Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Defense department Density.
Secretary Gates recently suggested that Turkey's recent hostility toward Israel is due to Turkey's application for EU membership being rejected. Hmm. I know this is a crazy idea, but isn't it possible Turkey's just a little upset over Israeli troops shooting nine Turkish citizens in international waters?
Further proof that the federal government in this country is increasingly divorcing itself from reality.
Further proof that the federal government in this country is increasingly divorcing itself from reality.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Holy Spirit: Musings.
So, this morning I started reading Radical Discipleship Interesting. Glancing at the upcoming chapters, I suspect that the author and I will have some serious disagreeemnts. however, the first chapter makes good sense to me. The trouble I've run into this morning is that reading a passage I particularly liked to my roommate/landlady sparked what could have turned into a nasty debate if I hadn't simply decided to stop responding.
I was reading a section wherein Camp points to the differing perspectives from which people come to the New Testament, and how that affects the questions we as readers ask. So I read this section of the chapter out loud to Ida, whose response was that it's true but irrelevant--because the book holds all the answers to those questions, and stays the same no matter what. This led into a lecture from her on the fact that the Holy Spirit is no longer there. According to her theological tradition, apparently, the Holy Spirit existred solely for the purpose of prtecting the message of the gospel until it was written down in the first century A.D. As such, with the completion of the Bible in its present form, the Holy Spirit disappeared. It is therefore no longer to be seen as a guide in the world; for that, only the written text matters.
I'm sorry, but I call bullshit. Part of this is due to my Quaker readings and experiences, I suppose. A great deal more of it has to do with the experiences of others that I have heard about. Some of those having the experiences weren't even Christians. Yet they were led by something to do the right, Christian thing. Barring an actual visit by Christ, what is it then that leads us to act in accordance with God's will, if the Holy Spirit is no more? What is it that led a friend of mine to pull over on the roadside to help in an emergency on the interstate? What led an ex-girlfriend's father to stop once on an icy road to help a woman change a tire, even though it meant he was late for his worldly appointment? What prompts the atheist I used to live with to give freely to those who were unfortunate, even though they were strangers? Is it not through the Holy Spirit that God leads us, guides us toward goodness?
On the other hand, we have people like Ida, I suppose. Ida's devotion to the exact wording, the written document, of the New Testament, is her guide. She does that which she believes to be right, not because she is led inwardly to do right, but because "The Bible says..." and therefore she has to do it. As much as I like Ida, as much as she often seems to be such a good and righteous person, sometimes I can't help but shake my head in sadness at her motivations. In many ways, she seems to be exactly the kinds of Christians that Lee Camp has in mind when he says "'Salvation,' instead of being construed as the gift of a transformed, abundant life in the now-present kingdom of God, begins to be equated with an otherworldly reward. More crassly put, 'salvation' is increasingly viewed as a fire-insurance policy, a 'Get Out of Hell Free Card' guaranteeing an escape from the fires of torment and ensuring the receipt of treasures in heaven."
Now granted, I don't feel it's necessarily my place to judge, since I don't consider myself a Christian. Yet even what I've read of the New Testament seems to point rather glaringly in the opposite direction from what Ida's denomination practices. Frustrating morning.
I was reading a section wherein Camp points to the differing perspectives from which people come to the New Testament, and how that affects the questions we as readers ask. So I read this section of the chapter out loud to Ida, whose response was that it's true but irrelevant--because the book holds all the answers to those questions, and stays the same no matter what. This led into a lecture from her on the fact that the Holy Spirit is no longer there. According to her theological tradition, apparently, the Holy Spirit existred solely for the purpose of prtecting the message of the gospel until it was written down in the first century A.D. As such, with the completion of the Bible in its present form, the Holy Spirit disappeared. It is therefore no longer to be seen as a guide in the world; for that, only the written text matters.
I'm sorry, but I call bullshit. Part of this is due to my Quaker readings and experiences, I suppose. A great deal more of it has to do with the experiences of others that I have heard about. Some of those having the experiences weren't even Christians. Yet they were led by something to do the right, Christian thing. Barring an actual visit by Christ, what is it then that leads us to act in accordance with God's will, if the Holy Spirit is no more? What is it that led a friend of mine to pull over on the roadside to help in an emergency on the interstate? What led an ex-girlfriend's father to stop once on an icy road to help a woman change a tire, even though it meant he was late for his worldly appointment? What prompts the atheist I used to live with to give freely to those who were unfortunate, even though they were strangers? Is it not through the Holy Spirit that God leads us, guides us toward goodness?
On the other hand, we have people like Ida, I suppose. Ida's devotion to the exact wording, the written document, of the New Testament, is her guide. She does that which she believes to be right, not because she is led inwardly to do right, but because "The Bible says..." and therefore she has to do it. As much as I like Ida, as much as she often seems to be such a good and righteous person, sometimes I can't help but shake my head in sadness at her motivations. In many ways, she seems to be exactly the kinds of Christians that Lee Camp has in mind when he says "'Salvation,' instead of being construed as the gift of a transformed, abundant life in the now-present kingdom of God, begins to be equated with an otherworldly reward. More crassly put, 'salvation' is increasingly viewed as a fire-insurance policy, a 'Get Out of Hell Free Card' guaranteeing an escape from the fires of torment and ensuring the receipt of treasures in heaven."
Now granted, I don't feel it's necessarily my place to judge, since I don't consider myself a Christian. Yet even what I've read of the New Testament seems to point rather glaringly in the opposite direction from what Ida's denomination practices. Frustrating morning.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Matthew.
Strangest experience this past week or so. I started reading Matthew about a week ago, got sidetracked, picked it up again last night for an hour or so. I really like Matthew. I mean, there are a lot of passages that serve only the purpose of emphasizing that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Pharisees suck, but when it really gets down to what Jesus is teaching and preaching (nice rhyme there), as Lenny Bruce once said, "Heavy; beautiful."
Included in this particular gospel, I have found something which, to me, suggests that baptism might be good, even beneficial, but is not 100% necessary for salvation. Ah, hear me out (more Lenny. Damn, caffeine makes my brain go nutso). Anyway, in chapter 19, a rich man comes and asks Jesus how he might obtain everlasting life. Interestingly, Jesus lists five commandments, only four of which are included in the original Ten (the other being "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"). The young man says, essentially, "Right. doing that. What else is needed?" Now, if it were really true that only the baptized could be saved, would Jesus not reply "You must be baptized"? Yet He does not! Instead, He commands the young man to sell his worldly possessions and give the money thus accrued to the poor, and to follow Jesus to the end of His days. So, sacrifice and help those less fortunate than you. This is more important, according to the Gospel of Matthew, than any ceremony of baptism. I find it interesting...
In other news, am now officially dating someone (long-distance; she lives in Vermont of all places!) who, unlike all my previous girlfriends is actually theologically compatible with me! This is a big deal! Go me!
Note to self: seriously, no more coffee early Sunday morning.
Included in this particular gospel, I have found something which, to me, suggests that baptism might be good, even beneficial, but is not 100% necessary for salvation. Ah, hear me out (more Lenny. Damn, caffeine makes my brain go nutso). Anyway, in chapter 19, a rich man comes and asks Jesus how he might obtain everlasting life. Interestingly, Jesus lists five commandments, only four of which are included in the original Ten (the other being "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"). The young man says, essentially, "Right. doing that. What else is needed?" Now, if it were really true that only the baptized could be saved, would Jesus not reply "You must be baptized"? Yet He does not! Instead, He commands the young man to sell his worldly possessions and give the money thus accrued to the poor, and to follow Jesus to the end of His days. So, sacrifice and help those less fortunate than you. This is more important, according to the Gospel of Matthew, than any ceremony of baptism. I find it interesting...
In other news, am now officially dating someone (long-distance; she lives in Vermont of all places!) who, unlike all my previous girlfriends is actually theologically compatible with me! This is a big deal! Go me!
Note to self: seriously, no more coffee early Sunday morning.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Maybe I'm Crazy--I.
So, now is not the time to be posting this AT ALL, given how tired I am. But after reading some party platforms on various websites today, I was struck with an idea for revolutionizing and improving the public school systems.
I. Reduction of federal involvement. As some group or another points out, states can bettter make decisions on many issues regarding their constituent towns, counties, etc. This includes matters of education. Federal oversight would be important for a couple things, however:
a. Making sure that no state Board of Education endorsed programs counter to federal statutes (e.g, no white supremacy classes or mingling of church and state).
b. Determining that the information taught in science and social studies courses are accurate (we lost in Vietnam, the Earth is not flat, etc), and that some sense of common identity with the rest of the country is included (not just regional literature, history, etc).
c. Laws would also need to be in place to prevent descrimination against students and teachers, and to provide for special education services for those who need them.
II. Decentralization of public school districts.
1. Obviously, one-room school houses will no longer do. But the older, smaller-district schools had many advantages:
a. nearby locations meant decreased transportation costs for families and schools (who didn't
need so many buses).
b. smaller schools were easier to find locations for, and cheaper to maintain.
c. smaller schools meant smaller class sizes, which were beneficial to everyone. Also, fewer
teachers would mean fewer costs as well.
2. Newer advantages, perhaps less realized in former days:
a. Parents would have more direct control over what their children were taught. It could be
more of a community-based model, and with the next school not so far away, transfers would
be easier if you were the one unhappy parent and wanted something different
b. More opportunities for unique curricula and innovation, and a willingness to adapt to the
students' needs and interests.
3. The big drawback--that poorer communities would have poorer schools--could be remedied
either through the simplified transfer system or through decisions made at a state level for
leveling the playing field there. The citizens have more of a voice at state level, and if such
ideas as No Child Left Behind had been introduced there, it probably would have failed.
Wouldn't this make sense? Why aren't we doing it?
I. Reduction of federal involvement. As some group or another points out, states can bettter make decisions on many issues regarding their constituent towns, counties, etc. This includes matters of education. Federal oversight would be important for a couple things, however:
a. Making sure that no state Board of Education endorsed programs counter to federal statutes (e.g, no white supremacy classes or mingling of church and state).
b. Determining that the information taught in science and social studies courses are accurate (we lost in Vietnam, the Earth is not flat, etc), and that some sense of common identity with the rest of the country is included (not just regional literature, history, etc).
c. Laws would also need to be in place to prevent descrimination against students and teachers, and to provide for special education services for those who need them.
II. Decentralization of public school districts.
1. Obviously, one-room school houses will no longer do. But the older, smaller-district schools had many advantages:
a. nearby locations meant decreased transportation costs for families and schools (who didn't
need so many buses).
b. smaller schools were easier to find locations for, and cheaper to maintain.
c. smaller schools meant smaller class sizes, which were beneficial to everyone. Also, fewer
teachers would mean fewer costs as well.
2. Newer advantages, perhaps less realized in former days:
a. Parents would have more direct control over what their children were taught. It could be
more of a community-based model, and with the next school not so far away, transfers would
be easier if you were the one unhappy parent and wanted something different
b. More opportunities for unique curricula and innovation, and a willingness to adapt to the
students' needs and interests.
3. The big drawback--that poorer communities would have poorer schools--could be remedied
either through the simplified transfer system or through decisions made at a state level for
leveling the playing field there. The citizens have more of a voice at state level, and if such
ideas as No Child Left Behind had been introduced there, it probably would have failed.
Wouldn't this make sense? Why aren't we doing it?
I am weary tonight, and not solely from the lateness of the hour. It's been a damn exhausting week. I want to feel like I can lay down my sword and stop fighting in all directions, stop trying to fend off attacks. On the one hand, a very exhausting argument with a friend who is an atheist and has spent the evening trying to ram that down my throat and coerce some kind of admittance that she's right about there being no God. On the other, over the past week or so, many, many Christians who have, knowingly or unknowingly, tried to push fundamentalism on me. And here I am in the middle, trying to just get by and practice my faith, exercise my beliefs, in peace.
Makes me kind of homesick. At least there I could believe what I believe without people always trying to argue the point with me. This has been a very tiring week. I pray (literally and idiomatically) that the next 365 days will make up for the past seven.
Makes me kind of homesick. At least there I could believe what I believe without people always trying to argue the point with me. This has been a very tiring week. I pray (literally and idiomatically) that the next 365 days will make up for the past seven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)