Gimme Shelter

No, there's no relationship between that title and what I'm about to say write here. I'm just playing off your previous post's title, and I like the Rolling Stones song by that name. It is not necessarily my favorite Rolling Stones song ... which would be is not clear in my mind, but here are some of my more preferred:

• Sympathy for the Devil (Ironic, isn't it? I love the bass line.)
• Monkey Man
• You Can't Always Get What You Want
  

* * *
I never took your opposition to Biblical Inerrancy personally. So don't worry about that. I was just struck by the apparent force of your disagreement with it. I wondered if there was a personal experience from the past that put such a cast on it.

Further, I'll be honest with you ... for the most part, I don't much care for the way most people carry the "Biblical Inerrancy" thing. That's not to say I disagree with the idea of the inerrancy of the Bible. Rather, I think most people get it wrong -- myself included, to my shame -- when they take on an arrogant tone. As if they have a share in the inerrancy.

* * *
As I approach this week's further medical tests, I grow apprehensive about the possibility of it being really bad news. The odds are low, I know ... but what if? This has forced me to look at myself in the mirror, and do so critically. And what I see I do not like. I see a person who seeks out Christ only in times of trouble, yet pushes him aside in other times. I see a person who at times takes on an arrogant tone, boastful words and a puffed-out chest. In short, when it comes to loving Christ with all I have, I am a fraud; a miserable cheat who does so only on my terms.

That's why the cornerstones end ... I will not complete #'s 5 and 6.

The Lord does not want me to be an apologist. I am not well suited for that role. I will leave that to others who have a better handle on their pride. My pride is a slippery beast, ready to pop up at a moment's notice.

* * *
A week ago today a man came to our church in Tucson and gave a little talk about a ministry of the local Salvation Army that serves to help rehabilitate adult men who have fallen into bad habits and destructive lifestyles -- drugs, alcohol, etc. One of the things about the Salvation Army I admire is they are not ashamed of Jesus Christ, and they weave the Gospel into the works they do for these. The man proceeded with his short talk, but his voice broke and he had trouble proceeding when he tried to speak of how these men -- completely broken men who know little of the love of their neighbors -- see the love of Christ and come to Him in humble gratitude.

I couldn't help but be moved myself by the tenderness in the speaker as he recounted this.

In my mind I see this as the human face of Christ I seek to find and emulate -- humble, grateful, gentle and kind. Not arrogant and boastful. Not false piety. Not sugary talk and showy gestures. Just the face of a man who has come to understand that at the foot of the cross none of us are better or worse than the other. At the feet of Christ we are all sinners beyond redemption, yet he loves us still and worked to give us a door through which to enter into Grace.

Grace and peace, brother.

Gimme some truth

What do you say to someone who says to you, "But I've never had him speak to me.

I believe that there is something in the trite answer of "yes you have heard him speak to you ....". I think that most people in the western world have been touched in some way by Christ. Most people use the word "Jesus" for instance - just why is that?

What other acts of reason can one employ to be assured of Christ's existence if one has not received the benefit of a direct and irrefutable sign?

This is so dependent on who you are and what you think you know isn't it? I have seen and read of very intelligent people who reason for the existence of our Christ, and to a one, (unfortunately) I have not yet heard any reason that I find consistent, compelling, or even believable. This is due to my background in science, especially astronomy. I really wish I could offer something for reason here, the root of the problem I have with reason is to do with the vast timescales we are considering. If everything happened in the space of a few thousand years (Creation, the days of the Earth, Revelation) then The Bible becomes a lot more reasonable. If the Universe has been around for nigh on 15 billion US years we are more than arrogant to think that the creator of it visited us a mere 2000 of them ago don't you think? That appears to be a selection effect run riot. The only reason that I can offer is not for Christ, but for an intelligent creator. The constants of the Universe are too finely tuned for any other explanation (to my mind). You see I never signed up for the anthropic principle.

May I ask you a question? Have you had some particularly bad experiences with people who wear the label "Christian?"

Some. I have had Christians say that non-Christians (non-believers, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs etc) are in some way less than Christian folk. I find this arrogant and the most anti-Christian way of living.

I am quite struck by the force of your disdain for people who seek to hold that the Bible may be itself a "Truth."

My apologies, I've made the papal error of attacking your basic beliefs with impunity. This is certainly not my intent. I hold relative truth to be self-evident, I see inconsistencies between verses of The Bible, I see wars caused by peoples use of it, I see minorities vilified, for these reasons I hold The Bible to be in error. I do not wish anyone who holds The Bible to be inerrant to share my view. No sir, no way. Forgive me?

Current Song: Gimme Some Truth -- John Lennon

I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrits
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

I’ve had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

:-)

Shared Experiences

You wrote:

Go the route of reason, in which case look for evidence that Jesus Christ exists. He spoke to me so I know he exists, He works in my life so I know He exists..

What do you say to someone who says to you, "But I've never had him speak to me. Is that how I can know he exists so I can believe in him?" That's a serious question ... not everyone will be so blessed as to have so direct and obvious a sign of Christ's existence. For many -- myself included -- it will require an act of faith. What other acts of reason can one employ to be assured of Christ's existence if one has not received the benefit of a direct and irrefutable sign?

* * *
May I ask you a question? Have you had some particularly bad experiences with people who wear the label "Christian?" I am quite struck by the force of your disdain for people who seek to hold that the Bible may be itself a "Truth." Please don't answer that with any references to how the Bible may have been corrupted over time by human agendas. What I seek is an answer to your personal experiences with people who hold that the Bible is inerrant.

Grace and peace.

Let's all make believe

My position is and has been that Christianity and the notion of relativism are
mutually exclusive: if Christ is who he claimed to be, then all other religions
are false; if Christ is not who he claimed to be, then discard all of
Christianity and keep looking.

This position is fine assuming an inerrant Bible. How does one hold this view if one believes that The Bible has been manufactured in places, and Jesus’ word corrupted? If The Bible is not inerrant then there is at least a third option “Jesus lived and could do miraculous things. Raise the dead, feed the 5000, resurrect Himself. Man made up all this stuff about Him being the Son of an omnipotent creator”. Why would man do this? You could answer that question in many ways and I leave that as an exercise for the reader :-)

There are things God can't do because he is limited

Yes, many Christians have the widely held belief that God cannot sin. Is God limited in this fashion? Can he in fact sin but chooses not to?

Everyone knows there really isn't an absolute truth

My experience tells me that this is not relatively or absolutely true. I usually get people wanting to start a fight when I propose to them that “Truth is relative”. It’s ingrained in our nature to fight against this .. “relative to what??” they say … “relative to God” I retort. People so very much do not want truth to be relative, ask any child.

Note: In my experience you are potentially onto something good when everyone poo-poo’s it. Like using an orbiter to circle the moon while you land on it in a lunar module. “What??” said everyone in 1960 “Are you mad?? Of course you just drive a rocket to the moon, land it and then drive it back again. Don’t overcomplicate things.” Turns out the maths for the fuel consumption needs a command/lunar module split to make the mission a possibility in the 60’s. You’re either onto something good or the proposal is a complete non-starter :-)

So when I hear tell that this new Pope holds firm to fundamental
principles of the Faith, I am heartened. I understand full well what he is
concerned about.

Yes but then he goes on to say that The Church of England is not a “real church” and that unless you subscribe to his particular brand of Christianity (Catholicism) you are not a real Christian.

I guess he never heard the saying: "No one will allow their basic beliefs to be attacked with impunity".

How does a committed Christian hold firm to basic Truths about Jesus yet still
demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit in the face of unrelenting attacks against
those Truths? I honestly don't know the answer to this.

I don't know, but I believe that one has at least two options

1) Just say it’s a matter of faith, suspend your reason and Believe. Many people will think that this is a cop out and that you’re just being lazy and refusing to think. My answer to that is in that song “It’s no big thing, it’s a small thing, what people think.”

2) Go the route of reason, in which case look for evidence that Jesus Christ exists. He spoke to me so I know he exists, He works in my life so I know He exists.

People are upset with God and Christ, because they believe that they are betraying someone who they have never even seen.

Can one argue back in a loving and Christ-like way?

Yes. But not if you are a Biblically Inerrant Brigadier -- in that case you have to make homosexuals feel like they are sinning and you have to get your stick out to beat up Pharisees in your Church. Or choose something else? :-)

Does Christ expect us to deny him or remain silent when others around us smear
his name?

Only the individual can answer that, I don’t think He wants us bashing Bibles. I think he wants us to live happy loving lives, smiling when we can, rarely judging. We’re all sinners of course so we are incapable of doing any such thing all of the time.

How does one stand strong yet do so in a humble manner?

You told me the answer to that, by living a good life so that people may see it. And by SMILING. Pull a big one, right now, go on, try it :-)

Love and Peace.

Current Song: “Do you believe in magic?” – The Lovin’ Spoonful

PS. A new book turned up unannounced and for no reason as far as I can tell in the post this morning, from Amazon.co.uk; “Dawkins’ God” by Alister McGrath. I guess I’m supposed to read it?

Christianity Without Christ

There's much chatter on the web today about the election of Josef Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI. The primary storyline being offered by most of the mainstream media is that he will be a "hardline" Pope, "dogmatic" and "uncompromising." Much has been made about Ratzinger's homily offered at the opening of the conclave, in which he used the phrase "dictatorship of relativism" to suggest that -- relativism; the belief that there is no absolute truth -- is the greatest threat to the Church.

The "cornerstones" I've been offering -- and yes, I know I owe another two -- have essentially been a argument against relativism. My position is and has been that Christianity and the notion of relativism are mutually exclusive: if Christ is who he claimed to be, then all other religions are false; if Christ is not who he claimed to be, then discard all of Christianity and keep looking.

These are not popular words or sentiments in today's world. I have seen, firsthand, the effect of relativistic thinking on the heart of a church. The church I attended in Virginia was staffed by a wonderful man, an able teacher, but an ineffectual leader. Others in the church body -- and more than just a few -- held and professed beliefs such as:

• Judiasm, Islam and Christianity are all the same since they all come from Abraham
• There are things God can't do because he is limited
• People have the capacity to be without sin if they try
• "My God" would not do the things spelled out in the Old Testament
• Everyone knows there really isn't an absolute truth

It was an interesting lesson in how to quickly gauge the depth of a church: listen carefully to the words people use. If they cite the name "God" frequently but rarely if ever mention the name of Jesus Christ, beware. The chances are good that the church is adrift without any real understanding of the Christian faith. If they do use the name "Jesus Christ," more often than not it's in the past tense. There is frequently no notion of Christ in the present. Only "God" ... and usually a god that is quite unlike the one revealed in the Bible.

Note: I will grant that at least some of this is due to a lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, and, shy about that lack of knowledge people opt for "God" rather than run the risk of being exposed as not knowing. I have fallen into that category and still do on many occasions.

When I first started scouting out churches in Tucson, one of the things that drew me to St. Andrews Presbyterian was that the name of Jesus Christ was professed boldly, without reservation or shame. I thought to myself, "Now here's a church that understands that Christianity without Christ is pointless."

So when I hear tell that this new Pope holds firm to fundamental principles of the Faith, I am heartened. I understand full well what he is concerned about.

Here's the question I can't shake from my mind: How does a committed Christian hold firm to basic Truths about Jesus yet still demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit in the face of unrelenting attacks against those Truths? I honestly don't know the answer to this. Can one argue back in a loving and Christ-like way? Does Christ expect us to deny him or remain silent when others around us smear his name? How does one stand strong yet do so in a humble manner?

Sequoia

I just like the word, I don't think I've seen any of those trees in New York state yet but my stretch limo drove past a restaurant caled Sequoia on the way from Newark to Palisades.

This is a pretty well served location, it has clearly been designed for use by those at the top of the slippery pole, ie. executive types. One spends all ones life trying to earn a living and then one dies, one may as well enjoy it on the way?

Yes, we get around.

Your cornerstone #5 sir?


Current Song: "I Get Around" -- The Beach Boys

Airport Blogging

You write from Heathrow, soon I'll be in Tucson International. We lead a wandering life, my friend!

The "movements" I was referring to was the "charismatic" movement within the Christian faith. I'm not sure I have a good definition of it, but it's a movement that believes that the manifestation of the Spirit through outward gifts such as "speaking in tongues" is their preferred method of worship. The Pentecostal Church falls into this camp. There may be others. As I mentioned, this is clearly not me.

I have no proof that Ms. Jolie is truly under the influence of the devil ... my comment really stems from two things: some very weird behavior on her part when she was married to Billy Bob Thornton (exchanging viles of each others' blood, for instance) and this almost hypnotic charm she seems to have over men who fall prey to her wiles. It may just be a stronger sense of sexual confidence ... who knows?

Do genetics play a role in success? Your example of the 100 meter hurdles points to an obvious example ... I will never, never, ever run a 4-minute mile. It doesn't matter how much I train. I will never, never, ever be able to dunk a basketball on a 10-foot rim. (I used to be able to touch the rim, but not even that any more!) But it's not limited to physical activities -- not everyone can be a mathematical genius; not everyone can counter deep.thought's frickin' pawn gambit thing he does! :-)

What about business? There's a bit more gray there, don't you think? For instance, I think Bill Gates was as much "in the right place at the right time" as he was business savvy. If one could wipe from everyone's memory Bill Gates' success at Microsoft, could he repeat it today, not relying on his current name and reputation? Maybe. Maybe not.

London Heathrow

What was the "movement" from your last post? The hand-waving that one sees by some Christians at Church? Whatever floats their boat, but that is not something I am comfortable with doing, it appears to be a sign to others saying "look at me, I'm really into this, I'm a good Christian", I don't think it's done on purpose either, often the subconscious had a delicious way of making itself known I think.

"When I'm presenting I am "on stage," giving a portrayal that is not really me"

That's interesting, I think that is probably true for most folks, but perhaps it's more highly developed in your good self? If a Hollywood actress such as Ms. Jolie never learned to act then she wouldn't be in Hollywood I guess. There are some physical activities, like the 100 metres sprint that not everyone can be a world record holder in, due to the way that they are put together (their genes). It would seem that there can only be a handful of Bill Gates types too, monstrously successful businessmen, so I assume that their success is also due to their genetics, the way their brains are constructed? Or is Satan powering their success?

Current Song: Muzak from the TGIF's next to me

Charismatic People and Movements

Interesting post on charisma, deep.thought. I think it's clearly true that some people possess it and others do not. Why women are not generally considered to be "charismatic" while some men are is an intriguing thought. I suspect part of the reason for that is because our common understanding of "charisma" is more a male attribute -- strength, confidence, persuasive, energetic. I think that distinction is starting to blur as time goes by ... more and more women are assuming those qualities and not being shunned for doing so.

Note: One example that comes to mind is Madonna. I don't much care for her music or her viewpoint on things, but it would be hard for me to argue that she's a strong-willed, confident and at least from a public relations perspective, persuasive and energentic personality.

Another woman that comes to mind -- very much in the news of late -- is Angelina Jolie. She is, I think, "charismatic," but in a way that is uniquely feminine: she exudes a certain confident sexuality that in and of itself is strong, confident and persuasive. I'm not much taken by her charms simply because I think she's operating under the influence of some dark forces, but there's no denying lots of men in Hollywood seem unable to resist her allure. Brad Pitt, if the stories in the tabloids are true, is the latest.

Do I think Jesus had charisma? Yes, but not in a "snake-oil salesman" sort of way. If the Bible is true and we are to understand that Jesus was singularly without sin -- either of commission or omission; either of deeds or thoughts -- then it must have been a striking thing to witness him. Every act, every word, every thought, every deed -- all perfectly obedient to the will of the perfect Creator. I can imagine there must have been a confidence there that was without pride or boastfulness; humility without weakness; strength without malice. He was, I suspect, quite an arresting person when he was in human form on this earth.

There's little question that in today's world that people possessing charisma often achieve what they set out to achieve. The best salesmen are charismatic. Many of the larger churches in America are led by very charismatic pastors, sometimes ones who eventually stumble and fall due to the intoxication of their success -- Jim Bakker of the 1980's; Jimmy Swaggart, etc.

Of the two approaches you wrote of -- Jung's charismatic influence vs. Freud's methodical process -- I think I would trust Freud's more. I am suspicious of charismatic influence, though I am not immune to it. It's just that for the person who possesses it in large measure, it can be quite a narcotic. It takes a person with deep roots to use such natural charisma for good.

Interesting comment you made about my supposed charisma. Odd since I don't sense any such thing, but then again I witness myself from the inside, and I see a different picture. When I'm presenting I am "on stage," giving a portrayal that is not really me, but rather a projection I muster. That is why, I think, I am so exhausted after such times -- I spend considerable energy being someone I suspect I am not. The same holds for social gatherings -- I "put on a mask" and exhaust myself in the process.

I was thinking about this the other day when I was talking to a co-worker of mine about the Christian faith. He is not a believer, yet he is clearly seeking. He expressed some discomfort with the notion of being really demonstrative with one's faith -- holding up a Bible, closing one's eyes and waving one's hands in the air. I had to agree with him. Such is simply not something I will ever do. Which brings up this question: is that necessarily bad? Call it wishful thinking, but I would like believe that there is a place for quiet, introspective belief. If not, then I'm in for a difficult journey.

About Charisma

I must apologise for my lack of attention to this blog, I understand that you’ve also been busy this week (as always!) – on the west coast of the United States of America?

Taking that particular scene from Pulp Fiction a little further didn’t Jules then tell Vincent that a dog wasn’t a filthy animal, because a dog had personality, and personality goes a long way ..?

You mentioned Carl Gustav Jung, I don’t know a lot about him but have been reading some references to him on the web this past week. Did you know that when he first met Sigmund Freud they apparently had a non-stop 13 hour long conversation? Freud’s son is on record as saying that during dinner Jung spoke directly and exclusively to Freud, ignoring the very existence of the rest of Freud’s family!

Jung did subscribe to dualism as you mention, the idea of good and evil, the yin and yang, the two sided nature of everything. He (apparently) managed to reconcile dualism with monism in this work Mysterium Coniunctionis. I find no evidence for his belief if any in a triune nature from what I have read so far. There are some things that sparked in my mind as I was investigating Jung:

He was into the Philosopher’s Stone and Alchemy. We talked about this stone in previous appends, so I found this connection statistically uncalled for. Jung time and again pointed out the affinity and contrast between alchemical figures and those of Christianity, demonstrating a sort of mirror-like analogy not only between the stone of the philosophers and the image of Christ, but between alchemy and Christianity themselves. Alchemy, said Jung, stands in a compensatory relationship to mainstream Christianity, rather like a dream does to the conscious attitudes of the dreamer. The Stone of alchemy is in many respects the stone rejected by the builders of Christian culture, demanding recognition and reincorporation into the building itself. Maybe this has something to do with my Christian friends not letting their children watch Harry Potter?

Jung also believed in the charismatic healer. I’m talking psychoanalysis here. Freud believed in a “method” for treating “mentally ill” patients. These “poor unfortunates” could be helped through the application of psychoanalytical method, the treatment often involving hypnotherapy, where the “answer” would usually have something to do with the patient realising that his problems were of a sexual nature (and the repression thereof). Freud felt that healing could be garnered through fastidious attention to a detailed method whereas Jung on the other hand believed that the patient could only really be healed through the charismatic personality of the doctor administering the method. I found this interesting coupled with that scene from Pulp Fiction that you started off!

So then I started to think about charismatic people. While I do believe that there have been many charismatic women throughout history, the term is usually applied to men. As an insult you might hear the phrase “he has had a charisma bypass” but you rarely hear the insult “she has had a charisma bypass”. Either all women have natural charisma, or it is not expected of them? Furthermore, our very our Prince Charles is getting married today and I cannot think of a better example of an individual totally lacking in any sort of charisma whatsoever, if indeed there are different sorts.

Incidentally, UK parliament has now dissolved in advance of the general election which takes place on May 5th. The leader of the Conservative Party, the opposition to Tony Blair’s government (Michael Howard), has himself been described as someone who has had a “charisma bypass”!

Then there is you oh bagwell, singularly you have scored the highest feedback marks from the recipients of your presentations, and I believe that partly you do so through your charismatic delivery. Reading your posts to this blog one cannot fail to get a sense of your charismatic personality and good charm.

Do you believe that Jesus was a charismatic teacher and leader? I feel that he may well have been. Was it these personal characteristics that helped people to follow him, or was it predominantly the miracles?

I am going to the Palisades tomorrow and need to return to the UK on Thursday so I unfortunately will not see you on this trip my brother.

Current music: The Godfather Soundtrack (aka Italian dinner music)

PS. We have had our first comment from Elaine to my “Power of three” append! Thank you Elaine, I’m still going with Jesus as the ID because he had personality.

"Are You Jewish?"

From Pulp Fiction:

Vincent: "Want some bacon?"

Jules: "No, man. I don't eat bacon."

Vincent: "Are you Jewish?"

Jules: "No, I ain't Jewish ... I just don't dig on swine, that's all."

What does that have to do with Sigmund Freud and you question? Probably not a lot, except that Sigmund Freud was a non-practicing, almost atheist Jew. So I'm wondering how much of the doctrine of the Trinity he would have known about. The idea of God as "Three in One" as we have it is very foreign, and almost blasphemous to the Jewish mind.

Bottom line: "I dunno."

As to your question whether God created man, or the other way around ... I would guess that Freud -- in his later years in particular -- would have thought that God was simply a fabrication of our minds. That notion has been used to unfortunate effect by many since Freud's time to undermine the Kingdom of God. I'm not a fan of Freudian psychology, or any psychology for that matter, because I have little sense of its efficacy. But I could be shading reality with my own personal experiences there.

Wasn't it Jung that felt that man had a duality, not a triune nature?

I can't handle too much of that philosophical or psychological stuff ... too abstract. It's kinda like a Java Bean ... :-)

The power of three

Ok I know that two is company and three a crowd :-) I am at home with my two girls, the three of us are playing the Spongebob Squarepants movie PC game. It’s fun!

I was walking through Itchen Valley Country Park on Friday musing on the triune nature of man and God (among other things). I wondered if Freud was borrowing from the triune nature of God when he came up with the following for the structure of the human mind:

THE ID: (“It”): functions in the irrational and emotional part of the mind. At birth a baby’s mind is all Id - want want want. The Id is the primitive mind. It contains all the basic needs and feelings. It is the source for libido (psychic energy). And it has only one rule --> the “pleasure principle”: “I want it and I want it all now”. In transactional analysis, Id equates to "Child".
Id too strong = bound up in self-gratification and uncaring to others

THE EGO: (“I”): functions with the rational part of the mind. The Ego develops out of growing awareness that you can’t always get what you want. The Ego relates to the real world and operates via the “reality principle”. The Ego realises the need for compromise and negotiates between the Id and the Superego. The Ego's job is to get the Id's pleasures but to be reasonable and bear the long-term consequences in mind. The Ego denies both instant gratification and pious delaying of gratification. The term ego-strength is the term used to refer to how well the ego copes with these conflicting forces. To undertake its work of planning, thinking and controlling the Id, the Ego uses some of the Id's libidinal energy. In transactional analysis, Ego equates to "Adult".
Ego too strong = extremely rational and efficient, but cold, boring and distant

THE SUPEREGO: (“Over-I”): The Superego is the last part of the mind to develop. It might be called the moral part of the mind. The Superego becomes an embodiment of parental and societal values. It stores and enforces rules. It constantly strives for perfection, even though this perfection ideal may be quite far from reality or possibility. Its power to enforce rules comes from its ability to create anxiety.
The Superego has two subsystems: "Ego Ideal" and "Conscience". The Ego Ideal provides rules for good behaviour, and standards of excellence towards which the Ego must strive. The Ego ideal is basically what the child’s parents approve of or value. The Conscience is the rules about what constitutes bad behaviour. The Conscience is basically all those things that the child feels mum or dad will disapprove of or punish.
Superego too strong = feels guilty all the time, may even have an insufferably saintly personality
Couple this with:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our
likeness…”

Genesis 1:26 (NIV)

is there an obvious association between the triune nature of God and man? Do they map in this fashion?

The Father – The Superego
The Son – The Id
The Holy Spirit (Ghost) – The Ego

I've never seen this connection made, would the id and ego be reversed? What do you think?

This of course begs the question, "did God create man or did Man create god?" Or was Freud just having a laugh?

Current song: “The Magic Number” – De La Soul

Pope John Paul II

I always had a certain regard for Pope John Paul II, though I am not Catholic and find some of the Catholic Church's doctrine -- particularly the elevation of Mary -- to be troubling. But John Paul II always struck me as Disciple of Christ first and Catholic second, and to me that struck a chord. There is, I think, a lesson in there for all ... including me ... who seek to create division when what we should all do is fix our eyes on Jesus, first and foremost.

John Paul II now stands before the full Glory of Christ.

“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!’ (Matthew 25:21, NIV)

The Pope Is Dead

Long live The Pope.

RIP John Paul II

The Nature of Blogger

Me thinks the good folks at Blogger need to seriously analyze their infrastructure. I am experiencing more and more "socket timeouts" during posting. What they need, naturally, is a big hummer of a zSeries box. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Nature of Sin

I guess the ultimate point I was driving at was that "sin" is comprised of all things -- acts, thoughts, deeds, omissions -- that do not measure up to God's standard, which is perfection. Therefore, a definition of "sin" would be: failing to be as perfect as God himself.

"Nobody is perfect!" Is the common refrain. That would be correct -- mankind is inherently sinful, or inherently imperfect. But the underlying thinking (or wishful thinking) by most people when they say, "Nobody is perfect" is really: "God knows we're not perfect ... he takes that into account and overlooks our minor imperfections if we just work hard at avoiding the big ones."

That's a very common way of thinking. Major faith traditions -- Judiasm, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism -- are all based on the notion that our efforts in this world to minimize the degree of imperfection is what matters. There's where the radical departure with Christianity exists: the Christian faith is built upon the idea that no matter how hard we try, no matter how good we think we're being, we're still far, far short of the perfect standard demanded by a Holy God.

From a purely logical point of view, if the "One True God" exists and what I've suggested about his Holy nature is correct, then sin has nothing to do with behavior relative to what the person believes. It has everything to do with what God expects. An atheist who doesn't believe in God doesn't change the fact of God, and therefore the atheist is sinful even if they don't recognize or acknowledge it. They stand in judgment for their imperfect nature, even if they don't believe in God or sin.

Note: this gets back to our "Ultimate Truth" discussion. If God exists and he is the Ultimate Truth, then that Truth is unchanging, regardless of our acceptance or rejection of the premise itself.

Most people recoil at that. But it truly is one of the most fundamental aspects of Christian doctrine:

We cannot by our effort reconcile ourselves to God, therefore we need someone else to do it. That "someone else" is Jesus Christ. By trusting in Christ and not ourselves, we gain the forgiveness for all our sins, and in God's eyes gain the full righteousness of Christ himself.

This is Grace. This is what John 3:16 is all about. This is what the song Amazing Grace was written to extol. This is the Gospel.

I list the "Inherent Sinful Nature of Man" as a cornerstone because, as I mentioned, failure to grasp the reality of this prevents many people -- perhaps even myself -- from truly embracing Christ as their saviour. We instead "go through the motions" -- speak the languange, perhaps, and attend the rituals -- but in reality are trusting in ourselves rather than in Christ.

Note: Sometimes I really think I fall into the latter camp. I feel like a man standing outside the department store window, looking through the glass at the beautiful item in the display window. But I hesitate going in. The price tag says "Free," but I know the commitment to be high. It is easier to stand outside the window and preen about my supposed knowledge of what's inside the window. I am in many ways heartily ashamed of myself. I have been blessed with many things, not the least of which is a pretty good understanding of what the Christian faith is all about, and yet I stand there continuing to analyze it like some geometric proof on a blackboard. I can't shake a voice in my heart saying, "Now go, and do."

May the Lord continue to show me Mercy and Guidance.

Is sinning letting God and ourselves down?

You said:

“That leads me to the 4th Cornerstone:
The Nature of Man - Inherently Sinful

This is not a popular topic with contemporary society. We wish to hold
that while we may do bad things on occasion, we are, overall, not that bad.”

This is kind of interesting, the word “sin” is just a word -- and it is different in Russian, Turkish etc -- earlier we defined “sin” as a transgression of God’s law. Now you have extended “sin” into covering “bad things” (a highly relative term).

If “sin” only covers the former case of trangressing God’s Law then I guess atheists are a bit like Bobby Fischer, they do not recognize the law that is being handed down, so they don’t believe that they are transgressing anything. For instance, a Christian might say that a Muslim is committing a sin by worshipping Allah (a false idol), but a Muslim believes that he is doing the opposite to committing a sin by worshipping Allah. The Muslim does not recognize the sin, as he does not recognize the law that is being handed down.

The obvious conclusion is that to “sin” you have to believe that there is one True God and that He handed down those laws.

If it’s the latter case, where sin covers “bad things” then we need to define what these “bad things” are. Are “bad things” only those things that trangress God’s Law? If so, then the two cases are identical. If “bad things” are a superset of the trangression of God’s Law then what are they?

You later go on to say:

"Oh, that's okay. I'll give you a pass just because I know you tried."

But you meant that that really would not happen. Do you mean that God would not give you that pass unless you do something more than “try”? Or that that pass does not in fact exist (for anybody)?

I kind of agree with your #4, I think that it is in our nature to satisfy our pleasures rather than treat others as we would wish to be treated. We will satisfy our pleasures, massage our ids, even at the expense of treating others in a fashion that we would not wish to be treated ourselves.

I believe this to be true of any person in any religion.

Current song: “Don’t Let Me Down” – The Beatles