Just watched a woman's description of shocking thoughts she had about her baby, such as smothering him, as a result of her post partum depression.
The proper term for this is "intrusive thoughts," which is well described in many Internet articles including in Wikipedia. It is a severe problem and is associated with many mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, OCD, PPD and bipolar.
The reason I am mentioning this today is that here is another example of where society as a whole has gone in a totally wrong direction, which harms rather than helps those with intrusive thoughts.
I agree that cognitive behavior therapy is a great help, but CBT is a matter of closing the barn door after the horse is gone. In other words CBT is used to wrestle with and hopefully subdue the intrusive thoughts, yet people remains saturated in intrusive thought stimulation without even realizing it. There are two main weaknesses in society that result in assailing people with intrusive thoughts:
1. Electronic media is a passive means of providing the viewer or listener with thoughts they would never otherwise have had. That's the whole idea of creativity and exposure to new and exciting stimuli, but the problem is that most people have not formed, particularly in childhood, the boundaries of thoughts that people used to have. In other words the past few generations are "thoughts wide open" due to their early addiction and exposure to electronic media. A huge part of normal human development is self awareness and self imposing of not only behavior but also thought boundaries, strong boundaries. The "let it all hang out" generations have damaged this necessary part of normal development. So people who grew up in electronic media times are programmed to have "all channels open to all thoughts, good or evil, wise or foolish, useful or bullshit" and thus are vulnerable to intrusive thoughts.
2. Excessive "spiritual" practices run the same risk, cultivating an undiscipled mind. In fact what passes for "spiritual discipline" in many cults and so forth (and even dabblers in mainstream religion) is actually not discipline in terms of discerning good thoughts and bad thoughts, but being, "open to the universe" and other such bullcrap. Listen, when normal people pray they know who they are and who they are praying to, that being the Almighty God. People who develop excess so called "spirituality" are like lint collectors, opening their minds to whatever crap is floating around out there. Mental crap that floats out there to be collected may be the undisciplined baloney of one's own unconscious mind, the crap thoughts of others via ESP, miasma from the gates of hell, and the urgings of one's own ego to be "special" and to "hear" things that "enlighten" you, but really don't exist. Folks, there is plenty of legit meditation and other spiritual practices, but beware, beware, beware because human ego like a magnet takes you places you should not go for your own good and for that of others.
When I was studying undercover people involved in so called "New Age" and other cult beliefs, I was in horror at the pride many of them had at working on broadcasting their sex thoughts via kundalini and other methods. And you wonder why so many children are beset by victimization. This is just one example of how you should not emit that kind of garbage (it hits more than you intended) plus it prevents you from having natural levees against intrusive thoughts later when YOU need protection.
I hope this helps. Too late, but what the hell.
Showing posts with label New Age thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Age thinking. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
random but connected God thoughts
I know many people are works obsessed, even while proclaiming being saved by grace alone. Likewise non-believers (and those of hybrid beliefs, some God, some pagan, which is just as bad) have world views that include the delusion that one can assign to one's self and to others "grace" bestowing chores and "to do" "checklists." It was when thinking about that problem when I was on Twitter this morning that I started to collect in my mind a few random scriptural references and explanations about God that will help you to detox from that mindset, which is dangerous and cruel, to say the least.
1) Be sure to understand that love and fear of God, and one's relationship with him alone, comes before ANY works, whether those that are "recommended" in the Bible or not. To explain let's go to the heart of the instruction of Jesus, where he added the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself. He ADDED that commandment TO the others. In other words, you still have to obey the first ten commandments, most particularly 1-4 which proclaim and worship God alone.
Most Christians have understood that full well. It's only in modern times that people have a kind of Chinese menu attitude toward "achieving" salvation, where they think they can "specialize" and make "to do" lists that will get them saved. Thus they think that they can do a lot of "good deeds" related to the new Commandment, and that will earn them points. Wrong. When Jesus talked to his disciples or the crowds he knew he was speaking to God's Chosen People, people whose entire life and indeed their government was based on their faith and relationship to God! You, dear friends, are far from being in that boat. So let me digress a bit with some Old Testament perspective.
I've blogged before that no one knows God like the Jews do. It's a fact. The Jews "grew up" alongside of God's continual presence. They know in their soul, in their heart and in their guts the essence of God far more than any other person can ever do, no matter how pious. When Christians speak of a personal relationship with God, usually through Jesus Christ, that is still not the same as people who traveled side by side with God in a tent.
It is with that familiarity with the real presence of God that is the baseline situation, the baseline culture, the starting point for all the Law and the Commandments that follow. So each Commandment (and other Law or instruction in the scriptures) is built upon the reality of the pre-existing knowledge both personal and community wide of God being real, of being ever present, and his un-judgable via human means Truth.
Let's give an example, just for a mental air freshener exercise. Imagine an Israelite of the time of Moses who, just for the sake of argument, broke all Ten Commandments and never actually followed them at all. He is still, in one sense, better off than every modern Christian. Why? Because he knew for certain God is real, as he had to just glance over at the meeting tent and see Moses emerge from speaking with God! That guy might be an idiot for assuming the God he clearly could witness to every day is going to not punish him at some point for disobeying, but he never doubts the reality of God, because he can see him! I mean, duh, think about it. That guy is a gambler, assuming he can sneak worship of an idol in here and there, skip keeping the Sabbath holy, covets all day long, etc, even kills the occasional person, but he knows God is real because he can see him, and he travels with him.
All Jews carry inside them that *sigh* of reality, which is that God is real, and that their ancestors walked with him, and that sin will result in punishment and suffering sooner or later. But see, Christians, even the good ones, are constantly testing "if God is real" and "if he hears me." They don't have that core spiritual DNA, for lack of a better term, that the Jews have, which is a long history of direct interaction with God himself, here on earth. Believing Jews, even the most lukewarm, have like a unique understanding that you can espy sometimes, even when they are not aware of it. It's when they talk about God, or about a Jewish tragedy, or about the state of Israel (arguing usually) and someone gets philosophical. You can see the look in the eyes, fleeting as it may be, as they think back over the obey-disobey-obey-disobey relationship they've had with God, but all happening against the backdrop of God's actual existence and presence among them.
In the Bible you can read how the Israelites became anxious when several hundred years would go by and God would not bring them a prophet, a genuine prophet (prophet is someone who speaks God's words, not is foretelling futures and so forth like moderns think). Jews were anxious, angry and melancholy for exactly that reason during the time of John the Baptist and before... as they had been centuries without a prophet. But they didn't run around "testing" to see if God was "still there," as just about every Christian I know actually does (if you strapped a lie detector test to them). Oh boy, Jews know God is there, has been there, and will always be there, but they also know he often is silent to individuals and communities.
So back to Jesus adding the new Commandment. Jesus was telling those people who I described right above here that Commandment, adding that to their already framework of understanding the every minute reality of God.
Thus the new Commandment is not a checklist item for getting in good graces with God. Rather, you can think of it as the test, not of God by man, but of man by God, because if you have the first Ten Commandments right, the new Commandment will flow from you naturally.
This is why you have to run from people who imply they can give you a list of chores or any checklist based on the new Commandment and that this will in any way "earn" anything for you with God. Absence of being like the new Commandment is a problem yes sir, but you can't "earn" points by pressing the new Commandment good-deed charity button over and over because if you are doing that you are demonstrating you don't get at all Commandments One through Four.
How can I show you this another way in the scriptures? Easy, by looking at Jesus with Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus, who were disciples and early followers and friends of his. Everyone loves the story where Martha is slaving in the kitchen serving Jesus and the others while lazy Mary is able to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn from him. When Martha expects Mary to be rebuked by Jesus, Jesus kind of sighs and says basically, "Don't blame Mary for choosing the better part."
Now, here's where modern people miss the point that everyone else (pre labor saving devices and first world prosperity) knew to a T. That is that it's not like Mary sat around all the time! It was that one time that she sat and listened to the important teachings of Jesus. The rest of the time she was working at providing for the household, and probably in the fields too, just as hard as everyone else. See, moderns think that the "enlightened" people can sit around (Jesus "said so") while "other" people serve them, and that it's kind of their fault anyway for choosing that "life path." This scripture has gotten a gooey New Age taint. People forget, what I explained above, that all Israelites, including the Jews of Jesus' time, already GOT the reality of God. They didn't think in terms of works and brownie points, what to do and what not to do, to earn being on a better "life path." So with those soot colored glasses they read this scripture and totally miss the point. On this one occasion Mary was so moved by what Jesus was telling to those around him that she sat at this feet, rather than doing her USUAL WORK. That's why Martha complained, as she too wanted to listen, but felt she had to do the work.
But see, Jesus is telling her to just trust and learn from him, rather than fret the meals and the cleaning. Remember that Jesus twice led thousands into the desert with no food or water, and he provided for them. The people trusted him. How much more so could Martha have trusted him to let people go without food or water or a clean house for a few hours or a day while Jesus was teaching? That's why Jesus gently rebuked with a sigh.
But see, just like the new Commandment, the story of Martha and Mary is fodder for those who do not understand the reality of God, unlike the people who knew full well the reality of God right then and there, throughout the times of the Bible. So certain modern people glean the Bible for checklist, scorecard, chores and brownie earning point activities, thinking that "puts them and others on the right path." It does not because the right path is knowing one hundred percent God exists and is there all the time and that YOU need a relationship with him first. It does not matter a mouse behind or any other body part if you are making someone wash dishes, or not, read scripture, or not, throw dirt around for someone else to pick up, or not, and all, like an accountant, "applying" to one's "checklist" of "what the Bible says to do." You will DO the things that are right, in their season and time, IF you FIRST understand and obey God's reality.
2) I cannot possibly overstate that you must understand when Jesus tells the disciples about the rich man who went to hell, described in Luke 16. You need to understand that was a PIOUS BELIEVER who probably did all the right things in every other respect, but ended up in hell, to his total shock. (Believe you me, sinners know why they are in hell. Those who think they are square and OK with God and end up in hell are those who are shocked, as that guy was. That's why he wanted to warn his brothers, not because they were obvious sinners, duh, but because they probably thought they were wonderful, worthy, pious people too! Remember that during Jesus' time the Jews had degenerated so that they thought the healthy and rich were rewarded by God for being good, while the poor and the sick were punished for being "sinners.") Everyone who heard that story from Jesus totally understood that, unlike today. The rich man was punished in hell because he ignored the ONE person God expected him to save from illness and starvation. So believe you me, that guy in hell (he's still there) had a long "good deed" checklist, but oops, he left out the one person that he should have saved. James warns that to know to do good and not to do it is a sin.
3) Here's some blunt truth. You know how in the Apocalypse Jesus tells those who "did not know him" (because they did not feed, clothe, visit etc others in his name) to begone and not be saved? The only reason that Jesus is having that conversation at all with them is that those folks did believe in Jesus. Nonbelievers and those who deny God don't even get to that point of conversation, as they are rejected just as they rejected God. So again, the people who are rebuked by Jesus for lack of good deeds were ALREADY Jesus believers. You have to believe and obey God in the first place before you even get a shot at meriting through your natural sanctity appropriate good deed leadership. It's not like Jesus is saying that good deeds earned them the right to approach Jesus upon death. Belief in Jesus, in God, earned them the right to approach him, but what they did with that belief (or not, as is this case) is what gets them rejected. It's the fact that they did not follow through with their total and accurate belief in Jesus by now exuding that sanctity toward God into service toward others that got them in the hot place.
I hope these thoughts help.
1) Be sure to understand that love and fear of God, and one's relationship with him alone, comes before ANY works, whether those that are "recommended" in the Bible or not. To explain let's go to the heart of the instruction of Jesus, where he added the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself. He ADDED that commandment TO the others. In other words, you still have to obey the first ten commandments, most particularly 1-4 which proclaim and worship God alone.
Most Christians have understood that full well. It's only in modern times that people have a kind of Chinese menu attitude toward "achieving" salvation, where they think they can "specialize" and make "to do" lists that will get them saved. Thus they think that they can do a lot of "good deeds" related to the new Commandment, and that will earn them points. Wrong. When Jesus talked to his disciples or the crowds he knew he was speaking to God's Chosen People, people whose entire life and indeed their government was based on their faith and relationship to God! You, dear friends, are far from being in that boat. So let me digress a bit with some Old Testament perspective.
I've blogged before that no one knows God like the Jews do. It's a fact. The Jews "grew up" alongside of God's continual presence. They know in their soul, in their heart and in their guts the essence of God far more than any other person can ever do, no matter how pious. When Christians speak of a personal relationship with God, usually through Jesus Christ, that is still not the same as people who traveled side by side with God in a tent.
It is with that familiarity with the real presence of God that is the baseline situation, the baseline culture, the starting point for all the Law and the Commandments that follow. So each Commandment (and other Law or instruction in the scriptures) is built upon the reality of the pre-existing knowledge both personal and community wide of God being real, of being ever present, and his un-judgable via human means Truth.
Let's give an example, just for a mental air freshener exercise. Imagine an Israelite of the time of Moses who, just for the sake of argument, broke all Ten Commandments and never actually followed them at all. He is still, in one sense, better off than every modern Christian. Why? Because he knew for certain God is real, as he had to just glance over at the meeting tent and see Moses emerge from speaking with God! That guy might be an idiot for assuming the God he clearly could witness to every day is going to not punish him at some point for disobeying, but he never doubts the reality of God, because he can see him! I mean, duh, think about it. That guy is a gambler, assuming he can sneak worship of an idol in here and there, skip keeping the Sabbath holy, covets all day long, etc, even kills the occasional person, but he knows God is real because he can see him, and he travels with him.
All Jews carry inside them that *sigh* of reality, which is that God is real, and that their ancestors walked with him, and that sin will result in punishment and suffering sooner or later. But see, Christians, even the good ones, are constantly testing "if God is real" and "if he hears me." They don't have that core spiritual DNA, for lack of a better term, that the Jews have, which is a long history of direct interaction with God himself, here on earth. Believing Jews, even the most lukewarm, have like a unique understanding that you can espy sometimes, even when they are not aware of it. It's when they talk about God, or about a Jewish tragedy, or about the state of Israel (arguing usually) and someone gets philosophical. You can see the look in the eyes, fleeting as it may be, as they think back over the obey-disobey-obey-disobey relationship they've had with God, but all happening against the backdrop of God's actual existence and presence among them.
In the Bible you can read how the Israelites became anxious when several hundred years would go by and God would not bring them a prophet, a genuine prophet (prophet is someone who speaks God's words, not is foretelling futures and so forth like moderns think). Jews were anxious, angry and melancholy for exactly that reason during the time of John the Baptist and before... as they had been centuries without a prophet. But they didn't run around "testing" to see if God was "still there," as just about every Christian I know actually does (if you strapped a lie detector test to them). Oh boy, Jews know God is there, has been there, and will always be there, but they also know he often is silent to individuals and communities.
So back to Jesus adding the new Commandment. Jesus was telling those people who I described right above here that Commandment, adding that to their already framework of understanding the every minute reality of God.
Thus the new Commandment is not a checklist item for getting in good graces with God. Rather, you can think of it as the test, not of God by man, but of man by God, because if you have the first Ten Commandments right, the new Commandment will flow from you naturally.
This is why you have to run from people who imply they can give you a list of chores or any checklist based on the new Commandment and that this will in any way "earn" anything for you with God. Absence of being like the new Commandment is a problem yes sir, but you can't "earn" points by pressing the new Commandment good-deed charity button over and over because if you are doing that you are demonstrating you don't get at all Commandments One through Four.
How can I show you this another way in the scriptures? Easy, by looking at Jesus with Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus, who were disciples and early followers and friends of his. Everyone loves the story where Martha is slaving in the kitchen serving Jesus and the others while lazy Mary is able to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn from him. When Martha expects Mary to be rebuked by Jesus, Jesus kind of sighs and says basically, "Don't blame Mary for choosing the better part."
Now, here's where modern people miss the point that everyone else (pre labor saving devices and first world prosperity) knew to a T. That is that it's not like Mary sat around all the time! It was that one time that she sat and listened to the important teachings of Jesus. The rest of the time she was working at providing for the household, and probably in the fields too, just as hard as everyone else. See, moderns think that the "enlightened" people can sit around (Jesus "said so") while "other" people serve them, and that it's kind of their fault anyway for choosing that "life path." This scripture has gotten a gooey New Age taint. People forget, what I explained above, that all Israelites, including the Jews of Jesus' time, already GOT the reality of God. They didn't think in terms of works and brownie points, what to do and what not to do, to earn being on a better "life path." So with those soot colored glasses they read this scripture and totally miss the point. On this one occasion Mary was so moved by what Jesus was telling to those around him that she sat at this feet, rather than doing her USUAL WORK. That's why Martha complained, as she too wanted to listen, but felt she had to do the work.
But see, Jesus is telling her to just trust and learn from him, rather than fret the meals and the cleaning. Remember that Jesus twice led thousands into the desert with no food or water, and he provided for them. The people trusted him. How much more so could Martha have trusted him to let people go without food or water or a clean house for a few hours or a day while Jesus was teaching? That's why Jesus gently rebuked with a sigh.
But see, just like the new Commandment, the story of Martha and Mary is fodder for those who do not understand the reality of God, unlike the people who knew full well the reality of God right then and there, throughout the times of the Bible. So certain modern people glean the Bible for checklist, scorecard, chores and brownie earning point activities, thinking that "puts them and others on the right path." It does not because the right path is knowing one hundred percent God exists and is there all the time and that YOU need a relationship with him first. It does not matter a mouse behind or any other body part if you are making someone wash dishes, or not, read scripture, or not, throw dirt around for someone else to pick up, or not, and all, like an accountant, "applying" to one's "checklist" of "what the Bible says to do." You will DO the things that are right, in their season and time, IF you FIRST understand and obey God's reality.
2) I cannot possibly overstate that you must understand when Jesus tells the disciples about the rich man who went to hell, described in Luke 16. You need to understand that was a PIOUS BELIEVER who probably did all the right things in every other respect, but ended up in hell, to his total shock. (Believe you me, sinners know why they are in hell. Those who think they are square and OK with God and end up in hell are those who are shocked, as that guy was. That's why he wanted to warn his brothers, not because they were obvious sinners, duh, but because they probably thought they were wonderful, worthy, pious people too! Remember that during Jesus' time the Jews had degenerated so that they thought the healthy and rich were rewarded by God for being good, while the poor and the sick were punished for being "sinners.") Everyone who heard that story from Jesus totally understood that, unlike today. The rich man was punished in hell because he ignored the ONE person God expected him to save from illness and starvation. So believe you me, that guy in hell (he's still there) had a long "good deed" checklist, but oops, he left out the one person that he should have saved. James warns that to know to do good and not to do it is a sin.
3) Here's some blunt truth. You know how in the Apocalypse Jesus tells those who "did not know him" (because they did not feed, clothe, visit etc others in his name) to begone and not be saved? The only reason that Jesus is having that conversation at all with them is that those folks did believe in Jesus. Nonbelievers and those who deny God don't even get to that point of conversation, as they are rejected just as they rejected God. So again, the people who are rebuked by Jesus for lack of good deeds were ALREADY Jesus believers. You have to believe and obey God in the first place before you even get a shot at meriting through your natural sanctity appropriate good deed leadership. It's not like Jesus is saying that good deeds earned them the right to approach Jesus upon death. Belief in Jesus, in God, earned them the right to approach him, but what they did with that belief (or not, as is this case) is what gets them rejected. It's the fact that they did not follow through with their total and accurate belief in Jesus by now exuding that sanctity toward God into service toward others that got them in the hot place.
I hope these thoughts help.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Why many prefer lies to the truth
While out for a drive today I noticed a bolt of lightning strike a few miles away (it's been a stormy several weeks with many isolated thunder storms roaming around.) This was one of those bolts that lingered a bit, and since I was looking in that direction from a place higher above the ground (driving on the crest of a bridge) I got a good look at it. That made me think of an analogy to help you to understand why so many people actually prefer lies to the truth! Here it is.
Anyone who has seen a lightning bolt, either in reality or in a cool photograph, knows that lightning usually is long and curved. Sometimes it forks, but usually (especially ground to cloud lightning), it is like a rough rope that is slightly curved.
Yet, if anyone were asked to draw lightning, what would they draw? They would draw the cartoon symbol for lightning, which is the straight zigzag. Even knowing what lightning looks like in reality, if someone were asked to draw it, most would do the zigzag.
(I'd embed images here but I remain a total tyro at using the computer and really don't know how to get it to consistently work on this blog...I almost always get error messages when I try.)
Now, if you asked the person, "Why did you draw the cartoon symbol for lightning, the vertical zigzag, rather than how it actually looks?" the person would reply, "Well, you might not be sure what it was I was drawing if I drew how it actually looks, but if I use the symbol there is no mistaking it."
This is the irony of not only how the human brain is wired, but the conventional societal attitude in communications. Often we make ourselves clearer in conveying an idea by simplifying it into total or near artificiality!
This is both a brain thing and a society thing. Brains want to work "fast" and "get to the point." Hence they are wired to "fill in the blanks" and also to respond to key stimuli. Thus a cartoon of lightning gets the point across faster, more uniformly and clearer rather than even a talented artist drawing a rough line that is slightly curved.
You can see exactly what I mean about what a "bolt" of lightning really looks like by the many fine pictures at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning
At this lightning safety page, you can see great photos of actual lightning plus small yellow vertical zigzag symbols of lightning, so you can compare what I mean side by side, the reality and the very helpful symbol.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/?n=lightning_safety
But if a person extracted just one lightning bolt and drew it on a piece of paper, it would not be obvious what it is. The person would probably have to explain, or draw scenery to show the context.
Yet, if a person draws a vertical zigzag, nearly everyone recognizes instantly, without context, that it is a depiction of a lightning bolt. If the zigzag is drawn horizontally, it usually indicates electricity symbolically.
So the "survival trait" part of the brain favors pithy, quick, simplified, cartoonish depictions of "reality" so that it can "get the message" and the "bottom line" in a hurry. This is true whether people are in actual danger situations or not. Why? Because the second half of the brain influence is that brains become lazy, just like their human owners. Truth requires more detail, discernment, and thought, while untruth or overly simplified reality does not require much effort to think about.
This, then, is also a societal problem. A consumer oriented society (or, to be blunt, a greedy worship the dollar and instant gratification society) favors fast pitches of their product that provide rapid stimulation. Thus, again, a consumer oriented society favors the lazy brain, one that does not think about the reality, the truth, or the implications of what is being displayed.
So this, then, is where a survival trait that is good in the brain (make great and quick leaps in understanding based on simplified information) turns into an addiction (I don't want to think about anything difficult or complicated, so I'd rather believe something easy to believe rather than something difficult to comprehend).
What is an example? Well, of course a loving, all powerful and demanding God is a complicated, mysterious, "work is required" concept to think about, to believe and to obey. Mindless entertainment and worse, many cult beliefs, such as an "evil alien invader," satisfy the over stimulated but lazy brain demand. Faith is work and even a simple symbol, such as the cross, the Star of David, or the crescent are symbols of a complicated reality. Unfortunately, modern humans have taken their God given great brains, which can process very complicated concepts, but also make great conclusions based on little information, and have turned those two abilities into an addictive thought process whereby the brain craves not reality or truth, even if they are happier and more pleasant options, and instead prefer whatever is simpler and non-thought stimulating, even if that is the sadder and more depressive option.
So you can see by my analogy that this is another example of where a "good" capability of the brain has been increasingly used for the wrong purposes, and has therefore become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
That's why I like my analogy because there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a symbol for clarity, such as the vertical zigzag for a lightning bolt, drawn with a simple stroke of the pen or pencil, rather than a person having to laboriously draw what lightning actually looks like, put it in a landscape for clarity (as in the Wikipedia photographs) and probably label it too. The problem is when the brain grows to prefer intaking only simplified symbols, including ones that are simply NOT real at all, rather than intaking reality, the truth, as it actually is.
Here's a silly example. It's like modern humans think that if they are going to get hit by a lightning bolt, that someone is going to take a piece of paper with a vertical zigzag on it and rub it on them, rather than being hit by the reality of a lightning bolt. That is how modern brains have been warped. They have taken the "talent" that the brain has and made it cross wired, so that the simplified and even the totally wrong has replaced the complicated truthful reality in many situations.
It's like the slogan problem, where people get excited over a nifty chant or slogan to express their beliefs, rather than plumb the more complicated reality that underlies the issue. It is an instinct, a helpful instinct, of the brain that has been transformed into a harmful addiction.
So I hope that this is a helpful analogy for you. This is a very serious problem and those of you who are either rediscovering your genuine faith and/or those who are leaving cults must understand why the temptation to believe the "strong but wrong" is so persistent. Modern brains in the context of an increasingly consumer oriented and very artificial society have come to favor-and even become addicted to-strong but over simplified and often totally wrong lies over truthful but more nuanced and complicated reality that takes time, effort, and some sacrifice in order to actually understand.
Anyone who has seen a lightning bolt, either in reality or in a cool photograph, knows that lightning usually is long and curved. Sometimes it forks, but usually (especially ground to cloud lightning), it is like a rough rope that is slightly curved.
Yet, if anyone were asked to draw lightning, what would they draw? They would draw the cartoon symbol for lightning, which is the straight zigzag. Even knowing what lightning looks like in reality, if someone were asked to draw it, most would do the zigzag.
(I'd embed images here but I remain a total tyro at using the computer and really don't know how to get it to consistently work on this blog...I almost always get error messages when I try.)
Now, if you asked the person, "Why did you draw the cartoon symbol for lightning, the vertical zigzag, rather than how it actually looks?" the person would reply, "Well, you might not be sure what it was I was drawing if I drew how it actually looks, but if I use the symbol there is no mistaking it."
This is the irony of not only how the human brain is wired, but the conventional societal attitude in communications. Often we make ourselves clearer in conveying an idea by simplifying it into total or near artificiality!
This is both a brain thing and a society thing. Brains want to work "fast" and "get to the point." Hence they are wired to "fill in the blanks" and also to respond to key stimuli. Thus a cartoon of lightning gets the point across faster, more uniformly and clearer rather than even a talented artist drawing a rough line that is slightly curved.
You can see exactly what I mean about what a "bolt" of lightning really looks like by the many fine pictures at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning
At this lightning safety page, you can see great photos of actual lightning plus small yellow vertical zigzag symbols of lightning, so you can compare what I mean side by side, the reality and the very helpful symbol.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/?n=lightning_safety
But if a person extracted just one lightning bolt and drew it on a piece of paper, it would not be obvious what it is. The person would probably have to explain, or draw scenery to show the context.
Yet, if a person draws a vertical zigzag, nearly everyone recognizes instantly, without context, that it is a depiction of a lightning bolt. If the zigzag is drawn horizontally, it usually indicates electricity symbolically.
So the "survival trait" part of the brain favors pithy, quick, simplified, cartoonish depictions of "reality" so that it can "get the message" and the "bottom line" in a hurry. This is true whether people are in actual danger situations or not. Why? Because the second half of the brain influence is that brains become lazy, just like their human owners. Truth requires more detail, discernment, and thought, while untruth or overly simplified reality does not require much effort to think about.
This, then, is also a societal problem. A consumer oriented society (or, to be blunt, a greedy worship the dollar and instant gratification society) favors fast pitches of their product that provide rapid stimulation. Thus, again, a consumer oriented society favors the lazy brain, one that does not think about the reality, the truth, or the implications of what is being displayed.
So this, then, is where a survival trait that is good in the brain (make great and quick leaps in understanding based on simplified information) turns into an addiction (I don't want to think about anything difficult or complicated, so I'd rather believe something easy to believe rather than something difficult to comprehend).
What is an example? Well, of course a loving, all powerful and demanding God is a complicated, mysterious, "work is required" concept to think about, to believe and to obey. Mindless entertainment and worse, many cult beliefs, such as an "evil alien invader," satisfy the over stimulated but lazy brain demand. Faith is work and even a simple symbol, such as the cross, the Star of David, or the crescent are symbols of a complicated reality. Unfortunately, modern humans have taken their God given great brains, which can process very complicated concepts, but also make great conclusions based on little information, and have turned those two abilities into an addictive thought process whereby the brain craves not reality or truth, even if they are happier and more pleasant options, and instead prefer whatever is simpler and non-thought stimulating, even if that is the sadder and more depressive option.
So you can see by my analogy that this is another example of where a "good" capability of the brain has been increasingly used for the wrong purposes, and has therefore become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
That's why I like my analogy because there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a symbol for clarity, such as the vertical zigzag for a lightning bolt, drawn with a simple stroke of the pen or pencil, rather than a person having to laboriously draw what lightning actually looks like, put it in a landscape for clarity (as in the Wikipedia photographs) and probably label it too. The problem is when the brain grows to prefer intaking only simplified symbols, including ones that are simply NOT real at all, rather than intaking reality, the truth, as it actually is.
Here's a silly example. It's like modern humans think that if they are going to get hit by a lightning bolt, that someone is going to take a piece of paper with a vertical zigzag on it and rub it on them, rather than being hit by the reality of a lightning bolt. That is how modern brains have been warped. They have taken the "talent" that the brain has and made it cross wired, so that the simplified and even the totally wrong has replaced the complicated truthful reality in many situations.
It's like the slogan problem, where people get excited over a nifty chant or slogan to express their beliefs, rather than plumb the more complicated reality that underlies the issue. It is an instinct, a helpful instinct, of the brain that has been transformed into a harmful addiction.
So I hope that this is a helpful analogy for you. This is a very serious problem and those of you who are either rediscovering your genuine faith and/or those who are leaving cults must understand why the temptation to believe the "strong but wrong" is so persistent. Modern brains in the context of an increasingly consumer oriented and very artificial society have come to favor-and even become addicted to-strong but over simplified and often totally wrong lies over truthful but more nuanced and complicated reality that takes time, effort, and some sacrifice in order to actually understand.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Bible Reading & Commentary: John 9
I’d like to use a “special interest group,” the disabled, as a case study for better understanding the Bible, the morality of equality and charity, and the message of Jesus Christ.
To have a disability, such as either blindness or a crippling accident or disease, or from the onset of old age, was much more than just a problem of prejudice in Biblical times: it was a problem of life and death. Everyone had to be able to work in the fields, tend the flocks, glean food if one was poor, prepare housing and clothing, etc. because one’s life and that of one’s whole family and community, depended on everyone being able bodied. If one could not work one was a great burden on the family. Yet among rough cultures who thought nothing of killing or abandoning their disabled, the Israelites received specific mention by God in their Law of being kind to the disabled.
Leviticus 19:14
Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord.
This passage is put right in between 19:13 where God orders that neighbors and those who are hired by you are not to be cheated of their wages and belongings, and 19:15 where God orders all to not be unrighteous toward any person (including not tilting in favor of either poor or mighty). Thus as God gives to Moses the litany of the Law and the good behavior, the disabled (in the form of the deaf and the blind) are embedded in their rights and dignity among the list of the able bodied.
Thus God says that the disabled should not be “cursed,” as in scolded or disparaged or made to feel “doomed” by their disability. Further, God orders that hardships do not be placed in front of the disabled. “Stumbling block” is a common phrase in Biblical times. It has a meaning that is like in today’s vernacular “to stub one’s toe” except it has a crucial seriousness, as a fall could lead to a life threatening condition such as a broken leg or a cracked head. As I said, this would be more than an annoyance but life threatening in an active subsistence culture where all must be able bodied. So God orders that one should not only not disparage or verbally abuse the disabled, but one should also refrain from, and indeed remove, “stumbling blocks” that hinder, endanger or at the very least shame them. This is much more than “putting up with” or just feeding the disabled, and God seals that order with the statement of closure that “but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord.” God uses “but” to mean like “instead,” so God is saying instead of hurting or hindering the disabled, remember to fear God, who will bring anyone who harms or does not care for the disabled to judgment in front of him.
Deuteronomy 27:18
Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way: and all the people shall say, Amen.
God now explicitly states that someone who allows the blind to lose their way is cursed. God expects the blind to not be led astray or allowed to wander lost, scared or confused. In this section of Deuteronomy, God lists a number of “don’ts” and seals each “don’t” with “and all the people shall say, Amen.” This means that the people should denounce, scold and punish anyone who breaks this Law. So this is not God only saying that spiritually the person who allows the blind to wander is in trouble, but God orders the people to denounce such a person.
Thus one can see that the Israelites were ordered by God to honor and care for their disabled, even though a disability was, during that time, a great liability in an agricultural society where all had to labor in order to survive and eat. This is one of the many ways that the Israelites distinguished themselves from the pagans around them, including the “great” civilizations such as Egypt.
Consider, then, how far things had sunk by the time of Jesus Christ, where Jesus was born into a world where the Jewish people believed that those with infirmities were being “punished” by God for sin, either their own sin or that of family. This was one of the fundamental corruptions of the faith that Jesus Christ attacked head on. This is one reason why the priests, the Scribes, the Pharisees and other critics of Jesus feared and hated him so much when he performed miracles to cure the blind, the deaf, the lame and the otherwise ill and afflicted. Jewish religious and cultural belief had been corrupted to adopt the belief that all who were sick or who had accidents had “brought it upon themselves through sin” even though their own Law, as cited above, makes it abundantly clear that they are not to think that at all. In the over thousand years of time while claiming to follow the Law, Jesus caught them out in not following the Law over and over, and this is why he called them hypocrites.
Consider, then, one of my “favorites” of the miracles of Jesus at the pool of Siloam. The word “Siloam” means “sent,” by the way. Here you read what I just explained above, that everyone, laity and priestly, believed that disabilities were the result of sin. Notice that the Jews discount the blind man’s very words even after he is cured, because they insist that because he was blind he was “born into sin” and not worth believing. They refused to let go of this prejudice that is contrary to what God stated in the Law.
John 9
As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him. We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
[Jesus is not only refuting the notion that the man was born blind due to some sort of sin, but Jesus announces that it is God’s will that this blind man will now and in the future bear witness to the true Light of the world, Jesus.]
When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva, and smeared the clay on his eyes, and said to him, “Go wash in the Pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed, and came back able to see.
His neighbors and those who had seen him earlier as a beggar said, “Isn’t this the one who used to sit and beg?” Some said, “It is,” but others said, “No, he just looks like him.” He said, “I am.”
So they said to him, “[So] how were your eyes opened?” He replied, “The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and told me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So I went there and washed and was able to see.” And they said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I don’t know.”
They brought the one who was once blind to the Pharisees. Now Jesus had made clay and opened his eyes on a Sabbath.
[Jesus “broke the Sabbath” by doing three actions that were considered “work,” and all “work” is forbidden on the Sabbath. Jesus spit (thus working to make something he will use for work), kneaded clay (work) and healed the man (work)].
So then the Pharisees also asked him how he was able to see. He said to them, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and now I can see.” So some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath.” [But] others said, “How can a sinful man do such signs?” And there was a division among them. So they said to the blind man again, “What do you have to say about him, since he opened our eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.”
[Notice that the blind man who now sees is clearer and wiser about Jesus from the start than the Pharisees. Now, you might think, of course he believed in Jesus as a prophet, since he benefited first hand from the miracle. But remember, by washing in the pool the previously blind man also “did work” on the Sabbath, and it would be understandable if he waffled somewhat about Jesus being a prophet, under such disapproving questioning about the Sabbath. But as Jesus prophesied, this man immediately witnessed to the works of God, since a prophet only works at God’s behest and grace].
Now the Jews did not believe that he had been blind and gained is sight until they summoned the parents of the one who had gained his sight. They asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How does he now see?” His parents answered and said, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. We do not know how he sees now, nor do we know who opened his eyes. As him, he is of age; he can speak for himself.” His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone acknowledged him as the Messiah, he would be expelled from the synagogue. For this reason his parents said, “He is of age; question him.”
[The plot thickens. St. John the Apostle took great care to record all that back and forth and give and take that took place so that this man could bear witness for all time, in the Gospel According to John. This is thus a precious record of how the people reacted in detail to a miracle, those who believed and those who disbelieved. Modern critics need to pay attention to this chapter because the Bible is not “just” a collection of people making claims to “push” their religion. John records here an example of how the Jews simply did not know what to make of this miracle, and the dialogue as it took place and the strength of this anonymous blind man even as he and his family are threatened with being expelled from their community of faith, the synagogue].
So a second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, “Give God the praise! We know that this man is a sinner.”
[The Pharisees are trying two new tactics here. They tempt the man to say that God just happened to cure him at the same time that Jesus was standing around, and so Jesus had nothing to do with the miracle. They also use an Old Testament expression that is a formula to force someone to tell the truth by reminding them of the fear of God].
He replied, “If he is a sinner, I do not know. One thing I do know is that I was blind and now I see.”
[This, by the way, is the Biblical origin of the phrase that is used in the modern song “Amazing Grace,” written by a slave merchant who had a conversion: “Was blind and now I see” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace].
So they said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” He answered them, “I told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?”
[Ha! Whoever this man was he was respectful but very bold; notice he gives them a zinger by asking them if they want to become Jesus’ disciples “too”].
They ridiculed him and said, “You are that man’s disciple; we are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know where this one is from.”
[See, here is where they claim to be followers and believers of Moses and the Law that God gave him, yet their every action indicates lack of respect for the spiritual equality of the disabled, contrary to Leviticus and Deuteronomy].
The man answered and said to them, “This is what is so amazing, that you do not know where he is from, yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does his will, he listens to him. It is unheard of that anyone ever opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, he would not be able to do anything.”
[Ha! He points out the irony that he was the blind man yet they, the Pharisees, are not the ones who refuse to see. The previously blind man now tries to use logic, referring to their temptation to credit God with the miracle but not Jesus, by saying that God obviously would not give miracle performing ability to the likes that was unheard of before to someone who was a sinner, as the Pharisees try to charge].
They answered and said to him, “You were born totally in sin, and are you trying to teach us?” Then they threw him out.
[There it is; there is the point I made earlier. Just because this man was born blind he was totally demonized as being a sinner born in and doomed to sin. There are few clearer examples than this one of how the Pharisees and others were hypocrites who had actually moved most outrageously and egregiously away from what God actually stated in the Law, which they love to selectively quote and disobey the rest of it].
When Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, he found him and said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered and said, “Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him and the one speaking with you is he.” He said, “I do believe, Lord,” and he worshiped him. Then Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind.”
Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.”
Is this not a precious treasure of dialogue that St. John has preserved, writing it down in his old age? Not only do we have record of one of Jesus’ miracles, but we see Jesus going head to head against those who preached that those born with disabilities (or who acquired them) were born into hopeless sin. It is not just Jesus performing works on the Sabbath that outrages the Pharisees, or their jealousy at his God given works, but they have inculcated a culture that is class based, based on supposed sin or no sin, and Jesus mightily corrects them. They wanted to continue to hang onto the idea that all who were disabled were sinners or born of sinners, and that disabilities were not only the mark of “sin” but the punishment by God for sin. This is what Jesus means that their sin remains because they say “We see.” They continue to sin (by thinking the disabled are born into sin) exactly because they have not let their eyes be opened, as was the blind man’s.
A few years ago archaeologists found what they have identified as the original pool of Siloam, by the way. The current upper pool had been rebuilt, but in 2005 they found a lower pool that dates to the time of Jesus and the Apostles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siloam_Pool
This is one reason I was an early supporter of the American with Disabilities Act, by the way, even though a lot of money was wasted with poorly designed wheel chair access… the point is that people should do whatever they can to mainstream the disabled as much as they can and desire to be mainstreamed. This is especially true of our wounded veterans, who have given so much for their country. Biblically one can be assured that no money spent wisely on “removing the stumbling blocks” is wasted in God’s eyes.
This is also why I am infuriated, as I blogged yesterday, with those New Agers who “teach” illness and disability as being related to “karma,” “past lives,” “bad spirits,” or “doing evil.” I mean, that is even more outrageous than what the Pharisees believed, and they were an outrageous disgrace of hypocrisy and defiance of what God said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Jesus then stated clearly and for all that the religious and cultural belief that the disabled had “sinned” in any way was wrong and should be condemned. Both God through Moses and the Law AND Jesus Christ most clearly refuted that disabilities were the result of sin, to say nothing of “past lives,” “karma” and “evil spirits.” (Jesus is very explicit when he casts out an evil spirit; he never links illness in and of itself with evil spirits, as you can see most clearly in this miracle). There is a world of difference between being ill due to an evil spirit (I mean, duh, having an evil spirit certainly does not promote one’s mental health) and saying, as New Ager ignoramuses do, that biological illness is “caused” by evil spirits. Unbelievable, I find this wicked demonizing of illness by New Agers to be just unconscionable. That is in defiance of what God instructed the Israelites AND what Jesus Christ refuted, at the cost of his life.
I hope that you have enjoyed this, one of my favorite sections of the Gospel. It really is a glimpse into the day to day back and forth that was the heart of the revolution that Jesus Christ genuinely brought to both the faith and the culture. In this chapter one sees it all and thus you have a genuine view into what it was like as Jesus Christ proclaimed God and combated the hypocrites of the time who had not only insulting hypocrisy but very dangerous and damaging beliefs that were contrary to God’s teaching in the Law itself.
To have a disability, such as either blindness or a crippling accident or disease, or from the onset of old age, was much more than just a problem of prejudice in Biblical times: it was a problem of life and death. Everyone had to be able to work in the fields, tend the flocks, glean food if one was poor, prepare housing and clothing, etc. because one’s life and that of one’s whole family and community, depended on everyone being able bodied. If one could not work one was a great burden on the family. Yet among rough cultures who thought nothing of killing or abandoning their disabled, the Israelites received specific mention by God in their Law of being kind to the disabled.
Leviticus 19:14
Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord.
This passage is put right in between 19:13 where God orders that neighbors and those who are hired by you are not to be cheated of their wages and belongings, and 19:15 where God orders all to not be unrighteous toward any person (including not tilting in favor of either poor or mighty). Thus as God gives to Moses the litany of the Law and the good behavior, the disabled (in the form of the deaf and the blind) are embedded in their rights and dignity among the list of the able bodied.
Thus God says that the disabled should not be “cursed,” as in scolded or disparaged or made to feel “doomed” by their disability. Further, God orders that hardships do not be placed in front of the disabled. “Stumbling block” is a common phrase in Biblical times. It has a meaning that is like in today’s vernacular “to stub one’s toe” except it has a crucial seriousness, as a fall could lead to a life threatening condition such as a broken leg or a cracked head. As I said, this would be more than an annoyance but life threatening in an active subsistence culture where all must be able bodied. So God orders that one should not only not disparage or verbally abuse the disabled, but one should also refrain from, and indeed remove, “stumbling blocks” that hinder, endanger or at the very least shame them. This is much more than “putting up with” or just feeding the disabled, and God seals that order with the statement of closure that “but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord.” God uses “but” to mean like “instead,” so God is saying instead of hurting or hindering the disabled, remember to fear God, who will bring anyone who harms or does not care for the disabled to judgment in front of him.
Deuteronomy 27:18
Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way: and all the people shall say, Amen.
God now explicitly states that someone who allows the blind to lose their way is cursed. God expects the blind to not be led astray or allowed to wander lost, scared or confused. In this section of Deuteronomy, God lists a number of “don’ts” and seals each “don’t” with “and all the people shall say, Amen.” This means that the people should denounce, scold and punish anyone who breaks this Law. So this is not God only saying that spiritually the person who allows the blind to wander is in trouble, but God orders the people to denounce such a person.
Thus one can see that the Israelites were ordered by God to honor and care for their disabled, even though a disability was, during that time, a great liability in an agricultural society where all had to labor in order to survive and eat. This is one of the many ways that the Israelites distinguished themselves from the pagans around them, including the “great” civilizations such as Egypt.
Consider, then, how far things had sunk by the time of Jesus Christ, where Jesus was born into a world where the Jewish people believed that those with infirmities were being “punished” by God for sin, either their own sin or that of family. This was one of the fundamental corruptions of the faith that Jesus Christ attacked head on. This is one reason why the priests, the Scribes, the Pharisees and other critics of Jesus feared and hated him so much when he performed miracles to cure the blind, the deaf, the lame and the otherwise ill and afflicted. Jewish religious and cultural belief had been corrupted to adopt the belief that all who were sick or who had accidents had “brought it upon themselves through sin” even though their own Law, as cited above, makes it abundantly clear that they are not to think that at all. In the over thousand years of time while claiming to follow the Law, Jesus caught them out in not following the Law over and over, and this is why he called them hypocrites.
Consider, then, one of my “favorites” of the miracles of Jesus at the pool of Siloam. The word “Siloam” means “sent,” by the way. Here you read what I just explained above, that everyone, laity and priestly, believed that disabilities were the result of sin. Notice that the Jews discount the blind man’s very words even after he is cured, because they insist that because he was blind he was “born into sin” and not worth believing. They refused to let go of this prejudice that is contrary to what God stated in the Law.
John 9
As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him. We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
[Jesus is not only refuting the notion that the man was born blind due to some sort of sin, but Jesus announces that it is God’s will that this blind man will now and in the future bear witness to the true Light of the world, Jesus.]
When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva, and smeared the clay on his eyes, and said to him, “Go wash in the Pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed, and came back able to see.
His neighbors and those who had seen him earlier as a beggar said, “Isn’t this the one who used to sit and beg?” Some said, “It is,” but others said, “No, he just looks like him.” He said, “I am.”
So they said to him, “[So] how were your eyes opened?” He replied, “The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and told me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So I went there and washed and was able to see.” And they said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I don’t know.”
They brought the one who was once blind to the Pharisees. Now Jesus had made clay and opened his eyes on a Sabbath.
[Jesus “broke the Sabbath” by doing three actions that were considered “work,” and all “work” is forbidden on the Sabbath. Jesus spit (thus working to make something he will use for work), kneaded clay (work) and healed the man (work)].
So then the Pharisees also asked him how he was able to see. He said to them, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and now I can see.” So some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath.” [But] others said, “How can a sinful man do such signs?” And there was a division among them. So they said to the blind man again, “What do you have to say about him, since he opened our eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.”
[Notice that the blind man who now sees is clearer and wiser about Jesus from the start than the Pharisees. Now, you might think, of course he believed in Jesus as a prophet, since he benefited first hand from the miracle. But remember, by washing in the pool the previously blind man also “did work” on the Sabbath, and it would be understandable if he waffled somewhat about Jesus being a prophet, under such disapproving questioning about the Sabbath. But as Jesus prophesied, this man immediately witnessed to the works of God, since a prophet only works at God’s behest and grace].
Now the Jews did not believe that he had been blind and gained is sight until they summoned the parents of the one who had gained his sight. They asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How does he now see?” His parents answered and said, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. We do not know how he sees now, nor do we know who opened his eyes. As him, he is of age; he can speak for himself.” His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone acknowledged him as the Messiah, he would be expelled from the synagogue. For this reason his parents said, “He is of age; question him.”
[The plot thickens. St. John the Apostle took great care to record all that back and forth and give and take that took place so that this man could bear witness for all time, in the Gospel According to John. This is thus a precious record of how the people reacted in detail to a miracle, those who believed and those who disbelieved. Modern critics need to pay attention to this chapter because the Bible is not “just” a collection of people making claims to “push” their religion. John records here an example of how the Jews simply did not know what to make of this miracle, and the dialogue as it took place and the strength of this anonymous blind man even as he and his family are threatened with being expelled from their community of faith, the synagogue].
So a second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, “Give God the praise! We know that this man is a sinner.”
[The Pharisees are trying two new tactics here. They tempt the man to say that God just happened to cure him at the same time that Jesus was standing around, and so Jesus had nothing to do with the miracle. They also use an Old Testament expression that is a formula to force someone to tell the truth by reminding them of the fear of God].
He replied, “If he is a sinner, I do not know. One thing I do know is that I was blind and now I see.”
[This, by the way, is the Biblical origin of the phrase that is used in the modern song “Amazing Grace,” written by a slave merchant who had a conversion: “Was blind and now I see” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace].
So they said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” He answered them, “I told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?”
[Ha! Whoever this man was he was respectful but very bold; notice he gives them a zinger by asking them if they want to become Jesus’ disciples “too”].
They ridiculed him and said, “You are that man’s disciple; we are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know where this one is from.”
[See, here is where they claim to be followers and believers of Moses and the Law that God gave him, yet their every action indicates lack of respect for the spiritual equality of the disabled, contrary to Leviticus and Deuteronomy].
The man answered and said to them, “This is what is so amazing, that you do not know where he is from, yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does his will, he listens to him. It is unheard of that anyone ever opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, he would not be able to do anything.”
[Ha! He points out the irony that he was the blind man yet they, the Pharisees, are not the ones who refuse to see. The previously blind man now tries to use logic, referring to their temptation to credit God with the miracle but not Jesus, by saying that God obviously would not give miracle performing ability to the likes that was unheard of before to someone who was a sinner, as the Pharisees try to charge].
They answered and said to him, “You were born totally in sin, and are you trying to teach us?” Then they threw him out.
[There it is; there is the point I made earlier. Just because this man was born blind he was totally demonized as being a sinner born in and doomed to sin. There are few clearer examples than this one of how the Pharisees and others were hypocrites who had actually moved most outrageously and egregiously away from what God actually stated in the Law, which they love to selectively quote and disobey the rest of it].
When Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, he found him and said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered and said, “Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him and the one speaking with you is he.” He said, “I do believe, Lord,” and he worshiped him. Then Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind.”
Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.”
Is this not a precious treasure of dialogue that St. John has preserved, writing it down in his old age? Not only do we have record of one of Jesus’ miracles, but we see Jesus going head to head against those who preached that those born with disabilities (or who acquired them) were born into hopeless sin. It is not just Jesus performing works on the Sabbath that outrages the Pharisees, or their jealousy at his God given works, but they have inculcated a culture that is class based, based on supposed sin or no sin, and Jesus mightily corrects them. They wanted to continue to hang onto the idea that all who were disabled were sinners or born of sinners, and that disabilities were not only the mark of “sin” but the punishment by God for sin. This is what Jesus means that their sin remains because they say “We see.” They continue to sin (by thinking the disabled are born into sin) exactly because they have not let their eyes be opened, as was the blind man’s.
By the way, when Jesus says he came into the world for "judgment," he does not mean "judge" the way that moderns understand an adjudicator who listens to a legal conflict and renders judgment. "Judging" in Biblical speech meant to take actions, some of which are hard actions such as military (that is why there is a Book of Judges, which recounts the actions of military leaders, for the most part). To "judge" Biblically means to take action. Jesus took action by performing miracles, particularly those that are right in the face of the hypocrites who oppressed and who did not believe.
A few years ago archaeologists found what they have identified as the original pool of Siloam, by the way. The current upper pool had been rebuilt, but in 2005 they found a lower pool that dates to the time of Jesus and the Apostles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siloam_Pool
This is one reason I was an early supporter of the American with Disabilities Act, by the way, even though a lot of money was wasted with poorly designed wheel chair access… the point is that people should do whatever they can to mainstream the disabled as much as they can and desire to be mainstreamed. This is especially true of our wounded veterans, who have given so much for their country. Biblically one can be assured that no money spent wisely on “removing the stumbling blocks” is wasted in God’s eyes.
This is also why I am infuriated, as I blogged yesterday, with those New Agers who “teach” illness and disability as being related to “karma,” “past lives,” “bad spirits,” or “doing evil.” I mean, that is even more outrageous than what the Pharisees believed, and they were an outrageous disgrace of hypocrisy and defiance of what God said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Jesus then stated clearly and for all that the religious and cultural belief that the disabled had “sinned” in any way was wrong and should be condemned. Both God through Moses and the Law AND Jesus Christ most clearly refuted that disabilities were the result of sin, to say nothing of “past lives,” “karma” and “evil spirits.” (Jesus is very explicit when he casts out an evil spirit; he never links illness in and of itself with evil spirits, as you can see most clearly in this miracle). There is a world of difference between being ill due to an evil spirit (I mean, duh, having an evil spirit certainly does not promote one’s mental health) and saying, as New Ager ignoramuses do, that biological illness is “caused” by evil spirits. Unbelievable, I find this wicked demonizing of illness by New Agers to be just unconscionable. That is in defiance of what God instructed the Israelites AND what Jesus Christ refuted, at the cost of his life.
I hope that you have enjoyed this, one of my favorite sections of the Gospel. It really is a glimpse into the day to day back and forth that was the heart of the revolution that Jesus Christ genuinely brought to both the faith and the culture. In this chapter one sees it all and thus you have a genuine view into what it was like as Jesus Christ proclaimed God and combated the hypocrites of the time who had not only insulting hypocrisy but very dangerous and damaging beliefs that were contrary to God’s teaching in the Law itself.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The problem with assuming heaven for anyone
I was reading an interesting commentary by a well known Catholic priest on his blog, and many equally interesting comments. It was stimulated by the death of a priest who had suffered a long illness. Apparently what would normally have been a funeral Mass had become a quite secular sounding "celebration of life," with much jolly recollection of his giving and his larger than life personality. This prompted the blogging priest to do some soul searching and wonder if that is really the right thing to do as he explained, correctly, that the purpose of the Catholic funeral or requiem Mass is to pray for God's mercy for the soul of the departed. Making the funeral a "nice guy send off" with the usual statements that we all hear at many funerals these days "surely he or she is in heaven with God 'already'" presents several problems. By the way, before I discuss any further, two points. I'm not linking to the discussion because it's easy to get caught up in extraneous detail about how nice guy/traditional or whatever he was, and that's not the point or, at least it should not be. The second point is that any truly pious and honest faithful believer who hopes to understand God at all, whether you are Muslim, Christian or Jewish, has, throughout history, never presumed that the deceased has done a "cake walk" straight into heaven. In fact, it is the solemn duty of the faithful in all denominations to pray at the memorial or funeral gathering for God's mercy on the soul of the departed. It is a modern innovation, and one that is not helpful to either the deceased or his or her family, to presume that the person is in heaven, to say nothing of assuming he or she is already wearing their halo and has special orders from God.
Now, I am not being insensitive. We do know, for example, that infants who perish of course are not judged and have no barrier to immediate presence with God. We know this from the implications of what Jesus said, which is to not harm children or lead them into sin because their angels always face God directly. In other words, there is a straight sinless channel between children and God, and this is why Jesus warned in the strongest imagery to not introduce sin to a child who is naturally in a sin free relationship with God. Thus one can infer from Jesus' own words with great confidence that the only group one knows with certainty who immediately achieve heaven, since they are innocent of sin by virtue of their youth, are children. (By the way, traditional Catholic doctrine believes that at the age of seven children become able to identify sinful behavior, and thus become responsible if they sin, and it is for that reason that children are at that age taught the sacraments of Confession followed by Holy Eucharist). This is why Jesus warned to, rather, cut off an arm rather than to lead a child into sin, because children do not have a "carte blanche pass to heaven until they are like eighteen or twenty-one because they are soooooo young" by any means, and thus the adult sinner who depraves children by teaching them sin is fully accountable to God, and Jesus implies that hell will be their reward.
The only adult who ever lived who one knows in total confidence resides in heaven and immediately achieved heaven upon passing, and in his case, by ascending, was Jesus himself. This is because heaven is the natural home of Jesus, and being of part of the Holy Spirit by birth, he had purity that cannot be impugned. Further, Jesus was in existence in heaven before he was born, as I explained in more detail in a recent blog posting, and thus, with his ascension, Jesus truly of anyone "returned home" directly to heaven.
The only adults who had an absolute guarantee of heaven, and they wisely did not rest their laurels on that guarantee, but continued to live in "hope" were the Apostles themselves. Jesus virtually guaranteed them heaven when he spoke of their being reunited there, obviously. One can also infer this guarantee from the famous event where the mother of James and John sought a promise from Jesus that each of her sons would sit in what she assumed would be Jesus' earthly kingship at places of honor at his right and left hand. He replied that only God can bestow such honor, meaning, only God determines who has what portion of heaven granted to them. You can safely read into what Jesus was saying that he was essentially stating they would be with him in heaven, but he cannot speak on behalf of God, who judges entry to heaven and then the placement therein. My point is, though, if you read what the Gospel authors, especially Peter, Paul, James and John wrote, you clearly see they take even their status most certainly not for granted, and continually live in "hope" of being redeemed and saved to join Jesus in heaven. Thus we know that while scripture teaches that Jesus redeems all believers from original sin, all humans are still accountable to personal judgment by God. No one "bypasses" being judged by God.
So to get to the heart of the matter, why is it a disservice to the dead, particularly those who seem to be most worthy and virtuous, to omit or breeze over the "praying for God to give mercy to their soul" part and just get right to the "celebration of life" with much mirth and joy about how good that person was and how surely they must be rewarded now in heaven. Well, as I said, ask anyone, particularly a Muslim, and they can explain to you that it is a solemn duty to not presume on behalf of God, and that it is the sole purpose of the last religious rites to expressly pray for God's mercy for the departed. The reason I say to ask any Muslim is because they retain the most of the three faiths contact with what was expected at funerals, which is exactly that, not a memorial party (which if held, no problem, but not as a substitute for the humility of the funeral prayers on behalf of the departed). This is precisely why Orthodox and Catholics retain a solemn funeral or requiem Mass.
All faiths recognize, even if they have difficulty remembering this in these modern narcissistic times of minimizing sin, that only the pure can enter heaven. Who is pure? No one but, as I've said, the youngest children who have not been exposed to sin. Muslims assume that God's mercy and acceptance of the worthy deceased into heaven renders them pure and worthy to obtain heaven. That is true, but based on scripture Christians (all of them, until the "Reformation") identified the process of rendering worthy deceased to be pure enough for heaven as the state of "purgatory." I explain the Biblical basis for purgatory in previous posts which can be found by following that label. Thus Catholics retain an understanding that praying for the dead is of benefit to them and Biblically justified, as it assists the deceased in their preparation for entry to heaven. Basically it all comes back to praying to God to have mercy on the soul of the loved one, overlooking and forgiving any shortcomings or sin that they retained at death. And that is the rub.
No matter how worthy and wonderful a person seems on the outside, living a virtuous and outstanding life, I can absolutely assure you that there are flaw and sins of both omission and commission that no one knows about but God. Rather than being less true of a priest, that is even more true of a priest. A priest, like a physician, has a special burden and responsibility. Physicians, in theory, are giving and do great things. But to assume that a priest pops sin-free right into heaven is like assuming that a physician never abuses a patient or takes drugs because he or she is "so good" and "knows better." Um, not exactly. Studies show that physicians are particularly vulnerable to both drug and alcohol abuse, and the list of abuses by many is becoming quite long and shocking. I mention this comparison so that you better understand what I am about to explain about priests.
No matter how many specific duties of a priest you list, their responsibilities are basically only two, in the eyes of God. One is to conduct the worship of God. The other is to ensure the proper faith formation of their flock. All specific duties fall under those two responsibilities. Now, where does "being the most fun loving and generous priest, a real hoot to be around, who anyone can talk to about their problems, and who kids get a kick being around" fall under of those two? Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock... still waiting for your answer. I know far too many priests who fall for the "cool priest" popularity trap, and the more the flock celebrates at his funeral his cute personality and fun at athletic outings, the more God is simultaneously asking him to account for the missed opportunities where the priest was more concerned with being "Mr Cool," "Mr Popularity" or "Mr Administrative Whiz" rather than 1) conducting worship of God and 2) ensuring the proper faith formation of their flock. TRUST ME. Priests, like everyone else, do a lot of purgatory time and can use your prayers. Also trust me, you'd be surprised how many priests, pastors, preachers, imams, "bishops" (the Protestant and non-denominational variety), rabbis and etc end up in hell, sad to say. Not for the omissions that I mention above, of not being diligent in worship and faith formation of their flock, but for modern day idolatry.
I will confine my comments and severe cautions to Christian religious, both Catholic priests, nuns and other religious and non-Catholic "men and women of the cloth." I have blogged before and will repeat that God is fully aware of how many Christians proclaim God and Jesus Christ out of one sides of their mouth, while retaining pagan beliefs in ideas such as "reincarnation" and occult fortune telling on the other side of their mouth. Some of these beliefs are totally secret from others but their family and fellow believers, while others are shockingly open about it (still thinking, though, that people "don't know their 'secret learning'" and, incredibly, they think God does not know.) Some actually believe that their family members are "reincarnated saints" or members of the Holy Family (I cannot describe how high up the blasphemy scale those thoughts and worse deeds in fulfillment of that belief are in God's eyes). I've been insulted to my face by Catholic priests who engage in what they think are secret occult beliefs, and if I know, trust me, God who knows every subatomic particle that ever existed, or will, etc etc knows every thought and impulse by these men, and by the nuns who likewise are cultists. Those are not problems of purgatory (forget "going immediately to heaven") but are rather most dire perils of hell.
I have to be painfully blunt. It is such a prevalent problem that when I read of the death of a priest, a nun, or friar, or of Christian pastors of any denomination, I now always think, "I hope that they are not one of the ones who think that their aunt is reincarnated Mary Magdalen" or that Jesus is "channeling" them because they have a prominant Leo or Sagittarius horoscope chart. That's not purgatory material, that's hell material. When I was studying cultists undercover I was shocked to see that some of the worse blaspheming cultists constantly declare their love of Jesus Christ at the same time. I learned that this is because they think they *shudder* have actual reincarnationed connection "within" the Holy Family itself. Many of them have contaminated men and women religious of their family with that belief. They are modern Eves and even more shocking than that, lacking any shame or regret.
This is why one cannot assume that even the most beloved priest, for example, is absolutely assured of heaven because, in fact, only God knows what is truly in their heart. You cannot assume the best of priest goes to heaven any more than you can assume that the best physician never conducts malpractice, or has a secret addiction that impairs the welfare of their patients. I mean, you can't be paranoid, but that is why you don't judge, God does. This is why solemn prayers for mercy of God on each deceased one, including priests, is essential, because you do not know all that God knows, for which they may need a great forgiveness.
But back to the discussion of what we hope are the vast majority of friends, family and priests who are worthy and who will, with God's mercy, gain heaven. There is no human who does not need purification of the sin that they conducted, both through commission and omission, in their lives, period. If you read my posts on the subject you will see that Isaiah, the great prophet of God who foretold Jesus Christ, insisted on purification (from which the Church understands purgatory) before he would speak to God when God first called him. Angels brought hot coals with tongs from God's altar because this holy man knew he had "unclean lips" and lived among those of unclean lips. One cannot be human and free from sin, and one cannot enter heaven with any stain of sin.
So, in that discussion that I read, that initiated this long commentary, the usual case was cited of the Great Pope John Paul II. Surely he must be in heaven right now, having been so good, faithful and beloved? The answer is that surely we can have confidence that he will gain heaven, but yes, even for him, only after purification from sin, what we call Purgatory. Here is why. The Popes who so dearly love God, as did Pope John Paul II, are beloved in return, and can have confidence in God and Jesus Christ. But what do they mean by "confidence?" Confidence means these holy men understand that they are flawed, no matter how often they confess, and they trust that God and Jesus Christ will lead them to heaven. In other words, their confidence is not an instant passport to heaven, but knowing that God will take them through what they must go through to achieve heaven in purity. So, you might ask, what could JPII possibly be stained from regarding sin? Well, I can say with total love that he was one of the greatest servants of God, but as a result, he had a little bit of a vanity problem. Not about his faith, but because he allowed himself to be manipulated in his "media hound" weakness. He was snookered into some diversion from his image as the Vicar of Jesus Christ, not in his heart, which remained pure, but in his vanity he did not recognize when the media and some around him steered him into some very non-Vicar of Jesus Christ actions. I don't want to make more of it than I already have, but this is an example of what was unrealized by him, but became very clear to him when God revealed all. Pope John Paul II would insist on being the first in line to purify away from him the unrealized erring of vanity that he had unconsciously allowed to divert even an iota from the fullness of his work and image as the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
I guess the best way to summarize it is that assuredly JPII would have been the first to identify times when he was a bit lured away from being in a proper role and mindset as the Vicar of Jesus Christ if it had not been for his personal small, but real, weakness of vanity. The vanity I mean is not lack of humility, to the contrary, but the vanity that comes from thinking that being liked and being amenable to any and all proposed actions in order to be popular, to be loved, and to spread the genuine love of Jesus Christ is the same as being totally true to his role as Vicar to Jesus Christ. Sometimes Vicars of Jesus Christ have to say "no." JPII, to the frustration of those who sought to undermine Church doctrine, never deviated one iota from his purity of doctrine, thank God. But JPII allowed himself to be used in some less than pure agendas, which he did not recognize because of that dash of vanity. So yes, even the greatest and the most loyal to God, and the most loved by God (and Mary) as JPII most assuredly was still needs purification, because of the web of sin that all humans reside within, often so blindly.
I hope this helps. It's not one of my favorite topics, but its inescapable, as there is a terrible crisis of idolatry and hubris among all the faiths, western and eastern. Assuming the gravy train to heaven is one of the largest signs of this problem, and I continue to be astonished at how more have not realized it and the danger and disservice such presumption causes as consequences.
Now, I am not being insensitive. We do know, for example, that infants who perish of course are not judged and have no barrier to immediate presence with God. We know this from the implications of what Jesus said, which is to not harm children or lead them into sin because their angels always face God directly. In other words, there is a straight sinless channel between children and God, and this is why Jesus warned in the strongest imagery to not introduce sin to a child who is naturally in a sin free relationship with God. Thus one can infer from Jesus' own words with great confidence that the only group one knows with certainty who immediately achieve heaven, since they are innocent of sin by virtue of their youth, are children. (By the way, traditional Catholic doctrine believes that at the age of seven children become able to identify sinful behavior, and thus become responsible if they sin, and it is for that reason that children are at that age taught the sacraments of Confession followed by Holy Eucharist). This is why Jesus warned to, rather, cut off an arm rather than to lead a child into sin, because children do not have a "carte blanche pass to heaven until they are like eighteen or twenty-one because they are soooooo young" by any means, and thus the adult sinner who depraves children by teaching them sin is fully accountable to God, and Jesus implies that hell will be their reward.
The only adult who ever lived who one knows in total confidence resides in heaven and immediately achieved heaven upon passing, and in his case, by ascending, was Jesus himself. This is because heaven is the natural home of Jesus, and being of part of the Holy Spirit by birth, he had purity that cannot be impugned. Further, Jesus was in existence in heaven before he was born, as I explained in more detail in a recent blog posting, and thus, with his ascension, Jesus truly of anyone "returned home" directly to heaven.
The only adults who had an absolute guarantee of heaven, and they wisely did not rest their laurels on that guarantee, but continued to live in "hope" were the Apostles themselves. Jesus virtually guaranteed them heaven when he spoke of their being reunited there, obviously. One can also infer this guarantee from the famous event where the mother of James and John sought a promise from Jesus that each of her sons would sit in what she assumed would be Jesus' earthly kingship at places of honor at his right and left hand. He replied that only God can bestow such honor, meaning, only God determines who has what portion of heaven granted to them. You can safely read into what Jesus was saying that he was essentially stating they would be with him in heaven, but he cannot speak on behalf of God, who judges entry to heaven and then the placement therein. My point is, though, if you read what the Gospel authors, especially Peter, Paul, James and John wrote, you clearly see they take even their status most certainly not for granted, and continually live in "hope" of being redeemed and saved to join Jesus in heaven. Thus we know that while scripture teaches that Jesus redeems all believers from original sin, all humans are still accountable to personal judgment by God. No one "bypasses" being judged by God.
So to get to the heart of the matter, why is it a disservice to the dead, particularly those who seem to be most worthy and virtuous, to omit or breeze over the "praying for God to give mercy to their soul" part and just get right to the "celebration of life" with much mirth and joy about how good that person was and how surely they must be rewarded now in heaven. Well, as I said, ask anyone, particularly a Muslim, and they can explain to you that it is a solemn duty to not presume on behalf of God, and that it is the sole purpose of the last religious rites to expressly pray for God's mercy for the departed. The reason I say to ask any Muslim is because they retain the most of the three faiths contact with what was expected at funerals, which is exactly that, not a memorial party (which if held, no problem, but not as a substitute for the humility of the funeral prayers on behalf of the departed). This is precisely why Orthodox and Catholics retain a solemn funeral or requiem Mass.
All faiths recognize, even if they have difficulty remembering this in these modern narcissistic times of minimizing sin, that only the pure can enter heaven. Who is pure? No one but, as I've said, the youngest children who have not been exposed to sin. Muslims assume that God's mercy and acceptance of the worthy deceased into heaven renders them pure and worthy to obtain heaven. That is true, but based on scripture Christians (all of them, until the "Reformation") identified the process of rendering worthy deceased to be pure enough for heaven as the state of "purgatory." I explain the Biblical basis for purgatory in previous posts which can be found by following that label. Thus Catholics retain an understanding that praying for the dead is of benefit to them and Biblically justified, as it assists the deceased in their preparation for entry to heaven. Basically it all comes back to praying to God to have mercy on the soul of the loved one, overlooking and forgiving any shortcomings or sin that they retained at death. And that is the rub.
No matter how worthy and wonderful a person seems on the outside, living a virtuous and outstanding life, I can absolutely assure you that there are flaw and sins of both omission and commission that no one knows about but God. Rather than being less true of a priest, that is even more true of a priest. A priest, like a physician, has a special burden and responsibility. Physicians, in theory, are giving and do great things. But to assume that a priest pops sin-free right into heaven is like assuming that a physician never abuses a patient or takes drugs because he or she is "so good" and "knows better." Um, not exactly. Studies show that physicians are particularly vulnerable to both drug and alcohol abuse, and the list of abuses by many is becoming quite long and shocking. I mention this comparison so that you better understand what I am about to explain about priests.
No matter how many specific duties of a priest you list, their responsibilities are basically only two, in the eyes of God. One is to conduct the worship of God. The other is to ensure the proper faith formation of their flock. All specific duties fall under those two responsibilities. Now, where does "being the most fun loving and generous priest, a real hoot to be around, who anyone can talk to about their problems, and who kids get a kick being around" fall under of those two? Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock... still waiting for your answer. I know far too many priests who fall for the "cool priest" popularity trap, and the more the flock celebrates at his funeral his cute personality and fun at athletic outings, the more God is simultaneously asking him to account for the missed opportunities where the priest was more concerned with being "Mr Cool," "Mr Popularity" or "Mr Administrative Whiz" rather than 1) conducting worship of God and 2) ensuring the proper faith formation of their flock. TRUST ME. Priests, like everyone else, do a lot of purgatory time and can use your prayers. Also trust me, you'd be surprised how many priests, pastors, preachers, imams, "bishops" (the Protestant and non-denominational variety), rabbis and etc end up in hell, sad to say. Not for the omissions that I mention above, of not being diligent in worship and faith formation of their flock, but for modern day idolatry.
I will confine my comments and severe cautions to Christian religious, both Catholic priests, nuns and other religious and non-Catholic "men and women of the cloth." I have blogged before and will repeat that God is fully aware of how many Christians proclaim God and Jesus Christ out of one sides of their mouth, while retaining pagan beliefs in ideas such as "reincarnation" and occult fortune telling on the other side of their mouth. Some of these beliefs are totally secret from others but their family and fellow believers, while others are shockingly open about it (still thinking, though, that people "don't know their 'secret learning'" and, incredibly, they think God does not know.) Some actually believe that their family members are "reincarnated saints" or members of the Holy Family (I cannot describe how high up the blasphemy scale those thoughts and worse deeds in fulfillment of that belief are in God's eyes). I've been insulted to my face by Catholic priests who engage in what they think are secret occult beliefs, and if I know, trust me, God who knows every subatomic particle that ever existed, or will, etc etc knows every thought and impulse by these men, and by the nuns who likewise are cultists. Those are not problems of purgatory (forget "going immediately to heaven") but are rather most dire perils of hell.
I have to be painfully blunt. It is such a prevalent problem that when I read of the death of a priest, a nun, or friar, or of Christian pastors of any denomination, I now always think, "I hope that they are not one of the ones who think that their aunt is reincarnated Mary Magdalen" or that Jesus is "channeling" them because they have a prominant Leo or Sagittarius horoscope chart. That's not purgatory material, that's hell material. When I was studying cultists undercover I was shocked to see that some of the worse blaspheming cultists constantly declare their love of Jesus Christ at the same time. I learned that this is because they think they *shudder* have actual reincarnationed connection "within" the Holy Family itself. Many of them have contaminated men and women religious of their family with that belief. They are modern Eves and even more shocking than that, lacking any shame or regret.
This is why one cannot assume that even the most beloved priest, for example, is absolutely assured of heaven because, in fact, only God knows what is truly in their heart. You cannot assume the best of priest goes to heaven any more than you can assume that the best physician never conducts malpractice, or has a secret addiction that impairs the welfare of their patients. I mean, you can't be paranoid, but that is why you don't judge, God does. This is why solemn prayers for mercy of God on each deceased one, including priests, is essential, because you do not know all that God knows, for which they may need a great forgiveness.
But back to the discussion of what we hope are the vast majority of friends, family and priests who are worthy and who will, with God's mercy, gain heaven. There is no human who does not need purification of the sin that they conducted, both through commission and omission, in their lives, period. If you read my posts on the subject you will see that Isaiah, the great prophet of God who foretold Jesus Christ, insisted on purification (from which the Church understands purgatory) before he would speak to God when God first called him. Angels brought hot coals with tongs from God's altar because this holy man knew he had "unclean lips" and lived among those of unclean lips. One cannot be human and free from sin, and one cannot enter heaven with any stain of sin.
So, in that discussion that I read, that initiated this long commentary, the usual case was cited of the Great Pope John Paul II. Surely he must be in heaven right now, having been so good, faithful and beloved? The answer is that surely we can have confidence that he will gain heaven, but yes, even for him, only after purification from sin, what we call Purgatory. Here is why. The Popes who so dearly love God, as did Pope John Paul II, are beloved in return, and can have confidence in God and Jesus Christ. But what do they mean by "confidence?" Confidence means these holy men understand that they are flawed, no matter how often they confess, and they trust that God and Jesus Christ will lead them to heaven. In other words, their confidence is not an instant passport to heaven, but knowing that God will take them through what they must go through to achieve heaven in purity. So, you might ask, what could JPII possibly be stained from regarding sin? Well, I can say with total love that he was one of the greatest servants of God, but as a result, he had a little bit of a vanity problem. Not about his faith, but because he allowed himself to be manipulated in his "media hound" weakness. He was snookered into some diversion from his image as the Vicar of Jesus Christ, not in his heart, which remained pure, but in his vanity he did not recognize when the media and some around him steered him into some very non-Vicar of Jesus Christ actions. I don't want to make more of it than I already have, but this is an example of what was unrealized by him, but became very clear to him when God revealed all. Pope John Paul II would insist on being the first in line to purify away from him the unrealized erring of vanity that he had unconsciously allowed to divert even an iota from the fullness of his work and image as the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
I guess the best way to summarize it is that assuredly JPII would have been the first to identify times when he was a bit lured away from being in a proper role and mindset as the Vicar of Jesus Christ if it had not been for his personal small, but real, weakness of vanity. The vanity I mean is not lack of humility, to the contrary, but the vanity that comes from thinking that being liked and being amenable to any and all proposed actions in order to be popular, to be loved, and to spread the genuine love of Jesus Christ is the same as being totally true to his role as Vicar to Jesus Christ. Sometimes Vicars of Jesus Christ have to say "no." JPII, to the frustration of those who sought to undermine Church doctrine, never deviated one iota from his purity of doctrine, thank God. But JPII allowed himself to be used in some less than pure agendas, which he did not recognize because of that dash of vanity. So yes, even the greatest and the most loyal to God, and the most loved by God (and Mary) as JPII most assuredly was still needs purification, because of the web of sin that all humans reside within, often so blindly.
I hope this helps. It's not one of my favorite topics, but its inescapable, as there is a terrible crisis of idolatry and hubris among all the faiths, western and eastern. Assuming the gravy train to heaven is one of the largest signs of this problem, and I continue to be astonished at how more have not realized it and the danger and disservice such presumption causes as consequences.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Shooting debate: quick discernment lesson
Hi. As usual I'm thinking very much of the young people who are living through these times and learning how to weigh the facts and form opinions, exactly when electronic media allows and promotes snap judgments, accusations and conclusions.
I have to make a quick example using the UU church because they themselves are actually raising the subject and of course learning about them is part of everyone's interest in reading this story. I've known about them since college when many of my peers left their church and went to UU because they felt that UU "OK's" whatever imbibing, drug use, sexuality and abortions. This was in the early 1970's and I'm not making a values statement: I'm telling you what my friends told me as they trundled off to the local UU, feeling they could be "spiritual" but still "do their own thing" (to use the popular expression). So I mention this just so people don't say, "Oh, what does MM know about UU?" I know that it was the safe house in my university town for those of my friends who most liked weed, LOL.
Having said that, here is part of the deplorable "dialogue" that is taking place that I must address as an example for my readers to see another challenge in faith and reason discernment. I want to teach you to notice intellectual contradictions. An intellectual, aka logical, contradiction is when someone says one thing, if you believe it, then you can't believe the second thing that they say, because they disagree in some real fundamental way.
So I've noticed that some UU members explain their faith by saying that it pretty much is "bring your own," and they cite that all sorts of believers go there, Christian, Buddhist, pagan, etc. So they present it as everyone is equal and all they care about is goodness and social justice. OK, if one wants a refuge from one's own religion and go to a place of a kind of spiritual social gathering, that's great. But here is the contradiction. They present a kind of "anything is possible" logic in the universe, there may or may not be a creator, that everyone is rewarded in their "journey" "toward" eternal life, etc. But in the same breath I read comments by UU's that state that they "know" that Christianity is incorrect, that Judaism is incorrect, that Islam is incorrect, and so on down the list. So which is it? How do they "know" that every organized religion is wrong? Who told them? How do they know? I mean, OK, say that everyone is welcome, and that it's all a open door groovy love fest of good works and eternal joy. How do you know?
If your head hurts now, so does mine. That's one of the things I least like about humans. They act on one hand like the universe is a great mysterious and all good "unknown," yet on the other hand they somehow "Know" that all organized religion is "wrong." How do they know? How do they know? How do they know?
If they reply to you that it's because flawed humans "wrote" the sacred books, then why would they believe that flawed humans merit eternal bliss in some engine free groovy "everyone is equal" world?
That, dear friends, especially my young friends, is a logical contradiction. They have an open ended faith, except they will tell you that all other faiths are known to be wrong. How do they know? How do they know?
I wish them well, but want to prevent those of you who are reading about them for the first time from falling into a logical error. Many who post on their behalf seem poorly educated in history. For example they will mention Hitler as an example of being 'right wing' (implying in Christian religion) without knowing that he was a pagan (I mean, look at the flags he designed, dummies). So if you dialogue with UU's be aware that they claim on the one hand to be all open ended to the infinite "good" and "equal" possibilities of the "eternal," but they are not open to believing that ANY institutional religion might actually be exactly as it is presented to be. Somehow they have a mysterious knowledge that all religions are "wrong." Hmm? Hmm.
I have to make a quick example using the UU church because they themselves are actually raising the subject and of course learning about them is part of everyone's interest in reading this story. I've known about them since college when many of my peers left their church and went to UU because they felt that UU "OK's" whatever imbibing, drug use, sexuality and abortions. This was in the early 1970's and I'm not making a values statement: I'm telling you what my friends told me as they trundled off to the local UU, feeling they could be "spiritual" but still "do their own thing" (to use the popular expression). So I mention this just so people don't say, "Oh, what does MM know about UU?" I know that it was the safe house in my university town for those of my friends who most liked weed, LOL.
Having said that, here is part of the deplorable "dialogue" that is taking place that I must address as an example for my readers to see another challenge in faith and reason discernment. I want to teach you to notice intellectual contradictions. An intellectual, aka logical, contradiction is when someone says one thing, if you believe it, then you can't believe the second thing that they say, because they disagree in some real fundamental way.
So I've noticed that some UU members explain their faith by saying that it pretty much is "bring your own," and they cite that all sorts of believers go there, Christian, Buddhist, pagan, etc. So they present it as everyone is equal and all they care about is goodness and social justice. OK, if one wants a refuge from one's own religion and go to a place of a kind of spiritual social gathering, that's great. But here is the contradiction. They present a kind of "anything is possible" logic in the universe, there may or may not be a creator, that everyone is rewarded in their "journey" "toward" eternal life, etc. But in the same breath I read comments by UU's that state that they "know" that Christianity is incorrect, that Judaism is incorrect, that Islam is incorrect, and so on down the list. So which is it? How do they "know" that every organized religion is wrong? Who told them? How do they know? I mean, OK, say that everyone is welcome, and that it's all a open door groovy love fest of good works and eternal joy. How do you know?
If your head hurts now, so does mine. That's one of the things I least like about humans. They act on one hand like the universe is a great mysterious and all good "unknown," yet on the other hand they somehow "Know" that all organized religion is "wrong." How do they know? How do they know? How do they know?
If they reply to you that it's because flawed humans "wrote" the sacred books, then why would they believe that flawed humans merit eternal bliss in some engine free groovy "everyone is equal" world?
That, dear friends, especially my young friends, is a logical contradiction. They have an open ended faith, except they will tell you that all other faiths are known to be wrong. How do they know? How do they know?
I wish them well, but want to prevent those of you who are reading about them for the first time from falling into a logical error. Many who post on their behalf seem poorly educated in history. For example they will mention Hitler as an example of being 'right wing' (implying in Christian religion) without knowing that he was a pagan (I mean, look at the flags he designed, dummies). So if you dialogue with UU's be aware that they claim on the one hand to be all open ended to the infinite "good" and "equal" possibilities of the "eternal," but they are not open to believing that ANY institutional religion might actually be exactly as it is presented to be. Somehow they have a mysterious knowledge that all religions are "wrong." Hmm? Hmm.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Another thought about purity
I could not sign off without adding another context thought. I've often wondered why people are so attracted to imaginary or physical means of "purification" or "cleansing" (Native American smudging, salt and crystals, taking "detox" supplements, colonic, etc) and do not realize that the Catholic Church has been demonstrating how to pray for penance and purification in co-operation with God.
It's like people would rather believe that burning sage and waving it around in the room "cleanses" and "purifies," yet they actually mock the Church that has Biblical foundation for prayers of purification (and incense too, ha). That's what I mean when I comment that people have it backwards. When talking to a new age friend and she says she "smudges," her pal nods wisely, knowing what she means, and thinking her very spiritual. But if a Catholic explains that part of the Mass, where prayer for the remediation of the stain of sin (otherwise known as, yes, "purifying") is said, they furrow their brows and wonder, "Huh? Isn't that superstitious?"
Oh my. What has this world come to? Please cooperate with God in making it better, while we still can.
It's like people would rather believe that burning sage and waving it around in the room "cleanses" and "purifies," yet they actually mock the Church that has Biblical foundation for prayers of purification (and incense too, ha). That's what I mean when I comment that people have it backwards. When talking to a new age friend and she says she "smudges," her pal nods wisely, knowing what she means, and thinking her very spiritual. But if a Catholic explains that part of the Mass, where prayer for the remediation of the stain of sin (otherwise known as, yes, "purifying") is said, they furrow their brows and wonder, "Huh? Isn't that superstitious?"
Oh my. What has this world come to? Please cooperate with God in making it better, while we still can.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Must preach hell reality to combat child abuse
Modern society's ignoring of the reality of God, and of hell, has resulted in a diabolical ferocity of murder and abuse directed toward children.
I have just read that a French father HUNG his young daughters in his estranged wife's home, and then hung himself.
Parents who kill their children these days are almost 100 percent of those who do not believe that they will instantly find themselves separated from their dead children and in HELL.
Many "new age" or "religion lacking" parents think that like the pagans, they can kill their children and assume they end up together in some la la warrior paradise, or as united spirits. Nothing could be further from the truth. A parent who kills their child and then their self is instantly separated from the child, who goes to heaven, while the parent goes straight to hell, regardless of the "excuse" or "reason."
People, you MUST start preaching among each other this reality.
There is a list of seventeen subjects for daily meditation by the Christian. I will write more about them but remind you all of two:
"Hell to avoid"
"Neighbors to edify"
Society has done itself no favor and is in fact putting their children in constant peril when it ignores the reality of a judging God, and the certainty of hell's existence. You must start undoing this damage of hell being just a cuss word and that it's just an artistic tool. It is real and it is certain. This murdering French asshole is now finding out how real hell itself is for all eternity, and you can take that fact to the bank.
I have just read that a French father HUNG his young daughters in his estranged wife's home, and then hung himself.
Parents who kill their children these days are almost 100 percent of those who do not believe that they will instantly find themselves separated from their dead children and in HELL.
Many "new age" or "religion lacking" parents think that like the pagans, they can kill their children and assume they end up together in some la la warrior paradise, or as united spirits. Nothing could be further from the truth. A parent who kills their child and then their self is instantly separated from the child, who goes to heaven, while the parent goes straight to hell, regardless of the "excuse" or "reason."
People, you MUST start preaching among each other this reality.
There is a list of seventeen subjects for daily meditation by the Christian. I will write more about them but remind you all of two:
"Hell to avoid"
"Neighbors to edify"
Society has done itself no favor and is in fact putting their children in constant peril when it ignores the reality of a judging God, and the certainty of hell's existence. You must start undoing this damage of hell being just a cuss word and that it's just an artistic tool. It is real and it is certain. This murdering French asshole is now finding out how real hell itself is for all eternity, and you can take that fact to the bank.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Another thought about what I just wrote
I know people who like to argue (or "better understand" to put it charitably) will run to their Bibles to look for passages about how people's days are numbered etc. They will say, "See! The Bible says each person's days are numbered and their time is up!"
Listen, again, I am trying to orient you back toward wise reading of those passages, rather than defensive and agenda driven reading of them.
What would I say, if I was a pastor, talking to this family? I would say "God is in control" rather than "It was God's will that her time was up." "God is in control" is the more accurate Christian contemporary type of abbreviated condolence saying because it is not targeted on the death of the person herself. "God is in control" of everything, which means the dispensation of all people and agencies involved at all times. God does not focus his will or control on just one person's accidental death. God is in control of the ultimate outcome of all of human beings' own actions. God makes all things good; God does not make the errors. So to comfort a family you tell them that God is in control, assuring them that justice, mercy and blissful joy will be awarded to even those who suffer at the hands of deliberate or accidental cruelty and loss by other humans.
That is the meaning that all days are numbered, which is there are limitations, and God in his all knowing knows in advance what people will do to each other, and the number of days each person has before age, mishap or illness catches up with them. It's a totally different meaning than God winding up some clock for each person! Gosh I hate that New Age thinking. God knows and foresees all that happens and it is "his will" that it takes place because he does not intervene, in general, in how humans manage themselves. He is not disinterested, and the Holy Spirit works tirelessly to convert and bring everyone to more charitable and responsible behavior, for the glorification of God and for the survivability of humanity. So no one can accuse God of being some detached blob of "universal energy" "detached" and "not caring" about what goes on with individuals, each of whom, truth be told, he knows in their very soul and cares about deeply.
People keep forgetting about guardian angels too. They are not guardian angels in the sense of throwing themselves in front of irresponsible drivers to save their charges from disaster. They are, though, the voice that whispers "Don't drink and drive" and "Put on your seat belt" and "Care about your neighbor." Guardian angels are just one proof that no human lives, or dies, alone. Remember that when this lady in the car hit and run died, her guardian angel went to see God with her. That's an uncaring God? Get over yourselves, please!
Now, Muslims often use the expression "It is God's will." They will say it at times like this, such as tragically losing a family member. But they really are saying "God is in control" because when they say "It is God's will" they are not saying "God did this to her," but they are confessing their knowledge that God is in control of everything, and that events like this fall within his universal control and will. Again, this is a broader and thus more theologically accurate statement than what Christians have come to mean in these personally obsessive and "God limiting" phrases and observations. So when a Muslim says "It is God's will (that a person died)" they will not claim that they know what God is planning or thinking, or even how God perceives humans at all. They mean "God is in control and it is his will that events like this do happen (because he has given life to humans and life does have sorrow and loss by definition.)" Muslims, no matter what sect they are, have a firm and accurate perception of God that God is unknowable and has a much more vast scope of control and perspective than humans could ever have, and that no one event or human life can be interpreted as being a humanly understandable example of his taking action. It is God's will but it cannot be claimed that a human understands what, if any, action God is taking in a human life or event. Only Christians and others who think they can cut God down into understandable parcels think like that. Muslims don't.
I hope this helps. My next blog posting touches, actually, even though I wrote it earlier this morning, on an extreme example of where people need to better understand how they cannot characterize God's will in any correct or understandable way.
Listen, again, I am trying to orient you back toward wise reading of those passages, rather than defensive and agenda driven reading of them.
What would I say, if I was a pastor, talking to this family? I would say "God is in control" rather than "It was God's will that her time was up." "God is in control" is the more accurate Christian contemporary type of abbreviated condolence saying because it is not targeted on the death of the person herself. "God is in control" of everything, which means the dispensation of all people and agencies involved at all times. God does not focus his will or control on just one person's accidental death. God is in control of the ultimate outcome of all of human beings' own actions. God makes all things good; God does not make the errors. So to comfort a family you tell them that God is in control, assuring them that justice, mercy and blissful joy will be awarded to even those who suffer at the hands of deliberate or accidental cruelty and loss by other humans.
That is the meaning that all days are numbered, which is there are limitations, and God in his all knowing knows in advance what people will do to each other, and the number of days each person has before age, mishap or illness catches up with them. It's a totally different meaning than God winding up some clock for each person! Gosh I hate that New Age thinking. God knows and foresees all that happens and it is "his will" that it takes place because he does not intervene, in general, in how humans manage themselves. He is not disinterested, and the Holy Spirit works tirelessly to convert and bring everyone to more charitable and responsible behavior, for the glorification of God and for the survivability of humanity. So no one can accuse God of being some detached blob of "universal energy" "detached" and "not caring" about what goes on with individuals, each of whom, truth be told, he knows in their very soul and cares about deeply.
People keep forgetting about guardian angels too. They are not guardian angels in the sense of throwing themselves in front of irresponsible drivers to save their charges from disaster. They are, though, the voice that whispers "Don't drink and drive" and "Put on your seat belt" and "Care about your neighbor." Guardian angels are just one proof that no human lives, or dies, alone. Remember that when this lady in the car hit and run died, her guardian angel went to see God with her. That's an uncaring God? Get over yourselves, please!
Now, Muslims often use the expression "It is God's will." They will say it at times like this, such as tragically losing a family member. But they really are saying "God is in control" because when they say "It is God's will" they are not saying "God did this to her," but they are confessing their knowledge that God is in control of everything, and that events like this fall within his universal control and will. Again, this is a broader and thus more theologically accurate statement than what Christians have come to mean in these personally obsessive and "God limiting" phrases and observations. So when a Muslim says "It is God's will (that a person died)" they will not claim that they know what God is planning or thinking, or even how God perceives humans at all. They mean "God is in control and it is his will that events like this do happen (because he has given life to humans and life does have sorrow and loss by definition.)" Muslims, no matter what sect they are, have a firm and accurate perception of God that God is unknowable and has a much more vast scope of control and perspective than humans could ever have, and that no one event or human life can be interpreted as being a humanly understandable example of his taking action. It is God's will but it cannot be claimed that a human understands what, if any, action God is taking in a human life or event. Only Christians and others who think they can cut God down into understandable parcels think like that. Muslims don't.
I hope this helps. My next blog posting touches, actually, even though I wrote it earlier this morning, on an extreme example of where people need to better understand how they cannot characterize God's will in any correct or understandable way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
