All my academic and life experiences have led me to this conclusion:
1) every human being on this planet is accountable to the Creator for his or her moral character. 2) no one can discover peace or further dimensions of life if they refuse to acknowledge a creative authority.
3) Individual and Societal peace of mind and society cannot be found without commitment to the basic tenets of honor.
For today, let’s set aside the debate about whether or not there is a creative force and if so by what name? Let’s examine what it means to be accountable.
Five words come to mind when one examines the word accountable:
agreeable, answerable, open, citizen and responsible.
Agreeable is accepting other’s ideas to be as valid as yours. You let others talk as much as you do, because you know the more facets you have the better the diamond.
Answerable is to know everyone answers to someone. Every wake in the water rocks every boat in the harbor. How much depends on the stability of both boats. Remember the ad? "Ring around the collar" the woman feels guilt because her husband’s shirt has ring around the collar. Did anyone ever ask, Why didn’t the husband wash his neck?"
Open is being the opposite of closed minded. No one snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. No raindrop in a flood ever feels responsible. No one person in a war ever feels responsible. No one person in a book burning community ever feels responsible. Yet we are all responsible for the greater community and issue.
Citizen is any resident of my street, community, state, nation, continent, and world. No person can withdraw from life. We cannot isolate ourselves in any corner of this planet, it is too large and still growing. Every person’s actions affect others. A good citizen understands this fact.
Responsible is to fulfill our duty to others. God so loved the world. The whole world, not just some of it or one particular people or area. People who blame others for the problems of the world haven’t begun to learn about life. People who blame themselves for the problems of the world have begun their education. AND people who blame no one for the world’s problems have finished their education. Being responsible is being educated about life.
Sin is to miss the mark or violate the law of love. Accept this as part of the landscape of life and accept the fact that love or holiness can only come through blameless people accountable to God.
The question? Do we feel more accountable to ourselves, family, religion, causes, nation, or world, than we do toward God? If so, I believe we cannot survive.
It saddens me to see the resurgence of isolationism and exclusivity that dominated the World in the 1930's and made a war possible. A war caused by persons who felt only accountable to themselves. Too be accountable, I must respect everyone regardless of gender, race, nationality or religion. Let’s not make our community or world an exclusive isolated island, because if we do we will never experience the fullness of creation as God intended it to be.
Whether you are Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Roman or Orthodox Catholic, Protestant, Reformer, Mormon, or whatever does not help anyone if your belief causes someone to hate enough to kill another for what they believe. We need a renewal in the area of who we all answer to in this life without getting into an argument over the name, gender, and color of our common Creator. If we don’t we will see the world in the worst conflagration it has ever experienced. Peace on Earth and Good Will to All is more than a slogan, it is our only hope.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Aromatic Christian - do you stink or are you sweet?
Almost every week I charge my congregation to be "Aromatic Christians" in the week ahead. Meaning their lives should give evidence of their faith. If you have to tell someone you are a Christian, you probably should keep your mouth shut.
The label Christian was first used by people of other faiths, who saw the actions of the people and said, "There go the followers (disciples) of Christ." This is the basic definition of Christian.
Theologically a Christian, by our definition, is one who has received the Spirit of God and all the authority that entails.
In this small detail lies the basic problem between most religions (in all religions the believer is touched by the divine spirit). Give authority to some people and they grow; give it to others and they swell. Being a part of creation is an awesome position. It means you represent a force that causes life! It causes things to exist! When you walk in the woods you are walking with your family, for we are related to everything that exist. You are a "little one" of God. The God and power who causes life. You represent the creator of all life!
This reminds us that all who come as representatives of their Creator God, should be given respect. Do we respect all those things of God? The environment? Society? Other people? Our faith? Perhaps if we remember that we also are a representative of the creator it might change your approach to others.
We are each a representative - we only represent God. If we work for a company and they send us to visit a customer we cannot represent something to the customer the company will not do. Ambassadors understand that very well. Another English word for ambassador is apostle. They were/are representatives of Jesus. Jesus was/is a representative of God. We need only to project what/who we represent - the God of life and love.
There is no room or tolerance for those who come in the name of God and represent death and hate; condemnation and rejection; and self centeredness. By represent, I mean how we influence others by our words, actions and attitudes. No one can influence others to live on a higher level than that on which they live themselves. Just one act of ours may turn the tide of another person's life.
When God says to a person, "Well done thou faithful servant," it signifies that God feels that person represented God well. They gave of the aroma of love, grace, and acceptance; not hate, condemnation, and rejection. They were Christ like.
The label Christian was first used by people of other faiths, who saw the actions of the people and said, "There go the followers (disciples) of Christ." This is the basic definition of Christian.
Theologically a Christian, by our definition, is one who has received the Spirit of God and all the authority that entails.
In this small detail lies the basic problem between most religions (in all religions the believer is touched by the divine spirit). Give authority to some people and they grow; give it to others and they swell. Being a part of creation is an awesome position. It means you represent a force that causes life! It causes things to exist! When you walk in the woods you are walking with your family, for we are related to everything that exist. You are a "little one" of God. The God and power who causes life. You represent the creator of all life!
This reminds us that all who come as representatives of their Creator God, should be given respect. Do we respect all those things of God? The environment? Society? Other people? Our faith? Perhaps if we remember that we also are a representative of the creator it might change your approach to others.
We are each a representative - we only represent God. If we work for a company and they send us to visit a customer we cannot represent something to the customer the company will not do. Ambassadors understand that very well. Another English word for ambassador is apostle. They were/are representatives of Jesus. Jesus was/is a representative of God. We need only to project what/who we represent - the God of life and love.
There is no room or tolerance for those who come in the name of God and represent death and hate; condemnation and rejection; and self centeredness. By represent, I mean how we influence others by our words, actions and attitudes. No one can influence others to live on a higher level than that on which they live themselves. Just one act of ours may turn the tide of another person's life.
When God says to a person, "Well done thou faithful servant," it signifies that God feels that person represented God well. They gave of the aroma of love, grace, and acceptance; not hate, condemnation, and rejection. They were Christ like.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Religion and Astrology
Recently public polls indicated millions of U.S. citizens believe in Astrology. They also revealed over ten percent of Evangelical Christians believed in Astrology at that time. What is Astrology?
Astrology is a belief system based on the assumption that the stars and planets mysteriously influence our lives. Four distinct beliefs within astrology are: 1) it is a study of the heavenly bodies and their influences on our lives. 2) it is a science of certain cryptic relationships between celestial bodies and our lives. 3) it is the effect of planetary vibrations on our lives. 4) it is a means of interpreting symbols that effect our lives.
Ancient Astrology believed that: 1) planets are gods. 2) emanations or influences from planets rule and affect the Earth. 3) Stars and planets are symbols that when interpreted guide our lives.
To understand the basic concepts of these astrological beliefs, one needs to know the basics of all belief systems.
Imagine a huge glass ball with a thin white belt encircling it. According to astrology, the glass ball is the celestial sphere. The white belt encircling the glass ball is the Zodiac. Divide the white belt into 12 sections. Each of these sections is given a name. The name is of a symbolic animal or man representing the imaginary constellations known as Aries the ram, Virgo the virgin, Leo the lion, Gemini the twins, etc. These symbols of animals and men are called the "signs of the Zodiac".
Signs of the Zodiac are known as Sun-signs. Houses are the twelve sections of the Zodiac. Combined together, they symbolize every aspect of life. According to this theory the planets move through the houses. A person's horoscope is "map" of the heavens at the moment of their birth. An aspect refers to the angles between the planets. All of these elements collectively are then used to guide a person through life. A method used by millions of people in many lands through out the known history of mankind.
But no one has accurately recorded 4000 years of humanity's astrological experience. And if they had, why are there so many conflicting astrological theories? Surely, there must be some concrete proof that astrology is a valid science or belief system. Or is just a concept that gives comfort and excuses?
Perhaps Astrology is popular because it claims to provide important information that people want to know. Astrology claims to provide people with information that will: 1) protect them, 2) bring them success, 3) guide them, 4) predict their future, and 5) help them understand themselves.
Astrology apparently offers people the belief that they can "control" their own destiny, and it also provides them a ready-made justification for failure or sin. Above all, astrology sells hope.
For most astrologers, the idea of pantheism (all is god; god is all) defines their belief in a god. Their god is nature, which includes the heavens and earth.
Of course it goes directly against the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic belief of a God, who created all of the heavens and earth. Our God is beyond space and time. Our God acknowledges our world to be a difficult place in which to live. Our God knows, we lack control of our lives in both the present and the future. Our God sent the anointed, "Holy" Spirit of God to strengthen us, to give us self control in the present, and finally to assure us of our future.
So why do people still look else where for guidance and comfort?
Because the system established by our God, the creator of everything, puts God at the center of our existence. The systems established by Astrology, a collection of human teachings, put humanity at the center of existence. The original downfall of humanity was this desire to be like God.
Which system is best? If you look at the history of humanity it isn't very encouraging. The more self-centered we become, the more evil we seem to be to each other. On the other hand the original hope and peace God has promised from the very beginning is unchanged.
So it seems to be a simple choice: 1) pick a self centered human created means of guiding your life and providing you hope. Or 2) choose a simplistic God centered means with over 4000 years of statistical data and evidence to back it up. Follow the heavens or follow the one, who created them.
Astrology is a belief system based on the assumption that the stars and planets mysteriously influence our lives. Four distinct beliefs within astrology are: 1) it is a study of the heavenly bodies and their influences on our lives. 2) it is a science of certain cryptic relationships between celestial bodies and our lives. 3) it is the effect of planetary vibrations on our lives. 4) it is a means of interpreting symbols that effect our lives.
Ancient Astrology believed that: 1) planets are gods. 2) emanations or influences from planets rule and affect the Earth. 3) Stars and planets are symbols that when interpreted guide our lives.
To understand the basic concepts of these astrological beliefs, one needs to know the basics of all belief systems.
Imagine a huge glass ball with a thin white belt encircling it. According to astrology, the glass ball is the celestial sphere. The white belt encircling the glass ball is the Zodiac. Divide the white belt into 12 sections. Each of these sections is given a name. The name is of a symbolic animal or man representing the imaginary constellations known as Aries the ram, Virgo the virgin, Leo the lion, Gemini the twins, etc. These symbols of animals and men are called the "signs of the Zodiac".
Signs of the Zodiac are known as Sun-signs. Houses are the twelve sections of the Zodiac. Combined together, they symbolize every aspect of life. According to this theory the planets move through the houses. A person's horoscope is "map" of the heavens at the moment of their birth. An aspect refers to the angles between the planets. All of these elements collectively are then used to guide a person through life. A method used by millions of people in many lands through out the known history of mankind.
But no one has accurately recorded 4000 years of humanity's astrological experience. And if they had, why are there so many conflicting astrological theories? Surely, there must be some concrete proof that astrology is a valid science or belief system. Or is just a concept that gives comfort and excuses?
Perhaps Astrology is popular because it claims to provide important information that people want to know. Astrology claims to provide people with information that will: 1) protect them, 2) bring them success, 3) guide them, 4) predict their future, and 5) help them understand themselves.
Astrology apparently offers people the belief that they can "control" their own destiny, and it also provides them a ready-made justification for failure or sin. Above all, astrology sells hope.
For most astrologers, the idea of pantheism (all is god; god is all) defines their belief in a god. Their god is nature, which includes the heavens and earth.
Of course it goes directly against the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic belief of a God, who created all of the heavens and earth. Our God is beyond space and time. Our God acknowledges our world to be a difficult place in which to live. Our God knows, we lack control of our lives in both the present and the future. Our God sent the anointed, "Holy" Spirit of God to strengthen us, to give us self control in the present, and finally to assure us of our future.
So why do people still look else where for guidance and comfort?
Because the system established by our God, the creator of everything, puts God at the center of our existence. The systems established by Astrology, a collection of human teachings, put humanity at the center of existence. The original downfall of humanity was this desire to be like God.
Which system is best? If you look at the history of humanity it isn't very encouraging. The more self-centered we become, the more evil we seem to be to each other. On the other hand the original hope and peace God has promised from the very beginning is unchanged.
So it seems to be a simple choice: 1) pick a self centered human created means of guiding your life and providing you hope. Or 2) choose a simplistic God centered means with over 4000 years of statistical data and evidence to back it up. Follow the heavens or follow the one, who created them.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Are all Israelites Jews?
This quote is from a recent letter sent to me, " I am appalled at some of the things you said in the article... (Feb 13). A man who claims to be a teacher of God’s word and yet shows a lack of knowledge of the Bible is appalling. I am going to be nice and take a Priscilla and Aquila approach rather than exposing you publicly to your readers and parishioners by writing to the Editor. In case you don’t know who Priscilla and Aquila are, you can read about them in Acts 18:24-26."
I am guessing that the writer assumes he is Apollos for me. Apollos was an influential member of the early church. 1st Corinthians is our primary source on Apollos. Paul wrote it after a significant personal association with Apollos. Apollos apparently was an important member of one of the four parties in the Corinthian church. Yes, even in the beginning there were differences of opinion. And it appears that Apollos was trained by Paul and that is why he carried much influence. I am not sure who trained my modern day Apollos, but his letter seems to reflect a great deal of confidence of his knowledge. Evidently that is why he feels more than qualified to correct me.
How did my Apollos correct me? First he took exception to my statement, "John’s baptism was for people, converting to Judaism." My Apollos wrote that John preached to Jews not to Gentiles. If a teacher’s only resource for study is a Bible written in English, he might be correct.
But, how did I come up with that statement? First, all Jews are Israelis, but all Israelis are not Jews. The nation of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon was split in two sections. The northern kingdom was called Israel and it was composed of 9 ½ tribes of the original Israel. The capital was Samaria (yes, the good Samaritan was an Israelis). The southern kingdom was called Judah and it was composed of 2 ½ tribes. Its capital was Jerusalem.
Both nations eventually fell and in the approximate two hundred years before Christ there were many factions trying to restore the Kingdom of Israel (not Judah) and throw off the Roman yoke. Within the territory surrounding Jerusalem the movement gained much speed and there were many movements and several so called messiahs. The Dead Sea scrolls have revealed much about this zealous movement. Men like John the Baptist were warning of the coming of the messiah over this same period. And some Jewish leaders, who had gained power under the Roman yoke, were apposed to these wilderness preachers.
Who was the target audience of these evangelist? All of the children of Israel, which did include those descendants of the southern kingdom, whom were called Jews, and the descendants of the northern kingdom called Israelis. Yes, historically many have referred to them as the lost tribes of Israel, but history has proven they weren’t really lost after all, just diffused.
My modern day Apollos said that Jesus came to tear down the wall that separated the Jews and Gentiles. On the other hand I, Dennis Bennett, have come to understand that Jesus came to fulfill the covenant of Abraham, which predates the nation of Israel. Jesus made mockery of the religious leaders and the religious laws, because he taught the kingdom of God is at hand, as it is in every generation. In other words, just as God said to Abraham, follow me in faith, Jesus is saying for us to be like him and follow God in faith, forsaking all others.
How could Jesus say for his people to avoid the Gentiles and go only for the lost sheep of Israel, if the Jews and Israelis (Gentiles) were all children of the nation of Israel? Scripture has never answered that question for me. Yes, Mr. Apollos I do study Scripture. But, I also study other writings from that era and throughout Christian history. In them I have discovered a more dynamic story than what is confined to the Bible. Jesus and his followers were fantastic men and women with great spiritual strength. And from the very beginning of time the followers of Christ have been challenged by the religious lovers of the law.
Again I must also challenge my friend Apollos of today, when he advocates that only certain people are empowered by the Holy Spirit. That brand of theology leads to the power of the church being held in the hands of a select few. That was one of the primary things Jesus opposed. The Holy Spirit empowers every follower of Christ Jesus. Scripture says that no one can confess Jesus Christ as Lord without the Holy Spirit. Jesus also taught we the church (And no Mr. Apollos, you were way off when you said you assume I meant buildings when I say "Church.") In the Greek the followers of Christ were labeled Koinia or community of believers or Body of Christ or Church of Christ. It is empowered people of God, who have chosen Jesus to be their Lord as well as the way, truth, and life for them in their attempt to worship God and be Christ like in this life.
In short, my article that you opposed and used to declared me appalling had a simple message. It was to inform every follower of Christ, that they are empowered with the same Spirit that Christ was empowered with, so it is not unreasonable of God to ask us to be Christ like. For being Christ like is what draws people to become members of the community of believers.
So to my modern day Apollos I say thank you for being kind enough to express your opinion. And as to you exposing me to the public and my parishioners, I think after ten years they are pretty sure of who I am as a teacher. They know that I welcome many points of view. After all the more facets a diamond has the more valuable and brilliant it is to us.
There is a lot that I don’t know, but one thing I know for sure I never play fast and loose with my role as a teacher. You can accuse me of coming to a different conclusion that you, but not twisting of the truth. I know that three years with Bill Bright’s studies, eight years of college, studies in Hebrew and Greek, living in Greece and the Middle East, passing a doctoral written and oral exam on the Bible, are only a scratch to what is to be educated, but I think it does give me the right to ask you not to call me ignorant about my faith.
If you really want to help me, why not help me start an ecumenical Bible study with people (men and women) from every facet of the Christian Church, regardless if we agree with their theology or not? Waiting to hear from you. Stop by for coffee and we can have fun debating the unknown realm of God. Blessings to you Apollos.
I am guessing that the writer assumes he is Apollos for me. Apollos was an influential member of the early church. 1st Corinthians is our primary source on Apollos. Paul wrote it after a significant personal association with Apollos. Apollos apparently was an important member of one of the four parties in the Corinthian church. Yes, even in the beginning there were differences of opinion. And it appears that Apollos was trained by Paul and that is why he carried much influence. I am not sure who trained my modern day Apollos, but his letter seems to reflect a great deal of confidence of his knowledge. Evidently that is why he feels more than qualified to correct me.
How did my Apollos correct me? First he took exception to my statement, "John’s baptism was for people, converting to Judaism." My Apollos wrote that John preached to Jews not to Gentiles. If a teacher’s only resource for study is a Bible written in English, he might be correct.
But, how did I come up with that statement? First, all Jews are Israelis, but all Israelis are not Jews. The nation of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon was split in two sections. The northern kingdom was called Israel and it was composed of 9 ½ tribes of the original Israel. The capital was Samaria (yes, the good Samaritan was an Israelis). The southern kingdom was called Judah and it was composed of 2 ½ tribes. Its capital was Jerusalem.
Both nations eventually fell and in the approximate two hundred years before Christ there were many factions trying to restore the Kingdom of Israel (not Judah) and throw off the Roman yoke. Within the territory surrounding Jerusalem the movement gained much speed and there were many movements and several so called messiahs. The Dead Sea scrolls have revealed much about this zealous movement. Men like John the Baptist were warning of the coming of the messiah over this same period. And some Jewish leaders, who had gained power under the Roman yoke, were apposed to these wilderness preachers.
Who was the target audience of these evangelist? All of the children of Israel, which did include those descendants of the southern kingdom, whom were called Jews, and the descendants of the northern kingdom called Israelis. Yes, historically many have referred to them as the lost tribes of Israel, but history has proven they weren’t really lost after all, just diffused.
My modern day Apollos said that Jesus came to tear down the wall that separated the Jews and Gentiles. On the other hand I, Dennis Bennett, have come to understand that Jesus came to fulfill the covenant of Abraham, which predates the nation of Israel. Jesus made mockery of the religious leaders and the religious laws, because he taught the kingdom of God is at hand, as it is in every generation. In other words, just as God said to Abraham, follow me in faith, Jesus is saying for us to be like him and follow God in faith, forsaking all others.
How could Jesus say for his people to avoid the Gentiles and go only for the lost sheep of Israel, if the Jews and Israelis (Gentiles) were all children of the nation of Israel? Scripture has never answered that question for me. Yes, Mr. Apollos I do study Scripture. But, I also study other writings from that era and throughout Christian history. In them I have discovered a more dynamic story than what is confined to the Bible. Jesus and his followers were fantastic men and women with great spiritual strength. And from the very beginning of time the followers of Christ have been challenged by the religious lovers of the law.
Again I must also challenge my friend Apollos of today, when he advocates that only certain people are empowered by the Holy Spirit. That brand of theology leads to the power of the church being held in the hands of a select few. That was one of the primary things Jesus opposed. The Holy Spirit empowers every follower of Christ Jesus. Scripture says that no one can confess Jesus Christ as Lord without the Holy Spirit. Jesus also taught we the church (And no Mr. Apollos, you were way off when you said you assume I meant buildings when I say "Church.") In the Greek the followers of Christ were labeled Koinia or community of believers or Body of Christ or Church of Christ. It is empowered people of God, who have chosen Jesus to be their Lord as well as the way, truth, and life for them in their attempt to worship God and be Christ like in this life.
In short, my article that you opposed and used to declared me appalling had a simple message. It was to inform every follower of Christ, that they are empowered with the same Spirit that Christ was empowered with, so it is not unreasonable of God to ask us to be Christ like. For being Christ like is what draws people to become members of the community of believers.
So to my modern day Apollos I say thank you for being kind enough to express your opinion. And as to you exposing me to the public and my parishioners, I think after ten years they are pretty sure of who I am as a teacher. They know that I welcome many points of view. After all the more facets a diamond has the more valuable and brilliant it is to us.
There is a lot that I don’t know, but one thing I know for sure I never play fast and loose with my role as a teacher. You can accuse me of coming to a different conclusion that you, but not twisting of the truth. I know that three years with Bill Bright’s studies, eight years of college, studies in Hebrew and Greek, living in Greece and the Middle East, passing a doctoral written and oral exam on the Bible, are only a scratch to what is to be educated, but I think it does give me the right to ask you not to call me ignorant about my faith.
If you really want to help me, why not help me start an ecumenical Bible study with people (men and women) from every facet of the Christian Church, regardless if we agree with their theology or not? Waiting to hear from you. Stop by for coffee and we can have fun debating the unknown realm of God. Blessings to you Apollos.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Holiness vs Fanaticism
Question: Where to draw the line between dedication to holiness and religious fanaticism (in light of the cowardly terrorist activity since 9/11?
What is holiness? What is religious fanaticism?
Holiness is a measurement of a person’s divine nature. How godly a person are they? Understanding what holiness is, requires an understanding of what divine identity is defined. If the divine being is a loving identity, holiness is a measurement of one’s loving nature. If the divine being is a wrathful God, who will destroy any opposition, then holiness is a measurement of one’s triumphs over any opposing ideas or definitions.
Religious fanaticism is an intolerance of any religious beliefs that do not fully align with our own. This covers every religious belief from the far left to the far right, if the person is avidly intolerant of any religious belief, other than their own.
In ancient times this was only a problem when two religious ideas crossed paths. The world’s societies or cultures were divided by religious beliefs. A person’s neighbors were of the same faith as they. As populations grew and humanity became more mobile and urban, people found themselves with neighbors of different religious views.
These new neighborhoods of mixed views taxed the concept of holiness. If a person’s holiness was a measure of their love of their fellow beings, they would never attack anyone else’s beliefs. They would always forgive, while turning the other cheek. The classic example of this was killed by his neighbors. Any person who truly follows this way of holiness will always end up in some form of crucifixion, not triumph, on this Earth.
If a person’s holiness is to prove here on Earth that their religion or understanding of the divine is the one and only true one, they will always attack the beliefs of others. They will live by the sword and die by the sword. Their earthly triumphs are never permanent, because someone always eventually attacks and defeats them.
So is it futile? Where can we draw the line, so each can survive as neighbors? I am not sure any longer. I thought we could exist side by side, but the attackers don’t like to heard disagreeing ideas, no matter how philosophical it might be. So, may be we are headed back to the dark ages, when neighborhoods were divided over religious differences.
Perhaps we could let each group build a wall around their cities and allow no one but true believers into their particular neighborhood. Let them all sign a treaty that says they will keep their noses out of the business of the other cities and neighborhoods. I think its called isolationism.
Wait a minute, isn’t that what they are doing with the Gaza strip? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? and other places? It is even close to home, with the blossoming congregations in several religions. These growing groups are against anyone with different views. The people inside these movements usually don’t really know for sure what their religion is in truth, but they love the comfort of being surrounded with fellow believers. Just like living in a village around the castle with a king protecting you.
I guess the line to draw between dedication to holiness and religious fanaticism is a circle and allow in only people like me - And to Hell with the rest. Or forget any line at all and respect my fellow human beings and their beliefs - And be fanatical about it.
What is holiness? What is religious fanaticism?
Holiness is a measurement of a person’s divine nature. How godly a person are they? Understanding what holiness is, requires an understanding of what divine identity is defined. If the divine being is a loving identity, holiness is a measurement of one’s loving nature. If the divine being is a wrathful God, who will destroy any opposition, then holiness is a measurement of one’s triumphs over any opposing ideas or definitions.
Religious fanaticism is an intolerance of any religious beliefs that do not fully align with our own. This covers every religious belief from the far left to the far right, if the person is avidly intolerant of any religious belief, other than their own.
In ancient times this was only a problem when two religious ideas crossed paths. The world’s societies or cultures were divided by religious beliefs. A person’s neighbors were of the same faith as they. As populations grew and humanity became more mobile and urban, people found themselves with neighbors of different religious views.
These new neighborhoods of mixed views taxed the concept of holiness. If a person’s holiness was a measure of their love of their fellow beings, they would never attack anyone else’s beliefs. They would always forgive, while turning the other cheek. The classic example of this was killed by his neighbors. Any person who truly follows this way of holiness will always end up in some form of crucifixion, not triumph, on this Earth.
If a person’s holiness is to prove here on Earth that their religion or understanding of the divine is the one and only true one, they will always attack the beliefs of others. They will live by the sword and die by the sword. Their earthly triumphs are never permanent, because someone always eventually attacks and defeats them.
So is it futile? Where can we draw the line, so each can survive as neighbors? I am not sure any longer. I thought we could exist side by side, but the attackers don’t like to heard disagreeing ideas, no matter how philosophical it might be. So, may be we are headed back to the dark ages, when neighborhoods were divided over religious differences.
Perhaps we could let each group build a wall around their cities and allow no one but true believers into their particular neighborhood. Let them all sign a treaty that says they will keep their noses out of the business of the other cities and neighborhoods. I think its called isolationism.
Wait a minute, isn’t that what they are doing with the Gaza strip? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? and other places? It is even close to home, with the blossoming congregations in several religions. These growing groups are against anyone with different views. The people inside these movements usually don’t really know for sure what their religion is in truth, but they love the comfort of being surrounded with fellow believers. Just like living in a village around the castle with a king protecting you.
I guess the line to draw between dedication to holiness and religious fanaticism is a circle and allow in only people like me - And to Hell with the rest. Or forget any line at all and respect my fellow human beings and their beliefs - And be fanatical about it.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Crossing the Rubicon
The phrase "Crossing the Rubicon" stems from Julius Ceasar’s crossing the Rubicon River on Jan 11, 49 BC. The act of crossing the river was considered an act of war by Ceasar against Pompey and the Roman Senate. He acknowledge that his act was an irrevocable one, when he uttered the phrase, "The die is cast."
Great changes came about in the Roman Empire that extended its grand world position an extra three or four hundred years. It was in rapid decline with leaders, heroes, entertainers, businessmen, and priest acting utterly acting out of self-interest. The nobility of being concern with the welfare of the people was lost in the drive to nab power in any which way you could.
On November 6, 2012 I wonder if our great nation is facing another Rubicon Crossing. Since the 1960's we have been approaching the banks of our Rubicon and I believe we have arrived. It is time not for change but renewal of the Founding Father’s original intent - Freedom for the individual with responsibility for the whole. This was a unique conception, and when Washington made his river crossing, "the die was cast’ and a unique Constitutional Freedom evolved.
That original intent built a nation where immigrants were proud to come in through the front door; where wealthy individuals were philanthropic toward educational, medical, and social endeavors; heroes were modest and remembered their roots; politicians were not career people; religious leaders were more interested in souls than their own image and wealth; businessmen looked upon their employees as their personal responsibility in terms of financial survival; and the individual citizenry voted for principles and not images.
When did we lose our responsibility for the whole? I believe my generation planted it and those following developed it into what we see today - fewer and fewer wealthy philanthropic acts; breast beating heroes with lifestyles that belong in a pigsty; lifetime politicians who stay beyond their usefulness; religious leaders who represent violence in words and deeds; greedy businessmen are more the norm than not; and citizenry who don’t vote, but will never fail to complain when they don’t get their share of the Pork Barrel.
Everybody is calling for change, but it is time for renewal more than change. We need to go back to the basics with changed ideas. When Washington cast the die at that river it was for basically an all white male, liberal Christian society that honored the working man. His Rubicon Crossing brought a simple social system to this group that for the first time in modern history - a nation where all were concerned with freedom for the individual with responsibility for the whole.
The renewal is needed today with a few changes in concept. Substitute the phrase white male for all humans; add basic respect of all beliefs and individuals for liberal Christian; and expand the concept of honor to mean respect, educate, and enable individuals to fulfill their destinies in life and to accept their own responsibilities for self and the whole equally.
Now, all I have to do is find another Caesar or Washington to lead us across today’s Rubicon.
Great changes came about in the Roman Empire that extended its grand world position an extra three or four hundred years. It was in rapid decline with leaders, heroes, entertainers, businessmen, and priest acting utterly acting out of self-interest. The nobility of being concern with the welfare of the people was lost in the drive to nab power in any which way you could.
On November 6, 2012 I wonder if our great nation is facing another Rubicon Crossing. Since the 1960's we have been approaching the banks of our Rubicon and I believe we have arrived. It is time not for change but renewal of the Founding Father’s original intent - Freedom for the individual with responsibility for the whole. This was a unique conception, and when Washington made his river crossing, "the die was cast’ and a unique Constitutional Freedom evolved.
That original intent built a nation where immigrants were proud to come in through the front door; where wealthy individuals were philanthropic toward educational, medical, and social endeavors; heroes were modest and remembered their roots; politicians were not career people; religious leaders were more interested in souls than their own image and wealth; businessmen looked upon their employees as their personal responsibility in terms of financial survival; and the individual citizenry voted for principles and not images.
When did we lose our responsibility for the whole? I believe my generation planted it and those following developed it into what we see today - fewer and fewer wealthy philanthropic acts; breast beating heroes with lifestyles that belong in a pigsty; lifetime politicians who stay beyond their usefulness; religious leaders who represent violence in words and deeds; greedy businessmen are more the norm than not; and citizenry who don’t vote, but will never fail to complain when they don’t get their share of the Pork Barrel.
Everybody is calling for change, but it is time for renewal more than change. We need to go back to the basics with changed ideas. When Washington cast the die at that river it was for basically an all white male, liberal Christian society that honored the working man. His Rubicon Crossing brought a simple social system to this group that for the first time in modern history - a nation where all were concerned with freedom for the individual with responsibility for the whole.
The renewal is needed today with a few changes in concept. Substitute the phrase white male for all humans; add basic respect of all beliefs and individuals for liberal Christian; and expand the concept of honor to mean respect, educate, and enable individuals to fulfill their destinies in life and to accept their own responsibilities for self and the whole equally.
Now, all I have to do is find another Caesar or Washington to lead us across today’s Rubicon.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
God's True Judgement
Tired of reading about what is bad with people? Did you know God only judges on our holiness? There are no heavenly scales that weigh our good acts against our bad. God addresses solely the goodness in our lives at the judgement seat.
This seat as identified in Scripture in the Book of Revelation is just for those people, who have successfully finished a race. They come and stand in front of the judgement seat to receive their awards for performance.
In the Christian faith the only people, who finish the race are the ones, who have eternal life and citizenship in the Kingdom of Light (Kingdom of God). In the gospels, they are the ones, who have been born from above ("born again" is an inappropriate translation). They are the ones, according to Jesus, who love God above all things and their neighbor as themselves. Jesus understood the Holy Spirit is needed to do those two things. The same Spirit that gives eternal life.
At judgement, God will judge us as to how much of our lives we have turned over to the control of the Spirit. In other words, how holy are we? Which is truly good news, when compared with the works concept which balances good against the bad. Oh, I know there are people, who believe their good works out weigh their bad works. In the Spiritual realm they are immature beings, who actually believe they can gain eternal life on their own faith. They totally ignore the essential place of God’s Spirit in the great scheme of things.
Whenever we pray believing and ask God to forgive us, God is just and forgives us. Now comes the tremendous news of God’s grace. When God forgives a person, it is forgotten about for all eternity. It is gone! It is out of my life! This constant cleansing allows God’s people to work more on their goodness, instead of agonizing over their badness. That’s the basic good news I find in Christ Jesus, who God used to make this extra-ordinary formula work.
For this reason God challenges us to love one another. By this God means not judge, which means no evaluation or concern for my negative side, because that is between me and God. Instead we accept people for the goodness they have, no matter what level it has obtained.
What a wonderful world! A place where we only see good in people! Children will no longer tease others for their imperfections. Adults will not go to war to prove others wrong. People of God will join hands and let their light outshine all the darkness of this world. Yeah, I like that idea. We only deal with the good, just like God does it.
This seat as identified in Scripture in the Book of Revelation is just for those people, who have successfully finished a race. They come and stand in front of the judgement seat to receive their awards for performance.
In the Christian faith the only people, who finish the race are the ones, who have eternal life and citizenship in the Kingdom of Light (Kingdom of God). In the gospels, they are the ones, who have been born from above ("born again" is an inappropriate translation). They are the ones, according to Jesus, who love God above all things and their neighbor as themselves. Jesus understood the Holy Spirit is needed to do those two things. The same Spirit that gives eternal life.
At judgement, God will judge us as to how much of our lives we have turned over to the control of the Spirit. In other words, how holy are we? Which is truly good news, when compared with the works concept which balances good against the bad. Oh, I know there are people, who believe their good works out weigh their bad works. In the Spiritual realm they are immature beings, who actually believe they can gain eternal life on their own faith. They totally ignore the essential place of God’s Spirit in the great scheme of things.
Whenever we pray believing and ask God to forgive us, God is just and forgives us. Now comes the tremendous news of God’s grace. When God forgives a person, it is forgotten about for all eternity. It is gone! It is out of my life! This constant cleansing allows God’s people to work more on their goodness, instead of agonizing over their badness. That’s the basic good news I find in Christ Jesus, who God used to make this extra-ordinary formula work.
For this reason God challenges us to love one another. By this God means not judge, which means no evaluation or concern for my negative side, because that is between me and God. Instead we accept people for the goodness they have, no matter what level it has obtained.
What a wonderful world! A place where we only see good in people! Children will no longer tease others for their imperfections. Adults will not go to war to prove others wrong. People of God will join hands and let their light outshine all the darkness of this world. Yeah, I like that idea. We only deal with the good, just like God does it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)