Friends, this will probably sound a little critical, but do not take it to heart, as I am not criticizing scripture citers, and in fact I enjoy very much even the free wheeling citing that takes place on Twitter. I am, however, going to finally address two errors that many make in citing scripture.
1. Many err by approaching friends (or foes) and cutting loose with their opening statements as scripture citations. Instead of being person-person and then citing scripture as the conversation develops IF NECESSARY, scripture is used as the "opening salvo" as if a war or prosecution weapon. That is Satan's role modeling, not Christ's (Matthew 4:1-10).
2. Many think that you cite scripture first, then "understanding" will follow. It is the other way around. You must understand God before you cite scripture, and that means the entire context. You do not fire, aim, ready with scripture, you ready (understand), aim (discern appropriateness) then fire (cite). Rev. Billy Graham in his daily question column is an excellent role model for the correct order, by the way.
But above all, look to Jesus and how he spoke so you can understand what I mean, and you can follow his scriptural direction with worthiness. Let's go to the positive example of his Sermon in Matthew 5, before analyzing the negative example by Satan as I pointed out to you in Matthew 4.
Matthew 5
1. And seeing the crowds, he went up the mountain. And when he was seated, his disciples came to him. 2. And opening his mouth he taught them, saying,
[Notice that Jesus is on the mountain, seated, and surrounded by disciples. These are three postures of authority, understanding and discernment. Previously in Jesus' life as documented in the Gospels, you realize that he has authority from God, is in communion with God and thus receiving direction and understanding, and he has assumed the teaching role, thus demonstrating discernment. You must likewise develop your own understanding and discernment before you put yourself on a mountain, be seated, surround yourself with disciples, and then even open your mouth!]
3. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
[Does Jesus "cite scripture here?" No.]
4. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth."
[Does Jesus wow them with citing scripture? No.]
5. "Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted."
[Does Jesus finally whip out all that scripture to cite yet? No.]
6. "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied."
[Still waiting for the scroll & verse?]
7. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."
[Hey! I'm not gonna listen anymore cuz Jesus doesn't say where God says that in the Bible."]
8. "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God."
["That Jesus sure gonna be in trouble if he doesn't provide us with where God defines in the scripture what "clean of heart" means, sheesh!"]
9. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God."
["I thought God didn't have children? Where's that in the scripture?]
10. "Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice's sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
[Hey! "Where's that listed in the redeemable rewards index in the Bible???!!!?"]
11. "Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute you, and speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you, for my sake. 12. Rejoice and exult, because your reward is great in heaven; for so did they persecute the prophets who were before you.
[Wow, Jesus will surely be in trouble now because he then goes on to teach that disciples are compared to salt and light in the world, without listing by citing in scripture exactly which prophets were persecuted!!!! Goodness, why isn't that Jesus Christ citing scripture!!!]
By the way, Jesus could have cited scripture from Psalms for Matthew:4, Isaiah for Matthew 5:5, and again Psalms for Matthew 5:8. Early Church scholars spent a lot of time analyzing Old Testament scripture to identify and footnote the New Testament to identify scripture that Jesus would have been well aware of.
Now, let's look at the negative example, of what I am teaching you about today, Matthew 4.
Matthew 4
1. Then Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit, to be tempted by the devil. 2. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
[Many people jump right to the dialogue between Satan and Jesus, and miss the huge point that Jesus was fasting, and thus in contemplative prayer, for forty days before they spoke! Again, you must understand that the point is not that "Jesus was sure real hungry" but that Jesus spent forty days of spiritual preparation before opening his mouth and citing scripture!]
3. And the tempter came and said to him, "If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread."
[Satan opens the conversation and you might say, "Hey, he's not starting with scripture." That is true but he is referring to Jesus being the Messiah, promised throughout the Old Testament! So Satan is starting the scripture based accusing first. This is the mistake that SO MANY supposedly pious Christians make today; they walk up to someone and immediately accuse or assume based on scripture, without even asking as much as "Could you explain to me what you are doing and why?"]
4. But he answered and said, "It is written, Not by bread alone does man live, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God."
[Notice two things. Jesus, knowing that Satan is correctly accusing him of being the promised Messiah, does not even bother to confirm that via scripture. Jesus does not dignify the "IF" that Satan starts the accusation with, by confirming the truth of that accusation, that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus addresses the temptation with scripture, knowing full well the thoughts of Satan, who is going to engage in dueling scripture with him, and who started it by alluding to Jesus "if" being the Son of God, the promised Messiah. Secondly notice that Jesus paraphrases the scripture, not getting hung up in citing every single word in the 'original' order nor citing the book and verse.]
***
In Matthew 4:5-7 they again duel in scripture, with Satan citing first. In Matthew 4:8-10 Satan does not cite or allude to scripture at all (except to imply that he is the fallen prince who is able to supply all worldly things to Jesus) and instead, directly tempts, which Jesus replies to with scripture, and Satan departs.
Jesus' authority is once again confirmed as being from God the Most High and Holy in Matthew 4:11 where "behold, angels came and ministered to him." Angels did not have to "help Jesus out" by sending him "spiritual guide messages" to "tell him what to say to Satan." This is another delusion of modern people, even those who seem to be good Christians, that there is "coaching" going on from heaven. There is not and that is a total misunderstanding of being infused with the Holy Spirit.
To remain, however, with my main point. Study how many times Jesus could have cited scripture, and did not. Further, study how perfectly appropriate Jesus is when he does choose to cite scripture, and how he does it with patience and never as a rebuke with people.
With some people, many, actually, *sigh with sadness,* about all the scripture one hears from a human is when they are rebuking or trying to shame or embarrass another person. Where's that in the Gospel? Where does Jesus role model that?
When you go up to someone and immediately spout a Ten Commandment to someone, or some other scripture in order to discomfort them, all you do is copy the enemy, Satan, not Jesus. You further yourself, and probably the person you are speaking to, from the Kingdom of God, not drawing closer, through love and plain ordinary truthful every day speech, as you would use if you were really following Jesus. You rely on the scripture for your own understanding and discernment, you don't use it as your opening salvo, as the punches you exchange in the ring. You don't hope for that "killer scripture" that will "sucker punch" your "opponent." How much farther from Jesus could you be with that? Any farther would take you into the dangerous realm of not being a genuine believer, but an agenda driven utilizer of script.
Again, do not be alarmed about sharing favorite scripture, such as on Twitter, or in conversation. Be warned, though, that if you are using scripture to fire sniper bullets, you are going to hit yourself with them.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Showing posts with label The Beatitudes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Beatitudes. Show all posts
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Understanding "why" religions "exist"
I heard someone kind of stumble through a bit of a debate with a talk show host today and during my listening I heard the caller make the same old error in both facts and logic that you all are dealing with in the past two generations. In fact, this error has been taught in schools, so you are not alone in hearing it and taking it for granted. Here is the statement that is not factual or logical:
"Religions were developed by humans in order to make them behave in the way the society feels is proper."
Um....nooooooo, that's so wrong that it doesn't even pass the first and simplest criticism.
But before I shred the facts and logic, let me tell you the proper statement that is factual and logical, and thus you can follow my critique and criticism more easily. Here is a factual and logical truthful statement:
"Religions were developed as a means to interact with divine forces. A true religion is one based on actual interaction with the actual one and only God. A false religion is one based on presumed interactions with divinities that in actuality do not exist."
Here is the first and simplest way to totally refute the first statement and prove the second statement. What part of the pagan religion of the Greeks and Romans (worshipping the various gods of Olympus such as Zeus/Jupiter, Hera/Juno, Mars/Ares, etc) is an attempt to codify good behavior in humans? *tick tock tick tock tick tock....ring ring ring!* That's right: absolutely none. The pagan religions have two purposes and thus two activities (the "what" and the "why"), and one purpose/activity (the "what") is to tell stories (mythologies) about all the things those rascal gods are up to: sex, booze, jealousy, warfare, lots of lying and deception, tons of coveting, etc. So the Greek/Roman religions were filled with voyeuristic watching, through stories, of the shenanigans of the gods, and were certainly not templates for human behavior, and not even an idiot would have written down those mythologies claiming they inspire righteous behavior.
The second component, the "why" of those Greek/Roman beliefs is that they feared the world, which they did not understand, and so they projected (a human psychological term) their own "what if I were a god" thoughts upon the supposed supernatural forces. Ancient story tellers and elders would have thought of, using what they thought were reasonable assumptions, that gods were just like humans but much more powerful, and thus they organized their thoughts about the supernatural to resemble what "all powerful" human families (aka syndicates) would act like. So the "why" is that if gods were just like humans but with hair trigger anger and lots of gift/punishment ability, let's set up a system to worship and appease them with sacrifice and flattery.
So this is the easiest and most obvious way for you to see that for centuries, and indeed thousands of years, false religions developed because humans started with the "what you see is what you get" notion of a template for the so called gods and goddesses, which is what "we humans do here on earth, well, they must do the same thing but on a super scale 'up there.'" That is the opposite of a religion being developed to codify righteous behavior, because false religions imagine that gods are just like humans but "more so."
Now let's look at a shade of gray area, which is Hinduism. And remember, as I've stated before, I've never criticized sincere traditional follows of any religion, but I will point out error (and have done so including in my own religious institution (not the doctrine) of the Catholic Church.) So here is the problem with Hinduism: what part of the most rigid caste system ever developed among humanity is a "way to make people behave better" or be more righteous? None, of course. However, you do start to see how even in religions that contain error, the impulse to understand and cultivate goodness is there, and that is why the erroneous but understandable principle of karma and/or reincarnation came into being. So Hinduism is like a blending of the two "whats" about why a religion is developed, why it comes into being: one part is the what of imagining that there are multiple gods in human like family groups with sex, war, coveting and so forth, and so sacrifice must be made to them because they will be angry, or to gain favor, but there is also the second part which is an attempt to interact with divinity by being good, and thus through some un-understandable way receive good karma and better reincarnation.
I explained that the Holy Spirit of the one true God does indeed move among all people of the world, all the time, believers or non-believers (more urgently in the latter, obviously), in order to make the true one God known. Likewise people reach out to the "spirit," knowing in their hearts that there must be some ultimate goodness, even if it cannot be seen. In this effort the people who first codified Hinduism felt a touch of the Holy Spirit and interpreted that in some unseen way one does live on forever based on good behavior.
Buddhism is a prime example of what I am saying, even though people who don't give it much thought ascribe the first hypothesis (the erroneous one) to its existence. People have a reflexive, and understandable, though wrong, thought that since much of Buddhism is about goodness and good behavior that it must have developed for that reason. Well, the history shows otherwise. People, including the Buddha, do not meditate in order to come up with a list of good behaviors and thus "invent" a religion! If they wanted to "invent" a religion they would consult lawyers, judges, elders and so forth and have a list of do's and don'ts. No.... a person who goes into a contemplative life, one filled with meditation, is not trying to come up with a list of do's and don'ts, but is trying to communicate with divinity. So once again, like the Hinduism, Buddha and the early Buddhists touched some aspects of the Holy Spirit, but did not discern the presence of the one God. A key difference is that we know that the Buddha had disciples who wrote down his thoughts and thus created a system for passing on and amplifying the insights and conclusions of his meditations. Again, that's further demonstration that the Buddha's disciples were not setting out to "invent" a religion to "control" or encourage good behavior per se, though they were obviously pleased at whatever work they did that did so as a result.
So here is how you can now turn to the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and easily understand they were not "developed" in order to "make people be good." God initiated conversation with Adam and Eve when they were in Eden, when they had "everything," when they had no need to be "good." God started "talking" to human beings directly at a time when God provided everything for them, not when they were lawless and needing "goodness." A true religion arises (as distinct from being developed or invented) when humans have authentic communication with the actual one true God.
The caller argued that Judaism/Christianity was "invented" when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Um, what? That was thousands of years after when God first made himself known and had many, many, many generations of interactions with believers who had a genuine relationship with him. Um, the religion had already come into being at the first moment of genuine communication with the one true God, well before God responds to the needs of humans in order to serve him (not in order to be "good") by giving them his Laws.
Remember, humans were already "good" because they were created by God, and all his creations were deemed "good" by God. So there is a vast difference between "good behavior," which should be the desire of all people, and "knowing and serving God," which is the purpose of true religion of the true God.
Adam and Eve did not fall from God's favor because they had unlawful or bad behavior in the way that modern humans think of it. They fell because they disobeyed the one thing God told them not to do, which is to try to duplicate what God himself only is able to do. They wanted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge not so they could commit more burglaries or engage in voter fraud, or have domestic violence, etc.... they wanted to have the wisdom that God alone has. And who tempted them? Not the angel who runs around committing grand larceny, molesting little kids, robbing banks, declaring wars, etc, but the angel who thought he knew as much or if not as much then at least the loopholes of God, the angel who would not serve, Lucifer.
So there is nothing in the thousands of years of factual, legitimate and truthful dialogue between the one true God and the humans who heard and believed him that is a step by step cookbook or programming exercise in developing a list of good behaviors for humans to follow. What you do have is a history of people trying to understand God, know God and most of all, serve God, no matter how imperfectly. When one faithfully loves and knows God, good behavior is a natural outflow of serving God.
Here is where people who still have some trouble with what I am explaining raise the following (bogus but understandable) comparison. "Yes," they say, "But you say pagans sacrifice to false gods out of fear of their moodiness and capriciousness based on their power over humans. So why does the true God 'make' people sacrifice to him, as in the Old Testament?"
Ah, but if you read the passages in Genesis about sacrifice (many of which I have keyed into this blog and commented on), each of the earliest sacrifices (starting with the first documented by Cain and Abel) were not done for fear of God, but to celebrate "giving back" part of their harvests. Sacrifice to God is not idolatry but the first form of tithing, of returning to God a part of what God has given to people in the first place. Each and every subsequent building of an altar and an offering of sacrifice to God commemorated gratitude for a significant event. Abraham was and remains the model for understanding the true purpose of building an altar and offering a sacrifice, so do read the passages where he does so and you'll better understand what I mean.
When God codified the requirements of sacrifice through Moses (where he made formal ritual and requirements for sacrifice) he did so thousands of years after people had already been behaving in godly ways in service to him and had been sacrificing in honor and tithing to God. God made more formal requirements for two reasons (and notice none of them are to "make people behave better.") The first reason is that when people did commit sin they needed a consistency in paying a penalty to God. So the people as a whole were expected to do the same thing upon the same occasions for the same reason that if one of your children lies you make them do without dessert while if the other child lies you beat them, that would be a gross inconsistency. Humans have enough trouble with understanding the All Knowingness and All Power of God, and humans are notoriously bad at determining the price of "other people's" "sin." Imagine if God had not regulated sacrifice how if the person who caught the envy of someone in power would suffer odious requirements for "penance," while for the same "sin" the buddy of the chief would get off with sacrificing an old shoe or something. So God required a constancy and consistency of sacrifice when humans had reached the point where they would be tempted to use God's "forgiveness" in self serving ways.
The second reason that Laws and accompanying sacrifice and other rituals became codified by God is so that people would not have to imagine, rightly or wrongly, what was "all right" or "OK" to do to serve God and what was not. Remember, God has chosen his people, the Israelites, so they were already his, as he led them through Moses out of slavery. Now God is telling them how to serve him, not "how to behave good." Serving God is the first and utmost requirement and it is no coincidence that the Commandments are ordered accordingly. If one truly honors the name of God, fears God, loves God and keeps one's self sanctified to him, one then does not really want to murder, steal, lie and covet.
It's not like the Israelites were all running around in the desert robbing banks or something, and so God puts His foot down and says, "They need some laws to behave right." No, God explained to them how to serve God, and that is the job that they were failing miserably at (all the backsliding into idolatry even as God is right there with them, for example), not lawlessness or bad behavior. In the later books in the Bible, those before and during the captivity to Babylon, you read about the lawlessness and bad behavior in all those conventional ways (rich extorting the poor, etc) but that was because they had already abandoned so much of their service to God in their hearts. Bad behavior is an outflow of not sanctifying one's self to God's service. That is why a person could commit a million "good deeds" to "help fellow humanity" and yet still not be saved because it is serving God that earns one heaven, which is unmerited grace, not "works" or "good behavior."
Notice that Jesus Christ in preaching the Beatitudes, his first great (mega-) sermon to the crowds, that he starts not with a list of "good behavior" or don'ts, but in comforting those who were doing without through no fault of their own the goodness of life's joys.
Matthew 5:1-12
And seeing the crowds, he went up the mountain. And when he was seated, his disciple came to him. And opening his mouth he taught them, saying,
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice's sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute you, and speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you, for my sake.
Rejoice and exult, because your reward is great in heaven; for so did they persecute the prophets who were before you.
If you truly read and examine the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, you will notice, just as in the Old Testament, how little is "do's" and "don'ts" of good behavior. It is ALL about serving God and thus goodness is the outflow from what comes first, knowing, honoring and fearing God (read my series on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit to understand how the path to sanctity in service to God is scripturally explained).
Think about this carefully because Jesus is the "beginning" of Christianity. How much of what Jesus preached is codifying "laws" for Christian "good behavior?" This is an easy question to get wrong because Jesus is the model of good Christian behavior, but not because he set forth more or less do's and don'ts. Thus no one can read the Gospel and say that people "made it up" in order to "make people behave good." Christianity is so obviously not invented with the purpose of making more ordered, law abiding, good behaved people. Christianity is the heralding of the New Covenant with the already well understood God, and in the New Covenant of serving God by understanding Jesus to be Lord and Savior (the Messiah), good behavior is the natural outflow of genuine sanctification in God's sight by emulating and following Jesus as he actually was, not how he was imagined or caricatured.
You understand a man or woman by where he or she places their priorities in life. We all know people who care the most about their jobs, or their children, their health or their addictions, etc. Whenever you get a little lost about understanding the divine and human complexity of Jesus, read Matthew 5:1-12 over and over, and think of this. Of all the things he could have stated in the opening of his first, great mega-sermon, he chose to list the comforts, including seeing God, that those who genuinely lack in the joys of life today will receive. He did not start with a list of admonishments of bad behavior. Jesus' priority was to turn those who were poor, unhappy and suffering due to shortages in life toward God's nearness, and not in chastising those who have any part in causing deprivation or suffering. Why? Because Jesus came in order to show the people the face of God via the human form of Jesus and draw people nearer to God, not to regulate their behavior.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.
Jesus does not have to list all the ways that people have dirty hearts and then tell them not to do it and chastise them, reminding them of certain punishment. If Christianity were "invented" so that people "behaved better," then this would be the starting place to list all the problems, loopholes, errors and bad thinking, but 1) that has already be covered in abundance throughout the Old Testament and 2) God is comforting those on the right path, that of service to and trusting in God, the Father.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Jesus does not have to list all the "bad" wars, and explain "good conflict" from "inappropriate conflict." Again, if you serve God honestly and with a whole heart it becomes rather obvious who is a peacemaker and who is not. Jesus is reaching out God's comfort to those who already are on the path to being children of God because they have their hearts open to Jesus' message and they need his comfort.
So, to wrap up this posting and give you time to think about what I've touched upon here, do not fall into the trap of agreeing with something that sounds "logical" and "obvious" but does not, if you pause even briefly, stand up to any scrutiny or proof. It seems so "logical" that religions were "invented" so that people "behave good," yet the history of each religion shows that this is not at all what/why and "how" religions were "developed" at all! It's amazing how in these modern generations such errors are repeated over and over. If you asked one hundred years ago any person "why religion" "existed," he or she would have answered "to know God." It's only recently that it seems that everything people used to understand has been removed from their brains, willfully, and replaced with agenda and phoniness. Modern control freaks think that their ancestors were control freaks, and it just was not so and the proof is in the actual writings of each faith. True faiths, even those based on some error, all stem from a genuine attempt to reach and commune with God in understanding and good will. False faiths are those who do not connect authentically with the Holy Spirit, and those that attempt to diminish the all power and control of the one true God into a flawed human model. But even the most false of the faiths (the Greek and Roman pantheon of so called gods) did not arise because some author was trying to "get the people to be good." Har, har, ha ha, some models those were, if so. No, it was from those people's misunderstanding that divinity must be flawed like humans, of trying to pull the presumed dwellers of the firmament down to earth to be "like humans" but with "godly powers." So even the falsest of the well known "religions" of modern times did not spring from the presumed agenda based ambitions of someone with the intention of "thinking up some religion to make people be good." Sometimes the facts are just ridiculously obvious, but one must not be bum rushed into believing something that sounds so "logical," yet withstands absolutely no real scrutiny.
(Hi young people, miss you....) thinking of you as always and hoping that you in particular find this helpful. Someday some of you must tell me just what they ARE exactly teaching in schools, if not facts and logic? Hmm.
"Religions were developed by humans in order to make them behave in the way the society feels is proper."
Um....nooooooo, that's so wrong that it doesn't even pass the first and simplest criticism.
But before I shred the facts and logic, let me tell you the proper statement that is factual and logical, and thus you can follow my critique and criticism more easily. Here is a factual and logical truthful statement:
"Religions were developed as a means to interact with divine forces. A true religion is one based on actual interaction with the actual one and only God. A false religion is one based on presumed interactions with divinities that in actuality do not exist."
Here is the first and simplest way to totally refute the first statement and prove the second statement. What part of the pagan religion of the Greeks and Romans (worshipping the various gods of Olympus such as Zeus/Jupiter, Hera/Juno, Mars/Ares, etc) is an attempt to codify good behavior in humans? *tick tock tick tock tick tock....ring ring ring!* That's right: absolutely none. The pagan religions have two purposes and thus two activities (the "what" and the "why"), and one purpose/activity (the "what") is to tell stories (mythologies) about all the things those rascal gods are up to: sex, booze, jealousy, warfare, lots of lying and deception, tons of coveting, etc. So the Greek/Roman religions were filled with voyeuristic watching, through stories, of the shenanigans of the gods, and were certainly not templates for human behavior, and not even an idiot would have written down those mythologies claiming they inspire righteous behavior.
The second component, the "why" of those Greek/Roman beliefs is that they feared the world, which they did not understand, and so they projected (a human psychological term) their own "what if I were a god" thoughts upon the supposed supernatural forces. Ancient story tellers and elders would have thought of, using what they thought were reasonable assumptions, that gods were just like humans but much more powerful, and thus they organized their thoughts about the supernatural to resemble what "all powerful" human families (aka syndicates) would act like. So the "why" is that if gods were just like humans but with hair trigger anger and lots of gift/punishment ability, let's set up a system to worship and appease them with sacrifice and flattery.
So this is the easiest and most obvious way for you to see that for centuries, and indeed thousands of years, false religions developed because humans started with the "what you see is what you get" notion of a template for the so called gods and goddesses, which is what "we humans do here on earth, well, they must do the same thing but on a super scale 'up there.'" That is the opposite of a religion being developed to codify righteous behavior, because false religions imagine that gods are just like humans but "more so."
Now let's look at a shade of gray area, which is Hinduism. And remember, as I've stated before, I've never criticized sincere traditional follows of any religion, but I will point out error (and have done so including in my own religious institution (not the doctrine) of the Catholic Church.) So here is the problem with Hinduism: what part of the most rigid caste system ever developed among humanity is a "way to make people behave better" or be more righteous? None, of course. However, you do start to see how even in religions that contain error, the impulse to understand and cultivate goodness is there, and that is why the erroneous but understandable principle of karma and/or reincarnation came into being. So Hinduism is like a blending of the two "whats" about why a religion is developed, why it comes into being: one part is the what of imagining that there are multiple gods in human like family groups with sex, war, coveting and so forth, and so sacrifice must be made to them because they will be angry, or to gain favor, but there is also the second part which is an attempt to interact with divinity by being good, and thus through some un-understandable way receive good karma and better reincarnation.
I explained that the Holy Spirit of the one true God does indeed move among all people of the world, all the time, believers or non-believers (more urgently in the latter, obviously), in order to make the true one God known. Likewise people reach out to the "spirit," knowing in their hearts that there must be some ultimate goodness, even if it cannot be seen. In this effort the people who first codified Hinduism felt a touch of the Holy Spirit and interpreted that in some unseen way one does live on forever based on good behavior.
Buddhism is a prime example of what I am saying, even though people who don't give it much thought ascribe the first hypothesis (the erroneous one) to its existence. People have a reflexive, and understandable, though wrong, thought that since much of Buddhism is about goodness and good behavior that it must have developed for that reason. Well, the history shows otherwise. People, including the Buddha, do not meditate in order to come up with a list of good behaviors and thus "invent" a religion! If they wanted to "invent" a religion they would consult lawyers, judges, elders and so forth and have a list of do's and don'ts. No.... a person who goes into a contemplative life, one filled with meditation, is not trying to come up with a list of do's and don'ts, but is trying to communicate with divinity. So once again, like the Hinduism, Buddha and the early Buddhists touched some aspects of the Holy Spirit, but did not discern the presence of the one God. A key difference is that we know that the Buddha had disciples who wrote down his thoughts and thus created a system for passing on and amplifying the insights and conclusions of his meditations. Again, that's further demonstration that the Buddha's disciples were not setting out to "invent" a religion to "control" or encourage good behavior per se, though they were obviously pleased at whatever work they did that did so as a result.
So here is how you can now turn to the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and easily understand they were not "developed" in order to "make people be good." God initiated conversation with Adam and Eve when they were in Eden, when they had "everything," when they had no need to be "good." God started "talking" to human beings directly at a time when God provided everything for them, not when they were lawless and needing "goodness." A true religion arises (as distinct from being developed or invented) when humans have authentic communication with the actual one true God.
The caller argued that Judaism/Christianity was "invented" when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Um, what? That was thousands of years after when God first made himself known and had many, many, many generations of interactions with believers who had a genuine relationship with him. Um, the religion had already come into being at the first moment of genuine communication with the one true God, well before God responds to the needs of humans in order to serve him (not in order to be "good") by giving them his Laws.
Remember, humans were already "good" because they were created by God, and all his creations were deemed "good" by God. So there is a vast difference between "good behavior," which should be the desire of all people, and "knowing and serving God," which is the purpose of true religion of the true God.
Adam and Eve did not fall from God's favor because they had unlawful or bad behavior in the way that modern humans think of it. They fell because they disobeyed the one thing God told them not to do, which is to try to duplicate what God himself only is able to do. They wanted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge not so they could commit more burglaries or engage in voter fraud, or have domestic violence, etc.... they wanted to have the wisdom that God alone has. And who tempted them? Not the angel who runs around committing grand larceny, molesting little kids, robbing banks, declaring wars, etc, but the angel who thought he knew as much or if not as much then at least the loopholes of God, the angel who would not serve, Lucifer.
So there is nothing in the thousands of years of factual, legitimate and truthful dialogue between the one true God and the humans who heard and believed him that is a step by step cookbook or programming exercise in developing a list of good behaviors for humans to follow. What you do have is a history of people trying to understand God, know God and most of all, serve God, no matter how imperfectly. When one faithfully loves and knows God, good behavior is a natural outflow of serving God.
Here is where people who still have some trouble with what I am explaining raise the following (bogus but understandable) comparison. "Yes," they say, "But you say pagans sacrifice to false gods out of fear of their moodiness and capriciousness based on their power over humans. So why does the true God 'make' people sacrifice to him, as in the Old Testament?"
Ah, but if you read the passages in Genesis about sacrifice (many of which I have keyed into this blog and commented on), each of the earliest sacrifices (starting with the first documented by Cain and Abel) were not done for fear of God, but to celebrate "giving back" part of their harvests. Sacrifice to God is not idolatry but the first form of tithing, of returning to God a part of what God has given to people in the first place. Each and every subsequent building of an altar and an offering of sacrifice to God commemorated gratitude for a significant event. Abraham was and remains the model for understanding the true purpose of building an altar and offering a sacrifice, so do read the passages where he does so and you'll better understand what I mean.
When God codified the requirements of sacrifice through Moses (where he made formal ritual and requirements for sacrifice) he did so thousands of years after people had already been behaving in godly ways in service to him and had been sacrificing in honor and tithing to God. God made more formal requirements for two reasons (and notice none of them are to "make people behave better.") The first reason is that when people did commit sin they needed a consistency in paying a penalty to God. So the people as a whole were expected to do the same thing upon the same occasions for the same reason that if one of your children lies you make them do without dessert while if the other child lies you beat them, that would be a gross inconsistency. Humans have enough trouble with understanding the All Knowingness and All Power of God, and humans are notoriously bad at determining the price of "other people's" "sin." Imagine if God had not regulated sacrifice how if the person who caught the envy of someone in power would suffer odious requirements for "penance," while for the same "sin" the buddy of the chief would get off with sacrificing an old shoe or something. So God required a constancy and consistency of sacrifice when humans had reached the point where they would be tempted to use God's "forgiveness" in self serving ways.
The second reason that Laws and accompanying sacrifice and other rituals became codified by God is so that people would not have to imagine, rightly or wrongly, what was "all right" or "OK" to do to serve God and what was not. Remember, God has chosen his people, the Israelites, so they were already his, as he led them through Moses out of slavery. Now God is telling them how to serve him, not "how to behave good." Serving God is the first and utmost requirement and it is no coincidence that the Commandments are ordered accordingly. If one truly honors the name of God, fears God, loves God and keeps one's self sanctified to him, one then does not really want to murder, steal, lie and covet.
It's not like the Israelites were all running around in the desert robbing banks or something, and so God puts His foot down and says, "They need some laws to behave right." No, God explained to them how to serve God, and that is the job that they were failing miserably at (all the backsliding into idolatry even as God is right there with them, for example), not lawlessness or bad behavior. In the later books in the Bible, those before and during the captivity to Babylon, you read about the lawlessness and bad behavior in all those conventional ways (rich extorting the poor, etc) but that was because they had already abandoned so much of their service to God in their hearts. Bad behavior is an outflow of not sanctifying one's self to God's service. That is why a person could commit a million "good deeds" to "help fellow humanity" and yet still not be saved because it is serving God that earns one heaven, which is unmerited grace, not "works" or "good behavior."
Notice that Jesus Christ in preaching the Beatitudes, his first great (mega-) sermon to the crowds, that he starts not with a list of "good behavior" or don'ts, but in comforting those who were doing without through no fault of their own the goodness of life's joys.
Matthew 5:1-12
And seeing the crowds, he went up the mountain. And when he was seated, his disciple came to him. And opening his mouth he taught them, saying,
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice's sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute you, and speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you, for my sake.
Rejoice and exult, because your reward is great in heaven; for so did they persecute the prophets who were before you.
If you truly read and examine the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, you will notice, just as in the Old Testament, how little is "do's" and "don'ts" of good behavior. It is ALL about serving God and thus goodness is the outflow from what comes first, knowing, honoring and fearing God (read my series on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit to understand how the path to sanctity in service to God is scripturally explained).
Think about this carefully because Jesus is the "beginning" of Christianity. How much of what Jesus preached is codifying "laws" for Christian "good behavior?" This is an easy question to get wrong because Jesus is the model of good Christian behavior, but not because he set forth more or less do's and don'ts. Thus no one can read the Gospel and say that people "made it up" in order to "make people behave good." Christianity is so obviously not invented with the purpose of making more ordered, law abiding, good behaved people. Christianity is the heralding of the New Covenant with the already well understood God, and in the New Covenant of serving God by understanding Jesus to be Lord and Savior (the Messiah), good behavior is the natural outflow of genuine sanctification in God's sight by emulating and following Jesus as he actually was, not how he was imagined or caricatured.
You understand a man or woman by where he or she places their priorities in life. We all know people who care the most about their jobs, or their children, their health or their addictions, etc. Whenever you get a little lost about understanding the divine and human complexity of Jesus, read Matthew 5:1-12 over and over, and think of this. Of all the things he could have stated in the opening of his first, great mega-sermon, he chose to list the comforts, including seeing God, that those who genuinely lack in the joys of life today will receive. He did not start with a list of admonishments of bad behavior. Jesus' priority was to turn those who were poor, unhappy and suffering due to shortages in life toward God's nearness, and not in chastising those who have any part in causing deprivation or suffering. Why? Because Jesus came in order to show the people the face of God via the human form of Jesus and draw people nearer to God, not to regulate their behavior.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.
Jesus does not have to list all the ways that people have dirty hearts and then tell them not to do it and chastise them, reminding them of certain punishment. If Christianity were "invented" so that people "behaved better," then this would be the starting place to list all the problems, loopholes, errors and bad thinking, but 1) that has already be covered in abundance throughout the Old Testament and 2) God is comforting those on the right path, that of service to and trusting in God, the Father.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Jesus does not have to list all the "bad" wars, and explain "good conflict" from "inappropriate conflict." Again, if you serve God honestly and with a whole heart it becomes rather obvious who is a peacemaker and who is not. Jesus is reaching out God's comfort to those who already are on the path to being children of God because they have their hearts open to Jesus' message and they need his comfort.
So, to wrap up this posting and give you time to think about what I've touched upon here, do not fall into the trap of agreeing with something that sounds "logical" and "obvious" but does not, if you pause even briefly, stand up to any scrutiny or proof. It seems so "logical" that religions were "invented" so that people "behave good," yet the history of each religion shows that this is not at all what/why and "how" religions were "developed" at all! It's amazing how in these modern generations such errors are repeated over and over. If you asked one hundred years ago any person "why religion" "existed," he or she would have answered "to know God." It's only recently that it seems that everything people used to understand has been removed from their brains, willfully, and replaced with agenda and phoniness. Modern control freaks think that their ancestors were control freaks, and it just was not so and the proof is in the actual writings of each faith. True faiths, even those based on some error, all stem from a genuine attempt to reach and commune with God in understanding and good will. False faiths are those who do not connect authentically with the Holy Spirit, and those that attempt to diminish the all power and control of the one true God into a flawed human model. But even the most false of the faiths (the Greek and Roman pantheon of so called gods) did not arise because some author was trying to "get the people to be good." Har, har, ha ha, some models those were, if so. No, it was from those people's misunderstanding that divinity must be flawed like humans, of trying to pull the presumed dwellers of the firmament down to earth to be "like humans" but with "godly powers." So even the falsest of the well known "religions" of modern times did not spring from the presumed agenda based ambitions of someone with the intention of "thinking up some religion to make people be good." Sometimes the facts are just ridiculously obvious, but one must not be bum rushed into believing something that sounds so "logical," yet withstands absolutely no real scrutiny.
(Hi young people, miss you....) thinking of you as always and hoping that you in particular find this helpful. Someday some of you must tell me just what they ARE exactly teaching in schools, if not facts and logic? Hmm.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
An analogy to understand God's view toward evil
I've written before in this blog explaining that God simply will not personally intervene to stop humans from performing evil against each other, whether it is individual "person on person" evil, or the most vile acts, such as the Shoah of World War II. Whenever one tries to understand God and his ways, and tries, from the perspective of an imperfect and flawed human being, to understand God, who is perfection himself, one has to approach such understanding both in layers and also from a number of perspectives. Whenever I think of a good one I have blogged it here. For example, I explained that God will not reach down and save every person who drives drunk and hurts someone because if God interferes with the natural law that he established (natural law being that if something big, heavy or pointed strikes a weaker object, such as a human in a car crash, that matter and energy may result in death or injury), humans will very quickly be unable to survive in the world. They will lose their ability to reason their way through things such as building safe autos, teaching good and safe driving, developing addictions programs, weighing punishment alternatives, and being able to better treat such injuries. If God reached down every time a drunk driver killed someone, and God brought the victim back to life, how in the world would humans function in a world that still operates according to the reality of physics, chemistry, biology and mechanics? So I have blogged that one perspective about why God "allows" evil.
Tonight I have thought of another helpful analogy.
Whenever one is tempted to think "Why did God allow a certain bad thing to happen to another person" (and here, since we are speaking of evil, I mean a bad thing where someone bad harms someone else, not a natural calamity, for example), before one can answer that question, first one must have more of a perspective that reflects God as he really is.
Think of a person's entire life, such as your own, from birth to death as being a single drop of water. Now, visualize that drop of water compared to all of the water that fills the oceans and other bodies of free flowing, frozen, or atmospheric water on earth. It is mind boggling to think of a drop of water "next to" all of the water that exists on earth.
That, brethren, is a suitable analogy, even though it is not grand enough, to describe the difference between a person's time in mortal life (being alive in their material body) and the time that a person spends in eternity after death (either heaven or hell, both of which are absolutely real).
Thus, the drop of water is like one's time while one is alive, and the rest of the water on earth is like one's time as the soul continuing on after death in either God's presence (heaven) or not (which is hell).
God's "priority" then, if you think of God as having priorities, is the saving of souls, since the soul lives on for all eternity, which is immense beyond human understanding, and the soul is either in saved, rewarded bliss in heaven, or in the unbearable pain, torment and total exile from God, which is hell.
Thus, no matter how vile someone is toward another person, either individually or collectively, any vile action is still only a part of that single droplet of water.
Humans MUST learn to manage their own ability to find goodness, under God's direction, within that drop of water. It's not that God does not care or feel the pain and sting of injustice for each and every one of his human children because, as scripture, most particularly the Gospel of Jesus Christ shows, God most certainly does love the person who is suffering, knows their pain, and feels huge wrath toward the evil doer.
But God wants humans to understand what they must understand, which is how to keep perspective and proportionality of how small a life span really is compared to eternity. People need to understand that what they do on earth, during that tiny droplet of water of time, results in either eternal reward and comfort, or eternal chastisement and damnation.
So it is not a matter of an innocent person suffering when something evil is done to them by someone else, for those events occur within the droplet of water. However, the sufferer, if he or she continues to hold close to God, knows that eternity in his presence will be theirs one day. And the evil doer, likewise, must understand that no matter how small or large the evil, that deed is a most certain risk that they will spend eternity in the total torment of hell.
That is how one must understand the Beatitudes, spoken by Jesus as he preached. Think about specifically:
Matthew 5:10
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnesses' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Many people make the easy mistake of thinking that Jesus mean persecution for the faith, in other words, those who are persecuted and harmed for being Christians. Thus people sometimes gloss over this beatitude thinking that it refers to martyrs and persecuted faithful. Yes, Jesus refers often to those who are reviled who belief in him (and in 5:11 he compares those who are persecuted for their faith with the prophets, most of whom were persecuted, who went before). But do not miss a key phrase "for righteousness' sake."
If Jesus meant only martyrs, he would not have said "for righteousnesses' sake," since being "persecuted" is quite clear in its meaning that the persecuted are those who suffer at the hands of evil-doers because of their faith.
No, Jesus is actually extending the meaning of the persecuted to mean not just those who are persecuted for their faith, but those who have wrongness inflicted on them, unrighteousness meted out to them. Righteous people are not just those of the greatest piety and faith. Righteous people are those who do the right thing, who treat people correctly and kindly, and who obey secular and moral laws. Thus, who persecutes the righteous? Those who are unrighteous, which means evil wrong-doers. Thus this Beatitude means that those who suffer as others inflict wrongs upon them, are given "the kingdom of heaven." It is not only the martyrs and those persecuted for the faith who can, according to Jesus, consider the kingdom of heaven "theirs," but all who suffer for the sake of righteousness: of those who continue to be righteous when unrighteousness and wrongs are poured down upon them.
This Beatitude, therefore, must be understood as not only comforting but also specifically referring to the kingdom of heaven as "theirs," to those who suffer through perhaps a really bad event done to them by a criminal or cruel person, to those who suffer martyrdom for the faith, to those who suffer on a grand scale, such as in a genocide. This Beatitude comforts the person who is deliberately impoverished by a robber baron and oppressor, for example, as much as it comforted a saint who went to his or her martyrdom, to those who went to their death in the Shoah. This Beatitude explains that all who cling to righteousness, as they suffer life events, whether the routine sufferings of life when one is afflicted by a wrongdoing, or the extraordinary evil that erupts periodically, can be assured that "theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
This, then, is one way you can better understand God's bigger "picture" and his bigger "plan." Individual human-on-human acts of wrongdoing and evil are of the greatest concern to him, but not in the way that a human, who is by definition living within the droplet of water time frame, may think God is focusing. God has established an unchanging ordering to the matters of heaven and earth whereby unrepentant evil doers (great and small) are not saved and wind up in hell for all eternity, while those who clung to righteousness even as they suffered are given as "theirs" the kingdom of heaven.
This is not to say that one is helpless in all circumstances of being the victim of evil, and that God will never intervene or that the Holy Spirit does not move to try to aid the victim and convert the heart of the tormentor. But I thought that this analogy of the water droplet, combined with a commentary and explanation of the Beatitude to enlighten the reader of God's "viewpoint" would be an important foundation as to why God does not seem to be as totally in the moment of an innocent person's suffering at the hands of evil doers as one might expect or hope. The real tragedy is that humans have stopped a large part of their own evil behavior regulation as they stopped understanding that hell and eternity are very real and inevitable consequences of continual and unrepentant evil doing.
Paul describes well the two types of righteousness. There is the righteousness of the faith (which is what most people think of when they read that word in the scriptures) but there is also the righteousness of doing the right thing versus wrong doing, including in secular matters. Remember that much of the Law given by God through Moses to the Israelites dealt with secular matters, such as how to treat people justly, settle disputes, provide wages and so forth. So read this and understand how Paul is referring to the righteousness of faith, but also the righteousness of routine deeds in life (which was given to the Jews under the law).
Romans 10:5-6
For Moses described the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which does those things shall live by them.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaks on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above).
Here Paul is not trying to explain the distinction that I point out here, since this passage of his concerns the difference between obeying what God has said to do (both in religious rites and in righteous living, including secular matters) and having righteousness of faith which, for these early Christians that he is addressing, focuses on belief in Jesus Christ and that he was raised by God from the dead.
So I include this so you can see scriptural foundation for what I am explaining, which is when Jesus Christ used the phrase "for righteousnesses' sake," he would say so knowing that the audience would understand that righteousness meant not just righteous faith before God but also righteous living, in both a faith based and a secular way.
I hope that this has given you another aspect of how to view with better perspective God's insistence that humans regulate within what he has given to them their own good behavior (being righteous and avoiding wrongdoing and evil), and that God's emphasis, for lack of a better word, is to remember that life is such an infinitesimally small portion of the eternal life, in either bliss or punishment, that each soul exists throughout and beyond the end of time. God simply will not intervene in 99 percent of the human-on-human evil doing, but God most certainly renders perfect and inevitable judgment and dispensation to either heaven or hell as a result of those deeds.
Tonight I have thought of another helpful analogy.
Whenever one is tempted to think "Why did God allow a certain bad thing to happen to another person" (and here, since we are speaking of evil, I mean a bad thing where someone bad harms someone else, not a natural calamity, for example), before one can answer that question, first one must have more of a perspective that reflects God as he really is.
Think of a person's entire life, such as your own, from birth to death as being a single drop of water. Now, visualize that drop of water compared to all of the water that fills the oceans and other bodies of free flowing, frozen, or atmospheric water on earth. It is mind boggling to think of a drop of water "next to" all of the water that exists on earth.
That, brethren, is a suitable analogy, even though it is not grand enough, to describe the difference between a person's time in mortal life (being alive in their material body) and the time that a person spends in eternity after death (either heaven or hell, both of which are absolutely real).
Thus, the drop of water is like one's time while one is alive, and the rest of the water on earth is like one's time as the soul continuing on after death in either God's presence (heaven) or not (which is hell).
God's "priority" then, if you think of God as having priorities, is the saving of souls, since the soul lives on for all eternity, which is immense beyond human understanding, and the soul is either in saved, rewarded bliss in heaven, or in the unbearable pain, torment and total exile from God, which is hell.
Thus, no matter how vile someone is toward another person, either individually or collectively, any vile action is still only a part of that single droplet of water.
Humans MUST learn to manage their own ability to find goodness, under God's direction, within that drop of water. It's not that God does not care or feel the pain and sting of injustice for each and every one of his human children because, as scripture, most particularly the Gospel of Jesus Christ shows, God most certainly does love the person who is suffering, knows their pain, and feels huge wrath toward the evil doer.
But God wants humans to understand what they must understand, which is how to keep perspective and proportionality of how small a life span really is compared to eternity. People need to understand that what they do on earth, during that tiny droplet of water of time, results in either eternal reward and comfort, or eternal chastisement and damnation.
So it is not a matter of an innocent person suffering when something evil is done to them by someone else, for those events occur within the droplet of water. However, the sufferer, if he or she continues to hold close to God, knows that eternity in his presence will be theirs one day. And the evil doer, likewise, must understand that no matter how small or large the evil, that deed is a most certain risk that they will spend eternity in the total torment of hell.
That is how one must understand the Beatitudes, spoken by Jesus as he preached. Think about specifically:
Matthew 5:10
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnesses' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Many people make the easy mistake of thinking that Jesus mean persecution for the faith, in other words, those who are persecuted and harmed for being Christians. Thus people sometimes gloss over this beatitude thinking that it refers to martyrs and persecuted faithful. Yes, Jesus refers often to those who are reviled who belief in him (and in 5:11 he compares those who are persecuted for their faith with the prophets, most of whom were persecuted, who went before). But do not miss a key phrase "for righteousness' sake."
If Jesus meant only martyrs, he would not have said "for righteousnesses' sake," since being "persecuted" is quite clear in its meaning that the persecuted are those who suffer at the hands of evil-doers because of their faith.
No, Jesus is actually extending the meaning of the persecuted to mean not just those who are persecuted for their faith, but those who have wrongness inflicted on them, unrighteousness meted out to them. Righteous people are not just those of the greatest piety and faith. Righteous people are those who do the right thing, who treat people correctly and kindly, and who obey secular and moral laws. Thus, who persecutes the righteous? Those who are unrighteous, which means evil wrong-doers. Thus this Beatitude means that those who suffer as others inflict wrongs upon them, are given "the kingdom of heaven." It is not only the martyrs and those persecuted for the faith who can, according to Jesus, consider the kingdom of heaven "theirs," but all who suffer for the sake of righteousness: of those who continue to be righteous when unrighteousness and wrongs are poured down upon them.
This Beatitude, therefore, must be understood as not only comforting but also specifically referring to the kingdom of heaven as "theirs," to those who suffer through perhaps a really bad event done to them by a criminal or cruel person, to those who suffer martyrdom for the faith, to those who suffer on a grand scale, such as in a genocide. This Beatitude comforts the person who is deliberately impoverished by a robber baron and oppressor, for example, as much as it comforted a saint who went to his or her martyrdom, to those who went to their death in the Shoah. This Beatitude explains that all who cling to righteousness, as they suffer life events, whether the routine sufferings of life when one is afflicted by a wrongdoing, or the extraordinary evil that erupts periodically, can be assured that "theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
This, then, is one way you can better understand God's bigger "picture" and his bigger "plan." Individual human-on-human acts of wrongdoing and evil are of the greatest concern to him, but not in the way that a human, who is by definition living within the droplet of water time frame, may think God is focusing. God has established an unchanging ordering to the matters of heaven and earth whereby unrepentant evil doers (great and small) are not saved and wind up in hell for all eternity, while those who clung to righteousness even as they suffered are given as "theirs" the kingdom of heaven.
This is not to say that one is helpless in all circumstances of being the victim of evil, and that God will never intervene or that the Holy Spirit does not move to try to aid the victim and convert the heart of the tormentor. But I thought that this analogy of the water droplet, combined with a commentary and explanation of the Beatitude to enlighten the reader of God's "viewpoint" would be an important foundation as to why God does not seem to be as totally in the moment of an innocent person's suffering at the hands of evil doers as one might expect or hope. The real tragedy is that humans have stopped a large part of their own evil behavior regulation as they stopped understanding that hell and eternity are very real and inevitable consequences of continual and unrepentant evil doing.
Paul describes well the two types of righteousness. There is the righteousness of the faith (which is what most people think of when they read that word in the scriptures) but there is also the righteousness of doing the right thing versus wrong doing, including in secular matters. Remember that much of the Law given by God through Moses to the Israelites dealt with secular matters, such as how to treat people justly, settle disputes, provide wages and so forth. So read this and understand how Paul is referring to the righteousness of faith, but also the righteousness of routine deeds in life (which was given to the Jews under the law).
Romans 10:5-6
For Moses described the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which does those things shall live by them.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaks on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above).
Here Paul is not trying to explain the distinction that I point out here, since this passage of his concerns the difference between obeying what God has said to do (both in religious rites and in righteous living, including secular matters) and having righteousness of faith which, for these early Christians that he is addressing, focuses on belief in Jesus Christ and that he was raised by God from the dead.
So I include this so you can see scriptural foundation for what I am explaining, which is when Jesus Christ used the phrase "for righteousnesses' sake," he would say so knowing that the audience would understand that righteousness meant not just righteous faith before God but also righteous living, in both a faith based and a secular way.
I hope that this has given you another aspect of how to view with better perspective God's insistence that humans regulate within what he has given to them their own good behavior (being righteous and avoiding wrongdoing and evil), and that God's emphasis, for lack of a better word, is to remember that life is such an infinitesimally small portion of the eternal life, in either bliss or punishment, that each soul exists throughout and beyond the end of time. God simply will not intervene in 99 percent of the human-on-human evil doing, but God most certainly renders perfect and inevitable judgment and dispensation to either heaven or hell as a result of those deeds.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Spiritual direction: being "of the world" or not
I'm going to reduce a "faith and reasoning" question that is worthy of books of material to examine into a few sentences! Many have pondered the question of how Christians, in particular, can be in the world but not of the world. The answer is actually pretty easy but it requires clarity of thought and context. Let me share that from two bases of discussion, starting with the example of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ was fully of human body. God could have sent the Messiah in any form, such as God himself appeared to Moses, for example, in the burning bush or the glowing cloud that descended to the tent. However God chose to send Jesus within the womb of Mary, formed entirely as a human, with a human upbringing and with a family lineage (recorded in the Gospel through his stepfather Joseph's side). Thus Jesus was both of the flesh and of the human family (he had a normal human body and he could identify his ancestors, both biologically and through the marriage of Mary and Joseph making Joseph's lineage his own). Therefore God validated the "goodness" of the human body and of the geneological family. If human bodies and family lineage were not "good," then God would have sent Jesus as a burning bush or an angel in glorified body.
Further, in the Old Testament it is prophesied that the Messiah will have milk and honey so that he will know them. Now, a lot of people don't understand forms of speech from Biblical times. When the Bible talks about a married couple "knowing" each other, that means they are intimate in sexual relationship. So the Bible expression to "know" means to take part in the activity. It does not mean that this was a previously unknown activity, as in the modern usage to "know what it is like." So many people misunderstand that Jesus somehow didn't know what the good stuff is in life (being all poor and that) and so he'd have some milk and honey in order to "find out" what the goodness of life is (milk and honey representing abundance of sweet and rich food and therefore lifestyle). The promised land "flows with milk and honey," for example. But the modern slang approach of understanding is wrong. What this meant is that the Messiah will engage in the activities that validate the goodness of a rich and prosperous life, ie. he will have milk and honey. The reason it is said like it is is so that no one will think that the Messiah will live as a rich person, but likewise they will know that he did not come to tell people to reject "milk and honey." Thus the Messiah will "know" milk and honey and again, validate the goodness in principle of life.
So Jesus in both the reality of his birth and lineage (human) and in the prophecy is clearly sent by God in a form that validates, not repudiates, being within the world, which is, to live in the world with meaningfulness, fullness and appreciation for its goodness. So Christians are definitely able to point to Jesus as God's validation that the human body, its ancestral lineage, and the ability to experience material goodness and abundance are all correct and normal.
The second example I give is of the teachings of Jesus. I need only point to one example here, which are The Beatitudes. Each beatitude is a pairing, expressing the current state of a person, and the poorness or suffering they may be experiencing, and the reward and comfort that God will give them. If God meant Jesus to teach some sort of great "detachment" from the "suffering wheel" of the world, the beatitudes would not have been taught in the form that they were at all. The beatitudes recognize the meaningfullness of even painful real life experience, and their reward when one is in God's hands, even if that only happens at the end of life. Compare the real beatitude with hypothetical "total detachment" ones:
Real beatitude:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Example of "extreme detachment" "beatitude":
If you feel poor in spirit that is because you care too much about the material world and those around you, and you should detach from them.
Real beatitude:
Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.
Example of "extreme detachment" "beatitude":
Everyone should feel meek instead of proud because there is nothing to be proud about, and nothing to possess, including feeling like God's heirs, on earth.
You see what I mean? I don't want to do any more examples because the fake ones make me want to puke, but I know that an example is the best teaching tool.
Therefore you can see that Christians are taught through both the words and the living example of Jesus, that one can be and should be part of the world and its goodness. The difference is that one should not allow one's self to be ruled or dominated by earthly (human made) measures and standards. That's totally different from being detached from either human or God's measures!
Humans are especially challenged in understanding this today because they have a quantity control problem. Abundance has created an inability to enjoy the simple and good things in life. Likewise, some in abundant countries have a totally negative and inappropriate backlash to that, now wanting people to feel guilty about enjoying "milk and honey." You see that with the carbon counting craze. It is wrong to have abundance skew your thinking in EITHER of those directions, to be unappreciative or to be its opposite, which is to become a guilt ridden spoil sport nag of others.
I often think about a young Chinese man who was trapped by the earthquake face down, so he could talk and receive help, but he could not be freed for eight days, and then he perished. He told people that all he wanted out of life was to be with his wife and future to be born baby, a simple life, the happy family with a simple job. That was the dream he held onto until he died. I grieve every day for him, even though I know his goodness has merited him heaven, for he gave quite an example for the world to see even as he died a slow death. I shed tears for him every time I think of him, including now. He, a poor young Chinese man, but with hope for a normal life of marriage, parenthood, and a paying job, set a better example for everyone than anyone I can think of in the laity in the past year. To him, he wanted the milk and honey of his wife, their baby, and being a provider. That is being in this world and wanting what is good. Abundance had not clouded his mind of what is the most important in life, which is family and the ability to support them and to thrive. That is not "detachment" and that is not being ruled by the world. That is being of the world and understanding that life and committed love with children are the most important thing. If he had lived, and he'd worked his way up from worker to manager, that would have been fine too. That is being real and being in the world, but not being a manmade entity of the world.
Jesus Christ was fully of human body. God could have sent the Messiah in any form, such as God himself appeared to Moses, for example, in the burning bush or the glowing cloud that descended to the tent. However God chose to send Jesus within the womb of Mary, formed entirely as a human, with a human upbringing and with a family lineage (recorded in the Gospel through his stepfather Joseph's side). Thus Jesus was both of the flesh and of the human family (he had a normal human body and he could identify his ancestors, both biologically and through the marriage of Mary and Joseph making Joseph's lineage his own). Therefore God validated the "goodness" of the human body and of the geneological family. If human bodies and family lineage were not "good," then God would have sent Jesus as a burning bush or an angel in glorified body.
Further, in the Old Testament it is prophesied that the Messiah will have milk and honey so that he will know them. Now, a lot of people don't understand forms of speech from Biblical times. When the Bible talks about a married couple "knowing" each other, that means they are intimate in sexual relationship. So the Bible expression to "know" means to take part in the activity. It does not mean that this was a previously unknown activity, as in the modern usage to "know what it is like." So many people misunderstand that Jesus somehow didn't know what the good stuff is in life (being all poor and that) and so he'd have some milk and honey in order to "find out" what the goodness of life is (milk and honey representing abundance of sweet and rich food and therefore lifestyle). The promised land "flows with milk and honey," for example. But the modern slang approach of understanding is wrong. What this meant is that the Messiah will engage in the activities that validate the goodness of a rich and prosperous life, ie. he will have milk and honey. The reason it is said like it is is so that no one will think that the Messiah will live as a rich person, but likewise they will know that he did not come to tell people to reject "milk and honey." Thus the Messiah will "know" milk and honey and again, validate the goodness in principle of life.
So Jesus in both the reality of his birth and lineage (human) and in the prophecy is clearly sent by God in a form that validates, not repudiates, being within the world, which is, to live in the world with meaningfulness, fullness and appreciation for its goodness. So Christians are definitely able to point to Jesus as God's validation that the human body, its ancestral lineage, and the ability to experience material goodness and abundance are all correct and normal.
The second example I give is of the teachings of Jesus. I need only point to one example here, which are The Beatitudes. Each beatitude is a pairing, expressing the current state of a person, and the poorness or suffering they may be experiencing, and the reward and comfort that God will give them. If God meant Jesus to teach some sort of great "detachment" from the "suffering wheel" of the world, the beatitudes would not have been taught in the form that they were at all. The beatitudes recognize the meaningfullness of even painful real life experience, and their reward when one is in God's hands, even if that only happens at the end of life. Compare the real beatitude with hypothetical "total detachment" ones:
Real beatitude:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Example of "extreme detachment" "beatitude":
If you feel poor in spirit that is because you care too much about the material world and those around you, and you should detach from them.
Real beatitude:
Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.
Example of "extreme detachment" "beatitude":
Everyone should feel meek instead of proud because there is nothing to be proud about, and nothing to possess, including feeling like God's heirs, on earth.
You see what I mean? I don't want to do any more examples because the fake ones make me want to puke, but I know that an example is the best teaching tool.
Therefore you can see that Christians are taught through both the words and the living example of Jesus, that one can be and should be part of the world and its goodness. The difference is that one should not allow one's self to be ruled or dominated by earthly (human made) measures and standards. That's totally different from being detached from either human or God's measures!
Humans are especially challenged in understanding this today because they have a quantity control problem. Abundance has created an inability to enjoy the simple and good things in life. Likewise, some in abundant countries have a totally negative and inappropriate backlash to that, now wanting people to feel guilty about enjoying "milk and honey." You see that with the carbon counting craze. It is wrong to have abundance skew your thinking in EITHER of those directions, to be unappreciative or to be its opposite, which is to become a guilt ridden spoil sport nag of others.
I often think about a young Chinese man who was trapped by the earthquake face down, so he could talk and receive help, but he could not be freed for eight days, and then he perished. He told people that all he wanted out of life was to be with his wife and future to be born baby, a simple life, the happy family with a simple job. That was the dream he held onto until he died. I grieve every day for him, even though I know his goodness has merited him heaven, for he gave quite an example for the world to see even as he died a slow death. I shed tears for him every time I think of him, including now. He, a poor young Chinese man, but with hope for a normal life of marriage, parenthood, and a paying job, set a better example for everyone than anyone I can think of in the laity in the past year. To him, he wanted the milk and honey of his wife, their baby, and being a provider. That is being in this world and wanting what is good. Abundance had not clouded his mind of what is the most important in life, which is family and the ability to support them and to thrive. That is not "detachment" and that is not being ruled by the world. That is being of the world and understanding that life and committed love with children are the most important thing. If he had lived, and he'd worked his way up from worker to manager, that would have been fine too. That is being real and being in the world, but not being a manmade entity of the world.
I hope this is helpful. Much could be (and has been) written, but I needed to help people set the record straight about Jesus. It is obvious that Jesus validated, not denied, the goodness of life and everything he said and did was exhorting people to appreciate life within the context of God's design and purpose. Buddhist type thoughts are not Christianity, they never have been and they never will be. Christians don't "detach" from either the goodness and reality of life in God's creation or the reality of eternal life within God's presence, after a clear and final judgment of their life, no squishy spiritual "recycling." People are sometimes confused by the vows of poverty, including that of Jesus. Where did he impose that on others? He did not and in fact visited with equal affection the rich and the poor. Poverty is a special grace that some do for their own and the world's behalf, and it is very powerful (you see that whenever Jesus speaks of or performs fasting, because fasting is a quick "poverty of the body" if you think about it). But that does not mean that Jesus came in human body with human lineage and prophesied to know the goodness of life just to tell people that life is mean and bad and everyone should feel negative and morose and nagging and guilty about it and ruin it for everyone. What thanks THAT would be to God's generosity and goodness of creation! But that's exactly the mindset of many living today. As a result they glom onto manmade and man defined pleasures and then turn around and have a crisis because they no longer can enjoy the simple pleasures of real life. What a mess.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Another quick mention of Bible math example
I wanted to add something about the significance of forty days. Forty is a number that people notice in the Bible in some powerful scenarios, such as Jesus' fast in the desert. Scholars point out that forty is one of the numbers that Israelites find significant (forty years in desert exile, and so forth).
Again, it's not the number "40" that is significant, but each unique context of being "not enough," "just right," and "too much" (or "more than enough.") Look at the Biblical wandering in exile for forty years first.
Despite the few patriarchs who lived incredibly long lives, in Biblical times humans tended to view achieving old age as in their fifties. I don't have the biological figures in front of me, but the average life span of most people was fifty years or well under, throughout the world at that time. So it is not so much the number "40" as it was the measure of what was the sufficient amount of time for an entire generation to pass out of slavery and a new generation be born. So forty years is "just right" for 1) most people with slave mentality to have lived out their remaining years "free," but passing away so that the new and free generation takes over, and 2) they have several decades of learning and obeying God's teaching. As you know that was a hard thing for them to do even with God actually THERE. So it is not the "40" that is significant as much as it is the number of years where a generation passed and a new generation painfully learned to be both free people and knowing their God and codifying his worship.
So, let's be real. How long one fasts is not something you measure in years, so it's not like Jesus was going to fast for forty years! I'm being silly a bit here only because numerologists and many so called "scholars" are hugely silly. So Jesus is going to go and fast "the right amount of time." How much is the right amount of time? We know that humans can live without food for somewhere between two and three weeks. So that would be an extreme but "average" fast. Jesus was not your average person, obviously, being the Savior and the Messiah. He sets a higher example, and he also had the sustenance of being from the Holy Spirit through Mary. So Jesus was not "aiming to make the 40" in order to impress anyone with a magic number. He was a straight forward guy; he would have told the disciples if they were supposed to do things "by the forties." Jesus told them he didn't keep secrets from them; that would have defeated the whole purpose of him patiently explaining over and over what God wants. So Jesus fasted until it was "just the right amount." He fasted to demonstrate that it was not your average yet still impressive extreme fast of two to three weeks. He essentially doubled the time that someone could be expected to fast. Instead of 21 days (3 weeks) he fasted 40 days (just about double, and therefore almost 6 weeks).
So Jesus "made a point" but not that "40" is a whoop ti do magic number. And it was not a "hat tip" to the time of exile by referencing 40 because, um, well, Jesus made meaningful hat tips such as quoting Moses and appearing with Moses in person in front of three Apostles during the Transfiguration. I mean, people, you have to think a little bigger than looking for a number mentioned twice (measuring wildly different things) and say it is a holy or significant number. In both separate cases it was "just enough" of a quantity that was necessary for humanity in their emerging faith history to accomplish something good. So the point that Jesus made is that he truly emptied himself out of food sustenance beyond what the average human would expect in order to demonstrate that he was filling himself with space for the Holy Spirit to operate. Just as the ancient Israelites "emptied themselves" of the slave generation, Jesus emptied himself out of human food support, in order to demonstrate that he will show people how to survive on the Spirit. It's meaningful coincidence that both events can be measured by using the human construct of mathematics to result in a measure in both cases of "40."
By meaningful coincidence I mean that there are fruitful and valid parallels to be drawn, so it is entirely OK and even desirable to go, "Hmm, 40, I've heard that number before. Let me read the scriptures where it appeared. Oh yes!" And then one can conclude that there is a parallel of "emptying out," so that one can be filled with freedom, piety and Spirit. But the "40" itself has no meaning, but lends itself to the way human minds work, which is to be referential and curious, seeking linkages.
It's the message that is significant, not the number. Notice that the first Beatitude is "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:2). It's not that the Beatitude is in the position of the number one in the list. It can be linked to the fasting of Jesus because Jesus spends 40 days in order to empty himself the right amount to demonstrate how he fills instead with the Spirit, rather than human bread. He demonstrates with his body in the fast in order to teach others later with words that they too, empty and poor in spirit, will be filled with Spirit in heaven. The actions of Jesus and his words of teaching are significant, not the mathematics of counting that is used to help humans share the information and measure what had happened for how long and in what order. Jesus starts with that Beatitude because it sets the tone and is of fundamental importance, rather than because there is something special about "1."
I really hope this helps. People are really missing the point of the spirituality and theology as they do an idolatry of numbers.
Again, it's not the number "40" that is significant, but each unique context of being "not enough," "just right," and "too much" (or "more than enough.") Look at the Biblical wandering in exile for forty years first.
Despite the few patriarchs who lived incredibly long lives, in Biblical times humans tended to view achieving old age as in their fifties. I don't have the biological figures in front of me, but the average life span of most people was fifty years or well under, throughout the world at that time. So it is not so much the number "40" as it was the measure of what was the sufficient amount of time for an entire generation to pass out of slavery and a new generation be born. So forty years is "just right" for 1) most people with slave mentality to have lived out their remaining years "free," but passing away so that the new and free generation takes over, and 2) they have several decades of learning and obeying God's teaching. As you know that was a hard thing for them to do even with God actually THERE. So it is not the "40" that is significant as much as it is the number of years where a generation passed and a new generation painfully learned to be both free people and knowing their God and codifying his worship.
So, let's be real. How long one fasts is not something you measure in years, so it's not like Jesus was going to fast for forty years! I'm being silly a bit here only because numerologists and many so called "scholars" are hugely silly. So Jesus is going to go and fast "the right amount of time." How much is the right amount of time? We know that humans can live without food for somewhere between two and three weeks. So that would be an extreme but "average" fast. Jesus was not your average person, obviously, being the Savior and the Messiah. He sets a higher example, and he also had the sustenance of being from the Holy Spirit through Mary. So Jesus was not "aiming to make the 40" in order to impress anyone with a magic number. He was a straight forward guy; he would have told the disciples if they were supposed to do things "by the forties." Jesus told them he didn't keep secrets from them; that would have defeated the whole purpose of him patiently explaining over and over what God wants. So Jesus fasted until it was "just the right amount." He fasted to demonstrate that it was not your average yet still impressive extreme fast of two to three weeks. He essentially doubled the time that someone could be expected to fast. Instead of 21 days (3 weeks) he fasted 40 days (just about double, and therefore almost 6 weeks).
So Jesus "made a point" but not that "40" is a whoop ti do magic number. And it was not a "hat tip" to the time of exile by referencing 40 because, um, well, Jesus made meaningful hat tips such as quoting Moses and appearing with Moses in person in front of three Apostles during the Transfiguration. I mean, people, you have to think a little bigger than looking for a number mentioned twice (measuring wildly different things) and say it is a holy or significant number. In both separate cases it was "just enough" of a quantity that was necessary for humanity in their emerging faith history to accomplish something good. So the point that Jesus made is that he truly emptied himself out of food sustenance beyond what the average human would expect in order to demonstrate that he was filling himself with space for the Holy Spirit to operate. Just as the ancient Israelites "emptied themselves" of the slave generation, Jesus emptied himself out of human food support, in order to demonstrate that he will show people how to survive on the Spirit. It's meaningful coincidence that both events can be measured by using the human construct of mathematics to result in a measure in both cases of "40."
By meaningful coincidence I mean that there are fruitful and valid parallels to be drawn, so it is entirely OK and even desirable to go, "Hmm, 40, I've heard that number before. Let me read the scriptures where it appeared. Oh yes!" And then one can conclude that there is a parallel of "emptying out," so that one can be filled with freedom, piety and Spirit. But the "40" itself has no meaning, but lends itself to the way human minds work, which is to be referential and curious, seeking linkages.
It's the message that is significant, not the number. Notice that the first Beatitude is "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:2). It's not that the Beatitude is in the position of the number one in the list. It can be linked to the fasting of Jesus because Jesus spends 40 days in order to empty himself the right amount to demonstrate how he fills instead with the Spirit, rather than human bread. He demonstrates with his body in the fast in order to teach others later with words that they too, empty and poor in spirit, will be filled with Spirit in heaven. The actions of Jesus and his words of teaching are significant, not the mathematics of counting that is used to help humans share the information and measure what had happened for how long and in what order. Jesus starts with that Beatitude because it sets the tone and is of fundamental importance, rather than because there is something special about "1."
I really hope this helps. People are really missing the point of the spirituality and theology as they do an idolatry of numbers.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Spiritual direction: the first Beatitude
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3).
Amplified Bible:
Blessed (happy, to be envied, and spiritually prosperous-with life-joy and satisfaction in God's favor and salvation, regardless of their outward conditions)
are the poor in spirit (the humble, who rate themselves insignificant)
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven!
I want to make a very quick two points. The first point is that Jesus structured the Beatitudes in kind of a "triage" or "worst to best" order, so the "poor in spirit" are those who Jesus first addresses since theirs is the greatest poverty and pain.
Spirit does not mean religion. Spirit means much the way we would use the term nowadays. Spirit means having self esteem, zest for life, receiving the support, love and admiration that one is due, and having the life energy to thrive that comes from one's "spirit."
Notice that Jesus did not say: "Blessed are the poor in spirit because there are self-help books written by gurus who are oh, so spiritual themselves and who can teach you to be spiritual."
Jesus promised those who are poor in spirit, who feel downtrodden and who feel empty through no fault of their own, that they will have a total fullness of spirit in heaven.
In this way Jesus is also teaching that it is only from heaven that true "spirit" can be achieved. This is in contrast to people today who think they can "become" spiritual in this life. Having a richness of spirit is not the same as being an expert in the occult, or self hypnotising about one's own airy-fairy greatness. The most spiritual people are those who live good pious lives and who understand the source of their spirit is heaven and God, not from books, candles, crystals, looking smart to others and "detachment" exercises.
A lot of people miss this point of this first, most important, Beatitude, skipping over it thinking, "Oh, I'm very spiritual. I'm glad those poor other people who aren't spiritual will feel comforted when they die." Uh, uh, that is not what Jesus is saying at all. Jesus is teaching the source of true spirit in addition to assuring those who have a great emptiness and desire for spirit will be satisfied if they look to heaven and God. The greater the emptiness the more it can be filled (to fullness because they actually 'have' heaven) with authentic spirit from and in heaven. In a way Jesus is saying that the poorest in spirit on earth "inherit heaven," which is the total fullness of spirit from God in his presence.
Amplified Bible:
Blessed (happy, to be envied, and spiritually prosperous-with life-joy and satisfaction in God's favor and salvation, regardless of their outward conditions)
are the poor in spirit (the humble, who rate themselves insignificant)
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven!
I want to make a very quick two points. The first point is that Jesus structured the Beatitudes in kind of a "triage" or "worst to best" order, so the "poor in spirit" are those who Jesus first addresses since theirs is the greatest poverty and pain.
Spirit does not mean religion. Spirit means much the way we would use the term nowadays. Spirit means having self esteem, zest for life, receiving the support, love and admiration that one is due, and having the life energy to thrive that comes from one's "spirit."
Notice that Jesus did not say: "Blessed are the poor in spirit because there are self-help books written by gurus who are oh, so spiritual themselves and who can teach you to be spiritual."
Jesus promised those who are poor in spirit, who feel downtrodden and who feel empty through no fault of their own, that they will have a total fullness of spirit in heaven.
In this way Jesus is also teaching that it is only from heaven that true "spirit" can be achieved. This is in contrast to people today who think they can "become" spiritual in this life. Having a richness of spirit is not the same as being an expert in the occult, or self hypnotising about one's own airy-fairy greatness. The most spiritual people are those who live good pious lives and who understand the source of their spirit is heaven and God, not from books, candles, crystals, looking smart to others and "detachment" exercises.
A lot of people miss this point of this first, most important, Beatitude, skipping over it thinking, "Oh, I'm very spiritual. I'm glad those poor other people who aren't spiritual will feel comforted when they die." Uh, uh, that is not what Jesus is saying at all. Jesus is teaching the source of true spirit in addition to assuring those who have a great emptiness and desire for spirit will be satisfied if they look to heaven and God. The greater the emptiness the more it can be filled (to fullness because they actually 'have' heaven) with authentic spirit from and in heaven. In a way Jesus is saying that the poorest in spirit on earth "inherit heaven," which is the total fullness of spirit from God in his presence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
