Mammoth LJ update, with much theology

[highlyeccentric]

Mmkay, it's a while since I updated... lyke, four days!

Sunday: Seem to have done well with the sermon- even the deafest of the congregation could hear me; no one was upset; Roger got so enthused he offered me all his old bible study notes from his Wesley College days.
For my own records, since i seem to lose .doc files over time:

Hi guys :D. I thought I’d take this opportunity to tell you about some of my favourite people in the whole wide world, and some of the things they’ve been teaching me this year.

*UCATSA- background intro

UCATSA is the Uniting Church’s student group on campus. There are UCATSA groups at most, but not all, universities in NSW. At Sydney Uni we’re one of the smallest Christian groups, with about thirty students. Compared to UCATSA groups on other campus we’re lucky both in numbers and staff: we have a full-time chaplain, the Rev. Dr. John Hirt, a part-time Assistant Chaplain, and a paid part-time Mission Worker. We share our chaplaincy team and many of our events and projects with University of Technology, which is about five minutes down the road. UCATSA is funded almost exclusively out of the Living Is Giving program that each congregation contributes to. This pays for chaplains, resources, and subsidises events and conferences so that we financially challenged uni students can go.
UCATSA runs bible study twice a week at Sydney Uni, after which most of us hang out at the chaplaincy centre for an hour or so. This, together with Wednesday night ‘Pub Grub’ at a hotel on the corner of campus, forms the backbone of the learning and social experience for us. UCATSA does good job of looking after us- in the first few weeks they arranged meetings with each new member, and at odd occasions through the year someone from the chaplaincy team will arrange to catch up with you. We started a new church this year, with John volunteering his time to serve as our minister. On a good week- when I wasn’t slacking off!- I was spending two or three hours, two or three times a week, with these guys. Just as well I like them so much ;)

*Bible study, Paul Ricouer, and the importance of understanding context

One thing that’s certain about John it that he’s not afraid to tackle the tough stuff, and this seems to be true of UCATSA in general. In Bible Study this year we covered the Letter to the Romans, and the Book of Revelations. Revelations, as you’ve probably noticed, is downright weird, and Romans contains quite a few of the most controversial passages around.
With such excellent leaders, I’ve developed a new appreciation for this complex collection of books we call the Bible. It’s complex both because it contains so many different kinds of writing, and because of the complicated relationship we have with it. It’s not like studying a novel in English, or a text in history. The way it’s written, and the context, are both vitally imporant, but as Christians, we want to use these words- translated and edited down through the years- to get our heads around God. God the Eternal, God the Almighty. God whose understanding no one can fathom, as the NIV renders the Isaiah verse. Unsearchable, if you read the NRSV. We want to use these books to push our human understanding a little closer to the Unfathomable Wisdom of God. When you think about it, it’s a pretty big ask.
One thing I’ve learnt this year is the importance of having a systematic approach to reading the Bible. I don’t mean reading a chapter a day or any such thing; these might be all well and good, but I don’t have that kind of organisation. I mean a system for digesting the information you get when you read the bible. We use in UCATSA a system laid out by a fellow called Paul Ricouer. It’s one that can be as simple or as complex as you like it. It can fit into any level of biblical scholarship.
Essentially, what Ricouer says is that when you approach a bible passage, you need to look at three things: The ‘behind’, the ‘within’, and the ‘in front’. What we call ‘behind’ is an enormous field- the context of author, audience, people discussed, and so on. The basic information, however, can be found in most bibles; where Thessalonica is, for example, and who wrote the letter to the Thessalonians.
Within the text, you look not only at the words but how that relates to the background. What other parts of the bible does it draw on? Where is it in the book or letter? What images does it use, what did they mean at the time? Then you take that meaning, and you move it forward from the text. You ask yourself, how does that meaning fit into today? How does it affect my understanding of God in this world? It’s in many ways similar to the reworking of ‘The Night Before Christmas’ that Alison read earlier: the same meaning understood in a different context. The the ultimate key in transferring meaning from within the text to ‘in front’ is Jesus: it must always, always, remain constant with the example of Christ.


*Revelation: The beast and the Roman Empire- B,W,F

So, lets look at one of the weirder bible passages out there. A lot of people are confused by, dismissive of, or even afraid of Revelations, because it’s like wading through a swamp of metaphors, and most of them are pretty violent metaphors at that. Other people love it and make a whole lot of money out of it- take for example the Left Behind series of books, which place the end times in a modern setting, and tell us that the Beast of Revelations is the UN Secretary General!
A little bit of historical consideration, though, throws Revelations in a new light, and what we find is not so scary or weird as in fact a message of hope. Behind the text, we can learn that John the Divine, the writer of Revelations, was writing in a period of intense persecution of Christians under the Emperor Domitian. He himself was exiled for professing Christianity. And while in exile he had a vision of a new world where there would be no more fear and persecution, the world God was bringing for his people. It wasn’t that he’d been eating one too many wild mushrooms; rather he was using coded metaphors drawn from the propaganda of the reigning Roman Empire.
Within the text, we have a Beast, rising out of the sea. John the Divine describes the beast in terms associated with the Roman Empire. There had been seven emperors by that time; these Seven Emperors were a catchword in Imperial Propaganda at the time. So we find a Beast with seven heads. It is, however, wearing ten diadems, or crowns. After the Emperor Nero, the famous persecutor of Christians, there was a period of civil war in which three men claimed the Imperial throne, and each ruled for only a few months. Not enough to be venerated in the cult of Emperor-worship, but they made up ten men who had worn the Imperial Diadem. The weird business in verse three about one of the heads having died and recovered makes a bit more sense if you know that the Emperor at the time was known in Christian circles as ‘Nero Resurrected’, because they had both embarked on such ferocious anti-Christian campaigns. Using this interpretation- there are others- Revelations opposes the violent ethos of the Roman Empire, promising that it will be conquered by the Lamb of God.
So what about the in front? I don’t have time to go into what John suggested about it in studies this semester, and anyway I think each person will come up with a different slant on it. One thing I think people are mistaken in is looking for individuals to assign to the various roles in Revelations. I think we need to look for ideologies and values in our world, dominant ones which cause suffering and are contrary to the loving example of Jesus.

*How much is enough? Is there a ‘minimum’ of knowledge required to understand the bible? Can anyone really understand it, apart from God?

Now, if I’m standing here telling you how important it is to understand the background when studying the bible, the question is: how much knowledge to you need? Is the minimum standard an hour a week with the likes of John Hirt? Certainly not, because the thing that stands out to me after a year of such weeks is how much I do not know. So do you have to be John Hirt, sixty something years old and with a PHD, to understand the bible? I’d hope not, or I have forty years to waste ahead of me! I’ve learnt as much this semester from Lauren Fee, John’s assistant, who’s twenty-something and hasn’t finished her psychology degree.
The thing is, even the Reverend Doctor John Hirt doesn’t know every relevant thingNo one could possibly know everything about the Bible and it’s composition. Because no one can ever know that much, then I don’t think you can set a limit on how much, or what kinds of things, you need to know to be able to learn from the bible. It’s a very, very complex book, but there’s one thing that shines through for anyone to see: the example and the love of Christ.
Whether you’re Joe Blogs the bricklayer or Joe Blogs with a string of degrees, there is always more to know. The understanding of God, no one can fully grasp. So I’d say, as John has said to us when we’ve gone over some pretty difficult stuff: hold onto your convictions. Read, make up your mind: but always be ready to have that challenged by new information. You may well find that your views change with time and experience, no matter how much time and experience you already have behind you; or you may find they stand up to every test, every new piece of knowledge.
I went away this year hoping to learn radical new things. I was all set to become a crazy liberal. And we certainly did cover some radical ideas. But the world, I discovered, is not divided into liberals and conservatives. There are people in between- John likes to call them mainline theologians. These theologians often agree with liberal viewpoints, but they come at them from a really solid biblical base. The thing I ended up learning, the one that really shook things up for me, was that there is a lot to be learnt from these books of the bible that I usually dismiss- Revelations because it seems lunatic, and the writings of Paul because he’s always struck me as a woman hater. If he was going to hate me, I was determined to hate him back. I had to stop and set these ideas aside, actually be willing to learn about the books and what they meant when they were written. It was difficult, at times, but having done that it’s a lot easier to see how they could mean something now.
So. Never stop learning things, even if it seems like you know so little it’s not worth trying. Even if it seems like you know enough already, thank you very much. This is a big world, and we have a big God to learn from.

Then went and saw El for the afternoon. She seems pretty good- breakup with Zain still in the painful and indecisive stages, but otherwise OK. I asked her if she'd noticed Will becoming unusually huggy lately, and apparently not. So either it's just special for me, or it's special NOT for El. *shrugs*
Went to church with El's parents. I think they thought it a bit odd because I wasn't going to the party she was going to, along with most of our other friends. Kris kept thinking I was invited. *snort* just shows he doesn't think- why would i get invited to Jemimah's party? :P
Church was their carol service... Niel did a Santa impersonation, informing us, among other things, that the sleigh needs new cushions 'cos his hemaeroids are giving him trouble; the sleigh first began to fly when he was at a party and ate one too many wild mushrooms; and that Coke are responsible for imprisoning him in red and white fur. The last one is actually true.
Interesting story about the song 'Silent Night': it was written by an Austrian preist named Joseph Mohr. He composed it for guitar one christmas when the parish organ died.
After the service we all trooped over to the Duke for wedges and beer... just wedges in my case. Nicole gave me some of her ginger beer, and ooh it was foul. If i wanted yeast I'd eat bread dough! However, sweet chilli sauce on wedges is a Good Thing. Amy Baylek's started going down there... really interesting girl to talk to. She's having huge trouble with the Australian attitude to alcohol. Neil was making jokes about New Years and people getting pissed, and she asked me if people thought it was OK for ministers to drink. I was about to say 'not usually,' because in my stodgy old town that's the case. Something stopped me, and i told her that most people wouldn't feel right about ministers drunk, but drinking is ok. Just as well, because both Nicole and Neil sat down to a big schooner after the service!

Monday: Chris came over, we went swimming and just hung around for a bit. Nothing terribly exiting.

Tuesday: I got the family photos printed, they look great. It was going to be terribly expensive unless I got a 'value pack', so I ended up with a 6"x8" enlarged one of mum and dad. It's a good photo, I wouldn't have minded putting it up on my wall, but Mum suggested we frame it and give it to Nan & Pop. That too is a good idea. I think I might frame one of the spare small copies- sadly I only got one copy of the edited one- and give it to Nan T. Might as well use the frame I used to have Chris in.
Got a Christmas card and letter from Susanne, my first OS chrissy card for the year. :D It was gorgeous, as usual. She organised her work christmas party, apparently. She got all her collegues hiking through a forest in the snow for over an hour, before they could have their BBQ and Santa impersonator and so forth. Always been to outdoorsy for her own good, methinks. She's off skiing in Austria for her holiday this year.
Saw HP. Last minute decision, decided I was no longer so obsessive that I couldn't handle seeing it. I was right about that, too. I have no quibbles about anything they deleted! I thought the dragon chase was overdone, but on the other hand the graphics way outdid the early quidditch scenes. If you ask me, a duck-and-weave scene would have been much more thrilling and shown off much more of Harry's skill than a mad broomstick flight crashing into roofs and whatnot.
My God, can Emma Watson get any more gorgeous? and that dress.... *envies lots*
Bonus points to the casting team, too, for finding so many hot guys! Was particularly impressed with the Cossack-style Durmstrang lads, with their red uniforms and their gymnastic dances. Even Fred and George are hot these days!
Plus the bonus joy of a whole scene of Harry in a bath... I feel slightly peverted, the character being fourteen and all, but Daniel Radcliffe is sixteen or so, that's not so bad is it?
Ginny is pretty uninspiring, though. Pfft.
Then what... Mum and I wrote the Christmas pageant last night. We were going to just adapt one from a book she has, but there are so many changes its more like a whole new play with some plagiarised bits.

Christmas In The Gospels

 

Matthew: I am Matthew Levi, tax collector and disciple of Jesus.

Mark: I’m John-Mark, known as Mark

Luke: I am Luke, Dr Luke

John: And I’m John Zebedee. You can call me John.

Mat.:
We’d like to tell you ahow we came to write the story
of the first Christmas and the birth of our Lord Jesus.

L.: Well that rules out Mark- He didn’t write anything about Jesus’
birth at all!

Mark: Listen Luke, you can’t talk. You copied most of my gospel anyway! I
concentrated on the really important bits.

Mat.: The birth was important.
It was the fulfilment of all that the prophets wrote- like Isiah for example. (Reads Isiah 9:6)

Mark:
Well, it does make sense to see how Jesus was the
fulfilment of the old prophecies. But surely the important thing was that he
was the Messiah, the savior? That’s why we wrote the gospels, after all.

Luke:
You know, I am a doctor. Births are important
things! I think it’s important to remember that Jesus was born into an ordinary
family. And his mother was very important too- if you leave out the birth,
anyone would think she didn’t matter! So that’s why I wrote about the census
and the journey to Bethlehem- that was something everyone experienced. Can I have Mary and Joseph
come forward? (Reads Luke 2:1-7)

Lets sing ‘Away in A Manger’.

 

John:
And then you wrote about the Sheperds and the
Angels. But I always wondered why you left out the wise men- Matthew thought
they were important. And in the rest of your gospel, you’re very interested in
Jesus’ appeal to people outside the Jewish faith.

Luke: You left the wise men out too, don’t forget! But you see, the
shepherds were outsiders- they were Jews, but they didn’t have time to observe
all the laws. They weren’t ‘good’ Jews, so it’s really very extraordinary that
the Angels appeared to them at all.

Mark: Actually, that’s a very good point. Can I have some shepherds and
angels, while we hear what Luke wrote? (Reads
Luke 2:8-12,15-18)

There’s a great song about the Angels and
the Shepherds. Lets sing The First Noel.

 

Matthew: Now you make me wish I’d talked about the Shepherds! Actually, I
didn’t focus on the birth at all- who wants to hear all the gory details? I
thought it was important to record the visit of the wise men from the east,
though. Its like the prophecies- people need to know that Jesus’ birth was
exceptional. And if your sheperds remind us that simple people can experience
Christ, the wise men let us know that Jesus is for educated people too!

John: Fair enough Matthew, fair enough. You know, sometimes they’re called
the three kings- only very rich people could have afforded to travel so far,
and give such expensive gifts. Mary never did say that they were actually
Kings, but it’s very possible. Can I have some kings or wise men come forward?
This is Matty here had to say: (reads
Mat. 2:1-2, 9-12a)

And there’s a song about the kings to- We
Three Kings. Shall we sing that now?

 

Mark: Hey guys, you’re all making fun of my story, but John didn’t talk
about the birth of Jesus either!

John: Well, no, I guess I didn’t. I wanted to talk about who Jesus was, not how he was born. I
call him the Word of God, not just
the Son. The word of God is part of
God, you see. I was writing for Greeks, people who didn’t know about the Jewish
prophecies. They needed to know how fantastic Jesus was, but they didn’t want
to take a course in Jewish history to do it!

Luke: You know you’re right about that. I was always impressed by Jesus’
non-Jewish converts.

Matthew:
This is what John said about Jesus- (reads John 1:1-5) Do you actors want to
take your seats now? Leave your costumes with *insert person here* up the back.

Mark:
It’s a good thing we all wrote gospels! That way we can tell the story in ways that will
appeal to everyone.

John:
After all, that’s the really important thing. Jesus
was born for everyone and shared his love with all people.

Luke: And on that note, lets sing ‘O Come All Ye Faithful’.

aaand... today... Spent the morning writing the service sheets for Christmas Eve. You try fitting seven hymns, a welcome message, a closing message, and some clip art, onto two pages, and still having the text big enough for the old folk to read. Not only that but you also have to put things on out of order so that they make a booklet when printed out and folded once. BAH. Still, I managed it, with lots of going on the net to find lyrics (We Three Kings is not in the hymn book??) and pics.

Posted a last-minute christmas present to my dear Jenna ;) (hithluin) An Aragorn bookmark from my own collection. Her response to this offer bears noting:
'OMGWTFBBQ!' What significance a cooking device has to anything, je ne sais pas. Anyway, she now owes me :P
I even found a Christmas card with a Koala on it, just for you Jen :D

Went around to Kim not-Brown-anymore's place to pick up a gingerbread house. Wasn't too sure about driving it up our track, I'd heard horror stories about them collapsing, so we took it to the Woolmers to store it till Xmas day. It actually looked pretty sturdy, when we got it, but I'd never seen one before and didn't want to take any chances.

My SS present still isn't here :( I'm very sad. In fact, I've only got three Christmas cards so far! Lai, Tock and Susanne. *feels neglected*
and as for birthdays... apparently my birthday card is still in Lukas' desk drawer, and Will still has a birthday present for me sitting on his desk! Lukas (gryphonvere), remind me to introduce you to Kate. Forget being my alter ego, you're now hers. :P

Ok, I'm finally going to make my next dissertation in this lengthy theological discussion I'm having with Az (rayneshadow). Anyone else feel free to read ;) It might interest you Dave (lepsdavid). (the begining of the discussion is in the comments for this entry)



ohkay... I've been a long time getting back to you... Mostly because you with great accuracy threw up those issues which put the biggest holes in my argument. I've ended up coming to the conclusion that a) I'm not making an argument anyway, since I doubt I could convince you that I'm right, and don't want to, and b) I don't actually need a watertight case in order to believe it. I'll come back to that in a minute, but for now I'll cover your points as best as I can.

Ah, the Accuser. I knew there was another term out there... It's a very very interesting term, that. Out of curiosity, does the idea of Satan as 'the accuser' fit into your theology? How? Who is he accusing, and what of?
As far as I can tell, the most common modern image of Satan fits squarely into the 'Adversary' idea. I'm not sure what I think of The Accuser, and what if anything I want to do with it in terms of my idea of evil...

Job. You get straight to the thorny point, don't you? :P I have serious issues with the story of Job. On the one hand, it's a great story. It's a story of perseverance and faith. I first remember hearing it not in church or in a book of bible stories or anything, but at a camp a few years back, when Will and I were sitting out on the verandah one night and he told it to me, off the top of his head. I've since had a look at it, and he told it very accurately. It's one of the key stories that underpin his faith and his idea of God, and Will's faith is something I have enormous respect for. However, no one, not Will and not any minister I've ever heard speak on Job, has been able to resolve some of the problems I have with it.
Assuming the existance of Satan, a being who is evil personified, I simply cannot believe in a God who would hand over one of His children to Satan on a bet. He's GOD, for heavens sake, he doesn't need to prove himself.
Everyone I've ever asked about this says that actually God did it not for his sake or for Satan's, but for Job. Reasons include:
*to test him
*because he knew Job could cope
*becase Job had lived a sheltered life, and needed a wakeup call
and possibly the best one I've found: *because Job was self-righteous, thinking he could save his children through his own surplus of piety.

These are all pretty decent reasons. I agree that this was certainly a character and faith building experience for Job. That faith in good times is one thing, but the real test is when hard times hit.
That still doesn't change the fact that God apparently turned His child over to Ultimate Evil for the sake of growth. Who not only allowed bad stuff to happen to Job, who removed himself from Job during that period of trial. I cannot, and will not, believe in such a God. The God I know is a loving, constant God, one who sticks around through the worst possible times.

Moreover: the things which Satan did to Job were the death of his family, the death of his animals, and then natural disasters- fire, i think. I don't believe that God causes any of these things, so if i were to believe in Satan, God's equal opposite, I wouldn't believe he caused them either.
Why don't I believe God causes these things? I certainly believe he has the power to do so, being God and all. However, I believe that God, in creating the universe, created it with certain laws. These laws dictate things like the movement of the tectonic plates, the existence and behavior of diseases, and so on. So earthquakes happen; in the long-term, God caused them by creating the earths crust as it is, but I don't believe that God sits up there and smites random parts of the planet. I don't believe that he sits there with a list of people who deserve to get AIDS, or whatever. Disease spreads because it is what germs do, as God-created life forms, as part of this planet's ecosystem.
If God were to intervene and, for whatever reason, decide that this place deserved a devastating tidal wave, or this city should be spared the plague, I'm not sure, but I'm working on the assumption that this would drastically change the nature of the world. I suppose it's about free will; i don't believe that's the exclusive domain of human beings. Although I don't believe that the planet has a choice about the way it operates, i do believe that God created it complete, whole and perfect, and allows it the freedom to keep on doing what it does. If it's no longer complete and perfect, we need to look to other causes than God.

All of this is a long background to my current conclusion on Job. And that is: there may or may not have been an individual called Job whose family and cows all died. However, I don't think that the story was mean to illustrate empirical facts. The huge long philosophical discussion in the middle of it is a good clue. Chances are his mates did not sit around and say all that. I think Job's story is used to teach truths about faith, about trials, and about perseverance.
Of course, you could use my logic to say that it's a story used to teach truths about Satan, too ;).

And... on to Isiah. I really like Isiah, he's a brilliant writer. Anyway... lets look at Lucifer. I don't doubt for a minute that Isiah believed in Satan, just as I don't doubt that the writers of Job did. However, I don't believe that it is necessary to believe in Satan in order to understand and learn from these writings, if that makes sense? I see the fall of Satan, like the story of the Tower of Babel, as emphasising the dangers of setting yourself up as equal to God, of trying to contend with God, and so forth.

You see, the fact that biblical personages believed in something I don't find a good reason to believe in it. Most of the people in the bible believed that a woman was unclean during her period! Almost all of them seem to have believed that women shouldn't take positions of leadership. The first barely anyone believes today, and the second is pretty hotly contended.
That sounds flippant, but can you see where I'm coming from? I don't believe something because the people in the bible did. I don't even believe something because it's IN the bible. I believe something because I believe it, because it correlates with my physical and spiritual experience. I consider the Bible reliable because I believe much of what is in it, rather than believing what is in it because I'm told the Bible is reliable.
And simply because I have found the bible a reliable source of truth on one matter doesn't mean I'll accept another unless it matches up with what I personally know of God. So no, there is no evidence in the bible against Satan being an actual person. And as you said, most people in the bible seem to have believed that he WAS an actual person. As far as I'm concerned, that's no reason for me to agree with them.

The idea of Satan simply isn't logical to me. If he started off as an angel, then how is it that he a) gained the power to rival God, and b) obtained the free will to do so? (I'm told by Will, my local Angel Expert, that angels have no free will).
If Satan is the personification of Pure Evil, God's great rival, then we ought to be dualists (Zoarastrians, for example), and believe they are equal in power. If that is the case, then God either created his own potential downfall, or he did not create Satan, in which case God is not the Creator of All.

So what do i think Evil is, where does it come from... Hard question... It's an inherant part of humanity. Which means yes, God did create evil. Why? It's about free will. How can you chose Love if you cannot experience its opposite? This particular brand of freedom I think is exclusively human: a cat is free to keep on being a cat, but doesn't really have a choice about what kind of cat it is. Mind you, cats are probably a bad example, as I suspect they're capable of a lot higher levels of thought than they let on.
God is Love, right? And you can't experience something without knowledge of its opposite. Hot means nothing without cold, left without right, ect, because they're all relative. In order for us to know God, we must also know Not-God. Not-God is Not-Love, and Not-Love is what we call Evil.
Humankind was made 'in God's image'. This to me doesn't mean that we physically look like God, but that something in us, call it the soul, does. You could even go so far as to say something in us is part of God, that God is within us. If that is the case, then Not-God must be within us also.

As you may well be about to say, if I believe that God is both in us and Out There, then why not have the same for evil? I can only say that I haven't yet seen anything to suggest to me that there is evil Out There. The universe is good. Humanity, on the other hand, has the capacity to be either good or bad.

The other thing that you could do with my logic is to ask why I believe in a being of Love, God, if I can logic away a being of Not-Love, Satan. All I can say to that is that I can, and do, logic away God, but I still believe in Her. (sorry, couldn't resist the pronoun :P) God defies all logic by still existing. Satan doesn't do that for me.

As for demons, well, if i don't believe in Satan then I certainly don't believe in them. However, you are right about the Gospel encounters being hard to explain away. I can't. I don't know what to do with them. But I'm OK with that, I know there are always going to be holes in my understanding. I'm not God. Quoting my friend Isiah, 'His understanding is unsearchable'. If I needed empirical proof, I'd not believe in a whole lot of other things besides Satan.

Heaven and Hell... I might as well go the whole hog and damn myself completely by saying I don't believe in them either.
Although that's not entirely true. I certianly don't believe Hell is a literal place, and I suspect Heaven is not either. I'm not sure what they are, but most ideas presented to me don't ring any chord of truth in my soul. I think Hell might be a state of existing in Not-Godness, evil. And by that logic heaven would be existing in God, in Love. Sometimes I think those things are attainable in this life- the latter through the grace of Christ, because few people if any could achieve it through effort.
Sometimes I think that they could be a single moment, an eternal moment... either before or after the point of death, a moment of complete awareness when you're confronted with the full awesomeness of God. And of your Not-God choices would pile up before you, and confronted with a forgiving God of absolute Love, you'd feel pretty rotten. You'd feel like Hell, to put it simply. Heaven would be a corresponding moment, maybe coming after and maybe even at the same time, in which all of the God-qualities in you sing out to God... kind of like the Hindu idea of Nirvana, where you lose your Self in Brahman, the abslolute.
I like those ideas about heaven and hell. But at the end of the day, I don't know. And most of the time, I don't care that I don't know. I don't get up in the morning and choose to continue as a Christian because that way I'll get to heaven. I don't see that as a very Godly reason for doing anything, much less professing faith.

Yep, I'm a raving heretic, I know ;). But I like it this way. I do think that I don't know my bible well enough, though. In most cases I haven't explored it in enough depth to be able to tell whether I support the ideas of God presented in any given text. One day I'll have to develop a way of doing this independantly, but at the moment I'm happy to take whatever John teaches us in bible study and chew on that.

here endeth the dissertation for today.

whew. was that ever exhausting. *shakes head to clear it*

I'm apparently not showing up on people's Friends pages. Should I complain, do you think?

mood: my brain hurts. but other than that, i feel good :D
music: George Thouroughgood, Bad to the Bone. But I've discovered lately how much i love 3 Doors Down.
book: After In the Fall I read 'Conversations with God', but Neil Donald Walsch. Exellent book, although I'm not sure how much I agree with him, especially in the areas on relationships. I like the way the logic works, the system of thought, at least.
Now reading: 'The Battle For God' but Karen Armstrong, which examines the phenomenom of fundamentalism in the three Monotheistic faiths, focusing on American Protestant Fundamentalism, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Sunni fundamentalism in Egypt and Shi'i fundamentalism in Iran.

Comments

[lepsdavid.livejournal.com]

Hi, there is so much to say and some of it needs thinking about... but first... this is one damn impressive post! I read you sermon and enjoyed it, great message about how much (or little) we need to understand from the bible but how it is really important just to keep learning. (at least I think thats what it was about there was alot of stuff to read afterwards.) There is one technical problem... UCATSA is funded almost exclusively out of the Living Is Giving program that each congregation contributes to. This is not true, the "living is giving" program does make a significant contribution... but it doesn't fund "almost exclusively". I know more details but don't want to publish the financial details of the church on the internet in more detail than I just have.

I have some stuff to say on demons in the gospels and job, but I will need to arrange my thoughts for that.

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

i thought that was the case, but i'm trying to con my congregation into changing their living is giving donations ;) i thought a little misinformation in a holy cause wouldn't hurt :D

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

wait- did this show up on your friends page? 'cos if not i'm complaining.

[lepsdavid.livejournal.com]

It didn't, but your one about being stabbed in the eye did... so...