Many people in this world who walk around thinking they are free, yes, even empowered, are actually the ones who are sitting in jail, the ones who are on death row, the ones who are enslaved. It is very easy to identify those who are really imprisoned from those who are not.
The more that one does not believe the truth, whether in religious or secular matters, the more one is actually in jail, on death row and enslaved.
There are those who tell lies and bear false witness, and those who believe and/or obey the lies and false witness. They are equally in jail, on death row and enslaved. Equally, there are those who don't lie but refuse to believe the truth. Unfortunately they too are equally in jail, on death row and enslaved. This applies to both God's truth and day to day worldly matters. I will give you simple examples so that you understand.
Suppose that there is a well known food toxin, something like salmonella, and there are three categories of people who react to that knowledge. Those who tell lies say it is not harmful, and thus no safe food handling measures must be taken. Those who believe and obey the lies therefore pass on the effect of that lie by not handling food safely and cleanly that others consume. Those who know salmonella is dangerous but refuse to think that it can happen to them allow this to continue and thus put themselves and others at risk.
All three of those types of people are in "jail" because they are imprisoned by erroneous actions (or refusals to do good) and thus limit their options for dealing with the situation. It is an apt criminal parallel because their refusals, whichever of the three types, endanger not only themselves but others, via their distortion of truth, denial of truth, or refusal to serve the truth! They are on "death row" because, just to stick with the example, there is a risk to life and health that they are refusing to deal with and thus it will eventually catch up with them, and in the case of a pandemic (just to use the example let's pretend a salmonella pandemic is possible), they and everyone else sit on death row, awaiting that pandemic. They are also enslaved because they are in service to the lie, rather than freed by the truth. The truth expands legitimate options and actions, while lies only cut one down to the chains of the lie's one option, which is inaction on behalf of one's self or others and, if one is part of the lying and enabling, "spreading the chains" for others to wear.
Here is the problem. I had given you just one example, an analogy, (since most do not actually dispute the problem of salmonella in theory, but MANY willfully do not follow hygiene and other protective practices on behalf of others). Put aside the analogy, now, and think of how MANY LIES every single person on earth is now subjected to collectively, in total, on a daily basis. One cannot even tell the originating liar from the enabling liar or the victim of lying because the entire fabric of truth in society and individual honor, morality and conduct has broken down and become in service to power, ego and money drivers. Children are on the third generation of being raised by more fiction than truth, in the home, in schools, on the street and via media "entertainment." Remember, it's not just an outright lie that is the problem, but withholding of actual quality education of truth and discernment that is the almost larger problem.
Back to the salmonella example. How can a child believe or not believe the risk and also the safety precautions if they have not the background education? Think of the list of things that a child must understand in order to do something like wash their hands and be careful not to eat tainted food. They have to understand what "dirt" (germs) is, they have to understand how dirt gets on or in them, they have to understand what being sick or well is, they have to understand that it is not something to immobilize them with fear about but that they can be safe, they have to understand how to clean with soap and water, and they have to understand timing (washing before one gets dirty is not helpful, for example).
So imagine a child that is told, and believes, that salmonella is dangerous and they need to avoid bad food plus wash their hands and for the sake of making a silly extreme point to illuminate what I mean, assume the child's been raised in isolation, not having any education nor have parents raised them with the list of necessary knowledge given above. What is a child to do with hearing "salmonella is dangerous?" Think someone named "Sally Nelly" is dangerous? Think that the salmon fish is dangerous? If the child does not understand you are speaking of dirt/germs, what they are, where it comes from, how it gets to them, how to solve the problem, and when/how to wash, they cannot do anything meaningful with a truth spoken to them at all!
That, friends, is the problem. We have a world that starts children out with cartoons and video games, and nothing about reality of life, and by reality I don't mean code words for the bad parts of life, but I mean all the goodness of how life actually exists. When you do not raise your children, and when you gain money or power through lack of service to truth, you not only enslave yourself and others, especially children, but you are all in jail and you are all on death row.
Even if you do not promote all that is so misleading in our culture, by taking up airspace with crap you are crowding out the opportunities and the motivation for people, especially young people, to learn what is really important and to be liberated by the genuine freedom of truth.
Here's another example. Suppose that a certain local political seat is always filled by people who meet in secret and decide who that candidate will be and fix the election so their person always win. Do those hypocrites go home and tell their children that they can "dream big" and maybe be President one day? They smirk as teachers, both enablers and well meaning ones, teach kids in school about the political process and try to "inspire" the kids, yet they know full well if one of those kids grows up and tries to run for office they are not on the preordained predetermined "win" list. The same with being famous, being made a "star," of "making a difference in the world." If young people don't even know the facts of the world, and how it operates, and how to choose from truthful options and choices in action, how can they "dream big" when they don't really understand the choices and the realities? Society pushes the predetermined winners, pretending it can happen to "anyone." Then for the one it happens to, fine, (except when they find out they now have obligations to the rainmakers), but what about the ninety-nine others out of a hundred who wasted their time, talents, their heart, and their love, to pursuing a dream that was never actually an option to them? If they knew the truth they could have actually done something else, far more satisfying.
Many people in society push "follow your dreams" and "give it your all," knowing that they will "award" that prize to one or two of their predetermined chosen, while letting those who believe this at large wither on the vine. Meanwhile people could have been doing what they have always done, which is to grow up in a truthful and well educated (though not of course pure or unblemished) society where they can always be aiming themselves at valid and authentic targets, instead of manipulated illusionary crap. Crap that enriches the bank accounts and egos of those who are on top of the total life lie pyramids.
Friends, and I call you that, even toward those who have persecuted me, stop thinking that I'm the one being controlled, limited, manipulated and in "jail." It is you all who are in that place, you all who are in jail, on death row, and enslaved. The more you believe the lying crap that is out there everywhere, the more you will lose your pursuit of genuine happiness in life, the more your life is likely to be foreshortened (and those you care about) and the more you have to consider that you may be on the path to eternal death, first as the living social slaves that you are, and after death, to the place where disbelievers and those who did not honestly serve God, in eternal exile from goodness and in torment. I really don't wish that on anyone, but I'm cheering both Darwin and God onward on this one, if you keep asking for it, that's what you are going to keep getting in life and in death.
Showing posts with label leading others into sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leading others into sin. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Strip club boss killed, hypocrisy example
I mean, forget about the obvious hypocrisy that this guy "Lolly" Jackson (South Africa) was caught speeding in his car supposedly on the "way to church." That's not even the irony, the hypocrisy that I'm going to point out.
No, his strip empire manager has asked "for privacy" during their time of mourning.
Privacy for a STRIP empire manager? That's rich. Strip is the opposite of privacy, no? He had controversial billboards, no? His employees live off of girls' lack of privacy, no?
So I think they ought to publish photos of his bullet ridden body. He'd approve, no?
No, his strip empire manager has asked "for privacy" during their time of mourning.
Privacy for a STRIP empire manager? That's rich. Strip is the opposite of privacy, no? He had controversial billboards, no? His employees live off of girls' lack of privacy, no?
So I think they ought to publish photos of his bullet ridden body. He'd approve, no?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Money & power, crime and sin
This set of thoughts, which I hope everyone finds helpful, is more about human nature and God's relationship with humans, than a classic Bible study or commentary type of blogging.
Here's the problem. The Bible states that money is the root of all evil. First you need to understand there are two types of over fondness of money, and hence it's misuse. The first problem is to love money more than anything else, including believing in, fearing and obeying God. Thus many people love money for itself above all other relationships, both their human relationships and their relationship with God. The second problem is to love money for the power that it gives you over other people, or over elements of God's creation. For example, some people do not crave money and its luxuries, as do the first category of people, but they crave money because it buys power and control over others. So this is why St Paul and others trace just about every human evil back to its roots of money.
There is a third problem, whereby decent ordinary people do not love money, or crave its power, but will do evil things because they feel boxed into doing so in order to survive. This is a third category which is involuntary slavery to money or, rather, the people who control and dispense the money. People who dole out money to those who need it in return for making the people do unethical things are the second category of people (the money as power lovers) while those who accept the money out of either genuine or perceived need are this third category, those who are enslaved to money and its power.
Understanding that, you must recognize that there are three inevitabilities that each person with this unhealthy relationship (whether category 1, 2 or e) with money participate in. One is crime. Two is sin. Three is both crime and sin.
By the way, it is tempting to believe that all crime is also a sin. While that is usually true, I need to teach you all thoughtfulness, in order to see the shades of nuances correctly. It is not a sin, for example, to disobey a law or authority (and thus be branded a criminal) if that law or authority is not righteous toward God or fellow human beings. So one can be, like the early Christians, a "criminal" who breaks a "law" or "authority" when one refuses to worship idols. That, then, is a crime that is not a sin and, actually, in this example, a virtue.
The problem is that many people rationalize love of money as being kind of a "Robin Hood," and thus not criminal or sinful. They are wrong because the premise (love of money or its power) is not in service of God because one cannot use a human tool (money) to serve God, who is above and beyond all those things. God wants your attention and obedience; not your money, either to him or in his supposed "service." There is no way that a person can love money and then make rational decisions about "how God would 'want' the money spent." One has to be a good Christian, Jew or Muslim first, with a solid untarnished relationship with God, before one can even make baby steps in deciding "how Jesus" or "how God" would "want" money spent in his service. Remember, the Apostles observed first hand how Jesus taught them these things, yet one still fell, in part due to money, Judas Iscariot. If Judas Iscariot was troubled in deciding "how God would want the money spent," what makes any human alive think he or she is well equipped to know better? Especially a human who is far from being perfected in their relationship with God and God alone? Love of money and power (including the very seductive power to be a "do gooder") is by definition a BARRIER to understand God.
Now, here is something you need to understand about me personally. I have no interest in being a "crime buster," I never have and I never will. Part of my calling and my ministry is to tell everyone the same thing, which is the reality of God's word as it is in the Torah, in the Bible, and in the Qur'an. In other words, there is only one God, and His word is constant, the only truth, and irrefutable. So if I met the worst criminals in the world, I have no concern about their crimes or their sins. I have concern that they do not understand the consequences of those crimes and sins, the consequences that will be rendered by God, and not by human beings. I would sit down face to face with even the worst criminals and say, "Friend, you need more information before you continue, and that information is that God is real, judgment is real, and that hell is real and that, further, unlike jokes and cartoons, hell is un-endurable, and no one there is 'handling' it." I would not be interested in attempting to persuade them away from their crime or sin. I simply deliver God's truth and leave it up to them.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Here's the problem. The Bible states that money is the root of all evil. First you need to understand there are two types of over fondness of money, and hence it's misuse. The first problem is to love money more than anything else, including believing in, fearing and obeying God. Thus many people love money for itself above all other relationships, both their human relationships and their relationship with God. The second problem is to love money for the power that it gives you over other people, or over elements of God's creation. For example, some people do not crave money and its luxuries, as do the first category of people, but they crave money because it buys power and control over others. So this is why St Paul and others trace just about every human evil back to its roots of money.
There is a third problem, whereby decent ordinary people do not love money, or crave its power, but will do evil things because they feel boxed into doing so in order to survive. This is a third category which is involuntary slavery to money or, rather, the people who control and dispense the money. People who dole out money to those who need it in return for making the people do unethical things are the second category of people (the money as power lovers) while those who accept the money out of either genuine or perceived need are this third category, those who are enslaved to money and its power.
Understanding that, you must recognize that there are three inevitabilities that each person with this unhealthy relationship (whether category 1, 2 or e) with money participate in. One is crime. Two is sin. Three is both crime and sin.
By the way, it is tempting to believe that all crime is also a sin. While that is usually true, I need to teach you all thoughtfulness, in order to see the shades of nuances correctly. It is not a sin, for example, to disobey a law or authority (and thus be branded a criminal) if that law or authority is not righteous toward God or fellow human beings. So one can be, like the early Christians, a "criminal" who breaks a "law" or "authority" when one refuses to worship idols. That, then, is a crime that is not a sin and, actually, in this example, a virtue.
The problem is that many people rationalize love of money as being kind of a "Robin Hood," and thus not criminal or sinful. They are wrong because the premise (love of money or its power) is not in service of God because one cannot use a human tool (money) to serve God, who is above and beyond all those things. God wants your attention and obedience; not your money, either to him or in his supposed "service." There is no way that a person can love money and then make rational decisions about "how God would 'want' the money spent." One has to be a good Christian, Jew or Muslim first, with a solid untarnished relationship with God, before one can even make baby steps in deciding "how Jesus" or "how God" would "want" money spent in his service. Remember, the Apostles observed first hand how Jesus taught them these things, yet one still fell, in part due to money, Judas Iscariot. If Judas Iscariot was troubled in deciding "how God would want the money spent," what makes any human alive think he or she is well equipped to know better? Especially a human who is far from being perfected in their relationship with God and God alone? Love of money and power (including the very seductive power to be a "do gooder") is by definition a BARRIER to understand God.
Now, here is something you need to understand about me personally. I have no interest in being a "crime buster," I never have and I never will. Part of my calling and my ministry is to tell everyone the same thing, which is the reality of God's word as it is in the Torah, in the Bible, and in the Qur'an. In other words, there is only one God, and His word is constant, the only truth, and irrefutable. So if I met the worst criminals in the world, I have no concern about their crimes or their sins. I have concern that they do not understand the consequences of those crimes and sins, the consequences that will be rendered by God, and not by human beings. I would sit down face to face with even the worst criminals and say, "Friend, you need more information before you continue, and that information is that God is real, judgment is real, and that hell is real and that, further, unlike jokes and cartoons, hell is un-endurable, and no one there is 'handling' it." I would not be interested in attempting to persuade them away from their crime or sin. I simply deliver God's truth and leave it up to them.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Why immediate obedience to God necessary
This is especially directed toward young people, those under thirties and most especially young teens (hi there!) because, frankly, I've about given up on your parents' and teachers' generations of understanding these things. They are so infested with "magical" thinking instead of 1) faith and 2) logic and reasoning based on facts. You've been raised that way too, but I have a great hope that you recognize something is very wrong: totally wrong. So this is part of the "faith and reasoning" series where I teach you how to have logical faith based on the truth, accomplished through reasoning and the facts, and also develop your skills in using classic logic to solve problems and form opinions.
Here I am going to first give you an analogy that you can all relate to, and then we will use logic to analyze the analogy.
Suppose that a society, such as the United States, recognizes all at once that cigarette smoking is dangerous for one's health and causes cancer. (I'm not doing a smoking bash here or making an extreme medical statement; I just want to use a genuine topic based on facts for the analogy). So let's suppose that everyone realizes all at once that smoking causes specifically lung cancer and that it is certain to happen for each person eventually. You will have, based on human nature, reactions that divide the population into roughly thirds. One third will quit immediately. One third will want to quit but being pretty heavy smokers or with a big addiction, they have to use various methods to quit, but they have perfect intention to do so as SOON as they can. But then we come to the other third. That third will plan to quit "someday" and use "magical thinking" to manipulate the situation, thinking that they "know better" than the doctors. So that third group will "plan" to quit someday but will continue to smoke and, actually, will work on the members of the first two groups to get them to continue to smoke along with them.
This third group gives this reaction, this very bad reaction, for a combination of reasons, but they all come down to 1) lack of faith and 2) arrogance and self pride overcoming logic. The lack of faith is simple in that they just do not believe either the dire warnings of the doctors or the evidence of their own eyes, which is lots of people getting lung cancer and dropping dead of it, including in their own families. They just refuse to believe and have lack of faith in either the policy or the facts because of reason number two, their arrogance and self pride. That arrogance and pride gets its strength from "magical" thinking. Here are examples of magical thinking:
1. I can keep on smoking longer than anyone else without getting the lung cancer because I'm physically and spiritually better than anyone else.
2. Because I know better than everyone else I can tempt people to also keep smoking, which they enjoy after all, longer, and not have to give up something they enjoy too! So I'm putting to rest their "false fears."
3. Besides, it's not fun being part of a rapidly dwindling group of smokers. I want company and to heck with the consequences, so long as I am partying out and smoking with lots of friends. Hey they know the risk so if they listen to me keep smoking and get cancer, it's their fault ("destiny") anyway.
4. I want to keep doing this wrong and dangerous thing and to rationalize it and keep having a good time with lots of smoking friends, I will tell them they were "born to die of cancer" or that it is "their destiny" if something happens and they get sick. I will make it sound like "the force is with them" or they have "karma" or they will have a better "future life" to make up for their current life being cut short by doing this dangerous smoking.
5. I'm an addict and a weakling and can't quit. But I'm too proud to ask for help, especially because I mocked the very people who did this health study and made the discovery of the danger. So instead of doing what I know I should do and ask for help, I'm too proud and self superior so I'll not ask for help, keep on doing so, and, in fact, sabotage any smoker quitting service I can, since that way I can tell myself that even if I was not proud, none of the smoker quitting services exist or really work anyway.
6. I'm neurotic, obsessive compulsive, depressed, anxious and/or paranoid. I think everyone is pretending that smoking is dangerous and pretending to get sick and die. I also think they are pretending that dead is really dead.
7. I'm all or some of the above in 6 and I think, since I can't think properly, that if people stop smoking and dying of lung cancer that "something worse will happen." Maybe the world is resting on the back of giant turtles who like to breathe cigarette smoke and if we all stop smoking the turtles will get mad and drop the earth and it will break.
I wish I was joking but I am not. I personally, and through second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth degrees of "Kevin Bacon" know people that believe all of the above: a LOT of them. They believe it not only in the actual analogy that I give, but worst of all, they believe it when you apply this analogy about acknowledging the reality of the one true God and of obeying him. They "postpone" or refuse in total to believe in God and to immediately obey him for all those reasons I have listed above.
So we have used logic to list the reactions and reasons of the three groups of people in the smoking analogy. And we have used logic to recognize that just as the analogy cites doctors who document the facts that, in the pretend USA example, that every smoker will get lung cancer and die, this analogy can now be applied to belief in God. God is the doctor who explains that if one smokes that each and every person who smokes will get lung cancer and die. Thus to transfer the work we did on the pretend case study to actuality, God is like the doctor who warns what will one hundred percent will happen, disbelief in God and sins are like the smoking of cigarettes (the thing that is dangerous and wrong to do even if it is "fun"), and hell (not being saved and not having eternal life) is like the inevitable lung cancer in our pretend analogy.
Do you see how powerful logic based on facts can be? Now you can use the logic you developed in the pretend analogy to understand why so many people deny God or worse, even when they understand the risk and reality (the consequences of "cancer") they PUT OFF obeying what they can see and suspect is true and worse, hold their friends, family and society itself back from being believers and immediate obeying of God. You can work down the list of seven I gave to you above and now substitute disbelief/sin/disobeying of God for wherever we list the action of smoking. We can list not being saved, being punished by God in this world, going to hell, and hurting other people by being unjust and/or sinning or spreading unbelief as the substitute for the getting and dying of lung cancer.
Let's work through one example, the first one. The smokers in the first example of pride think they can resist the consequences of smoking longer than anyone so they keep smoking and figure they will quit at the last possible moment. Thus they figure because they are physically and spiritually "better" than anyone else, they can keep smoking until just "before" they actually "get" cancer and then quit in the nick of time. That's the "logic" of pride in the first reasons to keep smoking example.
Now here is how it translates. Yeah, OK, maybe there is a God and maybe he will punish us if we sin. But because I am physically and spiritually "stronger" than anyone else, I will keep doing what I feel like, including sin, because I figure due to my superiority and my good deeds that if I figure out there really is a God, I will by lying around on my death bed after a really fun life and can quickly convert and be forgiven. I know that God will give me a really cool life, including with postponing obedience to him, because he made me so physically strong, good looking, popular, smart and spiritually so "complete" and "evolved" that I can control when I "flip" to believe in God, if he convinces me AND still have postponed obeying him until the last minute.
Here's the problems with this thinking. *sigh* I can't believe I even have to explain this but here goes. If one is disbelieving and disobeying God, no matter what "good deeds" you are doing, you are still 1) sinning 2) encouraging by your life other people to sin and 3) refusing to give God what is due to him on the spot NOW and FOREVER, throughout your life. The people in this category think they are so "blessed" that they can decide if or when to totally surrender to God. They imagine that they are just so wonderful that they can keep making this "personal" decision and that it's theirs to make AND that they will have ample time to "make the switch" if they must. But what happens? Let's go back to our analogy.
1. They keep smoking and get the cancer much faster than anyone else. Hmm.
2. They keep smoking and make money off of it by keeping others smoking through their business and/or their example. Thus their postponed obedience costs other people their lives.
3. They get in a crash and die before they can "make the switch." Ooops.
4. They don't realize that by the time they think they can "make the switch" that they already have the deadly cancer growing undetected. So they stop smoking and then find they have the cancer already because they "postponed" too long.
You can logic through, then, how this maps to disbelieving/postponing obeying God.
1. They disbelieve or postpone obedience and their sin or behaviors kill them even quicker. They go to hell.
2. They know what they are doing is wrong but they make money off of it or at worse by continuing to do so their children do the same neglect of God and thus they make money and tempt others by neglecting God, piling up a lot of unforgiven and some unforgivable sins. They go to hell AND they bring others with them through their delays in obedience.
3. Life happens and they get in a wreck and die or something else happens before they can repent. They go to hell.
4. They wait so long that their hearts are so hardened that even when they "decide" to "make the switch" they just can't do it, because they can't be humble, tender and flexible enough to finally do what they so called "planned" to do all along. So when they are ready to "switch" they find they can't at all, or they do it half hearted, and with a cold heart, like God is a formula to now apply. They go to hell.
I'll leave this with you to work through mapping in your own minds the other "reasons" for disbelief/postponing obeying God, listed 2 through 7, matching the smoking/lung cancer analogy and "reasons" with what that means for disbelieving/postponing obeying God. Pay special attention to the lack of one person converting in their heart to God as a bad example that then leads others back down that path to ruin. This is the heart of why God's judgment is especially stern to those who aren't really making an "individual life style choice," but are actually leading others the same way, often deliberately, as in reasons number 5, 6 and 7 but really all of them, as they want to "party on" with what they are doing, and that requires undermining those who might otherwise have repented and followed God.
*sigh*
Young people, you've been sold a bill of goods (an expression for being stiffed) by the previous generation. Previous generation, wise up.
Here I am going to first give you an analogy that you can all relate to, and then we will use logic to analyze the analogy.
Suppose that a society, such as the United States, recognizes all at once that cigarette smoking is dangerous for one's health and causes cancer. (I'm not doing a smoking bash here or making an extreme medical statement; I just want to use a genuine topic based on facts for the analogy). So let's suppose that everyone realizes all at once that smoking causes specifically lung cancer and that it is certain to happen for each person eventually. You will have, based on human nature, reactions that divide the population into roughly thirds. One third will quit immediately. One third will want to quit but being pretty heavy smokers or with a big addiction, they have to use various methods to quit, but they have perfect intention to do so as SOON as they can. But then we come to the other third. That third will plan to quit "someday" and use "magical thinking" to manipulate the situation, thinking that they "know better" than the doctors. So that third group will "plan" to quit someday but will continue to smoke and, actually, will work on the members of the first two groups to get them to continue to smoke along with them.
This third group gives this reaction, this very bad reaction, for a combination of reasons, but they all come down to 1) lack of faith and 2) arrogance and self pride overcoming logic. The lack of faith is simple in that they just do not believe either the dire warnings of the doctors or the evidence of their own eyes, which is lots of people getting lung cancer and dropping dead of it, including in their own families. They just refuse to believe and have lack of faith in either the policy or the facts because of reason number two, their arrogance and self pride. That arrogance and pride gets its strength from "magical" thinking. Here are examples of magical thinking:
1. I can keep on smoking longer than anyone else without getting the lung cancer because I'm physically and spiritually better than anyone else.
2. Because I know better than everyone else I can tempt people to also keep smoking, which they enjoy after all, longer, and not have to give up something they enjoy too! So I'm putting to rest their "false fears."
3. Besides, it's not fun being part of a rapidly dwindling group of smokers. I want company and to heck with the consequences, so long as I am partying out and smoking with lots of friends. Hey they know the risk so if they listen to me keep smoking and get cancer, it's their fault ("destiny") anyway.
4. I want to keep doing this wrong and dangerous thing and to rationalize it and keep having a good time with lots of smoking friends, I will tell them they were "born to die of cancer" or that it is "their destiny" if something happens and they get sick. I will make it sound like "the force is with them" or they have "karma" or they will have a better "future life" to make up for their current life being cut short by doing this dangerous smoking.
5. I'm an addict and a weakling and can't quit. But I'm too proud to ask for help, especially because I mocked the very people who did this health study and made the discovery of the danger. So instead of doing what I know I should do and ask for help, I'm too proud and self superior so I'll not ask for help, keep on doing so, and, in fact, sabotage any smoker quitting service I can, since that way I can tell myself that even if I was not proud, none of the smoker quitting services exist or really work anyway.
6. I'm neurotic, obsessive compulsive, depressed, anxious and/or paranoid. I think everyone is pretending that smoking is dangerous and pretending to get sick and die. I also think they are pretending that dead is really dead.
7. I'm all or some of the above in 6 and I think, since I can't think properly, that if people stop smoking and dying of lung cancer that "something worse will happen." Maybe the world is resting on the back of giant turtles who like to breathe cigarette smoke and if we all stop smoking the turtles will get mad and drop the earth and it will break.
I wish I was joking but I am not. I personally, and through second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth degrees of "Kevin Bacon" know people that believe all of the above: a LOT of them. They believe it not only in the actual analogy that I give, but worst of all, they believe it when you apply this analogy about acknowledging the reality of the one true God and of obeying him. They "postpone" or refuse in total to believe in God and to immediately obey him for all those reasons I have listed above.
So we have used logic to list the reactions and reasons of the three groups of people in the smoking analogy. And we have used logic to recognize that just as the analogy cites doctors who document the facts that, in the pretend USA example, that every smoker will get lung cancer and die, this analogy can now be applied to belief in God. God is the doctor who explains that if one smokes that each and every person who smokes will get lung cancer and die. Thus to transfer the work we did on the pretend case study to actuality, God is like the doctor who warns what will one hundred percent will happen, disbelief in God and sins are like the smoking of cigarettes (the thing that is dangerous and wrong to do even if it is "fun"), and hell (not being saved and not having eternal life) is like the inevitable lung cancer in our pretend analogy.
Do you see how powerful logic based on facts can be? Now you can use the logic you developed in the pretend analogy to understand why so many people deny God or worse, even when they understand the risk and reality (the consequences of "cancer") they PUT OFF obeying what they can see and suspect is true and worse, hold their friends, family and society itself back from being believers and immediate obeying of God. You can work down the list of seven I gave to you above and now substitute disbelief/sin/disobeying of God for wherever we list the action of smoking. We can list not being saved, being punished by God in this world, going to hell, and hurting other people by being unjust and/or sinning or spreading unbelief as the substitute for the getting and dying of lung cancer.
Let's work through one example, the first one. The smokers in the first example of pride think they can resist the consequences of smoking longer than anyone so they keep smoking and figure they will quit at the last possible moment. Thus they figure because they are physically and spiritually "better" than anyone else, they can keep smoking until just "before" they actually "get" cancer and then quit in the nick of time. That's the "logic" of pride in the first reasons to keep smoking example.
Now here is how it translates. Yeah, OK, maybe there is a God and maybe he will punish us if we sin. But because I am physically and spiritually "stronger" than anyone else, I will keep doing what I feel like, including sin, because I figure due to my superiority and my good deeds that if I figure out there really is a God, I will by lying around on my death bed after a really fun life and can quickly convert and be forgiven. I know that God will give me a really cool life, including with postponing obedience to him, because he made me so physically strong, good looking, popular, smart and spiritually so "complete" and "evolved" that I can control when I "flip" to believe in God, if he convinces me AND still have postponed obeying him until the last minute.
Here's the problems with this thinking. *sigh* I can't believe I even have to explain this but here goes. If one is disbelieving and disobeying God, no matter what "good deeds" you are doing, you are still 1) sinning 2) encouraging by your life other people to sin and 3) refusing to give God what is due to him on the spot NOW and FOREVER, throughout your life. The people in this category think they are so "blessed" that they can decide if or when to totally surrender to God. They imagine that they are just so wonderful that they can keep making this "personal" decision and that it's theirs to make AND that they will have ample time to "make the switch" if they must. But what happens? Let's go back to our analogy.
1. They keep smoking and get the cancer much faster than anyone else. Hmm.
2. They keep smoking and make money off of it by keeping others smoking through their business and/or their example. Thus their postponed obedience costs other people their lives.
3. They get in a crash and die before they can "make the switch." Ooops.
4. They don't realize that by the time they think they can "make the switch" that they already have the deadly cancer growing undetected. So they stop smoking and then find they have the cancer already because they "postponed" too long.
You can logic through, then, how this maps to disbelieving/postponing obeying God.
1. They disbelieve or postpone obedience and their sin or behaviors kill them even quicker. They go to hell.
2. They know what they are doing is wrong but they make money off of it or at worse by continuing to do so their children do the same neglect of God and thus they make money and tempt others by neglecting God, piling up a lot of unforgiven and some unforgivable sins. They go to hell AND they bring others with them through their delays in obedience.
3. Life happens and they get in a wreck and die or something else happens before they can repent. They go to hell.
4. They wait so long that their hearts are so hardened that even when they "decide" to "make the switch" they just can't do it, because they can't be humble, tender and flexible enough to finally do what they so called "planned" to do all along. So when they are ready to "switch" they find they can't at all, or they do it half hearted, and with a cold heart, like God is a formula to now apply. They go to hell.
I'll leave this with you to work through mapping in your own minds the other "reasons" for disbelief/postponing obeying God, listed 2 through 7, matching the smoking/lung cancer analogy and "reasons" with what that means for disbelieving/postponing obeying God. Pay special attention to the lack of one person converting in their heart to God as a bad example that then leads others back down that path to ruin. This is the heart of why God's judgment is especially stern to those who aren't really making an "individual life style choice," but are actually leading others the same way, often deliberately, as in reasons number 5, 6 and 7 but really all of them, as they want to "party on" with what they are doing, and that requires undermining those who might otherwise have repented and followed God.
*sigh*
Young people, you've been sold a bill of goods (an expression for being stiffed) by the previous generation. Previous generation, wise up.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Cleansing the palete, writing and thoughts
The palate is a part of the mouth. The term "cleansing the palate" is often used when referring to wine or food tasters, who eat something bland to remove the taste of the previously sampled item before assessing the taste of the next item. In other words, one removes the after taste so that it does not infiltrate the next bite or sip. Meals of several courses are often planned with that in mind, if not in actually providing an intermediary palate cleanser, then at least planning the order of courses so that a previous dish or beverage does not overpower the next one or ruin the flavor through unplanned combination.
The societal lack of "cleansing the palate" is one of the greatest obstacles to achieving, or even commencing, sanctity today. For example, one of my least favorite activities is to have my mind set on writing a blog posting that glorifies God, but I am interrupted with the need to blog about the dirtier works and sins of humans. However, because my heart, mind and spirit are always turned toward God, even as my fingers have to type less pleasant (but vital soul saving) blog entries, I do not have to "cleanse the palate" of my spirit and my mind, since my heart is always turned to God. White bread is often used as a gourmet palate cleanser, and so it does not seem a coincidence that one can think of God, through Jesus Christ, the living bread and staff of life, and remain cleansed in one's heart, mind and soul even when one must discuss distasteful things, such as sin and depravity in modern society, and the consequences of hell fire for all eternity.
However, since the vast majority of humans are not sanctified to God, but I do believe that many wish to be (however, they confuse it with the egocentric objective of being "very spiritual"), you need to realize that society and its dirt are a barrier to sanctification, as it requires extraordinary effort these days to "cleanse one's palate."
Let me introduce an old time admonishment, that is slang and said casually. In the old days when someone said something dirty (as in pornographic), profane (toward God), or cussed, often the listener would reply to that person, "You kiss your mother with that mouth?!"
This was in more innocent and good hearted days when often that admonishment was actually enough to make the hardened bad talker stop and be somewhat abashed. That's like back in the days when moms weren't competing to be as dirty as the celebrities, and when their children upheld their mother's level of decency. So yes, a simple expression like that caused many a cusser or dirty talker to stop in his tracks and blush. He would genuinely be ashamed to think of what had come out of his mouth, and that yes, that is the mouth that would kiss his mom on the cheek. That admonishment was a verbal palate cleanser.
Today it is just about impossible to cleanse the palate, spiritually. I don't mean to cleanse the palate to do some high and mighty worshipping or great spiritual work. I mean to go back to the normal state that one should be in nearly one hundred percent of the time! One should be living a life of having a cleansed palate, but one that is interrupted on occasion by the realities of life.
I'm not speaking of cussing here. I am speaking of living constantly within the increasing dirtiness of the world.
Here is an example of those who have to struggle because of the dirt of the world. It used to be that if you were a law enforcement official, it would be a very rare event when one had to investigate child pornography, child solicitation or child rape. The average cop might encounter one horrific example in his or her entire career! And that event would, of course, be a very low point and one that he or she not only had to prevent from depressing them, but also did not bring the sadness of it home to their family.
Now look at what the world, through human beings own choices, has brought to this example. Entire police departments have to assign full time officers to trolling through the filth of the Internet, identifying and capturing pedophiles and other child abusers. These officers have to look at more in FIVE MINUTES than most cops had to look at in their entire career. It is impossible for law enforcement people to ever cleanse their palates or have a cleansed palate, because they are standing within the tidal wave of filth.
I worry about professionals, and amateurs, who do this type of work with sincere hearts because I know that despite what they may say, it changes them forever and is a soul robbing experience. People often bandy about praying to the Archangel Michael, but this is an example where I recommend that those who must, because of their vocation, wade in such palate destroying filth, that they look at Michael as a role model, as the archangel who faces the worst of what Satan is, and yet remains totally pure and sanctified to God. Think of his role modeling as a palate cleanser. Also, do not be an egomaniac who thinks you are not affected and can do this for years at a time. Wading in filth, even for a "noble purpose" is a barrier to sanctity and your process of sanctification. Why? Because it takes up space in your mind and your heart, even as you combat it, that ought to be set only on the pure sights of God. You are having to "kiss God's cheek" with that mouth.
Isaiah 6:5-7
Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar.
He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."
Isaiah, the greatest of the prophets who prophesied the Messiah, Jesus Christ, knew that even as pure as he was, he could not be living as a human among humans with filthy lips without being at risk once he faces God, so upon the sight of God he is terrified of this knowledge. God respects this wisdom exhibited by Isaiah and thus the seraphim cleanses Isaiah's lips with burning coals from God's own altar. This is why you can look to God and his angels, such as Michael, with confidence and trust if you, through no fault of your own, are put within the filth of the times.
But what about the vast majority of people who wallow in and produce the filth? What about the many mothers today who purchase "booty enhancing" jeans and who have "tramp stamps" tattooed over their rear ends? Why should their children worry about with what lips they kiss such mothers?
It is impossible to have the television on, or the radio, to keep one company, as I used to like to do, without now being subjected to a "Viva Viagra" commercial about how long a man can have an erection, or some thinly veiled reference to oral sex. How many of you turn off the TV or the radio the instant that such filth comes on? Not so many I reckon. How many of you hold stock in those companies, or work behind the scenes on that type of marketing, all day every day? How can one be sanctified, have a cleansed palate for God in your average day, when you are in the tidal wave, either willingly or unwillingly, of filth?
Young people, this is one of the things I am trying to help you to understand, a time that was gone before you were born, but has become worse each year, as you've been growing up and have become young adults. Do not worry that I am being a fun destroying prude, LOL. If you think that, reread the example I have used, which is of the average police officer who maybe once in his entire career encountered terrible child pornographic filth or solicitation. Do not believe the liars of today who say it "always was there but just hidden." I mean, duh, how dumb do they think you are? Cell phones, computers, message boards and the Internet did not exist. Thus there was no way to cultivate the occasional pervert's taste into violent addictive action as there is today. Today there is a field full of weeds, rather than a field of wheat that would have the occasional, easily identified and controlled weed. You have been given, deliberately, or at the very least because they have been asleep at the wheel, a society of a destroyed cleansed palate, by your parents and their parents.
The sickening spread and virtual explosion of violence against even the tiniest infants (and even pet animals) and the total perversion of the beauty of intimacy, including sex, is happening because people are not living the way they used to be, which was with mental and spiritual cleansed palates... ones that they knew had to be restored to that normalcy of the cleansed palate, in between encounters with that which is unclean.
But to be unclean and uncleansed is the "new normal." That is the shocking and still, for me, who have seen this with my own eyes, the most difficult thing to comprehend how society has imploded and rotted from within, while calling that being "liberated." I don't think the police who spend their entire shifts hunting the worst baby raping perverts that have ever existed among humans feel particularly "liberated." I don't feel liberated when I sit down to blog and someone on the radio makes an oral sex allusion. Do you feel liberated, really? Young people, you certainly should not feel liberated. You have been chained in a meat market, out of reach of the place of the cleansed palate. Thus you cannot enjoy as you should the goodness of intimacy, of passion, or handle appropriately confrontations with filth, when they occur. Genuine liberation is to be able to operate from a clean base of stability, and thus you have a wide range of appropriate responses.
So if you are interested in being sanctified, as every human being should, which means to put God and his will first and foremost in your life, so that you can reap all the goodness of life as it exists now and have hope for the eternal bliss, you must be aware of the tide that you take for granted as "normal" that brings unclean and unease into your spirits and hearts, hindering sanctification. Shut it down, the unclean, wherever and whenever it is in your reach. Don't "put up with it" (like letting the TV drone on with filth) because as I said, as the holy man Isaiah knew, it besmirches even the unwilling.
What can you do on a practical level? First of all, this is one reason why frequent daily prayer is so helpful. People have started thinking too much of prayer as "asking God for something." Realize, instead, and remember that prayer is the ultimate palate cleanser. Prayer neutralizes filth because it removes you from it as you realign and reset your focus on what is true and good. So prayer is not just a tool for asking God for help. Prayer is the ultimate palate cleanser.
Then, as I have alluded to above, make your own space as clean as possible. For example, I stop visiting news web sites that when I click on them I immediately have some gigantic picture of fat boobs stuffed in my virtual face. Don't give them your clicks and don't let them plant those images with you. So clean up your space even though it's a daily battle, but think of weeding out the field (not taking weed, LOL). If you pull out each one as it pops up, eventually they diminish.
Also, be a trend setter and set your own example. Like I said I am no dreary prude. But there is a heck of a difference between a sharp dressed young man or woman and one who feels that I and the world need to see their tramp stamp or booty crack. There is a quiet young man who sometimes comes in for pizza where I regularly lunch and I totally love his clothes. He is so hip and yet modest. If you cultivate your own cleansed palate of taste in your own dignity and hipness, then your posse and others will follow you. You will be helping everyone with their own hip sanctification! Seriously, you do not want to be the one, like so many girls today, who wants to show off her stuff to every guy, hoping that guy goes home and hates his wife or girlfriend for not being as "hot" as her. Trust me, she'll be "hot" alright, in a way she eternally regrets. Again, this is not because God doesn't like showing off the human body. It's because God knows the hearts of all and their every thought, and he knows when people dress slutty so that they can harm the custody of the eyes and hearts, and thus sanctity and happiness, of others. Marketing people and greedy merchants better wise up to that too. How many erotic commercials fuel child molester fantasies? A lot of them and I know because as I said, I know what crime and society was like "before" and "after."
I hope, as always, that you are having a good day and that you have found this to be helpful.
The societal lack of "cleansing the palate" is one of the greatest obstacles to achieving, or even commencing, sanctity today. For example, one of my least favorite activities is to have my mind set on writing a blog posting that glorifies God, but I am interrupted with the need to blog about the dirtier works and sins of humans. However, because my heart, mind and spirit are always turned toward God, even as my fingers have to type less pleasant (but vital soul saving) blog entries, I do not have to "cleanse the palate" of my spirit and my mind, since my heart is always turned to God. White bread is often used as a gourmet palate cleanser, and so it does not seem a coincidence that one can think of God, through Jesus Christ, the living bread and staff of life, and remain cleansed in one's heart, mind and soul even when one must discuss distasteful things, such as sin and depravity in modern society, and the consequences of hell fire for all eternity.
However, since the vast majority of humans are not sanctified to God, but I do believe that many wish to be (however, they confuse it with the egocentric objective of being "very spiritual"), you need to realize that society and its dirt are a barrier to sanctification, as it requires extraordinary effort these days to "cleanse one's palate."
Let me introduce an old time admonishment, that is slang and said casually. In the old days when someone said something dirty (as in pornographic), profane (toward God), or cussed, often the listener would reply to that person, "You kiss your mother with that mouth?!"
This was in more innocent and good hearted days when often that admonishment was actually enough to make the hardened bad talker stop and be somewhat abashed. That's like back in the days when moms weren't competing to be as dirty as the celebrities, and when their children upheld their mother's level of decency. So yes, a simple expression like that caused many a cusser or dirty talker to stop in his tracks and blush. He would genuinely be ashamed to think of what had come out of his mouth, and that yes, that is the mouth that would kiss his mom on the cheek. That admonishment was a verbal palate cleanser.
Today it is just about impossible to cleanse the palate, spiritually. I don't mean to cleanse the palate to do some high and mighty worshipping or great spiritual work. I mean to go back to the normal state that one should be in nearly one hundred percent of the time! One should be living a life of having a cleansed palate, but one that is interrupted on occasion by the realities of life.
I'm not speaking of cussing here. I am speaking of living constantly within the increasing dirtiness of the world.
Here is an example of those who have to struggle because of the dirt of the world. It used to be that if you were a law enforcement official, it would be a very rare event when one had to investigate child pornography, child solicitation or child rape. The average cop might encounter one horrific example in his or her entire career! And that event would, of course, be a very low point and one that he or she not only had to prevent from depressing them, but also did not bring the sadness of it home to their family.
Now look at what the world, through human beings own choices, has brought to this example. Entire police departments have to assign full time officers to trolling through the filth of the Internet, identifying and capturing pedophiles and other child abusers. These officers have to look at more in FIVE MINUTES than most cops had to look at in their entire career. It is impossible for law enforcement people to ever cleanse their palates or have a cleansed palate, because they are standing within the tidal wave of filth.
I worry about professionals, and amateurs, who do this type of work with sincere hearts because I know that despite what they may say, it changes them forever and is a soul robbing experience. People often bandy about praying to the Archangel Michael, but this is an example where I recommend that those who must, because of their vocation, wade in such palate destroying filth, that they look at Michael as a role model, as the archangel who faces the worst of what Satan is, and yet remains totally pure and sanctified to God. Think of his role modeling as a palate cleanser. Also, do not be an egomaniac who thinks you are not affected and can do this for years at a time. Wading in filth, even for a "noble purpose" is a barrier to sanctity and your process of sanctification. Why? Because it takes up space in your mind and your heart, even as you combat it, that ought to be set only on the pure sights of God. You are having to "kiss God's cheek" with that mouth.
Isaiah 6:5-7
Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar.
He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."
Isaiah, the greatest of the prophets who prophesied the Messiah, Jesus Christ, knew that even as pure as he was, he could not be living as a human among humans with filthy lips without being at risk once he faces God, so upon the sight of God he is terrified of this knowledge. God respects this wisdom exhibited by Isaiah and thus the seraphim cleanses Isaiah's lips with burning coals from God's own altar. This is why you can look to God and his angels, such as Michael, with confidence and trust if you, through no fault of your own, are put within the filth of the times.
But what about the vast majority of people who wallow in and produce the filth? What about the many mothers today who purchase "booty enhancing" jeans and who have "tramp stamps" tattooed over their rear ends? Why should their children worry about with what lips they kiss such mothers?
It is impossible to have the television on, or the radio, to keep one company, as I used to like to do, without now being subjected to a "Viva Viagra" commercial about how long a man can have an erection, or some thinly veiled reference to oral sex. How many of you turn off the TV or the radio the instant that such filth comes on? Not so many I reckon. How many of you hold stock in those companies, or work behind the scenes on that type of marketing, all day every day? How can one be sanctified, have a cleansed palate for God in your average day, when you are in the tidal wave, either willingly or unwillingly, of filth?
Young people, this is one of the things I am trying to help you to understand, a time that was gone before you were born, but has become worse each year, as you've been growing up and have become young adults. Do not worry that I am being a fun destroying prude, LOL. If you think that, reread the example I have used, which is of the average police officer who maybe once in his entire career encountered terrible child pornographic filth or solicitation. Do not believe the liars of today who say it "always was there but just hidden." I mean, duh, how dumb do they think you are? Cell phones, computers, message boards and the Internet did not exist. Thus there was no way to cultivate the occasional pervert's taste into violent addictive action as there is today. Today there is a field full of weeds, rather than a field of wheat that would have the occasional, easily identified and controlled weed. You have been given, deliberately, or at the very least because they have been asleep at the wheel, a society of a destroyed cleansed palate, by your parents and their parents.
The sickening spread and virtual explosion of violence against even the tiniest infants (and even pet animals) and the total perversion of the beauty of intimacy, including sex, is happening because people are not living the way they used to be, which was with mental and spiritual cleansed palates... ones that they knew had to be restored to that normalcy of the cleansed palate, in between encounters with that which is unclean.
But to be unclean and uncleansed is the "new normal." That is the shocking and still, for me, who have seen this with my own eyes, the most difficult thing to comprehend how society has imploded and rotted from within, while calling that being "liberated." I don't think the police who spend their entire shifts hunting the worst baby raping perverts that have ever existed among humans feel particularly "liberated." I don't feel liberated when I sit down to blog and someone on the radio makes an oral sex allusion. Do you feel liberated, really? Young people, you certainly should not feel liberated. You have been chained in a meat market, out of reach of the place of the cleansed palate. Thus you cannot enjoy as you should the goodness of intimacy, of passion, or handle appropriately confrontations with filth, when they occur. Genuine liberation is to be able to operate from a clean base of stability, and thus you have a wide range of appropriate responses.
So if you are interested in being sanctified, as every human being should, which means to put God and his will first and foremost in your life, so that you can reap all the goodness of life as it exists now and have hope for the eternal bliss, you must be aware of the tide that you take for granted as "normal" that brings unclean and unease into your spirits and hearts, hindering sanctification. Shut it down, the unclean, wherever and whenever it is in your reach. Don't "put up with it" (like letting the TV drone on with filth) because as I said, as the holy man Isaiah knew, it besmirches even the unwilling.
What can you do on a practical level? First of all, this is one reason why frequent daily prayer is so helpful. People have started thinking too much of prayer as "asking God for something." Realize, instead, and remember that prayer is the ultimate palate cleanser. Prayer neutralizes filth because it removes you from it as you realign and reset your focus on what is true and good. So prayer is not just a tool for asking God for help. Prayer is the ultimate palate cleanser.
Then, as I have alluded to above, make your own space as clean as possible. For example, I stop visiting news web sites that when I click on them I immediately have some gigantic picture of fat boobs stuffed in my virtual face. Don't give them your clicks and don't let them plant those images with you. So clean up your space even though it's a daily battle, but think of weeding out the field (not taking weed, LOL). If you pull out each one as it pops up, eventually they diminish.
Also, be a trend setter and set your own example. Like I said I am no dreary prude. But there is a heck of a difference between a sharp dressed young man or woman and one who feels that I and the world need to see their tramp stamp or booty crack. There is a quiet young man who sometimes comes in for pizza where I regularly lunch and I totally love his clothes. He is so hip and yet modest. If you cultivate your own cleansed palate of taste in your own dignity and hipness, then your posse and others will follow you. You will be helping everyone with their own hip sanctification! Seriously, you do not want to be the one, like so many girls today, who wants to show off her stuff to every guy, hoping that guy goes home and hates his wife or girlfriend for not being as "hot" as her. Trust me, she'll be "hot" alright, in a way she eternally regrets. Again, this is not because God doesn't like showing off the human body. It's because God knows the hearts of all and their every thought, and he knows when people dress slutty so that they can harm the custody of the eyes and hearts, and thus sanctity and happiness, of others. Marketing people and greedy merchants better wise up to that too. How many erotic commercials fuel child molester fantasies? A lot of them and I know because as I said, I know what crime and society was like "before" and "after."
I hope, as always, that you are having a good day and that you have found this to be helpful.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Fulton Sheen about sin and human nature
While not (yet) declared a saint, few of this past century have led more to God than the late, great Archbishop Fulton Sheen. One can never go wrong reading the writings of Fulton Sheen, or watching those episodes of his television show that one can find. Here is a section of his writing, taken from the Michael Dubruiel book “Praying in the Presence of Our Lord with Fulton J. Sheen” that I’ve wanted to share and point out to you for several days now.
From “Peace of Soul” by Fulton Sheen:
First, man is not an angel, nor is he a devil. He is not intrinsically corrupt (as theologians began claiming four hundred years ago) nor is he intrinsically divine (as philosophers began saying fifty years ago). Rather, man has aspirations to good which he finds it impossible to realize completely by himself; at the same time, he has an inclination toward evil which solicits him away from these ideals. He is like a man who is down in a well through his own stupidity. He knows he ought not to be there, but cannot get out by himself. Or, to change the picture, he is like a clock whose mainspring is broken. He needs to be fixed on the inside, but the repairs must be supplied from without. He is mistaken if he is an optimist, who believes evolution to be the mainspring, or a pessimist who believes that nobody can fix him. He is a creature who can run well again, but only if some watchmaker will have the kindness to repair him.
Second, this conflict has all the appearances of being due to the abuse of human freedom. As the drunkard is what he is, because of an act of choice, so human nature seems to have lost the original goodness with which a Good God endowed it, through an act of choice. As St. Augustine said, “Whatever we are, we are not what we ought to be.” The origin of this conflict has been told by medieval and modern theologians through the analogy of music. Picture an orchestra on stage with a celebrated conductor directing the beautiful symphony he himself composed. Each member of the orchestra is free to follow the conductor and thus to produce harmony. But each member is also free to disobey the conductor. Suppose one of the musicians deliberately plays a false note and then induces a violinist alongside of him to do the same. Having heard the discord, the conductor can do one of two things. He could either strike his baton and order the measure replayed, or he could ignore the discord. It would make no difference which he did, for that discord has already gone out into space at a certain temperature at the rate of about 1100 feet a second. On and on it goes, affecting even the infinitesimally small radiations of the universe. As the stone dropped in a pond causes a ripple which affects the most distant shore, so this discord affects even the stars. As long as time endures, somewhere in God’s universe there is a disharmony, introduced by the free will of man.
Could that discord be stopped? Not by man himself, for man could never reach it; time is irreversible and man is localized in space. It could, however, be stopped by the Eternal coming out of His agelessness into time, laying hold of the false note, arresting it in its flight? But would it still be discord in God’s Hands? No! Not if God wrote a new symphony and made the false note its first note! Then all would be harmony again.
From “Peace of Soul” by Fulton Sheen:
First, man is not an angel, nor is he a devil. He is not intrinsically corrupt (as theologians began claiming four hundred years ago) nor is he intrinsically divine (as philosophers began saying fifty years ago). Rather, man has aspirations to good which he finds it impossible to realize completely by himself; at the same time, he has an inclination toward evil which solicits him away from these ideals. He is like a man who is down in a well through his own stupidity. He knows he ought not to be there, but cannot get out by himself. Or, to change the picture, he is like a clock whose mainspring is broken. He needs to be fixed on the inside, but the repairs must be supplied from without. He is mistaken if he is an optimist, who believes evolution to be the mainspring, or a pessimist who believes that nobody can fix him. He is a creature who can run well again, but only if some watchmaker will have the kindness to repair him.
Second, this conflict has all the appearances of being due to the abuse of human freedom. As the drunkard is what he is, because of an act of choice, so human nature seems to have lost the original goodness with which a Good God endowed it, through an act of choice. As St. Augustine said, “Whatever we are, we are not what we ought to be.” The origin of this conflict has been told by medieval and modern theologians through the analogy of music. Picture an orchestra on stage with a celebrated conductor directing the beautiful symphony he himself composed. Each member of the orchestra is free to follow the conductor and thus to produce harmony. But each member is also free to disobey the conductor. Suppose one of the musicians deliberately plays a false note and then induces a violinist alongside of him to do the same. Having heard the discord, the conductor can do one of two things. He could either strike his baton and order the measure replayed, or he could ignore the discord. It would make no difference which he did, for that discord has already gone out into space at a certain temperature at the rate of about 1100 feet a second. On and on it goes, affecting even the infinitesimally small radiations of the universe. As the stone dropped in a pond causes a ripple which affects the most distant shore, so this discord affects even the stars. As long as time endures, somewhere in God’s universe there is a disharmony, introduced by the free will of man.
Could that discord be stopped? Not by man himself, for man could never reach it; time is irreversible and man is localized in space. It could, however, be stopped by the Eternal coming out of His agelessness into time, laying hold of the false note, arresting it in its flight? But would it still be discord in God’s Hands? No! Not if God wrote a new symphony and made the false note its first note! Then all would be harmony again.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Correction about frozen embryo confusion
I have read that some very loving and well meaning Catholics have trouble with Catholic doctrine opposing the creation and use of human embryos. For example, these Catholics question why they should not "rescue" frozen embryos that were created for someone else's in vitro fertilization and is no longer needed, and thus are kept frozen indefinitely or discarded.
I think people need to be very clear about one thing before the dialogue (and disagreement) continues.
The Church is correct to state that frozen embryos have "dignity." This is a very precise word that does not imply they have a soul. As I've blogged about this before, but to re-summarize, a soul is created by God and given to an embryo at the moment that it is created and "quickens." This means that the embryo must be attached to the mother's womb and making its first cell division of life. God does not put souls in inanimate objects, such as a frozen embryo. The Church is very wise to use the term "dignity" because even though the frozen embryo is not yet living it is full of the potential for a human real life and thus it has the full dignity of its potential. As such it must be guarded as diligently as a living embryo. This is why the Church correctly opposes the existence of frozen embryos, regardless of the good intentions of the would-be parents. When one has a frozen embryo one has in uncommitted hands the full potential of a life with dignity. Fortunately God, in his wisdom, does not allow humans to play God and have souls placed in frozen inanimate potential humans.
Thus someone who "rescues" a frozen embryo cannot do so by justifying that the embryo has a frozen soul in there. Good grief, humans have already made a horror show of life, can you imagine if souls were actually "freezable" in embryos? Only humans can think of such a scenario, not God.
Having said that, even "without a soul" the embryo is entitled to full dignity because it, like all embryos, are a "promise" from God, a promise that a human life with soul comes into being if the embryo is unfrozen, implanted in a woman and quickens into life. If the embryo does not naturally take to the placenta and quicken then it never received the soul.
Thus I fully understand why the Church is discouraging the enabling of what they consider to be an initial wrong, the creation of a "just in case we ever want to use it" embryo that is frozen and thus robbed of its dignity, with a questionable but well intentioned intervention of adopting a frozen embryo and implanting it.
The Church is correctly concerned of two problems with frozen embryo adoption. One is that humans assume that they can invoke an embryo and a soul and freeze it, thus making people who are horrified at this scenario feel pressured to act to "rescue the frozen soul." That is science fiction, not reality. No souls are frozen in human embryos. So the Church is worried that frozen embryo rescuers have an erroneous and very painful and alarming view of the frozen embryo as not just having dignity, which it has, but a trapped frozen soul, which it does not.
The second problem the Church is concerned with is providing a moral escape hatch for an immoral practice. Thus instead of those who produce frozen embryos having the onus on them of doing something wrong, the faithful are felt that if they don't intervene with adoption that they are allowing a horror to continue (the embryo being frozen indefinitely or discarded). To use an example, the comedy magazine "National Lampoon" once had on the cover the photograph of a cute dog with a gun being held to its head, the caption reading "Buy this magazine or we will shoot this dog!" That was, obviously, an example of subversive humor, satire and irony rolled into one. This was a long time ago but I think I remember that in the inside of the magazine they had a photograph of the dog lying down with the caption, "We shot it anyway."
This is a trivial but wise in human understanding, this ironic humor from years ago, of how to "transfer guilt and complicity." It is one of Satan's favorite tools. It allows someone to initiate the sin and then force through guilt and good intentions someone else to take "moral" responsibility for "fixing" the original wrong and sin. The Church is correctly very alert and wise to this tool of Satan's, to transfer guilt from the guilty to the innocent.
Trust the judgment of the Church for they know well this device. Refuse to be the one who is "handed the guilt" of someone else's wrong doing, bad judgment or sin.
This is not to say that someone who adopts a frozen embryo and brings a child to term has now committed the sin of the people who created the frozen embryo in the first place. However, they have inadvertently provided moral "cover" to the people who did so, not in God's eyes, but in the secular world's eyes, thus removing impetus to re-evaluate and correct a moral problem such as frozen embryos. This is nothing new except in the subtlety of the temptation to take responsibility for "fixing" someone else's ongoing wrong.
This is an important distinction. You can fix a wrong or a sin that has happened and is completed. You cannot fix a wrong or a sin that is ongoing. The ongoing sin, wrong or error must be re-evaluated and corrected, not enabled by the just taking responsibility for perpetuation of the actions of the unjust.
For example, you would rescue a starving person and feed them. But you would not agree to allow a family to starve their child, and you visit once a week to give the child just enough food to keep on clinging to life. That is the difference between correcting a wrong and enabling a wrong. In such a scenario the abusers could argue that you agree that starvation of a child is acceptable, and that if the child dies it is your fault because you did not show up on time for the once a week giving of just enough sustenance for the child to continue to survive.
Listen to the Church, for she is wise in these ways of Satan and of weak and sinful humans. Do not accept responsibility for a wrong that is ongoing and if anything increasing.
I hope that you have found this helpful; this transfer of guilt from the unjust to the just is one of the fundamental moral crises of modern humanity and one must be wise and vigilant to not co-depend and enable error, bad judgment (even if "well intended") and ultimately sinfulness and lack of dignity throughout the whole process of life.
AND, no, I would not "feel different" about it if it were "my own embryos." If anything I would be more determined that they should be discarded since I have never given permission for my eggs to be kept and frozen, nor would I have ever given permission, nor would I have ever given permission for being part of a frozen embryo. Thus if anyone did that "behind my back" as the result of the surgeries I had, I would be the first to insist that they be respectfully discarded because the only reason someone does this type of thing behind someone's back is for occult reasons. I would never consider for one second having a "different" view of this matter and if anything, I would point to the grave moral peril that all who engage in these activities are in.
I think people need to be very clear about one thing before the dialogue (and disagreement) continues.
The Church is correct to state that frozen embryos have "dignity." This is a very precise word that does not imply they have a soul. As I've blogged about this before, but to re-summarize, a soul is created by God and given to an embryo at the moment that it is created and "quickens." This means that the embryo must be attached to the mother's womb and making its first cell division of life. God does not put souls in inanimate objects, such as a frozen embryo. The Church is very wise to use the term "dignity" because even though the frozen embryo is not yet living it is full of the potential for a human real life and thus it has the full dignity of its potential. As such it must be guarded as diligently as a living embryo. This is why the Church correctly opposes the existence of frozen embryos, regardless of the good intentions of the would-be parents. When one has a frozen embryo one has in uncommitted hands the full potential of a life with dignity. Fortunately God, in his wisdom, does not allow humans to play God and have souls placed in frozen inanimate potential humans.
Thus someone who "rescues" a frozen embryo cannot do so by justifying that the embryo has a frozen soul in there. Good grief, humans have already made a horror show of life, can you imagine if souls were actually "freezable" in embryos? Only humans can think of such a scenario, not God.
Having said that, even "without a soul" the embryo is entitled to full dignity because it, like all embryos, are a "promise" from God, a promise that a human life with soul comes into being if the embryo is unfrozen, implanted in a woman and quickens into life. If the embryo does not naturally take to the placenta and quicken then it never received the soul.
Thus I fully understand why the Church is discouraging the enabling of what they consider to be an initial wrong, the creation of a "just in case we ever want to use it" embryo that is frozen and thus robbed of its dignity, with a questionable but well intentioned intervention of adopting a frozen embryo and implanting it.
The Church is correctly concerned of two problems with frozen embryo adoption. One is that humans assume that they can invoke an embryo and a soul and freeze it, thus making people who are horrified at this scenario feel pressured to act to "rescue the frozen soul." That is science fiction, not reality. No souls are frozen in human embryos. So the Church is worried that frozen embryo rescuers have an erroneous and very painful and alarming view of the frozen embryo as not just having dignity, which it has, but a trapped frozen soul, which it does not.
The second problem the Church is concerned with is providing a moral escape hatch for an immoral practice. Thus instead of those who produce frozen embryos having the onus on them of doing something wrong, the faithful are felt that if they don't intervene with adoption that they are allowing a horror to continue (the embryo being frozen indefinitely or discarded). To use an example, the comedy magazine "National Lampoon" once had on the cover the photograph of a cute dog with a gun being held to its head, the caption reading "Buy this magazine or we will shoot this dog!" That was, obviously, an example of subversive humor, satire and irony rolled into one. This was a long time ago but I think I remember that in the inside of the magazine they had a photograph of the dog lying down with the caption, "We shot it anyway."
This is a trivial but wise in human understanding, this ironic humor from years ago, of how to "transfer guilt and complicity." It is one of Satan's favorite tools. It allows someone to initiate the sin and then force through guilt and good intentions someone else to take "moral" responsibility for "fixing" the original wrong and sin. The Church is correctly very alert and wise to this tool of Satan's, to transfer guilt from the guilty to the innocent.
Trust the judgment of the Church for they know well this device. Refuse to be the one who is "handed the guilt" of someone else's wrong doing, bad judgment or sin.
This is not to say that someone who adopts a frozen embryo and brings a child to term has now committed the sin of the people who created the frozen embryo in the first place. However, they have inadvertently provided moral "cover" to the people who did so, not in God's eyes, but in the secular world's eyes, thus removing impetus to re-evaluate and correct a moral problem such as frozen embryos. This is nothing new except in the subtlety of the temptation to take responsibility for "fixing" someone else's ongoing wrong.
This is an important distinction. You can fix a wrong or a sin that has happened and is completed. You cannot fix a wrong or a sin that is ongoing. The ongoing sin, wrong or error must be re-evaluated and corrected, not enabled by the just taking responsibility for perpetuation of the actions of the unjust.
For example, you would rescue a starving person and feed them. But you would not agree to allow a family to starve their child, and you visit once a week to give the child just enough food to keep on clinging to life. That is the difference between correcting a wrong and enabling a wrong. In such a scenario the abusers could argue that you agree that starvation of a child is acceptable, and that if the child dies it is your fault because you did not show up on time for the once a week giving of just enough sustenance for the child to continue to survive.
Listen to the Church, for she is wise in these ways of Satan and of weak and sinful humans. Do not accept responsibility for a wrong that is ongoing and if anything increasing.
I hope that you have found this helpful; this transfer of guilt from the unjust to the just is one of the fundamental moral crises of modern humanity and one must be wise and vigilant to not co-depend and enable error, bad judgment (even if "well intended") and ultimately sinfulness and lack of dignity throughout the whole process of life.
AND, no, I would not "feel different" about it if it were "my own embryos." If anything I would be more determined that they should be discarded since I have never given permission for my eggs to be kept and frozen, nor would I have ever given permission, nor would I have ever given permission for being part of a frozen embryo. Thus if anyone did that "behind my back" as the result of the surgeries I had, I would be the first to insist that they be respectfully discarded because the only reason someone does this type of thing behind someone's back is for occult reasons. I would never consider for one second having a "different" view of this matter and if anything, I would point to the grave moral peril that all who engage in these activities are in.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Archbishop Niederauer statement very good
I am very pleased with the statement by the Most Reverend George H. Niederauer regarding the scandalous misstatements by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Read it in its entirety at this link.
http://www.catholic-sf.org/FPArticle14b.htm
***
I think the statement is excellent in both its pastoral and its doctrinal balance. Archbishop Niederauer takes the time to allow the reader into both the doctrinal and the pastoral thought process and this is very valuable to both the faithful and to observers of the Catholic faith. He has done a great service in the construction of this document.
Some within the Catholic community have expressed disappointment at his statement stopping short of a bottom line ultimatum regarding the continued receiving of the Holy Eucharist sacrament by Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, that is not appropriate until after their face to face conversation. But I would also point out something that I am sure Archbishop Niederauer is referring to but not yet closing the door until they have had clarity of dialogue. That is that, as you read in the letter, the Church understands that some of the faithful may grapple silently in their hearts with one or more of the Church's teachings, yet still receive the sacraments in good heart. The difference is when people try to publicly, or privately (though we have no way of knowing those instances) attempt to lead faithful individuals or the community as a whole away from Church doctrine and undermine their faith. In a word, that is "leading someone into sin," something that Jesus Christ warned against in no uncertain terms.
When Speaker Pelosi made her scandalous representations of herself being an expert in Church doctrine AND then stating her "interpretations" which were in direct opposition to some of the most fundamental of Church doctrine regarding the sanctity of life, in my opinion she was publicly attempting to lead the faithful into sin. She was not a person, an individual, grappling in her heart with an issue, even one as basic as the sin of abortion, who nonetheless keeps her doubts to herself or her family and her pastor, and who can continue to receive the sacrament in good faith and heart. I know there are certain Catholics I could mention who grapple with understanding why lying and thievery are so wrong. (*lame laugh*) But it is when a Catholic takes to the public secular "pulpit" and promotes defiance of Church teaching that they need to be barred from the Holy Eucharist.
If after their conversation Speaker Pelosi acknowledges that she does not speak for the Church, that she did not fully understand the sanctity of life doctrine and its infallibility in that it is consistent from the very Apostolic beginnings of the Church, and she furthermore retains her internal conflict and support of abortion into an individual matter of her own soul, then I expect that Archbishop Niederauer is leaving room for allowing her to continue to receive in good faith. I believe this is why, correctly, he describes the internal dilemma that some faithful may have about an issue, but still receive the sacrament in good faith. It is the attempt to be a "Piper" to lead the faithful into having doubt about their doctrine by a self proclaimed "expert" that is so scandalous and places her in jeopardy of being sinfully unworthy of the Holy Eucharist in sacrament. I wish them well in their dialogue and commend the Archbishop for his very balanced but firm, appropriate and comprehensive letter that leads up to the anticipated pastoral conversation and outcome.
http://www.catholic-sf.org/FPArticle14b.htm
***
I think the statement is excellent in both its pastoral and its doctrinal balance. Archbishop Niederauer takes the time to allow the reader into both the doctrinal and the pastoral thought process and this is very valuable to both the faithful and to observers of the Catholic faith. He has done a great service in the construction of this document.
Some within the Catholic community have expressed disappointment at his statement stopping short of a bottom line ultimatum regarding the continued receiving of the Holy Eucharist sacrament by Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, that is not appropriate until after their face to face conversation. But I would also point out something that I am sure Archbishop Niederauer is referring to but not yet closing the door until they have had clarity of dialogue. That is that, as you read in the letter, the Church understands that some of the faithful may grapple silently in their hearts with one or more of the Church's teachings, yet still receive the sacraments in good heart. The difference is when people try to publicly, or privately (though we have no way of knowing those instances) attempt to lead faithful individuals or the community as a whole away from Church doctrine and undermine their faith. In a word, that is "leading someone into sin," something that Jesus Christ warned against in no uncertain terms.
When Speaker Pelosi made her scandalous representations of herself being an expert in Church doctrine AND then stating her "interpretations" which were in direct opposition to some of the most fundamental of Church doctrine regarding the sanctity of life, in my opinion she was publicly attempting to lead the faithful into sin. She was not a person, an individual, grappling in her heart with an issue, even one as basic as the sin of abortion, who nonetheless keeps her doubts to herself or her family and her pastor, and who can continue to receive the sacrament in good faith and heart. I know there are certain Catholics I could mention who grapple with understanding why lying and thievery are so wrong. (*lame laugh*) But it is when a Catholic takes to the public secular "pulpit" and promotes defiance of Church teaching that they need to be barred from the Holy Eucharist.
If after their conversation Speaker Pelosi acknowledges that she does not speak for the Church, that she did not fully understand the sanctity of life doctrine and its infallibility in that it is consistent from the very Apostolic beginnings of the Church, and she furthermore retains her internal conflict and support of abortion into an individual matter of her own soul, then I expect that Archbishop Niederauer is leaving room for allowing her to continue to receive in good faith. I believe this is why, correctly, he describes the internal dilemma that some faithful may have about an issue, but still receive the sacrament in good faith. It is the attempt to be a "Piper" to lead the faithful into having doubt about their doctrine by a self proclaimed "expert" that is so scandalous and places her in jeopardy of being sinfully unworthy of the Holy Eucharist in sacrament. I wish them well in their dialogue and commend the Archbishop for his very balanced but firm, appropriate and comprehensive letter that leads up to the anticipated pastoral conversation and outcome.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Drug dealing teens risk hell upon death
I hate to be the one who has to constantly explain the negative and harsh realities of sin. If I were living several hundred years ago, I would not have to do this because people were much more realistic about understanding the consequences of sin and the reality of God and his rule. People got periodic reminders (through "fire and brimstone" sermons), but as a whole, people of all faiths were quite aware that being in a state of continual sin upon death yielded eternal punishment in hell, and cost them any opportunity to receive mercy and merit heaven. Also, it is only recently that society has given the opportunity for "adult" sin to children and youth, yet at the same time somehow fool themselves that because he or she "is just a kid" that they will not suffer the consequences of their sin should they perish as a youth. In the Catholic faith it is doctrine that children who turn seven years old well understand the difference between right and wrong, sin and virtue, and they are taught how to identify and confess sin in Church. At the age of thirteen they are "confirmed" (like Jewish bar mitzvah), which means they are expected to be knowledgable defenders of their faith. Therefore a teenager is obviously "not a child" regarding sin and their responsibility, regardless of the enabling "juvie" mentality of modern society.
So I want to select one example to make it very clear, and I'm truly sorry this is painful for many to read. The question of being an illegal drug user and addict is one thing, and only God can really tell the line between willfully sinful behavior and illness or defect in personality. However, there is no question about a drug user who also deals, enables, provides or transports. An addicted teenager who dies, having only harmed him or herself through his or her drug use, has access to mercy from God. But an addicted teenager who also enables others, even in the sharing of "small" amounts of drugs, has taken upon him or her self the leading of others, especially children or youth, into sin. Jesus warned about this in no uncertain terms. Jesus said that it would be better to cut one's own hand off, or pluck out an eye, rather than be lead into sin and worse, leading other children into sin.
I know that parents and friends like to kid themselves that a drug dealing youth who dies tragically is "at peace," "with the Lord," or "watching over his or her loved ones in spirit." I'm not trying to ruin anyone's tenuous peace of mind in their time of terrible grief, loss and mourning. But I'm trying to save you from 1) even having to have the loss because of allowing your kids to get involved in drug dealing or enabling and 2) sending your own kids and friends to hell, unknowingly, through your acquiescence in their drug dealing, only to find out the hard way when YOU die and become accountable for their sins, in portion to YOUR responsibility.
So whether you are a weak mother or a negligent absentee bad example setting father, you cannot claim to have certainty of your drug dealing or enabling child achieving heaven, and quite to the contrary, you have a lot to worry about with the other side of the equation where they end up. Additionally, YOU will be held to account for your bad example, your leading into sin, and your neglect of not only your child but also what you may be "contributing" in that regard to society.
Capiche??? I'm not speaking for God, but I am reminding you of knowledge about God and his judgment that used to be commonplace and WELL UNDERSTOOD among humans prior to these past two generations.
So I want to select one example to make it very clear, and I'm truly sorry this is painful for many to read. The question of being an illegal drug user and addict is one thing, and only God can really tell the line between willfully sinful behavior and illness or defect in personality. However, there is no question about a drug user who also deals, enables, provides or transports. An addicted teenager who dies, having only harmed him or herself through his or her drug use, has access to mercy from God. But an addicted teenager who also enables others, even in the sharing of "small" amounts of drugs, has taken upon him or her self the leading of others, especially children or youth, into sin. Jesus warned about this in no uncertain terms. Jesus said that it would be better to cut one's own hand off, or pluck out an eye, rather than be lead into sin and worse, leading other children into sin.
I know that parents and friends like to kid themselves that a drug dealing youth who dies tragically is "at peace," "with the Lord," or "watching over his or her loved ones in spirit." I'm not trying to ruin anyone's tenuous peace of mind in their time of terrible grief, loss and mourning. But I'm trying to save you from 1) even having to have the loss because of allowing your kids to get involved in drug dealing or enabling and 2) sending your own kids and friends to hell, unknowingly, through your acquiescence in their drug dealing, only to find out the hard way when YOU die and become accountable for their sins, in portion to YOUR responsibility.
So whether you are a weak mother or a negligent absentee bad example setting father, you cannot claim to have certainty of your drug dealing or enabling child achieving heaven, and quite to the contrary, you have a lot to worry about with the other side of the equation where they end up. Additionally, YOU will be held to account for your bad example, your leading into sin, and your neglect of not only your child but also what you may be "contributing" in that regard to society.
Capiche??? I'm not speaking for God, but I am reminding you of knowledge about God and his judgment that used to be commonplace and WELL UNDERSTOOD among humans prior to these past two generations.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Spiritual direction: Catholics and birth control
This subject always comes up as probably the most difficult of the Catholic Church's teachings to accept. I've mentioned this before, but since there's a lot of blogging of the anniversary of Pope Paul VI's HV, here is a quick reminder.
If you read and study either the Bible or the Qur'an, you will not find any orientation toward individual salvation. That's right... salvation is always described on a societal and community basis. SIN most certainly is discussed on an individual basis, as are the Gospels that relate the events and teachings in Jesus' life. Just to be clear, I am not saying that souls are not saved one at a time. But God's laws are not written with individual salvation in mind. God's laws are written so that the human species can survive and thrive as his children.
Therefore, God's "bar is raised higher" than the individual salvation, or sin, of any one person. God did not sit down and go, "Hmm, what is the list of things that all good individuals must do to be saved." God gave prohibitions and teachings to the "community of the faithful," starting with the chosen people, the Israelites. God's first words to Adam and Eve after they sinned regarded how humans as a whole would live, not just the sinners, or the obedient.
Birth control and homosexual behavior therefore fall under the category of God's admonitions for the survival and thriving as people as a whole. I described in a previous post that Biblical "gays" would never have dreamed of wanting a "gay lifestyle," for the most part, because individual sex acts and desires were by choice subordinated by the predominant desire of all men to have a wife and children. That's why there is condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible, but not a lot of stories or parables about individual sexual acts. God's not as concerned about individual sexual preferences but God is very concerned about how humanity and its society as a whole will, and there's no nice way to put it, will be allowed to continue.
So the Catholic Church continues to uphold the standard that God himself established for the community of the faithful (and humanity as a whole) to continue its well being. Those dogmas are the hardest to follow and God knows that, obviously. Therefore the Church cannot and should not "soften" or "modernize" its interpretation of the expectations by God of humans. However, when giving spiritual direction I advise that on an individual basis, these are the areas where one is most likely to be able to "take one's chances" with God.
God certainly understands family planning and spacing of births. Also, society has changed so that people are irresponsible toward supporting babies and single parents. So it is understandable, but not allowable dogma, that individuals make decisions about birth control and sex acts that are prohibited by God and his Church. If a person is leading a modest and virtuous life, but makes individual choices about birth control or individual sex acts, "I like your odds," if you know what I mean. Someone who "takes a chance" and is otherwise very pious and observant but practices artificial birth control in a family setting sure has "better odds" of being forgiven than someone who repeatedly aborts in order to be sexually promiscuous.
I have a headache from the terrible mood and violence of the times, and also the living conditions I've had to endure for years now, so I'm not going to go into detail on this subject. I mostly wanted to get it out there so you can start to think about how the Church is not supposed to "lower the bar" because it has a responsibility toward humanity as a whole to keep it right where God set it. However, there are certain sins that one can see that Jesus, for example, had a merciful view of, and thus one can understand being pious and yet "chancing it with God's mercy" in those areas. I think you get my point. Part of being judicious is keeping one's mouth shut and not high profiling those areas where you are "taking a chance with God's mercy." That way you do not tempt others to follow you in sin, when they may not be so well positioned in their internal virtue and morality. That's why I repeatedly admonish my gay friends to not "promote the lifestyle." Likewise I do not think that those on birth control should rub the priest's nose in it, or their parish, touting themselves as enlightened and modern. I think it should be confessed, obviously, but not advertised as an area where debate is valid, because it is not. God knows all and sets standards for humans for a reason. It is not a "report card" for one by one salvation, as many seem to think today. It is the conditions under which God will offer his protection for the continuation of humanity. Period.
If you read and study either the Bible or the Qur'an, you will not find any orientation toward individual salvation. That's right... salvation is always described on a societal and community basis. SIN most certainly is discussed on an individual basis, as are the Gospels that relate the events and teachings in Jesus' life. Just to be clear, I am not saying that souls are not saved one at a time. But God's laws are not written with individual salvation in mind. God's laws are written so that the human species can survive and thrive as his children.
Therefore, God's "bar is raised higher" than the individual salvation, or sin, of any one person. God did not sit down and go, "Hmm, what is the list of things that all good individuals must do to be saved." God gave prohibitions and teachings to the "community of the faithful," starting with the chosen people, the Israelites. God's first words to Adam and Eve after they sinned regarded how humans as a whole would live, not just the sinners, or the obedient.
Birth control and homosexual behavior therefore fall under the category of God's admonitions for the survival and thriving as people as a whole. I described in a previous post that Biblical "gays" would never have dreamed of wanting a "gay lifestyle," for the most part, because individual sex acts and desires were by choice subordinated by the predominant desire of all men to have a wife and children. That's why there is condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible, but not a lot of stories or parables about individual sexual acts. God's not as concerned about individual sexual preferences but God is very concerned about how humanity and its society as a whole will, and there's no nice way to put it, will be allowed to continue.
So the Catholic Church continues to uphold the standard that God himself established for the community of the faithful (and humanity as a whole) to continue its well being. Those dogmas are the hardest to follow and God knows that, obviously. Therefore the Church cannot and should not "soften" or "modernize" its interpretation of the expectations by God of humans. However, when giving spiritual direction I advise that on an individual basis, these are the areas where one is most likely to be able to "take one's chances" with God.
God certainly understands family planning and spacing of births. Also, society has changed so that people are irresponsible toward supporting babies and single parents. So it is understandable, but not allowable dogma, that individuals make decisions about birth control and sex acts that are prohibited by God and his Church. If a person is leading a modest and virtuous life, but makes individual choices about birth control or individual sex acts, "I like your odds," if you know what I mean. Someone who "takes a chance" and is otherwise very pious and observant but practices artificial birth control in a family setting sure has "better odds" of being forgiven than someone who repeatedly aborts in order to be sexually promiscuous.
I have a headache from the terrible mood and violence of the times, and also the living conditions I've had to endure for years now, so I'm not going to go into detail on this subject. I mostly wanted to get it out there so you can start to think about how the Church is not supposed to "lower the bar" because it has a responsibility toward humanity as a whole to keep it right where God set it. However, there are certain sins that one can see that Jesus, for example, had a merciful view of, and thus one can understand being pious and yet "chancing it with God's mercy" in those areas. I think you get my point. Part of being judicious is keeping one's mouth shut and not high profiling those areas where you are "taking a chance with God's mercy." That way you do not tempt others to follow you in sin, when they may not be so well positioned in their internal virtue and morality. That's why I repeatedly admonish my gay friends to not "promote the lifestyle." Likewise I do not think that those on birth control should rub the priest's nose in it, or their parish, touting themselves as enlightened and modern. I think it should be confessed, obviously, but not advertised as an area where debate is valid, because it is not. God knows all and sets standards for humans for a reason. It is not a "report card" for one by one salvation, as many seem to think today. It is the conditions under which God will offer his protection for the continuation of humanity. Period.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
A very secular analogy about sin
The Bible cautions and admonishes against both sinning and "leading others into sin." How to make it easy to understand why "leading others into sin" is extra bad and will incur severe chastisement? I thought of this analogy.
Suppose you are a person who drinks alcohol. So think of the ability to consume a glass of wine or other alcohol beverage as a normal dietary activity, part of your meal, or to be social, even as a healthy thing to do if we believe the "Mediterranean diet." So if your religion does not prohibit alcohol and if you have a moderate amount, let's use that as the baseline in this analogy of being "no sin."
Suppose you have a little too much on one occasion and you drive yourself home, taking a risk that you are "buzz driving," but you make it OK. You can see that this gets into a gray shading area, where it's not the "no sin" of the first example, but you "got away with it." So it's dicey but it was only the one time, so it's "no sin but not exactly smart or noble."
Now let's suppose that you make a habit of drinking and driving. That gray just got a lot darker because you are putting yourself and others regularly at risk. So you've entered into the sin zone.
Now let's suppose that you regularly drink, drive and carry passengers. Whether you actually ever have a wreck or not that is very much in the sin zone. Why? Not just because of the risk but because you are now setting an example to others that this is OK to do AND giving your loved ones reason to worry and be unhappy and scared. So this is very much a strongly sinful stage.
(Remember, I'm using this as an analogy, as you'll see clearly with the next few examples. I'm not making up or assigning new classes of sin for the Vatican to publish!)
Now let's suppose that you drink, drive, carry passengers and also purchase alcohol for minors using your ID and allow minors to drink in your house. You've now made that sin contagious. That is called "leading others into sin." When you "just" had the passengers, that was setting a bad example AND leading them into danger, but not leading them into sin. But when you enable minors, in this example, you are leading them into danger of addiction or harm associated with consumption, plus breaking the law, plus depriving them of good parental authority. It's harmful in a lot of ways but most of all because you put them on a path to be able to sin on their own. That is why "leading others into sin" is huge, and very outrageous in God's eyes. God knows everything through all time and God will continue to "track" all the people who you led into sin. So if the minors develop habits or sin on their own, all of this will be known to God and attributed to you.
Now suppose that you drink, drive, carry passengers, purchase alcohol for minors AND call out to everyone in a bar or restaurant "open bar on me!" Now I'm not using an example of a function such as a party or wedding where you pick up the bill for the event and that includes open bar. I'm using an analogy. Here, though, you create a "free for all" of "leading others into sin." In other words, without knowing the age, disabilities, possible addictions, or whether they will drive themselves home or not, you let the alcohol flow without any limitation. This is like "leading others into sin" by having an open bar tab. And what is this most like? Creating a false religion.
Someone who creates a false religion is like shouting "open bar" at an AA meeting, at children's schools, and among the lonely, and running a tab that goes on for hundreds of years. Why do I say this? Because in this analogy you are offering unrestricted alcohol consumption to those who are the most vulnerable to abuse. People who create their "own churches" basically open a never ending bar tab that will draw customers from the weak and vulnerable who have fallen away from institutional religions, or are too young to have the choice, because their parents bring them to "your bar." Now remember, I'm not talking about mainstream religions, even those that are very local and non-denominational, yet still in mainstream Christian beliefs, for example. I'm talking about "personal revelation" churches, cult of personality churches, financially or sexually exploitative churches, cults, paganism, witchcraft and so forth. When, in this type of analogy, a person founds a cult type or extreme non-denominational church, one is basically creating a bar tab for a substance that goes on as long as there are believers. This is not only "leading others into sin" but putting "a false god before God." And so, in God's eyes, even after you would be dead and judged, the actions of this "open bar tab" live on after you, and God will account them to YOUR tab, and not in a nice way.
I hope that you all find this analogy helpful. Again, don't get all word smithing with me because like I said, it's only an analogy folks, but it's a very important one. It is simple to understand the degrees of personal sin and then, using this analogy, where it steps into "leading others into sin" and finally to idolatry and false gods territory of mortal sin.
Just a theological thought to share. Now that you understand this analogy, you can understand why Martin Luther is such a controversial figure. When people get combative about him, it is the slippery slope of sinning/leading others into sin that each side is really talking about without saying so. The people who side with the Reformation obviously feel that he "saved" people from sin because he "challenged the abuses" and broke away with the Church that was "sinning" and "misleading." However, thoughtful people on the other side correctly wonder about his accountability for "leading others into sin" because of, using this analogy, the "open bar tab" that was created after him and resulted in, let's not lie about it, the breaking of the unity of the Church that is contrary to what God and Jesus wanted. So I'm not taking sides and I'm not dropping hints as to Martin Luther's judgment by God. But I am using him as an example of how every soul must make a wise decision about both personal sin AND leading others into sin. It is not inconceivable that, as the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Popes have commented, including our current Pope Benedict, that Martin Luther would have been very grieved by much that has been done in his name, for example, the diminishment and hostility toward Mary by some Protestants, for Martin Luther himself loved and revered Mary. (Don't ever discount Mary; she might even have bailed him out of that sticky situation! :-)
Thus, one who thinks they have extraordinary "spiritual insight" must also recognize that if they act outside of the institutional churches, that he or she is opening an "open ended bar tab." Even the best of intentions in doing so may result in the unforeseen tragedy of leading many after you into sin. This is why the Bible and the Qur'an are very filled with warning about those who prophesy falsely or worship false gods. It's more than personal sin, because it becomes that "open bar tab" that goes on and on for centuries, potentially, and results in intentional or unintentional "leading others into sin."
Suppose you are a person who drinks alcohol. So think of the ability to consume a glass of wine or other alcohol beverage as a normal dietary activity, part of your meal, or to be social, even as a healthy thing to do if we believe the "Mediterranean diet." So if your religion does not prohibit alcohol and if you have a moderate amount, let's use that as the baseline in this analogy of being "no sin."
Suppose you have a little too much on one occasion and you drive yourself home, taking a risk that you are "buzz driving," but you make it OK. You can see that this gets into a gray shading area, where it's not the "no sin" of the first example, but you "got away with it." So it's dicey but it was only the one time, so it's "no sin but not exactly smart or noble."
Now let's suppose that you make a habit of drinking and driving. That gray just got a lot darker because you are putting yourself and others regularly at risk. So you've entered into the sin zone.
Now let's suppose that you regularly drink, drive and carry passengers. Whether you actually ever have a wreck or not that is very much in the sin zone. Why? Not just because of the risk but because you are now setting an example to others that this is OK to do AND giving your loved ones reason to worry and be unhappy and scared. So this is very much a strongly sinful stage.
(Remember, I'm using this as an analogy, as you'll see clearly with the next few examples. I'm not making up or assigning new classes of sin for the Vatican to publish!)
Now let's suppose that you drink, drive, carry passengers and also purchase alcohol for minors using your ID and allow minors to drink in your house. You've now made that sin contagious. That is called "leading others into sin." When you "just" had the passengers, that was setting a bad example AND leading them into danger, but not leading them into sin. But when you enable minors, in this example, you are leading them into danger of addiction or harm associated with consumption, plus breaking the law, plus depriving them of good parental authority. It's harmful in a lot of ways but most of all because you put them on a path to be able to sin on their own. That is why "leading others into sin" is huge, and very outrageous in God's eyes. God knows everything through all time and God will continue to "track" all the people who you led into sin. So if the minors develop habits or sin on their own, all of this will be known to God and attributed to you.
Now suppose that you drink, drive, carry passengers, purchase alcohol for minors AND call out to everyone in a bar or restaurant "open bar on me!" Now I'm not using an example of a function such as a party or wedding where you pick up the bill for the event and that includes open bar. I'm using an analogy. Here, though, you create a "free for all" of "leading others into sin." In other words, without knowing the age, disabilities, possible addictions, or whether they will drive themselves home or not, you let the alcohol flow without any limitation. This is like "leading others into sin" by having an open bar tab. And what is this most like? Creating a false religion.
Someone who creates a false religion is like shouting "open bar" at an AA meeting, at children's schools, and among the lonely, and running a tab that goes on for hundreds of years. Why do I say this? Because in this analogy you are offering unrestricted alcohol consumption to those who are the most vulnerable to abuse. People who create their "own churches" basically open a never ending bar tab that will draw customers from the weak and vulnerable who have fallen away from institutional religions, or are too young to have the choice, because their parents bring them to "your bar." Now remember, I'm not talking about mainstream religions, even those that are very local and non-denominational, yet still in mainstream Christian beliefs, for example. I'm talking about "personal revelation" churches, cult of personality churches, financially or sexually exploitative churches, cults, paganism, witchcraft and so forth. When, in this type of analogy, a person founds a cult type or extreme non-denominational church, one is basically creating a bar tab for a substance that goes on as long as there are believers. This is not only "leading others into sin" but putting "a false god before God." And so, in God's eyes, even after you would be dead and judged, the actions of this "open bar tab" live on after you, and God will account them to YOUR tab, and not in a nice way.
I hope that you all find this analogy helpful. Again, don't get all word smithing with me because like I said, it's only an analogy folks, but it's a very important one. It is simple to understand the degrees of personal sin and then, using this analogy, where it steps into "leading others into sin" and finally to idolatry and false gods territory of mortal sin.
Just a theological thought to share. Now that you understand this analogy, you can understand why Martin Luther is such a controversial figure. When people get combative about him, it is the slippery slope of sinning/leading others into sin that each side is really talking about without saying so. The people who side with the Reformation obviously feel that he "saved" people from sin because he "challenged the abuses" and broke away with the Church that was "sinning" and "misleading." However, thoughtful people on the other side correctly wonder about his accountability for "leading others into sin" because of, using this analogy, the "open bar tab" that was created after him and resulted in, let's not lie about it, the breaking of the unity of the Church that is contrary to what God and Jesus wanted. So I'm not taking sides and I'm not dropping hints as to Martin Luther's judgment by God. But I am using him as an example of how every soul must make a wise decision about both personal sin AND leading others into sin. It is not inconceivable that, as the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Popes have commented, including our current Pope Benedict, that Martin Luther would have been very grieved by much that has been done in his name, for example, the diminishment and hostility toward Mary by some Protestants, for Martin Luther himself loved and revered Mary. (Don't ever discount Mary; she might even have bailed him out of that sticky situation! :-)
Thus, one who thinks they have extraordinary "spiritual insight" must also recognize that if they act outside of the institutional churches, that he or she is opening an "open ended bar tab." Even the best of intentions in doing so may result in the unforeseen tragedy of leading many after you into sin. This is why the Bible and the Qur'an are very filled with warning about those who prophesy falsely or worship false gods. It's more than personal sin, because it becomes that "open bar tab" that goes on and on for centuries, potentially, and results in intentional or unintentional "leading others into sin."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
