lately, i've been struggling not to hate my job. i don't really want to be doing what i do, and doing something you're not really into for 3 years starts to take a toll. days like this, when i can think of a huge amount of things i'd like to do or be doing, make going into work that much harder. i really like what i'm studying at school. for fun, i have been reading my western civ. text book to brush up on my knowledge of WWI and WWII and i love it. the chapters are pretty big, but i just fly right through them. i've been doing some serious yard work lately. i think i'm being bitten by the home improvement bug, as i've dropped almost 100 dollars at home depot in the past couple days. i'm exited about finishing our upstairs so we can finally have our huge master suite, and more room.
this past weekend i got to catch up with some old friends. we went to a food festival in skee town, and then hit up this nice little bar. i don't get to go out like that often anymore, or with those people, so it was even more of a good time. house church was also a good time, we actually had a discussion where everyone chimed in. we talked about prayer. my after-thoughts on it are this: i said that my ideal "prayer life" is that i would have an ever-present awareness that God is at work, and be in constant communication with Him. Meaning that since we believe God is always present and is our friend and father, that we should always be listening and looking for Him, and always in a state of constant communication. going further, ancient people looked at the gods as over them, always ready to strike if they weren't happy, and people were to always be in a posture where they were trying to please the gods. christianity, however, raises the person up to God's eye-level, so to speak, into a relationship posture. it's interesting then, that our prayer is often much more ritualized, and formal looking -- more like the ancient understanding of god than the biblical one. lately, i've been noticing that how i talk to God-- the way i speak-- is so much different than how i talk to friends and family.
anyways, i'm just trying to be thankful that i have a job, since so many in our economy don't. i'm also exited about the number of opportunities we are getting with our business, and all the days off i have coming up in the near future.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
on being a skeptical believer : doubts
last year, i wrote a post called "on being a skeptical believer." in it, i talked about my struggle with believing some of the more supernatural and mythical stuff in the bible. i also talked about my evolving faith. i think it's time for an update. i was going to post this all in one entry, but there is just too much to say, so i'm going to start by laying out reasons i struggle with doubt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the year 2000 i had my first really big faith crisis. i started going online and reading all sorts of atheist websites, and was faced with arguments and ideas that i had never heard before. it was the beginning of a journey that led me away from the pre-packaged christianity i had been handed as a child and toward developing my own personal faith. according to fowler's stages of faith, i had entered stage four. this first faith crisis scared me and made me wonder how long i would remain a christian. however, since the beginning of this journey, i have learned that faith crises are part of it, and i now have them quite regularly.
my recent faith crisis was sparked by a comment that joe left on my other blog, asking me about my take on satan and demons. he asked me this because i mentioned that, while i struggle with my understanding of satan and demons, greg boyd is encouraging to me because he is an ivy league trained theologian and scholar who views them as literal beings. as i thought about how or if i would respond to joe, i decided to pick up greg boyd's book, letters from a skeptic which is, basically, a series of letters between him and his agnostic father. there's a part in the book where boyd discusses his view that there are evil cosmic forces at work in the world and points out that most of reality is made up of things we can't see. he also says that the world is, essentially, a cosmic battlefield. also, boyd points out that we-- modern people-- are the weird ones, because everyone else throughout the ages have believed in gods and evil spirits.
i agree, that it is entirely possible that there are evil spirits, and i also agree that the naturalist/materialist worldview that westerners hold is just that, another worldview, and we make the assumption that there isn't other forces or beings that exist. but isn't that the point? ancient people, and people ignorant of science, explain things they don't understand with supernatural explanations. for example, blessing someone after she sneezes comes from the belief that the act of sneezing was the release of an evil spirit. the belief in micro-organisms was once controversial because it contradicted the belief that sickness was caused by spiritual forces. so imagine a schizophrenic person living in, say, 50 B.C. how would schizophrenia be understood? as a mental illness? of course not. if you lived back then and you heard voices, people wouldn't believe there was something wrong with your brain, there would be a supernatural explanation. the universe is an incredibly amazing place, and the brain is arguably the most complex structure in it. is the reason everyone has believed in the supernatural up until the age of science because there was no other explanation?
another argument boyd puts forth is the argument for the existence of God from morality. this is also how c.s. lewis begins mere christianity. the gist of the argument is that because we intuitively know that murder or stealing is wrong, then there must be an ultimate source for that morality, namely God. but here's my problem. isn't much of our basic moral ideals rooted in self-preservation and our own happiness? we all agree not to murder because we, ourselves, don't want to be murdered. we essentially say, "ok, i'll allow you to live, if you allow me to live." the same goes for stealing. we make an agreement to allow each other to keep our own stuff. if someone breaks that agreement, then we get pissed. we then assign religious meaning to these rules and agreements to reinforce them
to close, i'll go back to the original topic of demons, which sparked all of this. i'm not sure that scripture itself views demons as literal beings. my prime example is the story of jesus casting out the demons collectively named "legion." this story is loaded with symbolism. first, the name legion is what an army of roman soldiers were called. second, jesus casts "legion" into a herd of pigs which were considered unclean according to jews. third, the pigs then drown in the sea, which immediately would conjure up images of the egyptian soldiers drowning in the red sea. so, is this a literal, just-telling-the-facts, recounting of actual events; or is the story saying that jesus is the messiah who will ultimately do away with the roman empire? or, was there really an exorcism, but the author took artistic liberty and added the symbolism?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the year 2000 i had my first really big faith crisis. i started going online and reading all sorts of atheist websites, and was faced with arguments and ideas that i had never heard before. it was the beginning of a journey that led me away from the pre-packaged christianity i had been handed as a child and toward developing my own personal faith. according to fowler's stages of faith, i had entered stage four. this first faith crisis scared me and made me wonder how long i would remain a christian. however, since the beginning of this journey, i have learned that faith crises are part of it, and i now have them quite regularly.
my recent faith crisis was sparked by a comment that joe left on my other blog, asking me about my take on satan and demons. he asked me this because i mentioned that, while i struggle with my understanding of satan and demons, greg boyd is encouraging to me because he is an ivy league trained theologian and scholar who views them as literal beings. as i thought about how or if i would respond to joe, i decided to pick up greg boyd's book, letters from a skeptic which is, basically, a series of letters between him and his agnostic father. there's a part in the book where boyd discusses his view that there are evil cosmic forces at work in the world and points out that most of reality is made up of things we can't see. he also says that the world is, essentially, a cosmic battlefield. also, boyd points out that we-- modern people-- are the weird ones, because everyone else throughout the ages have believed in gods and evil spirits.
i agree, that it is entirely possible that there are evil spirits, and i also agree that the naturalist/materialist worldview that westerners hold is just that, another worldview, and we make the assumption that there isn't other forces or beings that exist. but isn't that the point? ancient people, and people ignorant of science, explain things they don't understand with supernatural explanations. for example, blessing someone after she sneezes comes from the belief that the act of sneezing was the release of an evil spirit. the belief in micro-organisms was once controversial because it contradicted the belief that sickness was caused by spiritual forces. so imagine a schizophrenic person living in, say, 50 B.C. how would schizophrenia be understood? as a mental illness? of course not. if you lived back then and you heard voices, people wouldn't believe there was something wrong with your brain, there would be a supernatural explanation. the universe is an incredibly amazing place, and the brain is arguably the most complex structure in it. is the reason everyone has believed in the supernatural up until the age of science because there was no other explanation?
another argument boyd puts forth is the argument for the existence of God from morality. this is also how c.s. lewis begins mere christianity. the gist of the argument is that because we intuitively know that murder or stealing is wrong, then there must be an ultimate source for that morality, namely God. but here's my problem. isn't much of our basic moral ideals rooted in self-preservation and our own happiness? we all agree not to murder because we, ourselves, don't want to be murdered. we essentially say, "ok, i'll allow you to live, if you allow me to live." the same goes for stealing. we make an agreement to allow each other to keep our own stuff. if someone breaks that agreement, then we get pissed. we then assign religious meaning to these rules and agreements to reinforce them
to close, i'll go back to the original topic of demons, which sparked all of this. i'm not sure that scripture itself views demons as literal beings. my prime example is the story of jesus casting out the demons collectively named "legion." this story is loaded with symbolism. first, the name legion is what an army of roman soldiers were called. second, jesus casts "legion" into a herd of pigs which were considered unclean according to jews. third, the pigs then drown in the sea, which immediately would conjure up images of the egyptian soldiers drowning in the red sea. so, is this a literal, just-telling-the-facts, recounting of actual events; or is the story saying that jesus is the messiah who will ultimately do away with the roman empire? or, was there really an exorcism, but the author took artistic liberty and added the symbolism?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
ignorance
there are some days when i feel like i don't know shit. yesterday was one of those days. i went over to my friend paul's house to hang out. we ended up talking about politics, like always, and had a great discussion about unions. he is a history and english double major, and is like two classes away from graduating. one of the reasons why he still hasn't graduated is because he's also a staff sergent in the army and got deployed to iraq a couple years ago. he's an incredibly intelligent person and can give you a lecture on the entire history of the world at the drop of a hat. at one point, he had a girlfriend, who was thai, so he studied thai history so he could better relate to her. so having a friend like this, there are many times where i just sit and pick his brain. i love getting his take on the war, since he was in it and was his unit's historian. currently, he's employed at UPS and will be a driver within three years. working there, he is part of the teamster's union, so yesterday i just played devil's advocate and grilled him on all the anti-union arguments i hear.
after i left paul's, i went to barnes and noble. i started wandering through the social science, current affairs and history sections. i couldn't find anything to read; i was just so overwhelmed. i picked up one book called conservative comebacks to liberal lies. i started thumbing through it. it's pretty much an encyclopedia of conservative arguments against common liberal claims. it just amazed me, because it made claims that were completely contradictory to things i learned in school. i do plan on buying this book, at some point, because i really want to listen to the arguments and research them.
i just wish i could stop time, and spend two years in barnes and noble. there is just so much information. i cannot wait till i'm done with my BSW, so i can take a couple years off and just read. i sometimes wonder if phd's feel this way. i wonder if there are points where they say, "i might have a phd, but i really feel like i don't know anything." in the end, however, i suppose feeling this way is good, as the most ignorant people out there tend to think they know it all.
after i left paul's, i went to barnes and noble. i started wandering through the social science, current affairs and history sections. i couldn't find anything to read; i was just so overwhelmed. i picked up one book called conservative comebacks to liberal lies. i started thumbing through it. it's pretty much an encyclopedia of conservative arguments against common liberal claims. it just amazed me, because it made claims that were completely contradictory to things i learned in school. i do plan on buying this book, at some point, because i really want to listen to the arguments and research them.
i just wish i could stop time, and spend two years in barnes and noble. there is just so much information. i cannot wait till i'm done with my BSW, so i can take a couple years off and just read. i sometimes wonder if phd's feel this way. i wonder if there are points where they say, "i might have a phd, but i really feel like i don't know anything." in the end, however, i suppose feeling this way is good, as the most ignorant people out there tend to think they know it all.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
a merry schismatic... uh, where was i? oh, yeah (part 5)
so, since i discussed my views concerning the idea of "going to heaven" and the ultimate point of christianity (i.e. God's kingdom invading earth), i guess it's fitting to discuss the other side of the coin. i've already discussed my issues with what the bible says concerning hell here, and, honestly, i would be all for striking the word "hell" from the christian lexicon. hell, as most christians think of it, borrows heavily from dante and mythology. nowhere, in the scriptures, does the idea of hell, as we commonly think of it, appear. and the word "hell" actually comes from the norse goddess of the underworld (ht clothman).
so, what is hell? i've been pondering this question for years now, and i can't say that i have a solid answer, nor do i think i need one. instead, i look at it from a few different perspectives and conclude that it's probably a sum of all of them. a perspective that's been very helpful comes from my pastor rob bell. in his book sex god, he opens the first chapter with his understanding of hell. basically, he believes, like i do, that heaven is invading earth and that heaven is anywhere where God's rule is lived out, which is why we're taught to pray "on earth as it is in heaven." rob says: "when we say something was a "living hell," we mean that it was void of any love or peace or beauty or meaning. it was absent of the will and desire of God." so when things are going as God intends, heaven is being lived at the moment, and hell is the opposite of that. i watch the show intervention. it's a documentary portraying addicts facing interventions. i just watched one about a lesbian meth addict from a conservative christian family. at one point, her sister says something like "i'm not concerned about what happens to her here, i'm concerned about her going to hell." my immediate reaction was, "going? she's already there."
in his book speaking my mind, tony campolo goes over several different perspectives on hell. he alludes that he believes hell is separation from God, but that people can still turn to christ even after death. he also makes note that the one time where jesus clearly tells a story about people being judged, that they aren't judged by whether or not they had a conversion experience; they are judged by how they treated the least of those among them. of course, one could argue that how one treats the least of these is the fruit of said conversion experience. but then the obvious question is: what about those who aren't christians who live like christians, better than most christains? this has always been an interesting question for me.
the other day, i attended a lecture at work about the increasing resistance to anti-microbial drugs of certain stds. after the lecture, i was talking with the pharmD who spoke, about the vaccine gardasil. we discussed how those in the bible-belt were opposing its use because it might encourage girls to have sex. my thought was that fear should not be the driving force behind celibacy. growing up, i was terrified of going to hell. for most of my childhood and early teens i believed that, in spite of the salvation prayers i prayed, i wasn't good enough to actually be a real christian. hell was and is a very powerful tool to win converts. my old church actually put on plays portraying people being thrown into hell in order to scare people into becoming christians. a common line of thinking in the church is that if there is no hell, then we can just live the way we want. so my question to those that espouse that idea is: so do you live the way you do, and believe what you believe, simply out of fear? is the avoidance of hell what american christianity boils down to?
to tie this in with christmas, i'll offer a final perspective. one of the gifts i received this past year was a cd by a band i love called thrice, and on this cd is a song called the arsonist. the song describes a city that has become corrupted by all sorts of evil, and an arsonist who plans on burning it down to rebuild it. in other words, he plans on cleansing it by fire and his motive for doing so isn't anger, but love. here are some of the lyrics:
There are still good shepherds scattered, but they're far between and few.
And the sheep's skin that the wolves all wear is so thin I see right through.
And I think maybe all that's needed is some gas and open flame,
because I don't think that any one of them believes that fire can erase their names.
But I will see this city burn.
I said I will see this city burn.
We will burn it down and build it again,what was buried in flame.
Burn it down and build it again from the bricks that remain.
I love this city, but I've set and numbered its days.
I love this city, enough that I'll set it ABLAZE.
so, what is hell? i've been pondering this question for years now, and i can't say that i have a solid answer, nor do i think i need one. instead, i look at it from a few different perspectives and conclude that it's probably a sum of all of them. a perspective that's been very helpful comes from my pastor rob bell. in his book sex god, he opens the first chapter with his understanding of hell. basically, he believes, like i do, that heaven is invading earth and that heaven is anywhere where God's rule is lived out, which is why we're taught to pray "on earth as it is in heaven." rob says: "when we say something was a "living hell," we mean that it was void of any love or peace or beauty or meaning. it was absent of the will and desire of God." so when things are going as God intends, heaven is being lived at the moment, and hell is the opposite of that. i watch the show intervention. it's a documentary portraying addicts facing interventions. i just watched one about a lesbian meth addict from a conservative christian family. at one point, her sister says something like "i'm not concerned about what happens to her here, i'm concerned about her going to hell." my immediate reaction was, "going? she's already there."
in his book speaking my mind, tony campolo goes over several different perspectives on hell. he alludes that he believes hell is separation from God, but that people can still turn to christ even after death. he also makes note that the one time where jesus clearly tells a story about people being judged, that they aren't judged by whether or not they had a conversion experience; they are judged by how they treated the least of those among them. of course, one could argue that how one treats the least of these is the fruit of said conversion experience. but then the obvious question is: what about those who aren't christians who live like christians, better than most christains? this has always been an interesting question for me.
the other day, i attended a lecture at work about the increasing resistance to anti-microbial drugs of certain stds. after the lecture, i was talking with the pharmD who spoke, about the vaccine gardasil. we discussed how those in the bible-belt were opposing its use because it might encourage girls to have sex. my thought was that fear should not be the driving force behind celibacy. growing up, i was terrified of going to hell. for most of my childhood and early teens i believed that, in spite of the salvation prayers i prayed, i wasn't good enough to actually be a real christian. hell was and is a very powerful tool to win converts. my old church actually put on plays portraying people being thrown into hell in order to scare people into becoming christians. a common line of thinking in the church is that if there is no hell, then we can just live the way we want. so my question to those that espouse that idea is: so do you live the way you do, and believe what you believe, simply out of fear? is the avoidance of hell what american christianity boils down to?
to tie this in with christmas, i'll offer a final perspective. one of the gifts i received this past year was a cd by a band i love called thrice, and on this cd is a song called the arsonist. the song describes a city that has become corrupted by all sorts of evil, and an arsonist who plans on burning it down to rebuild it. in other words, he plans on cleansing it by fire and his motive for doing so isn't anger, but love. here are some of the lyrics:
There are still good shepherds scattered, but they're far between and few.
And the sheep's skin that the wolves all wear is so thin I see right through.
And I think maybe all that's needed is some gas and open flame,
because I don't think that any one of them believes that fire can erase their names.
But I will see this city burn.
I said I will see this city burn.
We will burn it down and build it again,what was buried in flame.
Burn it down and build it again from the bricks that remain.
I love this city, but I've set and numbered its days.
I love this city, enough that I'll set it ABLAZE.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
(cyn)icism
you know you're getting old when you don't do anything on your saturday off but watch movies, and you feel guilty because you didn't get anything accomplished. that's what i did today. i knocked out casino royal and children of men. both movies were great and intense, and both were so different that there's no way i could say i liked one better than the other. among their differences, i noticed that casino royal was, overall, pretty cynical in its message, while children of men had a message of hope. in casino royal, the new bond film, james bond learns the hard way that you can trust no one. children of men was about a child born into a world plagued by 18 years of infertility and war.
the other day, anne and i were riding behind a car that was plastered with bumper stickers. they were on the bumper, the trunk and the back window. anne spotted one bumper sticker that said "ca(sin)o." now, i don't agree that all gambling is wrong, but, whatever, everyone has a right to their opinion and to put corny bumper stickers on their car; so i didn't think much of it. later on, however, something occurred to me.
other stickers on this car had, not surprisingly, religious messages. what occurred to me is that many of the christians i know are incredibly cynical people. recently, my cousin erica made a comment that "there just aren't very many honest people anymore these days." in class, not too long ago, we were discussing whether things had gotten better in our country concerning racism. i argued that it has, but another classmate commented, "i just don't think things are going to get better." now, i know what these two people think concerning the fate of the world, so these remarks don't surprise me. but it's still bothersome to me that the only hope these people have for the future is that a sliver of humanity will be spared before locusts the size of ponies swoop down and devour some 1/3 of the planet. they would actually believe that the world was a better place a long time ago, when all it takes is a quick glimpse at history for one to discover that things have gotten better and not worse.
here's my point in all this. i think maybe the greatest, most ground-breaking, turn-all-of-reality-on-its-head, thing the bible has to say is that God is love. that in some unexplainable way, the very core of reality is love. now, there are many things to be cynical about: pop music, buffets and right-wing politics :) just to name a few. but for me, i have hope that all of this isn't just waiting for a cosmic wrecking ball to tear it down. and if God is indeed love, maybe cynicism is one of the greatest heresies of all.
the other day, anne and i were riding behind a car that was plastered with bumper stickers. they were on the bumper, the trunk and the back window. anne spotted one bumper sticker that said "ca(sin)o." now, i don't agree that all gambling is wrong, but, whatever, everyone has a right to their opinion and to put corny bumper stickers on their car; so i didn't think much of it. later on, however, something occurred to me.
other stickers on this car had, not surprisingly, religious messages. what occurred to me is that many of the christians i know are incredibly cynical people. recently, my cousin erica made a comment that "there just aren't very many honest people anymore these days." in class, not too long ago, we were discussing whether things had gotten better in our country concerning racism. i argued that it has, but another classmate commented, "i just don't think things are going to get better." now, i know what these two people think concerning the fate of the world, so these remarks don't surprise me. but it's still bothersome to me that the only hope these people have for the future is that a sliver of humanity will be spared before locusts the size of ponies swoop down and devour some 1/3 of the planet. they would actually believe that the world was a better place a long time ago, when all it takes is a quick glimpse at history for one to discover that things have gotten better and not worse.
here's my point in all this. i think maybe the greatest, most ground-breaking, turn-all-of-reality-on-its-head, thing the bible has to say is that God is love. that in some unexplainable way, the very core of reality is love. now, there are many things to be cynical about: pop music, buffets and right-wing politics :) just to name a few. but for me, i have hope that all of this isn't just waiting for a cosmic wrecking ball to tear it down. and if God is indeed love, maybe cynicism is one of the greatest heresies of all.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
on my neglected series and my lack of blogging
as of late, i have been taking a writing class. due to the nature of this class, i am constantly working on a paper, which, for some reason, makes me not want to blog. i've been debating on how to continue my series. i originally was writing it as an examination of how i interact with people in my life of the more conservative evangelical persuation. however, i've quickly realized that i don't have much to say on that because my interaction typically constitutes no interaction, because there are just too many obsticals created by differing perceptions on different theological concepts. so, instead, i thought it would be good to work through those differing perceptions. my intent isn't to create a theological treatise, but to examine the disconnect between christians like myself of the emergent persuation and christians like my family and anne's who typify mainstream conservative evangelicals.
so that's where i'm going with all this. meanwhile, i'll also continue to write insightful observations about my life and shortcomings :).
so that's where i'm going with all this. meanwhile, i'll also continue to write insightful observations about my life and shortcomings :).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
