she never ever stopped loving me and the fact of my relationship with her was never changed one iota by anything I said or did.
With my Bird, I got angry with her, I got exasperatd with her and I was human with her, but I have never stopped loving her, and the fact of my relationship with her has not changed one iota by anything she said or did.
I think that anger and exasperation are human attributes I don't believe God gets angry or exasperated. I just don't. I think that's anthropomorphizing God -- attributing human characteristics to God, which is a different thing that the idea that humans are created in God's image, whatever that means, but I don't think it means that. God, thank God, is always God with me, and not human with me.
I think that people who insist that one's relationship with God hinges on one's behavior have missed the entire point of grace. I also think it's wrong to see "good works" as any kind of spiritual quid pro quo.
One of the preachers I gre up under put it like this, and I think it's right on:
"Love Jesus, and do what you want to."
The point being, that a relationship with God through Christ does, in fact, change one's personality, just as relationships with other people alter people's personality. I do things for my wife, who I love, because it's natural, because I love my wife, so I do things for her. And I deny myself some things because I love my wife, because it's natural to abstain from some things, because of my wife, who I love. :-)
Same with God. Same with grace. I love Jesus. I do what I want to, and I want to do some things because of my relationship with God through Christ, and I don't do some things because of my relationship with God through Christ, but you can't judge them --and I am posituive that the things you do, and don't do, because of your relationship with God through Christ are different than my things.
And my relationship with God through Christ is secure, because it's based on Christ's unfaltering love, not on my poor human excuse for it.
My kid acting up, or acting out -- that's an attitude, sometimes with accompanying acts, but mainly an attitude. But she continued to do "good works": she got up and went to school, came home and did her chores, etc. -- not because she wanted to, nor because she was afraid she'd get in trouble if she didn't, not really in gratitude, I don't think, but because that was what she was supposed to, as a member of the family.
I did the same when I was a teen: I did what I was suppsoed to do as a memhber of my family -- even when I had attitude problems, even when my attitude caused me to act up or act out. I still got up and went to school, mowed our pasture-yard, and did other chores.
As for the attitude stuff: Mama ER got angry with me, she got exasperated with me and she was human with me, but she never ever stopped loving me and the fact of my relationship with her was never changed one iota by anything I said or did.
With my Bird, I got angry with her, I got exasperatd with her and I was human with her, but I have never stopped loving her, and the fact of my relationship with her has not changed one iota by anything she said or did.
I think that anger and exasperation are human attributes I don't believe God gets angry or exasperated. I just don't. I think that's anthropomorphizing God -- attributing human characteristics to God, which is a different thing that the idea that humans are created in God's image, whatever that means, but I don't think it means that. God, thank God, is always God with me, and not human with me.
I think that people who insist that one's relationship with God hinges on one's behavior have missed the entire point of grace. I also think it's wrong to see "good works" as any kind of spiritual quid pro quo.
One of the preachers I gre up under put it like this, and I think it's right on:
"Love Jesus, and do what you want to."
The point being, that a relationship with God through Christ does, in fact, change one's personality, just as relationships with other people alter people's personality. I do things for my wife, who I love, because it's natural, because I love my wife, so I do things for her. And I deny myself some things because I love my wife, because it's natural to abstain from some things, because of my wife, who I love. :-)
Same with God. Same with grace. I love Jesus. I do what I want to, and I want to do some things because of my relationship with God through Christ, and I don't do some things because of my relationship with God through Christ, but you can't judge them --and I am posituive that the things you do, and don't do, because of your relationship with God through Christ are different than my things.
And my relationship with God through Christ is secure, because it's based on Christ's unfaltering love, not on my poor human excuse for it.
Oh, Mom2, I didn't answer your sopecific questions: "would you not feel that she was stepping on your good grace toward her.
Absolutely. But that's what kids do as they grow up.
Absolutely. But that's what kids do as they grow up.
ER, you believe God is all about the warm fuzzies. All people, good and evil, go to heaven because Jesus loves us all. Hell is just an invention of fundamentalists. It really doesn't exist because God is a God of love, not of retribution. God would never, ever consign anyone to Hell no matter how evil they are, unless, of course, they are Fundies. All we have to do is be like Jesus and all is well, right?
Yet, you believe in the religion of Gorebal Whining, which preaches man's inevitable death by climate change, a sort of Hell on earth, you might say.
How do you explain this apparent dichotomy?
Yet, you believe in the religion of Gorebal Whining, which preaches man's inevitable death by climate change, a sort of Hell on earth, you might say.
How do you explain this apparent dichotomy?
# posted by 
: 9:51 PM
: 9:51 PM
Not sure what's up Mark's butt.
1. I don't think I've ever said anything about my beliefs about hell.
2. "All we have to do is be like Jesus and all is well, right?"
Right.
3. I may be wrong, but I don't think I've ever said I "believe in" global warming. I'm pretty sure I've kncoked those who poo-poo the idea, though.
4. At 6:14 p.m., Mark posted some snark. Then he removed it, and at 6:16 p.m., he posted the comment about vowing never to post a comment on this blog. THEN, at 9:51 p.m., he posted his original comment, which he deleted more than three hours earlier, as Anonymous.
Gotcha. The comments do come to my e-mail box, of course.
Now, run along Mark, and stick to your vow of silence here. Or at least your vow never to post honestly, under your name.
1. I don't think I've ever said anything about my beliefs about hell.
2. "All we have to do is be like Jesus and all is well, right?"
Right.
3. I may be wrong, but I don't think I've ever said I "believe in" global warming. I'm pretty sure I've kncoked those who poo-poo the idea, though.
4. At 6:14 p.m., Mark posted some snark. Then he removed it, and at 6:16 p.m., he posted the comment about vowing never to post a comment on this blog. THEN, at 9:51 p.m., he posted his original comment, which he deleted more than three hours earlier, as Anonymous.
Gotcha. The comments do come to my e-mail box, of course.
Now, run along Mark, and stick to your vow of silence here. Or at least your vow never to post honestly, under your name.
Geographic reality intrudes on political agendas:
Global warming is not a matter of belief it is a matter of temperature.
The "why" is the point of difference between scientists of different ilks and Fox "News".
We are well past the tipping point and the effects can not be reversed, mitigated perhaps, but not reversed.
Now we are screwing up because we are not planning for the future effects. First we warm up and then if we are lucky we reverse and enter a new ice age.
Based on climate history (varve analysis and ice core data) it will happen fast.
For example annexing Mexico would be a damn good idea. We will need her territory when the ice sheet gets down over the present corn belt.
Post a Comment
Global warming is not a matter of belief it is a matter of temperature.
The "why" is the point of difference between scientists of different ilks and Fox "News".
We are well past the tipping point and the effects can not be reversed, mitigated perhaps, but not reversed.
Now we are screwing up because we are not planning for the future effects. First we warm up and then if we are lucky we reverse and enter a new ice age.
Based on climate history (varve analysis and ice core data) it will happen fast.
For example annexing Mexico would be a damn good idea. We will need her territory when the ice sheet gets down over the present corn belt.
<< Home
