Levels of commitment, including to God

We could write a book on this topic. I'd rather discuss it in conversation and Q&A format, but since that is not possible at this time, I want to jot down some thoughts here that will help you to align your thoughts and philosophy about commitment. It will help you to understand faith-and God himself-more clearly, and your own perceptions and actions.

First, I want to give some secular examples about how it is difficult to truly understand someone else's commitment to "a cause" or a truth over time. Commitment is not an absolute that remains unchanged by time and circumstance. An easy example is two different soldiers in an army. One seems the more totally committed, being very patriotic and military based in his or her orientation. The other person is more casual about their commitment, being correct in their service but not outstanding. However, in a battle, the first performs correctly, doing his or her duty, while the second one, back pressed to the wall, performs an extraordinary act of courage and losses his life for the greater good, whether the course of the battle itself or to protect his or her buddies under fire. Who was, in the long run, the "most committed?" The "higher" on the "commitment 'scale?'" You can see that such a view that it can be measured or compared is entirely bogus. One goes on to a honorable life long service to country and military, while the other average Joe or Mary had average service, and then in a burst of heroic circumstance, gives his or her life. You can't really weigh between the two at all. Each walked their own path of service, honor and righteousness.

There is much argument about the value of an aging life, in a time of pressures to allocate medical costs and even have "death panels." Consider this, then. There is a temptation to look at someone's "contribution" to life. OK, let's look at that. One person is a "producer," who is still active in some highly value societal role. The other was a wallflower, kind of a person who blended into society at large, perhaps a housewife and mother, who is now an aged widow, and whose children are away. She is in a nursing home and increasingly "out of it," and thus not a "contributor." Who is more "worthy" of a fixed number of health care dollars? Well, let's look at what happens. The first person, yes of course, goes on to be "productive" until his or her death. People feel a righteous glow when they get all the medical expenses "care" that he or she needs throughout. Liberals especially feel awesome and "good" in making sure he or she can be "productive" and receive entitled medical care. Cool. The other person slowly fades away in the nursing home. She gets less awesome care because she's old, alone and "dying anyway." No one does anything bad to her, but the mindset, of course, is that it's a low payback investment to give her excellent care at the end of a fading life. Perhaps so. But have you considered all the payback, really?

One day a nurse aide at the nursing home is discouraged, she is young and just starting out, studies are hard, money is tight, hours are long. She is tending to that woman and while so, they talk. That old lady gives the nurse's aide a little encouragement, speaking from her own humble experience as a mom. Like a tiny mustard seed, her words actually matter to the discouraged aide, and over time, especially after that nursing home resident dies, the aide has a new lease on life, a new encouragement, just from that casual conversation near the end of the woman's life, but toward the beginning of the aide's. She goes on to be a great success (in whatever measure of success you have).

Which person was more "committed to productivity" and "worthy?" The first person does their job and leads their life like "normal," by "normal" current societal expectations. The second person was "just a mom" and an "old lady" yet without an agenda, gave advice, not some secret formula, but just good old mom type of belief to the nurse's aide who tended to her, when that aide needed it, and it ended up being a life changing conversation that only unfolded in its significance over time. Good thing that old lady wasn't euthanized, huh?

Suppose the old lady was in a coma and could not talk? They still have total worth as humans because HELPLESS HUMANS ARE LIKE CLAY IN YOUR HANDS. ABUSED OR NEGLECTED ALL YOU DO IS DEMONSTRATE HOW FAR YOU ARE FROM BEING GODLY. After all, the Bible and the Qur'an explain that God took inanimate dust, clay, and made human life. Even when a person is not "productive" or even conscious, they are still the clay by which YOU who ARE "in power" demonstrate if you are godly, and give them the most care that is possible with dignity and life GIVING orientation, not TAKING, or if you are publicly or in secret, against being godly, for you rob the person of their dignity and "manage" the "amount of care" that they receive. Trust me, the dust that God created man from wasn't worth too much either.

So which of the two people, the normal life as "productive" or the normal life as aged end of life "mom" was more committed, more worthy, and more "productive?" You cannot possibly compare: no human being is even 1 percent capable of such an evaluation.

Now, look at being committed to God. There is no point where you are "safe" and "committed enough." Each person throughout their life works on their commitment and even follows different forms of commitment (or even detachment, as ill advised as that may be.) Again, you cannot critique someone else's form of commitment to God: only God can do that, and He will. There is a difference between speaking to someone on a wrong path (such as idolatry), so I'm not saying "live and let live" there, because their eternal soul is worth at least one chastising conversation with them, face to face....or what I am speaking of, which is again, you cannot as a human evaluate someone else's commitment to God. That is the heart of the totally bogus argument about Catholic celibate male priests. People have no right to claim that they are "entitled" to a form of commitment that was in place even before Christ, which is the celibate religious male. John the Baptist was such. At the time just before Jesus, there were many men who were celibate, often living as ascetics in the desert. Men have a perfect right to continue to follow God in that form. Christian men chose to emulate CHRIST in that regard, not the apostles, so the argument that deacons were men, women, had families and sex lives is bogus, because it has nothing to do with the FACT that there is a group of people, celibate men, who select via their calling a form of commitment to God called the Catholic priesthood. It's not like a job title.

So what does a woman do who wants to preach? Well, duh, the first thing to do is to recognize that it is an EQUALLY VALID BUT DIFFERENT FORM OF COMMITMENT TO GOD. I mean, Einstein didn't even have to be channeled to explain that one. I enjoy certain women's preaching very much; those who are firmly rooted in service to God with a genuine heart, not as a power grab. Sometimes I like to listen to Joyce Meyer when I'm channel flipping. One reason is that she is proclaiming the Kingdom, not trying to chip away at someone else's form of commitment (like the priesthood) as a power grab.

I have never met a woman who truly "wants" to be a Catholic priest. They want that "job title," but they don't want what it really is, which is a MAN who decides to follow CHRIST by giving his all, including celibacy. It's like this: I never wanted to be a Boy Scout because, duh, I'm not a Boy. I was a Girl Scout for a year or so but was bored because it was too poorly led locally by women who didn't have their heart in it.

Think back to that example of the soldiers. If one really wants to commit to God, one simply has to commit to His Kingdom first, and then walk through YOUR OWN LIFE based on that commitment. It may just being a good and honorable guy or gal through your life, or it may be turning your entire life over to God. As we see by failed priests, it is not the title or the form of the commitment that is worthy, but the worthiness that the person brings to their choice.

A mediocre priest may, without his even knowing, led very important people to Christ (by important I mean those who might have been lost otherwise). Like the elderly mom, even an average priest saves souls. But someone who is on a total ego trip about their "calling" may turn away people from the Kingdom, as they bog people down in worldly power and attachment, politics, divisiveness and argument. So a "top bishop" may work against the Kingdom without even realizing it, because they make it "all about them and their calling."

I hope this is helpful. I understand this is just scratching the surface of the topic, but I have faith you all have brains, ha, and surely get what I am pointing you towards here.

Answer to a "riddle" about God

I've seen this riddle or challenge to the reality of God's power a number of times over the years, including a mention somewhere today, so I figured I'd answer it since apparently a lot of people take it seriously. The riddle is "If God is all powerful, can he create something so heavy that he can't lift it up?"

The answer is "Yes he could, but it would not be real, it would be an illusion or lie. And since God is never untrue to his nature, he obviously would not do it as the creation would be bogus and not real, so it would be pointless and against his nature."

Let's break it down using logic. The question is bogus in the first place because it relies on a simple assumption that's just wrong. The question assumes, which most people don't realize, that God could ever be subject to the force of gravity. Um, duh. The reason something is heavy is that it has mass (it is an object made out of some material) and gravity is pulling on it. That's why something is heavy on earth (lots of gravity) yet on the International Space Station where there is very little gravity, astronauts can move huge "heavy" things with barely a finger tip.

So when you ask the question about God, it's a bogus set of assumptions since God is not comprised of any matter or energy, God does not reside in the 4 dimensional (3 dimensions plus time) world, and thus there is no part of God that is subject to gravity. God lives totally outside of the question.

So if he wanted to make you happy he'd have to create a robot or some other object made out of mass, put it in a gravity field, then give it something too heavy to lift AND, here's the problem, lie to you that this robot "is" Him. So obviously God can create any "test" scenario that a human comes up with, but he have to "humor you" to do so, and that means creating an illusion, to be polite, or lie to you. The Bible warns about testing God, that it's a really bad idea and not well received. But I know that many people ask this with genuine thoughtfulness, not realizing that the question itself is bogus.

It is human nature that humans always try to picture God as a living being that lives in a material/energy/time frame, and then can be "tested." Um, sorry, but God created the material universe by "standing" outside of it and obviously before the material world ever existed, since He created it! Any "ability" that people question about God is based on abilities that utilize matter, energy and time, all of which God created and exists totally outside of.

So it is not like God is "powerless" to create an illusion that you request, in other words, that a living body in the universe called "God" stands in a gravity field and can't lift something heavy. But obviously that is not really God because God lives outside of His creation and is pure spirit, no matter, no energy, no time sequence. With only a thought, a moment of His Will, God can do absolutely anything with his creation (the universe) or those he created in the pure spirit place of heaven (the angels) or outside of heaven (hell). He could make this universe disappear in a second, if he wanted to. He could make and label any human or animal "God" and then make it stand in gravity and be unable to lift something. But there IS no matter or energy, and thus no gravity or other forces, or ticking of a clock of sequence of actions, in heaven where God is God.

People who ask this question to erode faith and mock God demonstrate that they don't even have a sixth grade knowledge of either science or God. However, I understand that many folks, especially young people (Hi!) ask this riddle sincerely, because you've not received the how-to about using logic to answer questions and identify fallacious assumptions (bogus premises).

Hope this helps!

"the greatest Christian who ever lived?!"

This is in one of the Rev. Billy Graham's daily question columns: "The Apostle Paul was the greatest Christian who ever lived."

Goodness, people who know me know that I love and admire Billy Graham, and I often agree with him. But now to 1) set the record straight and 2) show that I do not hesitate to critique even those I often agree with, here goes.

That is a flat out wrong statement and incredibly misleading. Its potential to be misleading is why I am going to make this a small case study in faith.

First of all, if you ask anyone why they admire Paul (say nothing of actually designating him the greatest Christian) they would start to list the many works of Paul.

Oh dear. Hmm. Yep, you got it. They fall into the trap of putting works before grace.

Paul himself would rip his hair out if he caught anyone calling him the greatest Christian based on his many works. After all, writing the Epistles is works, not grace. Evangelizing is works, not grace. Even miracles are works, not grace. Standing up to others in debate is works, not grace.

Paul received grace when he, as the Christian persecutor Saul, was thrown from his horse by the resurrected Jesus Christ. Everything after that was works. Yes, of course, these were works inspired by the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of Jesus Christ, but you can say that about the Twelve Apostles, the disciples, the martyrs and many, many, MANY unnamed and unknown early Christians.

So it is impossible to state who is the "greatest Christian," period. In fact, Jesus Christ rebuked the Apostles when they argued among themselves who was the greatest. Why would someone as wise as Rev. Graham then apply the label that Jesus did not permit his own Apostles to claim?

Rev Graham, like just about every other Christian (and many non-Christians) today is vulnerable to that slippery slope of admiring works, works, works, even as they preach grace, grace, grace. I have yet to have a conversation with any grace admiring Christian whose thoughts, deeds and preachings actually match their professed admiration of grace! It is nearly impossible to find anyone who is able to have a conversation about God, sanctity and the Holy Spirit without them focusing one hundred percent on works, works, works.

That is why Jesus Christ nipped all that sort of thought and talk right in the bud when the Twelve Apostles debated who was the greatest even among themselves, say nothing of being the greatest Christian of all time!!!

There is no such thing as "the greatest Christian of all time." If there was such a person, you would have to have an amount of GRACE measuring device, not an amount of WORKS measuring device. Who can measure how much grace exists in a person? Only God and the angels (the angels being able to observe grace in humans through God's eyes).

If someone were to search in the Bible (as they should, as the scriptures should be the first reference point, no?) to see if there is a "grace measuring device," what would they find? Read along with me:

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And when the angel had come to her, he said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women."

...

And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God."

Luke 1:27-28, 30

Mary is the only person in the scripture to receive word from God directly that she is full of grace. No matter how much you might leaf through the Bible citing folks who were "blessed" and who received blessings (such as health, children, prosperity) from God, Mary is the only one who is documented to have been "full of grace" (grace being the unmerited by WORKS gift from God) in the Bible.

Thus if someone is going to have a "let's declare the greatest Christian who every lived" contest, where a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, the Bible states that Mary is the only one who is 1) full of grace and 2) was in such a state before her "works," which was to bear the infant Jesus.

You can see why Jesus nipped discussion of being "the greatest" right in the bud with Apostles. Will not all of you do the same, to avoid the misleading temptation of excessive honoring of so-called works? Paul would be the first to rip his hair out by the roots if he were alive to hear such discussions.

Now, just to complete this discussion, let's exercise our logic and faith using an analogy. Well, it is not so much an analogy but to help you to use Mary, therefore, as a kind of litmus test if one were determined to know "the greatest Christian" based on grace.

If you did not have an angel, Gabriel, sent by God to know that Mary was "full of grace," how would you go about finding someone in modern times (let's say the last thousand years) who has "a lot of grace?" How in the world could you identify and measure it? A person who is a theologian? Oh oh, that's works. A person who does a lot of 'good deeds?" Oh oh, that's works. Someone who plants many churches? Oh oh, that's works. Someone who is an inspiring preacher, puts out DVD's and has a great "following?" Oh oh, that's works. Someone who seems wise and filled with knowledge of God? Oh oh, that's works.

There have been many who would be considered in the "top thousands" list of "greatest Christians," but you will never know their names because they were unrecognized as such in their times. They are the grandmothers and grandfathers who raised children of true faith and who were of humble origins, and probably never conducted a particular good deed, so to speak, in their life. Think of the many unknown anonymous people who clung onto in secret their Christian faith when under dictators, for example, doing nothing other than making sure they prayed, kept their Bibles, and raised their children as genuine Christians. They wear the invisible crowns from God of being filled with grace, not works, and being not-rich, not-famous, not-schooled and not-historic figures, they went to the Lord known only to Him.

So that is the first thing to keep in mind, that the more one is clothed in works, the less one is able to actually see their invisible robes of grace. Paul is actually so laden with works (righteous works, don't get me wrong) that it is impossible for modern people to appreciate what grace he had indeed. People are dazzled by works so much that they do not see the quiet invisible soft folds of grace underneath. They assume that great grace abounds, but that actually is not true, if you check the scriptures. Scriptures teach how to recognize grace only via the gifts and the fruits of the Holy Spirit, not through church plantings, arguing with others about the faith, documenting "how the early church worked," or even via miracles and other God given deeds (yep, remember deeds means works).

Thus the second thing to think about when one ponders who is a "great Christian" (forget about the "greatest" or whatever) is to observe the following in people as they GENUINELY ARE, and not via their visible works and "deeds."

The Gifts of the Holy Spirit:

Fear of the Lord
Piety
etc. (look them up under my previous postings)

The Fruits of the Holy Spirit:

Continence
etc. (look them up under my previous postings)

You will see that these are genuine qualities of character, not deeds. You see, when grace from God (and God alone) infuses a person, that person exhibits these qualities, listed above, not increasing "deeds" or "works," regardless how worthy they are.

The most obvious example might be someone who is a generous person but with average or lukewarm faith in God. He receives grace from God and instead of "increasing his charitable works and good deeds," dedicates more and more of his day to his prayer life, if that is his calling from God. Using that logic you can understand how an average or lukewarm charity giver might receive grace from God and actually renounce the secular life and become a priest or a deacon. Grace is not the petrol for making a car go to more and more numerous and varied worthy destinations! Grace is living within gratitude and glorification of the one and only God who gave you "the car." That is the vast difference between deeds/works (however worthy) and grace.

No one can be a "great Christian" without having an inflow of grace that is beyond any merit or receipt due to works. The word "great" has to be reserved for those who really are "great" and not, like the vast majority, "acceptable" or "good enough." Do not kid yourselves, most Christians who achieve heaven do so because they received at least a "C" on their report card; very few have even B's or, much as you may think so, A's. Most Christians who make it to heaven are "good enough," and by no means "great," especially in these modern times where people are so goal and agenda driven, even in their faith, thinking they can "list" their ways into heaven. Even those who know better and who truly love the Lord must always guard against 1) the temptation of works and 2) the worse temptation that they can evaluate and assess someone else's acceptability to God, even someone who seems slam dunk obvious like St. Paul.

This is why I am making such a big thing of this one observation, because I have repeatedly seen that it is at the core and heart of many of the diversions among Christians of one hundred percent fidelity to God. Works, works, works and the "I'm OK, you're OK" mindset is the ruin of many good Christians and blinds them to potential receipt of grace.

I hope you have found this helpful.

understanding Bible: sin definition case study

I started out planning to blog about something else (which I will), but I came across this historical information that will help you in your faith & reasoning development. In the past few postings I've mentioned how the Bible states that even foolish thoughts, and then of course obviously mean and unrighteous thoughts, are sins, even if no one takes action on them. I explained that and gave the scripture references in previous posts some time ago.

Well, I know that one of the things you need to think about is: how has accurate and complete understanding of the Bible diminished so much over the two thousand years of Christianity that my explaining the Bible has this information has become a news flash? Something that very, very, VERY few pastors and other moral leaders know about or if they do, even mention? Why does no one warn their flock that even foolish thoughts are considered by God to be sins?

Before you, or anyone, can answer that question, you need to "fact find." Young people (yes, hi there, I think of you fondly as always), the scientific method and the use of problem solving logic means that like a detective, you trace how far in history from the time of the Bible writings to the present that awareness of this particular admonishment in the Bible exists in both the religious and secular consciousness.

Thus I want to give you an example of how, while leafing through my prayerbook, I came across written evidence that just over three hundred years after Jesus Christ lived that people still knew full well and embraced the Bible teaching that foolish and sinful thoughts are actual sins. So while I'm not planning to spend time studying this for you, I thought, hey! What a perfect example to show you how to reconstruct how modern thought has gone so wrong. So the first step is to trace since the time of Jesus, using impeccable written factual sources (not imaginings of false prophets and 'psychics') what people actually thought and did regarding the topic that you are studying, in this case how the Bible states that foolish and sinful thoughts are sins, even if no actions follow.

Here is some background of the person I am going to quote. Ambrose was born around the year 320 AD (and thus was born nearly three hundred years after Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected) into a upper class family in the Roman Empire. Ambrose's family had been Christian for several generations. Ambrose had in his family tree, in fact, a Christian martyr, St. Soteris. Ambrose and his family received classic legal education, so they were well educated and prepared for high civil office, so Ambrose became a lawyer and a governor. When a local bishop died, Ambrose was sent to help sort out arguments among the people about who should be appointed bishop in the place of the deceased. As he addressed the crowd on this subject a child in the crowd called out that Ambrose himself should become bishop! The crowd agreed and the two arguing sides with their respective candidates fell into agreement about Ambrose (who was shocked and did not want to be the bishop). He was well on his way up the lawyer and government "career ladder," and was still studying and deepening his own individual faith. But because the people wanted him so badly and basically drafted him, he was baptized, received the holy orders of priesthood, and was consecrated Bishop of Milan (Italy) all within a month of time! He was very obviously a pious and sanctifying man from the start (the people's instinct was correct!) He gave to the Church and the poor his considerable personal wealth, he sorted through the problem of the genuinely poor from those who were shams, he studied scripture and doctrine for twenty three years, was a prolific author and being a priest, as all bishops are, Ambrose celebrated Mass (the Holy Eucharist) every day. He even raised the three grandchildren of a friend.

With that as background, seeing this was a holy man who didn't even in fact seek out fame or a livelihood due to his sanctity, here is what he wrote, with his opinion of his own sinfulness! This is a long prayer he wrote that he recited before celebrating the Holy Eucharist (the "Lord's Supper") in daily Mass and I include here the opening of the prayer and the places where you see evidence of the realization of those times that all people are considered prone to sin, including of mere thoughts that are foolish or unworthy:

O Gracious Lord Jesus Christ, I, a sinner, presuming not on my own merits, but trusting to Thy mercy and goodness, fear and tremble in drawing near to the Table on which is spread Thy Banquet of all delights. For I have defiled both my heart and body with many sins, and have not kept a strict guard over my mind and my tongue....

...To Thee, O Lord, I show my wounds, to Thee I lay bare my shame. I know that my sins are many and great, on account of which I am filled with fear. But I trust in Thy mercy, for it is unbounded...

...Hearken unto me, for my hope is in Thee; have mercy on me, who am full of misery and sin, Thou who wilt never cease to let flow the fountain of mercy. Hail, Thou saving Victim, offered for me and for all mankind on the tree of the cross...

Remember, O Lord, Thy creature, whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy Blood. I am grieved because I have sinned, I desire to make amends for what I have done. Take away from me therefore, O most merciful Father, all my iniquities and offences, that, being purified both in soul and body, I may worthily partake in the Holy of Holies...

...I purpose to partake, may be to me the full remission of my sins, the perfect cleansing of my offences, the means of driving away all evil thoughts and of renewing all holy desires, and the advancement of works pleasing to Thee...

Do you see how often this obviously holy man (remember, the crowd proclaimed him when he had no clue of wanting to leave a high career for the sanctified priesthood) emphasizes and repeatedly confesses and asks for help for his sins of thoughts????

If you ever wonder what holy people confess to God, that is what it is. Truly holy and sanctified people continue to "renew all holy desires" by acknowledging that all humans have foolish, evil and sinful thoughts. This is the genuine humility before God that ALL believers should have, which is the acknowledgment that even the holiest of people have, due to being broken vessel human beings, regardless of their level of faith, have to mindfully struggle against having even silly and mean or vain thoughts, say nothing of how profound a sin that thinking, even idly and fleetingly, thoughts about sinful matters are.

So, young people, and others, this is how you can see that no, we don't "lack evidence" of "what the church was like" and "what people believed" "back then" in "Biblical times." This lawyer/governor who became priest/bishop only a few hundred years after Christ left plenty of written evidence of his thoughts and what the people believed, and what they retained of their understanding of the Bible, both Old and New Testament. The notion that even idle, foolish and sinful thoughts are actual sins (as the Bible states) was a hot forefront belief several hundred years after Christ.

Thus, young people, and others, you now have a piece of your investigation, if you were doing so, that for certain in the four century that the knowledge that bad and foolish thoughts are sin was well known and frequently meditated about and prayed regarding, including DAILY by this Bishop of Milan, Ambrose.

Those of you new to studying the saints, let me explain that they were not tucked away in a corner. Ambrose, while he was living, was studied by many who would become great saints themselves. Further, while there was no email, ha, or post office, there was indeed snail mail and these people were all in correspondence. So if you continue your investigations you will see that a writing by a priest or bishop was never a "personal" so called "interpretation of scripture." This was the prevailing belief, kept intact from Old Testament times and the times of Jesus, that foolish and bad thoughts are indeed sins.

I hope that you have found this helpful both in further understanding what I have been reminding people about what the scriptures actually say, but also as you can see that you don't have to imagine and make stuff up, but you can look at written agenda-free evidence to deduce what people knew and believed, and how the word of God is preserved, and when parts of it started to fall out of public consciousness. Here we have filled in the blanks of several hundred years, knowing that the early Christians were keenly aware of what the Israelites knew and what those who followed Jesus knew, which is that God states that foolish, bad, mean and/or sinful thoughts are indeed actual sins, whether actual action follows or not.

Faith case study: importance of intentions

Hi and especially to young people (!) I have you in mind most particularly and affectionately as I thought of this idea for a blog this morning. I'm going to concentrate on this case study with you because I think it is more important that you understand than my listening on radio, twitter, news to the verbal and mental diarrhea that spews unabated, it seems. *sigh* So I continue to listen but with only one ear (because listening to the crap helps me to understand how urgently I must explain sanitation over and over again, ha).

Here is the case study I want to present to you today. The purpose is to help you try out through faith and logic (reasoning) why two basic truths exist. One is that God knows the intention of a person's heart and soul in everything that person thinks, feels and does, and that intention makes a difference to God. For example, a person can present themselves as the most lovely and spiritual person on the outside, but if they are full of mean crap on the inside, all the "good deeds" and "popularity" and "spirituality" of the person on the outside is pointless because God knows that the person is insincere and even malevolent on the inside, and that person will be judged accordingly. Thus some really "sweet" and "popular" people on the outside do indeed end up in hell, since God knows the motivations of their heart and soul.

The second truth, then, is related to and indeed derivative from the first truth. As a result the Bible clearly states that having an evil heart is sinful (by evil I mean not only flat out evil but also a begrudging, mean, lying, hypocritical and bullying heart, say nothing of being idolatrous) but the Bible also states that all bad thoughts, including ones that are simply foolish, are sins. I blogged about this a while ago, citing the scripture, and commented on it, check and see if you can find those postings under the label "sins," in case you've not read it before, or need to take another look. I'm sticking to doing a logic case study so I'm not going to cite previously cited scripture in this particular post.

So here I am going to give you the case study: Why if, in theory, two people advocate the same action, does it matter if one person is evil (or has evil intention) while the other person is faithful to God and has good intentions? In other words, let's say these two opposite people each agree on some government policy decision... why does it "matter" in the health of their soul, where one will be favored and blessed by God, while the other will not?

As a corollary to this, remember this is a favorite argument of atheists who are "moral" "ethical" and "peaceful." They figure if they advocate the same good things as the believers that they are "the same" in intention and thus in worthiness. Let me tackle this one first as a prelude to the main case study.

Here's the problem with intentions in the atheist example. Bad intentions can hide the truth from you, which affects things in both a specific decision but also one's whole life. Here is the analogy to understand that. Suppose two people, one atheist and one a believer, each rent an apartment from the same landlord. These two people get together on their job (let's say they are peace activists) and they work together on some good project to promote peace. The atheist would argue that because he or she agrees (without the "need for religion") with the believer on a good sound project to promote peace that he or she is as worthy and ethical and moral as the believer work partner. OK, so after work they go back to their own apartments, and the rent bill is due. The believer goes to pay the rent, handing the landlord the cash. The atheist ignores the bill because he or she does not believe the landlord exists. When the atheist is, after repeated bills from the "imaginary" landlord is finally thrown out into the cold, the atheist says, "Hey, how come you aren't throwing out the believer?" The atheist thinks that "equivalent" ethical actions means they are in the same position as the believer, and that of course is not true because the atheist in our analogy thinks that the landlord does not exist and he or she can just ignore bills for their monthly rent. This is an example of how an alliance of actions (the peace project) does not yield equivalent results, because of the intention of each person differs, not only their conscious inner thoughts but of course the entire context of their life and faith philosophy. Interestingly the analogy implies that the atheist renter would continue to not believe in the reality of any landlord, so where would he or she turn to, in our analogy? I guess he or she would find shelter in houses of those who also do not believe in landlords. This is why a person can continue in their whole life without believing in the reality of God, while still doing "equivalent" "good deeds," and only find out there is a landlord indeed when it is too late and he or she had died and is judged unworthy of heaven, and thus ends up in hell. All the "good deeds" and "good intentions" mean naught because the atheist refuses to acknowledge existence of the landlord and pay what is due.

So that is the first part of the case study. Here is the secular part of the case study. I am thinking of this secular case study (as I write it here) so that everyone, regardless of the condition of your faith (or lack of it) or religion/spirituality can understand the practical "bread and butter" secular life reasons that intentions DO matter even in "equivalent" ethics and deeds. To keep this easy to understand I'm going to choose a commodity that is not controversial, such as alcohol, and instead use an imaginary candy, a sweet, a dessert, as the analogy.

Suppose there is a very successful candy, a wrapped single serving sweet, that is found to contain an incredibly high amount of sugar, fat, and thus a HUGE amount of calories with each bite. Let's say that one of these candies had 3000 calories in it, more than most people should have in all their food in a day. So a whole bunch of people with various intentions get together and advocate that this candy be banned. On the surface it seems that everyone is in agreement with a "good cause" to "protect the public" from an "unhealthy" food. They pass a law banning this candy in whatever country or state that they have this influence. Now, let's think about why differing intentions can lead to vastly different results (and worthiness, both in practical life and in spiritual matters) by making a list of people and their intention frameworks and their implications. I'm just going to do a few here to show you how it is done, and you can think of some of your own! :-)

1. A woman is a nutritionist and really, really, really believes that this candy would destroy the health of many people, so she favors the ban.

Here intention is good, but one sided. If it tasted so wonderful and was such a popular sweet, could she not have used her nutrition expertise to help the manufacturer develop a sweet that tastes the same but has less calories? Or suggest to them a way that a person could once in a while have the sweet, but on high activity (like sports or exercise) days? By having a scolding and forbidding orientation, even though there is "good intention" (to preserve some ideal of diet and nutrition), it would never occur to her to have both, by using her expertise to modify the product and avoid a ban of such an innocent and fun sweet.

2. A man is an "expert" in consumer safety, and feels the sweet is just one of a list of things where the public must be protected from "unintended dangerous consequences."

Ahhh.... interesting. The "professional" "consumer safety" guy. Here is it nothing personal, because he's not against the candy and only the candy. He is against anything that the public is "ignorant" of possible "dangerous consequences." Again, many people would think that is a worthy calling. But is it? It sure is when there is a clear and present danger, such as toys that could choke a young child. His "intention is good," most particularly when he is indeed protecting the public from a built in hazard in a toy or product that could harm a child, for example. But he has two blind spots due to his intentions. One is that he stops thinking about each item and rather view them as a continual conveyor belt of "danger" that a continual conveyor belt of "ignorant" public might be harmed by, and thus he is in the taboo business, of looking continually for things to ban. So he has the error of thinking that all items he considers are dangerous deserve the same banning remedy AND he assumes a continual level of public ignorance (none of them are ever smart enough to pick their "dangerous" product). So his intention while certainly "good" on a certain level (dangerous toys for young children, for example) but is very slippery because it has made a factory of demonizing both products and the intelligence of the public.

3. A woman pretends to be a "concerned mother" and "homemaker." She secretly holds stock in a competing candy and sweet company.

Need I say more? That is obvious where the hidden intention is to hurt the successful competitor of a company whereby she holds a hidden financial stake. But let's examine this because my not so hidden intention is to tell people that they are harming themselves when they do not come clean with their own intentions. This woman would justify, I suspect, her advocacy of banning the sweet under consideration because she would say, if confronted, word for word, the following: "Well, even IF I didn't hold stock in the competitor company, as a mother and a homemaker I'd be against that unhealthy and dangerous candy!" Oh my. "Even if." Really? Only God knows how people would have behaved under alternative future scenarios. She is kidding herself, perhaps even honestly fooling herself, actually thinking that she'd be hoisting the banner and flag of advocacy against that product if she didn't have a dog in the fight. Odds are that if she did not have stock in the competitor product that the whole dangerous sweet controversy would have, in that "alternate future," just been a news story that she sees on TV or in the newspaper and like dozens of other stories, leave it to other people to sort out and act upon, as she'd have other interests and concerns. Having the competitive stock makes her more sensitized for both sinister (hurt the competitor company) and innocent (she's paying attention to products of competitors and news about them) reasons. There is no "even if" because humans are not single line entities where everything in their life goes the "same" "even if" "just one thing" were "different."

4. A wealthy woman really believes the product is dangerous and puts her money into the cause of having it banned.

So she is sincere in believing it is dangerous..... and she has the money (and thus influence) to do something about it. Hmm. Sounds good so far, right? A celebrity or an industrialist or media figure "putting good money to the cause!" Maybe so. But here are the different forks in the road of different intentions. 1) She has lots of money and thus bans it for everyone else, but stockpiles the candy for herself, figuring that it's a "dangerous" treat that "she can handle." 2) She really does believe it is dangerous and doesn't want the candy, but her success in this power play goes to her head. She looks for other "causes" that she can provide the money as "fuel" to muscle through people's agendas, both "good" and maybe "bad" ones. She gets hooked on being a power maker. The problem is that she becomes hooked on the power she has rather than the genuine worthiness of the cause, because of her intention to "make a difference." How many times do we hear those words: "I have the money to 'make a difference.'" Automatically that attracts such a person to causes that are able to be purchased, and in all innocence may not see causes that just need a pair of hands and a willing and open heart. Her "good deeds" become skewed and ultimately blinded and invalid because the motivation, the intention, is to use money and power as a lever.

Can you think of others? I could but I'm bummed out enough at always having to point out the faulty spiritual and secular reasoning that so very many people follow, without thinking of even more for you here, ha.

So think of other ones. Here's a hint (think about people who are killjoys because they were deprived in some way in their childhood or whatever....they can and do kid themselves that they are protecting others, while just begrudging what they did not have themselves).

After you've added one or two other examples to my list, now imagine the wrap-up. All these people agreed to a single "good deed" of "consumer protection from a dangerous product."

A. All people engaged in the same activity and got the law passed, banning the sweet.
B. Each person had a totally different motivation and hidden intention.
C. If they were honest about their intentions, many of them would have changed their minds about the law in the first place.
D. Better alternatives than the flat out ban are never even considered.
E. Alternative better actions are totally missed, so there is a high "missed opportunity" cost.
F. When one is not honest about one's inner motivations and intentions, one becomes the willing or unwilling slave to those intentions, continuing to act in that intentions mindless "service."
G. Serving those intentions results in missing other sets of priorities as one seeks out repeated gratification of those intentions in all things.
H. Hypocritical and coveting temptations have a greater and greater hold.

So now by expanding this analogy into faith, it is not at all difficult to see how God at the time of their personal judgment will place in front of each of these people, who agreed on one action (the banning of the sweet), how worthy or not their lives actually were, and how widely divergent all of these people will be. Same action but different intentions yield not just later but in the immediate wildly different results.

Ha ha, I can't resist, so here's another example, if you've not thought of it already.

5. A lawmaker is the author of the law banning the candy. He thinks it is unhealthy and dangerous.

OK, sounds like a responsible consumer advocate legislator, right? Yeah, but what if he knows that it will get voted down? He is trying to look good for the voters by banning the "unhealthy candy" but he knows it is "win-win" because if it passes, sure, that "bad candy" got banned, but if he is voted down, "well, he tried to do the right thing" and that ends up in his campaign ads. So at heart he cares neither if the candy really is dangerous (or he'd try hard to get all the votes lined up in favor of his banning law) or if the dangerous candy ban loses, and people keep legally eating it.... he's "won" either way as he looks like either the victorious, or losing, "hero."

Now, think of those intentions in the faith context. Some of the people above are flat out lying, sinful, coveting hypocrites. How will God judge them? It will be quite obvious that they will be harshly judged.

So this case study shows you how 1) even if you omit God from the situation under discussion that the same action can and does result in wildly different outcomes depending on the totally individual conscious or unconscious intentions and 2) since God IS in this and every situation, God knows not only the worthiness of the intentions (their genuine or not benevolence) but God also knows all the subsequent life directions and implications of letting those intentions rule.

I hope that you have found this helpful!

understanding Jesus: numbers not important

I've been meaning to blog about this since Sunday when the scripture I will reference was discussed in Sunday school. Here are the scriptures describing the two separate occasions when Jesus fed thousands of people by miraculously multiplying a tiny amount of food.

Mark 6:39-44

And he ordered them to make all the people recline in groups on the green grass. And they reclined in groups of hundreds and of fifties. And he took the five loaves and the two fishes and, looking up to heaven, blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and the two fishes he divided among them all. And all ate and were satisfied; and they gathered up what was left over, twelve baskets full of fragments, besides what was left over of the fishes. Now those who had eaten were five thousand men.

Mark 8:1-9

In those days when again there was a great crowd, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples together and said to them, "I have compassion on the crowd, for behold, they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat; and if I send them away to their homes fasting, they will faint on the way for some of them have come from a distance." And his disciples answered him, "How will anyone be able to satisfy these with bread, here in the desert? He asked them, "How many loaves have you?" And they said, "Seven."

And he bade the crowd recline on the ground. Then taking the seven loaves, he gave thanks, broke them and gave them to his disciples to distribute; and they set them before the crowd. And they had a few little fishes; and he blessed them, and ordered them to be distributed. And they ate and were satisfied; and they took up what was left of the fragments, seven baskets. Now those who had eaten were about four thousand. And he dismissed them.

---

Alright, there are so many things that one should discuss and understand about these two miracles, but I have found that a very common error in approach to understanding these miracles derails most of the modern discussion of these events away from their core spiritual and literal meanings. Sure enough, right after reading one of these passages our Sunday school teacher (who I really like, so this is no criticism) almost immediately fell into the derailment by reading what all these highly educated commentators have said about these miracles: *I'm rolling my eyes* .... "the symbolism of the number of loaves and fishes".....*I'm rolling my eyes again, as I can't even repeat this without being frustrated, argh*

He then starts to repeat what "they" (the wonderful commentators) have "analyzed" about the "meaning" of how many loaves and fishes they were, and what holy numbers they symbolized, blah blah blah. I interrupted him right there and said something like, "I know all the commentators discuss it but they are wrong: there is absolutely no symbolism in either of these miracles by Jesus." I briefly stated why and here I will explain it to you.

First of all, let's discuss why people get so easily misled into missing the events and then worthy analysis of the miracles' greater meanings (not "symbolisms" as a greater meaning is different than "symbolism.") One cannot discuss a greater meaning of these events without first agreeing on the facts. So that is what Mark and the other gospel writers set forth when they wrote about Jesus: first the facts, then what Jesus actually did, and then any greater meaning (John's Gospel tends to include more of that kind of thought), including any explanation of how/why that Jesus provided. There are two reasons modern people are so easily mislead into discussing ridiculous things like the "meaning" and "symbolism" of "how many" loaves and fishes were used by Jesus. First of all, people today do not understand why such trivial data is supplied, unless it has a "deep" and "heavy" "symbolic" "meaning." That is because they no longer understand that detailing such small items (which happens throughout the Bible) is what people were taught to do, back when only oral history and verbal contracts existed, which is to "bear witness." I include the label here "witness" where I have previously explained this.

So what modern people think is either a trivial point (who cares if it was five loaves) or a big heavy "symbolism" (ooooh, it must have been "five" for "a reason," yeah, a "mystical reason..." followed by profound and eerie music and nods of agreement by the scholars who are paid and make names for being so smart) the reason it was recorded down to the number of loaves and fishes is that.... that is what actually happened, and the people of those times were all taught by their families and teachers to be scrupulously accurate in bearing witness to great events. It's part of the accuracy record, to them, and that is the automatic mindset.

One reason it is important to be accurate is so that readers (or those who hear the Gospel verbally) understand exactly how big or small an event just took place. Look at the two extremes in an analogy. If Jesus fed 5000 people with let's say 1000 loaves, that would not be such a huge miracle, would it? On the other hand, if Jesus fed people with no loaves, making the loaves out of thin air, it would be a huge miracle (but not more huge than what actually happened.) What, you say... why is that? Why would in theory no loaves be equally as miraculous as feeding from five loaves? Remember the Exodus, when Moses asked God to feed the people and manna fell from the skies. The Jewish people would all have been VERY mindful of that seminal miracle in their faith history, when God provided the bread of manna out of nothing, as it rained down from the sky. They thus would have viewed Jesus as having done the same thing, mediating between the hungry people and God, who provides for them out of nothing. So anyone alive during that time who carried witness either verbally or in writing would have routinely recorded how many loaves and fishes because it allowed the listener or the reader to put what happened in the proper context with the facts.

The second reason modern people, including supposedly smart scholars, fall into the trap of putting numinous and irrelevant meaning on the number of loaves and fishes is, well, there is no subtle way to put it, they are a bit weak in their faith. Either consciously but (to give them the benefit of the doubt) unconsciously, they tend to think that the number is important because it is contrived. I'm not saying they full out think this is a made up story, but there is always the temptation to disbelieve something so incredible, always nibbling and gnawing in the back of the mind. So these commentators figure, "Well, just in case this actually did not happen, we can still derive a 'greater spiritual lesson' by 'analyzing the meaning' of what the 'authors' (not God) did 'present.'" You see what I mean? When there is even a five percent of doubt of the literal accuracy of the Gospel in one's mind, no matter what a believer and a "scholar" you are, your understanding of the plain words will be mislead and warped. Previous generations could discuss "meaning" and "symbolism," sure, but they did so on the firm basis of 100 percent believing the facts of the miracles: that is the sad difference between then and these smarty pants modern times.

So how did I bring an abrupt halt to that line of thought? I will explain it to you now and offer it to you as a faith and reasoning case study. I said something like this. Well, if the numbers are so "symbolic" and "mean something else," does that mean that if only four loaves were there instead of five, Jesus would have hit his forehead and said, "Darn! Now I can't do the miracle! It's the wrong symbolic number of loaves!" Or if they had loaves but no fishes, would Jesus have said, "Wish I could help, but it's just not the right holy symbolic numbers of ingredients." Ha ha ha, yes, my readers, I did see a few fellow Sunday school members narrow their eyes at me ha ha when I said that ha. But they have to see in parody, sometimes, how silly they are being (or how easily misled). I mean, this is deadly serious: Jesus Christ, born of God by the Holy Spirit overshadowing the Blessed Virgin Mary, healed, performed miracles, and conquered death, resurrecting after being crucified and ascending into heaven. The facts are mighty just as they are, I mean, duh. The facts don't have to also be "symbolic" of like lucky numbers or something. The way to detox from such thinking (that there is some "formula" or "bigger meaning" to the small facts, the insignificant number of the loaves and fishes) is to test the theory that the number of each item is instrumental to the miracle taking place. That is what I did, by making the people answer, "Well, if those numbers are so symbolic, does that mean Jesus could or would do the miracle only if a certain number of the items were there?"

Would Jesus "not be able" to do the miraculous feeding if there wasn't the "holy symbolic" number of items? Of course not. Jesus could do it with zero loaves or 1000 loaves.

Would Jesus refuse to feed the hungry people because there isn't the "right number of 'holy symbolic' items there?" Imagine that, Jesus saying: "Oh oh, there is supposed to be five loaves because that's a really holy important number, and you have only four loaves, so sorry, I'm not going to do the miracles and you have to walk home hungry, hope you don't hit your head on a rock while you are faint with having followed me for days." Obviously not, and I included the passage where Jesus states his concern for the health of people who had been fasting for so long already (and that is the motivation for the miracle, not to demonstrate his power and authority).

You see, that is what people ought to be gleaning from their personal reading of the Bible, the facts, the context, Jesus' words and explanations, and the Gospel writers words and explanations. Young people who use computers, you know WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). The Bible must be read and understood that way, that what you see is what you get, and also "it is what it is." Jesus was followed by many people, on two different occasions, to remote areas for several days where there was no fresh food to gain after what people had brought with them had run out. Out of concern for them Jesus takes whatever is found and turns that through his miraculous God given ability into much food for the multitude. All that is documented so that the listeners and readers of these events comprehend how big and precise a miracle this was, so that they get it even though they were not there.

The key to the miracles is that Jesus demonstrated he can make do with what people provided. If it was no loaves or many loaves or, as in the reality, just a very few loaves, Jesus can and did work with whatever people had.

That, then, is the larger meanings of these miraculous events because yes, sure, there are the events and then there is the larger meaning to glean from it, but it's not "magic" or "holy" "numbers" kind of meanings. I can write more about them some other time as I really want to keep this confined to the case study of understanding how to avoid the pitfall of missing the really important facts and points of a Biblical event by derailing on something unimportant and thus not seeing the outline of what one should indeed contemplate. So here is in closing just a list of how to mindfully approach the "bigger and greater meaning" of the miraculous events.

1. Notice the circumstances and think about them. People obviously were so committed to hearing what Jesus said that thousands followed him into barren areas with no thought of their food or water.

2. Notice Jesus' motivation for the miracles, which is simple plain love and humanity for their plight, after showing such commitment and attention to him. This is far away from the nagging scribes and Pharisees, so Jesus is not performing these miracles in order to demonstrate his God given authority. It is plain and simple loving need.

3. Notice that Jesus uses whatever is available, for he has the might of God with him, and lots of bread and fishes or no bread and fishes, God can do anything.

4. Notice that Jesus gives thanks and don't slide over that thinking that is like saying grace before food, for it is not a pre-meal prayer of thanksgiving to God. Jesus is thanking God for the ability to perform what, only through God, he is about to do, which is feed the people. Jesus is thus both on his own thanking God for what is about to occur, but also giving the people a role modeling of how always to be so whenever one uses one's God given abilities, to be thankful first and foremost to God.

5. Notice that Jesus gives the food to the disciples to distribute. Of course some of that is logistics, as many hands can distribute the food faster. But the greater meaning is that Jesus is a) preparing the disciples and the people for the time when they can do some of this themselves, for remember all the Apostles and original disciples became able to perform miracles and b) that the word of God needs to be carried and spread by everyone, not just, as we would say today, the "guru." Jesus is always modest and that was a sincere modesty because he never for a second of his life forgot that everything he was able to do was directly from God the Father. Thus Jesus did not have to "showboat" and hand out the food himself so people would be grateful to him and impressed by him.... Jesus always demonstrated that a) all power and glory go to God alone and b) his disciples were extensions of him and Jesus did not always need to be "the one." Remember that Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples baptized their followers. Jesus was always showing how the faith community was to come together and function, as it would have to when he was no longer there.

6. Notice that they record what fragments remain. This is part of what I explained about the witnessing to the facts of what happened. It is also OK and valid to ponder the greater meaning that even after Jesus through God provides all that is needed, there is even more leftover. God's grace is always more than expectations and there is always more than the bare minimum of human needs.

I hope you have found this helpful! Do not be afraid to discover that even wise experts, in these modern times in particular, miss the forest through the trees. (That's an old saying, for those of you who are English second language or may not have heard it, meaning that some people are so obsessed with details that they notice one or two trees without ever realizing those one or two trees are accompanied by many trees in a forest all around them.) Glomming onto an imaginary importance of how many loaves is like missing the entire event because your mind is hijacked into thinking it's all about those loaves "conveying" a "numeric" "message" "from God," and thus you don't get points 1-6 at all as you look just at that diversion.

*Sigh* Like I said, much of this comes from lack of understanding the simpler times when people really did just write down the facts without an agenda.

Oh, that makes me realize something I can add quickly here, which is "spotting agenda." Here is a quick example that merits a huge amount of writing elsewhere.

OK, you've seen Jesus, and his Apostles, and all the events that took place. Maybe you are a distant relative of one of the disciples. The focus would be entirely on documenting exactly what happened. No one would have an agenda (except, as we saw, the Jews and Romans who put Jesus to death, for they covered up that he resurrected by bribing the guards and spreading the story that his body was removed and "hidden.") So the Gospels and the Epistles (the letters) of the New Testament are all agenda free because people in a really verbal and oral culture were attempting to get precisely in writing exactly what happened. What happened was so detailed and astonishing that for brevity much is left out that is repetitive. By that I mean that for example Jesus performed thousands of individual miracles, but the means to write down details of every one of them would have been impossible then. People memorized and shared the data of the essentials, writing down what people needed to know for the faith that had factually occurred.

But now let's imagine that some hundred years or more has gone by. Someone in your family may have been that relative of a disciple I mentioned (imagine if you belonged to Judas Iscariot's family descendants!) Now you have to watch for agenda. This is the problem with so called Books that people wave around once in a while and claim that they are "true" and "give the real story" of "what happened." These are well known, and a few years ago media manipulators tried to get everyone all excited about the Book of Judas with claims that he and Jesus had an agreement, blah blah blah. The same has popped up about Mary Magdalene and others. There is of course more pious versions such as the stories of the Blessed Virgin Mary and how Joseph selected her (or she him) with like a flowering wand or something like that. These are all written many years, often centuries, after Jesus, of course, was actually alive, by people who were not there.

How do I know they weren't there? Use logic my friends. If they were there it would have been in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles, duh. People were doing agenda-free documenting of all that needed to be known about Jesus (we don't know what side he slept on or what cereal he liked best) but we know absolutely everything about his ministry and the nature of the New Covenant with God. So anyone who actually had been on the scene and had a significant role would have been documented accordingly.

So through dating but also pure logic we know that all these extra books are ancient but not comtemporary with Jesus. Anything that pops up centuries later and claims to contain secret or "real" information is bogus because no one had any need to "hide" anything when Jesus was alive (except the Jewish religious authorities after he resurrected, ha). Jesus lived an entirely open life surrounded by hundreds of people constantly, and Jesus was doing a continual stream of teaching and role modeling, preaching and ministry at all time: there were no secret deals or any such imaginings. That would have lost the entire point anyway. Jesus did not have to arrange with Judas to be betrayed (it would be funny if it was not so faith warping) because, duh, the Gospels document how often Jesus had to flee or dodge people who wanted to kill him right then and there (even in his hometown).

So this is why you have to use a little common sense to discern agenda. The Gospels and rest of the New Testament had no agenda except to document and communicate the marvelous events that had happened, plus the teachings of Jesus. Anything from a later date that is not part of the Christian community communications via letter, sermons and so forth is going to be a combination of two very modern phenomena: 1) Spin doctoring by people who wanted to get their piece of celebrity action, so like I said, I bet Judas' descendant family members would have wanted to write a 'he didn't do it' saga and 2) Genuine remnants of memories of things like the life of the Virgin Mary, but now glossed with all sorts of sentimental fiction to romanticize her genuine purity and virtue (in other words, the "cute meet" story between her and Joseph that is supposedly preserved).

Thus remember, which is why I brought this up, the disciples had no agenda as they authored the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles, and Revelation, rather than to record precisely what had occurred as this was a nearly total verbal culture and society in the world. The model for such precision in writing was of course the Torah and all the books of the Old Testament. People used witnessing to get the facts in writing to reach those areas they could not achieve through travel, and also to preserve and hand down the information to the next generations of what had actually happened. Likewise God had no "agenda" other than send his Son, the Savior and Messiah, to do what he did. God did not have to plant "significant numbers" or "hidden meanings" or any such thing because that is self defeating and remember that God is all perfection. God is what he is. So don't get diverted thinking there is hidden or arcane meaning to be "gained" in the scripture, since, well, think about it, God seems to have to hit humans over the head again and again and again with the simple truth. Subtlety is lost on humans and God would have no reason not to make things very, very, VERY plain over and over and over. Points 1-6 rather than "oooooh, the number of loaves 'means something!'" Finally spot agenda before it spots you. Use common sense to discern the difference between people who were part of the fact checking witnessing of the group of disciples who were actually there versus writings by some sort of imaginary hanger oners years and centuries after the fact who have obvious "My grand pappy's neighbor's shepherd knew them too!" types of motivations (or like Judas Iscariot's poor family descendants, ugh, who would want to have been them?)

I hope this helps.

Spiritual envy: part two, case study

I'm now going to explain how the Blessed Virgin Mary is the greatest recipient of the sin of spiritual envy directed against her of any person in modern times. Yes, she's dead and in heaven and thus does not suffer to her face while alive the wrongs that spiritual envy induces, but remember I explained that there is a destructive influence on everyone involved, including distant second tier persons, of spiritual envy. I will make this a case study and it will help you to 1) better understand the destructiveness of spiritual envy and 2) better understand some of the false preaching that is prevalent today.

I must first say that this is a subject that makes me seethe. Those of you who are innocent and earnest in your wanting to learn more about this, understand that my seething does not, of course, extend to you, and that much of it is actually on your behalf.

Here are the two ways that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the victim of spiritual envy. I'm going to start by outlining the symptoms, and then backing you up into understanding the error and envy that these symptoms result from, and of course, the scriptural sources for correct reverence toward Mary.

1. The unbelievably frequent description of Mary, particularly around Christmas, both in "entertainment" (understandable heathen Philistines) and from the pulpits (unforgivable, and I even hear it from supposedly orthodox Catholics) as follows. I am going to let my seething come through here in the sharpness of my caricature: "Just think, Mary was JUST LIKE ANY GIRL, why EVEN YOU! She was just some poor, knocked up young girl, ignorant like everyone else in those days. She probably was nowhere near as pretty as those artists make her out to be, and she probably had dirty smelly feet and was just, you know, like some third world peasant girl. Gosh she must have been embarrassed to be knocked up by some older guy who she was only engaged to... oh wait, that's right, he isn't the father *tee hee.* So when it's Christmas time instead of reading the scriptures (all of it) and remembering who Mary really was, just imagine that you, you silly girls, COULD HAVE BEEN HER! Wheeeee!!!! Doesn't that make Mary "relevant to today!" She probably had BO too! And of course she was unsophisticated and clueless! But look how God could raise up even someone, well, you know, common and grubby like her!"

2. The Christian denomination or nondenominational (fill in the blank who) has "trouble" with "how the Catholic Church" "views" Mary. Like the Catholic Church is wrong. No, dumb wads, we actually read and believe the Bible, thank you very much.

*SEETHE*

OK, now I can relax that I took out the garbage and dumped it on the curb. Now let's get on with the actual Biblical Mary.

1. Mary was far from "uneducated" or "simple." We know this because she cites Old Testament scripture, complex and lesser known scripture, by heart as part of her indwelling by the Holy Spirit.

What Mary said:

[Mary was newly pregnant with Jesus and stated the following to her cousin Elizabeth]

And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior; because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; and his mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty. He has given help to Israel, his servant, mindful of his mercy-Even as he spoke to our fathers-to Abraham and to his posterity forever" Luke 1:46-55.

Scripture from which Mary is citing:

[This prayer was given to God by Anna, the mother of Samuel, who was the priest who anointed at God's instruction the first King of Israel, Saul, and then when God turned against Saul for Saul's sins, King David. Anna had been bullied and picked on for being unable to conceive a child. She prayed to God for a child and promised that if God gave her a child that she would dedicate that child to God's service. When God gave her a son, the boy Samuel, true to her word she kept him only until he was weaned and then gave him in service to God at the temple.]

My heart hath rejoiced in the Lord, and my horn is exalted in my God: my mouth is enlarged over my enemies, because I have joyed in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord is; for there is no other besides thee, and there is none strong like our God. Do not multiply to speak lofty things, boasting. Let old matters depart from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of all knowledge, and to him are thoughts prepared. The bow of the mighty is overcome, and the weak are girt with strength. They that were full before have hired out themselves for bread: and the hungry are filled, so that the barren hath borne many; and she that had many children is weakened.

The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell and bringeth back again. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth. He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill, that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord's, and upon them hath set the world. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness, because no man shall prevail by his own strength.

The adversaries of the Lord shall fear him: and upon them shall be thunder in the heavens. The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth, and he shall exalt the horn of his Christ 1 Kings 2:1-10.

Spend some time studying the two scripture passages, which were separated by over one thousand years. Anna's prayer would not have exactly been a mainstay of regular preaching and worship in the synagogue during the time of Mary, though it would have been well known by the devout. The fact that part of Mary's canticle to Elizabeth is Holy Spirit induced prophecy while part is the most pertinent threads from Anna's prayer shows that this "young girl" knew her scripture by heart and was further able to extract from the scripture, under divine inspiration, those sentiments and prophecy most directly related to Jesus as Messiah and Mary as chosen by God for the highest favor. You can see why I seethe at all the totally un-Biblical implications that Mary was just a simple and uneducated girl; even a total dimwit can see that is not true if you actually read the Bible.

2. Mary was not just "any girl" or by any means "typical" of other girls, then or now, or EVER.

What the angel Gabriel said:

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art though among women" Luke 1:28.

Let me explain this to you slowly. What is grace? Grace is gift and favor given to humans, who cannot merit it for themselves in any way, since all grace is the gift of God. The vast majority of people go their entire lives without receiving much actual grace at all. Grace cannot be earned, but it most assuredly is given to those who are in the process of sanctifying themselves to God (as I've explained previously sanctification is putting God first by dedicating one's day to day life to God's will and service). So the vast majority of people receive some, but not much, grace during their entire life. Yet Mary, that "young girl" of modern cartooning is heralded by Gabriel, before she even knows that she will become pregnant with Jesus, with the title, the honorific of "full of grace." Mary is already full (and full means full, as in filled up, filled to the top, filled in every part of her spotless being) with GRACE. Um, who exactly can claim that? "Just a regular girl?" I think not. No one but Jesus himself due to his being and Mary due to God's planning and proclamation have been or will be full, as in complete, in grace.

Even those who are not envious and/or in denial of Mary do make in all innocence this mistake, so beware of that, and also another mistake that I explain now: Grace is not the same as a blessing. Grace is an actual infusion of gifting and purity from God, while a blessing is good wishes that anyone can bestow upon anyone else. We even say "bless you" when someone sneezes. So some people who don't understand the difference think that the angel is blessing Mary, as in giving her a blessing. He is not. He is stating what has already occurred and what God prepared Mary for: 1) Mary is already full of grace, so she's got as much grace as she can contain already and 2) Mary is already blessed by God. That is the situation before she even has explained to her the mission of the angel and her role as mother of the Messiah and Savior. So she already had all grace and blessing before even being in this extraordinary service to God as being mother to his son.

When people fool silly and stupid people of this generation into thinking "any of you girls" can "imagine what it would have been like if they were in 'Mary's position'" they are lying and defaming Mary. No one in their right mind would have DREAMED of saying such foolish delusion prior to this incredibly ignorant and arrogant, self satisfied, ego maniacal past few generations.

It is impossible to imagine what it is like to be filled with grace because only Jesus, by God's nature, and Mary, by preparation and conferral by God, have ever been in that state of grace. So no, nobody can identify with Mary, or Jesus, to that level. Humans can sympathize with Mary and Jesus in their suffering, for example, but they cannot at all empathize with either of them, as no one can have a reference point of the perspective of someone who is filled with grace and thus filled with God's given pureness.

In the Qur'an it is written And when the angels said: O Marium! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above all the women of the world Surah 3:42.

Before progressing further regarding the true nature of Mary, let me reintroduce the point about spiritual envy. It is obvious that many people, both individuals and groups, in modern times (the past several generations) have a wrongheaded view of Mary that can only be attributed to spiritual envy. No one can claim to be Christian and be so stingy and denying of the God given grace and purity of Mary that deserves continual praise and role modeling, and that does not take one iota "away" from Jesus. What believer in God thinks that anything even can be "taken away" from God? How is adhering to what the scripture most clearly in black and white shows, for anyone to read, giving "too much to Mary" and "taking away" from Jesus? That is the very transparent and lame excuse, and I know first hand, for spiritual envy of Mary herself and also the institutions that continue to honor, love and revere her as she actually was and remains, now, in heaven.

3. Mary as prophetess.

We have already seen in the first scripture how Mary prophesies in her canticle to Elizabeth, even before Jesus is born, how the ongoing salvatory impact of Jesus will demonstrate God's mercy from generation to generation. Mary also, in a way, receives prophetic insight from the Holy Spirit regarding when it is time for Jesus to perform his first miracle. I marvel (not in a good way) about how many miss this point in the miracle of the wedding at Cana.

First I will tell you what happens using common speech. They are at a wedding and when the groom, the host, runs out of wine, Mary nudges Jesus to do something about it (and she does not mean his charge card; obviously this would have to be a miracle). Jesus rebukes Mary that it is not his time to go public with his miraculous abilities, but Mary overrides his objections and tells the wedding steward to do whatever Jesus tells him to do. Jesus obliges and performs the miracle.

This is an example of how one grace filled person can "know" when to urge the other grace filled person to action. Think about it. If you were just the average guy or gal who hung around with Jesus, would the first "miracle" occur to you to recommend to Jesus when you are at a wedding and they've run out of wine? Huh? Absolutely not. The "average" person would think of many much more dramatic or urgent situations to urge Jesus to perform his first miracle. But none of them would be ultimately as fraught with grace and meaning as the turning of water into wine miracle. Only Mary, filled by God with grace, would have been able to discern that moment, hearing and knowing and "magnifying" that moment and that place and that situation. Why was it so important? Read Luke 20:9-19, the parable of the vine dressers (the fruit of the vine being, of course, grapes for wine). When Jesus told that parable the chief priests and Scribes sought to kill him (Luke 20:19). Soon after that Jesus at the Last Supper took the cup of wine and said "take this and share it among you; for I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God comes" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you" (Luke 22:17-18, 20).

Mary by virtue of her fullness of grace hears the Holy Spirit and triggers the moment of Jesus' first miracle, which will be the foundation of his ministry, as Messiah and Savior, as both the true vine and the fruit of the vine.

And on the third day a marriage took place at Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now Jesus too was invited to the marriage, and also his disciples. And the wine having run short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "What wouldst thou have me do, woman? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the attendants, "Do whatever he tells you" Luke 2:1-5.

Do you better understand what a disservice it is to, at best, willfully marginalize Mary's role in faith and salvatory history? After all, none of his newly called disciples realized that this was the time and the place where Jesus should perform his first miracle. Only the woman full of grace, his mother, could hear the prompting and be bold enough to insist that Jesus do so and he complies. Let me address the reason that Jesus seems to first object. I bet now you understand it, though. Jesus is not really objecting, he is saying "My hour has not yet come." That refers to what happens to the son, the cornerstone who is rejected, and is killed by the vine dressers, as I cited for you to read on your own in Luke 20. In Bible speak Jesus is not refusing, but saying that this is the beginning indeed that will lead to the hour that has not yet come, but will.

4. Mary as constant disciple to Jesus.

While those who are in error or those who are spiritually envious of Mary emphasize her low key presence and lack of much "mention" in the Gospels, what is actually emphasized is the continuity of her continual presence throughout Jesus' ministry. Mary did not sit around at home wondering how Jesus is doing while he traveled: she was there. By the way, notice how Mary was invited to the wedding at Cana and "Jesus too was invited" :-) The wedding at Cana needs to be understood as the turning point, as this was when Jesus performed his first miracle and thus his God given authority, having just been baptized and having called the first disciples. Jesus attends the wedding that Mary was invited to, and him also. Mary urges him to perform his first miracle in relation to the fruit of the vine-the wine-and Jesus does so. From this point onward Mary is following him as his most constant disciple, and Jesus has now by action, not by words, proclaimed his public ministry.

Now, you need to understand about Biblical life to understand this next part. Mary, as a widow, had to be supported by her son. Mary thus could not sit around back at the homestead, even if she wanted to, as Jesus was her source of support and Mary tended to him as they would have had they been at home. Mary and the brethren of Jesus were the core of the growing Christian model of the group accompanying Jesus in his ministry while at the same time providing the necessities of life along the way. Ha, you say, how do you know this? Yep, "it's in the Bible." This is why with Jesus' last breath on the cross he gave Mary to the Apostle John as John's mother, and John as her son, as Jesus had to hand over both that symbolic and literal role to John! It's not because they needed to update their business cards to say that John was now the son of Mary since Jesus had been crucified! It was because in those days the eldest son, (and thus, obviously) the only son, provided for his mother, whether at home or "on the road." Mary was with him throughout. I've blogged about this before but this is why Jesus had such pity for the widow who had just lost her only child, her son, and thus decided when encountering the funeral procession to raise him from the dead. Mary and Jesus were in exactly that same position where Jesus, ministry or not, had to support and provide for Mary, his mother, at all times.

Mary remained in the background, as did most of the many nameless disciples, so that those who would freshly hear the words of Jesus could press to the front. This is why you do not hear "mention" of Mary any more than you hear mention of the dozens of unnamed disciples who followed Jesus and the Apostles. She was with them on the outskirts whenever Jesus was about his business. You can read about this when Jesus uses the time that Mary and the brethen (Jesus' other relatives) wanted to speak with him but could not get through the crush. Jesus was not rejecting them, but rather (since he saw them all the time accompanying him) he delayed speaking to them so that he could show the crowd that those who follow his word are his family too.

Likewise when a woman raises her voice in the crowd and praises Mary, Jesus is not rejecting praise of Mary, but as per his ministry, redirects the praise to God. These are examples of how Jesus role modeled how believers must always look toward God, not from any rejection of Mary, of course, but from the ease with which the crowd could understand that the closeness of Mary and the brethren of Jesus to Jesus was now being extended to themselves, through Jesus. In other words, Jesus is saying that instead of focusing on the specialness of himself or of Mary, to start to think of yourselves as special family to Jesus and thus to God through your faith. This is as far of a marginalizing of Mary as you can get; rather, people are invited by Jesus to share in that specialness of closeness to him held by Mary and the brethren of Jesus (and all those unmentioned disciples who also were continually present). Thus Mary is continually present through the ministry of Jesus, through the crucifixion, and after his resurrection, through Pentecost, and then accompanying the Apostle John in all his ministry. The thought of Mary settled in some village is bogus and reflects a total lack of understanding of the handing over of Mary's care by Jesus on the cross to John. The care of Mary meant Mary's constant accompanyment of John, even in her advanced age to the area that is now the country of Turkey, as John unceasingly performed his evangelizing to his own great age of one hundred.

5. Protestants have no reason to marginalize Mary. but historically they have and still do. They should not and first of foremost, because Luther loved and revered her too.

I don't want to get too far afield from the main point, so I will leave it to you to research, if you want to, the depth of feeling that Luther himself had for Mary. I raise the point about Protestants, though, since we are left with the following fallout:

o "Anything but the Catholic Church" syndrome has falsely led many Protestants to marganalize Mary due to rejection of and spiritual envy of the Catholic Church. This is an example of what I alluded to in my first post on this subject, which is that once one is of a mindset toward spiritual envy, one starts to cherry pick scripture, highlighting those parts that seem to support one's view (the two instances I gave where Jesus is viewed, incorrectly, as rebuffing Mary presence and praise of her) while eliminating all reference to the remaining basis for legitimate and consistent reverence for Mary's role in the Church.

o "No one is as good as Mary was supposedly, so she could not have been so either" or "I could have been Mary too" syndrome has latched onto the first syndrome and is rampant in modern times. This too is based on spiritual envy of Mary. Here people deny that someone as Mary was really did exist (the usual attacks on her Immaculate Conception, the snarky comments that she "must have been sinful too" because "all humans are sinners," thus ignoring the "full of grace") thereby concluding that the biblical Mary was not really as she really was. The whole point of Mary is that she WAS the one and only; she was, as both Gospel and Qur'an attest, the purest and totally unique. Spiritual envy blinds many today to that obvious truth because they are, incredibly, jealous of the purity of the mother of the Savior.

Even more ludicrous is the notion that while no one could have really been as pure and good as Mary, therefore the "Mary claimant and imitator/imposter" field is wide open. People start to think if Mary could not have been as unique, predestined, God filled in grace and purity, if she must therefore in their minds be something "less" than that, this "opens the field" to people claiming to "channel" Mary or to be "reincarnated" Mary. This is all, again, spiritual envy based. It is back to my original exposition of the links where envy leads to denial and then coveting. Many modern people envy what Mary really was and remains (step one) so they deny that she was exactly as the Bible and the Qur'an state (step two) and then, having "cut her down to size," they next figure they can claim some portion of the spirituality of Mary that they so envy and covet (step three). Thus you have egregious and blaspheming charlatans who lay claim to a spiritual identity that belongs (as each does, of course) to only that one and only original person, but they do so only after denying and diminishing it enough that they can think they can reasonably claim it as their own.

I hope that this helps you, dear reader, to understand through this crucial faith case study how spiritual envy is a terrible sin full of actual destructive power that resonates through generations and erodes genuine faith even in those who are not fully culpable and participating. As I pointed out above, I've been shocked (hardened and saddened as I am) by proportedly orthodox thinking Christians, including Catholics, who bought into the barefoot dirty waif who though ignorant and ordinary becomes baby Jesus momma. Let's put it this way. I would be willing to bet you an awful lot that Luther, when he died and faced his maker, was very glad that he never lost sight of who Mary was, and what reverence and love is due to her. It would be wise to make this the last Christmas where knocked up "I can relate" Mary baby Jesus momma is promulgated in entertainment and preaching. Yes, tired as I am I got to seething again here, as I do whenever I think of that plain out insulting image of Mary. I won't lie, I've wanted to punch some preachers in the nose when I hear that rubbish and Hollywood, I'd totally given up on them anyway but seething remains.

Young people, hi again, hope you've hung in there through this long exposition and that it's helpful to you. Do not be afraid to believe the truth that genuine God given purity and goodness did exist on earth and remains so, of course, in heaven. All this in the praise of the name of Jesus.