The three simple steps to God and faith

This is the plainest and simplest way to understand the direct path toward faith in God.

1. Truth: knowledge that he exists

This is supposed to be presented to children at the youngest age, at the same time that they understand who they are, who their parents and other relatives are, and identity of people in general. Children need to be told that God exists, but cannot be seen. When children ask how do we know God exists, explain that many people have seen and spoken with him a long time ago and they left the book (the Bible) that states that he is there and what happened. Children of Islam, the same understanding is given to children about God's existence and the book of the Qur'an. As Christian children grow older they start to understand that God proved his existence in latter years by sending his Son Jesus Christ.

You see, you cannot have faith or reach God if you don't accept that people a lot closer to God than you have testified to his existence and left records of that in the Bible and the Qur'an. If you try to "have faith" or "understand if God exists" you are unlikely to succeed because you are starting with the unspoken assumption that you are smarter or closer to the truth than the authors of the Bible and the Qur'an, and you most certainly are not. This is why you cannot "logic" or "faith" your way to God. You have to first understand that impeccable witness has been given through thousands of years by people who know and saw with their own eyes. No one can duplicate or surpass that; you simply have to accept the facts of the written Word.

2. Love and goodness: You understand that all love and goodness comes ultimately from God, not humans, plants, animals or imaginary beings.

Thus immediately upon accepting the facts, the truth, that God exists, one understands, accepts and embraces that God IS love, that God is all the goodness that ever existed and could ever exist. This is where the child (and those late to finding God) accept the gift of love and give all glory and credit to God for the goodness of creation, the goodness of life, and any blessings. In other words, one understands God's true being, his identity. One can therefore start to develop one's own personal relationship with God. Children start by accompanying their parents in prayer and worship.

3. Consequences of disbelief and sin: You understand that achieving heaven and being with God in eternity is by no means guaranteed, and that sin displeases God mightily and he will react accordingly.

This is something that teenagers, young adults and often extended to middle age adults grapple with but absolutely must not deny or dodge. Children start to learn this from parents and also their worship community, as they recognize right from wrong in general, and what sin is and how it aggrieves God specifically. Sin is understood to be not only an offense against God but also working in opposition and contradiction to what God alone understands is good for each person and for humanity in general. That understanding often comes with age, but no one is guaranteed the time to "find that out in one's own time" so again, children when they reach appropriate ages of understanding must be taught the balance between a loving and forgiving God, but the grave error in taking that for granted and indeed jeopardizing one's relationship with God.

That third stage is the first of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, "Fear of the Lord."

Notice that this foundational gift, which is needed before other gifts can truly be received from the Holy Spirit, is thus the first step in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the third step in having faith in God. Faith in God requires: acceptance of his truth of existence, acceptance of his love and goodness, and knowledge of the consequences of sin and disbelief. When you have that "package" of those three steps, you have faith in God, and you are ready to start receiving the unmerited grace of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the first of which is "Fear of the Lord."

I hope this has been helpful to parents, children, young people, caregivers, preachers, those responsible for faith formation, and those who are patching and repairing their faith journey, which they may have been deprived of in total, or had missteps along the way.

A message to my Muslim brothers and sisters

Greetings and best wishes.

Some of you know family, friends or acquaintances who have been radicalized. Many of you are involved in activities to correct errors that many who are radicalized propagate. I applaud and bless your efforts on this important mission. While thinking about this challenge today I thought of an important point that you should make, should you have the opportunity, when having safe discussions with radicalized believers. And, should any radicalized believers be reading my blog, I would like to speak directly to your hearts too.

You must remember that Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship the same one true God. This is affirmed in both the Qur'an and the Jewish and Christian holy books. The God who revealed himself from the prophet Adam to Abraham, and continues through the three great believing faiths, is the same one true God.

Now, many of you who are radicalized assume a judgemental attitude toward the purity of the Jew's or Christian's faith. This is an error if you therefore also assume that even if the Jew or Christian uses different or even poorly understood concepts when praying to God that their prayers are not reaching God's ears nonetheless. For example, we know that some Christians focus totally on Jesus and tend to not contemplate the greater glory of the one true God. But that does not mean that when they pray to Jesus that their prayers are not reaching the same God to whom YOU pray. God would not ignore the prayers of an imperfect Jew or Christian any more than he would ignore the prayers of a Muslim child who is just learning how to worship from his father and who makes the mistakes of a child. Would you believe that God only hears the prayers of those who are perfect in their frequency of prayer, their mental thoughts about God's appearance, and with each word being perfectly said and intoned? Both the Qur'an and the Hadith would advise you that God hears all the prayers of the believers.

Therefore, radicalized Muslim believers must realize that even if a Jew or a Christian has too secular a view, or in your view, an incorrect emphasis on Jesus, or other aspects of their theology and belief, they are, clumsy or not, still sending their prayers to Allah, the same God as you. I think that some radicalized Muslims have fallen into an error where there is the assumption that God does not hear the prayers of believers, as if God is a target to whom the prayer arrow must be perfectly pointed in order to reach him and his attention and mercy. This is a grave error and does not match what we know about God's mercy toward believers.

Let us take the example of a Jewish official who pursues an unjust policy toward Palestinians. But let us also assume this Jewish official is a believer and has a pious prayer life. (We are not speaking of a total secularist). When that Jewish official prays he or she is still praying to the same God as the Muslim and the Christian, and that same God hears their prayers. Just because a human is unjust in their life does not mean that God does not hear their prayers. He may not grant their prayers, and it does not mean that they will not be judged in their time, but it's not like the prayer mail that the true believer sends is not received by the true God.

Likewise we all know Christians who only pray to Jesus and seem never to mention God himself. This frustrates me too. However, this does not mean that prayers that they direct to Jesus are not heard and received by God. A believer is a believer. It is a grave error to think that a pious Jew or pious Christian is not a believer.

If God only heard the prayers of those who have perfection in their faith, then he would not hear very many prayers at all.

God especially hears the prayers of believers who are unjustly called unbelievers and who are persecuted for his sake.

I hope that you will ponder this and give it serious thought. I think that it is a breakthrough in dialogue that I've come to see that some radicalized Muslim believers assume on God's behalf, incorrectly, that prayer they think is offered by imperfect believers is somehow not received by God. This is incorrect and has no foundation in either Qur'an or Hadith. All who believe in the one true God are believers, however flawed the specifics of their spiritual understanding may be. As I said, God would not ignore prayers of believers who are young and still learning, or who learned some wrong things but still believe, or have speech defects so they cannot be perfect in their diction. Those very examples are obvious, and how much greater is the actual grace and graciousness of God who hears all believers. I hope this helps and close with prayers and intentions for genuine peace and unity among all believers, who must unite in order to maintain cleanliness of heart and soul in an age that forces disbelief. The quarrel is not among believers, and it should not be such an underestimation of God as to think that he does not hear all the prayers, whether he grants them or not, of all believers. God bless.

Examples of Jesus highlighting importance (2)

Matthew 15: 10

Then he called the crowd to him and said to them, "Hear and understand..." [and then he relates a parable of particular importance. It is of such importance that Peter says:]

Matthew 15: 15

But Peter spoke to him, saying "Explain to us this parable."

You can see here just one of many examples where Jesus not only calls attention of the Apostles to an important parable, so they will hear, understand and later recall, but the crowd too, in the first place! Jesus structured what he said, taught and did in the short amount of time of his public ministry so that people who were used to relying on memory, and had no texts but the Torah in the synagogues, could be alerted to his saying something important that should be understood and recalled.

I'll add other examples as I come across them, but now you know to be alert to them. When Jesus said things like "hear and understand," this was not to be dramatic in speech. It was to give an alert to people who were 1) entirely dependent on the oral word and memory 2) those who would follow him, evangelizing and teaching the word that he was about to say something that they needed to give their full attention to hearing, understanding and remembering. There was absolutely nothing like notepads or a way to "jot something down," and once he said something, he had to move on and people needed to understand it when it was first said. So you can read the Gospels with new eyes, alert to how Jesus provides in advance a structure to what the Apostles and disciples will recall, share and explain on their own after him...


St. Luke 8:8-9

... As he said these things he cried out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"

But his disciples then began to ask him what this parable meant.

[Here Jesus does this same formula of alerting the crowd of a particularly important parable to remember, and thus also the disciples, who prick up their ears even more and as Peter did in the previous passage, question him more closely to be sure to understand. This particular parable is of such importance among importance that Jesus completes his explanation of the parable with another reminder of the importance of listening and retaining/recalling and correctly understanding what he says.]

St. Luke 8:18

"Take heed, therefore, how you hear; for to him who has shall be given; and from him who does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away."

[This is a very important example of not only highlighting the parable itself and its meaning, but also the importance of correct hearing and "mental processing" of what you hear. With these words Jesus is doing a "wrap" of his explanation of the parable, which deals with how to retain what you receive. for the parable is about how to retain your faith once you have received it. But Jesus neatly summarizes the message of the parable (that you might receive faith but through circumstances or loss of care might lose it) by also giving a lesson in how to hear what he is saying. Jesus says to take heed "how you hear." It is important to not only hear something but to hear it correctly and using correct technique, in a manner of speaking. If you hear something properly ("him who has") then you will be given more because you are receptive to being a proper wisdom receiver and retainer. But someone who listens improperly ("him who does not have") actually ends up losing knowledge if he is listening wrongly to what he is being told. We've all had experiences where we are more confused by what someone said than before they spoke. In a way this is what Jesus is warning against, but he is saying that people have a responsibility for listening properly (you could say, listening with good will and intentions). But there is also, per the parable itself, a grace and skills level component. Jesus is teaching that proper listening must be the responsibility of the hearer, because those who properly listen can soak in and gain knowledge, while those who improperly listen to the same thing as the one who listens properly actually loses knowledge and the gifts of it in the process of the imperfect and flawed listening. So even if you think you know something, if you listen to it improperly and thus "process it" in a flawed way, you actually lose knowledge in the process. The parable itself was about this danger in the gaining and losing of faith itself. In a way Jesus is given both a theological lesson and a "listening technique" lesson, using the same words. This is why he opened with the statement about "having ears." Again it is not drama, or an artistic expression, but to highlight the focus and import of what he is about to teach, so that it can be properly recalled and practiced.]

Understanding God, and understanding Jesus (1)

I've written a number of pieces about how to better understand God, and also how to better understand Jesus Christ as well as his God sent mission. I want to continue to produce a series on this top; some of these blog postings will be general thought pieces while others will include more detailed scriptural reference and quotations. Here I will start with a general observation.

The Apostles and the disciples, through their Gospels and Epistles, left a written record of precise things that Jesus said and did. Putting things in writing was not a commonplace activity in those times, even among scholars. There also was little concept of "writing a book for posterity" or for "teaching purposes." Too many people slip into thinking of the Gospels and Epistles that way, as if they were produced much as a book or newspaper column would be today (that they were written with both a targeted audience and with posterity in mind). But that is not how it was then, in the time of Jesus. Writing the Gospels and the Epistles only crossed the mind of the Apostles and disciples when there started to become a substantial number of far flung early Christians with some centers of gravity during times when travel was dangerous, time consuming, and the communities were in danger of martyrdom. I don't want to do a scholarly post here, but invite you to gain an overall perspective and flavor for what they wrote about Jesus, what he said and what he did.

The Gospels of St. Mark and St. Matthew are clearly written to record for a growing community of Christians the most essential events and components of Jesus' ministry. Again, do not confuse this with modern concepts of textbook, biography, self help book, or even purposes as we see in the Old Testament books, which is to codify God's law, record the visions of the prophets, and to preserve both wisdom and sacred teaching. What the Apostles and disciples were doing was "bearing witness." They were following the guidance, given by God to the ancient Israelites, about how to give truthful testimony in a public presence. 99.9% of the time in those days "bearing witness'' is given verbally. It is what someone would say to a group of people when bringing important news or engaging in a formal agreement or contract. As the community of early Christians came into being in the years immediately following the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus into heaven, the Apostles and disciples realized they could not meet the demand in person for their "giving witness" in the synagogues and public squares. So St. Matthew and St. Mark wrote their Gospels, so that copies could be made and sent to places where they could not send an Apostle or disciple.

St. Luke's Gospel is the same in intention but with a different tone. His has detail of events regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, for example, that could only have come directly from her telling. (The words she was inspired to say at the Visitation known as The Magnificat, for example). St. Luke's Gospel is the result of someone who "had some time to sit down and organize" some of the recollections of the Apostles, disciples and Mary, so there is a layer of detail that results in addition to his supporting the events and words of Jesus preserved by the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. These three Gospels, therefore, are very much similar in their purpose, which is to witness to events in a truthful and detailed way and to share that witness when the Apostles and disciples could not physically travel to a place that needed to hear the Gospel from them directly.

Likewise St. John gave his witness and preserved the telling of the truth of the sayings by Jesus and events in his life. But St. John differed from the other three Gospel writers in three crucial ways, and so his Gospel has a different "feel" and richer content in both details and tone. St. John was the only one of the Apostles not to have his life cut short by martyrdom. St. John lived to an extreme old age, around one hundred years. And St. John had responsibility for the care of the Blessed Virgin Mary for the length of time that she had remaining on the earth. St. John, therefore, was able to write much later than the first three Gospel writers and in a more musing and integrative way. He would have spent years in the company of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This does not mean what it would today, which is that he would "provide more detail" because remember, there was no concept of "biographies" or personage oriented textbooks. The Apostles and disciples wrote what they felt was necessary "in the field" at the time. While they of course had a sense of passing down the Gospel through the generations, again they were thinking in terms of fathers, sons, grandsons etc receiving the word and witness and passing that devotion on to their descendants. They were preserving the witness to be passed down, not "the book." There is no way that the Apostles and the first disciples would ever have thought about the existence some day of "the Bible." They wrote down their witness. However, very quickly as the early Church flourished, within the very earliest one to two hundred years after Christ the Church fathers rapidly saw the need to compile the authentic witnesses of the Apostles and disciples (especially as St. Paul gave such implied structure through his volume of works) and their continuing attachment to the word of God previously given, which is the Torah, the books of the Jewish people, which in time came to be called the Old Testament.

I go into this to invite you to see the Gospels and Epistles through the eyes of those who wrote and produced them, for it is that way that you better understand their truthfulness, their meaning, and their proper context. When you read something, especially if it is sacred literature and scripture, it is essential to understand the intent of the "author" (author is used advisedly because there is a writer who authors a book but the book is under direction of the Holy Spirit in general and recording real events in the life of Jesus Christ specifically). So it is always a co-authorship. Jesus said things and did things so that the Apostles and disciples would recall them and repeat them. So Jesus selected parables and so forth that he knew they could best witness and transmit. Jesus "thought ahead" for them by telling them things that they could understand and repeat in truthful witness. In modern book writing authors ask their subjects to "think back" over past events and relate them to the author who will sort, analyze and compile them. This is not how things were done in ancient times. Jesus told them parables and gave specific preachings (such as teaching the "Lord's Prayer" and the "Beatitudes") so that Jesus could "in advance" "shape" the form and content of the recorded word that is passed along to others. Secondly the Holy Spirit, who had arrived on Pentecost for those present in the room where they awaited to Mary, the Apostles and the disciples, guided the hands of those first writers of the words and events of Jesus so that they would have perfect discernment of what to include that was faithful, accurate and pleasing to God. Jesus told them, when he was there, to remember the words he said (often he would highlight words of particular importance). The Holy Spirit would ensure that they did and could discern what was of significance to record. Far from keeping "secret learning" to be "discovered by later generations," there was a double duty safety net of Jesus himself and the Holy Spirit to ensure that everything was included in the Gospels and Epistles. People of ancient times, most of whom could not read or write, had to rely on precise memory. The Apostles and disciples would have had scholars who were Christians who could aid in the writing and translation of their recollections and witness, but those were only "hands" and not "editors." The Apostles and disciples had received perfect formation of what to remember when it was actually said and done by Jesus in person, and then to recall and discern what to present within context of a written document by the Holy Spirit.

For example, St. Matthew's Gospel opens with the precise rendition of the lineage of Jesus by name of each ancestor back to King David. Remember that St. Matthew was one of the original twelve Apostles, so he would have had local access to the memories of the family of St. Joseph to record the name of each ancestor of Jesus. This is not something that, for example, Jesus made them all sit down and memorize the names of his grandparents, great grandparents etc. This is something that St. Matthew would realize in the course of his being one of the original Apostles that would be part of witnessing the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Messiah to come as being of the House of David and thus crucial testimony to provide. This is an example of the Holy Spirit inspiring St. Matthew to include data of tremendous theological importance. Likewise St. Luke is inspired to recognize the importance to record in his Gospel the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who in her turn was inspired by the Holy Spirit, to utter the prophetic Magnificat. The Holy Spirit ensured each writer would provide not only the structured information that Jesus himself provided but also the supporting context that those they sought to give the word to would appreciate and have to strengthen their faith and understanding of these events.

So I'll bring this installment of this topic to a close by summarizing my purpose. People need to drop secular modern day concepts of "authorship" or "a book" in order to understand what they are reading in the New Testament. The New Testament is comprised of written works by the first generation of those who knew and accompanied Jesus and the Apostles that exists in writing only because with the flourishing of Christianity from the first days after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus to the death of the last living Apostle, St. John, there was a need and an urging by the growing communities at long distances to have the witness of the Apostles and disciples delivered to them in writing if unable to do so in person. These are the words that the Apostles and disciples would have said in person to those they were evangelizing to had they been able to be in many places at all times. People who were able to go "into the field" urged them to put these witnesses in writing. We know this because St. Matthew's Gospel was immediately translated into the Greek. So the Gospels were the "outreach" in the form of writing what these earliest companions and witnesses to Christ would have said in person had they been there and been able to travel far and wide, live long and escape martyrdom. Since that was neither their calling (to evade martyrdom and lead long safe lives) nor the practical conditions of the time (St. James, for example, was martyred not so long after Jesus), they were compelled to put their witness into writing to reach those who might otherwise be deprived of it. Understanding that allows you to have a better appreciation for the accuracy and purpose of these books of the Bible themselves.

I hope that you all find this useful.

(By the way, the Pope has a great explanation of the Rosary as "the school of Mary" and the Magnificat at this link http://www.zenit.org/article-22771?l=english ).

Pondering: message to the youth (5)

This will close my series of posts for tonight! I hope you have found them helpful and even if you have some barriers to agreeing with what I've presented that you at least share my concerns and have a more discerning view of what is really going on.

Another way that I need to explain how the past several "generations" have been ripped off and cheated has to do with God.

Suppose that you were raised as a child in an orphanage, one where all your material needs were met but you were told your parents had died and that you were alone in the world. And then suppose one day you grow up and go to college, and then discover that your mother is alive and had been kept separated from you, through no fault of her own. You are reunited and you love your mom, and perhaps instead of living in a dorm you live with her while you go to college. You talk and do things together, and maybe the local newspaper even does an article about you both as their "feel good" story.

However, while this is a "happy ending story," you did not step into a time machine and remake your years of being alone. You find your mother and you are happy, but you did not have her when you were a baby, an infant, pre-school, Kindergarten, 1st-6th grade, 7th-12th grade, and she was not there when you graduated, got your first part time job, applied to college, got accepted, and had your first dates. You totally missed the experience of having a mom, and finding her at say the age of 21 does not change the past. It only makes the present and the future much better.

It is the same for children who are raised by their families without knowledge of and love for God. While you can always be raised "in the faith" and then decide to "fall or drift away from the faith" as an adult, you can't go back in time and rewrite history so that God was in your life for all the years you were raised without knowledge and love for God. You can find God, of course, even if God was denied to you by your parents as a child, but you cannot relive those years as a child the way you would have if you had known and loved God from the start. Time machines exist just in fantasy movies.

This is what I call "the lost opportunity" cost. Children are meant to know and love God from the first moments they can comprehend. It is not for God's ego trip; it is for the benefit of fullness and completeness of the human being. Just like having a mom and a dad are essential to a fullness of the human experience and a child's development, so is the knowledge of God. You would not have had to explain this to any generation of people before these past several generations. Knowing and loving God is an essential component to a child's mental, emotional, and spiritual health. In this blog posting I'm not speaking of a specific religion except that it be one that believes in the one true monotheistic God. It is inexcusable to raise a child without him or her knowing that God exists and has a relationship with the child that will last through their life.

Regular readers know that I was married to an agnostic Jew, and how because I was stalked by cults, I had privately resolved never to have a child who could be abused by them as I was. I never shared my reason for not having a child and took extensive precautions to not become physically pregnant. So this meant that it was a topic of general conversation with my husband and with other people in the normal "what if" way that anyone talks about having a child. One of the things that my husband and I totally agreed on was that "if" I had ever had a child, the child would be raised to be a full and devout Christian. My agnostic Jewish husband was the first to say, "You must raise a child to have the faith. He or she can always make their own decisions when they are grown up, but if you never give them the faith you are robbing them of it completely."

Throughout the 1960's and 1970's that was the predominant opinion until the "social revolutionaries" became parents. They then decided to rip off their own children by estranging them from God. They did this to cover up their own bad decisions, because who can teach about God when you deny him in your every action? Further, the temptations of occult beliefs (with again, their "free pass" on behavior and wink toward even horrors like abortion) took over families, and rather than being born into a family that taught love of God, children were raised either "God-less" (though God never abandoned them, even if the children did not know) or worse, directly as fodder for cults. I despise $cientologists and others like them for that reason. Cultists who raise their children without God are instead stuffing pollution into what should have been the clear springs of faith and reason in their children's minds. It is very hard to bring people "back" to God if that "USB port" had garbage flowing into them from the start. There is a "missing piece" in young adults who have been raised in cults and who, while they know the truth and have run from the abuse, feel estranged from God.

I have such pity, sadness and love for people who were robbed of God in their childhood and filled with the trash of cults. Some of them are brash, but many of them cover up skittishness that is like the pony that has been only beaten and spurred by human owners. They feel they cannot then let themselves believe the hand of human kindness when they do encounter it. That is what happens when children are robbed of their knowledge and love of God.

God is patient and if anything good can come from the horrors of these chaotic times, perhaps it is that even the most scarred can find their way back to believing that God wants to know them, and wants to love and guide them. But I appeal to you new parents, even if you think you are suave and cynical, please do not rob your children of love for and knowledge of God, even if you personally cannot provide it, have a godly person mentor them, or send them to Bible or Qur'an schooling. You cannot pop God back into them like a pill later in their life as if your neglect of them regarding God never happened, or is 'all fixed.' Follow the example that those of us who had to suffer through those times since the 1960's and raise the child in the true faith of God, and let them live their lives with both options in front of them, not lobotomizing them of God when they are in the cradle. It is one of the greatest tragedies of our time and many ills will still result from this before it gets better.

I hope this helps, and I hope that I can "help the unbelief" closer to belief for those of you who have been scarred by occults or estrangement from knowledge of God's love and his will and greater plan for all humanity.

Corrections about body image, fasting, spirit

I'm reading a book, "Wisdom from the Monastery," edited by Peter Sewald (who is known as the interviewer of Pope Benedict XVI when he was still a Cardinal). I'm enjoying the book and think it's quite good. But I'm commenting early, even though I'm just part way through the first third, because I see a repeat of a great error that has crept into the whole concept of humankind's body image and the benefits of fasting.

First of all, remember that the human body is made in God's image and that it is the temple for each person's soul as it sojourns in life until returning to God, either in eternal reward or outside of God's salvation and into hell. So the body is fine the way it is; there is no reason to have all of the self loathing that has taken over the sanity of much modern day society. I do not need to go into detail, you are all aware of how many ways Western humans hate their own body images and functions.

I have been boggled by the extremes of this self loathing, with colonic and "toxic cleansers" being one of the most startling modern addictions and distortions that I've observed. This is why I am distressed by what I read in the book; much discussion about the fantasy that fasting and toxic "cleansers" are performing some sort of good or necessary "cleaning" of the body. That's crazy talk!

Um, read the Bible. Who was it who lived for hundreds of years, even as Methuselah? The early fathers and Bible people who were close to God, just as they were, and not using toxic cleansers. The body is fine the way it is, assuming that you are eating a normal unpolluted diet. This stuff about "toxins" "clinging to the intestines" and so forth is crazy talk that is more about human self loathing than biology, nutrition or science. In fact, one of the problems in the 1950's was that people discovered that as food became increasingly refined (white bread instead of whole wheat, for example), that people did not consume enough roughage, which is all that intestines need for good health. So those of you too young to remember, this is why in the 1960's there was a big return to less processed and more natural food, for "roughage." People ate only highly processed white bread, mashed potatoes, pureed vegetables and so forth. They then noticed not only irregularity problems in bowel movements, but also the beginning of so many polyps being discovered. "Rough" food "scours" intestines, and that is the only "cleansing" the body needs.

This is not to say that fasting is not a great and spiritual thing. It is, but it is a spiritual thing, not a health thing. Even modern monks have grown up to lose their perspective. For example, this idea of toxic waste relieved by fasting is pushed very much in this book by the religious practitioners. Just because you are a monk does not mean you are correct! Here is the specific deviation. The monk who is quoted in the book explains that because in medieval times food was unreliable according to harvest, some gorged on food, including supposedly holy people, becoming real gluttons. This is true and shows some sense of history and understanding of culture and life pressures. But by only thinking of fasting in terms of a "too much" or "not enough" quantity and cleansing aid, these same monks are not as well formed in understanding the true roots of the fasting's spirituality. They got tantalizingly close to explaining it a few times, but then veered off into the self loathing/dirty body brainwashing that so much in the past thirty years have absorbed from poor formation and pop culture.

Much of the Old Testament is about how God instructs humans to perform burnt sacrifices to him of animals and food. I've written about this most recently as I educate people about how the Catholic Mass is a continuation of God's requirement for sacrifice. Why did God require food sacrifice to him? Notice he did not say, take one fourth of what you would have eaten today and sacrifice it to me. He's not giving people dietary implications, only spiritual. God required animal and plant sacrifices to him for two reasons. One is that food was the single most important quantity in a human's life, and it is God given. The only way humans can truly remember and appreciate God is to take a percentage of what they rely on for life, and give the finest part of it back to God in acknowledgement and worship. God is not taking food out of someones' mouth, nor is he hinting that fasting or dieting is a good thing. To the contrary, the poor are able to sacrifice just a few grains of wheat, or a bit of oil that they can afford. God does not cause hunger (or dieting) by anything he mandated for the sacrifice. By offering sacrifice humans remained mindful of the proper priorities and order of their life on earth.

The second reason God stipulated sacrifice is that he wanted humans to cultivate the habit of trying for the very best in animals and plants. Remember, God is a gardener in addition to being a carpenter! By stipulating the purity of the hair color, or of the age or bodily health of the animal that would be sacrificed to him, God is subtly also teaching humans to DEVELOP THE BEST out of the best that God has given to humans. By offering the best to God humans pull themselves up in developing the gifts of animals and plants that God has graced humans with. It is a discipline that lifts people up to be good stewards of plants and animals. Everyone benefited from the knowledge and cleanliness that went into breeding or providing the best for sacrifice to God, because this knowledge applied to giving humans the best nutrition too.

So, think about it. Food is the greatest gift to humans from God because it is the day to day source of life. (Air is really something that is taken for granted, and you can't control having air or not. The same with water, which is either drinkable and available or not). But food is something that is extraordinary in grace. It has to be sought out, yet it is given by God freely.

God points out that because of original sin, humans are cast out of the Garden and have to "toil" for their food. But at the same time, Jesus reminds people that the lilies of the field do not spin flax, and the birds on the wing do not toil for their food. Food is the great gift and mystery of God, because it is freely given, but also must be toiled for and sought by humans.

Therefore fasting was understood by the earliest practitioners to be the willful giving up of God's greatest gift. It was viewed as "one step beyond offering food sacrifice to God," in a manner of speaking. Fasting was viewed by the earliest practitioners as the ultimate act of faith in God, because they are forgoing in total, for the fasting period of time, the very thing that they must, through human's own disobedience, toil to obtain, but also, through God's grace, have available in abundance through the natural order of life. It was this that drove the first who fasted to do so as a spiritual statement. It was later that practitioners noticed general health benefits from fasting along with the spiritual. They discovered real benefits (for example, soothing the system by having, for example, easy to digest bread or water fasts... I like rice fast days myself). But they also developed "theories" as they speculated, through their lack of understanding of the biology of the body, about purities and impurities.

When the body suffers during a fast it is not because of the "toxins." It is because the body is saying, "Hey, stupid, you haven't eaten."

The body has what scientists today well understand as an kind of "emergency plan" that it puts into effect when people stop eating. First it sends all the signals that you should eat (stomach growls, cravings, pain, etc.) The body fully expects you to respond by eating. When you don't eat the body goes into a mini crisis mode. That's when your failure to consume the calories that you need starts to affect your ability to move, think, and be at ease. You've cut off your calorie supply. So once the body "realizes" that you are "seriously" not getting enough food calories, it goes into what it thinks of as "starvation mode." To the regret of dieters scientists have in the past few years measured how rather than dieting have immediate effects, the body falls back on the ancient primitive ability that all animals share, which is to go into a "starvation" plan, meant to keep them alive on what little they are consuming. It varies from person to person and animal to animal, but some people can stick in "starvation mode" for quite a while and actually not lose weight if they are not exercising. Eventually the body must keep you alive by going into your fat reserves. So this is when the body starts to burn fat, even if you are not exercising, to keep you alive. If you still do not eat, then the body goes into it's last ditch plan, which is to burn your actual muscles when it has run out of fat to use. This is when people, and animals, reach the point of no return and starve. So the unpleasantness that you feel through a fast is nothing to do with "eliminating toxins," duh. It is the pain of the body increasing the severity of its survival mode response over time.

Repeat fasters do not experience ease because they've "gotten rid of the toxins." They experience subsequent ease because the body has adjusted to the types of fast you do and "knows what to expect." The only way "toxins" come into the picture is that if you have eliminated your varied sources of food in order to fast on one food, you can give your body a break from more complicated processing of varied foods (which is not a bad thing unless you have been ingesting a food with pollution). But remember that bodies evolved over millions of years to DO "hard work" of "digesting" a wide variety of food. This is why humans are called "omnivores." Humans eat both plants and animals. "Herbivores" are animals that eat only plants. (No, "herb" does not mean weed, for all you dope heads). "Carnivores" are animals that eat other animals. Being an omnivore is considered a great survival and evolutionary gift because it means that a wide variety of foods will sustain you. It's not an example of poor poor little old tum tum and poo poo being strained by the awful hard work of digesting all those big mean old complicated yum yums. *Sigh* In fact, to get serious for a moment again, one of the things that the nutritionists who discovered the starvation mode that frustrates dieters also determined was that eating "hard to digest" food like celery is a good thing to do, because it actually is a form of beneficial calorie burning exercise, just this act of digesting. That was pretty common knowledge in my college days, but I guess it took until recently for people to find some way to measure its effect and therefore consider it to be real.

Who would have thought that "modern" society would demonize the body, its functions, its self image and also apply "magical thinking" to the eating of food? God got people off to such a good start and they just don't seem to want to keep things simple and good.

I hope this helps.

Spiritual direction: recovering from sexual abuse

I'd like to share a perspective with those of you who are still struggling to recover from sexual abuse, particularly those who were abused by priests or other religious figures. Catholics in particular will relate to what I am saying, but I think anyone can understand this observation.

Believers who died for the faith are designated as martyrs. Those in the early Church automatically became members of the communion of saints. Some we know nothing about but their names. But by being a martyr we know that they were put to death for holding tight to the Christian faith during persecution to the very end of their lives, usually under extreme torture. There are categories of saints and one of them is virgins. St Agnes is an example of a saint, martyr, virgin, for example. It is important for you to know that virgin martyrs retained the title of virgin, even if they were in fact raped before being executed. In the eyes of the Church, their virginity is not compromised, even if they were repeatedly and obviously raped.

This is reflection of not only how the Church views the blessed who gave their lives as martyrs, but also of God's perception of them. When God "looks" at the soul of a virgin martyr, even if she (or he) had been raped, God sees only their virginity and chastity. If they could look at themselves in the mirror that reflects how God sees them, they would see the glory of their innocence and chastity, regardless of the pain and abuse that they had physically endured.

I mention this because I've commented that recovery from all great afflictions, but especially sexual and spiritual affliction, is not only benefited by turning to God in acknowledgement of his help, but for most people of faith it is a necessity for healing and recovery. Most victims of abuse look in the mirror and see the broken person, even on a good day. When you turn to God, though, and accept and listen to his comfort, when you look in the mirror you increasingly see the unsullied and unabused person that is the accurate reflection of God's view of you. While your mind cannot, and should not, deny or erase traumatic memories, God controls the overall picture. His view of you is still perfect, still virginal, and still innocent. It goes beyond God saying that what happened to you is not your fault. It is showing you that there is a part of you that can never be touched by even the most dreadful abuse and pain. That is the soul. Your spirit may have been darkened and broken, but your soul is as virginal and pure as it was before the abuse. This is true even if, as some of the wounded abused have done, you suffered from resulting addictions, behavior issues, or moments of acting out as a result of childhood trauma. None of those actions "stick" to the innocence of your soul, because the Lord sees the purity before and separate from the painful results of the bodily and spiritual abuse. God truly does not see, when he looks at you, the trail of damage from the moment of the abuse onward. He of course knows all that you do and have done and endured, but as he knows he is gazing at you and seeing the same pure innocent person from before all this happened. So you can talk to him and believe in him about what has happened, but his reply to you is to help you see yourself how he sees you, which is still pure and innocent.

If you can nurture your relationship with God, directly with God, with time and prayer you will start to look in the mirror and see more and more of the purity with which God sees you. This is the road to recovery and full restoration.

I hope this helps and God bless you all.

Bible Reading: John 15:1-2

"I AM the true vine, and my Father is the vine-dresser. Every branch in me that bears no fruit he will take away; and every branch that bears fruit he will cleanse, that it may bear more fruit."

***
These first two lines of Jesus' explanation using the analogy of God as vine dresser and Jesus as vine, with humans being the fruit are so important it can hardly be described. But people have become so familiar with the symbolism that they miss the actual teaching that is of vital importance. And as they read further as Jesus explains in greater detail, many people read the passage with less enlightenment and more of a search for formulaic self justification. People tend to read this passage as, "Whew! I'm OK! I'm one of the fruit bearers since I believe and thus I'm saved..." and they hurry on to read other passages that are self justifying. But I need to make you pause here and understand.

Jesus is saying he is the true vine. In other words, he is stating his authority from God that all he says and does is true, and only the authentic truth can grown from what he says and does. Therefore he is the vine (the infrastructure) from which the grapes grow. However, Jesus clearly states that God is the vine dresser. The vine dresser is the grower, the one who obtains, grows, nourishes and takes care of the vine. So as always Jesus makes the distinction between himself as Jesus and God as God very clear.

Therefore as the true vine Jesus is establishing himself, with God's authority, as the first priest, the one and only priest of what will be called Christianity. Some people question where the Catholic priesthood is established in the Bible. Well, if they understood these words the way the Apostles and disciples would have understood the agriculture analogy QUITE well, they would understand it right here in that very passage. God creates the vine (Jesus) and sets it on earth to grow true fruit. That is the role of the Christian priest. People, the believers, are the fruit.

So how can it be that if Jesus is the true vine that God needs to "take away" "every branch in me that bears no fruit?" This is exactly what I am saying. There are people who result from and grow out of the ministry of Jesus and yet they bear no fruit. This is not the fault of the true vine. It is the shortcoming of the branch that bears no fruit, and so God will trim from Jesus the branches that bear no fruit. This should be illuminating to the "grace versus works" arguers. One would think that anything that grows from Jesus is "good" and "has grace" and "is saved," no? Um, no, apparently not. Jesus explains that it is not enough to be a branch of Jesus because if there is no good fruit, it will be pruned by God.

And then look there, Jesus goes on to state, "and every branch that bears fruit he will cleanse, that it may bear more fruit." What? What's that? Is Jesus saying to wash pesticides off the fruit before eating? They were green before their time? Um, no. People didn't wash their food for any reason back in those days except to get like a huge clod of dirt off. So this part of the analogy would have puzzled his disciples who are listening. Why does fruit need to be cleansed, especially if it is coming off of the true vine of Jesus? Yep. Jesus is reminding his disciples that God ultimately has to cleanse every person, even the faithful.

Now he goes on the say, "You are already clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you" (3-4). Jesus goes on to explain more about the meaning of "abide." But here's another Bible reading mistake that I must point out. Jesus did not say, "Hey! All of you who are someday going to read my words in a book that is printed called the Bible are also already clean because you are reading my words! Yep I mean all of you!" Um, no. Jesus is literally speaking to his disciples who are listening. When he says "you" he means "you" as in the persons that he is speaking to. Remember I've explained in previous postings that the Apostles and disciples that stayed true with Jesus are the ONLY people to receive the "get into heaven free immediately upon death" pass card. Jesus is teaching the people he is speaking to, and the Gospel is the recollection of this conversation and teaching. They were not "speaking into the microphone" for future generations. Jesus was teaching them his authority given to him by God himself.

The rest of the passage is amplification of how to synchronize being born of the vine, bearing branches, and bearing fruit with continuing to "abide" with Jesus. This means that it is not a birthright. Salvation and grace are ongoing propositions throughout life. This is why Jesus is using an agricultural analogy that no one would misunderstand at the time. No farmer would think that a good harvest one year means they are "in like flint" for every bushel and every harvest to come, and they can sit back and not water or prune the vines. And no person of the time would think that someone would use grapes for something other than what they were intended. For example you would not feed the grapes to the cattle, or hang them on your walls as decoration. These are examples of not maintaining the goodness of the fruit in reciprocity throughout the life of the branches. Jesus is the true vine but many bad things and neglect, misdirection, or lack of fruitfulness can happen to any given branch. So the rest of the passage explains in detail (you can read it yourself with newer eyes now) that God is continually dressing and pruning the results of all that grows from the true vine of Jesus. Jesus teaches how to best ensure that one will bear good fruit by abiding in him. Notice that the word "abide" is also an ongoing condition. It is the state of dwelling day to day for one's whole life. Jesus chose this word which one could say is again a bit of an odd word to talk about in a vineyard analogy because abiding would have specific meaning to the people of the time. Abiding requires an effort, a continual action of saying within in a compatible way. Jesus did not say, "Just by being a Christian well bingo! Your branch is securely attached to the vine and its fence no matter what." No indeed and in truth Jesus is saying the opposite. God is always dressing and pruning the branches from the vine. There is no "Christian job security." The best one can do is what Jesus instructs, which is the abiding within Jesus and his word. He warns that branches, that is to say, believers, will grow from the true vine, but if they do not abide they will be gathered up and cast into the fire. Remember, you are listening in on a conversation of teaching. Jesus is not "alluding to a later chapter of the Bible" (which is not yet in existence since he's still alive at the time of this conversation) about final judgment and so forth. Here Jesus is beginning to teach the priesthood that he has brought to humans as the New Covenant.

How do we know this for sure? Look at what he says toward the end of the paragraph about the vine, "In this is my Father glorified, that you may bear very much fruit, and become my disciples" (8). "Become" his disciples? Are they not that already by virtue of them being there with him. Ah. You see the point. Even though Jesus has said that they are cleansed already (and thus by staying true to them will personally achieve heaven) they are not yet his disciples, because they have not yet become the branches that bear the good fruit that glorifies God. Not glorifies Jesus: glorifies God the Father. Later Jesus expounds on his relationship with the disciples (to be) as he calls them his friends, and not his servants. Jesus explains again that all that he tells them comes from God. Jesus reminds them that he has chosen and appointed them.

I consider this passage one of the definitive passages that Jesus used to instruct the disciples about the one true Church, and early warning of the error of branches that grow from the true vine but do not bear good fruit. Remember, it is not enough to bear fruit. The fruit must be cleansed by God, and the fruit must abide in Jesus. "Stray" and "do your own thing" branches and fruit are liable to be cleansed, even to the point of pruning and casting into the fire, by God the vine dresser.

Many people read this passage, and the remaining part where Jesus assures that God will give whatever they ask if they abide in him, as a big built-in security blanket. I have observed this misunderstanding grow even the past fifty years that I've been living thus far. It is not a security blanket. If it was then Jesus would have called them "disciples" right on the spot instead of "friends," and he would not have gone into such detail of incredible importance that while Jesus is the true vine not all branches will succeed and pass muster with God. Jesus is speaking of the priesthood, not evangelizing in general. We know this because Jesus is specific when he does instruct about evangelizing AND because of the agricultural and structural orientation of this lesson. He emphasizes that GOD IS TO BE GLORIFIED. It is not a numbers game of converts. Jesus never promises that all or even most branches will succeed. Jesus uses the word "chosen" but also in the same sentence "appointed." He is being authoritative in the way that the first Christian priest, the true vine will be and must be as they prepare to become his disciples (as they are not yet, even though they are cleansed and full believers).

I hope this helps you in understanding, and may God bless all who seek to know and serve him.

Quote from John Paul II

God alone is absolute truth, but he made the human heart open to the desire for truth, which he then fully revealed in his Incarnate Son. Hence, we are all called to live the truth. Forgiveness, far from precluding the search for truth, actually requires it. Evil that has been done must be acknowledged and, as far as possible, corrected.

Quote from JPII: God is Father and Mother

God is Father and Mother: A Reflection for the Family
(from the book previously cited, June 5 reflection)

I would like to draw your attention to a basic aspect of conjugal love: its intrinsic openness to life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church stresses this when it points out that the spouses’ love “naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment.” Grasping the mysterious greatness of this event is of fundamental importance. As I wrote in the Letter to Families, “God himself is present in human fatherhood and motherhood… Indeed, God alone is the source of that ‘image and likeness’ which is proper to the human being, as it was received at creation. Begetting is the continuation of the creation.”
Discourse at Castel Gandolfo, July 17, 1994
***
My comments:

While the point that Pope John Paul II was making in this passage is to justify why openness to life (conception) is key to conjugal love, he has an equally important insight that I would like to emphasize. When people try to characterize God as being “male” or “female,” they are wrong and worse, attempting to shrink God down to a human component, rather than understand that the whole templates and conceptualization of male and female are contained within the infinite expanse of God. John Paul explains this in a way that is very easy to understand here, when he says that God is the source of Male and Female (fatherhood and motherhood) in their image (how they appear) and likeness (what they are like, their qualities, in other words). Pope Benedict has also answered questions on this topic and has too explained that God cannot be thought of as either "male" or "female" in the sense of gender assignment.

God is infinitely much more than being “male” or “female.” He is the source of both of their patterns, their archetypes, and their reality. This is why those who suffer and who lack one or both parents can turn in confidence to God for paternal or maternal comfort and understanding. God encompasses both realities and so much more. Jesus refers to God as God the Father because Jesus had a mother, the human born Mary, and the father of Jesus was the Holy Spirit sent by God to overshadow Mary. Therefore Christians are correct to emulate Jesus Christ and think of God as God the Father, but this in no way limits the all encompassing reality of God in total. This is one of the many reasons why fallen away, heretical, or, to be charitable, "confused" Christians who try to make God to be female or a mother goddess are totally wrong and are fallen away from the faith of Christianity. A Christian follows Christ's example and as Mary his mother exhorts them, "Do whatever he tells you."

Does God Feel Sadness?

I have been asked if God can be sad. The answer is that yes, God can be sad, but not in his complete form in heaven. In heaven there is no sorrow or sadness, because all who have eternal life there are present in their perfected forms where there is only love, no unmet needs, and no regrets. So God in his full form cannot be sad, because he is the entire containment of all that is good and eternal, and there is no lacking.

However, God can be sad in his relationship with specific people. When God interacts with each of his human children, God is perfectly capable of feeling sad about the state of that relationship, and does feel sad, frequently. This is because God is saddened whenever a person is estranged from him, is unhappy in the goodness of life, and/or is in a state of sin. We know this because Isaiah recognized that the Messiah will be "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" (Isaiah 53, 3). As Pope Benedict wrote, Jesus brought God to us, so that humans can learn more about God the Father and interact with him through Jesus. When Jesus sorrowed over the death of his friend, over the sinful state of the world, and at the rejection of his teaching and ultimately his very life, Jesus showed how God can and does feel sorrow in his interaction with individuals or groups of living humans. When people are cruel to each other, especially to children, God is both sad and furious. We learn this also by observing Jesus and his teachings. However, once one is outside of the earthly life, sadness no longer exists in God or humans, because in heavenly eternal life, there is no lack of any sort that would generate sadness. But to answer the question, yes, God can be sad about how a life is being lived by any of the human children.

Cannot invoke Jesus without obeying God first

Disgraced athlete Michael Vick is the latest to say he "found Jesus," thinking that just saying so makes it so. It is only the past several decades that people, either Catholic but mostly the Protestant and non denominational churches, have thought that just saying you are a sinner and found Jesus is somehow the free pass to forgiveness. You've got to be kidding. Is that the Venusian version of the Bible that you are reading? Or more likely the Neptunian version. Jesus preached to the Israelites, a nation of pious people who sins aside, well understood that they are responsible to God for their conduct and that they will be chastised. In addition, even the poorest and least lettered of Israelites studied the Torah and knew full well their obligations for living under God's law. Jesus was preaching to and calling to him people who were already pious and devout, humble before the Lord, excesses of faith aside. Jesus is not anyone's "pal" or get out of jail free card. Jesus was the Messiah, the one who brought a more intimate understanding of God to people who already knew God really, really well. Jesus brought and was, in his physical form, the New Covenant with God, fulfilling the Old Covenant, but not erasing the need for total obedience to God's will. People who ask for things in the name of Jesus have to know who God is first; Jesus makes that abundantly clear as he pointed back to God the Father in everything he said and did. This was NOT A TECHNICALITY. When Jesus said that all goes back to God the Father he meant it. So who is someone who says he "found Jesus" if he has no clue about God and his will? I was shocked when I first heard years ago that some believe saying the "sinner's prayer" and designating Jesus as their personal savior was all that they had to do. I must have missed that in my extensive knowledge of the Bible. (And the great great grandparents of folks who make this claim would have missed that in their Bibles too.) Where did God fearing go? And the recognition that one must walk continuously in God's presence? Not just calling on Jesus as pal when there is a whoopsie. Unbelievable. A lot of people are going to have a very unpleasant surprise.

Help in understanding the Holy Eucharist sacrament

Here's an analogy that children and parents can understand about Jesus, as God's son, as a sacrifice to God on behalf of humankind, to save them from sin and create the New Covenant.

Little children receive all of their money from their parents in the form of allowance, or gifts from relatives. When it is Mom or Dad's birthday, or Christmas time, little children want to be generous and buy gifts for their parents, but are totally dependent on them for money. Lovingly telling your child that they don't have to spend money on you, that just a crayon drawing is gift enough, sometimes is not enough, because children by nature are generous and this is where generosity is nurtured. So as a godparent, I know that usually a parent arranges to give the child money and helps the child to shop for his or her own gift. Usually the Dad will take the child shopping for a gift for Mommy, and vice versa. So the loving parent provides the loving child with the very financial means for a gift for the parent.

In the Biblical times the children of God showed their love of the Lord by sacrificing (giving up) something of their own that is of great value to them, to give to God. Usually this was a perfect animal from the flock - often the purest and most valuable animal - but the poor could offer a pair of birds, or cereal with oil. Even for the poor this was great sacrifice, taking food out of the mouths of someone for some period of time, or at the least, eating into the surplus they had saved for times of crisis.

In the time of Jesus, God wanted to fulfill the actual sacrifice of valuable livestock or food from the families' stock to give to him in sacrifice, and complete this phase of human's gift giving to God. So Jesus Christ, the son of God through Mary and the Holy Spirit, allowed himself to be the last "bloody" sacrifice; the final loss of valuable life as sacrifice to God. He then drew upon the tradition that the poor could offer cereal and oil and instituted the Holy Eucharist. Thus God, the parent, is providing the very means by which his children can gift him and sacrifice to him. The bread is provided, the wine is provided, and the priest is provided. All that is needed is for this sacrament to be done reverentially and liturgically correct, in the memory of Jesus. And like all true gift giving, like the generous child at the parent's birthday or Christmas time, the giver of the gift, the parishioners who with the priest give the sacrifice of the Mass to God, in return flows an abundance of renewing grace. This is why it is still a "sacrifice" but it is also the "celebration" of the Mass.

I hope this analogy helps with understanding, and is also useful in discussing the faith with little children in your family.

Also, to my Muslim friends who might be reading as part of better understanding some of the mysteries of Christian faith, this sacrament does not refer to the generosity of alms giving (which rightly receives such mention in the Qur'an). Christians call that "charity" these days. This refers to sacrifice, or the giving of offerings, to God.

God's 3 Tools for Humankind

This is my comment on a blog where the blogger is repeating some debate about what communion really means and who has the authority to say so.

I'm not against dialogue and even vigorous debate, but the focus of many on who has "authority" and on definitions of terms is indicative of the weakness of human beings. Authority and word smithing are not what faith is about and the entire Bible is one's guide to understanding God's will. If you read the entire Bible and understand it both literally and conceptually, you will find that God taught humans three tools of faith: covenant, sacrifice, and witness. The Old Testament starts with God's covenant with Adam and Eve, where they have Eden plus God's physical presence so long as they obeyed his simple restrictions. They broke that covenant. Abel is then killed for his perfect sacrifice, which is the first mention of sacrifice in the Bible. God establishes covenants with Noah and with Abraham, and then the Israeli people through Moses. Jesus is the New Covenant, which fulfills the Old, but does not erase the tools of God. Jesus becomes the perfect sacrifice, which does not erase sacrifice, but fulfills the old form of bloody sacrifice with bloodless sacrifice once for all. He instructs the Apostles to continue to offer him as the bloodless sacrifice. And finally, witness is given by God to the people of the Old Testament, and there are readings (I have some on my web site) about how witness is THE tool of the Church. The Apostles, disciples, and the Early Fathers all faithfully carry through witness as taught to the Israelites by God. So people who argue today about who has authority and what words mean without looking at the three rivers of instruction and communication that flow from God and are utilized by Jesus Christ completely miss the point and understandably don't "get" the true Catholic Church.

A riddle or corundum about God

While browsing around yesterday through my usual Internet favorites I noticed somewhere (I don't recall which blog or web site) someone posted a riddle or corundum about God. It asked, something to the effect of, can God create something that is too heavy for him to carry, if he is indeed all powerful? The answer is that everything that exists is within the body of God. All matter, all energy, all space, and the non dimensional realities are all actually contained within God. So no, God cannot create something that he cannot carry, because everything that he creates is within his bodily reality. There is nothing outside of God because even the nothingness is part of his body, which is glorified in its total nature. The largest galaxy and the smallest subatomic speck, and all the nothingness of potentiality of existence are all contained within God. The question comes from the understandable boundary of human thinking that God is "someone" "out there" rather than the totality of both existence and non existence of matter and energy, dimensions, and time.

Jesus Christ, of course, fell as he carried a cross too heavy for him, as he had been whipped and beaten prior to crucifixion. Obviously while Jesus explained that one could meet God the Father through him, God did not squeeze his entire existence into Jesus' body. This is incidentally why good faithed Muslims wonder how Christians can call Jesus God. They recognize that God in his fullness of power and total completion of existence did not occupy a human dimensioned body.

Mystery of God

Deuteronomy 29:29

The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Bible Reading: The Book of Jonah

The Book of Jonah in the Old Testament is only two to three pages long, but it is a total gem. I recommend that you have a nice sit down and read of this book, because there are few places in the Bible that present so simply and yet profoundly the “thinking” of God in his relationship with a chosen prophet. Jonah is a prophet, and the son of a prophet, but when God calls upon him to deliver a difficult message he runs, literally. He experiences a disaster at sea, and during that, witnesses to his faith, inadvertently converts others, falls, and recovers. He does perform his mission and then is shocked at its success and annoyed with God for showing so much resultant mercy toward the city of repentant sinners. Because this is written very simply as a story with a message, it is very easy to understand the dialogue between God and Jonah, and God’s motivations and will. There is also a beautiful Psalm of Thanksgiving by Jonah. Also, I’d like to point out several passages that would be very suitable for use in prayer or Catholic meditation:

“Rise up, call upon your God! Perhaps God will be mindful of us so that we may not perish.”

“I am a Hebrew,” Jonah answered them; “I worship the Lord, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land.”

“When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the Lord; my prayer reached to you in your holy temple. Those who worship vain idols forsake their source of mercy.”

Pay attention to another very interesting detail, which emphasizes God’s regard for animals, specifically cattle. The animals are also garbed in sackcloth (!) (Jonah 3:8) and when God forgives the city, he explains to Jonah that he valued not only the number of souls in the city, being 120,000 persons, but also the cattle (Jonah 4:11). Those are very touching images.

Any of my blog readers who happen to be Muslim, welcome, and peace be upon you. You might find this book to also be very enlightening and comforting, because you will recognize Allah here in God in his wisdom, his mercy, and how he chooses and speaks to one of our ancient prophets. We share the same God of Abraham.

As a historical note, around a hundred years after Jonah’s “intervention” took place; the city did fall and was destroyed. However, it shows that turning away from sin did work, but it is human nature to drift back to sin and evil if piety and faith in God is not maintained. Still, one hundred years was a long time to benefit from an intervention of grace by God through his prophet Jonah.

From Pope Benedict's Q&A with Priests

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore_en.html

All the Saints also always come with God. It is important - Sacred Scripture tell us from the very outset - that God never comes by himself but comes accompanied and surrounded by the Angels and Saints. In the great stained glass window in St Peter's which portrays the Holy Spirit, what I like so much is the fact that God is surrounded by a throng of Angels and living beings who are an expression, an emanation, so to speak, of God's love. And with God, with Christ, with the man who is God and with God who is man, Our Lady arrives. This is very important. God, the Lord, has a Mother and in his Mother we truly recognize God's motherly goodness. Our Lady, Mother of God, is the Help of Christians, she is our permanent comfort, our great help. I see this too in the dialogue with the Bishops of the world, of Africa and lately also of Latin America; I see that love for Our Lady is the driving force of catholicity. In Our Lady we recognize all God's tenderness, so, fostering and living out Our Lady's, Mary's, joyful love is a very great gift of catholicity.

Explanations of the Qur'an for Christians (2)

One of my favorite passages in the Qur'an
(out of many favorites)

Surah 2:260

And when Ibrahim said: My Lord! show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: What! and you do not believe? He said: Yes, but that my heart may be at ease. He said: Then take four of the birds, then train them to follow you, and place on every mountain a part of them, then call them, they will come to you flying, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.

****
Ibrahim is Abraham. Those of you who have read about Abraham in the Old Testament will recall that Abraham had frequent conversations with God, mostly in the form of his dreams/visions, and also in person, when the Lord visited in the form of an angel/traveler. Notice the confidence, almost childlike in its charm, that this great Patriarch Abraham had in asking God to "show him how Thou givest life to the dead." God knows that Abraham is not being insolent and asking for a test of God's knowledge and powers, and so replies to Abraham as a loving father would to a son, knowing that this question was actually a request to strengthen Abraham's faith. God replies, "What! and you do not believe!" Again this is just as a loving father would say, in pretend surprise to his questioning son. Abraham replies, "Yes, but that my heart may be at ease."

Before I continue with talking about this passage, think of how Abraham's words parallel the father of the possessed boy who Jesus cures. Mark 9:20-24:

So he [Jesus] asked his [the boy's] father, "how long is it since this has come upon him?' And he said, "From his infancy. Oftentimes it has thrown him into the fire and into the waters to destroy him. But if you canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us." But Jesus said to him, "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him who believes." At once the father of the boy cried out, and said with tears, "I do believe; help my unbelief." Now when Jesus saw that a crowd was rapidly gathering, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "Thou deaf and dumb spirit, I command thee, go out of him and enter him no more."

This father of the possessed boy has come down through the sacred scriptures as saying one of the most profound things in the pursuit of salvation and grace, "I do believe; help my unbelief." One must have a base line of belief, and then go to God to ask for help with the unbelief that remains. And so in this passage of the Qur'an, there is such a beautiful illustration of this for the benefit of all who listen and hear, as Abraham, the Patriarch, feels the need and the right to ask Allah for strengthening his belief and easing his unbelief so that his "heart may be at ease."

Allah's answer is not complicated, yet it conveys a profundity of understanding of the way to Allah/God. Allah tells Ibrahim to take "four of the birds, then train them to follow you." You can think of the birds as doves or pigeons, the kinds that can be trained to return to home, traveling amazing distances. Allah then tells Ibrahim to take four birds that have been trained to return to him, and place a bird on each mountain (and so it is implied that there are four birds on four mountains, just like the four corners of the entire earth.) This symbolism indicates that Allah "givest life to the dead" no matter where on the earth they reside. Allah then says, "then call to them, they will come to you flying." And so Allah shows Ibrahim that the homing pigeons that have been trained will return to the one who trained them, as is Ibrahim in this example that Allah uses to illuminate Ibrahim. Allah says, "they will come to you flying and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise." Allah provides an example where Ibrahim can imagine how Allah provides the way back to him at the end of earthly life, because like the homing pigeons, those trained in the love and fear of Allah, and obey him, will fly back to him when their life on earth has passed. So in a simple conversation, admirably brought about by Ibrahim's faith to ask Allah this question, and the Qur'an's beautiful recording of this dialogue, anyone can understand "how" Allah "givest life to the dead."

God: Male or Female? EZ to Understand Edition

God: Male or Female? EZ to Understand Edition

It is agreed that God cannot be characterized as either male or female. Pope Benedict XVI answers this question early in his interview with author Peter Seewald in his "Salt of the Earth" series of books. Pope Benedict does not go into detail (I can't quote here because my books are in storage) but I remember the question is quite early in the first book, and the Holy Father explains that God cannot be thought of in gender terms. I think Benedict also points out both paternal and maternal qualities of God in his answer.

Having said that, it is obvious that God chooses to interact with humankind as "God the Father", a male. When God appeared to Abraham he appeared in human male form, along with two other angels, also "males." (You can read that section in the 1st of my 3 posts in my "What Does God Look Like?" series.) So people do not have to argue about what Genesis 1:27 means where "God created man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them." Those who have a social axe to grind can argue about that, but there is no mistaking that whenever God appears to humankind in human form, he is a male, and he expects to be treated as "God the Father." Jesus Christ constantly refers to God as "His Father." Therefore the Abrahamic faiths (Jewish, Christian, Islam) all acknowledge God in his interaction with humankind as a MALE and FATHER, but in God's substance, mysterious and undefinable beyond gender.

Further, throughout the Old Testament and the New, the relationship between the Church/temple and God/Jesus Christ are described as a marriage between a woman (the Church/temple) and a man (God/Jesus Christ.) God repeatedly presents himself as the Father, the husband, the groom in his interactions with the bride Church, and thus the people. And so it should be no shock to anyone that Jesus Christ as God's Son was a heterosexual (albeit virgin) male, and that the Virgin Mary was a heterosexual (albeit virgin) female. I can't believe that I have to type this out for people, but reading what I've been reading in some circles these past years, someone has got to say it. As I chant to myself, "There is no such thing as a dumb question except the one unasked." What irritates me is not the asking, but the heretical harpies who actually quote sound bytes from the Bible to promote a gender agenda without actually oh, you know, reading the Bible and comprehending that when God appears as a man, he's sending a message folks, that he is God the Father, as Jesus the Son states so clearly.

The Holy Spirit is often referred to in the feminine. Read Wisdom 1:3-5: For perverse counsels separate a man from God, and his power, put to the proof, rebukes the foolhardy.; because into a soul that plots evil wisdom enters not, nor dwells SHE in a body under debt of sin. for the holy spirit of discipline flees deceit and withdraws from senseless counsels; and when wickedness occurs it is rebuked. And in (6): For wisdom is a kindly spirit, yet SHE acquits not the blasphemer of his guilty lips; because God is the witness of his inmost self... And in (7): For the spirit of the Lord fills the world, is all-embracing, and knows man's utterance...