Sin, Sanctification, and Today's Sermon

Today's sermon was a continuation on temptation. The pastor emphasized how desires that are not "maintained" lead to sin. He went on to explain that it was only a complete surrender and trust not based on reason that would "help" in attaining sanctification. One must identify with Jesus.

Although he had said that he did not believe any of us are immune to the normal capacity to sin and that we all do, he also seemed to say that one's "entrustment" and "commitment" to God in modelling Jesus' life was "entire sanctification. (These were not his words, but my understanding of the implications of his sermon).

My question is if desire is not a sin, then when does it become a sin? when it impinges upon others? when it hinders other things that someone else thinks should be more important to you? when it limits other areas of your life through addiction? when it become the focus of one's life? what about goals, life purposes, and noble causes that one sees as the epitome of desire?

Buddhism teaches that if we can disengage ourselves from desire, then we can attain a "state of Nirvana". Should Christians then, disengage themselves from their desires to seek entire sanctification? I think not, as desire is not wrong, but channelling it into the right direction is important. This is why our free society is important to maintain.

I think that whenever one talks of "sin", there is an inevitable reaction in the religious of "appeasement to God", as "he is the one offended"....or a spiritual reaction of "moral superiority" because this particular "sin" is not my weakness. Religion intensifies an otherwise "decent" and civil discussion. Religion can be dangerous and often hinders open and free discussion for fear of treading on "forbidden territory".

I think that today's world of religious intolerance, dogmatism, and ideological "drivenness" is not an atmosphere open for civil discourse. Dogmatism hinders open-mindedness, because one's identity is so tied to one's understanding of "god" that any discussion is seen as a personal attack. This is an unhealthy identification, or a limited development, at least.

Traditions do breed security and identity, but can also breed prejuidice and discrimination, through a limited understanding of living and being in the world. One's "world" is "all there is" and should dominate everyone else's reality, as well.This is nothing short of self focused living in the name of "god" and it is repugnant to many who see differently.

The Religious "Right" of Suicide

I have been writing on a subject that I don't think I am quite finished with, suicide. Suicide, is the taking of one's life. Is this considered a fundamental right?

The religious right in America tout a "right to life" stance. They vote along pro-life lines and are politically active in conserving life in its many forms.

But, what about the "right" of suicide? The religious right believes that it is necessary to disciple others into Jesus' image. The Christ image is above all the call of the Christian faith. How is this accomplished? By crucifixtion, of course. True believers are committed to the extinct of not considering life, when it is theirs. This "death of self" is a rite of passage to the holiness message of "total consecration and total surrender", "self-denial", and "holiness/sanctification". This is really no different from the teachings of Buddhism about self-denial and coming to a state of Nirvana! So, what is so exclusivist about self-denial? it is only "religious teaching".

I believe that there are many goals that an individual can give their life to, but the individual must make that determination based upon their own personal value commitments. And they may differ from another believer's understanding of their values and goals (noble causes). An individual who does not take responsibility for his own life is prey for those who would manipulate religious teachings and use others for their own vision of what the "cause of Christ" is....and the result is a death to everything that distinguishes one individual from another. this is spirtual abuse. Dying to values that one believes in and is committed to is not what "dying to self" is about. A death to self brought on by another in the "name of God" annihlates the personhood of the individual, and this is about stealing, and killing. Certainly, the "pro-life" stance of the conservative would not uphold such religious teaching, calling suicide a God-sanctioned act. Don't we believe in a God that affirms life?

I Want to Be Human

How many are "human" out there?
Anyone want to be anything else? If so, what else can we be?
Some of you holiness folk will answer that we can be something other than we are. What is that? Some "super ability" to overcome "sin"? What is "sin", but "missing the mark"? And what is "missing the mark" other than to miss developing the residue of "greatness" and the scent of "substance"?
This is what loving and "salvation" is about. It is about the "other".