The message this morning was an emphasis on self-reflection, which was "well taken" and the pastor had some good observations about what the world would say to the Church. But, the whole idea of the message was a stumbling block to me. Why?
The message was taken from Jonah. The pastor spoke to the Church, as if the Church was Jonah. Jonah was the "prophet of God" who was running from what "God had called him to do". In the process of running away from God, Jonah causes difficulties to others, due to God's anger shown in a storm, which is capsizing the ship.
Though our minds look for causes, Biblical imagery makes for a pre-sceintific view of reality. When the storm came, it was caused by the "supernatural God" due to "sin". The unbelieving sailors were seeking an answer to their "weather problem" and calling out to "their gods". Jonah is disobeying "God's will" by not sharing "the Gospel". Some believers still believe that there is a direct correlation of cause and effect to "God". This is a primitive understanding of the weather, and an 'intervening God". And understanding "Jonah's predicament" as a direct "message from God" is a little presumptuous, to say the least.
The pastor's point in the sermon was "well taken", though, as he suggested that believers have as much to learn from the "unconverted" as the converted think they have to offer the "unconverted". But, the pastor was still suggesting that there is something "more" to Christianity, than humanism, or humanity. The difference is "holiness", which is a perfection in/of love.
I wonder how this pastor sees this perfection coming about? "Love" is a personal word, and is not a value or does not function in the political realm. The real world functions on "power", and the pastor suggested that those that serve "God" should do so at "great sacrifice". A "God" that demands human sacrifice isn't becoming to me. Such a "God" is a primitive view of "political power". This seems oddly "out of place", when one talks of 'love". He mentioned John Wesley's attempt to convert the 'noble Savages" (the Indians) and his experience at Aldersgate. He suggested that there was some "preparatory work" that had to be done in Wesley's heart before Wesley would be open to an experience such as Aldersgate. The preparation required for Wesley was "failure" in his missionary attempt to convert the Indians.
I find that "perfection" itself is wrongly focused, for whenever one finds themselves "perfected", then is there no more need to grow or become? This is a dangerous idea and belief because it compels those that believe this way to "perform", rather than "be", besides the ideas behind supernaturalism and an intervening "God'.
But, those that believe that they are "called" to a "Divine Destiny" are also a danger, because these believe that what they have to accomplish is mandated by "God Almighty" and it is THEIR responsibility and duty to follow through!!! This belief can damage the peace of the nation, as these will be passionate, and convicted about their "mission". Such zeal was never in our Founder's intent or persona!!! The Founders were level headed and rational.
The bottom line for me, is that people are people. All of us seek significance and value. Some of us find it in religion, and when we do, our identity is caught up in such beliefs. Others find their significance or value within our family or our jobs. Humans are seeking meaning. And "life" in a free society should allow everyone to find meaning however they want to. This is the value of Liberty. And such liberty will bring the nation "happiness" and peace, because we all are agreeing that we might differ in how we answer those questions about meaning and purpose!!!Otherwise, we will find ourselves warring against ourselves and destroying the very thing that allows us the liberty to pursue our own meaning!!!
Showing posts with label supernaturalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supernaturalism. Show all posts
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Supenaturalism and Religion
I had a discussion with a friend on Facebook about her faith. She believes that her faith is not religion, but a real experience of the transcendent. These experiences are supernatural, by all accounts to religionists, as they see the world and explain it in terms of religious ideology, or "God". Why would I not think that there interpretation is the best?
First and foremost, man/men all have a need to understand. Different men have different interests in how they seek to understand, nowadays, with all the differences in the disciplines. But, primitive man understood the world in a primitive way. The Sun was worshipped and different gods controlled different aspects of nature. Religion is man's attempt to explain the natural world. But, there is also the aspect where religion seeks to explain "Man". The Church sought to impact religion by explaining that man's experience was "under a curse" until man believed in some sort of "God" that would "save" or "redeem" man from his "bad experiences". This si the Church's teaching on sanctification, where man learns from his experiences, becasue "God" is "training" him. God has become personalized in history though the Church's story of the redemption of the disempowered.. This is the Church's /fundamental stance toward world history. World history is "God's story", and his revealing of "His Son", in his Bride, the Church. This is a transcendentalized type of secular humanism.
The differences to eschatology lies in the different understandings of "what is to happen" or "what is to come". Such differences have led to splits that created new denominations. Most still adhereing to a supernatural or transcendent view of life and all that is.
This Facebook friend is like many who believe that their faith makes some sort of difference in how they understand their lives. I think this is true, as men also seek to put their life into a particular context. These contexts are identfying factors, as we all need identity. The question is whether we think man is solely formed by such associations. Certainly, our associations do influence and form us, but it doesn't mean that we always accept their understanding, ways, or values, as we get to be adults, or we form a more critical eye toward evaluating life. Whenever we do start to critically evaluate life, then we come to a place where we, as an individual, make a choice about our values and commitments. These are ulitmate values that one doesn't want to compromise on/about. These define "who we are" in ourselves, not who we are because we like the group we are in. And this is when we choose where we will commt.
I don't like religious groups because they all too often define things without allowing for diversity. This is what separates denominations. And I don't value those that are certain of their claims about the transcendent realm, because it is presumptive to assume. Many who do accept the claims to a transcendent realm are those that base their understandings on a religious group (Roman Cahtolicism, Greek Orthodoxy, or some esoteric cult) and/ or on a "Holy Text", which is held as the defining of life. Such a view limits or defines man, without understanding the indivdiual and the complexities to and about life.
So, I don't think one can separate faith and relgions, though the Pietists and the existentialist might like to do so. This would breed a world where religious authorities could define and demand certain behavior for the 'greater good". Such authoritarial structuring is not about the individual's right to life and liberty, but a collective understanding of what life "Should" be about. And don't we all know what "shoulds" do to man? "Shoulds" are about obligations and duty; not liberty of conscience. Although we all have obligations and duties, none of us would want our lives under the control of another's expectations, which intrude upon one's personal life. These like to use the law as a weapon to subvert liberty, instead of using the law to grant equal liberty. But, all of us must determine where we will draw our lines around liberty, as we must, if we define at all, which we must, if we have identity at all. Should we want an authoritarian whether an individual or group of people, to come into power, so all of us will be conformed to their understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
First and foremost, man/men all have a need to understand. Different men have different interests in how they seek to understand, nowadays, with all the differences in the disciplines. But, primitive man understood the world in a primitive way. The Sun was worshipped and different gods controlled different aspects of nature. Religion is man's attempt to explain the natural world. But, there is also the aspect where religion seeks to explain "Man". The Church sought to impact religion by explaining that man's experience was "under a curse" until man believed in some sort of "God" that would "save" or "redeem" man from his "bad experiences". This si the Church's teaching on sanctification, where man learns from his experiences, becasue "God" is "training" him. God has become personalized in history though the Church's story of the redemption of the disempowered.. This is the Church's /fundamental stance toward world history. World history is "God's story", and his revealing of "His Son", in his Bride, the Church. This is a transcendentalized type of secular humanism.
The differences to eschatology lies in the different understandings of "what is to happen" or "what is to come". Such differences have led to splits that created new denominations. Most still adhereing to a supernatural or transcendent view of life and all that is.
This Facebook friend is like many who believe that their faith makes some sort of difference in how they understand their lives. I think this is true, as men also seek to put their life into a particular context. These contexts are identfying factors, as we all need identity. The question is whether we think man is solely formed by such associations. Certainly, our associations do influence and form us, but it doesn't mean that we always accept their understanding, ways, or values, as we get to be adults, or we form a more critical eye toward evaluating life. Whenever we do start to critically evaluate life, then we come to a place where we, as an individual, make a choice about our values and commitments. These are ulitmate values that one doesn't want to compromise on/about. These define "who we are" in ourselves, not who we are because we like the group we are in. And this is when we choose where we will commt.
I don't like religious groups because they all too often define things without allowing for diversity. This is what separates denominations. And I don't value those that are certain of their claims about the transcendent realm, because it is presumptive to assume. Many who do accept the claims to a transcendent realm are those that base their understandings on a religious group (Roman Cahtolicism, Greek Orthodoxy, or some esoteric cult) and/ or on a "Holy Text", which is held as the defining of life. Such a view limits or defines man, without understanding the indivdiual and the complexities to and about life.
So, I don't think one can separate faith and relgions, though the Pietists and the existentialist might like to do so. This would breed a world where religious authorities could define and demand certain behavior for the 'greater good". Such authoritarial structuring is not about the individual's right to life and liberty, but a collective understanding of what life "Should" be about. And don't we all know what "shoulds" do to man? "Shoulds" are about obligations and duty; not liberty of conscience. Although we all have obligations and duties, none of us would want our lives under the control of another's expectations, which intrude upon one's personal life. These like to use the law as a weapon to subvert liberty, instead of using the law to grant equal liberty. But, all of us must determine where we will draw our lines around liberty, as we must, if we define at all, which we must, if we have identity at all. Should we want an authoritarian whether an individual or group of people, to come into power, so all of us will be conformed to their understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The Authoritarian Relgious
I just realized when I re-read my last enty, that a religion that works like the miltary is what some deem "Christian discipleship". It is nothing more than abuse of power over individual lives, in the name of God.
Christianity's close affliation with Islam should help us understand why some would see thier Christian faith in such anti-cultural and authoritarian ways.
Sacrifice is the epitome of this type of religious conviction, as it shows how much one trusts God or is willing to serve God above all other gods. The use of Abraham in Genesis is useful to illustrate "what God requires", the sacrifice of any "hope", as the promised one, is to be the sacrifice. It is called covenant theology.
The story ends with Abraham's "trust in God' being defined by the test of sacrifice and God's provision of a "lamb" in Isaac's stead.
Christians have used this to illustrate their message of provision of a "savior", in Christ.
But, what kind of God demands sacrifice and testing to prove that He is first and foremost the most important in one's life? Does a father or mother ever think that this would be appropriate to request of a child? or a spouse? or even a friend? Is God above our understanding of common decency and care of human desires and emotion?
Some would say that God is interested in purifying our desires and our interests, as he is to be worshipped above all gods and this is the way in which his purification comes.
I think Voltaire's "Candid" would be my response. God is in control of everything therefore any danger should not be seen as a danger. Any obstacle can be removed by faith, if one only believes. Healing can come to the sick if they only have enough faith, etc....God is in Control. God intervenes, but he doesn't always answer our prayers the way that we want him to. But, what if we have requested something that must be "his will" and yet, the prayer is unanswered?
I have heard Christians defend God's "lack of response" by saying that "his ways are not our ways", "he has higher purposes or plans", "he knows best", " God works it all out in the end", " God is just, we just don't undestand everything about his justice", ad nauseum....theologizing pain, suffering, death, suicide, and other human tragedies.
The other answer is that "God is disciplining you", so that you may partake of his holiness! Thank you, but no thank you. Why is it that he "picks on some" as he is supposed to have 'no favorites, as he is no respector of persons.
So, those that hold these views believe that the only thing that is required is absolute faith or trust, withholding one's reason, in fact, reason is the enemy in these cases, because reason will supplant faith.
In the real world, those who have gotten burned when their heart was right and they trusted with all their might and they died, or they were immensely disappointed, or etc...Do these continue to go down the same road and perform the same behavior of "trust", believing somehow that they were at fault, somehow? Or do they learn that this is not the way the world works and then set out to learn what is expected in the "real world"?
I think that those who believe in this type of supernaturalism are really half crazy. I was. And I am trying to come to some sort of sanity, where reality is not disconnected from any other source of knowledge, or life experience.
I really fear for these, as they ignore the "world" thinking that the world will 'take care of itself', because these are to be separate from the world and everything in it. These miss so much of life and the joy of living.
Christianity's close affliation with Islam should help us understand why some would see thier Christian faith in such anti-cultural and authoritarian ways.
Sacrifice is the epitome of this type of religious conviction, as it shows how much one trusts God or is willing to serve God above all other gods. The use of Abraham in Genesis is useful to illustrate "what God requires", the sacrifice of any "hope", as the promised one, is to be the sacrifice. It is called covenant theology.
The story ends with Abraham's "trust in God' being defined by the test of sacrifice and God's provision of a "lamb" in Isaac's stead.
Christians have used this to illustrate their message of provision of a "savior", in Christ.
But, what kind of God demands sacrifice and testing to prove that He is first and foremost the most important in one's life? Does a father or mother ever think that this would be appropriate to request of a child? or a spouse? or even a friend? Is God above our understanding of common decency and care of human desires and emotion?
Some would say that God is interested in purifying our desires and our interests, as he is to be worshipped above all gods and this is the way in which his purification comes.
I think Voltaire's "Candid" would be my response. God is in control of everything therefore any danger should not be seen as a danger. Any obstacle can be removed by faith, if one only believes. Healing can come to the sick if they only have enough faith, etc....God is in Control. God intervenes, but he doesn't always answer our prayers the way that we want him to. But, what if we have requested something that must be "his will" and yet, the prayer is unanswered?
I have heard Christians defend God's "lack of response" by saying that "his ways are not our ways", "he has higher purposes or plans", "he knows best", " God works it all out in the end", " God is just, we just don't undestand everything about his justice", ad nauseum....theologizing pain, suffering, death, suicide, and other human tragedies.
The other answer is that "God is disciplining you", so that you may partake of his holiness! Thank you, but no thank you. Why is it that he "picks on some" as he is supposed to have 'no favorites, as he is no respector of persons.
So, those that hold these views believe that the only thing that is required is absolute faith or trust, withholding one's reason, in fact, reason is the enemy in these cases, because reason will supplant faith.
In the real world, those who have gotten burned when their heart was right and they trusted with all their might and they died, or they were immensely disappointed, or etc...Do these continue to go down the same road and perform the same behavior of "trust", believing somehow that they were at fault, somehow? Or do they learn that this is not the way the world works and then set out to learn what is expected in the "real world"?
I think that those who believe in this type of supernaturalism are really half crazy. I was. And I am trying to come to some sort of sanity, where reality is not disconnected from any other source of knowledge, or life experience.
I really fear for these, as they ignore the "world" thinking that the world will 'take care of itself', because these are to be separate from the world and everything in it. These miss so much of life and the joy of living.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Supernaturalism's Last Breath
I have come to the conclusion that supernaturalism is "Dead" for me. I cannot believe in God intervening in the affairs of men. There is natrual order, social order and moral order. And this is where I am in regards to re-defining faith.
This morning's sermon was on Abraham, as this is a seris our pastor is presently preaching on. We are heirs according to grace and all are fellow heirs. The equality of the 'brethren" was preached, but I was unmoved. What used to bring me to tears, now has no significance. /The message has lost its meaning and purpose in my life.
Why? Realism. Life has ways of teaching you that what is "ideal" or spiritual is not so "ideal" or "spiritual". There is no distinction between the sacred and secular. But, there are better or worse people in the scope of things and better and worse ways to live and be in the world. And what sort of people should we be, if this is the case? And what is the significance of the natural, social and moral orders in life? And how are they understood? And what values are important and why? These are the quesitons I am and have been asking myself.
My faith is not in "Jesus Blood and Righteousness".
Nor is my faith built on a "solid rock".
I want my faith to be built on reason, not some historical/mythological figure from the past nor on a mystery cult.
And I don't want my faith to be built upon some "supernatural revelation" that is deemed to have "dropped from the sky" without grappling with the messiness of politics.
Right now, there is a song that is playing that brings to mind the stuggle of the Jews during the Holocost. I don't know why it always brings up that image for me, but it draws my heart and emotions to the "human condition". The human condition of struggle of existence.
Have you ever seen a painting that resonates with "life"? Or heard a poem that left you burning inside?
These are the things that make for "worship", because these are beautiful things in the world that speak of questions that are unanswerable.
Yes, there is much "dirt" in the world. There is much that needs cleaning up from political corruption, to natural disasters. But, there is Still beauty in the world, and if we cease to see that, then we have lost our true and real sense of "life" and beauty. Beauty is as much a part of the world as degradation.
This morning's sermon was on Abraham, as this is a seris our pastor is presently preaching on. We are heirs according to grace and all are fellow heirs. The equality of the 'brethren" was preached, but I was unmoved. What used to bring me to tears, now has no significance. /The message has lost its meaning and purpose in my life.
Why? Realism. Life has ways of teaching you that what is "ideal" or spiritual is not so "ideal" or "spiritual". There is no distinction between the sacred and secular. But, there are better or worse people in the scope of things and better and worse ways to live and be in the world. And what sort of people should we be, if this is the case? And what is the significance of the natural, social and moral orders in life? And how are they understood? And what values are important and why? These are the quesitons I am and have been asking myself.
My faith is not in "Jesus Blood and Righteousness".
Nor is my faith built on a "solid rock".
I want my faith to be built on reason, not some historical/mythological figure from the past nor on a mystery cult.
And I don't want my faith to be built upon some "supernatural revelation" that is deemed to have "dropped from the sky" without grappling with the messiness of politics.
Right now, there is a song that is playing that brings to mind the stuggle of the Jews during the Holocost. I don't know why it always brings up that image for me, but it draws my heart and emotions to the "human condition". The human condition of struggle of existence.
Have you ever seen a painting that resonates with "life"? Or heard a poem that left you burning inside?
These are the things that make for "worship", because these are beautiful things in the world that speak of questions that are unanswerable.
Yes, there is much "dirt" in the world. There is much that needs cleaning up from political corruption, to natural disasters. But, there is Still beauty in the world, and if we cease to see that, then we have lost our true and real sense of "life" and beauty. Beauty is as much a part of the world as degradation.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The "New Atheist" Intrigue
I just went to the American Atheist website. I did not know that many of the featured speakers in the upcoming atheist convention were part of the atheist's "cause" of furthering rational thought.
Because I have found their writings, speeches more than interesting, but challenging and enlarging, I am wondering about my ultimate commitment. I think my ultimate commitment is to reason, not the transcendent, or unknown. There are too many "theories" that are just not believable, when they are not verifiable. And supernaturalists do things that are irrational, thinking that they are benefitting some "higher cause" or "purpose". This I find ungrounded, except in "faith", which I do not respect. I respect those who have reason for what they think and do, not some baseless transcendent. And the demands before us nationally is daunting enough than to deal with the unknown and the unverifiable transcentdent.
I do not think that our free society should dismiss or limit the political voice of the religious, but that that voice should no be a domineering one, nor should the atheist's voice be the lone source of our nation's focus. A plurality of voices should be the focus of our nation.
Because I have found their writings, speeches more than interesting, but challenging and enlarging, I am wondering about my ultimate commitment. I think my ultimate commitment is to reason, not the transcendent, or unknown. There are too many "theories" that are just not believable, when they are not verifiable. And supernaturalists do things that are irrational, thinking that they are benefitting some "higher cause" or "purpose". This I find ungrounded, except in "faith", which I do not respect. I respect those who have reason for what they think and do, not some baseless transcendent. And the demands before us nationally is daunting enough than to deal with the unknown and the unverifiable transcentdent.
I do not think that our free society should dismiss or limit the political voice of the religious, but that that voice should no be a domineering one, nor should the atheist's voice be the lone source of our nation's focus. A plurality of voices should be the focus of our nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
