I am SO not the mainstream. That would sound like a cheesy poser line if I was spouting it in public. But in this case, I mean it as a not so surprising self-discovery. I could go off on that tangent, but I'm going to try to make a point.
I recently heard and read about this debate over high heels. Good/bad, subjugation/liberation, etc. I won't repeat the argument; look it up yourself. I felt like I ought to have an opinion here. Everyone else seems to. Instinctively I fell toward the side that they are subjugation and bad since I'm told they hurt and they prevent the wearer from being able to do anything remotely physical...which could actually be dangerous in a life-threatening context and contribute nothing to survival value. But that tipped me off to my opening statement. Who else even thinks like that? I'm sure some people do, but not the bulk.
So then I heard a statement that the type of beauty most appreciated in a woman is not what comes from the artificial posture induced by heels or from the sex-is-power persona that many women try to adopt. I agree with this too in very strident ways. But then I read some of the counters to that argument...one, not ironically, from someone who uses a pinup as the logo for her female-centered blog. (Proving the previous point, yeah?) Anyway, in those arguments for heels I can see how it might not be totally evil and certainly wasn't developed as a hobbling tool. So this side portrays the arguments against heels as bra-burning tactics.
That's when I reached my final conclusion...Incidentally this whole scene took about 10 minutes start to finish...I don't really care. Wear them, don't wear them...I just don't care. If you do, know they don't make you any more or less impressive to anyone who matters. You can be equally impressive and independent and confident without uncomfortable shoes. If you don't wear them because of some agenda, you're probably being silly; there are bigger fish to fry.
But that's not all. I have also been recently bombarded by political ads and commentary. OK, you know what, I don't care about that either. It is wrong to have to play games and deal around the politics to get something done for society. Government should do it because it's good and right. Debate should simply center on whether that is the case or not. So I refuse to play the game of lobbying and vote haggling. And for those of you who aren't invovled in government and therefore never really experience that, you aren't getting it right. I don't care which side of the mystical two party fence you fall on. You are two aspects of the same thing. To paraphrase what someone recently wrote, regardless of which side you're on, that means the other half has it all wrong. What kind of system can work when half the players are pulling the wrong levers? Which is even more clever a statement than the author intended because it proves the point that the two parties are not really as opposed as they hype. That's why the system can function at all. If one of the two sides was really that bad (whichever it side might be) the system must needs fail. Since it doesn't collapse so easily, they must not really be so different on the issues which keep the system running...for one they agree that the system should function as it does: votes, two parties, campaigning, etc.
But I'm getting off my point. The point is, everyone has an opinion, everyone wants to make it heard. Everyone needs to get their words in on the hot topics. I don't care!
What do I care about? Having food in my belly and a safe place to sleep. Enjoying my family and my life. Doing things that better the world around me in some fashion. Helping those who are placed within my reach to help. Being whole and at peace. These are the things I care about. I'm sick of listening to that other crap.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Good News
The word Gospel means good news. It is derived through a long series of languages and changes. It has become so accepted that many Bible translations use it as the translation (i.e. they don't use the modern English equivalent for the original word, they simply say "Gospel"). But what is it?
The New Testament is pretty clear about it. In 1 Corinthians 15:1 and on it says,
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
OK. Great. But why is that good news? I'm convinced it has to do with that little word, which has also been so Christianized that we don't even like to talk about it: sin. the idea of doing something wrong. Without that conception, we can go no further. I could apologize the concept, but that's another topic entirely. So assuming that we recognize our failure, it says that Christ died for our sins. Now this letter goes on to talk about resurrection, so this statement was not meant to treat the "Gospel", but to argue against those who denied resurrection...again, another topic.
My point is that this good news is essentially a pardon. God in't mad at us any more. We've been freed from that guilt. The sin problem is gone. The price has been paid. This really is good news if you understand that you are guilty to begin with!
So why does modern Christianity spend so much time trying to convince us how to be better? How to do better? We focus so much on the problems that we ignore or render ineffective the solution. This is essentially to take the good out of the news!
It isn't that Jesus died to make a way, though he certainly did that. The good part is that we no longer have to live under that curse. This is big news to me and extremely good! Let's face it, in reality, the world is pretty screwed up. We candy coat it, insulate against it, and look for the "points of light" in it. But the truth is there's a lot of crap that goes on out there. We can't escape it. Even if you are one of those who believe we could "if only"... I'd reply, then show me one verifiable case where someone did completely overcome it because just today I passed a bunch of people who sure looked like they didn't get the news!
But ok, so if God isn't mad, why all the bad stuff? Well obviously we self-inflict it as a species. Certainly not every person deserves what happens to them, but as a species, we are the ones screwing up things such that unjust systems persist. So someone does evil and evil has a price. That price is exacted on them or on someone else, but it is exacted. This very much colors "the wages of sin" bit from Romans 6:23. Sure the wages are death. But think about that. I always interpreted that to mean we would be punished by death for our sins. But it doesn't say penalty. It says wages. We get wages from an employer for doing work. So you work evil, you get death from evil. These are the natural results. It's not a punishment, it's simple consequence! This is HUGE!
It fits so well with my understanding of God's nature. He is good. Not merely that goodness is an attribute; He is it. So bad, by definition, is something not from God. But nothing can be 'not from God', because He makes everything. Existence is within Him. So bad can not be a thing because a thing would exist and therefore would proceed from God, which would make it good. So if bad-ness is not a thing, yet it is the opposite of good, it can only be a negation of something that exists. So bad things are not bad in themselves. They are good things that have been negated...perverted, if you will. So every action has a reaction, right? Well you negate something, pervert it, and you receive that thing perverted plus the absence of what it was. So if we negate our very existence, the absence of our life is what? Death! Ergo the wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life...read that all again and let it sink in. We negate our own existence and are unable to do otherwise. Hell is truly locked form the inside! So God decided to break into our existence and fix it by restoring what we negated. And by fusing that lesser human stuff with his immutable and good nature, it becomes incorruptible. To take it back to more basic terms, "God in't mad at us anymore." He does not punish us because the punishment has been meted out and absorbed. The justice has been restored. Every human past, present, and future, is no longer under the curse of sin. We are free and that has nothing to do with anything we did or do. The only way to miss it is to refuse to believe it...to continue negating what is.
This is good news!
The New Testament is pretty clear about it. In 1 Corinthians 15:1 and on it says,
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
OK. Great. But why is that good news? I'm convinced it has to do with that little word, which has also been so Christianized that we don't even like to talk about it: sin. the idea of doing something wrong. Without that conception, we can go no further. I could apologize the concept, but that's another topic entirely. So assuming that we recognize our failure, it says that Christ died for our sins. Now this letter goes on to talk about resurrection, so this statement was not meant to treat the "Gospel", but to argue against those who denied resurrection...again, another topic.
My point is that this good news is essentially a pardon. God in't mad at us any more. We've been freed from that guilt. The sin problem is gone. The price has been paid. This really is good news if you understand that you are guilty to begin with!
So why does modern Christianity spend so much time trying to convince us how to be better? How to do better? We focus so much on the problems that we ignore or render ineffective the solution. This is essentially to take the good out of the news!
It isn't that Jesus died to make a way, though he certainly did that. The good part is that we no longer have to live under that curse. This is big news to me and extremely good! Let's face it, in reality, the world is pretty screwed up. We candy coat it, insulate against it, and look for the "points of light" in it. But the truth is there's a lot of crap that goes on out there. We can't escape it. Even if you are one of those who believe we could "if only"... I'd reply, then show me one verifiable case where someone did completely overcome it because just today I passed a bunch of people who sure looked like they didn't get the news!
But ok, so if God isn't mad, why all the bad stuff? Well obviously we self-inflict it as a species. Certainly not every person deserves what happens to them, but as a species, we are the ones screwing up things such that unjust systems persist. So someone does evil and evil has a price. That price is exacted on them or on someone else, but it is exacted. This very much colors "the wages of sin" bit from Romans 6:23. Sure the wages are death. But think about that. I always interpreted that to mean we would be punished by death for our sins. But it doesn't say penalty. It says wages. We get wages from an employer for doing work. So you work evil, you get death from evil. These are the natural results. It's not a punishment, it's simple consequence! This is HUGE!
It fits so well with my understanding of God's nature. He is good. Not merely that goodness is an attribute; He is it. So bad, by definition, is something not from God. But nothing can be 'not from God', because He makes everything. Existence is within Him. So bad can not be a thing because a thing would exist and therefore would proceed from God, which would make it good. So if bad-ness is not a thing, yet it is the opposite of good, it can only be a negation of something that exists. So bad things are not bad in themselves. They are good things that have been negated...perverted, if you will. So every action has a reaction, right? Well you negate something, pervert it, and you receive that thing perverted plus the absence of what it was. So if we negate our very existence, the absence of our life is what? Death! Ergo the wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life...read that all again and let it sink in. We negate our own existence and are unable to do otherwise. Hell is truly locked form the inside! So God decided to break into our existence and fix it by restoring what we negated. And by fusing that lesser human stuff with his immutable and good nature, it becomes incorruptible. To take it back to more basic terms, "God in't mad at us anymore." He does not punish us because the punishment has been meted out and absorbed. The justice has been restored. Every human past, present, and future, is no longer under the curse of sin. We are free and that has nothing to do with anything we did or do. The only way to miss it is to refuse to believe it...to continue negating what is.
This is good news!
Sunday, January 1, 2012
New Year
A mentor of mine once said that there is nothing special about a new year. The calendar is artificially imposed upon our world by human society, therefore one day is as any other in reality. What is different is simply where we choose to place the significance. Therefore New Year's Resolutions are nothing more than convenient psychological touchstones. That doesn't mean they are worthless provided they are approached correctly. But much has been written about them, good and bad, and I don't want to repeat it here. Instead I will focus on some thoughts as I enter 2012.
I'm glad to be done with the holidays. While I like them and welcome them for the most part, it is nice to get back to normal, whatever that is. And in my book it's always good to move forward. Good to come, good to go. This is a wise way to live I think; holding nothing too tightly.
I have no special foreboding about this year, mainly for reasons mentioned at first, but in general, I can foresee nothing big on the horizon. That doesn't mean it isn't there, just that I don't foresee it.
I've been learning how to live in this new way of eating and learning how it changes my mindset and outlook. Everything is connected. That's become cliche, but I am learning that we often define artificial boundaries just like the new year and wonder why nature doesn't fit them. There is no real separation between mind and body. It's not merely an unclear distinction; there actually isn't one. So what we eat and do affects our mind and our mind affects what we eat and do. A psychological problem could be physiological in origin or a physiological problem could be psychological in origin because they are not in reality separate systems. They are all part and parcel of the whole. We impose the classifications for our own purposes and nature nor God are bound to respect them. I'm learning this runs very deep in life. Many aspects.
I've also been thinking about the nature of belief. Many of us grasp onto something and ride it out for what we can. It might be imperfect, but we are all where we are and can be no where else. As MacDonald said, if you look at two men on a hill, from any distance you can't tell which is going up and which is going down. So I'm trying to account for that as subtext for my next statement: that many of us don't seem to really believe what we say we do regarding our faith. We give it service, but when we look at real ramifications of that belief, it appears as if we don't actually believe it.
Here's one prime example: death. If I truly believe that the soul is immortal and that my faith in Jesus crosses me from death into eternal life and that upon leaving this body I will be present with God, etc. What cause have I to fear death. I mean really. If I truly believed this I would not be anxious about dying in the least. Nor would be very upset by someone dying. I want to be clear that I do not mean we should have a lack of compassion, nor that suffering shouldn't bother us. Nor even that we should not have an instinct to self-preservation. In the first two cases, these are obviously major tenets of Christianity and one could scarce call themselves Christian with any credibility if he denied it. And the third is very natural and normal. But there's a difference in what is normal preservation and compassion and an over-avoidance of death.
Another less grave example (pun intended) would be in our communication with God. If I really believed that He is with me all the time and that He guides and directs me, I would be communicating with Him in a much different way, right? Many denominations and teachers have reasoned around this to fit their various bents and that is for the individual to determine the truth. But in all self-honesty, we have to ask ourselves if that makes sense, or if it is merely proof-texting and contrivance to support a pre-existing world view. I personally am working on this. I talk about God as if He isn't present and I muse about His meanings, thoughts, and desires without directly asking Him...Sure you might say we won't get answers like that, but how would we know, I know people who say they do and I've never tried it on His terms, so I can't say.
Which brings me to a final and remarkably synthesizing point. (That tends to happen in these blogs, even though it isn't planned...spooky, though it shouldn't be if the last paragraph is true). That point is that we have to operate on other terms of the given system. This can mean many things. When working with a kid, we have to acknowledge their level of understanding. We can't expect a child to do something far beyond what they are developmentally capable of doing. When communicating across languages we have to work within the available vocabulary and communication style. We can't use slangy words or assume meanings from non-verbals or partial translations. Similarly with animals we can't expect them to communicate like people when they are not physically or neurologically equipped to do so. For these things to go well, we have to do them within the framework provided by the system. Rather than creating a conflict dynamic, we need to come alongside and use the flows and currents of that system to get where we need to go. This must also be true for our bodies and our spirits as well. It's a paradigmatic understanding that affects so many behaviors I can't begin to illustrate them.
It's a new conception that is still far too gossamer for me to pin a lot too it just yet. but it definitely means something.
I'm glad to be done with the holidays. While I like them and welcome them for the most part, it is nice to get back to normal, whatever that is. And in my book it's always good to move forward. Good to come, good to go. This is a wise way to live I think; holding nothing too tightly.
I have no special foreboding about this year, mainly for reasons mentioned at first, but in general, I can foresee nothing big on the horizon. That doesn't mean it isn't there, just that I don't foresee it.
I've been learning how to live in this new way of eating and learning how it changes my mindset and outlook. Everything is connected. That's become cliche, but I am learning that we often define artificial boundaries just like the new year and wonder why nature doesn't fit them. There is no real separation between mind and body. It's not merely an unclear distinction; there actually isn't one. So what we eat and do affects our mind and our mind affects what we eat and do. A psychological problem could be physiological in origin or a physiological problem could be psychological in origin because they are not in reality separate systems. They are all part and parcel of the whole. We impose the classifications for our own purposes and nature nor God are bound to respect them. I'm learning this runs very deep in life. Many aspects.
I've also been thinking about the nature of belief. Many of us grasp onto something and ride it out for what we can. It might be imperfect, but we are all where we are and can be no where else. As MacDonald said, if you look at two men on a hill, from any distance you can't tell which is going up and which is going down. So I'm trying to account for that as subtext for my next statement: that many of us don't seem to really believe what we say we do regarding our faith. We give it service, but when we look at real ramifications of that belief, it appears as if we don't actually believe it.
Here's one prime example: death. If I truly believe that the soul is immortal and that my faith in Jesus crosses me from death into eternal life and that upon leaving this body I will be present with God, etc. What cause have I to fear death. I mean really. If I truly believed this I would not be anxious about dying in the least. Nor would be very upset by someone dying. I want to be clear that I do not mean we should have a lack of compassion, nor that suffering shouldn't bother us. Nor even that we should not have an instinct to self-preservation. In the first two cases, these are obviously major tenets of Christianity and one could scarce call themselves Christian with any credibility if he denied it. And the third is very natural and normal. But there's a difference in what is normal preservation and compassion and an over-avoidance of death.
Another less grave example (pun intended) would be in our communication with God. If I really believed that He is with me all the time and that He guides and directs me, I would be communicating with Him in a much different way, right? Many denominations and teachers have reasoned around this to fit their various bents and that is for the individual to determine the truth. But in all self-honesty, we have to ask ourselves if that makes sense, or if it is merely proof-texting and contrivance to support a pre-existing world view. I personally am working on this. I talk about God as if He isn't present and I muse about His meanings, thoughts, and desires without directly asking Him...Sure you might say we won't get answers like that, but how would we know, I know people who say they do and I've never tried it on His terms, so I can't say.
Which brings me to a final and remarkably synthesizing point. (That tends to happen in these blogs, even though it isn't planned...spooky, though it shouldn't be if the last paragraph is true). That point is that we have to operate on other terms of the given system. This can mean many things. When working with a kid, we have to acknowledge their level of understanding. We can't expect a child to do something far beyond what they are developmentally capable of doing. When communicating across languages we have to work within the available vocabulary and communication style. We can't use slangy words or assume meanings from non-verbals or partial translations. Similarly with animals we can't expect them to communicate like people when they are not physically or neurologically equipped to do so. For these things to go well, we have to do them within the framework provided by the system. Rather than creating a conflict dynamic, we need to come alongside and use the flows and currents of that system to get where we need to go. This must also be true for our bodies and our spirits as well. It's a paradigmatic understanding that affects so many behaviors I can't begin to illustrate them.
It's a new conception that is still far too gossamer for me to pin a lot too it just yet. but it definitely means something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
